|
|
|
|
|
|
by epmaybe
3371 days ago
|
|
|
In this situation, I'm not sure what the functional difference is between causing an outbreak and refusing to prevent one. Let me walk through this (for my own benefit). People get HIV/Hep C from IV drug abuse. Needle exchanges are a way to get infected needles off the street. There was a statewide ban on needle exchange programs. Pence agreed with this sentiment and voted for public health funding cuts (2011). 2013, Pence is governor, and planned parenthood in Scott County shuts down. January 2015, outbreak happened, and cause was identified. April 2015, Pence allowed a temporary needle exchange in Scott County. So this makes me think that, yes, Pence supported things that led to the outbreak. Inaction is still an action, is it not? But at the same time, he changed his mind (after 3 months, but better late than never) once he realized it was no longer gubernatorially (is that a word?) feasible to stick to his position. |
|
|
But people got sick because of drug abuse. He did not create the abuse. Even if I were to accept Pence's responsibility, it in no way negates their responsibility as well.
I can prevent accidental drownings in swimming pools by banning all of them. However, if I decide to lift the ban, inevitably people will drown. Would it be accurate to say I caused drownings to occur?
I can prevent a lot of drug overdoses by making everyone do a blood test before they are allowed to consume drugs (assume we could get instant results), and mandate that drugs can be consumed in only these facilities. If I suddenly decide this is not worth the money and defund the program, there will be more overdoses. Did I cause their deaths?
Saying he caused an outbreak is easy to point out as factually wrong, and anyone who is not of your stance is immediately turned off by it. Any argument based off of it is preaching to the choir.