New Stanek WND column, "Pro-abort donors abandon support of 'ineffective' morning-after pill"

WND%20logo.gif

The idea of being paid to advance the sanctity of life is foreign to most online pro-life citizen journalists and commentators.

Not that being financially reimbursed for providing this work is wrong. Paul in I Timothy 5:18 wrote, "For the Scripture says, 'Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,' and 'The worker deserves his wages.'"

It's just that the lack thereof doesn't keep our writers from performing what they consider a vocation.

But quality online pro-death advocacy would be pretty much nonexistent sans financial reward.

Knowing that behind the advancement of illicit sexual behavior is an industry raking in billions of dollars annually from the sale of contraceptives and abortion makes it too easy to see why online journalistic promotion would be a natural marketing tool.

The Reproductive Health Reality Check blog is but one example of pro-death pay to play, a "campaign," according to the United Nations Foundation, its financial backer "launched in 2006 to harness the power of new media to offer a reality check on the misconceptions about reproductive health... [a] rebuttal arsenal."

Recall that media mogul Ted Turner created UNF in 1997 with a $1 billion pledge.

All this brings us to a remarkable August 21 article in RH Reality Check by Elizabeth Westley, Francine Coeytaux, and Elisa Wells, originally published in the journal, Contraception....

Continue reading my column today, "Pro-abort donors abandon promotion of 'ineffective' morning-after pill," at WorldNetDaily.com.


Comments:

Great article, thanks for sharing a window into their twisted world. To think I once thought that way,"Oh, we're so clever, if we do this, we'll get that result, even if it isn't completely good, it will get a good result in the end." Argh, the simple "the Ends don't justify the means" would have spared me the grief of many bad decisions. But when you're embroiled in sin, you don't see straight. It's as simple as that!

Posted by: Carol Marie at August 26, 2009 3:36 PM


This sounds like another case of "risk compensation," as described in this article explaining why promoting condoms to reduce the incidence of AIDS in Africa has not worked:
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=94504

Posted by: Katie at August 26, 2009 4:30 PM


Wow Jill, good article. So the pro-aborts are happy to have women continue pumping massive amounts of hormones into their bodies, no matter how ineffective and dangerous they may be. Sounds like a really good way to turn millions of dollars in profit, when the MAP pills don't work possibly up to 59% of the time you can have the woman return to your abortuary possibly up to 41% of the time to pay you $300-$500 a pop to make sure you end up with a dead baby. I can hear the cash register ringing, ca-ching, ca-ching. If a woman wants a dead baby they want to make sure she gets one.

Posted by: Prolifer L at August 26, 2009 7:10 PM


Do I read all of this correctly?

Come to PP and get the Pill. Oops, forgot it today so I better get the morning after pill. Darn, it doesn't really work. Now I need a surgical abortion.

What marketing genius at PP. Women, smarten up, they just want your $ (and, of course, a dead baby). Love yourself and your baby!!!

Posted by: Lovethemboth at August 26, 2009 8:08 PM


Thanks very much, Carole Marie and Prolifer... :)

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at August 27, 2009 7:10 AM


Forgive my confusion...

But I believe one of your arguments when discussing contraception with me was "It aborts a pregnancy!"

This is showing that to not be the case. (as I said)

Yet your moral outrage continues.

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Posted by: xalisae at August 27, 2009 7:42 AM


X,

Quote to me where it conclusively proves that the pill is not abortive?

All it's saying is, the morning after pill is ineffective, partially because they have no freaking clue how effective it is when taken correctly, but *mostly* because it's being used IN PLACE OF birth control.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 27, 2009 11:54 AM


It just seems to me that if a blasocyst means to implant, it will do so, regardless of what pills are taken or what activities one engages in. If you really are so adamant about making certain that every. single. blastocyst. implants, you would be just as opposed to sexually active women drinking caffeinated products, participating in certain exercise routines, smoking, or just about anything else that might ALSO cause a blastocyst not to implant as you are about getting rid of oral contraceptives/morning after pills.

Posted by: xalisae at August 27, 2009 4:49 PM


We've been through this and disagree, X, but my point was that this article doesn't change anything about contraception. It just validates that Plan B was being heavily pushed and isn't very effective on a mass scale (because it's being used improperly).

I'm not so insistent about making every.single.blastocyst implant. My issue is that oral contraceptives are a way of pumping hormones into your system whose entire purpose (sometimes the primary, sometimes secondary) is to create in the uterus an inhospitable environment, thereby separating sex from babies.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 27, 2009 5:34 PM


Well, I guess that's the impasse that will never be solved, as I don't think there is anything wrong with one attempting to separate sex from babies. If that's what an adult wants for their sex life, then so be it. I just think that once a woman is pregnant, then a baby is there, and it should be protected by the law.

But as long as no legislation was presented to try and prevent other women from attempting to separate their sexual interactions from babies (not killing the babies once they are already pregnant, as stated earlier), I'm fine to leave you to your feelings and go my merry way with mine. :)

Posted by: xalisae at August 27, 2009 5:45 PM


Well, I said I don't insist every. single. blastocyst implant. People miscarry frequently. I object to purposefully causing the blastocyst to die.

I'm not saying I wouldn't pursue such legislation as would ban HBC... I would be more likely to support the legislation than to pursue it, but as things stand, I think we really need to inform more women, regardless of your stance on contraceptives. People need to know what they're putting in their bodies, and what the long-term effects are.

But, again, we're not going to come to an agreement on this, and I didn't really intend to get into it. I was just pointing out that the article itself doesn't change the facts one smidgen, nor does it in any way invalidate what's been said by those opposed to Plan B. Actually, it validates the arguments against emergency contraceptives.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 27, 2009 6:01 PM


Notice the continued use of the phrase "at the population level". The point of individual choice is boloney. The folks with the $$ want reduced population. When contraception doesn't deliver the effect, they are out of there. Lots of countries that do not allow abortion have seen their total fertility rate fall, but not below the replacement rate. That is the goal. Only countries that have legal abortion are committing suicide. That is why abortion is so important to them and why they especially hate the Pope for opposing population control schemes that the heterodox like Obama love.

Posted by: hippie at August 29, 2009 10:00 PM