On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down one of the landmark decisions of the 20th century. In Brown v. Board of Education, the court unanimously declared that the Jim Crow doctrine of separate, but equal had no place in education. Separate schools, the court wrote, are inherently unequal.
The decision in Brown v. Board of Education was the culmination of years of work by endlessly persistent lawyers for the NAACP to legally dismantle segregation. It was a bit of a shock, therefore, to see news this week, nearly 52 years to the day after the Brown decision, that NAACP lawyers were back in court suing on the exact same issues.
Earlier this year, the Nebraska state legislature passed a bill that would divide the Omaha Public Schools into three smaller districts. The new districts, drawn based on geography, create separate districts with different majority populations -- one district would have mostly white students, another mostly African-American, and the third mostly Hispanic students. To be sure, the plan is far from a return to legally-enforced separation of the races in schools, but still, it set off alarms across the country that an official return to segregated education was afoot.
Adding even more intrigue to the Omaha plan is the fact that it was proposed by Nebraska's only African-American state senator, Ernie Chambers, a man once described as "the angriest black man in Nebraska." Chambers, arguing that the plan would allow black educators to control schools in black neighborhoods, received the support of 30 conservative legislators from mostly white suburbs and ranching counties to push the measure through. Despite warnings from the state attorney general of potential constitutional problems with the plan, Nebraska's governor signed the bill immediately.
The reaction from the NAACP was swift. Within a month, NAACP litigators had filed a law suit to prevent the plan from being enforced, arguing that it intentionally separates students based on race in clear violation of the Constitution.
While the constitutional merits will now be left to the courts, there can be no doubt that the Omaha plan is a direct repudiation of the Brown ideals. It not only says that separate schools are allowable, but that separate schools may actually be preferable for the African-American community. Having been proposed by a black lawmaker -- rather than a white legislator who would surely have been dismissed as racist -- the plan reflects disillusionment among some in the black community with a half-century of efforts at integration with little to show.
The tension between integration and black control of black schools captured by the Omaha plan is nothing new. Even at the time of Brown, there were those in the African-American community who argued against efforts to combine separate black and white school systems for fear of losing influence in the education of African American students. Fifty-two years later, that debate continues in Omaha.
The legacy of Brown is complex. Its goal of undoing legally-sanctioned segregation has been achieved along with many unintended, and often negative, consequences. However, efforts like the Omaha plan threaten to undo the good that Brown did accomplish. Efforts to formally divide communities along racial lines undermine all sense of a broader community. Separate school districts send the dangerous signal that working across racial lines is unnecessary and unwanted. The citizens of Omaha would be better served by efforts that recognize the common stake they all share in the future of their city.
Fortunately, Omaha's school authorities and business community recognize what is at stake. Their motto: "One City. One School District."
May 19, 2006
May 12, 2006
Missing the Forest
Just when it appeared things could not get any worse for President Bush, news came Thursday that the National Security Agency has been secretly compiling an enormous database of every phone call made in the United States. The chorus of criticism came immediately, leaving the President where he has been for quite some time: on the defensive.
While this program differs from the previously-disclosed, devastating-to-Bush warrantless eavesdropping program in that it does not involve monitoring the content of our calls -- phew! -- this newly-disclosed, devastating-to-Bush call documenting program captures many more individuals and involves monitoring purely domestic calls. In all, more than 200 million Americans have likely had their phone calls documented. That's two-thirds of the country.
As a government program, this is downright spooky. The government has set out to analyze every phone call American citizens make. Even those who assumed the worst about the government must be at least somewhat surprised to have their suspicions confirmed by such a giant Orwellian effort.
Beyond the spookiness and the obvious legal questions, my personal concern is minimal. I am not too worried that my call history will arouse much interest from the government. But this is precisely the problem. Why is the NSA wasting time and resources monitoring my calls? I am not a high value target in the war on terror and I doubt that the 100 hits a week on unevenkiel.com warrant a Plame-esque smear campaign from the White House. The vast majority of the country falls into the same innocuous category as I do. So, what exactly are they keeping track of our calls for?
