Making Things Right

Two articles in the September 15, 2019 edition of the New York Times caught my attention. The first, “Opioid Defendants Seek To Disqualify Judge” took place in Ohio. Defense lawyers representing giant retail pharmacy chains like Walgreens, Walmart, CVS, Rite Aid and drug distributors Cardinal Health, Amerisource Bergen, and McKesson filed briefs claiming that this judge was biased. Apparently the judge made comments about his intention to settle this case and bring relief to local governments and individuals hit hard by this crisis. Further, recent rulings of pre-trial decisions against the defendants were a concern. These defendants wanted the case to be heard by a jury. However, the plaintiffs argued the case should be heard by a judge because the drug industry has created a public nuisance affecting the health and well-being of the county’s citizens.

If the plaintiffs received an award, those monies should go towards research, prevention and treatment. If the defendants win, then the profit-greed motive rules without consequences. As I view it, the pharmaceutical industry, pharmacy chains, drug distributors, physicians and patients all play a part. It’s no surprise that patients seek surgery to reduce or eliminate pain and then become dependent on the addictive qualities of drug use.  Begin a clinical medication monitoring program after surgery reimbursed by the drug and insurance industries in order to effectively combat this man made hazard.

The second “California Puts Abortion Pills in Public Universities” had to do with a bill that would use public donator money to equip and train campus health centers for roughly 75,000 enrolled students in the University of California and California State University system. Of course anti-abortion groups are likely to challenge this legislation if it is signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

A similar bill was introduced in Massachusetts. According to the FDA, medication abortion, established in 2000, accounted for about a third of American abortions. Research studies have shown it to be safe and effective in most cases. The University of Illinois at Chicago utilized this method for about 33,000 students. Up to now, most of the health centers provided gynecology exams and contraception but referred students seeking abortions to outside clinics. This bill would require public universities to provide medication abortion.

As far as public universities in California providing medication abortion with donations, I’m in support. It’s clear that a pregnancy should be an individual decision made by the partners. It’s clear that university age individuals participate in intercourse which is natural. Abstinence is not physiologically or psychologically reasonable nor healthy.

If there is concern regarding the fetus, then the following variables must be in play: 1. The mother should be in a solid relationship that includes a long-term commitment; with an emotionally and mentally healthy partner; be socioeconomically and educationally established; coupled with the strong desire for mothering and child rearing. 2. Having a supportive family environment. 3. Have health care coverage.  These three variables are important for a healthy psychological environment for the well-being of the fetus. Realistically, protect the fetus.

It’s clear that Moses and God realized the nature of man per the 10 Commandments. Thou shall not commit adultery was a moral commandment and made sense morally. There were no commandments regarding legal or non- legal abortion nor regarding the rights of a fetus. Antiabortion groups are misguided, punitive and irrational with their parochial beliefs. If they don’t want an abortion fine. However, keep and separate their prejudice within their own.