Skip

Culture of Profit
January 23, 2006 8:18 PM   Subscribe

"Culture of life" vs. Culture of Profit ? Today, by phone, George W. Bush addressed the anti - Roe v. Wade protestors gathered at the Washington D.C. mall : in support of the crowd gathered in expectation that Samuel Alito - if nominated - would vote to overturn Roe. Meanwhile, Mr. Bush's administration is proposing EPA rules that would allow testing of pesticides on pregnant women and children. How very curious.
posted by troutfishing (49 comments total)

 
Image hosting by Photobucket
posted by troutfishing at 8:21 PM on January 23, 2006


Sur-fucking-prise.
posted by papakwanz at 8:23 PM on January 23, 2006


canada's looking good these days. my roommate says there are lots of hot french-canadian girls too.
posted by Doorstop at 8:25 PM on January 23, 2006


See also.
posted by Gator at 8:28 PM on January 23, 2006


"See also" : except for the pesticide story, that is.
posted by troutfishing at 8:32 PM on January 23, 2006


How does a company go about testing pesticides on pregnant women and children? What pregnant woman would allow something like this to be done to herself? And who would grant permission for their children to be tested upon?
posted by soiled cowboy at 8:35 PM on January 23, 2006


"Sur-fucking-prise." - Its OK, really. I get like this occasionally too. Get some rest, eat a good meal : language will come back to you, I guarantee.
posted by troutfishing at 8:35 PM on January 23, 2006


soiled cowboy - I imagine there's a waiver to be signed, and forms....
posted by troutfishing at 8:36 PM on January 23, 2006


where is the link to evidence on the testing of pesticides?
posted by jakeaust at 8:38 PM on January 23, 2006


duh...right in the first post. ignore me.
posted by jakeaust at 8:39 PM on January 23, 2006


troutfishing - Alito has already been nominated... I assume you meant to say "if confirmed".
posted by pruner at 8:39 PM on January 23, 2006


Judge Alito's Radical Views
posted by homunculus at 8:46 PM on January 23, 2006


i just want to know if Bush has any friends who are victims of rape like i do. then i want to know where he feels justified with this bullshit. i also want to know why the average sentence for a first time, non-violent drug offender is longer than the average sentence for rapist.

why don't people even WEIGH the seriousness of a crime when they make these laws any more? why does a rapist who ruins a woman's life by violating her and possibly impregnating her with a child she never wanted get off easier? why is it SUCH a horrible thing for her to be able to abort that pregnancy?

sorry. rant over.
posted by Doorstop at 9:00 PM on January 23, 2006


How does a company go about testing pesticides on pregnant women and children?

It was my understanding that it would be a retrospective (after the fact - they don't inject pesticides and stuff into people, just follow-up on people who've likely have been exposed).

Then again, I'm probably thinking of a different study.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 9:06 PM on January 23, 2006


canada's looking good these days.

We just elected a Conservative Party minority government which is aiming to get rid of gay marriage, re-criminalize marijuana, and develop closer ties with Bush.
posted by nightchrome at 9:34 PM on January 23, 2006


i just want to know if Bush has any friends who are victims of rape like i do.

Um, Doorstop, just to clarify, are you asking whether Bush has friends like you do who are victims of rape, or are you asking whether Bush has friends who are victims of rape like you do? Your comment is a little ambiguous on that. Thanks.
posted by esquire at 9:35 PM on January 23, 2006


Why is Bush so afraid to come out and say that Roe should be overturned?

/answers own question
posted by bardic at 9:45 PM on January 23, 2006


whether Bush has friends like you do who are victims of rape. right. not sure how you could misinterpret that in the context it was in anyway, but glad i could clarify.
posted by Doorstop at 9:45 PM on January 23, 2006


Oh, come on! Frat boys from Ivy League colleges have never raped anybody.
posted by Balisong at 10:31 PM on January 23, 2006


Let the idiots overturn Roe v. Wade. There was good reason why it was established in the first place.
posted by j-urb at 10:36 PM on January 23, 2006


Across the US...Christians instantly cremed in their pants over this news.
posted by Hands of Manos at 11:23 PM on January 23, 2006


soiled cowboy writes "And who would grant permission for their children to be tested upon?"


