Archive for the 'Action' Category

Smash Amendment 62

Monday, October 25th, 2010

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States

Imagine this scenario. Anne, a young mother of three small children, recently noted low abdominal discomfort and bloating. She is horrified to learn that she may have ovarian cancer—but even more horrified to learn that the necessary surgery cannot be performed in Colorado.
If Amendment 62 passes it would make removing a diseased ovary illegal. Worse, a doctor who performs such a lifesaving surgery would be punished for murder!
Here is what the proposed Amendment 62 says: “Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term “person” shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”
Anyone who graduated from an eighth grade health class knows that the start of the biological development is the human egg, and that girls are born with all the eggs that their ovaries will ever contain. So removing an ovary (even if diseased) would mean the removal of thousands of “persons”.
A woman whose doctorate is in biochemistry and is loosely associated with Georgetown University wrote this wording. An ethicist against abortion, what she has framed is so poorly defined that the above scenario is possible. A lawyer—or even a physician—could have done better!
This proposed amendment is laughable. It is unclear, it is unsupportable, it is misogyninistic and it would cost the state of Colorado millions of dollars to implement. Only the lawyers would profit if it is passed.
Let’s look at the problem of implementation. The word “person” appears in over 20,000 laws in our state. One current legal definition of “person” is “an autonomous being”. This foolish proposed amendment would certainly change that, since a fetus, embryo or egg are anything but autonomous! Passing the amendment would make major changes in the legal world, and would keep Colorado’s lawyers employed for years trying to figure out the ramifications.
You will remember that just two years ago a similar amendment was put forward. Proposed amendment 48 was a real loser! It lost in all Colorado counties. It lost by a huge margin—73 percent of voters were against it. Why did the Colorado Right to Life people do this again? Apparently they have received a message from God that this is their calling. This is clearly a case of infringement of our constitutional rights when one person’s religion interferes with the ability of another person to seek medical care. The proposed amendment would establish one set of religious beliefs as the law of the state. Doesn’t our Constitution’s Bill of Rights prohibit this?
The supporters of this proposed amendment don’t stop with facts. View their incredible misrepresentation of truth at: youtube.com/user/PersonhoodUSA.
Many of the same people who are against abortion are also against any contraception. They claim, against the judgment of most reputable scientists, that IUDs, emergency contraception and even “the pill” work by causing an abortion. If this crazy amendment were passed, all of these birth control methods might become unavailable in Colorado. Furthermore, miscarriages would have to be investigated (to be sure that the woman hadn’t caused the pregnancy loss intentionally), adding to the parents’ emotional pain.
Oh, what about abortion? There is no provision for cases of rape, incest or when a pregnancy endangers the mother’s life. This proposed amendment would make interrupting a pregnancy illegal—including saving the life of the mother! Even the strict “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” allows interrupting an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, because the pregnancy threatens a woman’s life. This would not be possible under Colorado’s proposed Amendment 62. Aborting a pregnancy for a woman who had been a victim of rape or of incest would also be punished as first-degree murder.
Proposed Amendment 62 is stupid. It is poorly written and therefore would tie up lawyers and the court system. If passed, 62 would endanger women’s health care. It would make it difficult for couples to plan their families, and the already high undesired pregnancy rate would skyrocket.
Please vote in this midterm election. And please vote NO on proposed Amendment 62. To do anything else would be irresponsible!

© Richard Grossman MD, 2010

This article may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.

Take the Next Step

Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

It was an accident. In 1994 I spent a day with the political reporter, Robert Fisk, in Egypt. I had never heard of Fisk before, but the experience changed me.
We were part of a press tour organized by the Egyptian government to look at family planning clinics during the International Conference on Population and Development. Fisk inspired me to become an activist instead of just a doctor.
The tour started in a room crowded with real journalists. Although the Durango Herald provided me with the necessary credentials, I had little idea what a journalist actually did. Fisk told me about his experiences as a war correspondent. He has been in the middle of hostile fire in Bosnia and other hotspots. I remember his stories of reporters with less experience—and less luck—who were caught in crossfire and killed. “It’s a dangerous, lonely life,” he said in a recent interview. If I’m not wrong, Fisk himself has taken a few bullets. He could have been a professor of history, the field of his PhD. “You’ve got to feel the passion,” he exclaimed about his choice of career.
As a man who has experienced war personally, he comments: “War is primarily about the total failure of the human spirit. It is about death. Forget Hollywood.” Although British, Fisk has made his home in Beirut, Lebanon, for over 30 years. He told me that it had been a beautiful city before civil war tore it apart.
The tour showed just what I would expect to find in a developing country. In one women’s clinic I asked (through an interpreter) some of the women in the waiting room if they breastfed their babies. They looked at me as though I was from a different planet! “Of course our babies are breastfed! The Qur’an says that we should nurse for at least seven months.”
Although I had traveled to and practiced medicine in some rudimentary places, this clinic left strong memories. One was a woman arriving for her prenatal visit in beautiful clothes—by oxcart. The posters on the wall were similar to what we might see in this country, except for the Arabic script. There are many differences between our societies other than just the alphabet, however.
The clinic’s doctor spoke excellent English. During her years of service in that clinic she had done an informal survey of female genital mutilation. This cruel procedure is also known as “female circumcision,” and is performed in parts of northern Africa and of the Middle East. Usually a barber or other non-medical person does the cutting using unsterile instruments. The victims are children. FGM can lead to serious infections and even death. Survivors will enjoy sex less and may have serious problems during childbirth due to scarring. The doctor said that, of a hundred women she had asked, 98 had suffered this traumatic maiming.
Fisk put this visit into another perspective. He had been to Egypt many times before and had pushed the frontiers of freedom of speech. On one trip he explored the slums up in the hills surrounding Cairo. This huge city of 17 million people in the metro area has at least a million commuters who venture onto the crowded streets every day. Most commuters live in squalor in the poor areas surrounding the city. Fisk spent a day, he said, documenting people living in those miserable living conditions. Someone evidentially tipped off the officials that a stranger was snooping around, and the police exposed all of his film to the Egyptian sun.
Shortly after this experience in Cairo, I started working less so that I could do other things. Now I have time to write this newspaper column, teach a class at Fort Lewis College and be involved in leading a Quaker environmental group. Many friends in Durango have helped me step into this expanded role.
I now read the Independent of London, Fisk’s paper, online every day. His column on 9/11 reminded me of that accidental day in Egypt and how he inspired me to go beyond the usual role of a physician—to become an activist. The title of that article summarizes his viewpoint: “Nine years, two wars, hundreds of thousands dead – and nothing learnt.”
I am happy that I stepped out of my “comfort zone” sixteen years ago to learn more about family planning in Egypt. In addition, I accidentally learned about the risky life of a war journalist—and was propelled into being more of an activist.

