- American Life League’s Judie Brown discusses the latest idea in birth conrol technology – remote control contraception:
Technology Review says the wireless implant, if approved for safety and efficacy, could make it possible for a woman to turn her birth control on and off at will by using a remote-control device. The implanted chip contains the chemical levonorgestrel—the same ingredient in Plan B One-Step (emergency contraception)….
CBS News states, “The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed funding to a preclinical trial on a user-controlled microchip that can effectively prevent unwanted pregnancies for up to 16 years. The futuristic birth control method could make it to the general market as early as 2018.”
But even some on the Left are concerned that such technology could be used on women against their wills, aiding both eugenicists and sex traffickers.
- Culture Campaign links to articles regarding the University of Chicago’s support of abortion to the extent that they are “the only college in America performing on-campus abortions” and they have also published an abortion guide warning against going to “confus[ing]” pregnancy resource centers (because that might “delay” having an abortion). Matt Lamb of The College Fix writes:
Asked what other resources the university makes available to pregnant students, such as adoption services, the university forwarded links to how a student could acquire birth control or emergency contraception.
- At Ethika Politika, Chrissy Wing points out the paradoxical behavior of women who consume chemical-free, organic, free-range everything – except for their birth control:
This sounds absurd. Yet, it is possibly the most common paradox I have seen. Eat the meat of a cow that has consumed synthetic hormones? No! Take them yourself via a highly concentrated white pill? Yes, please, but I can only wash them down with organic juice. Chemical free.
The recent storm against GMOs are enough to make me think that if birth control didn’t fall within the boundaries of “women’s reproductive rights,” it would have gotten banned long ago.
- Clinic Quotes shares a statement regarding abortion grief – and how those who experience it can’t seem to find help from organizations linked to abortion. From Melinda Tankard Reist’s:
Women often spoke of being unable to get satisfactory help for their grief from clinics or organizations connected with abortion. Karleen said that when she sought help at a women’s counseling clinic in Sydney she was told it was wrong of her to speak badly of her abortion experience. Kara, from Queensland, told of posting her personal abortion story on an Internet discussion of abortion. She was told to “get lost” – her story wasn’t welcome….
If a woman is depressed after an abortion, she is made to feel it’s her own inability to deal with sadness which is the problem. The onus is all on the woman.
- Abstinence Clearinghouse says MTV has released a new reality show called Virgin Territory. The show “follows 15 young adults, ages 18-23, who are all still virgins…. During the course of this series, some of the 15 young adults will lose their virginity. MTV thinks this show will help facilitate conversations among teens about safe sex, but many others believe that the show will only portray virgins as ‘misfits.'”
- Josh Brahm outlines how he chooses to discuss contraception when conversing with pro-choicers:
When I’m on a college campus and asked by a pro-choice person whether I think birth control pills should be illegal, I take a cue from my colleague Steve Wagner at Justice For All, and say:
“As a matter of public policy, I am not opposed to birth control methods that don’t kill anybody.”
Obviously the most important question on the morality of birth control pills is whether or not they actually act as abortifacients. While there is an important theological discussion that can be had on whether or not God wants people to plan their families and whether or not it’s wise to take birth control pills that often have negative side effects like loss of libido, but I’m tabling all of that discussion when talking to pro-choice people.
- At National Review, Michael J. New discusses an article by Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig which suggests that conservatives should help abortion-vulnerable women by increasing their welfare benefits:
… [T]here is not one peer-reviewed study which shows that greater spending on welfare or other social programs reduces the abortion rate. Some analysts point to lower abortion rates in European countries which tend to have more generous public benefits for low-income earners. However, the abortion rate in many of these countries is rising, while the abortion rate in the United States has been falling. Pro-lifers should certainly advertise the excellent work pregnancy resource centers are doing in meeting the needs of many women facing unplanned pregnancies. That said, expanding welfare benefits is a strategy that probably will be less successful than advertised.
[Images via phillips.blogs.com, thewrap.com]