Very few would.

That's why the plans call for poisoning abandoned, neglected, and retarded children.

The theory being, that since these children cannot consent (the retarded), and don't have parents who can consent (abandoned, neglected, wards of the state), the requirement for consent can therefore be waived.
1. Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns, may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research.
2. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
3. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.
The actual text of the EPA regulation, which when published in the Federal Register, becomes Federal Law (emphasis added):
Sec. 26.408 Requirements for permission by parents or guardians and for assent by children.

(a) In addition to the determinations required under other applicable sections of this subpart, the IRB shall determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing assent. In determining whether children are capable of assenting, the IRB shall take into account the ages, maturity, and psychological state of the children involved. This judgment may be made for all children to be involved in research under a particular protocol, or for each child, as the IRB deems appropriate. If the IRB determines that the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted or that the intervention or procedure involved in the research holds out a prospect of direct benefit that is important to the health or well-being of the children and is available only in the context of the research, the assent of the children is not a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may still waive the assent requirement under circumstances in which consent may be waived in accord with Sec. 26.116(d).
(b) In addition to the determinations required under other applicable sections of this subpart, the IRB shall determine, in accordance with and to the extent that consent is required by Sec. 26.116, that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the permission of each child's parents or guardian. Where parental permission is to be obtained, the IRB may find that the permission of one parent is sufficient for research to be conducted under Sec. 26.404 or Sec. 26.405.
(c) In addition to the provisions for waiver contained in Sec. 26.116, if the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for example, neglected or abused children), it may waive the consent requirements in subpart A of this part and paragraph (b) of this section, provided an appropriate mechanism for protecting the children who will participate as subjects in the research is substituted, and provided further that the waiver is not inconsistent with Federal, State or local law. The choice of an appropriate mechanism would depend upon the nature and purpose of the activities described in the protocol, the risk and anticipated benefit to the research subjects, and their age, maturity, status, and condition.
posted by orthogonality at 11:29 PM on January 23, 2006


if the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for example, neglected or abused children), it may waive the consent requirements

I'm not sure I believe in Hell, but if there is such a place there are spots reserved for the fuckers who wrote that and the scum-sucking asswipes who'll use it.
posted by kosher_jenny at 11:36 PM on January 23, 2006


kosher_jenny writes "here are spots reserved for the fuckers who wrote that"

Yup. Spots as highly paid lobbyists and PR people for the pesticide industry, as soon as the political appointees who wrote the regulations leave "public service".

And while Henry and Lester the crack babies are pumped full of rat poison -- to prove that rat poison is safe to spray around middle-class kids -- these people will be vacationing at a ski resort in Vail and buying second homes in Hamptons.


The only way this stops is if we get angry enough to take back this country. Call up your congressman's local office, and ask them when your Congressman is planning to put a stop to this.

Go to your church or temple, and ask your fellow congregants whether these regulations are consistent with their morality.

Go see your local representative. Go to your city councilman. Point out that under 26.408(c), the waiver can't be inconsistent with State or local law. Insist that they pass local and state laws to prevent this, or you'll actively campaign for their opponents in the next election.


Get angry and get involved.
posted by orthogonality at 11:51 PM on January 23, 2006


This seems entirely consistent. How can we have a program testing poisons on children if the children are never born?
posted by odinsdream at 11:51 PM on January 23, 2006


Go to your church or temple, and ask your fellow congregants whether these regulations are consistent with their morality.

listen, there's a good chance some of those kids would grow up to become, you know, fags. and we all know how God hates them. so, in a way, by poisoning them, Mr. Bush is doing God's work.
posted by matteo at 12:05 AM on January 24, 2006


End abortion now! The children must be saved so we can test pesticides on them!
posted by Jawn at 12:05 AM on January 24, 2006


That's why the plans call for poisoning abandoned, neglected, and retarded children.

