If life on Earth is
to be sustainable, we will need policies, laws, and rules that
encourage sustainability. That will require a government to enact
those laws and rules, which will mean at least one elect-able
party must value, support, and believe in sustainability. Such a
party should be possible. About two thirds of Americans say they
are concerned about the environment[i].
But that party is certainly not the Republicans (who know what
they believe in, but sustainability is not among those things), or
the Democrats (who seem to have no idea what they believe, and, in
fact, no new ideas at all since affirmative action, busing, and
the ERA). According to the Center for American Progress, 48% of
Catholic voters polled said John Kerry lost because it was “not
clear what he stood for”.[ii]
Most people I talk to say the only reasons John Kerry gave to vote
for him were that he wasn’t George Bush, and he won purple hearts
in Vietnam.
So here is a
proposed platform for the left—ideas, priorities, and concepts
worth working for. Some may be far too “out of the box” to be
well received by heartland American voters now, but some could be
used now, and with time and great effort, a plan like this could
(I hope) displace the conservatives from dominance and put our
nation and world on a much better course. Many of these ideas are
discussed in more detail in Life on a Crowded Planet,
available free from lifeonacrowdedplanet.com.
I hope that, like
the source code for JAVA, this platform will grow and evolve
through the joint contributions and efforts of many concerned
people, and give the left the new intellectual capital it so badly
needs. Here, in more or less descending priority, are proposed
fundamental pillars/general principles for a new left
philosophy:
1)
Sustainability
2)
Multilateral and international-law-based approach to
foreign policy/security/terrorism
3)
Honesty, Integrity, Accountability
4)
Equality under the law, Justice, Equality of Opportunity
5)
Fiscal Responsibility: (this is really an integral part of
Sustainability)
6)
Non-partisan Judiciary: Confirmation of Federal appellate
judges should require a 60% majority of both houses of Congress,
and Supreme Court Justices, a 67% majority. This issue is
important enough to warrant a Constitutional amendment. We
deserve moderate, temperate, thoughtful, fair, reasonable judges,
without strong ideological bias. This rule would ensure that
those people would be the ones nominated and confirmed.
7)
Minimal governmental intrusiveness/smallest government
consistent with achieving other goals. Encourage tolerance of
diversity. Protect rights of minorities.
8)
Encouragement of free market competition on a level,
sustainable playing field.
9)
Optimism-- based on realistic assessment of problems and
active efforts to address them.
10)
Abortion: make it obsolete, and unnecessary except in
rare cases. Eliminate over 90% of abortions while giving women
greater reproductive choice than they have ever had in history.
Promote “Pro-Life” in a much broader sense: enhancing quality of
life and opportunity for all throughout their lives, including
dignity and comfort at the end of life.
11)
Taxes: simple, fair, and based on desired goals[iii]
12)
Modest Tort Reform to address legitimate concerns and
curb abuses, while still protecting consumer, shareholder, and
victim rights.
13)
Health Care Reform to increase efficiency, and reduce the
rise in health care costs.
14)
Gay marriage: work toward better domestic partner laws
to protect minorities from discrimination without overly offending
the majority.
15)
Social Security: make it solvent by decreasing
the percentage everyone pays, and eliminating the ceiling (make it
a less regressive tax). Encourage private savings by making
existing private retirement plan options simpler and larger. (For
example, allow a simple IRA or 401K-like plan with contributions
up to $50,000 per year for anyone.)
Sustainability
What Family
Value is more important than leaving the world for your children
and grandchildren safer and better than you found it? And how can
one do that without focusing on sustainability?
Although sustainability should be a
(or even the) unifying theme of the new left philosophy,
convincing a majority of Americans that sustainability is of major
importance is more difficult because of the failure of previous
dire predictions. The lack of widespread famine by the 1970’s,
for example after Paul Ehrlich’s (and others’) “the sky is
falling” cries, causes all sustainability discussion to fall on
somewhat deafened ears. The solution, I believe, is not more
strident warnings, but rather the opposite: calm reasoned
measured consideration, with no air of pessimism or alarm.[iv]
Then it
should be possible to convince the American public that our
situation is analogous to personal financial preparation for
retirement. You are more likely to end up in a good place if you
are heading in a good direction than a bad direction. If you have
saved and invested well, you may still do poorly due to illness,
or a downturn in investment markets. But you are likely to do
fine, and you have prepared as well as possible. On the other
hand, if you are more in debt every month, the chances of a
prosperous retirement are quite small, and it is not alarmist or
pessimistic to analyze one’s situation and change behavior
accordingly.
