Congress Just Doesn't Have Chemistry

In a 229 to 191 vote, mostly led by Republicans, the House of Representative quietly passed the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act on November 18^th, 2014. Currently, the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) ensures that the most pertinent and up to date research is used for all decision making. The bill states that the EPA will not be allowed to exclude individuals from sitting on the SAB board. There are specific qualifications that one must have to hold a position on the SAB board, such as being a well educated and established scientist.

If this bill passes the Senate it would prevent qualified independent scientist from advising the EPA and would allow for those with financial links to corporations to then sit on the advisory panel. Their claim for passing this bill is to gain a wider group of expertise by improving the selection process for the panel however we know that’s not the motive behind this bill. The Union of Concerned Scientists released a statement stating “This proposal will make it nearly impossible for the [SAB] to do the crucial independent evaluations of EPA scientific analyses that enable the agency to protect public health,” the letter added. “This bill opens the door for more corporate influence on the Board, because the bill directly stipulates that experts with financial ties to corporations affected by SAB assessments are ‘not excluded”. President Obama has already stated that he plans to veto the legislation if it reaches the oval office due to the foolish amount of harmful power that it would give to the oil and gas industry.

Although it sounds like this bill has good intentions by “expanding expertise” (or at least the Republicans think so) there’s an ulterior motive here. This is yet another asinine attempt for the powerful to gain more power and increase their bank account at the expense of the public’s health. There’s clearly a conflict of interest and the Senate should think twice before passing this bill. Corporate influenced, money-grubbing business men are not who the EPA needs on the board to ensure the safety of the environment and the public’s health. 

Related Article:

Environmentalists Scientists fret over Republican bills targeting EPA science

It's Your Choice - Not Mine.

Abortions and Planned Parenthood have been a strong topic for sometime now. After reading this article  " Tax Payer Funded Abortions" and the facts listed within, I would have to disagree with the writer. A low income woman should have some sort of assistance for an abortion if needed but also some of the information that is provided to support this article was not correctly expressed.

In this article Margaret Sanger, who is the founder of Planned Parenthood and was awarded Humanists of the year in 1957, was portrayed as a racist. Margaret was a traveling nurse who was working with immigrants in the slums in the early 1900’s. She saw several women die because of self-induced abortions and couldn't fathom the thought of one more, so she sought to change that. 

Margaret contributed to many judicial cases (Griswold v. Connecticut) to legalize contraception in the United States as well as opened the first birth control clinic. She fought long and hard for contraception and safe abortions for women of all races, not just African-Americans. She traveled all over the world to educate women of many nationalities and ethnic backgrounds. 

This statement quoted in the author’s article “Even fewer know that she consistently pushed racist beliefs and is responsible for the intentional placement of many Planned Parenthood facilities in low-income, predominately African-American communities. On a statistical scale she radically lowered the African-American population by making abortions so easily accessible to those communities.”  is somewhat exaggerated . She initially opened clinics in predominantly white neighborhoods. However, shortly after she was asked by leaders within the African American community to collaborate and extend her services to predominantly black neighborhoods. Clinics were then opened to assist with safe abortions and the use of contraceptives just as she first did in the predominantly white neighborhoods. Later the Margaret Sanger Award was established to honor champions of human rights.  In fact, Martin Luther King Jr. was the first recipient of the award in 1966.

Lower income women should have access to assistance if requested. If these low income women don't have the financial means to subsidize an abortion on their own, then they likely don't have the financial capability to support that child after it is born.  This could lead to much greater government assistance down the line if welfare is required to support that child. The Government assisting with 50% of abortion cost, approximately $250.00 (half the cost), is less of a financial impact than supporting that family for 18 years with welfare assistance. However, if women were allowed assistance it should not be treated like an open bar where you just keep going back for more because you can. It would need to be regulated to prevent frequent use and should be utilized as an emergency intervention, as opposed to a frequent measure. If assistance is not available we might as well forget everything that Margaret Sanger fought for. Lower income women will look for unsafe alternatives or “back-alley abortions” because it’s unaffordable, or perhaps even worse, they will bring a child into this world that they are unable to support and care for.

Fortunately, everyone has the right to chose for themselves if they support abortion and it seems obvious that less children in lower income families means less tax payer money going to welfare. It would be different if lower income women were being forced to have an abortion to control welfare spending but they are doing so at their own will. They are deciding to have an abortion, so why not assist them to benefit the system and encourage safe abortion practices.