Read more carefully. Section 26.420 states clearly and distinctly:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, under no circumstances shall EPA or a person when covered by Sec. 26.101(j) conduct or support research involving intentional dosing of any child."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:22 AM on January 24, 2006


the crowd gathered in expectation that Samuel Alito - if nominated - would vote to overturn Roe.

the crowd gathered in expectation that Samuel Alito - if nominated - would vote to overturn Roe?
posted by quonsar at 4:09 AM on January 24, 2006


ortho: congrats to matteo for pointing out using logic/reason with religious freak is pointless.

May I suggest the following "reasoning"

It's clear GWB secretely hates heterosexual ; it's a well know industry secret, but many pesticides are likely to increase the occourrence of homosexual choice because they are powerful neurotoxics that sometime kill humans, but more often then not alters natural brain chemical balance, leading to increased chance of homosexual choice.

It's evident but to the most hard core idolatres that love their party more then they should love Jesus, that this agenda of altering brain chemicals isn't but an industry excuse to increse profit at damage of morality.

* May be done better, but certainly will fly with zealots
posted by elpapacito at 5:11 AM on January 24, 2006


Why don't they just have abstinence programs for pests?
posted by srboisvert at 5:18 AM on January 24, 2006


We just elected a Conservative Party minority government which is aiming to get rid of gay marriage, re-criminalize marijuana, and develop closer ties with Bush.

Well let's not be so gloomy. The Conservative numbers in parliament are seriously shored up by a number of MPs who are a great deal more liberal than the traditional Conservative base (in Quebec particularly) so if Harper likes being PM he's going to have to tone down the rhetoric. The Conservatives have no natural ally so they will have to bargain if they want to get stuff done. They simply don't have the support to get rid of gay marriage (the 3 opposition parties will not go along), and Harper just doesn't have the support to do any of the things that people fear from the Conservatives.

Also marijuana was never de-criminalized, although the laws regarding it go largely unenforced.
posted by clevershark at 5:21 AM on January 24, 2006


Bush crony and candidate for Ohio governor Ken Blackwell, who, as Secretary of State, hand delivered Ohio and thus the election to W., recently had this to say about abortion:

If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, would you sign a law that would outlaw abortions in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother?

Yes.

Including the life of the mother?

Yes.

(read the whole interview here)

But perhaps it's more important to point out that troutfishing said "nominated" when he meant "confirmed."
posted by Otis at 5:30 AM on January 24, 2006


See, they say that during elections to rally up their base, but how can you picture that (outlawing abortions) actually happening in the US in the 21st century? yes I know, you could say that of a lot of things, and yet they happened, but come on, outlawing would mean what exactly? Is there any country that before legalising abortion actually put women and doctors in jail? It was just left to go on underground.

I don't know, I don't see how anyone is going to be able to outlaw it especially after it's been legalised. They're just using it as an easy, cheap, cynical electoral trick (which is not to say it's not worrying, just that I cannot conceive of the rhetoric actually being put into practice).
posted by funambulist at 6:42 AM on January 24, 2006


I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance. From the link about 'testing pesticides on pregnant women and children':
SUMMARY: EPA proposes and invites public comment on a rulemaking to ban intentional dosing human testing for pesticides when the subjects are pregnant women or children, to formalize and further strengthen existing protections for subjects in human research conducted or supported by EPA, and to extend new protections to adult subjects in intentional dosing human studies for pesticides conducted by others who intend to submit the research to EPA. This proposal, the first of several possible Agency actions, focuses on third-party intentional dosing human studies for pesticides, but invites public comment on alternative approaches with broader scope.

[...]

With respect to human research conducted by EPA (``first-party research'), or by others with EPA's support (``second-party research'), this proposed rule would: (1) Categorically prohibit any intentional dosing studies involving pregnant women or children as subjects; and (2) adopt the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations that provide additional protections to pregnant women and children as subjects of other than intentional dosing studies.
So by "testing pesticides on pregnant women and children" you meant "would ban testing of pesticides on pregnant women and children."

