There are a lot of people and organizations out there that would have us all believe that they represent and try to promote a “culture of life” in this country. I’ve heard this tagline used over and over in the media and in political rhetoric dispensed by religious zealots, partisan pundits and ultra-conservative Republican politicians. Since the neo-cons have been at the helm the last few years I would argue that this country is farther from a “culture of life” then it’s ever been in American history. But, of course, when you control the information that people get through corporate media it’s not very difficult to present yourself, as you want others to see you or your cause. It’s never going to be presented in a realistic and in depth way where we have the luxury afforded to us to make up our own minds. It’s much safer and beneficial to label with euphemisms and frame a political debate to place yourself in a position of moral superiority. And that is the bottom line in what they’re trying to achieve with the repetitious hammering of the “culture of life” into our vocabulary and our daily lives. It’s unacceptable for those on the right to not be in a position of moral superiority or, even worse, to be viewed as the side that actually embraces death with its political policies. So there have been many pain-staking efforts done through public relations and propaganda to insure that their philosophies fall on the side of embracing life and then by association that those on the left must be against a “culture of life”. Their plans have been working, to the average American the right-wing Republicans and Christian zealots are actually viewed as the party and movement that, not only, holds the moral high ground but also champion life. How in the hell did this happen? How is it possible that the right-wing politicians that build their careers on the bloodlust of the death penalty viewed as the part that embraces the “culture of life”? How is it that the party that opposes any kind of gun control to the point of even allowing the ban on assault weapons to expire (against promises made while campaigning) while tens of thousands of Americans are killed by guns every year, been seen to champion life? How is it that the party that continues to loosen up any kind of restrictions on pollution and refuse to even acknowledge that global warming exists while our environment gets worse and worse and more and more people every year die from environmental related diseases continue to be viewed as the champions of life? How is it that the party that has exploited September 11th for political gain, invaded two countries and murdered more than a hundred thousand civilians seen as embracing life? How is it that the party that has claimed the right to indefinitely imprison, torture, rape and murder people without ever charging them with a crime hold the moral high ground? How is it that the party that is force-feeding abstinence only education to our children, denying them the necessary knowledge to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases; deny rape victims in emergency rooms access to the morning after pill; deny doctor prescribed birth control to women if they are not married; all of which has actually caused an increase in abortions claim to be the party that hold the moral high ground? How is it that the party to deny citizens the same rights as all other Americans enjoy based solely on their sexual preference; hurl empty rhetoric about defending those that are oppressed while turning a blind eye on the Darfar region of Sudan (where genocide is occurring) and every other place in the world that doesn’t have oil or other special interests, claim moral superiority? It is the context of their claims that are most flawed and where their arguments are most vulnerable but don’t expect the American media to call them on their hypocrisy, not even their opposing party, the Democrats, will point out their hypocrisy. So the right-wing Republican, Christian extremists get away with labeling themselves as those trying to create a “culture of life” and protect it from the rest of us who are so hell bent on a culture of death. I get so disgusted every time I hear this sick euphemism, which is why I decided to write about it for this issue. I’m amazed every time I see them get away with this outrageous farce and every time they get away with it it’s becomes more and more a part of our accepted political language. This is why I think it’s so important to expose the charade now before it becomes integral with the right-wing movement. Opposing a women’s right to choose does not make a person a champion of the “culture of life” like the right-wing would have us all believe. This is the biggest claim to contributing to a “culture of life” but it doesn’t have any validity and it sure doesn’t hold any consistency in their overall philosophy. If the Christian extremist movement, which is pulling the strings of the Republican party, was really concerned with protecting life then they wouldn’t be so opposed to sex education; they wouldn’t be so opposed to making the morning after pill available to rape victims; they wouldn’t be so opposed to birth control for unmarried women; they wouldn’t be so opposed to other forms of birth control made available to teenagers and young adults; they would instead seek out practical and effective ways of cutting down on the abortion rate instead of enacting policies that have caused the abortion rate to increase. And if their fight were really about protecting life then they wouldn’t be so intent on stripping women of their rights when there are all of these worthwhile ways to reduce the abortion rate. But again, their aim is not to protect the life of a fetus but to ultimately keep women subservient to men, like the hierarchy in their religious dogma demands. We see religion trample personal rights everyday in our society. One of the best examples was the interfering in the case of Terri Schiavo, the brain-dead woman that was caught in between a national debate over the “culture of life” and the right to die. Terri Schiavo had been artificially kept alive for 15 years while she had, according to her doctors, no chance of recovery. This brain-dead woman was caught in the middle of a political circus that began because of a dispute between her husband, Michael Schiavo, and her parents, the Schindlers, over whether she would have wanted to be kept alive artificially. Terri Schiavo suffered monumental brain damage back in 1990 after her heart temporarily stopped beating. Terri apparently suffered from an eating disorder, bulimia, which can cause a sudden dehydration of the body that causes an imbalance in electrolytes, and particularly potassium. When that happens, it can cause irregularities in the electrical signal, so it can cause the heart to stop beating. This is pretty rare but that is reportedly what happened to Terri Schiavo. The Christian right and the Republican