College censorship of factual emergency contraception ads
Click to enlarge….
What’s wrong with that ad?
According to a Pro-Life Wisconsin press release…
Demonstrating that college student newspapers are not always the bastion of free speech they pride themselves on, three newspapers have rejected an educational ad placed by Pro-Life Wisconsin.
Those three newspapers are the Marquette University Tribune, the UW-La Crosse Racquet and the UW-Stout Stoutonia.
The colleges’ response? According to The Badger-Herald:
According to professor William Thorn, chairman of the board for Marquette University Student Media, the advertisements were “a topic of considerable discussion,” reaching up the chain of command to the board….
He added the students had objected to the term “chemical abortion,” though he had been concerned with the “unsubstantiated” medical claim about blood clots.
“The advertising space closed before I could really get the kind of information and resolution I would have needed,” Thorn said.
The UW-La Crosse Racquet editor told the paper it was still undecided, and UW-Stout Stoutonia could not be reached for comment.
I’m no professor, but I found the information of concern to Professor Thorn in about 10 minutes, as you can see on the above right graphic. (click to enlarge).
Professor Thorn may quibble whether a pill that stops a 5-9 day old embryo from attaching to his or her mother’s uterine wall constitutes abortion. However he wants to word it, doesn’t he think women should know so as to make an informed choice?
Meanwhile, UW-Madison’s health services division sponsored a student newspaper ad in 2005 promoting emergency contraception (click to enlarge).
Apparently these schools only want to promote higher learning about ways to have spontaneous promiscuous sex by taking mega-doses of female steroids to hopefully avoid pregnancy but whoops, too bad about contracting STDs, some fatal.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Allow me to go off topic a little. SPRING BREAK…AAAAHHHH! What a nice thought.
Heather, (heh) as always, I agree with you.
Doug
SPRING BREAK…AAAAHHHH! What a nice thought.
Not if you watched True Hollywood Story Investigates: Spring Break Nightmares. It creeped me out.
Dang, that posted 3 times in a row! I rock.
Rather than “promoting” spontaneous promiscuous sex, I think the universities are getting realistic about the fact that it happens, no matter how much money and effort is squandered on “abstinence only” campaigns, and are responding with a better safe than sorry message. Regarding too bad about contracting STDs, I would point out that the body copy begins: “It’s a good idea to use a condom when having sex.” Hardly the stuff of controversy.
I am so grateful to the youth group of my church. They give up their spring breaks every year to go build homes for the poor in Mexico. Storing up treasures that last.
What’s wrong with that ad?
It admonishes the reader to “make smart choices” instead of taking emergency contraception, without defining what “smart choices” means. Then it goes on to bash emergency contraception as a “powerful steroid” (powerful?) that causes “chemical abortion,” without defining what a “chemical abortion” is.
There’s nothing “powerful” about EC. It is very safe, has no long term or serious side-effects, and has never killed anyone. It does not cause blood clots — blood clots can come from long-term birth control pill use, but not one-time EC use.
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecsafe.html
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ec-review.pdf
What’s wrong with this ad? It’s wrong; that’s what’s wrong with it.
It says “Make smart choices the night before”–which I don’t think necessarily implies abstain from sex people.
Better safe than sorry–you could be safe and still wind up sorry. I think that should be included too. If not, that’s wrong too.
Reality, you are correct. I’ve spoken with doctors on this. EC is safe. Better yet, it GREATLY REDUCES the need for abortion. Isn’t that what we’re all fighting for (I speak as a Planned Parenthood volunteer- let the stone throwing begin- I am someone who supports the right to choose but feels that education and preparedness, and of course, abstinence, are the best ways to reduce the need for an abortion)?
Ways to be safe on spring break- don’t get so drunk you lose control, and keep watch over your friends. It’s a huge indecency to women when our friends don’t watch over us when we’re drinking.
Research in recent years indicates that EC does not prevent implantation, so Pro-Life Wisconsin has its facts wrong.
Unfortunately, recent research also indicates that EC doesn’t work very well.
Ahh, let me rephrase. I volunteer at PP, but my ideas cannot be extrapolated to cover the entire organization. I just don’t want to start any unnecessary controversy.
While there is significant evidence that long term use of hormonal birth control can increase the risk of blood clots, there is absolutely NO evidence that one-time use of EC could cause a blood clot.
Jill- the bit you highlighted says if YOU HAVE HAD BLOOD CLOTS, you shouldn’t use it – meaning if you’ve ALREADY had one. That does not = EC causes blood clots.
Also, as it says, EC “MAY” prevent implantation. Whether or not this actually can happen is still up in the air. It is a theory, and the fact that it is just a theory is a FACT – well known in the educated circles of both pro lifers and pro choicers.
Preventing fertilization is NOT a chemical abortion, and to give the impression that is, is a downright lie.
