As we have noted before, First Things seems to be "turning and turning in the widening gyre...".
Now they have this Villanova law professor defending (scroll down to the August 29 commentary) the FDA's decision to allow the over the counter sale of the "Morning After" abortion pill and exempting the Bush Administration of any culpability.
Now they have this Villanova law professor defending (scroll down to the August 29 commentary) the FDA's decision to allow the over the counter sale of the "Morning After" abortion pill and exempting the Bush Administration of any culpability.
The professor's argument goes somewhat like this: since the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act offers no legal basis for denying the approval, the Bush Administration has its hands tied, and, therefore, has to allow for the over-the-counter sale of that drug.
First, if the problem is the statute, why can't Bush propose new legislation that would take care of it?
Second, the Family Research Council, and every other pro-life organization, has given a series of legal and scientific reasons why the "Morning After" pill should not be sold over the counter. Therefore, one cannot simply say that there is no basis to deny the approval.
Third, the professor appears to not to be telling the whole truth when he suggests that President Bush did not like the decision, but merely tolerated it, since the President said the exact opposite:
"I believe that Plan B ought to be -- ought to require a prescription for minors. That's what I believe," he said, adding that he supports "Andy's decisions."
But what is really aggravating, is the professor's implication that St. Thomas More would have understood, and approved of, the Administration allowing for the sale of an abortion drug.
The only parallel between these events and More, "The Man for All Seasons", is the fact that the professor's subservience to the Administration is the stuff that gives life to Richard Rich.
Please, Fr. Neuhaus, get out of the "Public Square"!
