I Give Up

I have been writing for 45 years.  My mother taught me how to read when I was just a toddler, and at age 6 she taught me how to type on an ancient Underwood manual typewriter.  I’m sure you kids today have never seen one of those, except perhaps in a museum.  It did not even use electricity!  You may understandably find this dubious and demand to know, “How did it work, then?!”  Believe it or not, it was purely mechanical.  You had to actually tap the keys with enough force to engage the little gear that caused the letter on the other end of the connecting rod to strike an ink-soaked ribbon against the paper.  When you made a mistake you had to insert a little strip of paper coated with white chalk, retype the offending letter, backspace, and then type back over it.  I know, it’s really hard to believe, but trust me, I am not making this up. That is how long I’ve been writing, ever since back in the dinosaur days.

My first project, when I was 6 years old, was a series of “books” about a pony named Babby.  Each book was a dozen pages or less, lovingly bound together in a construction paper cover and illustrated with crayon drawings.  The principal put them in the school library for the other kids to enjoy and told my mom that I would surely be a famous author someday.  That never happened.  Not even close.  But I kept on writing.  As a child I mostly wrote about horses.  I was completely obsessed with horses to the extent that some suspected it might be evidence of mental illness.  But, my parents indulged me and bought me a horse for my 11^th birthday.  The obsession fulfilled, I then went on to write about other things.  

In high school I was very involved with politics.  I had the privilege of volunteering in the campaign, and later as an intern reading and summarizing legislative sessions for then-senator (now Governor) Neil Abercrombie while attending Punahou School in Honolulu, where Barry Obama was one of my schoolmates.  Working for Senator Abercrombie taught me a lot about the political process and I was eager to use that knowledge.  Having been born at the tail end of the baby boom generation and following in the footsteps of the hippies and activists who were slightly older than me, I wanted to change the world.  I marched in protests, gave speeches and gathered signatures for petitions.  My particular goals were world peace, personal liberty, equality and saving the environment.  The local newspaper published many of my letters to the editor and I was even given a few (non-paying) guest editorials.

In college I majored in philosophy and wrote (using an electric typewriter!) about spirituality, consciousness and physics, as well as continuing with my political efforts.  But, I gradually became disillusioned with politics and began to suspect that the only way to really change the world was by raising awareness, one by one.  I focused more on my yoga practice and spent lots of time in meditation.  I stepped back from the world for a while, although I continued to participate in consciousness-raising groups and events.  

I went on to get my Master’s degree in psychology and wrote my thesis on the Bhagavad Gita, using an actual computer this time! (but still no internet).  I became further disillusioned with The System when the State changed the rules and took away my school’s MFCC licensing right before I graduated, leaving me in student loan debt and unable to legally practice my profession.  After that I was mostly occupied with trying to make a living and maintaining my own sanity while doing soul-sucking clerical jobs.  Having studied pharmacology as a “hobby” since my teens, I went back to school again and then spent the next 22 years working in medicine until I retired from it earlier this year.  It was largely as a result of my formal training and work experience in the medical field that my initial enthusiasm wore off and I became a “medical heretic,” leading me to write about that subject.

Over the last few years, in response to the alarming decline of our society, I have once again become very involved in the political process through my writing.  I have blogged extensively about issues like reproductive rights (something which I never dreamed would still be controversial in 2014!), public health, the economy and corporate welfare.  Thanks to the miracle of the internet, I have been able to reach and interact with more readers than I ever would have thought possible back in the days when all I had was an electric typewriter.  Now, I can share my ideas with people across the country and even around the world.  One of the greatest things has been the ability to network with like-minded people through the social media and various political websites, where we can rejoice in knowing that we’re not alone and cheer each other on in our efforts.  I began to feel that there is hope after all, and that we really can change the world by sharing information and raising awareness.

I got mixed results when publishing my blog in the social media, where most people really aren’t there for political reasons and might not be educated or interested in the areas that I write about, especially medicine and public health.  I had thought that carefully explaining an argument and presenting the facts, documented by links to reliable sources like the CDC and ACOG, would be enough, but it wasn’t.  What I found was that no matter how many times I repeated the facts, or how carefully I tried to explain them in simple layman’s terms, or even provided links to sources that I was sure my readers could trust, it made no difference.  People just didn’t “get it.”  Some even told me flat out, “The facts don’t matter.”  Their minds were already made up.  

