by Kelli

On one hand, the depiction of “release to elsewhere” – especially of one of the unqualified babies, who is given a lethal injection and then dropped down a chute — could surely be used as grist for organizations who are deemed pro-life. (Especially given that in real life, abortion foes often use jarring images of fetuses to further their claim that abortion is murder, despite the fact that such images misrepresent the reality of abortion.)

On the other hand, the suggestion that birth control and family planning are necessary in a world of limited resources are in keeping with pro-choice sentiments. Further, the focus on “unqualified” babies who are at least several months old – not on embryos, fetuses, or zygotes (what those on the “pro-life” side often call “life”) – indicates that this “release” is NOT the same thing as abortion. (Thus, the story is much different from the one told by the likes of Rand Paul — the horror at ending a life is not focused on the contents of a pregnant woman’s uterus, but on a functioning, breathing, fully formed human baby.)

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

• Wesley J. Smith says the bioethics community is finally beginning to criticize artificial reproduction techniques like IVF – but not for the reasons you might think:
  

  But now, in the ever more radical Journal of Medical Ethics, Cristina Richie, of Boston College’s Department of Theology, argues that these technologies should be regulated to limit the number of children – called “carbon legacies,” as a means of fighting climate change.

  Smith opines:
  

  I don’t know if Richie coined the term, but it is ridiculous. Children are children, not bundles of carbon producers…. No, grim is the exploitation of surrogates in biological colonialism and the eugenic impetus that has sunk its fangs deep into the heart of the industry. In the face of such human objectification, sorry, I can’t get upset about global warming.

by Kelli

I’m pregnant. I just found out. I’m having an abortion on Saturday at 10 a.m….

I don’t want to have an abortion, which is why I got an IUD — to give myself a 99 percent chance of not having to consider the procedure for a decade, or ever. (Clearly the IUD failed, so I guess I’m the 1 percent.) What I definitely, definitely don’t want, immeasurably more than I don’t want to have an abortion, is to be pregnant or have a child.

So I’m not going to. At least, not right now….

In January 2013 came news that shocked both sides of the abortion debate: Planned Parenthood had determined the term “pro-choice” was no longer helpful and recommended abandoning it.

This news really was titanic. “Pro-choice” was the abortion movement’s self-chosen descriptive term for over 40 years. To abandon it was to abandon an identity, surely unnerving to activists on the street, who found cover and solace in the euphemism.

by Kelli Forty years later, having won most of their early battles, the current “women’s issue” crowd now maintains there’s a war on us that won’t end until we can obtain contraception and abortion without so much as a co-payment even for women who can afford an education at Georgetown, and it must be paid […]

by Carder Imagine how pious I felt when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services demanded that employers pay for employees’ contraception, and the media clued me in to the fact that I was part of an elite squad. The 2 percent. The Catholic Mom Marine Corps. The Barefoot and Pregnant Dream Team. Now […]

by Kelli

• 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.

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

• The Catholic View for Women says “CNN is reporting that, according to a study published in the journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or progesterone-releasing IUD, may be associated with a higher than expected incidence of breast cancer.” The jury still appears to be out on this one, but CVW wonders if women will be given this information of potential risk:
  

  What caught my eye, though, is that levonorgestrel, a hormone that regulates ovulation, is also the used in the Plan B contraceptive, better known as the morning after pill. Millions of American women are now going to receive the IUD and Plan B free, thanks to Obamacare, and most of them will have no idea they could be increasing their risk of breast cancer.

  Is it possible that most women are unaware of the health risks associated with hormonal contraception in general?