Is our President for real?

[BVS]

Now I received this as an email. Normally anything I get through this medium I usually dispell as rumor. But this one intriqued me. Can anyone enlighten me about this. Is this true?

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter has lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval. The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy,
contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination. Dr. Hager's views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream of setback for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient. Hagar's mission is religiously motivated. He has an ardent interest in revoking approval for mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) as a safe and early form of medical abortion. Hagar recently assisted the Christian Medical Association in a "citizen's petition" which calls upon the FDA to revoke its approval of mifepristone in the name of women's health. Hager's desire to overturn mifepristone's approval on religious grounds rather than scientific merit would halt the development of mifepristone as a treatment for numerous medical conditions disproportionately affecting women, including breast cancer, uterine cancer, uterine fibroid tumors, psychotic depression, bipolar depression and Cushing's syndrome. Women rely on the FDA to ensure their access to safe and effective drugs for reproductive health care including products that prevent pregnancy. For some women, such as those with certain types of diabetes and those undergoing treatment for cancer pregnancy can be a life-threatening condition. We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives or to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostage by antiabortion politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no less.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?
1. SEND THIS TO EVERY PERSON WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
2. OPPOSE THE PLACEMENT OF THIS MAN BY CONTACTING THE WHITE HOUSE AND TELL THEM HE IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE ON ANY LEVEL.

Please email President Bush at: president@whitehouse.gov
or call the White House at: 202) 456-1111 or (202) 456-1414 and say:
"I oppose the appointment of Dr. Hager to the FDA Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Mixing religion and medicine is unacceptable.
Using the FDA to promote a political agenda is inappropriate and seriously threatens all women's health."

Please do this.

Corinne Oster
Doctoral Candidate
Department of Comparative Literature
303 South College
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01002
USA

 

[pax]

Unfortunately, this is true.

Just another sad example of Bush's pandering to the religious right at any cost.

 

[deep]

Evangelical Bush supporters

I think we know who you are and respect your personal beliefs.
Are you comfortable with having your personal religious beliefs put into public policies? Mandated on others?

I would never expect others to have to live by my personal beliefs.


Others that voted for Bush the moderate, Bush ( I?m a uniter, not a divider) are you disappointed, can you vote for this man again? When you were so mislead in 2000 election?

 

[DrTeeth]

This is disgusting

 

[Angela Harlem]

I would love to know how this can be deemed a good choice. Perhaps he has found an alternative to mifepristone in the Bible.

 

[melon]

Bush is a born-again religious fanatic.

And I'm no longer referring to his appearance or the stereotype.

Melon

 

[Scarletwine]

I read about this last week in several periodicals. Once again Bush is going against everything he claimed in his campaign.

edited:
So if I'm a Buddist woman I should not expect any relief to PMS?

 

[verte76]

This makes me sick!! I'm not anti-evangelical Christian or whatever but this does make me ask "how many blasted fanatics can fit into one administration"?

 

[megadrum2002]

sorry guys bush i think will get elected again. look at his approval rating nationally. this message board is in a minority.

 

[melon]

sorry guys bush i think will get elected again. look at his approval rating nationally. this message board is in a minority.

Daddy Bush had a high approval rating around the Gulf War and fell flat on his ass. Baby Bush seems to be following in his father's footsteps so far, so it is still very unpredictable.

Melon

 

[deep]

Well,

50 % of the american public believe some of the 19
911 hi-jackers were Iraqis.


By the way, none of them were Iraqi.

 

[Zooropa]

As a somewhat moderate Republican, I'm not tickled pink when the religious fanatics start incorporating their "beliefs" into policy. However, is this any different that a Democratic President placing a Pro-choice supporter in this role? I would find that as repulsive and disturbing as you do in this situation.

 

[melon]

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying.

No...you can't make a comparison to Democrats and "pro-choicers." The difference? Look above. This is not science. Bush might have well appointed Jerry Falwell to the FDA, because I would say that Falwell has about as much medicinal knowledge as this guy.

Melon

 

[Zooropa]

I hate Jerry Falwell
Yes, it is different to an extent, but the abortion question is far from settled. There are many studies that show the negative effects that an abortion can have on a mother, so unless the mothers life is at risk, abortion, a "medical" procedure, is not conclusivly beneficial. The morality of it is obviously debatable not to mention that the american public is divided. In a recent ABCNews/washington post poll, only 23% feel abortion should be legal in all cases, 17% feel it should be illegal in all cases. Even if you add in the moderate views (legal in some/illegal in some) the numbers still give you 42% dissapproval. The point I'm trying to make is, I don't like when the religious right makes belief policy, nor do I like when the bleeding left make policy either.