But, I was encouraged when I started sharing my writings on a popular liberal blog site where, to my surprise, the response was overwhelmingly positive!  I couldn’t believe so many people not only read my writings, but recommended and even “hot listed” them.  It was difficult to keep up with the huge volume of comments.  All that supportive feedback gave me a sense of solidarity and the feeling that together we can accomplish anything.  Of course, I was preaching to the choir, as these readers already shared my perspective due to the nature of the site.  Emboldened by the positive response, I decided to reach out across ideological divisions within the movement, to open up dialogue and try to build bridges between separate factions among my comrades such as atheists and liberal/ progressive Christians, with the hope that we would be more effective working in harmony together to oppose the fundamentalist takeover of our society.  I wanted to deconstruct the rigid doctrinal lines that divided us and try to find common ground.  

What happened next was a huge learning experience which has led to the return of my former disillusionment.  I quickly discovered that when I examined underlying presuppositions, questioned the status quo at all, or pushed the boundaries even a little bit, the backlash was immediate and fierce.  People who had been my allies in the birth control battle were ready to stab me in the back once they learned I was a [liberal] Christian.   Although I explained that we reject the fundie doctrines and oppose their political views, the label of “Christian” automatically rendered me ignorant and my words invalid.  People who shared my love of science were appalled and angry when I wrote that pharmaceutical industry lobbying has sold us a bill of goods saying our for-profit medical system is “evidence-based,” when the evidence suggests that maybe it is actually marketing-based.  This was absolute heresy!  Never mind that I could back up my claim with facts from reliable sources until I was blue in the face; the facts don’t matter.  Peoples’ minds are already made up.  Period.

This surprising failure to find common ground, mutual understanding and open minds even among literate and well-educated people who are supposedly on the same side of the sociopolitical battle has been, to say the least, a rude awakening.  It has led me to conclude that there is really no hope of changing minds or raising awareness among the general public due to very thorough indoctrination by the corporate media.  All I can offer is reason, facts and friendship, which are no match for the billions of dollars spent on brainwashing and polarization to prevent us from uniting our forces against the corporate overlords.  They’ve won.  My writing cannot change the world.  In a lifetime of trying I have not succeeded in changing even one mind.  I give up.

I will probably still blog about the issues that concern me, only because I can’t help it.  When I read about something that “gets” to me, the words accumulate in my mind and demand to be released, and like mental vomiting, I feel better after letting it out.  But I won’t waste any more of my time and energy trying to reach people who don’t want to be reached, or to change a world that doesn’t want to be changed.  I am going back to my cave now.  I will continue to write my yoga blog and perhaps books that may benefit the people who are actually interested.  As for the rest of the world, it can go to hell, where it seems intent on going anyway.  

Women's Liberty and Bodily Sovereignty

The heated debate over reproductive rights in America today, in 2014, is both bizarre and frightening for a woman who grew up in the age of Women’s Liberation.  We thought these issues had been settled long ago and indeed they were, from a legal standpoint.  The Supreme Court had ruled to legalize both birth control and later, abortion on the basis of “privacy,” a right which conservatives deny exists, except when it refers to a corporate bank account or a politician’s tax return.  These rulings have been debated over and over but they nevertheless remain the law of the land.  This has not, however, prevented the anti-choice movement from finding clever ways around the law which have resulted in successfully regulating many abortion clinics out of existence as well as reducing women’s access to birth control through their health insurance.  As I watch this process, I can’t believe it is happening; it’s like a nightmare and I can’t wake up.  But it is all too real.

Reflecting back on my life, one of the things for which I am most thankful above all else is the liberty of bodily sovereignty, made possible by modern law and medicine.  I grew up taking for granted that it was my natural right as a woman to control my fertility, to have sole authority over my own body, to decide whether and when – IF ever! – to have children.  This sovereignty over one’s own body is so essential that all other “freedoms” are meaningless without it.  When I said this on Facebook, one of my male friends replied incredulously, “No way, really?!”  He thought my statement was absurd.  I explained, what good is the right to vote, or to work, or travel, or whatever, if my own body does not belong to me?  How am I a “free person” if I am merely a walking incubator, my uterus property of the spawn of any man who manages to impregnate me with or without my consent?  My friend sincerely didn’t “get it,” perhaps because as a man he cannot even imagine what that would be like.