Assuming the program is documenting the calls of 200 million Americans as reported, a conservative estimate would be that information on several billion calls has been collected. I understand that data mining computers are efficient, but there comes a point when less is more. Wouldn't it be smarter to expend our intelligence resources on actual threats rather than noting how often I call my wife from work?
I'm tempted to leave such matters of intelligence to intelligence experts, as those in charge of the NSA ostensibly are. However, one phrase that has been repeated too many times in the past five years is "failure of intelligence." Prior to 9/11, an FBI agent had identified one of the hijackers as suspiciously learning to fly planes, but the warning never reached a desk where action could be taken. This was a "failure of intelligence." In Iraq, Bush administration officials presented evidence of weapons programs to support the need to go to war. When the weapons programs proved nonexistent, this was a "failure of intelligence." The bungling of post-war Iraq has also been blamed on a "failure of intelligence." When intelligence fails, the results are catastrophic.
The latest phone documentation program is symptomatic of the wrongheaded intelligence practices that often lead to intelligence failures. American intelligence agencies have shown an aversion to doing the difficult work of gathering intelligence, settling instead for faster and arguably less effective means, such as torture. Casting an incredibly large net, as this call-documenting program does, ensures that the NSA will be analyzing a whole lot of useless information rather than doing the harder, but more effective work of surveilling individuals who are actual threats.
The next several weeks will see politicians from both parties denounce this program as unacceptable and an affront to our civil liberties. However, the real debate should focus less on the program's legality (or, more likely, illegality) and more on its effectiveness (or, more likely, ineffectiveness). It is bad enough that the NSA is monitoring my calls. But the real trouble is that the NSA is monitoring my calls when it could be following leads on suspicious individuals learning to fly planes. This program, I fear, is yet another "failure of intelligence" waiting to happen.
While this program differs from the previously-disclosed, devastating-to-Bush warrantless eavesdropping program in that it does not involve monitoring the content of our calls -- phew! -- this newly-disclosed, devastating-to-Bush call documenting program captures many more individuals and involves monitoring purely domestic calls. In all, more than 200 million Americans have likely had their phone calls documented. That's two-thirds of the country.
As a government program, this is downright spooky. The government has set out to analyze every phone call American citizens make. Even those who assumed the worst about the government must be at least somewhat surprised to have their suspicions confirmed by such a giant Orwellian effort.
Beyond the spookiness and the obvious legal questions, my personal concern is minimal. I am not too worried that my call history will arouse much interest from the government. But this is precisely the problem. Why is the NSA wasting time and resources monitoring my calls? I am not a high value target in the war on terror and I doubt that the 100 hits a week on unevenkiel.com warrant a Plame-esque smear campaign from the White House. The vast majority of the country falls into the same innocuous category as I do. So, what exactly are they keeping track of our calls for?
Assuming the program is documenting the calls of 200 million Americans as reported, a conservative estimate would be that information on several billion calls has been collected. I understand that data mining computers are efficient, but there comes a point when less is more. Wouldn't it be smarter to expend our intelligence resources on actual threats rather than noting how often I call my wife from work?
I'm tempted to leave such matters of intelligence to intelligence experts, as those in charge of the NSA ostensibly are. However, one phrase that has been repeated too many times in the past five years is "failure of intelligence." Prior to 9/11, an FBI agent had identified one of the hijackers as suspiciously learning to fly planes, but the warning never reached a desk where action could be taken. This was a "failure of intelligence." In Iraq, Bush administration officials presented evidence of weapons programs to support the need to go to war. When the weapons programs proved nonexistent, this was a "failure of intelligence." The bungling of post-war Iraq has also been blamed on a "failure of intelligence." When intelligence fails, the results are catastrophic.
