really inconvenient.jpgOne chapter in Iain Murray’s recently released book, The really inconvenient truths: seven environmental catastrophes Liberals don’t want you to know about – because they helped cause them, is “The pill as pollutant: and other environmental menaces the Left ignores.”
I’ve written several times (here, here, and here) on the topic of estrogen waste from the birth control pill causing gender-bending fish in our waterways.
Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote a great piece on all this August 1:

… Murray writes: “Why don’t we have more outcries about hormones, and campaigns to save the fish populations? Why aren’t environmentalists lobbying on Capitol Hill to keep these chemicals from being dumped into our rivers?…

“Maybe because the source of these chemicals is not some corporate polluter, but something a little more dear to the Left: human birth-control pills, morning-after pills, and abortion pills.”
The contraceptive pill has fundamentally changed American life, making sex more casual, morals looser, husbands and wives more distant. Its messed with women’s fertility. In short, it has been a game-changer, in some fundamental and not-so-good ways. And because its introduction came 40 years ago, at a time when American culture was enamored with Woodstock, feminism and free love, prescient warnings and cautions – most notably from Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae in the summer of 1968 – went unheeded.
But we may soon have reason to regret our embrace of the little white pill. For the first time, mainstream culture and the left may be forced to take a look at the side effects of oral contraceptives. Never mind the women, of course. Never mind the men and children affected in various emotional and other ways. The fish! Have mercy on the fish!…
Ironically, the environmental groups have long been on the same page as the abortion-industry foot soldiers, embracing anything that assuages fears of overpopulation (no longer a worry, as Western countries, particularly in Europe, face plummeting birth rates)….

chapter 3.jpg

But, Murray writes, “By any standard typically used by environmentalists, the pill is a pollutant. It does the same thing, just worse, as other chemicals they call pollutants.”
So what does that mean for us and the fish? Nothing straight away, Murray tells me. There’s more than pollution at stake here for the left, so, expect “outright denial at there being a problem, obfuscation of the science when strong arguments are presented, attempts to deflect attention onto much rarer and less harmful industrial estrogen, and ad hominem accusations, in this case an allegation of religious zealotry/being in the pay of the ‘very well-funded pro-life industry’ I imagine. The effort will be based on making it unacceptable to bring up the issue in polite conversation, such that anyone who does so will end up stigmatized.”…
With the science out there, Murray argues… “The EPA and FDA (ought) to have the courage to do what their counterparts in the U.K. had the courage to do and label the pill as the pollutant it is.”
Choice needs to be based on information…. When you interfere with a natural process, there are consequences, not all of them good – and you should be mindful of them. It’s not just fish that end up getting hurt.

Right, which leads me to my conspiracy theory.
i love gay boys.jpgIf the pill feminizes male fish, what does it do to male children? It must do something – decrease fertility? feminize boys, i.e., create gays?
I’m sure the Left is not touching this pollutant for all the reasons Lopez and Murray noted.
But could there be an insidious motive for allowing estrogen to remain in the human water system?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...