Women take this precious freedom for granted in America today, or at least we did until recently, but the fact is, it is a profound departure from the normal state of existence for most women around the world throughout history.  With a very few real historical or even mythological exceptions, women previously were condemned to a life as broodmares.  This was in part due to social inequality in cultures which treated women as second-class citizens and/or slaves of their husbands.  However, even in the rare cultures where women were afforded more respect and autonomy, e.g. a feminist friend of mine pointed out, Sparta, biology was still destiny.  If you were born with a womb, you were destined to be a baby factory – perhaps highly respected, able to choose your own mate and have some control over your life circumstances – but still at the mercy of biological fate.  Without reliable contraception, a woman would have babies, lots of them.  Many of the babies would die, and many of the women would die in childbirth.  In fact, until the 20^th century, childbirth was the #1 killer of women.  Let that chilling fact sink in for a moment.  The conservatives argue that birth control is not preventive healthcare because “pregnancy is not a disease,” it is a mere “inconvenience.”  A sometimes deadly inconvenience.

My mother narrowly avoided becoming one of the statistics.  A type 1 diabetic, very petite and in fragile health, she had been forbidden by the doctors to get pregnant.  But because she desperately wanted a baby, she chose to ignore their advice.  At 7 months something went seriously wrong and they told her, “We need to get this baby out of you NOW!” and took her to emergency C-section.   Probably the only reason we both survived is that we were at Bethesda Naval Hospital where the best possible care was available.  We didn’t have the opportunity to “bond” before I was immediately whisked away to a NICU incubator and Mom to her room in critical condition.  The doctors sternly warned her she must NEVER get pregnant again because they would not be able to keep her alive, and although she adored babies and wanted more children, our brush with death frightened her enough that she obediently began taking the Pill.  I never got a brother or sister but at least I had the companionship of my dear mother.

Throughout most of history, even if you were one of the lucky women blessed with broad hips, safe births and healthy babies, you were nonetheless still a slave, literally, to biology, because having successfully delivered those children, you then had to raise them.  That was your role as a woman, unless perhaps you were wealthy enough to afford a nanny to care for the children so that you might pursue some other activity, if permitted by society.  But most women didn’t have that option and regardless of whatever other skills, talents and interests they may have had, faced a life as mommy and housekeeper.  While many women enjoy that life and find it very fulfilling, for me it sounds like a living hell.

Fortunately – and again, I thank God for this daily – I was born in America in the early 1960s, so for me, not even the sky was the limit!  I went through phases of wanting to pursue different vocations:  a ballerina, a jockey, a veterinarian, an astronaut.  The latter was a very good possibility because my father was an Air Force officer and was able to get me into the Academy, although I turned down that opportunity.  But, my parents always told me:  You can be whatever you want to be!  Maybe even the President someday, who knows.  I was raised with the understanding that as a woman, it was up to me to choose my life path.  I could have any career I wanted, OR I could be a stay-at-home mom, if I so chose, in which case my husband would support me.  Note, back then we had a CHOICE, whereas nowadays the economy requires both parents to work, and women are expected to have a job AND raise the kids and keep house, which in my opinion is NOT “progress.”

In any event, a large part of what made this wonderful freedom of lifestyle choices possible was the miraculous invention of The Pill which gave women control over our reproduction.  In the past, random pregnancy was often viewed by employers as a reason not to hire or promote women.  And there are some jobs you just can’t do while pregnant, like ballet, horse racing or going into space.  I didn’t need to worry about that, being fortunate to have access to The Pill throughout my fertile years because, at least until around 2000, I had good insurance that always covered contraception – yes, even when I worked for Christian companies!