The latest phone documentation program is symptomatic of the wrongheaded intelligence practices that often lead to intelligence failures. American intelligence agencies have shown an aversion to doing the difficult work of gathering intelligence, settling instead for faster and arguably less effective means, such as torture. Casting an incredibly large net, as this call-documenting program does, ensures that the NSA will be analyzing a whole lot of useless information rather than doing the harder, but more effective work of surveilling individuals who are actual threats.
The next several weeks will see politicians from both parties denounce this program as unacceptable and an affront to our civil liberties. However, the real debate should focus less on the program's legality (or, more likely, illegality) and more on its effectiveness (or, more likely, ineffectiveness). It is bad enough that the NSA is monitoring my calls. But the real trouble is that the NSA is monitoring my calls when it could be following leads on suspicious individuals learning to fly planes. This program, I fear, is yet another "failure of intelligence" waiting to happen.
May 05, 2006
What If....?
As President Bush slogs through this spring with historically low approval ratings and Rolling Stone openly wondering if we are enduring the worst president in history (their answer: maybe), I am struck by perhaps the most interesting historical question of the nascent 21st century: What if Al Gore had won the 2000 presidential election?
We can only speculate about whether a Gore presidency would have been better or worse, but we can say with certainty that it at least would have been different, despite what Ralph Nader would have you believe.
For starters, a President Gore would encounter an entirely different landscape in Washington. With a Democrat in the White House and Republicans controlling Capitol Hill, Gore (and Republican leaders in Congress) would be forced to negotiate to find center ground on every issue, a balance that would more accurately reflect the evenly-split electorate than our current single-party government. In addition, the Republican Congress would provide the kind of presidential oversight President Bush has avoided thus far, limiting the likelihood that executive power would be abused without consequences.
In his first months, Gore would not have provided dual thumbs-in-the-eye to the international community by withdrawing the U.S. from the Kyoto protocol on global warming and the International Criminal Court. Further, Gore would not have rushed to squander the budget surpluses achieved by Bill Clinton on tax breaks disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest Americans. Thus, our standing with the international community and our record on fiscal responsibility would be in better shape.
But however Gore's presidency would have begun, there is no doubt it would have changed forever on September 11, 2001. The days immediately following the attacks, undoubtedly Bush's finest, would have tested Gore's ability to rally the nation's spirit and confront the evil of terrorism. Gore's military response in Afghanistan would probably have been similar to Bush's as the military plans for toppling the Taliban pre-dated the Bush administration. But the steps that would follow Afghanistan would best illustrate the two leaders' differences.
Gore, more respectful of international law and less willing to dismiss the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," appears less likely to condone the hands-off interrogation practices and constitutionally-questionable detentions that have brought the Bush administration embarrassment in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. But more importantly, it is unlikely that Gore would have so quickly shifted the country's focus off Afghanistan and Al Qaeda and onto Iraq. More likely, Gore would have continued the Clinton-era Iraq policy of containment, sanctions, and targeted military strikes that we now know had prevented Saddam Hussein from getting the WMDs President Bush went to war to rid him of.
Gore, or as he was dubbed by President Bush's father, "Ozone man," would have been particularly well suited to confront the current energy crisis, having long supported conservation, higher fuel-efficiency standards, and alternate fuel sources. It is difficult to take President Bush seriously when he asks us to conserve, especially since he apparently does not believe in global warming. Gore would be a far more effective leader in ending what President Bush calls our "addiction" to foreign oil.
Of course, a Gore presidency would suffer its fair share of failures, scandals and controversies. One can envision deadlocks with the Republican Congress and outright defeats on some of Gore's pet policies on the environment. There is no way to know how Gore would have handled Hurricane Katrina or even whether Gore would have been reelected at all. And although many may disagree with President Bush's tactics in handling the war on terror, his policies have at least been successful in avoiding another catastrophic attack on American soil. We'll never know if Gore would have achieved a similar success.
Currently, Al Gore is the walking embodiment of what might have been had the American electoral process not gotten in the way. We will never really know what a Gore administration would have delivered at the outset of the 21st century or whether his policies would have been any more successful, but with the current state of President Bush's agenda, it is hard to imagine Gore being in worse shape. Ah, what if?
