The Right seems to have developed a new political tactic: attempting to appear reasonable by pretending they care about things they obviously don’t.
For instance, last week the Family Research Council announced that it was opposing the nomination of Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach to be Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration out of a concern about “women’s health”
Dr. von Eschenbach has shown a history of ignoring any concern for women’s health in exchange for political expediency. Because of actions prior to, and as acting FDA Commissioner, FRC opposes his confirmation and reserves the right to score any vote in favor of his nomination negatively in our annual scorecard.
“Recognizing the importance of the health of women and the role the FDA plays in protecting that health, Family Research Council cannot in good conscience support the confirmation of Dr. von Eschenbach as FDA Commissioner.
Considering that one of FRC’s “core principles” is to oppose a woman’s right to make decisions about her own reproductive health, it is safe to assume that the organization’s opposition to von Eschenbach has little to do with actual concerns about “women’s health.”
Reformed Watergate-felon Chuck Colson tries a similarly misleading argument in berating the people of Kansas for electing an “anti-science,” pro-evolution school board
The headline was positively gleeful. On the website of the left-wing group DefCon this week, we read: “Science Wins the Day in Kansas.”
In fact, just the opposite happened. Science lost in Kansas to zealots who want to keep kids in the dark about the scientific controversy over evolution.
In last week’s school board primary election in Kansas, two conservatives who support teaching the evidence both for and against evolution lost to candidates who oppose such teaching. These losses mean Kansas will now have an anti-science majority: members who want to slam the door on free academic inquiry.
The war over evolution teaching is not about pitting religion against science, as the Darwinist lobby claims; it’s about opposing bad science with better science. If schools will not admit it, you can equip yourself to teach it to your kids at home.
While Colson is a proponent of intelligent design and FRC is anti-choice, they don’t seem to want to defend their positions and have chosen instead to pretend that what they are actually concerned about is “science” and “women’s health.”
Who do they think they are fooling?