by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Ramesh Ponnuru responds to William Saletan’s advice for the pro-life movement:
… Saletan says that if pro-lifers “were to embrace contraception and give it moral sanction,” it would reduce abortion more than any anti-abortion law. I’m highly skeptical. Are people really having sex without contraception because pro-lifers have refrained from proselytizing in favor of contraception?
Come on, Ramesh. Everybody knows that National Right to Life’s lack of a position paper on contraception must be the main cause of unmarried women using birth control sporadically and improperly.
- Pro-lifers testified yesterday against a measure to regulate pro-life pregnancy centers at a NYC Council committee meeting:Council Member Daniel Halloran raised questions about the city government telling a group that it must disclose what it doesn’t provide, suggesting that Planned Parenthood should change its name to indicate that it also plans for nonparenthood.
“I am very concerned that if the government can step in here it can step in other places and do exactly the same thing,” he said.
“It’s very ironic that they have a discrimination policy that allows them to discriminate against pro-life groups,” [Ruth Lobo, the president of Carleton Lifeline] said. “CUSA claims to be representative of all students. As a pro-life student I am not represented by an organization I am forced to pay dues to in my tuition. Either they should create a policy in which students can opt out of fees or get rid of the discrimination policy,” Ms. Lobo said.