And there
are several areas where our behavior may not be sustainable. For
example:
1)
Population: In 2000, the United Nations predicted that
world population will be almost 8 billion by 2025, 9.3 billion by
2050, and stabilize at about 11 billion about 2200.[v]
These predictions are revised and updated regularly based on
available data. (But look at our predicted budget surpluses.)
Besides, how much of population stabilization will be from
increased deaths and how much from fewer births? What will the
environmental, social and economic impact of 8, 10, or 12 billion
people be? What will their (and our and/or our childrens’ and
grandchildrens’) quality of life be like? As far as I can tell,
no one knows.
2)
Energy Use: The reality of fossil-fuel-induced global
warming has not been doubted by serious scientists for some time.
Two recent reports, predicting significant additional warming and
problems for several hundred years even if we could somehow
stabilize emissions immediately, underscore their concerns. And of
course, the costs of dependence of foreign oil go far beyond what
we pay at the pumps.
3)
Other resource use: Lack of environmental costs in the
price we pay for goods and services often lets The Tragedy of the
Commons occur, and makes Adam Smith’s invisible hand blind to the
environmental effects of free market decisions.[vi]
4)
Our Consumer-driven Economic System: Newsweek’s cover
story March 21, 2005 summarized it nicely:
“For 15 years the American economy has
been the engine for the world economy through ever-increasing
trade and current-account deficits. . .Other countries' economies
benefit from sending their goods to eager American buyers, and the
U.S. in turns sends massive amounts of dollars abroad to pay for
those goods. But there are now more dollars than foreigners want
to hold. . .The world economy can't get along without our massive
trade deficits -- and perhaps can't get along with them, either.
Americans' consumption binge is propping up global trade and
employment, but it's also threatening a financial upheaval. . ."
5)
Our reliance on military solutions, our immense
expenditures on weapons, and our willingness to ignore
international laws when necessary “to look out for our interests”
threatens us in many ways.
Conceptually at
least, the solutions to these issues are fairly simple:
1)
Population can be stabilized by incentives.
2)
Renewable energy, primarily wind and solar power, with
hydrogen and fuel cells, could supply all our energy needs.
3)
Including environmental costs in the prices we pay for
goods and services would allow free markets to work their magic.
4)
The shift to a sustainability-focused economy should allow
the creation of many good American jobs. Our technology should
give us some global advantage in those newly burgeoning
industries. Decreased reliance on petroleum should help lessen
our trade imbalance.
5)
Reliance on international laws and international courts,
and a renouncing of Imperialism would allow unprecedented peace,
prosperity, and security.[vii]
Foreign Policy, Security, Terrorism
In spite of
the morass in Iraq, the lack of any WMD, and the precipitous and
profound fall in world opinion of America, polls have consistently
shown a significant majority of Americans still favoring
Republicans on issues of terrorism, homeland security, and
national security.
We need an
entirely different approach to these issues for 2 reasons:
1)
You cannot flank them on the right. It is not surprising
that John Kerry was unable to look “even tougher” than George
Bush.
2) The
current U.S. approach is counterproductive, horribly expensive and
dangerous, and fundamentally conceptually flawed.
The United
States has been in many ways the best and most successful
government in the history of the world. But our success was not
the result of ignoring the rules of law or the rights of
individuals. It did not spring from arrogant and capricious use
of force, or behavior antithetical to our underlying beliefs. Why
then would that type of behavior be an effective way to deal with
an increasingly dangerous world?
(Of course,
any mention of any sub-optimal American behavior brings on
strident charges that progressives “hate America”[viii].
It will be important to point out to these accusers that if a
child behaves in a cruel or dangerous manner, and you gently and
lovingly teach him to behave properly, that in no way implies
hating the child.)