My introduction to the Pill occurred when I was a teenager in Hawaii.  My mother found out that I had lost my virginity, whether through “motherly intuition” or maybe she overheard me talking on the phone to my best friend Kat.  Angry and sobbing, she proceeded to tell me that she didn’t understand this “sexual revolution” stuff.  My grandmother had taught her that sex is an unpleasant duty that a wife must endure to make her husband happy and to have children.  When she was my age, good girls didn’t have sex, mostly for fear of getting pregnant.  Those who did were SLUTS, and if a shotgun wedding with the boyfriend was not arranged, the wealthy ones went abroad to study in France, while those from lower-income families were sent off to stay with their aunt in the country for a year.  My mother told me she had only had sex with one man, my father.  She paused her rant for a moment, and then said quietly, misty eyed, “You know, I probably would have wanted to explore my options, if we had the Pill back then.  There was this boy that I really loved…”  Pulling herself together, Mom sat up straight and said sternly, “Anyway, I don’t approve of what you are doing!  You were supposed to wait for marriage.  But the worst possible thing that could happen to you right now is to get pregnant, which would totally ruin your life.  SO, I am taking you to the doctor to get on the Pill!”  And God bless her, she did.  I respect my mother so much for having the courage and the wisdom to handle the situation in that manner.

Ironically, shortly after I got on the Pill, my boyfriend’s family, also in the military, was transferred to California.  We had only had sex one time, with a condom.  It was a horrible experience, as he had explained the first time often is, but he assured me that it would be wonderful the next time.  But, we didn’t get the opportunity, and I never saw my first love again.  I missed him so much, and did not have another boyfriend until after I went to college.  It was nonetheless a relief, however, just knowing that IF I were to get into a sexual relationship, I would be protected.  In college and later in my 20s while seeking a life partner I dated several young men, but none of them wanted a long-term commitment, so I was very glad not to have become pregnant during those relationships.  Religious opponents of contraception blame birth control for this modern social phenomenon where men have access to sex “without consequences” and thus don’t need to make a lifelong commitment.  While this might be true, I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing.  Contraception allows women to play the field, looking for compatible candidates while weeding out the men who might not make the best husbands and fathers, unlike the olden days when you were pretty much stuck with whomever got you pregnant, only to discover down the road that he was a poor match.

But, while I wanted a life partner, I never particularly wanted kids, for a few reasons.  For one, I have always been quite concerned about population growth and the environment and thought there were already enough humans on earth.  More importantly, I didn’t think I would be a good mother.  I completely lack the maternal instinct.  Unlike my mom, who would not hesitate to grab and smooch the daylights out of a baby belonging to a complete stranger, I find nothing attractive about infants.  Now, many people have told me, “Having a baby changes you.  You will feel differently after you have one of your own!”  However, a baby is not a science experiment and I would hate to test the theory, only to find that those people were wrong and that I did, in fact, possess zero maternal instinct.  I have always believed that people should not breed unless they are seriously able and willing to be good parents.  It doesn’t seem right to me that an innocent child should be brought into the world “by accident” or as a “whoops!” or an afterthought, but only if they are truly wanted.

Of course, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh often argue, “If women don’t want kids then they just shouldn’t have sex!”  As discussed in another post, I’m not convinced that they seriously want us to stop having sex, based on my experience.   After failing to find a desirable partner, I became a Third-order Sister.  I was voluntarily celibate for 14 years and received fierce criticism from all sides, especially from conservatives, regarding my lifestyle choice.  Friends, family members, coworkers and complete strangers told me that my lifestyle was abnormal and wrong!  Society is, after all, oriented around couples and family life, and sex is the glue that holds romantic relationships together.  So while the conservatives claim to support celibacy in theory, it's quite another matter when you actually practice it, then suddenly you are going against God and Nature.  Basically, in my experience you are damned if you do and damned if you don't!  And incidentally, while I thought I wouldn’t need the Pill anymore since I was celibate, it ended up being prescribed to treat my anemia related to excessive menstrual blood loss.

Life rarely turns out the way we planned.  After 14 years of celibacy, when I had long since completely stopped looking for a partner, I met my husband at age 42.  Had I followed my mother’s old-fashioned morality, that we should “wait until marriage” to have sex, it would have been a very long wait indeed!

I did not become a ballerina (at least not professionally, although I dance at karaoke bars during long instrumentals), or a jockey (although I have raced my own horses at local fairs), a veterinarian, an astronaut, or President (although I went to school with one, Barry Obama).  My “career” involved mostly just boring secretarial jobs, followed by 22 years in the medical field.  Now I work as a yoga teacher, psychic and holistic wellness counselor.  My adult life has not been the most exciting nor successful from a career standpoint.  But, it is MY life and I am very happy to have lived it my own way.  Thanks to modern medicine being upheld by the Supreme Court [until recently], I have managed to avoid the one career that I specifically did NOT want, namely, motherhood.  I cannot imagine not having had that choice.  I want my goddaughter and stepdaughter to have the same freedom that I enjoyed, to live their lives as they see fit, to become mothers if and when they choose.  I pray that we won’t return to the dark ages when women were broodmares.

