FOCA in bits and pieces
A bill has been presented in Congress, purportedly to reduce abortion.
But the Prevention First Act contains many of the elements in the polarizing and subsequently back-burnered Freedom of Choice Act.
Introduced by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Pregnancy First Act would increase funding for Title X (Planned Parenthood’s main source of support), and would exclude support for abstinence education and mothers in crisis pregnancies, according to The Catholic Key.
Watch this new video from American Life League, which shines the spotlight on this “FOCA masquerade”:
[Photo attribution: vi.sualize.us]
Jun.02, 2009 1:52 pm |
Political anti-life bias |
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.
this is just more birth control and condoms, not the answer to reducing abortion. The answer is a positive image of marriage, loving acception of children, better adoption laws, and abstinence. Not MORE birth control (which doesn’t protect against STDs) and condoms (which can break).
Anyone else notice the irony of one of the sponsors of this having the last name “Slaughter”?
This is no surprise. Here is an article warning pro life people that pro aborts will likely try and implement their agenda piece by piece hoping the majority would not notice as they surely would with FOCA.
http://www.aul.org/FOCA_by_stealth
And Liz I totally agree with you!
Thanks Joanne.
If we had better adoption laws in this country, maybe some couples wouldn’t be traveling 1000s of miles away to China to adopt a baby (although, by adopting a baby girl abandoned in an orphanage because she’s a girl is COMMENDABLE).
Jill, “Prevention First” or “Pregnancy First”?? Typo?
Liz: “… birth control and condoms, not the answer to reducing abortion. The answer is a positive image of marriage, loving acception of children, better adoption laws, and abstinence. “
SG: Liz, I think your point is true. If people wanted a family, then they won’t NOT want a family.
However, in a practical sense, won’t a decrease in pregnancies logically lead to a decrease in abortions?
Moreover, won’t a decrease in unwanted pregnancies lead to a decrease in decisions based on not wanting the child? And to a decrease in the subsequent choice of an abortion?
Snerd
Snerd,
Over fifty percent of unwanted pregnancies are a result of failed birth control. Hypothetically, perhaps these women who got pregnant wouldn’t have had as frequent sex if the birth control were not available, therefore the pregnancy rate would be lower, resulting in fewer abortions. It makes sense.
The first part of the video with all the bags of money, money and more money made me dizzy. Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves at the amount of our money the government spends on population control.
Janet: “… Over fifty percent of unwanted pregnancies are a result of failed birth control. “
SG: 1. Really … do you have RELIABLE stats for that?
Janet: “… Over fifty percent of unwanted pregnancies are a result of failed birth control. “
SG: 2. As in failed to take birth control …?
Janet: “… Over fifty percent of unwanted pregnancies are a result of failed birth control. “
SG: 3. So assuming the accuracy of your allegation for the moment, isn’t you allegation also acknowledging that better birth control would result in fewer unwanted pregnancies … ?
Snerd
Janet: “… Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves at the amount of our money the government spends on population control.”
SG: … like prisons?
Snerd
Snerd, it has nothing to do with “better” birth control. Even used perfectly, a woman is likely to have at least 1 unplanned pregnancy over the course of her life. When used typically, a woman will almost cetainly have at least 2.
Birth control is not the answer for a general population’s out of wedlock birth rate.
I agree, Lauren. Plus, there can be breakthrough ovulation which is how chemical abortions can occur if a woman is on the pill. It may reduce one cancer risk, but it increases others (like Breast cancer).
I like Jason Evert’s talk (I’ve seen parts of it on Youtube). He has one for Catholic schools and one that’s secular based (no bible passages). He gives the straight talk and explains why sex before marriage is a bad idea.
His talk is a good abstinence talk.
Snerd,
.. like prisons?
I was referring to birth control of course. :)
Thank you Lauren and Liz.
Snerd, I didn’t see your earlier post….
1. I don’t have the stat handy, but it’s pretty much common knowledge.
I’ll try to get it for you, but it will be later.
2. No. I mean birth control that was not effective.
3. As Lauren said, it’s not a matter of “better birth control”. Scientists say that what we have is close to 100% effective. What they don’t tell women is that that’s with perfect use. I don’t too many people who do everything perfectly, so actual effectiveness rates will be lower. The best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy is abstinence as Liz stated. It’s so simple, it’s silly that it’s intentionally overlooked as a solution to the problem. Pres. Obama wants to reduce abstinence funding. Most people think there is no more to the abstinence than “Just Say No”. That’s far from true.
oops,
Correction on point 3.
“I don’t know too many people who do everything perfectly…”
(Ha ha. Especially me!)
Lauren: “… Even used perfectly, a woman is likely to have at least 1 unplanned pregnancy over the course of her life. When used typically, a woman will almost cetainly have at least 2.”