controlled congress couldn’t wait to turn Terry Shaivo into a rallying call for the “culture of life” movement. They shamelessly exploited this brain dead woman to try to further their cause, charging liberals with “cold-blooded, anti-life, uncompassionate principles” as the contrast to their “life-respecting, compassionate, loving” principles. Tom Delay helped to lead the congressional efforts to keep Terry Shaivo alive without acknowledging the double standard of his own family right-to-die experience. In 1988 Delay’s father, Charles Delay, was severely injured in an accident. Charles Delay, along with his brother and their wives were trying out a tram they had built to take them up and down a slope from their house to the lake. The tram jumped off the tracks and Charles Delay was thrown headfirst into a tree, he suffered multiple injuries, including a brain hemorrhage. Doctors advised the Delay family that Charles would “basically be a vegetable.” Charles’ wife, Maxine Delay said, “There was no chance he was ever coming back. There was no point even really talking about it. Tom knew, we all knew, his father wouldn’t have wanted to live that way.” So as Charles Delay’s vital organs began failing, Tom Delay and the rest of his family, chose not to connect him to a dialysis machine or to take any other measures to try and prolong his life. Charles died less than a month after his accident, showing no signs of being conscious. Like Shiavo, Charles Delay didn’t have a living will but had supposedly expressed his wish to others that he would not want to be kept alive by artificial means. Tom Delay had no problem respecting his fathers supposed wishes to not be kept alive in a vegetative state but in the case of Shiavo, Tom Delay’s political agenda outweighed the wishes of Shiavo’s husband, her doctors and repeated court rulings and most importantly, the supposed wishes of Terry Shiavo herself. Charles Delay, in Tom Delay’s mind, deserved and received his wish to not be kept alive, to die with dignity. Terry Shiavo on the other hand served a political purpose, and that purpose was to pander to the so-called “pro-life” Christian right. It is this same blatant disregard to Terry Shiavos’ wishes by the Christian right in order to politically gain from her exploitation so Shiavo was kept alive, against her wishes, and exploited for fifteen years; held as a rallying cry for the Christian movement. They exploited her tragic case to show how much they supposedly “value life”, any and all life. It was in reality a well-planned springboard to the anti-abortion argument and they made it their top priority to capitalize as much as possible on the media feeding frenzy. Congress actually reassembled in a special session to intervene in the Shiavo case, playing up the drama of how much the Republican Party values life. George W. Bush rushed back to Washington, cutting his vacation short, to come to Terry Shiavo’s aid: to rush back to Washington to sign the legislation and come to the aid of a defenseless woman that her husband, her doctors, liberals and activist judges were trying to murder. This is the tone that was set in congress and throughout the nation by the right wing extremists; I’m not exaggerating about this. This tone was being set in order for these members of the right wing to politically profit from one family’s personal tragedy. Tom Delay accused Shiavo’s husband and the courts of “an act of barbarism.” Threatening judges was another interesting aspect of the Terry Shiavo and members of the right wing Christian movement, including members of congress, made these threats. Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer, who ruled over the Terry Shiavo case and ordered the feeding tubes removed, had to be protected by armed guards because of the numerous death threats that were made against him. Tom Delay said, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Tom Delay sure has some nerve to indirectly threaten Judge Greer and Shiavo’s husband while he and his family exercised the exact same right to allow his own father his death. Delay’s fellow Republican from Texas, Sen. John Cornyn wondered if frustration against perceived political decisions by judges "builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly without any justification." Another veiled threat directed at right wing political opponents. But is this the case with Judge Greer? Is he a liberal Judge? An activist Judge? Greer is a conservative Christian and a longtime Republican and has been a member of a Southern Baptist Church for years. Greer was asked to leave his church after refusing to bow down to the Christian right’s pressure that he rule in favor of Shiavo’s parents and not remove her feeding tubes. "You must know that in all likelihood it is this case which will define your career and this case that you will remember in the waning days of life," Calvary Baptist Pastor William Rice wrote to Greer in a letter than later became public. "I hope you can find a way to side with the angels and become an answer to the prayers of thousands." Rice suggested that it would be better if Greer leave the church after Greer didn’t heed his request. Greer had ordered the feeding tubes removed three times, ruling that Shiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and would not want to be kept alive artificially and his ruling were consistently upheld in appeals filed by Shiavo’s parents. Greer also stood up to congressional efforts to intervene in the case, rejecting an attempt by the House of Representatives to subpoena Terry Schiavo as a means to force the reinsertion of her feeding tube. Since then, other judges have followed in refusing to act under a newly crafted federal law allowing them to consider the case. The FBI arrested a North Carolina man who had placed a $50,000 bounty on the head of Judge Greer. No doubt the man was another member of the love-encompassing movement of the “culture of life”. Greer is not a liberal, not an activist judge by any measure but he suffered the same ridicule, slander and threats as any other person that doesn’t surrender to the right wing Christian agenda. They assailed that Greer was a part of the group of activist judges that are supposedly threatening our society with their liberal leanings. They successfully glossed over the fact that Greer was actually a Republican and a Conservative Christian so they could further exaggerate and exploit the Shiavo story as an ongoing war between those that value life and those that don’t. The right wing quickly lambasted Greer and the court system in general for failing to side with them and keep Shiavo’s feeding tubes in, thinking that they could profit politically from another claim that they were the champions and guardians of life while the left wing liberals and progressives were out to kill a defenseless woman, who they claimed, wanted to live. Governor Jeb Bush tried to kidnap Terry Shiavo and claim guardianship