Religion, Science and Dogmatism

Note:  I shared this post on a popular blog site recently and to my surprise, was immediately accused of "attacking atheists."  That certainly was not my intent.  If anything, I was "attacking fundies" and reassuring the atheists that despite what they may have heard, liberal/progressive Christians are on their side in terms of public policy!  The main point of this post is that dogmatism and uncritical thinking of any variety is dangerous.  I apologize that the point did not get across.

*******

In the wake of recent events, particularly the Supreme Court ruling that corporations owned by fundamentalist Christians can obtain a religious exemption from insurance coverage of birth control, there has been an understandable backlash against religion.  My atheist friends have been commenting, even more so than usual, that religion is the source of all human misery and must be stamped out if we are ever going to have a truly civilized, enlightened, rational society.  They perceive religion as rejecting science, oppressing women, gays and other minorities, and seeking to impose as law an archaic “morality” from a mythological book written thousands of years ago.  This perception is, again, very understandable in light of recent events involving not only Christian fundamentalists here in the U.S., but also Islamic and Hindu fundamentalists in other parts of the world.  But, what the atheists don’t seem to understand is that the fundies do not represent all religious people and in fact, we liberal and/or progressive persons of faith stand solidly on the side of secular humanism when it comes to public policy!

As discussed in my previous blog post, Another Look at Religion, we do believe in science!  And we know the difference between science and mythology.  We understand that religion and science are two totally separate fields of human experience which serve completely different purposes.  We do not follow “biblical morality,” nor do we want to base our laws or public policies on scripture.  We believe in equal rights and social justice for everyone.  Therefore, my atheist friends, we completely sympathize with you and we do not deserve the accusations which are properly aimed at the fundies.  If anything, the fundies annoy us more than they do you, because they make religion look bad and in addition, they have somehow managed to convince you that they speak for the rest of us, which they do not.

With regard to the assertion that religion is the source of all ignorance and misery, I would argue that it is not religion per se, but rather, uncritical acceptance and imposition of any dogma, which is the source of humanity’s woes.  An example from history would be the completely barbaric “communist revolutions” in places like Cambodia and China which inflicted considerable suffering on their populations although they had abolished religion.  In modern times we need look no further than our American atheist conservatives like S.E. Cupp who, despite their rejection of a belief in God, persist in almost religiously pushing the conservative political agenda as if it were gospel truth.  And while atheist conservatives are relatively rare, they are certainly nowhere near as scarce as unicorns; according to a recent Pew Forum survey, 19 percent of conservatives are unaffiliated with any particular religion, and 14 percent of atheists identify as conservative.

So it is possible to be an atheist while at the same time being a dogmatist, and converts to atheism do sometimes (not always!  and by no means all or even most atheists!) transfer their former religious zeal onto a new object of worship, usually science.  Perhaps the human psyche needs to believe in something, and when religion is thrown out, we look for some other focus of devotion to fill that void.  It could be argued that science is a more appropriate object of worship than a mythical Mean Old Man, Santa Claus or Wish-Granting Genie in the sky.  However, as we have discussed previously, religion is not science, nor is science is religion, and therefore worship or uncritical acceptance is not an appropriate response.  Unlike [fundie] religion which insists on blind faith in ancient and unchanging dogma, science encourages that we remain open-minded and educate ourselves as new data arises, rather than clinging to current scientific theories as if they were eternal truths. 

It can be difficult to keep up with the changing data, in that science has many different specialties and we cannot be experts in every field.  I adore quantum physics, but because I took “Advanced Physics for Liberal Arts Majors” I don’t have sufficient education to really understand it in any depth.  The best I can do is to read popularized books on the subject such as Taking the Quantum Leap by Fred Alan Wolf or Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm, or articles in Scientific American.  I would imagine that if you’re going to have blind faith in anything, math might be a better object, because as far as I know, they don’t change the rules and there isn’t much controversy there, although I could be wrong because I only got through integrals in calculus and maybe at the higher levels of math there are disputes or changing theories that I don’t know about.

