I’m a male-to-female transsexual (probably more information than you need to know, but please bear with me), and I’ve experienced both ends of the spectrum wrt prescription drugs. On the one side, I had an endocrinologist who prescribed Flutamide as an antiandrogen. He was happy enough to write the prescription when he thought it might be a temporary phase I was going to; when he realized I wanted to stick with it, he became quite agitated – and not for medical reasons. Instead, he told me ‘I hope no one finds out what you are doing; I’d hate to go to jail.’

My second endocrinologist was quite the opposite. He was more than happy to collect my $85 for a five-minute office visit so he could write another six month’s works of prescriptions. Interestingly enough, he told me flat out that he’d rely on my advice as to a hormone and antiandrogen regimen, as trans people usually knew more about such matters than he did.

I’ll mention only in passing the horror stories from my support group about office staff who would deliberately sabotage health insurance claims, as they felt that tampering with our bodies like that was morally wrong. And speaking about insurance, don’t get me started on Blue Cross’s policy of denying coverage for anything related to T* care.

I don’t see that my health care needs are met by either paranoia or self-medication, but my options as a T* person are somewhat limited.

You forgot to include a list of all the interview requests Bill Moyers turned down.

You forgot to ask if Glenn donated twenty bucks during the last PBS pledge drive.

"...For Murrow, this latest in a series of concessions to politicians, was a dark omen, and he became obsessed by the trend. The more CBS gave in to politicians, he told both his superiors and his friends, the more the politicians would demand and the more the pressures against the network would build, at the price of the internal integrity of the news department. Eventually, he predicted, two things would happen: the network would treat fewer and fewer controversial subjects, anticipating in advance the complaints against them; and second, it would gradually deal with public affairs in a way that would not disturb existing authority. In both instincts he was prophetic. What particularly disturbed him was how little say the news department now had in making decisions. Instead of traditional definitions of journalistic fairness being the test, the norms were being set by people sensitive to both the government and the marketplace. The company wanted to keep peace even if in journalistic terms this meant backing down; it was now more sensitive to outside pressures than to its own people. The only hope for survival of television news at its best, he insisted, was a rigid adherence to policies of journalistic fairness and excellence which would, in the long run, build genuine public support, and thus scare off marauding politicians..."

CBS: The Power and the Profits

by David Halberstam

The Atlantic Monthly

January 1976

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/197601/cbs-1

About that lollipop comment: my understanding (which I freely admit might be wrong) is that the Supreme Court doesn’t issue rulings by fiat. Instead, they consider cases where arguments are presented based on the laws already passed and and/or actions taken by the government. There are questions of standing and strict limitations on the cases they will consider. So how, exactly, would the ‘lollipop and green-eyed women’ scenario obtain?

For instance, it's a big jump from thinking that the Texas sodomy statute ought to be repealed to believing that there is an actionable constitutional right to sodomy secretly lurking in the penumbras of the Constitution, waiting to be "discovered," in the same sense that there are rights to free speech or freedom to not have troops quartered in your house without invitation.

I’d like to point out that, when the issue is a question of personal freedom and individual rights, the Ninth Ammendment says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Denying someone (or a whole class of someones) the freedom to engage in consensual activities that cause no harm and infringe on no one else’s rights would appear to be a legitimate area of concern for the Supreme Court. I don’t see that there’s something ‘secretly lurking in the penumbras of the Constitution;’ it’s right out there in the sunlight.

Returning to the original point of this thread, I believe there is a difference between the Supreme Court issuing a ruling (however ill advised) after a case has made its way through the court system and a Unitary Executive taking an arbitrary action based on personal desire. An individual Supreme Court justice might be chomping at the bit for an opportunity to rule on warrantless wiretaps, but cannot arbitrarily issue a decree in, say, a patent law case. An unfettered Executive, on the other hand, can take whatever action they please - enforced by the full power of the State - on nothing more than a whim.

But isn't the way to recognize those unspecified rights protected by the Ninth Amendment through legislation rather than by having judges cherry-pick their pet issues based on their own preferences?

Isn't it better to have judges 'cherry-pick their pet issues based on their own preferences' then to have no action taken at all - as long as such action recognizes and protects individual rights?

Another point: I'm arguing (not very skillfully, I'm afraid) in favor of the rights of the individual and for the least government intrusion into our lives. The Unitary Executive supporters want to restrict those same Constitutional rights and increase government intrusion.