Historical
precedent gives the administration no support for their unilateral
enthusiasm. And in fact, the neoconservatives (or more accurately
neo-imperialists) display an incredible ignorance of and/or
disregard for the lessons of history. How could Max Boot, for
example, think that “Afghanistan and other troubled lands today
cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once
provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith
helmets”[ix]
Is he unaware of the Sepoy revolt? Has he no clue what the Indian
people (who the English truly seem to have believed benefited from
their enlightened administration) really thought of self-confident
Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets?
Oderint dum metuant, (let them
hate us as long as they fear us) was probably never a good idea,
but it seems particularly ill advised in an era when a dirty bomb
built by a small group of terrorists could cause such devastation.[x]
(How does one frighten people who not only hate you, but are eager
to die?)
We could promote a vision, instead, of
our world freed from the brutality, horror, and expense of war.
Where “Right makes Might” rather than the other way around. Where
no person, and no nation are above the law. Where terrorists have
no desire to kill innocent people. Where torture and genocide are
just a sad memory. Where democracy, self-determination, freedom
of religion, human rights, and equal protection under the law are
a reality for all the Earth’s residents. Where our world can
become better and better, and can go on indefinitely. In short,
the world we could create if we treated everyone like we already
treat Americans.
Everyone knows the United Nations is
weak, ineffective, and incapable of decisive action. So was the
United States government under the Articles of Confederation. And
it would have remained so, had the former colonies not agreed to
relinquish part of their sovereignty to allow the Constitution
which has served us so well ever since.
We
could offer a similar Constitution to the world, make
international laws we can agree to follow, and finally, for the
first time in history, make our world a civilized place. We could
offer the best of our governmental system to the world, rather
than trying to force parts of it down their throat. Spreading our
government to a world that welcomes it could be the ultimate in
patriotism.
Why let the
neocons offend and outrage the world with their inept and arrogant
groping attempts to forcefully have their way? America at its
best is an excellent partner, charismatic enough to charm the
world into a permanent partnership and union of unprecedented
peace and prosperity.[xi]
Honesty, Integrity, Accountability
The new left
should adhere to significantly higher ethical standards than
currently demonstrated, and try to hold their opponents to those
higher standards as well.
1)
Strict code of ethics, vigorously enforced.
2)
No Corruption or appearance of corruption. Much stricter
uniformly enforced rules concerning donations and behavior in
return for donations. Do not lie or overstate. Base decisions on
actual scientific evidence. Vigorously expose and refute attempts
to pass off pseudo-science as science.
3)
Keep actions consistent with core beliefs, and for the
benefit of the general public, not the party, donors, etc.
Vigorously expose and publicize actions not consistent with core
beliefs, and/or not in the public interest.
One might
reasonably define corruption as where interested parties give
money to legislators in return for laws that financially benefit
the donors. But increasingly, one might also define our
Congress as where interested parties give money to legislators
in return for laws that financially benefit the donors.[xii]
If one could
somehow suddenly pass a simple anti-corruption law that said
“legislators are not allowed to work or vote for laws that
financially benefit their donors”, imagine the commotion,
disruption, chaos, disarray, and paralysis it would cause. (But
gradual limits on what legislators could do to benefit their
donors might be a very interesting avenue to explore to avoid
constitutional limitations on campaign finance reform.)
For at least
the last decade, the conservatives have claimed the moral high
ground with virtually no opposition from the progressives. This
is particularly surprising considering that a closer look at
conservative behavior, and even their motivation, tells a very
different story. It should not be difficult for the new Left to
show clear moral superiority of both behavior, and philosophy.
This ethics
section is not included as a bland platitude or as a strategy, but
rather as a fundamental and essential part of good government.
Recent administrations have left sufficient room for improvement
to allow a clear differentiation of future from past behavior and
therefore a marketing advantage to voters, but the benefits of
clean government would far outweigh these tactical benefits.
Our goal
should be to be rated the least corrupt nation in the world by
Transparency International. To achieve that goal, we should
emulate and build on the policies of the current leaders of that
ranking. (And no, we should not try to bribe Transparency
International to get top billing, but the fact that the thought
crossed my mind, is perhaps illustrative of the scope of the
problem.)
Equality under the Law, Justice, Equality of
Opportunity
No person,
and no nation should be above the law, and no person or nation
should be discriminated against by the law.
Justice
also requires some equality of opportunity, mainly in the form of
a safe healthy home environment, and excellent education for all.
