Head over to Mike harris’ place and read Very Scary Shit About John Ashcroft from the February 2004 Vanity Fair.
Via Teresa Nielsen Hayden who also quotes a jiucy bit of the article and worries that Harris may have quoted too much (read ‘all’) of the original article.
For the FDA it appears that ‘B’ stands for babies. Why else would the FDA ignore the 23-4 vote of its scientific advisory panel and continue to withhold the morning after drug ‘Plan B’ from the over the counter retail market?
Well, perhaps babies and, as Mark Kleiman suggests, politics:
I’m prepared to bet that the FDA will eventually do the right thing. But how many unwanted pregnancies, leading to how many abortions, will result from this obviously political decision?
Yep, politics, and one more example of why such decisions should not be in the hands of political hacks.
Mark also says:
Once again, we can expect a deafening silence from the libertarians, whose sincerity about personal liberty I keep doing my level best not to doubt.
I don’t know if there will be a deafening silence or not. However, I suspect that most real libertarians not only would object to this decision but also argue that the FDA should not have any say in the matter at all, that it should not even exist as a government function.
As Kevin Drum notes the US medical care market is not a free one:
The United States really doesn’t have a free market in healthcare at all; in fact, it’s just a bizarre melange of jury rigged policies that seem to provide the worst of all worlds. We don’t get the universal coverage and bargaining power of a single-payer system, but we also don’t have the competitiveness and price pressure of a true free market system.
Kevin then goes on to ask:
So what, then, is the big problem with simply trying to rationalize the system?
By which he means implement a federal single payer system or more specifically universal health care. And he then argues:
In fact, if the system were well designed � never a betting proposition, I admit � overall costs might even be a little less.
Well, he is right if congress is going to design it you don’t want to bet on it being rational or anywhere close to efficient.
I had actually thought for an irrational moment that when he suggested “simply trying to rationalize the system” that he might have really meant what he was saying and been about to suggest beginning to move down the long road to a free market for medical care. Oh well.
Britsh home secretary david blunkett apparently drinks from the same cup as US attorney general john ashcroft. blunkett is proposing changes to British law that fly in the face of individual rights:
The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allows foreigners who are suspected international terrorists to be detained indefinitely without charge or trial in the event their lives would be in danger if they were deported.
…….
Mr Blunkett wants to extend this so prosecutors can take action against suspected British extremists even though the evidence may not be strong enough to win a conviction under existing laws.
This may mean lowering the burden of proof in such cases from “beyond reasonable doubt” to what is acceptable in civil cases, “the balance of probabilities”
…..
Evidence in the new trials would be kept secret from the defendants …
…..
We have to have prevention under a new category which is to intervene before the act is committed, rather than do so by due process after the act is committed when it’s too late.
This may mean lowering the burden of proof in such cases from “beyond reasonable doubt” to what is acceptable in civil cases, “the balance of probabilities”.
None of this is acceptable under any circumstances whether applied to citizens or non-citizens.
When dealing with someones life or when justifying war “beyond a reasonable doubt” needs to be a minimum standard.
Via David Carr at Samizdata.
Apparently NORML does not consider bush to be a presidential candidate yet as his positions on decriminalization, medical use and the HEA exclusion provision are not listed on this chart.
If this is an important issue to you then take a look at where your candidate stands on these issues. Some of them have positions that would mirror the bush position if it were included.
Via Legal Memo-Random.