Anti-gay "Christians" dodge the facts about psychologists

Lillian Kwon, of the "Christian Post", also makes the false assertion that the American Psychological Association was pressured by "homosexual groups" PFLAG and NGLTF. As a reminder, PFLAG is a heterosexual group (primarily at least, that's the point), and as previously mentioned here, Ex-Gay Watch contacted the APA and was told that not only were they not pressured, but PFLAG only mentioned the idea in a casual meeting, and NGLTF didn't provide an opinion until they were asked for one. That sure doesn't seem like Ms. Kwon's "years of pressure from homosexual groups" to me.

In fact, Ex-Gay Watch quotes an APA representative as saying that their reason for re-examining their policy is that a "growing body of new research has been published on conversion therapy and a number of other medical and mental health professional associations have released new statements and policies on the issue."

Is Minnesota Family Council really Christian?

Winona Daily News publishes about efforts to gain some small amount of decent treatment for gay and lesbian couples in a state that has banned gay marriage. The example given is that a bill is being considered to allow, but not require, local governments to grant health care to the gay and lesbian partners of their gay and lesbian employees. (And you have no idea how much it galls me to use the word "partners".)

“This is the new strategy,” said Chuck Darrell, spokesman for the Minnesota Family Council. “They’ve changed to an incremental approach to gain a little bit here and a little bit there.”

Well duh! That's exactly what they say they're doing, so it's not like it's some big revelation...

Darrell and Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage held a news conference to outline plans to stoke local opposition in the districts of the bill’s, in hopes they’ll withdraw the measure.

Even if they don’t, Gov. Tim Pawlenty is unlikely to sign the bill. He’s been an outspoken opponent of state benefits for same-sex couples, going back to his days as GOP House Majority Leader, and spokesman Brian McClung said Pawlenty’s position hasn’t changed.

Now, let's be clear about this, folks. These people are actively working to try to make sure that law-abiding gay and lesbian Americans can't get health insurance. Is that Christian? Is it Christian to subject someone to living in the constant fear that if anything happens to them they'll be forced into bankruptcy because they can't afford health care? Is it Christian to subject someone to the risk of dying if they come down with a major disease like cancer or a heart condition and can't afford treatment? I don't think so.

And remember, in cities that have enacted "domestic partner" benefits, most people who have used them have been heterosexual, so these people are hurting heterosexual people too.

That's why I think "Minnesota Family Council" and "Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage" (a lie of a name in my opinion since their goal is to prevent people from marrying) are un-christian.

Health Care Nonsense

Star Parker attempts to explain "Why our health-care system is out of control by complaining about vaccinations against HPV:

A few days ago, pharmaceutical giant Merck announced that it was pulling the plug on its nationwide lobbying campaign to get state legislatures to mandate that preteen schoolgirls receive its vaccine, Gardasil. It protects against some strains of HPV that may lead to cervical cancer.

Company officials stopped the campaign because of a nationwide backlash fueled by concerns that it is premature to mandate a new vaccine that has many unresolved questions regarding efficacy and safety; and that, in any event, it should not be mandated because the virus is transmitted through sex and not through casual contact, and that parental rights were being violated.

If it has "many unresolved questions regarding efficacy and safety", why is it not under review by the FDA, which has in fact approved it for use?

What does the mode of transmission have to do with anything? Whether or not to mandate a vaccination is a public health decision, and morality isn't at issue.

And what parental rights are being violated? Is it a violation of parental rights to mandate tetanus shots for children? If so, why isn't Ms. Parker protesting that? If not, how is HPV vaccination any different?

Merck's answers here are simple. Regarding cost, as much as it can charge. In this case, about $400, or about eight times the cost of a measles vaccine.

Yes, $400 is a lot of money for a vaccine. I would hope our governments would negotiate a bulk discount. But that said, I'm sure it's trivial compared to the cost of treating a case of cervical cancer, or worse, compared to the suffering of the grieving family of a woman who dies of it.

Ms. Parker opines about HPV:

Furthermore, the risk of exposure can be reduced to the realm of the remote simply by avoiding sexual promiscuity.

However, this fails to account for the fact that as a sexually transmitted disease, there are two people involved with its transmission. If a woman is monogamous for her entire life, and only ever has sex with her husband, she can still get HPV if he ever had sex with a previous girlfriend or spouse (even once!), or if he cheats on her and doesn't tell her. Does Ms. Parker believe that a woman should get cancer because her husband cheated, or because he had a previous relationship?

Given this picture, anyone who wants to pay Merck $400 and vaccinate a daughter should be free to do so. But, does it make any kind of economic sense for the government to mandate that every girl must be vaccinated, regardless of who she is, how she behaves, who her parents are and what they can afford and prefer?

Yes, it does, because her behavior is only half of the risk factors, and viruses don't care who she is or whether or not her parents can afford a vaccine, and the fact that people are stupid enough to want their daughters to be exposed to additional risk of cancer in the name of their concept of sexual morality is proof enough for me that for a girl's protection she needs the government to intervene to prevent her from dying for her parents' stupidity.

Ms. Parker is trying to make out that government-mandated health care expendatures are what's wrong with our health care system. Yet, according to the National Institute of Health:

Thirty percent of Medicare costs cover care for the sickest 5% of patients, and 70% of overall health care costs cover care for the sickest 10% of the population. Of the $242 billion in Medicare expenditures in 2001, 26%, or $63 billion, was spent during the last 12 months of life, and 14%, or $34 billion, was spent in the last 2 months of life.

So, clearly a much bigger problem than government mandated health expendatures is the fact that we're spending vast amounts of money on people who are about to die anyway. Would it not be better to learn, as a culture and as individuals, to face when death is inevitable and to accept it with dignity, rather than to spend vast sums trying to stay alive only to suffer for a few more days? To save that money, which will do no real good for us in our dying days, to pay for the health care of our descendants?

Ms. Parker opines:

This is what is wrong with our system. And this is the universal health care that Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have in store for us.

No, thanks.

I don't think things like government mandated vaccines are what's wrong with our system, when they're such a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of end-of-life care. Actually, I believe that by exercising bulk purchasing power, the government has the capacity to reduce the costs of our medications and care. And while many people, including Ms. Parker, have tried to make the idea of universal health care seem scary, no one is talking about taking away citizens' rights to purchase health care above and beyond that which is offered by any government program. Finally, I can't imagine how government-provided health care is going to be worse than the "no health care" program that so many Americans have had to suffer with for so many years.

I am a young highly trained white collar computer professional, but in part due to instability in my professional field and in part due to today's corporate culture of laying off valued and productive workers at the slightest economic downturn, I've suffered many periods of unemployment or employment that doesn't include medical insurance and doesn't pay me enough to afford it. I know what it's like to go without medical insurance for years at a time. I know what it's like to live in fear that if I fall down and break an arm I will face economic ruin, or that if I have an asthma attack I may die for lack of treatment I can't afford. Frankly, even a poorly run government-provided medical program would have done me a lot more good than the nothing at all that I had, and I believe the millions of Americans who can't afford any health care will agree.