SG: This seems an astounding assertion given that studies I’ve looked at suggest the following failure rates/yr:
Pill .001/yr,
Condom .03,
Abstinence .09, (correctly, it’s termed ‘periodic’ Abstinence)
Given those figures and using the Pill after 30 years of sex at the assume same rate of orgasm/ year, 3% of women on the pill would become inadvertently pregnant, 90% of condom users and 270% of ‘periodic’ abstainers.
Snerd
Janet: “… The best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy is abstinence as Liz stated. It’s so simple, it’s silly that it’s intentionally overlooked as a solution to the problem. Pres. Obama wants to reduce abstinence funding.”
SG: His first act of Abstinence, as it were
Janet: “… Most people think there is no more to the abstinence than “Just Say No”. “
SG: …… Yah!
What about women who simply don’t want children? Is that not a legitimate choice? What about women for whom pregnancy is a legitimate medical risk?
Are these women out of luck because birth control can maybe possibly cause eggs to not implant?
Snerd, first of all your numbers are off. Perfect pill use is .01 not .001
Also, it is really useless to look at perfect rates. You have to look at typical rates in order to get a picture at a population level.
Typical rates for hormonal birthcontrol are .08
HA,
I generally prefer not to get involved in the BC debate. I’m a Catholic who practices Natural Family Planning, so what do I know?
Done correctly, NFP can work well and can be a very positive experience, or so I’m told. I hear there’s software for it now, to log charted temp and such. I know little about it; it’s appealed to me, but being pregnant right now would be disastrous enough for me currently that I’ve not tried it, and I’m happy enough with my IUD that I’ve no desire to, really.
While doing some research for a post, I came across a site which lists two charts, titled:
“What works”- http://www.itsyoursexlife.com/iysl/what_works.html
and
“What doesn’t work”- http://www.itsyoursexlife.com/iysl/what_doesnt_work.html
They provide some statistics there on birth control. Not sure where they obtained their stats, but the site isn’t biased against birth control, that’s for sure.
What I found kind of funny is that the failure rate listed for male condoms, cervical caps, female condoms, and diaphragms (listed under “what works”) is in the same failure rate range as NFP (listed under “what doesn’t work”). I found that interesting.
(I’ve known people who have successfully used NFP for years, btw, so it can most definitely “work.”)
HA: “being pregnant right now would be disastrous enough for me currently”
Well, now, isn’t that just the typical attitude out there about babies? Disastrous. Honestly!
For your information, HA, babies are NEVER a disaster.
Sometimes, when left for a moment with a bowl of spaghetti, they MAKE a disaster. ;)
It’s unfortunate that even among Christian circles, even in abstinence-only sex ed, we find ourselves bombarding young girls with the attitude that pregnancy would be a catastrophe. Would it be difficult? Yes. Would it change their lives forever? Yes. Would it be catastrophic? Absolutely not!
We need to STOP viewing babies as the end of our free will.
And FYI, there are reasons for NFP outside of simply not being content with your BC. Such as the human life can flush from your system.
But I’m ALSO an NFP-practicing Catholic (well, I was, until I got pregnant-planned XD), so what could I possibly have to say on the subject?
??? Being pregnant would be disastrous?? I can’t even wrap my mind around that statement. Inconvenient, maybe. Make life a little more difficult, maybe. Disastrous? Seriously, if you can’t raise a baby, there are many adoptive parents who would love to take care of your child and with open adoptions you could even have a part in the child’s life and know how he/she was growing up. Heck… call me. I’ll raise your baby.
Elisabeth: “Heck… call me. I’ll raise your baby.”
I’d take the baby, if Elisabeth didn’t pick up the phone soon enough for you, HA.
I think you will find a MULTITUDE of people feel the same.
If you can also be pregnant for me, call me, and then we’ll talk. Frankly, pregnancy would ruin my plans for my life currently. Motherhood isn’t something I’m particularly wanting, perhaps not ever, so I feel no need to put myself in a position where that might happen. It would wreck havocs on my life, and I’m really not seeing that it would be worth it at moment.
I love how this bill also reduces funding for programs helping pregnant mothers. Hey, I thought it was US EVIL REPUBLICANS who are supposed to want to increase abortion rates by cutting funding for poor people? At least that’s what the pro-aborts have been yelling at me lately…
And I highly recommend a TL, HA. I love mine. No pills, no nothing, forever.
Here’s a concept, then…. don’t have sex.
Ummm…sorry, but, no Elisabeth, I am not going to remain celibate for the rest of my life and deny myself and my husband physically just to suit YOUR religious tastes. I’m not killing anyone, so why the (expletive deleted) do you care?