(Not varying widely with income as now.) School vouchers are not
necessarily a bad idea if they promote competition (among schools)
and choice for families, the schools meet standards of
performance, and if the vouchers are sufficient for low-income
students to attend voucher-accepting schools. (They should not be
a subsidy for middle class students to go to private schools low
income students can still not afford.)
Further
equality of opportunity could come from preferential admission to
institutions of higher education based on family income, rather
than race.
Complete
equality of opportunity (or anything else for that matter) is
impossible. And acquisition of wealth is desirable to promote
work and innovation. However, ongoing increases in disparity of
wealth within society and particularly, the establishment of
hereditarily wealthy and powerful class, is not desirable.[xiii]
Abortion
Few things
have generated more heat and less light than the abortion debate.
The irony is that, for all their differences, it seems there is
common ground both sides could endorse: Make abortion
unnecessary. Make abortion obsolete. Prevent unwanted
pregnancies before conception, rather than after.
If effective
contraception were universally used except when pregnancy was
desired, the vast majority of abortions would be eliminated. And
contraception is not only less controversial than abortion, it is
cheaper and safer as well. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which
is against both abortion and contraception, has long recognized
that some sins are worse than others, and might reasonably
consider contraception the lesser of two evils.
For years
abortion foes have managed to cut off federal funding for family
planning organizations that even mention the possibility of
abortion. Sadly, this has led to millions more, rather
than fewer abortions and many unwanted births.
In late
1995, for example, the U.S. Congress cut the population component
of its foreign-aid budget 35%, which saved the average taxpayer $1
but left 6.9 million developing-country couples unprotected and
resulted in 1.9 million additional unwanted births and 1.6 million
additional abortions.[xiv]
Do you
remember in George Orwell's Animal Farm, how the sheep
would chant "four legs good, two legs bad; four legs good, two
legs bad" over and over, so loudly that there could be no
worthwhile discussion? The Abortion debate has been a lot like
that, with each side shouting at the other.
It is time
for the opponents to get together and say: instead of working to
make abortion illegal (or to keep it legal), let's work
together to eliminate over 90% of all abortions in a few
years. Let's make contraceptive methods that work before
conception (not the abortion pill RU486, or Intrauterine devices)
so widely available, and let’s encourage their use so much, that
women will exercise their right to choose whether to have a child
before they get pregnant.
Let's end
one of the most divisive issues in our country: one which has
generated murders and terrorist bombs; one where for years both
camps have remained entrenched and stalemated in bitter animosity
while each year women continue to have uncounted millions of
unwanted children, and tens of millions of unsafe and
preventable, avoidable abortions.
(This is a step beyond Bill
Clinton’s “safe, legal, and rare” --he didn’t discuss how
to make abortion rare. Hilary is finally getting close, but
doesn’t seem to quite have the courage to say how she plans to
bring the number of abortions to zero. Conservatives are not
bashful about speaking frankly, and it is frustrating to think
John Kerry might be president today had he embraced that concept
and this anti-abortion but pro-choice plan.
Many “pro-life” groups seem
interested in people before they are born and as they die, but are
indifferent to their problems in between. A much broader concept
of pro-life seems more appropriate.
And of
course, if all children born were wanted by their parents, it
would provide immense additional advantages beyond the end of the
Abortion debate.)
Health Care
Rapid
medical advances are presenting unprecedented possibilities and
dilemmas, and costs that can easily consume as much of GNP as we
are willing to spend. Our current “system” is an incredible
spotty haphazard patchwork of good, bad, miraculous and appalling
care, but is most impressive overall for being inefficient and
expensive.
We “can’t
afford” drug rehabilitation, contraception, or prenatal care for a
young addict, for example, but then spend half a million dollars
or more to have her unwanted, unintended, and profoundly premature
infant survive neonatal intensive care, often with lifelong
sequelae which will preclude success in life, and require ongoing
societal costs. What kind of system is that?
When we make
our household budgets, we prioritize: food, shelter, clothing,
etc., in descending urgency. Government should certainly not pay
for all health care. But to the extent is does, the money should
be efficiently spent.
