Bioethics.net blog, by the editors and pseudoeditors of the American Journal of Bioethics, has another hit piece aimed at the current administration, referencing that stellar peer-reviewed medical and scientific journal, Glamour Magazine.
It seems that the author of the Glamour article) (Brian Alexander, who writes sometimes politically biased sci-tech articles for Wired magazine and has written a book called, Rapture, How Biotech became the new Religion)has discovered that “Doctors just don’t trust the government anymore.” Mr. Alexander relies heavily on one doctor, whom he describes as unbiased and “mainstream.” In fact, Ruth Shaber, M.D., just happens to be a member of - and spokeswoman for - Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. To evaluate the possible bias of Dr. Shaber for yourself, look at this page, about halfway down, at “Reactions," where the doctor is applauding the 2002 California move to force hospitals to offer emergency contraception. PRCH Board of Directors includes infamous abortionists Leroy Carhart and George R. Tiller as well as a former Administration’s Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders.
Note, please, that this protest against the politicization of bioethics in the US is on the same page as examples of blatant political biases of their own. There’s another glowing commendation of Jonathan Moreno and his Center for American Progress bioethics institute and its conference on the conservative attacks on bioethics.
There’s another post on the pro-life protests against the fact that the University of Pennsylvania invited to Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer to speak at their Center for Bioethics 10th Anniversary Symposium. The editors and pseudo-editors still “just don’t get it” why the Schindlers still don’t get it.
Anyone who reads the Kaiser Network Daily reports(see the example above) - or for that matter has been following Glamour magazine - knows that there is a definite pro-abortion-rights slant to both. The same “Daily Women's Health Policy Report” that references Dr. Shaber as a spokesperson for PRCH is a perfect example of the way in which Kaiser reproductive health and women's health reports frequently have protests about limits and even comments on this administration's policies, in particular. Glamour featured the “November Gang” abortion facilities in their September, 2003 issue, encouraging women to feel good about their abortions and to write love letters to the children they had aborted on pink paper hearts. The article in question is actually a commentary on State laws as well as Federal medical information, formatted with headings such as, “YOU MAY BE DENIED . . . (fill in the blank).” Glamour objects to any legal or regulatory limits on dispensing emergency contraception, parental notification or consent before minor girls may obtain an abortion, and government information on the connection between abortion and breast cancer.
Let's not forget that other administrations have promoted the idea that not all sex is sex, that teens should practice some of these non-sex acts (such as Jocelyn Elders’ advocacy of teen mutual masturbation), and that they should be taught to use condoms on models of the male genitalia in order to avoid pregnancy. Clinton’s denial that oral sex is sex led to the famous and questionably timed Journal of the American Medical Association article on teen’s attitudes toward oral sex.
For those of you, who (like me) can recall 30 years ago, remember when breast cancer was called "the nun's disease"?
And does anyone else have an explanation for the increase in Sexually Transmitted Disease that is better than the increase in numbers of sexual partners, the acceptance that oral sex and some other types of sex aren't "sex," and decrease of the age of first sexual encounter?
"Bias" is definitely in the eye of the beholder. The same people who define pro-abortion Republicans as "moderate" and who deny the agenda of very active advocates of abortion and call them "mainstream" as well as those who institute bioethics centers which they name "Progressive," "Feminine" and "Humanistic") where the viewpoints of people of faith are dismissed as "rightwing" and "conservative" should not call "bias" and "politics" when they are opposed. The nature of discussion will reveal disaggreement as well as common ground and consensus.
After all, "tolerance," by definition assumes disagreement.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Defining "political bias" bias
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Liberal, conservative, left, right... all playing the game, all manipulating the facts to suit their own objectives and agendas. I try to read enough that the biases cancel out. A few liberal-leaning news sites, a few conservatative-leaning, and a few from each that dont even pretend to be unbiased. Also a couple of specialised sites for techie-stuff. And, of course, the internet rumor-mill.
