Bloodless Coup

not to be difficult, but you do realize that, as with many inappropriate activities by splinter cults, polygamy is illegal, right? shall we criminalize use of accutane, because i'm pretty sure we haven't. i've gotta believe that some mothers who end up with severely damaged children due to the accutane thing would much rather know early and do something about it. even among the scrupulous who know the dangers, accidents happen.

it may be easy but simplicity is usually the only advantage of comparing apples to oranges.

and as a side note, my brother went on accutane years ago, and i remember a great bonding experience in my parents kitchen: my father and i sitting at the table, reading through the list of side effects (the possibility of jaundice symptoms were particularly appalling), and just shaking our heads. effective though it may be, chemo's got nothing on accutane.

Precisely my point. Polygamy and child abuse are illegal, and remain underenforced. The added kicker to that particular cocktail of oppression is the oncoming tsunami of birth defects. Yet little action. On the other hand, the legal and voluntary use of a drug generates mandatory pregnancy tests before they can even get the drug prescribed, and they have to swear to be on two methods of birth control. The idea being, that women are too stupid to know, care, or take precautions in consultation with their doctor? These are the potential birth defects that generate government action. Meanwhile, the young women suffering at the hands of illegal activity run a high (similar? higher?) risk of giving birth to children with severe and fatal defects yet nothing is done.

Gee I wonder if there is any political expediency in establishing circumstances under which lawmakers might be able to monitor the pregnancy of certain women.

you could just as easily blame the trial lawyers for the doctors going along with this routine. seriously. every birth defect, no matter how much the mother is to blame, is a possible suit, and one tremendously sympathetic to a jury, which jacks the level of settlement.

i don't know what the statistics are as to each, but i do know the likelihood of birth defects from consanguinity, while a real issue, is vastly overstated.

there are a lot of underenforced laws. it's worth noting that the people least equipped to raise children with severe defects tend to be the ones most likely not to understand (or to appreciate the gravity of) the restrictions that attend their medications.

So I guess you didn't read the article about Colorado City where 80% of the population is descended from 2 people?

My point is that a flashy case about being able to protect fetuses from women taking drugs can be politically sexy for those politicians supporting further restrictions on women's reproductive rights. They won't get the same payoff from going after Warren Jeffs. Thus, child brides who suffer the same risk as those women taking accutane, but suffer thrice over with child sexual abuse and foced marriage get no attention while adult women who makea rational decision to take a legal drug, get supervision over their reproduction.

That is, as in the case of "if they were interested in preventing abortion they would promote brith control instead of abstinence education" in this case it is also not "about the babies."

all fair points. my only observations are that your explanation is not necessarily exhaustive. it may animate the motives of some while others have different interests. and who's more powerfully behind the actions thereby prompted is complicated to unpack. anti-plaintiff bias in the halls of power is a tremendously powerful and largely unobserved force.

enforcement of the law in the context of bigamy, i agree, is indicated and is insufficient, but the existence of one harm is no reason to ignore the existence of others. people pick their battles -- sometimes for ill and sometimes for good, with those words necessarily meaning different things to different people.

i've often said, and i maintain, that we ought to follow GOP logic to its absurd conclusion in the near term to reveal that absurdity and promote long-term change: so the potentiality of human life is sacrosanct even to the detriment of the mother? okay, bad nutrition? insufficient exercise? too much fish (mercury)? smoking? drinking? all jailable offenses for pregnant mothers. in fact, while we're at it, a mother's failure to move to find the cleanest air she can and to leave any job that in any way impairs her likelihood of carrying her baby healthily to term also should be criminal offenses. obviously, i don't believe this is how things should be, but with a very few exceptions, it's also not how republicans think things should be. but how would they explain that to their "base," the pills that pay the bills?