Easy typo to make.
posted by fet at 7:12 AM on January 24, 2006


fet, i did a post a while back on a similar thing--while they say they "categorically prohibit" that stuff, they actually don't, i don't think.

and the head of the EPA is on record as advocating for human guinea pigs
posted by amberglow at 7:43 AM on January 24, 2006


from that link: ...In 2001, the trials considered by the E.P.A. gave paid subjects doses of pesticides 100 to 300 times greater than levels that E.P.A. officials considered safe for the general public. The E.P.A. evaluated three studies that year from Dow Chemicals, Bayer Corporation, and the Gowan Company. The Bayer and Gowan studies were conducted in third-world countries, where volunteers were more readily available, while Dow conducted their study in Nebraska. ...
posted by amberglow at 7:46 AM on January 24, 2006


Why don't they just have abstinence programs for pests?

Yoink!

posted by Gator at 7:48 AM on January 24, 2006


It would still allow observational studies -- ie, checking kids in a town or neighborhood for pesticide levels (from bug bombs and household Raid and so on) and comparing those results to developmental results.

Last time this went around, there was some not-crazy fear that some families who don't use pesticide might start setting off a bug-bomb every week to get their kid into one particular study and thereby receive a small payment. But that's still a whole different planet from rounding up the brown kids or the kids in foster-care to inject with Raid.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:54 AM on January 24, 2006


One might cynically think that Bush et al could use the outcry against the pesticide issue ("Think of the unborn children!") to actually *make* his point about abortions...
posted by occhiblu at 8:11 AM on January 24, 2006


You know, I hope they do overturn Roe v. Wade. I also hope that we amend the Constitution to get rid of the Bill of Rights. I want evangelical Christianity to be the state religion and I want practicing any other religion to be punishable by death. I want Creationism to be taught in school. I want physics and chemistry decried as heresy. I want neighbors to spy on neighbors and I want children to turn in their parents for subversive words and activities. I want endless war on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and the poor. I want habeas corpus and posse comitatus suspended and I want to see camo'd soldiers directing traffic with M-16s. I want regular citizens to tithe to wealthy, untaxed corporations. I want regularly scheduled book burnings and for the government to make all speech - television, raio, newspaper, internet, standing on the street corner - suitable for only for children and always, always patriotic. I want the United States to be a barren wasteland populated by idiots and Morlocks. Then I want us to unleash every nuclear weapon we have on ourselves and on the whole world. I want the sky to burn and the ground to melt. We are a ridiculous, ignoble species that should never have conquered this planet, and we have no business ever leaving it. I beg of you, spacemen, quarantine us, vaporize us, let us never infect the rest of the universe with our insanity.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:30 AM on January 24, 2006


You are one sad old cowboy there Optimus Chyme!

I say we fight the buggers instead, are you with me?
posted by nofundy at 8:57 AM on January 24, 2006


you know, there are days when i feel the same way optimus chyme does. mostly on days ending in "y."
posted by lord_wolf at 9:15 AM on January 24, 2006


I want us to be "liberated".
posted by amberglow at 9:25 AM on January 24, 2006


Optimus, I must say you're ambitious. I'd settle for a lousy 3-km-wide asteroid slamming into the Earth, myself.
posted by alumshubby at 9:26 AM on January 24, 2006


Optimus, I was almost with you right until that "and on the whole world". Hmm. Not cool, that. I suggest an amendment to that part of the programme.

I'm a little biased here though, I admit.
posted by funambulist at 9:40 AM on January 24, 2006


IG Farben, eugenics, Bush - so what’s changed?
posted by Smedleyman at 10:07 AM on January 24, 2006


If you outlaw abortion, you'll have more abandoned and neglected babies to test pesticides on, where is the conflict?
posted by thedward at 1:11 PM on January 24, 2006


Can't say as I blame that sentiment, OC.

It's a little better than that in Canada, and I suspect in most of the world.

The trick is to get rid of religion as a political practice.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:50 PM on January 24, 2006


« Older itune in   |   Nuclear proliferation Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post