We can only speculate about whether a Gore presidency would have been better or worse, but we can say with certainty that it at least would have been different, despite what Ralph Nader would have you believe.
For starters, a President Gore would encounter an entirely different landscape in Washington. With a Democrat in the White House and Republicans controlling Capitol Hill, Gore (and Republican leaders in Congress) would be forced to negotiate to find center ground on every issue, a balance that would more accurately reflect the evenly-split electorate than our current single-party government. In addition, the Republican Congress would provide the kind of presidential oversight President Bush has avoided thus far, limiting the likelihood that executive power would be abused without consequences.
In his first months, Gore would not have provided dual thumbs-in-the-eye to the international community by withdrawing the U.S. from the Kyoto protocol on global warming and the International Criminal Court. Further, Gore would not have rushed to squander the budget surpluses achieved by Bill Clinton on tax breaks disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest Americans. Thus, our standing with the international community and our record on fiscal responsibility would be in better shape.
But however Gore's presidency would have begun, there is no doubt it would have changed forever on September 11, 2001. The days immediately following the attacks, undoubtedly Bush's finest, would have tested Gore's ability to rally the nation's spirit and confront the evil of terrorism. Gore's military response in Afghanistan would probably have been similar to Bush's as the military plans for toppling the Taliban pre-dated the Bush administration. But the steps that would follow Afghanistan would best illustrate the two leaders' differences.
Gore, more respectful of international law and less willing to dismiss the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," appears less likely to condone the hands-off interrogation practices and constitutionally-questionable detentions that have brought the Bush administration embarrassment in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. But more importantly, it is unlikely that Gore would have so quickly shifted the country's focus off Afghanistan and Al Qaeda and onto Iraq. More likely, Gore would have continued the Clinton-era Iraq policy of containment, sanctions, and targeted military strikes that we now know had prevented Saddam Hussein from getting the WMDs President Bush went to war to rid him of.
Gore, or as he was dubbed by President Bush's father, "Ozone man," would have been particularly well suited to confront the current energy crisis, having long supported conservation, higher fuel-efficiency standards, and alternate fuel sources. It is difficult to take President Bush seriously when he asks us to conserve, especially since he apparently does not believe in global warming. Gore would be a far more effective leader in ending what President Bush calls our "addiction" to foreign oil.
Of course, a Gore presidency would suffer its fair share of failures, scandals and controversies. One can envision deadlocks with the Republican Congress and outright defeats on some of Gore's pet policies on the environment. There is no way to know how Gore would have handled Hurricane Katrina or even whether Gore would have been reelected at all. And although many may disagree with President Bush's tactics in handling the war on terror, his policies have at least been successful in avoiding another catastrophic attack on American soil. We'll never know if Gore would have achieved a similar success.
Currently, Al Gore is the walking embodiment of what might have been had the American electoral process not gotten in the way. We will never really know what a Gore administration would have delivered at the outset of the 21st century or whether his policies would have been any more successful, but with the current state of President Bush's agenda, it is hard to imagine Gore being in worse shape. Ah, what if?
April 28, 2006
Don't Just Remember. Act!
During the month of April, the world commemorated the victims of some of humanity's most heinous offenses. April 6 was Remembrance Day in Rwanda and just this week, April 25 marked Yom Hashoah, or Holocaust Remembrance Day. These remembrance days provide the opportunity to reflect on the tragedies of the past and mourn the millions of innocent human beings murdered in the last century.
Unfortunately, remembering is not enough. Even as we recall the horrific crimes of genocide that marred the twentieth century, the seeds for a future remembrance day are being cultivated. The current situation in the Darfur region of Sudan has already been labeled by President Bush and others as "genocide," making it the first genocide of this new century. However, the inaction of the world community that marked previous responses -- and is so condemned each remembrance day -- is sadly being repeated.