What I can tell you, though, is that I see a fair amount of blind faith on the part of atheists in a field with which I am very familiar, namely medicine.  Those of us who love science are naturally enthusiastic about “evidence-based medicine,” although more often than not, it isn’t.  Rather, at least here with our for-profit medical system, it’s often marketing-based as opposed to evidence-based.  Unfortunately the layperson has very little opportunity to become educated enough to be able to tell the difference.  This is in part due to the information available to the public being limited, on purpose.  Most of the articles on breaking new data are published in association journals such as JAMA and BMJ which require membership in order to read them, and the information eventually trickles down through the popular media in a watered-down form and usually for purposes of marketing.  E.g., The Wall Street Journal, which depends on advertising from the pharmaceutical industry, likes to publish “research” that conveniently coincides with the impending release of a new drug by one of its corporate sponsors, and avoids publishing research supporting alternatives/ competitors, or that raises questions about the safety or efficacy of its sponsors’ products.

Medicine makes an attractive new object of religious zeal, in part because it is already set up that way.  The doctors are the High Priests who hold power over life and death, and guard their secret knowledge from the laypeople.  In addition, medicine offers rituals like mammography and sacraments such as vaccination whereby people can receive from the Priests the blessings of life and health, and ward off the evil spirits of sickness and death.  Believing these procedures and medications to be evidence-based, scientifically-minded people enthusiastically participate in and proselytize these sacraments and harshly criticize anyone who does not share their faith.  Fancying themselves modern-day Grand Inquisitors, some even make it their personal mission to promote medical dogma as unassailable Truth, condemning anyone who dares question any aspect of it as a heretic.  Meanwhile, those of us who actually work in the field know that medicine is constantly evolving and we retain a healthy skepticism, not because we “oppose science,” but rather because of our familiarity with medical science and our awareness of new developments and controversies that we learn about in the course of our occupation.

Recently some of my friends jumped on the bandwagon promoting the pertussis vaccination for everyone, on the mistaken belief that the outbreaks which have been happening were the result of a decline in vaccination rates.  Even people in their 50s went out and got the sacramental shot, confident that in fulfilling this religious duty they were protecting the people around them such as infants or the immunocompromised by helping to increase “herd immunity.”  Unfortunately, their faith was unfounded, as I learned recently during my ongoing study of the latest medical literature which has not yet filtered down into the popular media.  It turns out, vaccination rates were surprisingly high among the populations infected, and the reason for the rise in pertussis cases was that the vaccine was found to wear off more quickly, and be less effective, than was originally hoped.  In addition, and very alarming from a “herd immunity” standpoint, fully vaccinated persons can be asymptomatic carriers of pertussis and unknowingly transmit it to the very people whom they were trying to protect!  While the shot will probably protect you for a few years from getting symptomatic disease, it unfortunately will not prevent you from carrying the disease if you are exposed, and inadvertently passing it along to others.

When I discovered this information, I did share it on Facebook, but I did not engage in any discussions about it with laypeople.  Doing so would have certainly provoked pointless arguments with medical devotees who passionately believe in one of the central doctrines of mainstream medicine, namely, “Vaccines are safe and effective in preventing disease.”  To question that dogma at all, even in a specific case such as pertussis (1) is heresy!  Indeed, when I shared the new information about the pertussis dilemma, I was immediately accused of being an "anti-vaxer."  The fact that simply discussing the well-documented ineffectiveness of one particular vaccine qualifies as "promoting the anti-vax agenda" suggests that medical dogmatism among laypeople is alive and well.  A scientific approach entails being open to new information and examining the data, not immediately rejecting it because it contradicts our existing beliefs.  Meanwhile, the infidels would argue that the pertussis outbreak proves all vaccines are bad and ineffective, which of course it does not.  There are many different kinds of vaccines and the situation is a lot more complex than most people realize.  The discussion is very technical and beyond the scope of this blog, which in any case is not about vaccines, but dogmatism.  I am merely using the pertussis problem as one example of how blind faith in our beliefs about medical science can have undesired consequences.