 

[pax]

Dr. Hager's views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream of setback for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying.

Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.

Hager's desire to overturn mifepristone's approval on religious grounds rather than scientific merit would halt the development of mifepristone as a treatment for numerous medical conditions disproportionately affecting women, including breast cancer, uterine cancer, uterine fibroid tumors, psychotic depression, bipolar depression and Cushing's syndrome.

Despite your *politics*, shouldn't Dr. Hager's "science" be enough evidence for you to decry his appointment to such a position? I wouldn't send one of my cats to this guy, let alone give him the ability to affect the health of women around the country.

 

[gvox]

What a freak.

By the same token, I fail to see any logical connection between being against the murder of innocent babies and being against birth control or medication for PMS.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Daddy Bush had a high approval rating around the Gulf War and fell flat on his ass. Baby Bush seems to be following in his father's footsteps so far, so it is still very unpredictable.

Melon

Many economists believe this war could have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy, which would of course affect the global economy. Our allies basically paid for the Gulf War whereas guess who has to pay for this one. The cost of a "clean" war is estimated by economists into possibly the trillions of dollars, which would far exceed any benefit incurred from increased production of Iraqi oil. Bush has not spoken much about the budget for this war. If economists are correct about the domestic and global financial implications of this war, there is no way he will be re-elected. Of course I nearly flunked economics in college so it's all Greek to me, and it's all speculation anyway. And you're right, it's unpredictable.

Edit: sorry I got off topic.

 

[BVS]

I really don't even think this is an abortion issue. I think everyone knows the abortion issue is far from being resolved.

Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

This is the kind of thing we should be scared of. This is the kind of thinking that can that can destroy this nation.

When the "bleeding heart" make policy they at least give you choice. It may not be a choice you like, but it's a choice. But when the extreme right make policy they take away choice.

 

[Zooropa]

I really don't even think this is an abortion issue. I think everyone knows the abortion issue is far from being resolved.



This is the kind of thing we should be scared of. This is the kind of thinking that can that can destroy this nation.

When the "bleeding heart" make policy they at least give you choice. It may not be a choice you like, but it's a choice. But when the extreme right make policy they take away choice.

Choice? If we were to make premeditated murder a choice, would that be OK? There is a difference of course, but the analogy is there. W/ the exception of "morning after pills, or in the case of harm to the mother and rape, abortion is wrong. It IS KILLInG an unborn human. To reduce it to the level of simple choice is, IMO, the kind of thinking that can destroy this nation. As I've said before, education is the key to eliminating unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is a band-aid solution, and a moraly reprehensible one at that. Do mistakes happen? Yes which is why I support the use of the of RU-486, in a limited fashion (1 month or earlier). Am I comfortable with it? No, but like I said, mistakes do happen.

Another interesting note, Some are up in arms over Dr. Hagers religious medicine, and say that he will harm women rights and womens health. One of the studies he will be over seeing will be hormone replacement therapy, which recently has come under fire for the detrimental side affects it has on women (i.e. increases in breast cancer, blood clots, etc.). An interesting article on the subject can be found here:
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2000/oct2000_report_hormone.html
With that said, many of the same techniques and compounds used in hormone replacement therapy, are used in birth control pills and shots/patches. These pills may be more harmful to a women's health than many may think. All I'm saying here is that don't take the science here and immediatly equate it with positive results, because that doesn't work out, the science may be worse for you.

 

[meegannie]

So contraceptives are harmful to unmarried woment, but married women are biologically different?

 

[Zooropa]

So contraceptives are harmful to unmarried woment, but married women are biologically different?

Meegannie, if you are responding to me, I don;t understand the question.

 

[anitram]

With that said, many of the same techniques and compounds used in hormone replacement therapy, are used in birth control pills and shots/patches. These pills may be more harmful to a women's health than many may think. All I'm saying here is that don't take the science here and immediatly equate it with positive results, because that doesn't work out, the science may be worse for you.

You should consider yourself blessed that you don't have to be on hormone therapy or bcps your entire life like some of the rest of us. You see, people such as myself, who have enzymatic hormone uptake defects depend on these medications daily, and we live with the side effects because the alternative is so much worse it's incomparable.

I'm not an uneducated buffoon - my background is medsci, as a matter of fact, and I know the risks. But I also know that the risks are a given for a subset of population which may have no choice.

ETA: I am an unmarried female who has to be on contraceptives for the above stated medical reasons. I wonder if he'd prescribe them to me or advise me to pray.

 

[Zooropa]

You should consider yourself blessed that you don't have to be on hormone therapy or bcps your entire life like some of the rest of us. You see, people such as myself, who have enzymatic hormone uptake defects depend on these medications daily, and we live with the side effects because the alternative is so much worse it's incomparable.

