Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Monday, February 20, 2012

READER'S POST #11 - Sometimes Mercury and Carcinogens are Good for You, I Guess

By: 32slim32

Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took to the floor of the Senate last week and had this to say, “In exchange for extending this middle class tax break, Republicans are insisting, among other things, that we pass an unrelated ideological piece of legislation that will make our water less safe to drink. This would allow mercury and other carcinogens (the never brilliant dunce from Nevada pronounced it wrong by the way) to be put in our water supply. That’s a pretty stark, huh, compromise. We’ll give you a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans if you will let us continue to put things like mercury and arsenic in the water….”

First and unrelated, where does he get 160 million Americans getting a payroll tax break from? According to the most recent “The Employment Situation” there are only 141.6 million Americans employed. Who are the other 18.4 million getting a payroll tax break?

Now, back to the genius from Nevada, if mercury is so bad Mr. Reid, why did you and the majority of Democrats pass the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 in which incandescent light bulbs were to be banned and compact fluorescent light bulbs to take their place, which contain mercury? If mercury is so bad that you would make such comments like above, why would you vote to make it a common fixture in every room of our homes? I believe Congress has de-funded the incandescent bulb ban, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the majority of Democrats voted to force us to have light bulbs containing mercury in every room in our homes. How do we know when mercury is good for us and when it isn’t? Thank God we have Harry Reid and the Democrats to let us know when we should fear monger over it and when we should not be alarmed by a little mercury.

What is a carcinogen? A carcinogen is a substance that is capable of causing cancer in humans or animals.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. The most widely used system for classifying carcinogens comes from the IARC. In the past 30 years, the IARC has evaluated the cancer-causing potential of more than 900 likely candidates, placing them into one of the following groups:

  • Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans
  • Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans
  • Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans
  • Group 3: Unclassifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans
  • Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans

A small list of Group 1 carcinogens includes; arsenic, asbestos, Benzo[a]pyrene  (in cigarette smoke), and oral contraceptives.

Wait. What? Oral contraceptives? I thought they promoted “women’s health”. I believe President Obama said, “"No woman's health should depend on who she is or where she works or how much money she makes." (For the record, I am a little Libertarian in some of my views, I could care less about how many birth control pills a woman takes, how many abortions she has as long as tax payers don’t have to pay for them, or whom you marry. I hate being BS’d though.)

Apparently this is the most pressing issue of our time as it seems to continue to dominate in the mainstream media. Thank goodness we aren’t running trillion dollar deficits or in the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression or paying $3.50 a gallon for gas. Oh wait, we still are.

So carcinogens in our water is bad but if a woman puts them directly in her body via oral contraceptives that somehow promotes “women’s health”. Does smoking cigarettes while on the pill also promote “women’s health”? Are there any other group one carcinogens that promote “women’s health? How about asbestos? Arsenic?

According to Planned Parenthood’s website, birth control pills cost between $15 and $50 per month. Why is it so important to make it free, if it is already fairly cheap? Surely something that promotes all of the great health benefits of birth control pills is worth $0.50 to $1.66 per day to the woman desiring “optimal health”. By the way what are all of the medical benefits of birth control pills? Well, they keep you from getting pregnant, regulate menstrual cycles, help with acne, and increase your risk of getting breast cancer. What a deal.

Where does it end? If birth control should be free, what are next, free boob jobs? Free nose jobs?
Before I get into my abortion rant let me reiterate, I am all for abortions. I just don't want any part of paying for them. My problem with abortions is the way the left changes the language. They say, “I am pro-choice”. No you’re not, you are pro-abortion. The Democrats don’t care about choices when it comes to paying union dues; they hate right-to-work laws. They don’t want you to be able to choose which toilet you put in your house, have to use the low flow toilets. They don’t want you to be able to choose your light bulbs either. The list could go on and on.

My favorite though is, “reproductive rights”. Isn’t that what women in China need? In America, that means the right to have an abortion. Shouldn’t you call it “destructive rights” if you are going to call it something other than abortion rights? It’s not about your right to reproduce; no one is trying to stop that.

Like I said, take all the birth control pills you want and have all the abortions you want, just don’t BS me with your stupid little language tricks. Say it proudly, “I am pro-abortion” or at least say it like it is, “I am single issue pro-choice”. Tell me you are for “abortion rights”; don’t give me this “reproductive rights” horse squeeze.

Why is it Democrats love to tax the bejeezus out of one carcinogen (cigarettes) and want to mandate someone else provide you with another carcinogen (oral contraceptives) for free? What on earth would the left and the White House run media say if Republicans wanted to make carcinogens readily available and free for all? Do these oral contraceptives come with a Surgeon General’s warning?