The campaign by the government-backed Arab militias, known as janjaweed, to wipe out villages and populations of African tribes in Darfur -- tribes, it should be noted that, like their attackers, are overwhelmingly Muslim -- is now over two years old. Hundreds of villages have been destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of villagers have been forced to flee into unprotected refugee camps in neighboring Chad, camps the janjaweed have begun to terrorize as well. The estimated number of dead ranges from 100,000 to 400,000 from attacks, starvation, and disease.
Action in response to what has consistently been characterized as the world's greatest humanitarian crisis has been cautious and ineffective. Foreign governments took the word of the Sudanese government that the militias would be reined in, echoing Munich. An African Union peacekeeping force, sent with two few soldiers and too limited a mandate, made little difference, echoing Rwanda. The lessons that ought to be reinforced by the multiple remembrance days are being ignored.
To be fair, the United States government has probably done more to confront this genocide than any previous genocide -- a bar that was pathetically easy to surpass -- but every incremental step has been hard fought by a dedicated group of individual activists, lawmakers, and human rights organizations. A small victory came this week when a US-sponsored sanctions directive was issued by the United Nations Security Council to be imposed on four Sudanese military officers. On Sunday, this month of remembrance will conclude with a (hopefully) giant march in Washington, DC, to urge further and more useful action.
But progress is slow and every delay costs thousands of innocent lives. These are lives that the world will somberly commemorate in the future with some version of a Darfur Remembrance Day. The inability to confront an unfolding genocide even as we commemorate genocides of the past proves that remembrance is only one step. The other step toward truly making genocide prevention a global priority is action. And it is up to both citizens and governments to act.
While governments have the diplomatic, economic, and even military tools to make a greater impact, there is much that can be done on an individual level, beginning with lobbying the government to take a more proactive approach in Darfur. In addition, one could donate to organizations providing direct aid to victims and anti-genocide advocacy, or one could become educated about the situation and inform friends, or one could write letters to local editors asking for more consistent media coverage, and one could invite others to take these steps as well. These actions may not make headlines, but they are the small actions that ignite the engine of change.
As April concludes and some of the genocide remembrance days are behind us for another twelve months, it is time to take the second step toward genocide prevention. It is time to act to stop the genocide in Darfur. Now.
To take action today, join the Million Voices for Darfur being represented at this weekend's march. Check http://www.savedarfur.org/home or http://www.genocideintervention.net/ for updated information and more ideas for action.
Unfortunately, remembering is not enough. Even as we recall the horrific crimes of genocide that marred the twentieth century, the seeds for a future remembrance day are being cultivated. The current situation in the Darfur region of Sudan has already been labeled by President Bush and others as "genocide," making it the first genocide of this new century. However, the inaction of the world community that marked previous responses -- and is so condemned each remembrance day -- is sadly being repeated.
The campaign by the government-backed Arab militias, known as janjaweed, to wipe out villages and populations of African tribes in Darfur -- tribes, it should be noted that, like their attackers, are overwhelmingly Muslim -- is now over two years old. Hundreds of villages have been destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of villagers have been forced to flee into unprotected refugee camps in neighboring Chad, camps the janjaweed have begun to terrorize as well. The estimated number of dead ranges from 100,000 to 400,000 from attacks, starvation, and disease.
Action in response to what has consistently been characterized as the world's greatest humanitarian crisis has been cautious and ineffective. Foreign governments took the word of the Sudanese government that the militias would be reined in, echoing Munich. An African Union peacekeeping force, sent with two few soldiers and too limited a mandate, made little difference, echoing Rwanda. The lessons that ought to be reinforced by the multiple remembrance days are being ignored.
To be fair, the United States government has probably done more to confront this genocide than any previous genocide -- a bar that was pathetically easy to surpass -- but every incremental step has been hard fought by a dedicated group of individual activists, lawmakers, and human rights organizations. A small victory came this week when a US-sponsored sanctions directive was issued by the United Nations Security Council to be imposed on four Sudanese military officers. On Sunday, this month of remembrance will conclude with a (hopefully) giant march in Washington, DC, to urge further and more useful action.