This article may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.

Speak Out on Population

Saturday, February 21st, 2009

Speak Out on Population

© Richard Grossman MD, 2009

“I do not understand why there is very little discussion, or even acknowledgement, that unless the human population on this planet can be limited to a sustainable number, there will be wars and death over food and water.”

I agree with Rick, a fellow Bayfield resident, who wrote the above sentence several months ago in response to one of my articles. Rick started:

“I read your article in the Herald this past weekend and was encouraged to find some recognition that human population growth is the root cause of this planet’s problems. I find it nauseating to read countless articles written by supposed experts proposing band-aid fixes to the increasing numbers of problems we humans face, when in fact, that will only delay the inevitable”.

I feel rewarded to know that there are others who feel the same way as I do. Thank you, Rick, and all of the others who have written or spoken to me in response to Population Matters! articles. I even appreciate hearing from people who do not agree with me. I count as a friend a man I haven’t met, but we communicate respectfully about abortion—a subject about which we have radically different ideas.

I am amazed that people do not make the connection between environmental issues and the human effect on Earth. After all, it is our profligate consumption and our ever-increasing numbers that are causing pollution, loss of species and global climate change—amongst other crises. Fortunately there are people, like Rick, who do “get it”; they understand the relationship, and are willing to do something about it.

Concern about human population became popular after Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb was published in 1968. Shortly afterwards, Zero Population Growth (which espoused reaching a steady state of population) was founded. Interest came to a halt in 1994 when the International Conference on Population and Development shifted the focus from population to “reproductive health.” The assumption was that providing reproductive health care would allow people to have as few children as they wanted.

The other part of that assumption is that economies were improving, and that fertility would decline as peoples’ wellbeing improved. Unfortunately, economic development implies increased consumption, so development is not an unmitigated blessing. Education (especially of girls) is all-around good, since education doesn’t need to increase consumption—but definitely is associated with smaller family size.

There were several reasons that people at ICPD turned away from population and toward RH. This huge conference of the United Nations needed to reach a consensus of the 179 nations attending (including the Holy See or Vatican) and RH was an easier concept for some countries to tolerate than population stabilization. A major reason that limiting population growth went out of favor is the abuses that were perpetrated in its name. In some countries people were coerced to use contraception or to have sterilization operations. China’s one child family policy is famous for being coercive, and there is evidence that some women were even forced to have abortions. We now recognize that the most successful family planning programs are totally voluntary.

So ICPD was a turning point away from concern about population. But how successful has the focus on RH been? In the fifteen years since ICPD the world’s population has increased by more than one billion people and atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from 358 to 386 parts per million. Furthermore, we are now using the resources of about 1.3 planet earths, whereas in 1994 we only used about 10% more than was sustainable. We have not done well! I feel that attention has been distracted from the real issue.

How could this be? Why do people not pay more attention to population? I recommend a short video by a Harvard professor of psychology. Although it focuses on the related issue of global climate change, much of what it says also pertains to population: www.desmogblog.com/dan-gilbert-on-the-psychology-of-global-warming-video.

An additional reason that population is even more taboo than climate may be more important. Population involves the issues of sexuality and contraception that many people—and religions—feel strongly about.

John Feeney, a Colorado journalist, has created the Global Speak Out on Population at http://gpso.wordpress.com/. The goal of GSOP is to bring the issue of human population back into the public’s consciousness. I suggest that you check out the website, and then sign the pledge of support.

Rick, you are correct; human population growth is the root cause of many of this planet’s problems. Thank you for recognizing this!

Published in the Durango Herald 2-09

The article above may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States.