It almost seems as if we should be saying, “The Democrats want you to get cancer and die”. That’s what they would do.

I can’t wait for the next trivial insignificant election year issue to come up while we completely ignore the sad state of the economy (CBO projects only a 2% growth in GDP), rising unemployment (The CBO also projected the jobless rate would rise to 8.9 percent by the end of 2012, and to 9.2 percent in 2013.), continued trillion dollar plus deficits, and a ballooning national debt.

By the way liberals, where is it in America that you can’t get birth control pills and/or an abortion? The way you guys and the White House run media go on about it you’d think it had been banned. Did a majority of the states recently pass legislation ending the practice of abortion or the distribution of birth control pills and/or devices?

I guess if I were Obama I wouldn’t want to discuss his record either or the Fast and Furious scandal.

One last question, if birth control promotes “women’s health” does that mean pregnancy has been declared a disease or illness?

Disclaimer from The Elephant in the RoomThe article posted above is the work of a blog reader, not an owner of the blog. In promoting an open forum blog, and believing that the passing of information is the reason we exist, we happily post most readers' work with little editing. While the article does appear on our blog, the owners of The Elephant in the Room did not write this article, and posting this article on our blog does not imply endorsement of the ideas and opinions expressed in the article. If you would like us to post your work, check out our Reader's Post page here ( or email us at


  1. I'm not really sure the purpose, argument or history behind his multi-tangential rant.

    1. Merely pointing the hypocrisy and fear mongering tactics of the left. You see, they whine about Mercury and Carcinogens one day, the next they are forcing Mercury on us and wanting to make Carcinogens free for women.

    2. I actually feel as though this is more a statement to the fracturing of our political parties than the hypocrisy.

      No question that both sides have their fair share of hypocrisy on a lot of issues, particularly among specific Congressmen/candidates, but from an overall party standpoint it's more a case of how fragmented they’ve become.

      The fact of the matter is, we have two political parties that are built to represent all the desires, ideals, and morals of 310+ million people. There's no way possible for these two parties to not conflict with themselves (never mind each other) on many, many issues.

      Sure, generally a Democrat will believe and stand for X, Y, and Z. But another person that calls them self a Democrat can just as easily stand for X but be against Y and Z. Even more confusing, is that person may still vote for X-Y-Z just to stay aligned with their party’s agenda. This happens both for the Dems and the Republicans.

      This is especially the case now, where the Democratic party has a growing ‘Occupy’ movement with specific beliefs, and the Republican party has the combined ‘Tea Party’/Libertarian movement. Both cases creating more fracturing inside the party itself than before.

  2. Good morning slim,

    My issue would be primarily with accusing Democrats of being 'anti-choice.' I think you can just as easily frame either side of the political spectrum as being anti-choice, and it comes down more to perspective or picking what to look at than anything.

    I personally see the fact that an overwhelming number of the current GOP has signed a pledge to ‘protect the sanctity of marriage’, including a promise to pass legislation upon winning office by most of the primary candidates, an extreme demonstration of anti-choice. It is 100% fine if your religion says/believe is that gay marriage is a sin, but it is by no means something that the government should be enforcing.

    Likewise, for serving in the military. Sex or gay/straight shouldn’t matter, and shouldn’t dictate whether or not you can serve our country.

    Same applies for the abortion/birth control debate. If it is against your morals/religion/beliefs, no one is forcing you to practice it. But don’t remove that choice from other people.

    The Obama’s Healthcare plan vs Catholics act was blown-up to be much bigger than it actually was. The plan required all employer/company insurance plans to cover the same procedures, so our healthcare industry as a whole had a universal standard for what was covered. This only became an issue when Catholic institutions saw that part of that universal coverage included birth control (as it already does for most insurance plans now), which they did not agree with.

    No question though that these social issues are only distracting from the much more important fiscal issues we’re facing right now, but honestly I can’t say I would blame one side more than the other for that either.

    The birth control carcinogen part is tricky, as believe it or not there are a large number of prescription drugs with carcinogenic properties that are used to treat different illnesses or 'benefit health.' Just about everything has side-effects. Keeping those drugs available and covered isn’t as simple as ‘forcing coverage on cancer-causing medications.’

    Have a good remainder of your day!