Most media just tells its readers what they want to hear. That way they keep reading, and seeing the adverts.
My daily read:
Slashdot (Technical)
New Scientist (Technical, liberal-leaning, but accurate)
BBC (General, and admirably unbiased)
The Register (Technical)
FRC emails (Extremally conservative, and incredibly biased. Totally inaccurate)
Aggrigated blogs (conservative-leaning)
I could use a mildly conservative sounce to add to that as well. So far all I have are blogs and one that - and I dont mean to complain about conservatives in general, just the one organisation specificly - well, lies.
Certainly everyone has a point of view, and obviously there are some centers of scholarship or activism dedicated to particular perspectives, ranging across the political spectrum.
But the charge of bias regarding the current administration is not that it has a point of view, but that it has actively, and demonstrably, undermined the role of fact in policy-making on fact-based issues. Its systematic denigration of environmental science, its simple bald-faced refusal to take any action whatsoever on emergency contraception (after the FDA's own review panel approved it, and in fact going to the lengths of blatantly lying to two Senators by promising them action in return for their cooperation on the Crawford nomination, and then reneging after the fact), its systematic elimination of factual information on birth control - and in some cases its replacement with falsehoods - on CDC Web sites, its continued touting of "faith-based" health programs with factually false content, and its habitual mendacity in other areas of objective fact, are well-known and widely documented, and have been protested by otherwise non-political groups from all areas of science. Multiple groups of Nobel laureates have signed petitions protesting administration policies and distorted science on multiple issues (stem cell research, environmental science). One member of Congress has protested. Two full books have been written on the subject of factual falsification of science by the Bush administration. This is not the ordinary process of political debate; there have always been debates over policy, but there is continually increasing evidence that the Bush administration simply deliberately distorts basic facts.
The complaint against them is not that the administration adopts policies based on conservative views, it is that they adopt policies based on factual claims that are false or deliberately distorted in obeisance to conservative views. That is "bias" not in the sense of "inclination", but in the sense of "shameless lying". It's different.
I've read lots of charges in the msm, but very few specifics and even the few of those which held up were dealt with by the Administration.
And I tend to distrust a media that would call pro-abortion politicians or doctors "moderate" or "mainstream." This woman is a very active activist, who definitely has just the agenda the magazine article denies.
As I pointed out, one of the frequent charges is that the government is lying about condoms (several Congressmen demanded a correction of the old "safe sex" government data and so the current NIH and CDC info is scrupulously accurate) and about the fact that abortion can increase the risk of breast cancer (the data is strong and pre-dates Roe v. Wade: women who have their first completed pregnancy by 21 and women who breastfeed are much less likely to have breast cancer than those who delay pregnancy - or abort - until later and those who do not and the effect is greater in those with the genetic predisposition).
The EC may be safe, but I don't want any hormonal contraceptives over the counter. A woman with unprotected sex needs to see her doctor because of the risk of infection. And very few of us want our children to be sexually active or taking hormones that we don't know about. The US public, in general, would not accept OTC hormonal contraceptives, much less this particular protocol. If, as I believe, they prove to only be effective in the few days before ovulation, then we may reevaluate. But, even then, I'm not sure that OTC is a good decision. (You should have heard me when they made the H-2 blockers like Pepcid and Zantac and the antifungals like Lotrimin OTC.)
Ive heard the same complaints about the current administration. Frequently. They have indeed been caught manipulating the facts. That is not oppinion - there are documented cases of scientists complaining about reports being edited. A report on, say, climate change is written by a group of scientists giving stong warnings of imminent consequences. After the supervisers edit, many 'hyopthetical's and 'possible risk' phrases are added, and parts removed. The situation is similar in all the fields Kevin listed. Facts are either manipulated or downplayed.
I can look up some articles on it, if asked.
(In other news, as I write this, the TV I have showing BBC news reports that the RCC has just said it may rethink its position on condoms. Finally. Welcome to the 1900's.)
Post a Comment