Preventing fertilization is NOT a chemical abortion, and to give the impression that is, is a downright lie.
Welcome to the land of anti-abortion, anti-birth-control zealotry, Amanda, where Jill and her compatriots routinely bend and break silly little things like truth and facts in their crusade to bring us back to the time of suppressed sexuality and back alley abortions. All hail the coat hanger!
This article may clear up some of the incredible confusion on this thread:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650195725,00.html
Jen, I hadn’t heard about that before! madness.
Welcome to the land of pro-abortion, pro-promiscuous sex zealotry, Virginia, where Ray and his compatriots routinely bend and break silly little things like truth and facts in their crusade to bring us back to the practice of Ancient Roman infanticide. All hail Moloch!
That said, the anti-EC ad is kind of dumb. It should be worded better. It’s way too vague, and the use of the word “can” instead of “may” is, as was said, a mistake. Too bad, they didn’t consult me.
John check out the post above if you want Moloch et al.
John L, Holy Crow – Virginia is not going to be the haven of the Antichrist. Anyway, Dude, how’re things?
Doug
Patricia, interesting link. So a doctor says that EC can be an abortifacient? You know what that means, right? It means he’s a traitor to his profession! He’s a liar! He just wants women to be in chains, so he’s making up stuff to help the evil anti-choice movement! Quick, somebody dig up some dirt on this guy. I bet he’s a CHRISTIAN. I bet he GOES TO CHURCH. What a FRAUD! Discredit him, DISCREDIT HIM!
Ahem. That’s how pro-abortion argumentation works, right?
Of course not; Chicago is the haven of the Antichrist. That’s where Obama lives, right?
John, I am currently working in East Chicago, IN, and from all that I can see, Obama is in no way the “Antichrist.” I mean, really….
Of course Obama is not the Antichrist! I was just joking.
Obama is just a silver-tongued politician who has legions of followers who can’t explain why they like him, they just do… plus he wants to change the world through political policies. Hmm. No… I don’t see why anybody would confuse someone like that with the Antichrist.
Yeah, John, it’s those damn Christians (I mean Catholics) again.
They just don’t want women to have control over their bodies. Forced pregnancy and fetii and all that stuff….
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/sep/06090701.html
“Yeah, John, it’s those damn Christians (I mean Catholics) again. They just don’t want women to have control over their bodies. Forced pregnancy and fetii and all that stuff….”
Is she “in control of her body” as she is undoing her bra or pulling her pants down around her ankles?
Unless she has been forcibly raped, a woman is pregnant only because she, while in complete “control of her body” did certain things that she chose to do.
Putting the gun to your head and pulling the trigger is, golly! kinda sorta like saying “I shot myself”.
Again, excepting forcible rape, all pregnant women are pregnant because they chose thusly.
Welcome to the land of anti-abortion, anti-birth-control zealotry, Amanda, where Jill and her compatriots routinely bend and break silly little things like truth and facts in their crusade to bring us back to the time of suppressed sexuality and back alley abortions. All hail the coat hanger!
Posted by: Ray at March 13, 2008 3:49 PM
Ray,
How contradictory that you accuse the pro-life side of bending the truth and facts just to end your tirade with All hail the coat hanger?
I believe the coat hanger lie has been hanging around way too long. (No pun intended)
It your side who have lied to women telling them that “it’s just a blob of tissue”
It is your side that lied about how many women died from illegal abortions just to advance your agenda.
It is your side that continues to tell women there is no such thing as PAS and won’t help women who cry for help.
It is your side that touts confidentiality and throws medical records in a dumpster.
It is your side that won’t allow women to view ultrasounds.
It is your side that continues to lie blind yourselves from the truth when women die from abortion.
It is your side that protects abortionists who have been caught with filthy, dirty unsanitary offices with no running water and unlicensed quacks posing as real drs.
It is your side that covered up a live birth abortion and threw the baby on the roof in a bag of bleach to let it suffer and die.
It is your side that skews ultrasounds to make it look like a baby is not past the legal gestational stage of abortion.
It is your side that has handed out low dose birth control to women knowing it will fail and women will come back to seek abortion.
Do I need to continue???
Beginning to look like what’s been happening in Canada, at the various universities – such as Carleton. They shut down the debate because “rights” cannot be debated. (And they already know the truth… how omniscient!)
And given the latest info regarding how the chemistry makes it’s way into the water supply…for some reason I keep hearing that Dave Matthew’s song “Don’t drink the water…”
Reality:
It admonishes the reader to “make smart choices” instead of taking emergency contraception, without defining what “smart choices” means.
I thought this was the FUNNIEST comment coming from an abortion supporter, who, as most pro-abortionists, always disguises the word “abortion” with that vague term “choice”.
Thank you for the laugh. It helped brighten my day!
Sandy, 8:13 GREAT post!