over her but his efforts failed when the Sheriff’s marshals he sent to the hospital to seize Shaivo were turned away by local police. Afraid of the bad press that might ensue from the attempted kidnapping of Shiavo, Jeb Bush retreated. The incident was hardly mentioned in the press. Others members of congress, including New Jersey Representative Chris Smith argued that Shiavo be labeled as “disabled” rather than brain-damaged, trying to invoke the comparison that removing Shiavo’s feeding tube would be like killing mentally retarded persons. The comparison was obviously grasping at straws and angered many advocates of the disabled. Sen. Bill Frist, Senate Majority leader, took to the floor of the Senate and made an impassioned plea for government intervention into reinserting Shiavo’s feeding tubes to keep her alive. Frist’s pleas drew a lot of attention since, in addition to being the Senate Majority leader is also a renowned heart and lung surgeon. Debating the emergency legislation on the Senate floor, Frist questioned the diagnosis of the court-appointed doctors, referring to video footage provided by her family that they claimed showed Schiavo responding to people around her. "I question it based on a review of the video footage. ... And that footage, to me, depicted something very different than persistent vegetative state," Frist said. Frist would later claim that he never made this diagnosis from video footage. This was, of course after many doctors questioned Frist’s diagnosis and his motives. The autopsy that confirmed that Terry Shiavo had suffered such sever brain damage, consistent with someone in a vegetative state didn’t help Frist’s position either; and top that off with public opinion polls that showed overwhelmingly that Americans opposed the federal government intervening in personal family business. Frist and many other Republican members of congress misjudged how the public would view their efforts in the Shiavo case. Most people saw their efforts as an unsympathetic intrusion, as a cold and calculated political tactic rather than the act of compassion that they tried so desperately to project. It was painstakingly clear what the right wing “culture of life” screaming political machine was after and it wasn’t saving the life of Terry Shiavo, it was political gain while simultaneously painting liberals as anti-Christian, anti-compassion and anti-life. For once the American public saw through the charade. Public outcry over the obvious exploitation had the Republicans running for cover and ultimately abandoning Shiavo to her long delayed fate. The public wasn’t only opposed to the right wing intervention in this case but was outright resentful towards their cold-blooded politicking. Once those opinion polls came in and these politicians saw this kind of resentment and public scrutiny they tucked their tails between their legs and called it quits. Reassessing the situation and viewing the political damage done where they had confidently expected a political victory they left Terry Shiavo to die. I guess it’s easy to abandon a defenseless woman that liberals are trying to kill. Interesting. Although there were the few die-hards (no pun intended) that refused to acknowledge their insincerity to the bitter end (pun intended). Faced with the highly publicized autopsy report that proved that Shaivo was incapable of cognitive thought, could not feel pain, and was blind (which means that the video clip of her eyes supposedly following a balloon was just a random, coincidental movement edited for video) Jeb Bush, refusing to admit any error on his own behalf, had to find someone else to hold accountable, a favorite Bush family tactic. Who better to attack than Terry’s husband, Michael Shiavo. Jeb ordered an investigation into the incident that caused Terry Shaivo to become brain damaged fifteen years before, desperately trying to pin a murder rap on Michael Shiavo. Jeb howled about how Michael Shiavo must be hiding something and didn’t call for help quickly enough to save Terry from brain damage (the same brain damage he insisted all along that she didn’t have) and how he’d get to the bottom of it and make sure that justice is served. Jeb quietly, without the same intense publicity that underscored his exploitation of Terry Shiavo, gave up his bloodthirsty inquisition of Michael Shiavo when he couldn’t find any evidence that Michael had done anything wrong. And as far as Jeb’s attempted kidnapping to claim guardianship over her this was not the first time that Jeb has abused his power as Governor in regards of guardianship. Jeb ordered the Florida Department of Children and Families to step in and prevent the thirteen-year-old girl, who was in state custody, from having an abortion. The agency argued that the girl was too young and immature to decide whether or not to have the baby. Apparently they didn’t think she was too young and immature to have and raise that baby. A circuit court judge in Florida ruled against Jeb and the Department of Children and Families and said the girl was competent to decide for herself and that such a decision is protected by the Florida constitution, as it should also be by Roe v. Wade. Jeb’s anti-abortion crusade hit an all time low when he ordered the appointment of a legal guardian to a fetus to prevent a severely mentally disabled rape victim from receiving an abortion. The twenty-two year old woman, living in government run care, functioned at about a four or five year old level, could not speak and had no family and had lived in the state’s care for nineteen years. In was in the state’s care that this woman was raped and became pregnant. Jeb ordered a guardian appointed to the woman as well as the fetus. “This is truly a horrible situation, that a woman in the care and custody of the state can be raped and become pregnant - and then to have the governor suggest that anything other than this woman's health and needs be taken care of, is truly outrageous," said Randall Marshall, the legal director of the Florida branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. Jeb’s biggest concern was to keep this poor woman from having an abortion and did not take any steps whatsoever to investigate who had raped this woman while she was in the state’s care nor did he consider what was best for the woman herself. Another group that could care less about what’s best for a woman’s health compared to the “interests” of a fetus or in their case an unfertilized egg is Pharmacists For Life. This debate about the “culture of life” has enveloped every aspect of health care, more specifically women’s health care. The moral footing that the right wing has claimed in the debate over abortion has emboldened some professionals to deny women services based on their own set of standards. Pharmacists For Life is one such group. Pharmacists For Life was founded by Karen Brauer, who was fired by a K-Mart pharmacy in Ohio for refusing to fill a prescription