I'm not an uneducated buffoon - my background is medsci, as a matter of fact, and I know the risks. But I also know that the risks are a given for a subset of population which may have no choice.

Maybe I haven't made my self clear, I'm not opposed to hormone replacement therapies, or any other medical therapies that have ditremental side affects, if they can improve the quality of life for some one that needs them. That is very different than voluntary use of therapies that may do more harm then good.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

All I can say is thank GOD I'm not an American woman.

And I too am totally confused as to why birth control is bad for single women but OK for married women. As a religous fanatic, I would have though he would want the reverse (ie no single mothers, married women encouraged to procreate etc.)!

 

[meegannie]

Meegannie, if you are responding to me, I don;t understand the question.

No, not responding to you, just Hagar's practices.

 

[pax]

Zooropa: I can see what you're saying about not wanting either side making policy based on personal/religious convictions, but (speaking for myself at least) I don't object to him being anti-aborton--I object to him being a LOUSY DOCTOR. I excerpted several quotes from BVS's original e-mail on the 1st page of this thread that support my position that he is unfit for this position based on his medical qualifications--not his religious beliefs.

Although I am (reservedly) pro-choice, I have supported anti-abortion politicians, such as the late Gov. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Anti-abortion doesn't bother me as much as anti-science does.

 

[Zooropa]

Zooropa: I can see what you're saying about not wanting either side making policy based on personal/religious convictions, but (speaking for myself at least) I don't object to him being anti-aborton--I object to him being a LOUSY DOCTOR. I excerpted several quotes from BVS's original e-mail on the 1st page of this thread that support my position that he is unfit for this position based on his medical qualifications--not his religious beliefs.

Although I am (reservedly) pro-choice, I have supported anti-abortion politicians, such as the late Gov. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Anti-abortion doesn't bother me as much as anti-science does.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Dr. Hager's views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream of setback for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

Is this such a bad thing? Presription contraceptives affer no preotection from STD's. If you are an unmarried women/or man, using a condom is the most effective means of birth control. Once married, it is assumed that you will have a monogamous relationship with your spouse, and will not be at risk for contracting a STD. This is the difference.




Quote:
he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying.

This is hogwash, I agree.




Quote:
Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.

err, well cetain birth control pills work by allowing the egg to be fertilized, but preventing it from inplanting in the uterine wall. Techincally, by allowing fertilization to occur, in the views of many, a child is already conceived, hence the arguememnt that the birth control bill is an abortifacient. This is of course subjective as to when you believe a fertilized eggs become a human child.


Quote:
Hager's desire to overturn mifepristone's approval on religious grounds rather than scientific merit would halt the development of mifepristone as a treatment for numerous medical conditions disproportionately affecting women, including breast cancer, uterine cancer, uterine fibroid tumors, psychotic depression, bipolar depression and Cushing's syndrome.

Again, I agree that religion does not trump science. However, as I alluded to earlier, the science is not always there to conclusivly show that it is beneficial, although, the absolute dismissal is as dangerous as the absolute acceptance.

 

[pax]

Is this such a bad thing? Presription contraceptives affer no preotection from STD's. If you are an unmarried women/or man, using a condom is the most effective means of birth control. Once married, it is assumed that you will have a monogamous relationship with your spouse, and will not be at risk for contracting a STD. This is the difference.

But who is he to assume that unmarried women who use oral contraceptives don't also use condoms? Because I know at least unmarried, sexually active woman who uses both--ME.

 

[Zooropa]

But who is he to assume that unmarried women who use oral contraceptives don't also use condoms? Because I know at least unmarried, sexually active woman who uses both--ME.

Well, let's face it, many people aren't all that responsible when it comes to sex. Especially younger people who don't realize the consequences of unprotected sex,and/or have the old "it won't happen to me" going through there head. That said, condoms are by far the most effective form of birth control, including prescription contraceptives. So theoretically, if you regularly use a condom, you won't need any other form of birth control.

 

[BVS]

Well, let's face it, many people aren't all that responsible when it comes to sex. Especially younger people who don't realize the consequences of unprotected sex,and/or have the old "it won't happen to me" going through there head. That said, condoms are by far the most effective form of birth control, including prescription contraceptives. So theoretically, if you regularly use a condom, you won't need any other form of birth control.

But this isn't the point. This "Doctor" doesn't prescribe these drugs to unmarried women because of his own religious belief. In his own bent perspective he believes this will promote pre-marital sex.

No the science in this area is not perfect, but the fact that you support Bush's decision to put him in this position is appalling to me and probably to most women.