  3. The light bulb ban is wrong for many more reasons than the mercury in CFLs.

    Overall US energy savings from incandescent ban are a fraction of 1% on Energy Dept stats and surveys (as referenced with much more relevant alternatives)
    This is a token ban that visibly shows "politicans are doing something", which also satisifies lobbying manufacturers (including GE's Jeffrey Immelt on Obama's economic advisory board).
    Why do manufacturers welcome being told what they can make? ;-)
    The above site has documents and communication copies and references for example Leahy and Brandston who witnessed and documented the bulb ban political process in their 2011 book "I Light Bulb"

    More about the unpublicised deception behind banning light bulbs

    1. Panta - Thank you for stopping by. Interesting insight and citations.

      I'm probably not going to give my opinion on this piece (I'm not terribly educated in birth control or carcinogens) but I wanted to welcome you to our blog. We are big into proof and backing what we say here, and you have done that quite well. Thank you for your input, and we hope to see you again.

  4. Hi Slim,

    Great rant! I thought the very same thing during all this current controversy re: Women's Health vs. The Pill. Fact: Oral contraceptives have been long proven to cause cancer in women.

    As a woman, I had the CHOICE to purchase the pill - or one of the many other devices on the market for the purpose of limiting the size of our family. Pregnancy - nor birth control was even covered by our insurance at that time... These were MY (and my husband's) choices, paid for by us.

    That said, our local health department did - and STILL does - offer exams, devices, and oral contraceptives - at little or no cost to the recipients. These services are FUNDED by our tax dollars.

    Some months ago, We the People had a conversation re: Planned Parenthood - FUNDED by tax dollars. The issue at the time taxpayer funding of abortions. I never thought of myself as Libertarian, but I agree that abortion is legal... it should be a woman's prerogative (note: I did not say RIGHT) to have one if she CHOOSES, as long as I, as a taxpayer, am NOT forced to fund it.

    At that time, the lefties screamed 'women's health' - which included birth control. The matter (I thought) was resolved, taxpayer monies still fund PP. Recipients receive services at little or no cost - (to them)

    Our insurance company now pays for pregnancy AND birth control, and although I no longer have any use for these services, I still fund with my premiums... and should those women develop cancer from usage of the pill - this same insurance will fund their treatments. That's how insurance, paid for by the recipients is SUPPOSED TO WORK.

    The contraceptive mandate that Obama and his ilk are pushing removes ALL responsibility of actions from the recipient... more 'free stuff' that someone else is forced to pay for. This NOT about contraception, it IS about WHO funds it... NOTHING is FREE.

    I'm a smoker - and we've already seen what happened when 'they came for the smokers - and we said nothing'.

    I don't want $10, mercury filled light bulbs - that put out poor lighting!
    I want my toilet to flush the first time!
    I want my bath HOT!
    I want my shower head to get me all the way wet!
    I want to eat what I like!
    I want (need) to travel in excess of 40 miles in my car - before 'recharging'!
    I WILL 'cling to my God and my guns!

    And, I DON'T want to pay for irresponsible or reckless choices made by others! This includes mortgage bailouts for people to remain in homes MUCH nicer than mine... bought KNOWING their incomes COULD NOT possibly pay for their chosen, irresponsible lifestyles.

    I want - demand - the government get out of my life, and get back to ONLY those things the Constitution requires/allows of them. Obama was right on one front - Our Constitution IS restrictive - for a reason! Our Founders had the wisdom and foresight to see this coming!

    Okay... end of rant : )

    1. Dara, I always like your posts. Have you ever considered writing a READERS POST? You always have well thought out responses in your posts.

  5. Good afternoon, 32slim32...

    As I stated earlier, I don't really have much of an opinion on this one... but I will say that in this campaign specifically, I think the GOP should drop the birth control issue and stick to the economy. Birth control affects women; the economy affects all :-)

  6. Good morning LME. If my memory serves me correct, 0bama started all of the birth control issue. The left, the White House run media, and 0bama want to talk about anything BUT the economy. In fact look for 9% unemployment next month. Keep in mind the 0bama regime just threw 1.2 million people off of the unemployment rolls last month to get the rate down to 8.3%.

    1. 32slim32 - Good morning to you, too, sir. Obama might have, but for me personally, I try to avoid issues I don't know that well. I'm not as strong in my social issues as I am in economic ones because my background/education is in economics and these issues matter to me way more than social ones. I would have to research this topic more before I give my official position on them. So I choose to abstain... for now :-)

      And yes, I don't like how so many people are removed from the employment picture (which is bad) and makes the situation look better than it is... which is a lie. All of this is good for no one.

    2. I agree with you LME, I don't really care about the social issues either. As I stated in my post, I hate being BS'd.

      I just hate hearing the Senate majority leader whining about mercury and carcinogens one day and then forcing mercury and carcinogens on us the next. That's all.

      I do disagree with you on, "All of this is good for no one." It's good for 0bama for his ignorant blind little supporters to THINK the U/E rate is getting better. It's no good for the rest of us, that I will agree to.