When I wrote last week during the Toronto AIDS Conference about the absence of “pro-life” voices speaking out against HIV/AIDS, I mentioned that many of them had turned their attentions to Plan B. While many of this site’s readers were focused on Toronto, several of those groups were mobilizing to take out Andrew von Eschenbach before he is possibly confirmed by the Senate as FDA Commissioner.

Concerned Women for America is leading the charge, claiming that the “driving force” in “efforts to make the abortion-causing drug available over-the-counter…is none other than the acting FDA Commissioner Von Eschenback” (sic). Family Research Council is on the move too, announcing that they oppose his confirmation on account of his possible compromise with Plan B’s manufacturer in developing a plan for over-the-counter sales – a possibility that most reproductive health advocates believe is by no means guaranteed. (Side-note on FRC’s statement: While they claim to have this strong moral opposition to Plan B, they dismiss Barr Laboratories, the drug’s manufacturer, from bearing any responsibility in the matter. Why? Because they’re a for-profit drug company. Apparently for FRC, morals don’t have to hold sway in the marketplace.) Both groups are inviting supporters to call the White House and Senate and complain about Dr. von Eschenbach’s nomination.

Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink website also comes out in opposition of Plan B, but I found it interesting that they say nothing about Andrew von Eschenbach – they only suggest that FDA be pressured not to permit the change to over-the-counter status for Plan B. You might remember that in the case of President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, James Dobson famously broke rank from his ultra-conservative cohorts and endorsed Ms. Miers.

What is going on here? These groups are using language about Dr. von Eschenbach being a threat to women’s health. The National Review Online said he is unfit for this job on account of his choice to follow politics over science on this issue. If you’ve followed this issue at all over the past two years, you might well feel like you’ve walked into the twilight zone.

This is exactly the same play that this contingent made with Harriet Miers’ nomination and it is telling of the political forces at work in our country. Andrew von Eschenbach is a friend of the Bush family and anyone prone to cry “cronyism” would be right to do so in this case (though he appears to be more equipped for his potential new job than some other nominees). In 2002, he supposedly presented at a technical conference on soft-tissue cancers as head of the National Cancer Institute and one of his slides said only, “We live in a country blessed by God.” He represents precisely the kind of right-wing presence that these groups would usually applaud. A cursory profile of him does not suggest the word “centrist” might apply.

But in this case, as with Harriet Miers, these groups are ready to smear the nominee (and by proxy, their biggest advocate in the White House perhaps ever) on account of a potential act of compromise with “the other side,” which I might add does not look like an objective scientific decision even if it does happen. This is not a movement set to protect women’s health. They are not inclined to value good science over political decisions. They want to build up an extreme right-wing presence in Washington at any cost, and they stand prepared to take out any candidate who fails to perfectly conform to their whims.

For more on Plan B, check out two related articles in our Fact v. Fiction section.

(Minor end-note: Because it was interesting, and because it wasn't likely to get a post all to its own, I thought I would point out another enlightening article from CWA, “iPods Keep Kids from Saying NO.” Why they’ve fingered iPods as the enemy when their study is focused on music with explicit lyrics is beyond me. Perhaps Steve Jobs & Co. are guilty for encouraging such sexy design and engineering?)