Kirby L. Wallace @ 7:44 p.m.
Again, excepting forcible rape, all pregnant women are pregnant because they chose thusly.
*****
Yeah, you can say that, but it’s also true of people who do any number of things in life and then want to change course or fix things. All women who have had abortions, excepting ones where they would be “forcible,” did so because they chose thusly.
Sandy @ 8:13 p.m.
It is your side that covered up a live birth abortion and threw the baby on the roof in a bag of bleach to let it suffer and die.
*****
Now that’s just crazy. It’s not “Ray’s side” or anybody’s “side” that does that. Yes, that is a horrible thing, but you could point to individual acts by pro-lifers too. Proves nothing in the big picture.
PTG,
It was people in the abortion industry that threw the baby in the roof….YOU guys support the abortion industry, right? Then, it’s YOUR side!
Are you ashamed to state that you support abortion?
PTG,
It was people in the abortion industry that threw the baby in the roof….YOU guys support the abortion industry, right? Then, it’s YOUR side!
Are you ashamed to state that you support abortion?
Posted by: RSD at March 14, 2008 1:44 PM
Thank you RSD!
Where is NARAL and PP and all of the PCers on this issue? I found no published statements from any Pc organization that speaks out against this dispicable act.
Just like all of the other issues listed, PCers are no where in sight when this stuff went on.
If you don’t speak out against it, you support it.
Sandy, born babies really are not the issue. Not much disagreement there, if any.
Doug
Sandy, born babies really are not the issue. Not much disagreement there, if any.
Doug
Oh I soooo beg to differ.
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/msm_ignoring_ob.html
Sandy, born babies really are not the issue. Not much disagreement there, if any.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at March 14, 2008 2:45 PM
Thanks Bethany!
Doug,
It is a big issue Doug, Why do you think Jill started this blog?
And to my point. Where are all the PC groups who should be outraged that the woman who threw the live baby in a bag of bleach and then onto a roof to die was running a abortion clinic with quacks who weren’t even licensed to be committing abortions????????
NOWHERE NOWHERE NOWHERE!!!!!!
Doug,
I really get exhausted at the lengths you go to try and justify this industry and the dispicable acts they commit through your endless debates that just go in circles and circles and circles.
I work for a CareNet pregnancy center and we no longer carry Plan B info that refers to it being abortifacient. There are many a pro-lifer (pres. of ACOG and even the guys at Life Training Institute) who agree that Plan B is not an abortifacient (the wording on their own labeling is more of a CYA deal than science). I think their ad would have been better if they mentioned study after study that shows that Plan B does absolutely NOTHING to change rates of pregnancy. You might as well flush your $20-$40 down the toilet. The LTI-Blog has all the research on this. Some readers may want to check it out.
Sandy, born babies really are not the issue. Not much disagreement there, if any.
Bethany: Oh I soooo beg to differ.
What do you think was there? Iit’s not like Obama is actually saying he wants born babies to be killed after enduring grievous suffering. I’m curious as to what his objections to the laws were.
Sandy: It is a big issue Doug, Why do you think Jill started this blog?
I think for expressing her opinion against abortion, not specifically about born babies. It’s not really much of an issue, if any, and the topics reflect that.
……
And to my point. Where are all the PC groups who should be outraged that the woman who threw the live baby in a bag of bleach and then onto a roof to die was running a abortion clinic with quacks who weren’t even licensed to be committing abortions?
Why do you think people aren’t outraged? Agreed that that’s nasty. I don’t want that baby treated like that, whether it was that woman, or the butcher, the baker, the Bishop of Palermo, etc.
……
NOWHERE NOWHERE NOWHERE!!!!!!
Rant alert. There are any number of things one can be “outraged” at, occurring every day. I suggest that you also know darn well that Obama does not want babies put in bags with bleach. Neither is there “a side” that does so.
……
Doug, I really get exhausted at the lengths you go to try and justify this industry and the dispicable acts they commit through your endless debates that just go in circles and circles and circles.
Well, I imagine it’s tough work generalizing from the particular and pretending that what you feel is “lack of outrage” equates to supporting something.
Sandy: It is a big issue Doug, Why do you think Jill started this blog?
I think for expressing her opinion against abortion, not specifically about born babies. It’s not really much of an issue, if any, and the topics reflect that.
Doug, listen to me very clearly here. The BORN baby is what drove Jill into the abortion fight!
She was not involved in the abortion battle until she held that BORN baby in her arms. That BORN baby that was delivered, and left to die.
That baby that was targeted and killed because he had Down’s Syndrome. That BORN baby who wasn’t good enough for his family.
THAT is what drove Jill to the abortion issue.
BORN babies have everything to do with why Jill started the abortion fight!
What do you think was there? Iit’s not like Obama is actually saying he wants born babies to be killed after enduring grievous suffering. I’m curious as to what his objections to the laws were.