for birth control. As president of Pharmacists For Life, Brauer, fights for what she calls “the human right of medical professionals to exclude themselves from participating in a procedure that can stop human life.” Brauer’s sentiment is picking up steam in this country. More and more pharmacists across America are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and the morning after pill. Some pharmacists, in the utmost display of arrogance have even refused women their prescriptions for birth control based on their moral objections to dispensing birth control to an unwed woman. This arrogance goes much further than the Christian rights anti-abortion stance; this is someone actually forcing their set of religious standards onto someone else. Denying a woman a prescription, written by her doctor, to birth control simply based on whether the woman is married or not is appalling and absolutely none of the pharmacists business. A pharmacist, like a doctor is supposed to care for a patient, should only consider the patients interests and not use their position to force-feed their religious beliefs and principles onto another person. Imagine what our society would be like if doctors suddenly refused to treat anyone that held a different set of religious ideals than themselves. This is the line of thinking that Pharmacists For Life is following. These pharmacists are putting their own set of religious beliefs ahead of their patients’ health and interests. They’re morally judging women and then condemning them based on their own biases and refusing them access to their prescriptions. Can we get any closer to George Orwell’s vision of big brother than this? And where does legislating morality, their opinion of morality, all end? What’s next? Censoring books, music, art, television and movies that don’t adhere to their specific set of religious ideals? Not like they haven’t been trying that one for centuries. Such arrogance, self-righteousness and moral condemnation have absolutely no place in a profession that should be based on the welfare of a patient. Pharmacists as well as doctors are obligated to care for their patients, not just those who share their religious beliefs but all of those in their care. If a pharmacist or a doctor can opt out of performing their job when they have a moral objection then where do we draw the line? Does a Christian doctor have the right to decide to not perform CPR on a gay patient because they don’t approve of their lifestyle? Does a Christian doctor have the right to not revive a Muslim patient because of moral objections to their faith? Does an Atheist doctor have the right to treat another atheist before a Christian patient, figuring that if the Christian dies they at least have that afterlife ahead of them? These examples may a stretch but I would argue that allowing members of the medical and health care professions to put their own religious biases above the interests of the patients in their care could pave the way for these types of scenarios. Can you imagine a vegan taking a job at a fast food restaurant and then refusing to serve someone a burger because it conflicts with their ethical beliefs? How long do you think that vegan would be employed at that fast food restaurant? And that’s dealing with feeding someone a meal not health care, which is obviously a much more serious matter. Anyone that doesn’t eat meat knows that if you have a moral discrepancy with working with meat then you don’t take this type of job. If you choose to work at place like this then you better be prepared to handle meat, you wouldn’t assume that it’s your right to take this type of job and then refuse to handle meat based on your moral objections. So why is the issue of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for women being seriously debated? Lourdes Rivera, director of the Los Angeles-based National Health Law Program, fears that anti-abortion health providers are going too far. “Yes we need to respect individual freedom of religion. But at what point does it cross the line of not providing essential medical care? At what point is it malpractice? If someone’s beliefs interfere with practicing their profession, perhaps they should do something else, Rivera said. How can anyone seriously argue that a pharmacist, having taken a job to dispense medications to a patient as prescribed by their doctor, has the right to pick and choose which prescriptions to fill and which to deny? Especially those pharmacists that will fill a prescription for birth control if a woman is married but refuse to fill it if she’s single. How exactly is a woman’s marital status a factor in a pharmacist’s moral decision of whether or not to fill a prescription? This shows that these pharmacists that would make this decision based on marital status, do so not because of a moral objection to birth control but out of a moral objection to an unmarried woman using birth control. The last time I checked, a woman having sex outside of marriage or anyone having sex outside of marriage doesn’t break any laws. I could be mistaken about that though considering all the new restrictions to our lives that the Bush administration has pushed through congress the last five years. The goal of pharmacists denying unwed women their birth control is to humiliate them, to judge them based on their own narrow-minded biases and then to punish them by not filling their prescriptions. To make the point to them that their behavior is wrong and therefore they will be punished. Their goal is disempowering them and pushing them down the hierarchy of the Christian faith. In some cases pharmacists are actually holding prescriptions “hostage”, by this I mean that not only are they refusing to fill a prescription but they also refuse to give it back to the woman so that she can have it filled elsewhere. Holding a prescription “hostage” can have a devastating impact on a woman, especially in cases of emergency contraceptives, like the morning after pill, when a woman only has a limited time to take it with it still being effective. Women are actually being forced to become pregnant based on these types of actions by pharmacists. Imagine a rape victim seeking an emergency contraceptive to avoid a pregnancy and not only having that prescription denied but having it “high jacked” and held “hostage” so that she can’t have it filled at another pharmacy, because the pharmacist has a moral objection. And in doing so the woman becomes pregnant. Who is a pharmacist to make this decision for a woman by holding her prescription “hostage”? It’s bad enough to not fill the prescription. How dare they? Not only is this absolutely disgusting but I would suggest that this constitutes criminal negligence. I am amazed, not only that this is actually happening but that there isn’t more of a public outcry over this. Have we become so apathetic and complacent that we actually allow someone else to make life decisions for us? Decisions