But progress is slow and every delay costs thousands of innocent lives. These are lives that the world will somberly commemorate in the future with some version of a Darfur Remembrance Day. The inability to confront an unfolding genocide even as we commemorate genocides of the past proves that remembrance is only one step. The other step toward truly making genocide prevention a global priority is action. And it is up to both citizens and governments to act.
While governments have the diplomatic, economic, and even military tools to make a greater impact, there is much that can be done on an individual level, beginning with lobbying the government to take a more proactive approach in Darfur. In addition, one could donate to organizations providing direct aid to victims and anti-genocide advocacy, or one could become educated about the situation and inform friends, or one could write letters to local editors asking for more consistent media coverage, and one could invite others to take these steps as well. These actions may not make headlines, but they are the small actions that ignite the engine of change.
As April concludes and some of the genocide remembrance days are behind us for another twelve months, it is time to take the second step toward genocide prevention. It is time to act to stop the genocide in Darfur. Now.
To take action today, join the Million Voices for Darfur being represented at this weekend's march. Check http://www.savedarfur.org/home or http://www.genocideintervention.net/ for updated information and more ideas for action.
April 21, 2006
Abstinence from Reality
Imagine you have in your hands the capability of immunizing every American woman from HPV, a sexually-transmitted disease, several strains of which are the primary cause of cervical cancer. Science has shown that by eliminating these strains of HPV, a vaccine could significantly decrease instances of cervical cancer and other illnesses resulting from HPV. What would you do?
I hope you would find a way to get that vaccine to as many women as possible -- in the US and globally -- to help decrease, even eliminate, the possibility of contracting HPV and cervical cancer.
Unfortunately, this compassionate route may not be what the people actually charged with making such decisions settle upon. Later this year, the FDA is expected to approve an HPV vaccine. However, the committee that makes recommendations regarding immunizations may not recommend the HPV vaccine for widespread use. The Bush Administration is cool to any policy -- scientific or otherwise -- that could be construed to implicitly condone premarital sex. As Senator Tom Coburn puts it, "Premarital sex is dangerous, even deadly. Let's not encourage it by vaccinating ten-year-olds so they think they're safe." How's that for a pro-life stance?
Of course, cervical cancer is also "dangerous, even deadly." In the US, 5,000 women die each year of cervical cancer. The number who die of the disease globally is nearly a quarter-million. Senator Coburn would have us ignore a tool that could decrease these numbers for fear that protecting women in this way may encourage more promiscuous behavior. Even if decreasing/eliminating the risk of HPV and cervical cancer had been shown to increase promiscuity, and it has not, are the 5,000 lives that could be saved so expendable as to be sacrificed in the name of a moral principle -- sexual abstinence before marriage -- many Americans do not even ascribe to?
By promoting abstinence as the only legitimate way to prevent STDs or unwanted pregnancy, the Bush administration has transformed health decisions that ought to be based on science into political decisions based on morality. According to researchers in various branches of the government, government scientists are being kept on a very tight political leash that inhibits the free and open inquiries required to make valuable scientific advances. This merger of science and politics has allowed the Administration to pursue its social goals -- like abstinence programs -- by using selective science. Of course, this is all perfectly consistent with the Administration's complete aversion on many topics to dissenting voices and evidence.
What about a hypothetical HIV vaccine? Certainly, a vaccine against the most deadly STD would be distributed immediately and en masse. Don't be so sure. Reginald Finger, former medical advisor to the conservative group Focus on the Family, says, "With any vaccine for HIV, disinhibition (the removal of risk or fear) would certainly be a factor and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care." Before dismissing Finger's opinions as that of an out-of-touch ideologue, know that he sits on the very committee charged with making immunization recommendations. His stance should not be surprising as the logic is consistent -- an HIV vaccine would decrease the risks of premarital sex and thus, could lead to greater promiscuity.