Those whose skepticism has caused them to leave religion behind should be mindful to ensure that they are not simply replacing one dogma with another, including the dogma that all religious people are ignorant science-deniers.  It is very possible to participate in liberal/progressive religion and enjoy the rituals and pageantry while also being scientific and open-minded.  Reasonable people who understand the difference between science and mythology can work together to create a better society.  My atheist friends, we are right here now, standing with you against fundamentalism.  It is not religion as such that is the source of our ills, but rather, dogmatism of any variety.

*******

(1)  or the oral polio vaccine (which we now know can cause polio and therefore is no longer used in the United States), or the flu vaccine (the effectiveness of which is probably 60% at best).

http://bodysoulblissyoga.blogspot.com/2014/06/another-look-at-religion.html
http://xxx.tau.ac.il/pdf/1402.7332.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24216286
http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/training/documents/2013/ChasDeBolt.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423127
http://www.pediatricnews.com/specialty-focus/vaccines/article/acellular-pertussis-vaccines-dont-prevent-transmission/f48fe16ddc0efa59380cce715eab74ed.html
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article

Contraception, Implantation and "Evidence-Based Medicine"

One of the "interesting" aspects of the Hobby Lobby case is that it is based on the false assertion that the birth control methods in question are "abortifacient."  Apparently this is a widely held belief.  I keep reading comments to the effect that, "Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to pay for abortions," or "Hobby Lobby is fine with covering regular birth control pills, just not the abortifacient ones."  Surprisingly, SCOTUS did not even address the scientific evidence underlying this assumption, but rather, chose to accept Hobby Lobby's "belief" as being sufficient.  But, what does science tell us about the situation?

First of all, the fundies have changed the definition of pregnancy and abortion to include "preventing implantation" as a method of "abortion," which it is not.  According to the standard mainstream medical definition per the AMA and ACOG, pregnancy occurs when a fertilized ovum successfully implants in the uterine lining, an event which happens only about 40% of the time under optimal conditions, about a week after fertilization.  So, contrary to popular belief, even in the absence of contraceptives, most fertilized ova do not result in an established pregnancy and are expelled with the next menses.  The "pro-life" movement, however, insists on equating "pregnancy" with fertilization.  Part of the reason for the confusion is that the word "conception" has been used to refer to both fertilization and pregnancy, allowing the definitions to become blurred in the minds of laypeople.

Secondly, regardless of the definition of pregnancy, and more important to this argument, birth control pills, whether traditional daily pills or "emergency," do not prevent implantation!  I have been unable to find any scientific studies documenting this alleged mode of action of oral contraceptives changing the uterine lining to make it "hostile" to a fertilized ovum.  The NIH specifically states that the mechanism of action of these hormonal agents is to prevent ovulation.  If there was any doubt about this, what finally convinced me was an article published by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists in which they looked at all the available data and concluded that there was absolutely no evidence for it.  This article was extremely thorough and examined the effects of hormonal contraceptives on the menstrual cycle in some depth and in great detail.  These pro-life doctors state in conclusion:  "It is not the purpose of this paper to promote nor to oppose hormone contraception. However, if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient."

So it should be a moot point. Where is everybody getting this crazy idea?  From the FDA labeling, which states on all birth control pills (not just Plan B and other "emergency" pills) "may prevent implantation" although there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim! Everybody has accepted the notion as fact when it is not. So, why is it on the label? Can't we trust the FDA to adhere to "evidence based medicine"?! 

Maybe not.  The FDA does not conduct its own research; rather, it relies on studies conducted and/or funded by the drug companies themselves, which tend to provide results favorable to the desired outcome.  In addition, many of its members have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry which may influence their objectivity. 

My theory is that the label reflects "wishful advertising" in that it was originally hoped by the manufacturers that oral contraceptives might, in fact, work in that manner.  It would have made them more effective and a great selling point!  Back when the FDA approved the original labeling there were no concerns about "abortion" in terms of fertilized ova; that idea is a more recent fabrication by the anti-abortion movement.  The manufacturers of the drugs would need to request that the labeling be changed, which apparently is a tedious and expensive process.  Perhaps they will do so now that prevention of implantation is no longer seen as a desirable feature of the drugs due to the anti-abortion movement's influence in swaying public opinion.

Down the Rabbit Hole

I feel like I’m losing my mind.  Is this America in 2014?  Or, did I somehow end up in a parallel universe, like on the t.v. show “Sliders”?  I’m kind of sick and spinning.  But I have not eaten a mushroom or anything.  In fact I’m quite sober but still feel strangely disoriented.

