http://www.qando.net/

Late in 2001 and early in 2002, America's economic mercantilists (who tend to ascribe domestic economic difficulties to all things foreign) were complaining about cheap foreign steel in the U.S. economy. No sooner had the Bush administration slapped higher tariffs on foreign steel than the mercantilists started spinning sky-is-falling tales about Asians selling computer software and medical technology to Americans at bargain basement prices. The latter spawned a media cottage industry around the term, "outsourcing."

So what's the mercantilists' 2005 cause celébrè? Believe it or not, it's high-priced imports! Oil imports to be specific. Not low-priced imported oil, mind you, but high-priced oil. Apparently, low import prices and high import prices both pack a damaging economic punch, at least for the mercantilists.

You know where the free traders and the protectionists end up with a fatal disconnect? Goals. Free traders value both the freedom implicit in free trade, and the long-term economic progress that comes from the efficiency created by free trade. Protectionists value short term gains and specific interests. And, as in the example above, those short term gains and specific interests need not necessarily be consistent.

In any event, so long as our goals are so disparate, it's going to be hard to convince protectionists of the merits of free trade on the basis of freedom and long-term economic progress.

Divider

David Boaz

"We strongly urge the FDA not to approve silicone gel breast implants," NOW president Kim Gandy told the FDA's scientific advisory panel. When the panel recommended by a 5-4 vote to continue the ban, Gandy called it "a tremendous victory for women's health."

But what about a woman's right to choose? Wasn't NOW founded on the principle of a woman's right to control her own body? When an implant wearer told feminist protesters that "women need choices," Gandy responded, "Choice? The choice is to be sick."

[...]

No drug or medical procedure is without risk. Not abortion, not breast implants, not the morning-after pill. The question is who makes the decision. One answer is "it's a woman's right to control her body." Apparently that's only the feminist answer if the question is abortion.

Got that? The Left is standing in the way of the Freedom of Choice....and large breasts.

This, my friends, is a cause that can unite us across gender lines.

Divider

Radley Balko has what I'd consider the final word on this "activist pharmacist" nonsense that's gotten more fuss than it deserves...

TrackBacks

Return to Main Blog Page

Comments For This Post

Previous Comments to this Post

Comments

Regarding the breast implant ban.....if I remember correctly, didn’t all of the hoopla about the implants making women sick turn out to overblown, along the lines of the alar-apple scare?

Written By: shark
URL: http://

Got that? The Left is standing in the way of the Freedom of Choice....and large breasts.

This, my friends, is a cause that can unite us across gender lines.

best thing that i’ve ever read on this blog, perhaps.

Written By: zach
URL: http://zra.livejournal.com

Response to the Boaz piece:

TO: news@lifenews.com

To the Editor:

Mr. Boaz’s empassionate plea about a woman’s ’choice’ could be quite touching.

However, he is confusing the issue.

The FDA was not given dominion over providing unsafe and unproven ’choices’ to women.
Nor do they have any obligation to provide a selection (choice) of questionable breast enhancements to the public.

Its domain is over ’safety’ ... not choice.

The National Cancer Institute recently added this information to the growing and serious concerns regarding silicone breast implants.

I quote: "when they compared the risks for the implant patients with the general population, they found that the implant patients were two to three times more likely to develop stomach cancer, leukemia, and cancers of the cervix, vulva and brain.
Eleven cases of brain tumors among the implant patients were identified on death certificates as the cause of death compared to one case in the plastic surgery control group."

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/silicone-othercancers

The high percentage of suicides occuring after ruptured breast implants has now been widely reported in the British Medical Journal and others.

How can these facts be ignored or minimized?

There is no ’oops factor’ or ’recall’ if down the road we ’nay sayers’ are indeed correct in our safety concerns. Inamed has already been involved in one fiasco that required removing thousands of soybean filled implants in Britain that had been marketed from the United States.

http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/000918.MBX

And what is the rush?

Every woman post mastectomy already has the ’choice’ of silicone breast implants as do women who are replacing their failed implants. There are on-going studies for those that agree to be followed up and tested later. No promise of "FDA safety approval" are required for these.

The FDA has a duty to maintain it’s ’gold standard’ of safety ... not provide a golden goose for the plastic surgeons and manufacturers.

Please don’t ask the FDA to tell "sweet little lies"—that simply isn’t their job.

Ilena Rosenthal

Director, Humantics Foundation

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

Pro-Choice" Advocates Only Back Choice on Abortion
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1305.html

by David Boaz
April 27, 2005

Written By: Ilena Rosenthal
URL: http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

THere is but one thing the President can do to swing prices down at this point; Establish one standard blend and stick with it. The number of blends refiners are being required to maintain is crazy... this isn’t comodity, this is high priced resturant.

Past that, the added refining capacity will help.

Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com

Response to the Boaz piece:

It seems your response missed the passage in which Boaz wrote "No drug or medical procedure is without risk. Not abortion, not breast implants, not the morning-after pill. The question is who makes the decision. One answer is "it’s a woman’s right to control her body." Apparently that’s only the feminist answer if the question is abortion."

Your response seems to be "but it’s dangerous". Though, I’m not entirely sure where you draw the line between acceptably dangerous and unacceptably dangerous. In any event, it’s interesting that you assert a right to draw the line, rather than allowing women to draw their own line. Very interesting, indeed.

Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net

Don’t state governments have "domain . . . over ’safety’" as well?

Are there not risks connected to abortion?

Is it not true that some women commit suicide following abortions?

How can these facts be ignored or minimized?

There is no ’oops factor’ or ’recall’ if down the road we pro-lifers are indeed correct in our safety concerns. Abortions, once performed, are final.

And what is the rush?

The state governments have a duty to maintain a ’gold standard’ of safety ... not provide a golden goose for the abortionists.

Written By: Crank
URL: http://www.baseballcrank.com

Add Your Comment

	NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
	Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Comment:
	Remember Me

Vicious Capitalism

Buy Dale's Book!