There can be no question that abstinence is the most effective method of preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Teaching abstinence is useful and healthy. However, there can also be no question that the majority of Americans do not practice abstinence before marriage. In fact, many Americans see premarital sex as normal and sensible, not immoral. Denying those who choose to engage in premarital sex -- an activity that, by the way, is perfectly legal -- tools that can improve their health or save their life, whether it be the HPV vaccine or education on contraception, is not a policy at all. It is the imposition of one group's morals on the health of all Americans in deliberate disregard of reality.
I invite those making the HPV vaccine recommendations to open their eyes and look beyond the political goals their bosses hope to accomplish. If they cannot, I invite them to look in the eyes of the families of any American who contracts an illness the vaccine could have prevented and explain themselves. Maybe then they would see reality.
I hope you would find a way to get that vaccine to as many women as possible -- in the US and globally -- to help decrease, even eliminate, the possibility of contracting HPV and cervical cancer.
Unfortunately, this compassionate route may not be what the people actually charged with making such decisions settle upon. Later this year, the FDA is expected to approve an HPV vaccine. However, the committee that makes recommendations regarding immunizations may not recommend the HPV vaccine for widespread use. The Bush Administration is cool to any policy -- scientific or otherwise -- that could be construed to implicitly condone premarital sex. As Senator Tom Coburn puts it, "Premarital sex is dangerous, even deadly. Let's not encourage it by vaccinating ten-year-olds so they think they're safe." How's that for a pro-life stance?
Of course, cervical cancer is also "dangerous, even deadly." In the US, 5,000 women die each year of cervical cancer. The number who die of the disease globally is nearly a quarter-million. Senator Coburn would have us ignore a tool that could decrease these numbers for fear that protecting women in this way may encourage more promiscuous behavior. Even if decreasing/eliminating the risk of HPV and cervical cancer had been shown to increase promiscuity, and it has not, are the 5,000 lives that could be saved so expendable as to be sacrificed in the name of a moral principle -- sexual abstinence before marriage -- many Americans do not even ascribe to?
By promoting abstinence as the only legitimate way to prevent STDs or unwanted pregnancy, the Bush administration has transformed health decisions that ought to be based on science into political decisions based on morality. According to researchers in various branches of the government, government scientists are being kept on a very tight political leash that inhibits the free and open inquiries required to make valuable scientific advances. This merger of science and politics has allowed the Administration to pursue its social goals -- like abstinence programs -- by using selective science. Of course, this is all perfectly consistent with the Administration's complete aversion on many topics to dissenting voices and evidence.
What about a hypothetical HIV vaccine? Certainly, a vaccine against the most deadly STD would be distributed immediately and en masse. Don't be so sure. Reginald Finger, former medical advisor to the conservative group Focus on the Family, says, "With any vaccine for HIV, disinhibition (the removal of risk or fear) would certainly be a factor and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care." Before dismissing Finger's opinions as that of an out-of-touch ideologue, know that he sits on the very committee charged with making immunization recommendations. His stance should not be surprising as the logic is consistent -- an HIV vaccine would decrease the risks of premarital sex and thus, could lead to greater promiscuity.
There can be no question that abstinence is the most effective method of preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Teaching abstinence is useful and healthy. However, there can also be no question that the majority of Americans do not practice abstinence before marriage. In fact, many Americans see premarital sex as normal and sensible, not immoral. Denying those who choose to engage in premarital sex -- an activity that, by the way, is perfectly legal -- tools that can improve their health or save their life, whether it be the HPV vaccine or education on contraception, is not a policy at all. It is the imposition of one group's morals on the health of all Americans in deliberate disregard of reality.
I invite those making the HPV vaccine recommendations to open their eyes and look beyond the political goals their bosses hope to accomplish. If they cannot, I invite them to look in the eyes of the families of any American who contracts an illness the vaccine could have prevented and explain themselves. Maybe then they would see reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)