When is "Science" not science?

Apparently, "science" is what a politician makes of it. Lately, science has been the excuse for the most outrageous political decisions ever made in the USA. Perhaps you recall my comment about the clueless media applauding the Obama decision to cancel the G. W. Bush Executive Order regarding embryonic stem cell research. (It "took Bush politics out of science.") Now we have a judicial decision that is justified on equally asinine grounds:

U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ruled in New York that Bush appointees let politics, not science, drive their decision to allow over-the-counter access to the "morning after pill" only to women 18 and older without a prescription. He ruled that the FDA should allow 17-year-olds to get the pill and further required the FDA to look at the possibility that all ages should have access to the pill. How very convenient that "science" makes this a requirement! Just what "science" has to do with it, the judge doesn't say. Nor does he say why the previous rule, which honored the legal distinction between adult and juvenile females, was "unscientific."

Naturally, the Obama Administration reveled in their good fortune. By obeying the judge and otherwise remaining silent, they once again completely avoided their responsibility to provide leadership.

And once again, politicians made "science" a scapegoat for requiring them to do exactly what they wanted to do. "Science" has replaced the ancient excuse that "We are doing God's will."

Dear Mr. & Ms. Politician (and that includes you, Judge Korman.) Science does not make political decisions. Nor does it require a specific political decision. Remember the invention of the atomic bomb? What did "science" tell you to do with it? Or was that a political decision left to you?