We could rank medical interventions
in descending order, (What medical intervention adds the most
“quality life” years per dollar spent? Probably childhood
vaccinations. What is second?. . .), add projected costs until we
reach the amount we are willing to spend, and that is the care
government would cover for every citizen unable to pay
themselves. Creation of that package could be by a Federal
Reserve Board-like body[xv]
with extremely strict code of ethics and conflict of interest
requirements, insulation from political pressure, etc. Because
(contrary to most free market experience, but for demonstrable
reasons) single payer systems have much lower administrative costs
than private insurance companies, probably Medicare would be
expanded, and pay for that care for everyone, while citizens would
contribute to Medicare according to income.
Private insurance companies, etc.,
could still offer supplemental packages, and HMO’s could contract
to provide basic and other services. Uncovered services could be
paid privately, or by humanitarian organizations, but would not be
a governmental obligation. But here is where it gets tricky.
Now, hospitals, doctors, etc. often provide care without
reimbursement and pass the costs off to others. People are not
used to hearing: “The benefits of this care are not felt to be
worth the cost, and if you want this care you will have to pay for
it yourself.” except from insurance companies. What if a family
without insurance wants blind, deaf, aphasic, demented, bedridden
for years, tube-fed Grandma to continue on dialysis or a
ventilator? So far, the recent end of life fervor does not seem
to have broad public support, but this is certainly an area of
great complexity. Increased use of advanced directives, and a
focus on end of life dignity and comfort, rather than technologic
interventions unlikely to benefit the patient, may actually
provide superior care for the patient and family,[xvi]
while spending health dollars more efficiently.
To not have the U.S. become “nursing
home to the world”, people bringing family members into the U. S.
may need to post a health insurance bond covering their care. I
know almost nothing about immigration law, but have personally
seen ill elderly family members driven to the Emergency Department
and admitted to the hospital, directly from the airport, upon
their arrival to the country.[xvii]
It is also worth mentioning that
improved environmental conditions due to better protection of the
environment should lead to significant reductions in health care
costs for asthma, cancer, etc.
Gay Marriage, Defense of Marriage Laws/Amendment
Our
wonderful and beloved Declaration of Independence tells us it is a
self-evident truth that we are all created equal (or at least that
we white men are). It says we are endowed by our creator with
inalienable rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In
addition, the sixth amendment of the U.S. Constitution promises us
all equal protection under the law. And, there are laws to
prevent discrimination against those with disabilities.
So explain
to me how we can have laws (and are considering a Constitutional
amendment) limiting marriage to "a man and a woman" when hundreds
of thousands of people in the United States are neither. Not
exactly a man, but not exactly a woman either.
We all know
that women have 2 X chromosomes and a preponderance of estrogen
and progesterone. Men have an X and a Y chromosome, and mainly
androgens. But there are also people with XO, XXX, XXY, XXXY,
XXXXY, XYY, and XXYY, chromosomes. What gender are they?
Some people
have had a mutation early in fetal development, and have
“chromosomal mosaic”--more than one cell line in their bodies,
such as X/XX, X/XXX, X/XY, and XY/XXY.
Some people
have XY chromosomes like a male, but the Y is not expressed, so
they appear female. Some people have XX chromosomes like a
female, but appear male because part of the Y chromosome
translocated to the X chromosome. What gender are they?
Some people
have ambiguous genitalia, the result of partial virilization of a
fetus due to too much or too little androgen due to various
problems during fetal development.[xviii]
Doctors and parents of these people generally choose a gender for
them, and genital surgery may be done early in life. But, as
adults, these people are often very unhappy with the choices made
on their behalf. Are they the gender of their chromosomes, the
gender of their hormones, the gender they feel they are, or the
gender assigned to them in infancy?
Who decides
what gender any of these people are? And by what criteria?
There are
literally thousands of things that can and do go wrong in the
sexual differentiation of human beings. Harrison’s Principles
of Internal Medicine Fifteenth Edition describes many of
them--in twelve pages of tiny type.[xix]
And these conditions are not rare. Estimates of incidence of
gender ambiguity vary, but these conditions probably occur about 1
per 1000 births. That means at least several hundred thousand
Americans.
Certainly,
marriage would rank high on many peoples' lists of inalienable
rights, liberties, or ways to pursue happiness. Forget
homosexuals. Even if there were no such thing as homosexuality,
these defense of marriage laws violate the idea of equal
protection and anti-discrimination, for all the thousands of
people who, through absolutely no fault of their own, are of
intermediate or indeterminate gender.