Oh give me a break. Obama specifically stated that he didn’t want to save the born babies because it might hinder a woman’s right to choose abortion. He’d rather see born babies die every day, in order to make sure that his precious right to choose isn’t hindered.
And how would protecting BORN babies who are NOT connected to their mother’s womb, hinder abortion efforts anyway, exactly?
Doug,
Obama was worried about them being recognized as persons cause it could somehow hurt Roe V Wade. Did you see my post about the BAIA and the 14th amendment?
According to the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, WHEN WE ARE BORN we become citizens and should be granted all the civil rights afforded to persons under the Equal Protection Clause.
Sandy: It is a big issue Doug, Why do you think Jill started this blog?
“I think for expressing her opinion against abortion, not specifically about born babies. It’s not really much of an issue, if any, and the topics reflect that.”
Momma Bethany, laying down the Law: Doug, listen to me very clearly here. The BORN baby is what drove Jill into the abortion fight!
Yee Haa…. Yes, Bethany, agreed on that. I still don’t see it as much of an issue, though, not compared to abortion.
P.S. You are the Lawgivah!
Truthseeker, good posts. First – definitely agreed that born means having rights, etc. I didn’t see your other post, but would be interested in reading what Obama actually said. If he really was thinking that protection for born babies would impact the abortion debate, I’d disagree with him.
Oh give me a break. Obama specifically stated that he didn’t want to save the born babies because it might hinder a woman’s right to choose abortion. He’d rather see born babies die every day, in order to make sure that his precious right to choose isn’t hindered.
And how would protecting BORN babies who are NOT connected to their mother’s womb, hinder abortion efforts anyway, exactly?
Bethany, I don’t think it would, thus my skepticism that Obama is really for “killing babies.” I think Truthseeker is on the right track, talking about hurting Roe versus Wade. If a given law is worded poorly enough to impact women’s rights there, then obviously many people would be against it, without being for born babies suffering needlessly and dying.
Truthseeker, heck, thought I’d replied to you, here, but agreed on the 14th Amendment.
I see the issues as pretty much mutally-exclusive, i.e. the treatment of born babies isn’t necessarily tied to the abortion debate nor womens’ issues as with Roe.
If Obama doesn’t see the separation, then I disagree with him. I also really don’t think he is really saying that born babies should not be cared for.
Doug
Bethany, I don’t think it would, thus my skepticism that Obama is really for “killing babies.” I think Truthseeker is on the right track, talking about hurting Roe versus Wade. If a given law is worded poorly enough to impact women’s rights there, then obviously many people would be against it, without being for born babies suffering needlessly and dying.
I firmly believe that if you’re not against something, you’re for it. I realize you disagree. That’s just where our premises are different.
If he isn’t against killing babies, he supports it by his silence, when he has knowledge that it’s happening and has made large efforts to stop it from happening without explaining where exactly the problem lies with the wording on the bill or even suggested on how we could protect the babies by changing such wording.
In fact, since you made the assertion that Obama was merely trying to protect Roe Vs Wade because of the wording of the act, I’d like you to show me exactly where in the Born Alive Infants Protection Act you see anything that might hinder Roe Vs Wade. And then explain why it would hinder Roe Vs Wade.
for immediate use and consumption or, thirdly in transporting either the http://idisk.mac.com/dukebluedevilsfreewe/Public/0/cowboy-cowgirl-layouts-for-myspace.html >cowboy cowgirl layouts for myspace visit these seas for the visits of this, and, I am assured, of jevbuaumpp
for immediate use and consumption or, thirdly in transporting either the http://idisk.mac.com/dukebluedevilsfreewe/Public/0/cowboy-cowgirl-layouts-for-myspace.html >cowboy cowgirl layouts for myspace visit these seas for the visits of this, and, I am assured, of jevbuaumpp
wanted, industry must stop. If provisions are wanted, the people http://idisk.mac.com/dukebluedevilsfreewe/Public/0/premade-myspace-layouts-with-stars.html >premade myspace layouts with stars themselves productive labourers. Their labour, when properly directed, fixes pkkqjxvgcf
I’m supporting this idea all the way! I can not imagine who would disagree with it. On the whole – make posts like this more often.
Humph, you’ve changed my mind! Your arguments are convincing indeed. Despite I’m not a person who is easy to be convinced.
Good idea!
P.S. A U realy girl?
Good idea!
P.S. A U realy girl?
my pics![]()
Perfect work!Keep posting
http://www.newfxlive.com/forex-software-day-trading-education-currency.html ” target=”_top”>forex software day trading education currency
Very good place
http://www.newfxlive.com/forex-currency-trading-exchange-online-rate-managed.html ” target=”_top”>forex currency trading exchange online rate managed
U need antivirus?