When I blogged about the Hobby Lobby “religious objection to insurance coverage of contraception” issue back in January I carefully delineated the reasons that it made no sense, both from the standpoint of “religious principles” as well as scientific fact regarding birth control.  I also pointed out, as have many others, the implications for the ability of employers to deny all kinds of medical care based on the “religious” premise.  I thought the case was clearly absurd and I was sure the Supreme Court would agree. 

Apparently I was mistaken.  Today I have learned that not only has the Court decided in Hobby Lobby’s favor, but also, it has sent several other similar cases which were previously decided in the employees’ favor, back to the lower courts for reexamination!  And the cases which the lower courts had previously decided in the employers’ favor were allowed to stand as is.

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, given the SCOTUS decision in 2012 upholding the Citizens United ruling that corporations are persons whose First Amendment right to free speech includes unlimited financial influence over the political process, when it overturned the state of Montana’s restriction on corporate political donations.  And now these corporate persons have religious beliefs as well.

“Corporate personhood” notwithstanding, though, what I find really shocking about the Hobby Lobby decision is that the Court has established a law giving certain “religious beliefs” precedence over scientific fact.  I had said in my previous blog post, “While everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, no matter how peculiar, can the same be said about scientific fact?”  I was very sure that once the Court looked at the facts, Hobby Lobby would have no case.  I was wrong.

As I have discussed previously, Hobby Lobby argued that providing insurance coverage for “abortifacients” such as Plan B, Elle and the IUD violated its deeply held religious belief that human life begins at conception. 

Never mind that there is no basis in scripture or tradition for that belief which only became popular among evangelicals in the 1980s.  Like many “religious beliefs” the fundamentalist idea of a fertilized ovum as a “person” is complete fabrication and inconsistent with the larger Judeo-Christian tradition.  But, that is ok, because it is not the role of the Court to determine the legitimacy of such fictional beliefs or even their internal consistency.

Never mind that the fundamentalists have had to invent a whole new definition of “pregnancy” as beginning at fertilization, in order to claim that preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum is the same as an “abortion.”  This is in contrast to the established medical definition of pregnancy as occurring at implantation and “abortion” as the loss of an embryo after implantation in the womb.

What should have made the above “beliefs” a moot point is that the birth control methods in question do not, in fact, prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum!  While the FDA labeling for some unknown reason states that it “may” prevent implantation, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to substantiate this.  None whatsoever.  Therefore, the Court should have concluded, based on the evidence, that Hobby Lobby’s concerns are unfounded.

Instead, amazingly, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby’s “deeply held religious belief” that such methods are “abortifacient” when in fact they are not.  So, it doesn’t matter if something is factually true or not; as long as a corporate “person” believes it to be true, that’s all you need for a “religious” exemption to the law.

In addition, the Court specifically stated that this ruling applies only to the evangelical Christian corporations’ religious objection to contraception.  Exception to the insurance law does not apply to the beliefs of corporations run by Jehovah’s Witnesses who object to blood transfusions, or Jewish or Muslim corporations objecting to drugs or tissue grafts made from pork, Seventh Day Adventists, Hindus or Jains rejecting any medicines derived from animal products, or Christian Scientists who refuse any medical intervention whatsoever.  Therefore the Court decision is clearly in violation of the First Amendment which forbids establishment of religion, in this case, fundamentalist Christianity, as the law of the land.

As if all of the above were not confusing enough, the FDA labeling of regular oral contraceptives includes the same unsubstantiated statement, “may prevent implantation.”  This is an important point for many fundamentalists who oppose all contraception, but interestingly Hobby Lobby did not object to covering those medications!  And the Court completely failed to question the inconsistency, while today deciding in favor of other fundie corporate “persons” on this very same issue, ruling that they do not have to cover any contraceptives on their insurance plan.

So, in summary, the Supreme Court of the United States has given the religious beliefs of fictional fundie corporate persons, with regard to fictional blastocytic persons being killed by fictional abortifacients, precedence over the rights of actual human female persons to healthcare coverage guaranteed by law.  “When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead…”  This is a bad trip; it can’t last forever, it has to wear off at some point – right?