Chart of the Day

I’ve been a little lax on pure domestic politics lately, so here’s a nice chart from Ezra Klein earlier this week which shows just how much the Bush tax cuts benefit the super-rich– in percentage terms– compared to everybody else.  The chart below compares keeping the entire Bush tax cuts, versus Obama’s proposal.

bushtaxcutsincomepercent.png

What you can see there is that even in percentile terms, the Bush tax cuts do much more for the incomes of the rich than the poor, and the Obama proposal would do a lot more for the poor than for the rich. Make of this what you will.

Advertisements

Is God a misogynist?

Um, no, I don’t think so, but a lot of sexists certainly seem to think so.  There was a chapter in Half the Sky titled “Is Islam Misogynistic?” that got me thinking about all this.  The answer to that question is “No, but there are a lot of people of horribly misogynistic cultures, that use their prevailing religion– Islam– to justify their misogyny.  My answer to the question the book raised: most middle-eastern cultures are, in fact, misogynistic and use Islam to justify their cultural beliefs and practices.   For a long time, things were no different in the Western/Christian world.  You better believe if you looked around Europe or the US 100 years ago, all sorts of people were using Christianity to justify the cultural oppression of women.  Fortunately, we’re largely past that now.  (And, if you’re curious about the nearly 2000 year history of using Christianity to justify the oppression of women, you should check out Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, Sexuality, and the Catholic Church).  Anyway, I cannot really speak for any other world religions, but I think it is pretty clear that cultures world-wide and throughout history like to use their religion to justify their cultural practices.

Ella

The FDA has approved a new 5-day “day after” pill.  Hopefully, this should help lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies.  Some basics:

The Food and Drug Administration approved a controversial new form of emergency contraception Friday that can prevent a pregnancy as many as five days after sex.

The decision to allow the sale of the pill, which will be marketed under the brand name “ella,” was welcomed by family-planning proponents as a crucial new option to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But critics condemned the decision, arguing that it was misleading to approve ella as a contraceptive because the drug could also be used to induce an abortion.

Ella can cut the chances of becoming pregnant by about two-thirds for at least 120 hours after a contraceptive failure or unprotected sex, studies have shown. The only other emergency contraceptive on the market, the so-called morning-after pill sold as Plan B, is significantly less effective, becomes less effectual with each passing day and will not work after 72 hours.

Supporters and opponents both said the decision marked the clearest evidence of a shift in the influence of political ideology at the FDA. The last time the FDA considered an emergency contraceptive — making Plan B available without a prescription — the decision was mired in controversy amid similar concerns voiced by antiabortion activists. After repeated delays, Plan B was approved for sale to women 17 and older without a prescription.

Here we have a drug that generally works to prevent pregnancy.  In some cases it may actually terminate a pregnancy right after conception by preventing implantation, but last I checked, that was legal.  Are there some moral/ethical dimensions to this latter case?  Certainly.  But legal ones?  No.  The FDA’s job is not to decide if it is moral for a drug to prevent a new embryo from implanting, their job is to decide if a medication safely does what it is supposed to.  By all indications, Ella does that.  Thus, I find the “controversy” somewhat annoying and disingenuous.  If pro-lifers want to work to make a 2 day-old embryo fully legally protected, that’s certainly their right and there is a genuine moral/ethical case to be made, but I really hate the masquerading of it being about “protecting women” or “politics” and “ideology.”   A politicized decision would be one that ignored the science and the law.  This simply follows both.  The outcome may make the hardest core pro-lifers unhappy, but given our current laws there’s simply no reason the FDA should have decided other than they have.

%d bloggers like this: