Their position is that until those of us in the pro-life movement can provide solutions to all the problems that an unborn little girl might face in her life, then we have no right to keep them from killing her….
…[T]he abortion lobby has no interest in solving social problems. For them, these issues are nothing more and nothing less than a diversion. Since day one, they have known that abortion cannot defend abortion on its own merits because it has no merits. So the core strategy behind every argument these people make – with no exceptions – has always been to deflect attention somewhere else.

The test allows women to more accurately and easily determine whether their bab[ies have] DS. With 90% of DS babies being aborted, this could lead to a decrease in the number of special needs babies brought to term.

The blog also quotes Newsweek, that if these tests “become common, they could result in more diagnoses, more abortions, a dwindling Down population and a drop in support for families who carry to term.”
Sens. Edward Kennedy and Sam Brownback sponsored a recently passed bill requiring doctors to tell expecting parents about medical care, services, and support available for DS children and their families. Hopefully, this will ease pressure on expectant families to abort.

To the left, birth control is central to the modern project of liberation. Pregnancy and parenthood limit other endeavors, to say the very least. The project of liberating sex from marriage and sex within marriage from reproduction is central to the modern quest for autonomy. The Pill allowed a radical expansion in nonmarital sex, for example, now freed from concern about pregnancy.

Mohler also notes the liberal media’s hypocrisy when discussing the politics involved in the FDA’s decision. He quotes a NY Times editorial:

In a further break from the Bush administration’s ideologically driven policies on birth control, the FDA has agreed to let 17-year-olds get the morning-after emergency contraceptive pills without a doctor’s prescription….

Mohler responds:

Here is a clue – whenever anyone… claims a policy reversal means a break from someone else’s “ideologically driven policies,” it simply means 1 ideology is replacing or modifying another. The NYT is the central media organ of the secular left. It is as ideologically driven as any other sector of this society…. [T]he idea that any serious policy discussion can be free from ideology is a farce. The editors… merely prefer their own ideology to that of the Bush administration, yet they write this editorial as if they have come from their own private planet of ideological purity….
Note references in both editorials and news reports to the claim that evidence proves that young girls “can use the pills safely.” Clearly, the paper means to speak of medical safety. But what about other aspects of these girls’ lives? Is it morally safe? Spiritually safe? Safe to a tender heart?
No, the main issue in the FDA policy is this – safe from parental supervision. The morning-after pill is now a potent symbol of the end of parenthood as we know it.

[Images courtesy of the NZ Herald and the UK‘s DailyMail]