"Oh, don't
worry," proponents of defense of marriage laws might say if they
were being honest. "We won't bother those people. The law is
only meant to apply to homosexuals (the group we don't like, the
group the Bible says are evil)." But then these laws require not
only abandonment of equal protection under the Constitution, and
abandonment of separation of church and state. They also require
that the law then be applied selectively as well.
It is often
said that ignorance is no excuse for the law--that not knowing a
law does not prevent one from having to follow it. But surely,
it must be equally true that ignorance of biology is no excuse for
these laws: ignorance, fear, and hate inspired; misguided,
simplistic, Constitution ignoring, busybody meddling into the
private affairs of people simply trying to live lives of love and
commitment (and have the legal rights all of us who are married
take for granted).
A few additional
thoughts and unintended consequences:
1) Heterosexual
couples are well aware of the “marriage penalty”: if both work,
most pay more federal income taxes married than they would if they
only lived together. Although there is a lot of talk of the
benefits homosexual couples hope to gain from marriage, this cost
to them has largely been left out of the debate. Ironically, the
Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton (which says
that the Federal Government will not recognize gay marriages
allowed elsewhere) spares gay married couples from the increased
income taxes they would otherwise have to pay.
2) The U.S.
Supreme Court recently struck down a Texas law forbidding sodomy.
Therefore all homosexual acts between consenting adults, no matter
how random or casual, no matter how unconventional or offensive to
the general public, no matter how dangerous to personal or public
health, are absolutely constitutionally protected.
On the other
hand, loving committed long-term relationships between people who
happen to be of the same or intermediate gender, are somehow so
heinous and disgusting that they threaten the happiness and
well-being—even the validity and sanctity of the marriage—of
people who have never met them and will never see them. This
degree of intolerance, hypocrisy, logical inconsistency, intrusion
into people’s personal lives, and intentional discrimination is
reminiscent of, and unprecedented since, Jim Crow and
anti-miscegenation laws. How would Jesus vote?
-
-
[1]
NPR, Earth Day 2005.
-
[1]
Ruy Texieros, Opinion Watch, 4/6/05, americanprogress.org.
-
[1]
Life on a Crowded Planet, John A. Uhl,
lifeonacrowdedplanet.com, 2005, pages 124-125 in the paper
version, 114-115 in the website version.
-
[1]
Over the past few years my book, Life on a Crowded Planet,
has evolved to be more optimistic, less alarmist, and should
probably go farther in that direction.
-
[1]
The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, Cambridge
University Press, 2001, page 47.
-
[1]
Life on a Crowded Planet, John A. Uhl,
lifeonacrowdedplanet.com, 2005, pages 46, 110-112 in the paper
version, 47, 111-113 in the website version.
-
[1]
All these solutions are discussed in more detail in
Life on a Crowded Planet.
-
[1]
The Right Nation; John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge,
The Penguin Press, New York 2004, page 278, and 287.
-
[1]
The Right Nation; John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge,
The Penguin Press, New York 2004, page 218.
-
[1]
The Right Nation; John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge,
The Penguin Press, New York 2004, page 390.
-
[1]
Further discussion of this most important topic is in The Biggest
Waste section of Life on a Crowded Planet, pages 133-168 of
the paper version, pages 125-139 of the newer website version.
-
[1]
The Buying of the President 2004, Charles Lewis and the Center for
Public Integrity.
-
[1]
Wealth and Our Commonwealth, William Gates Sr. and Chuck
Collins, Beacon Press, 2002.
-
[1]
International Wildlife March 1999
-
[1]
“An Innovative Proposal for a Health Care Financing System of the
United States”, Glenn E. Austin M.D., and Robert Burnett M.D..
Pediatrics, May 2003, Vol. 111, No. 5.
-
[1]
Managing Pain and End-of-Life Issues, Thomsom American
Health Consultants, 2004.
-
[1]
I don’t know how big a problem this really is. I included it
based on an article I saw years ago in the Wall Street Journal
(but can’t find) and on personal experience.
-
[1]
Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 15th
Edition; “Disorders of sexual differentiation”, pages 2172-2184.
-
[1]
Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 15th
Edition; “Disorders of sexual differentiation”, pages 2172-2184.
