by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

• Jonah Goldberg on Democrats’ dishonesty over Obama’s contraceptive mandate:

  The Obama campaign insists that “if Mitt Romney and a few Republican senators get their way, employers could be making women’s healthcare decisions for them” and require that women seek a permission slip to obtain birth control.

  It’s all so breathtakingly dishonest. Rather than transport us to President Franklin Pierce’s America, never mind Charlemagne’s Europe, the Blunt amendment would send America hurtling back to January 2012. That’s when women were free to buy birth control from their local Ralph’s or Wal-Mart, and religious employers could opt not to subsidize the purchase. What a terrifying time that must have been for America’s women.

• One would think the LA Times’ Jenny Deam would do some cursory research before writing such a puff piece on wannabe abortionist Mila Means. The Wichita Eagle already profiled Means and their story would leave most normal people with the impression that Means is an unreliable individual whose “plans” to open an abortion clinic weren’t very well planned out.

• At First Things, Matthew Cantirino discusses Peter Singer’s (pictured left) reaction to the reception of a recent essay arguing in favor of infanticide:

  Nevertheless, what’s surprising about Singer’s response is not necessarily his position on infanticide (which, at this point, is well known), but the academic insularity it exudes. He appears to be genuinely bothered that a paper arguing there should be no ethical taboo against killing a newborn baby is fomenting “virulence” among the general public. If only the grown-ups who run academic journals were left alone to “discuss it in a serious and well-reasoned manner,” why, the controversy would be practically nonexistent.

• Pro-lifers in Jacksonville won a lawsuit over the city’s ordinance which prevented them from protesting near an abortion clinic because the spot lacked sidewalks.
• I guess this is what counts as research nowadays. The New York Times’ Economix blog is linking to a Brookings Institute paper which claims that if the federal government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on various projects (mass-media campaigns, evidence-based teen pregnancy intervention and expanding access to Medicaid family planning – aka giving free contraceptives to people who aren’t poor) aimed at reducing unplanned pregnancies, the government would save much more money from the decrease in unplanned pregnancies. Of course, the small percentage reductions in unplanned pregnancies are based solely on estimates from the same author in a different paper, and the expanding access to Medicaid family planning insanely estimates that it would reduce unplanned pregnancies by 4.1%.

  Yeah, that’s not happening when only a small percentage of women who experience unplanned pregnancies failed to use contraceptives because of “access” issues. We’re left to believe that a large percentage of the people (who supposedly can’t afford contraception) are going to be eligible, enroll in the plan, and use contraception every time perfectly or decide to use unpopular long-acting contraceptives.