like this about women’s health, decisions that are made by religious zealots that have infiltrated the health care community. Decisions that are made by anyone and everyone else except for the one person that it actually affects, the woman herself. There are large pharmacy chains like CVS and Walgreen’s that have enacted policies that are intended to avoid a conflict between a pharmacist and a patient. This consists of making sure another pharmacist is on duty that is willing to fill it, or refer a patient to another nearby pharmacy that will fill the prescription. This is not practical though, especially in situations when an emergency contraceptive is being sought and must be taken within 72 hours to be effective, or in circumstances when a poor woman may not have the money or resources to travel around from pharmacy top pharmacy. This is also true for women who live in rural American where there may not be more than one pharmacy. And in encountering a judgmental pharmacist some women, especially young women, may be frightened and unsure of themselves and just give up to avoid any further humiliation. There are also pharmacies that will not force their pharmacies to refer a patient to another pharmacy or release their prescription back to a patient. Karen Brauer doesn’t believe that there is an obligation to refer rebuffed patients to another pharmacy and defends the right of pharmacists not only to decline to fill prescriptions but also to refuse referrals and “highjack” prescriptions. “Forced referral is stupid. If we’re not going to kill a human being, we’re not going to help the customer go do it somewhere else,” Brauer said. “That’s like saying, ‘I don’t kill people myself but let me tell you about the guy down the street who does.’ What’s that saying? ‘I will not off your husband, but I know a buddy who will?’ It’s the same thing.” No, it’s not the same thing and this is exactly where our problem lies. We’ve allowed these right wing Christian extremists in this country to frame the debate, over a woman’s right to choose, in their own context and in their own language. Language that states that abortion is murder, that a woman that chooses to have an abortion is not exercising her right but is committing murder. They’ve done this extremist rhetoric; they’ve done this through lobbying congress and buying political allies; they’ve done this by media saturation and consolidation; they’ve done this by rewriting law and referring to a fetus as an “unborn child” and they’ve done this by sidestepping science and medicine to claim that life begins at conception. This is why they claim that using emergency contraceptives is, in their view, essentially committing murder. But they even go beyond their own assertions and try to deny women birth control. If their claim is that life begins at conception then what is the problem with birth control? After all birth control prevents conception from even taking place. Their stand against birth control is more about promiscuity and about stripping women of their sexual freedom, and I say women because I don’t see any Christian backed effort that targets men’s promiscuity. In all seriousness the only state sponsored effort taken by my home state of Pennsylvania to reduce the growing pregnancy rates in teenagers was to have “chastity awareness programs” utilizing the cutting edge technology of the middle ages with the introduction of the chastity belt. Their stand against birth control is about adhering to the Christian teachings of abstinence until marriage, which is why marital status is being considered with these pharmacists before filling birth control prescriptions. This whole debate over pharmacists’ rights to refuse to fill prescriptions based on moral objections is a part of the larger debate over religion in our country and the supposed separation of church and state. This “culture of life” is at the center of this debate. Continuously referring to this “culture of life” is again framing the debate in terms that are favorable to them, for if they’re defending this “culture of life” then the rest of us are trying to destroy life, as they would infer. Not only is this a bogus argument that we shouldn’t let them claim but we need to expose the baseless ness of their claims. The reality is that their “culture of life” and every tactic and every policy they have enacted, under the most supportive administration they’ve ever had, has moved our society further away from a “culture of life.” The claim by Pharmacists For Life is that they’re out to protect their right to not fill prescriptions that they believe are killing a baby. In reality their actions have directly contributed to an increase in abortions; just like abstinence-only education has contributed to an increase in abortions; just like all of their “family-values”, Christian moralist, anti-woman actions have contributed to an increase in abortions. Don’t count on that fact ever being uttered in the framework of their “culture of life” arguments though, denial and ignorance fare far better than facts do for their agenda. Of course if statistics were referred to that show definitively that abortions have increased under the Bush administration’s Christian restructuring of our society there’s no doubt in my mind that the accusations would start flying, more than they already do that is. The Christian right would point the finger at everyone else to distract attention away from their own miserably failed policies. We would see them blaming everything from music to Hollywood to feminists to a lack of Christian values for the rise in abortions, when the truth is that the teaching of abstinence-only education in place of sex education, denying birth control, contraceptives and emergency contraceptives have left teenagers and young adults with less options and more ignorant about how to protect themselves. The Christian morality, as being forced upon this country, is a complete and dismal failure. Exactly how many more millenniums does humanity have to go through before it learns history’s lessons about the ills of organized religion? These Christian extremists that would rather move us backwards towards the Middle Ages than to admit that their religious teachings are destructive are now reversing all of the advances that humanity has made through science and medicine. They are destructive and yet they’ve been able to creep into every facet of our society. They’ve invaded science, medicine, education (in teachings and historical interpretation), drug treatment, and of course-government. Sometimes these different areas coincide, like at the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). The FDA has become highly politicized in the last five years under the Bush administration. Dr. David Hager, a Bush appointee to the FDA advisory panel, has been an outspoken opponent of birth control and reproductive rights. Dr. Hager’s minority opinion has led to the FDA’s repeated decision to deny Plan B emergency contraceptive over-the counter- status. In doing so the FDA has ignored overwhelming recommendations by it’s own advisory committees and extensive evidence that emergency contraceptives are safe and effective for women of all ages. Only one other time in the last fifty years has the FDA ignored the recommendation of it’s own advisory panels. Dr. Hager, who wrote a minority opinion claimed to write his opinion not from an “evangelical Christian perspective” but from a scientific one, argued that the panel had too little information on how easier access to emergency contraceptives, would affect girls under the age of sixteen. The FDA cited a lack of information as cause to reject the over-the-counter availability of emergency contraceptives. Dr. Hager is a highly controversial figure with extremist views against abortion and emergency contraceptives and favors abstinence-only education. Dr. Hager has claimed that Christians, such as himself, are at “war” with people who would take faith and values out of medical care. Bush appointed Dr. Hager to the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee in 2002. Bragging about how his minority opinion led to the FDA’s decision to not allow Plan B over-the-counter status Dr. Hager said, “I argued from a scientific perspective, and God took that information, and he used it through this minority report to influence the decision. Once again, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into good.” Good for who? Good for himself? Good for Bush? Certainly not for women, who should be the ones taken into account when the FDA makes these types of decisions regarding women’s health care. Plan B has been available since 1999 with a prescription. The manufacturer, Barr Laboratories, applied to the FDA in 2003 for permission to sell Plan B without prescription arguing that the over-the-counter availability would reduce the number of abortions from unintended pregnancies. Over-the-counter availability would indeed help to prevent a lot of unintended pregnancies since it needs to be taken within 72 hours. Racing against the clock for women to get a doctor’s appointment, especially poorer women who may not be able to afford a doctor’s appointment, is a tough feat in a 72 hour period, especially if they have to deal with a pharmacist like Karen Brauer. In August the FDA again refused over-the-counter status for Plan B. again the FDA has overruled their own scientists’ determination that Plan B could be sold safely without a prescription and angered their employees by postponing indefinitely a decision on whether or not to let that happen. FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford announced that while over-the-counter sales to women seventeen and older would be safe, younger teens would still need a prescription because of concern over whether they could use the drug properly, and that the agency didn’t know how to enforce an age limit. So they didn’t know how to enforce an age limit and for that reason they decided it’s better to deny access to emergency contraceptives to all women. Makes a lot of sense doesn’t it? I guess it makes sense to Bush and the Conservative Christian movement that mistakenly consider emergency contraception tantamount to abortion and claim that easier access to emergency contraception would encourage teen sex. Barr Laboratories has even proposed an age limit, pointing out that it could be enforced like the age limits on cigarette sales, since that is the FDA’s supposed concern. But as we know the age limit is not really the FDA or the Christian right’s concern. Their concern is to deny women access to emergency contraception because they view it as abortion, which of course is not the case. But when we let a religious agenda outweigh scientific evidence this is the kind of absurdity we’re left with. Outraged by the FDA’s decision, Assistant Commissioner Susan Wood resigned in protest. “There’s fairly widespread concern about FDA’s credibility” among agency veterans as a result Wood told the press. “I have spent the last fifteen years working to insure that science informs good health-policy decisions. I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended by the professional staff here, has been overruled,” Wood said. This unprecedented public show of discord for the FDA prompted lawmakers to call for congressional hearings whether the nation’s top public health agency is trumping science and playing politics. I, for one, don’t put too much stock in congressional investigations and hearings. Whatever came of the congressional hearings on “intelligence failures” that led us to war with Iraq? Oh yeah, I remember, nothing. Well we now have another “intelligence failure”, this time by the FDA for placing Christian lobbyists above the health and welfare of women. Wood said that the final decision over Plan B was not made in the FDA’s usual manner but “at the commissioner level…where most if not all of the professional staff were excluded.” Wood also pointed out that the FDA has never before raised questions about teen use of other drugs. Talk about hypocrisy, but then again hypocrisy is something that’s been embedded in the Christian right’s movement. Another great example of the hypocrisy of the Christian right’s “culture of life” is the recent statement made by the founder of the Christian Coalition and religious broadcaster, Pat Robertson. On the Christian Broadcast Network’s, The 700 Club, Robertson suggested that American agents assassinate the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Chavez has been one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration and maintains that the Bush administration has conspired to topple his government and has backed plots to assassinate him. Although he later denied it, Robertson did indeed call for the assassination of Chavez on the Aug. 22nd broadcast of The 700 Club. Here’s what Robertson actually said on his broadcast: “You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.” Then two days later when Robertson’s guest and an outspoken critic of Chavez brought up Robertson’s comment about the assassination of Chavez on the Aug. 24th broadcast Robertson said, “Wait a minute, I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should, quote, "take him out," and "take him out" can be a number of things including kidnapping. There are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time.” So Robertson claimed that he had been “misinterpreted by the Associated Press”, is he really this stupid or does he just assume that the rest of us are really this stupid? He denied having advocated the political murder of a foreign head of state on his nationally broadcast television show and he really thought that he would be able to deny having said it and would get away with it. He may well have gotten away with it, if it wasn’t for media watchdog groups like www.mediamatters.org who had posted transcripts and video footage of Robertson’s call for murder, and pressured the Christian Broadcast Network and Robertson to take responsibility for his comments. Later the same day Robertson issued a press release claiming that “in my frustration that the U.S. and the world are ignoring this threat” he “adlibbed” his call for Chavez’s assassination and that this wasn’t really representative of his true feelings. Robertson went back and forth for a few days, denying, rationalizing and then finally apologizing (because of public scrutiny) and explaining why he, one of the self-proclaimed leaders of the “moral majority” and architects of a “culture of life” had called for the assassination of a foreign head of state. Applying more pressure Venezuela slammed Robertson’s call for the murder of their President. Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said Venezuela was considering legal action against Robertson for his statements, arguing "There is a legal measure in the United States that condemns and punishes statements of this nature," and "It's a huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those." The White House quickly distanced itself from Robertson and his comments, while at the same time refusing to condemn them. Sean McCormack, spokesman for the State Department said that Robertson’s comment was “inappropriate” and that “This is not the policy of the United States government. We do not share his views.” Reluctant or maybe even afraid to criticize one of Bush’s strongest political allies, “I would like to think that people around the world would take the comments for what they are,” McCormack continued, “they’re the expression of one citizen.” Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld said that the Pentagon isn’t in the business of killing foreign leaders but also wouldn’t denounce Robertson or his comments. “He’s a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time,” Rumsfeld said. One thing that Rumsfeld was right about when he says that “Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time,” although it may have been more accurate to say how right wing extremists, considered to be respectable “private citizens” make threats all the time. This couldn’t be more accurate when it comes to Pat Robertson, as this wasn’t the first time he’s called for the United States to murder. Robertson has said in the past that we should send agents to assassinate Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong II and Saddam Hussein. Robertson is certainly not alone when it comes to the right wing moral crusaders calling for the murder of others. Syndicated columnist and right wing lunatic, Ann Coulter, argued that the Monica Lewinsky scandal shouldn’t have distracted the national debate to whether President Clinton “did it” from the more important issue of “whether to impeach or assassinate” him. In a separate call for bloodshed Coulter said, "When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that [American Taliban supporter] John Walker [Lindh] is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors." Glen Beck, Clear Channel radio host, bragged about his desire to kill Michael Moore. On his broadcast of the Glen Beck Program he said, “Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.” Fox News host of The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly while arguing that the Los Angeles Times editorial board (who O’Reilly had felt were wrong in their view that detainees at Guantanamo bay, Cuba have access to legal representation) wouldn’t understand his view until terrorists killed their editor Michael Kinsley. Here’s O’Reilly’s rant: “I mean, but this is what they're saying. It is just -- you just sit there, you go, ‘They'll never get it until they grab Michael Kinsley out of his little house and they cut his head off.’ And maybe when the blade sinks in, he'll go, ‘Perhaps O'Reilly was right’.” Nationally Syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh showed a little restraint when he said, “I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough around so we can have two on every campus-living fossils-so we will never forget what these people stood for.” Bless his compassionate “culture of life” spreading heart. It’s like Jesus has come back and secured himself his own radio talk show. Speaking of Jesus, one of the “culture of life’s” proudest trophies of the last few years was Mel Gibson’s blockbuster film “The Passion of the Christ” which Gibson hoped would bring out the very best in people as he told Bill O’Reilly on the O’Reilly factor. “But hey, as I said before, it’s a film that speaks about faith, hope, love and forgiveness. That’s the basic message. And that’s what we need to get back to, I think. And if everybody practiced a little more of that, there would be a lot less friction in the world.” Wow, what a beautiful thought, if only everyone practiced a little more love and forgiveness, just like Christ and his newly found champion, Mel Gibson. Of course that forgiveness doesn’t go very far if you criticize Gibson’s film as New York Times film critic, Frank Rich found out. Obviously upset about Rich’s criticism of The Passion of the Christ, Gibson said, “I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick…I want to kill his dog.” Whoa, even the dog of a critic of one of the champions of this “culture of life” isn’t safe. Run, Spot run! And I thought Mel got in touch with his sensitive side when he made the film, What Women Want. Now what exactly is going on here when those who are aggressively perusing a “culture of life” so callously call for the murder of those that don’t share their views of differ from their political leanings? How can these people seriously argue that they’re in favor of a “culture of life”, that they’re members of a religious group that (in their minds) embodies love, tolerance, forgiveness and righteousness? They actually believe that they hold this moral high ground over all of us who don’t subscribe to the same principles that they do. That they’re better than all of us who don’t fall into their Christian trap, that don’t believe all of the lies that they spew at us. They really love to make the claim that they have God on their side that they’re carrying out God’s will on earth. This argument seems to work for a lot of their brainwashed masses those who obediently follow them, never thinking for themselves or questioning their leaders. But for those of us that see through all of their bullshit, that question their motives, that refuse to accept their oppressive ways or stand up to their hypocrisies and stand in the way of their right wing agendas, all of us must be, by extension, enemies of God. How convenient is that? I mean, really who are you going to listen to, those on the side of God or God’s enemies? It definitely benefits those who claim to be the spokesmen for God. Although how credible is that? Have you ever heard a politician, or a religious leader or even a political