It's about punishment, not compassion

As the presidential race continues to heat up, we're going to hear more and more about the need for unity on major issues. I'm not unsympathetic to that idea, and certainly compromise is a vital part of politics. I like a vibrant marketplace of ideas, and I'm certainly competitive to the extent that I like to win (who doesn't?), but part of sharing a nation (or state or town or street) with other people is making trade-offs. On the other hand, this kind of give-and-take requires good faith on both sides. On some important issues, many conservatives are disingenuous about their positions -- especially when it comes to social conservatism, where too often some policy fig-leaf is used as a cover for the basic desire to punish for perceived social transgressions.

Details after the jump.

Mark Kleinman writes about an amazing drug that can instantly reverse the effects of opiate overdoses. The drug is not addictive, cannot itself be overdosed on, costs less than $10 for an effective dose, and can be easily used by people with no medical training. Naturally, the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy opposes its distribution. The reason is, basically, that if heroin users died less, they'd have less incentive to quit. Seriously, that's the justification! Because so many junkies are super psyched about their addiction -- and would totally stop trying to quit if they thought it was less likely they might drop dead. And really, why should we help people -- by, y'know, allowing them to live -- who choose to do Bad Things when we can show them just how awful they are by helping bring about their death?

Right around the same time I read this, a report came out that women on the birth control pill are dramatically less likely to develop ovarian cancer -- even *decades after* they stop taking it. With the caveat that the pill isn't for everybody, for a variety of reasons, this is a great thing! To the extent that, I would imagine, it might be worth it for some women to take the pill simply for the anti-cancer benefit. But you're crazy if you think social conservatives will suddenly reverse course and promote the use of the pill, because it allows for -- horror of horrors -- sex without pregnancy, another Bad Thing. So some people are would rather women be twice as likely to develop ovarian cancer than even have the *possibility* of sex without pregnancy by virtue of the pill. Compassion, or punishment?

Compromise and unity does not equal progressives caving on these kinds of issues.