talk show host to be on the opposite side of God? Of course not, it’s this moral high ground that is established by recruiting God onto your side of the political spectrum. And the right wing are definitely not shy about their claim of having God on their side nor are they shy about pointing out God’s enemies or threatening us with everything from assassination to political attacks and slander to violence in the form of an act of God to, of course, an eternity of burning in hell; their personal favorite threat. Isn’t it nice to have God on your side? Fear mongering and threats are how these right wing lunatics intimidate the masses and consolidate their power. But it really is amazing to me how people out there really believe that this is a moral movement striving for a “culture of life”. How can they make this claim with a straight face? Their intolerance and hate is so transparent to me that I’m always blown away when I think that there are those that actually fall for their charade. Maybe it really is nothing more than fear that keeps people in line, fear of what they don’t understand or can’t see or can’t explain. Religion has done a masterful job of keeping people obedient by instilling fear since the dawn of history. But are these outrageous threats and warnings by these lunatics really that credible that they are actually believed by millions upon millions of people? Is it really that credible for Pat Robertson to claim that God will punish a city for displaying rainbow colored flags in support of sexual diversity as Robertson threatened? “I would warn Orlando that you’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you. This is not a message of hate; this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor,” Robertson warned. How can anyone take these people seriously? Does this sound like a rational person making a credible statement that should be listened to in a respectable way? Does this sound like someone that speaks for or strives for a “culture of life”; or does this sound like fear mongering? If Robertson didn’t have a television show he’d be babbling these things out on some street corner where he’d be ridiculed and laughed at by people passing by. But because he has a television show and a following his views are respected. This is absolutely absurd, anyone who actually listens to what Robertson and the rest of these people have to say and has half a brain knows how ridiculous and hypocritical they really are, that they undeserving of respect. They prey upon people’s insecurities and fears for their own personal gain. These people should indeed be held up for public scrutiny. Their claim that they speak for God or promote God’s will or ideals shouldn’t shield them or their absurd or hateful views from this scrutiny. In my opinion those who claim to hold such moral superiority should be held up to an even greater public scrutiny, to an even higher standard. Those who claim to be so above the rest of us in terms of morality shouldn’t be accepted at their word or at the fear of God. Just look at lie after lie, ridiculous statement after ridiculous statement and you’ll get a sense of how these people operate, where their priorities are and how they use fear as a weapon. Again, people are kept in line by fear, the media is kept in line by fear, even George W. Bush (who likes to portray himself as a tough guy who lives by what he believes whether people like it or not) is kept in line by fear. That’s precisely why the White House distanced itself from Robertson’s comments about Chavez without actually condemning his comments. Bush is afraid to cross this powerful Christian group, that’s exactly why he panders to them so much. That and the votes they win him too, of course, but at this point he’s already in office and has the luxury of not having to concern himself with any election-not that he ever did. Bush is afraid of taking on such a powerful group of people which also represent his base support and his only hardcore support that continues to stand behind his blundering of the war in Iraq and the crumbling economy. Bush isn’t about to criticize Robertson and risk more political fallout. Robertson can feel confident that he can continue to make comment after crazy comment and not have the administration condemn him. And making crazy comments is something that Robertson has become very well acquainted with over the years. Following the Sept. 11th attacks Robertson said that “God almighty is lifting his protection from us” because “we have insulted God at the highest level of our government,” by allowing things like abortion and barring school prayer. And in launching a 21-day “prayer offensive” in 2003 to pray for the justices to leave the U.S. Supreme court after it had decriminalized sodomy, Robertson said, “We ask for miracles in regard to the Supreme Court”. He noted that one justice was 83 years old and that two others had serious ailments. Robertson’s lightly veiled threats, with his “prayer offensive” called on God to take some action and create a few openings on the Supreme Court; openings that would be filled by Justices that wouldn’t condone these types of rulings. And how would God create these openings? Presumably by striking down a few of these aging Justices, that is what Robertson was calling for. So threatening the lives of members of the U.S. Supreme Court is now promoting a “culture of life” I guess. Robertson also made the claim that the threat posed by liberal judges is "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.” Robertson believes that these judges posed "the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history, more serious than al Qaeda, more serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the Civil War." With statements like this Robertson doesn’t even have to threaten judges himself, just make his extremists rants and let his followers do the threatening. This is what’s been happening in this country, the leaders of the “culture of life” use extreme rhetoric to make their case and to create a climate of urgency and hysteria, preying on the greatest fears of their followers, encouraging them to act, not out of commitment but out of fear and desperation. This is why they always portray themselves as the victims that are under attack, so they can have a clear conscience when they assault our institutions and govern our lives. The Christian right push of religion into science, medicine and governmental policies has become a plague in this country, not only because of it’s trampling of all other secular areas of our society but also because it’s advocates have been so hypocritical and destructive. They don’t believe in a “culture of life” they believe in a culture that improves their lives at the expense of the rest of us. Self-interest isn’t a quality often associated with promoting a movement that embodies respect, tolerance and compassion, but it is in this case, at least that’s what they’d have us believe.