home
RSS
‘Plan B’ decision puts pro-life groups, bloggers in an unfamiliar position
December 9th, 2011
04:21 AM ET

‘Plan B’ decision puts pro-life groups, bloggers in an unfamiliar position

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – The decision by Kathleen Sebelius to keep age restrictions on the purchase of the “morning after pill” puts some conservative religious groups in an unfamiliar position – endorsing a move by the Obama administration.

Groups like the Family Research Council, who regularly find themselves on the opposite end of decisions made by the Obama administration, came out in support of the administration and in particular, Sebelius, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was right to reject the FDA recommendation to make this potent drug available over the counter to young girls,” stated a release by the pro-life Family Research Council.

In an interview with CNN’s John King, Jeanne Monahan of the Family Research Council addressed the fact that this was an unfamiliar position for the group.

“It is a great pleasure to be able to say congratulations Secretary Sebelius,” said Monahan. “I think you made a decision that was in the best interest of young women’s health,” said Monahan as if she was speaking directly to Sebelius.

President Obama told reporters Thursday that he “did not get involved in the process,” but that he supports the decision.

“As the father of two daughters,” Obama said. “I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine.”

"The reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old go into a drugstore, should be able - alongside bubble gum or batteries - be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect,” he continued.

In commending Sebelius, many pro-life groups also pressed the Obama administration for more.

“The pro-life movement welcomes Sebelius’ decision, and hopes that HHS will revisit the question of whether Plan B should be available over the counter to anyone,” wrote the Pro-Life Action League in a post on their website.

Pro-life bloggers, while welcoming the unexpected decision, also kept a stead dose of skepticism as to why this decision went their way.

“I try to make a habit out of not criticizing good decisions, even when they are made by untrustworthy people for bad motives,” wrote Thomas Peters at CatholicsVote.org. “So good job, Sebelius, you got one right. Now can we go for two?”

In reversing the recommendations of the FDA, which recommend allowing Plan B to be sold over the counter, Sebelius did not reject the idea of over the counter birth control, a step many anti-abortion bloggers wanted.

Instead, Sebelius cited “label comprehension” as one reason for the reversal.

“Whatever the reason for her decision,” wrote Chelsea Zimmerman at the blog Catholic Lane. “It was certainly the right one.”

Not everyone, however, was patting the secretary on the back.

"It is surely not a scientific decision," says Susan Wood, who resigned as the FDA’s Director of the Office of Women's Health in 2005 in protest to the restrictions on Plan B supported by the Bush administration. "The secretary's rationale is very similar to the one used in the previous administration to block Plan B from going over-the-counter. It is not supported by data."

CNN’s Brianna Keilar contributed to this report.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Abortion • Politics • Sex

soundoff (793 Responses)
  1. Anne Swanson

    But Tallulah, we are talking about a seperate life who HAS NO VOICE in the mattEr!!! It's that simple!! We all started out that small!!!!

    December 10, 2011 at 12:48 am |
    • tallulah13

      Do you know why a fetus has no voice? Because it's not a human. It is a potential human. A woman is a living, breathing, THINKING human being. Why does she suddenly lose her humanity when she becomes pregnant? Do you hate women so much that that you would rob them of their rights? People like you disgust me.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:51 am |
    • Brent

      It is not a separate life. Once again,

      "At birth, the soul enters the body, creating a life that sustains itself, an autonomous human being. A fetus, of course, is a living organism complete with functioning brain, heart, and limbs. But it is only an extension, albeit a living one, of its mother’s being. It contains life but is not yet an independent life, sustained by its own force." – Rabbi Simon Jacobson

      The scientific community is also against the definition of human life as beginning at conception. The Bible itself defines life as beginning with the first breath. By preventing implantation, Plan B prevents pregnancy. It does not terminate a human life.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:52 am |
    • Paul Ronco

      "At birth, the soul enters the body, creating a life that sustains itself, an autonomous human being. A fetus, of course, is a living organism complete with functioning brain, heart, and limbs. But it is only an extension, albeit a living one, of its mother’s being. It contains life but is not yet an independent life, sustained by its own force." – Rabbi Simon Jacobson

      Traditional Buddhists and Hindus believe differently. They believe that human life starts at conception, and so do I.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:59 am |
    • Lucivar

      so, if a person loses there voice. are they not human? If your definition of a human being is someone that thinks, breathes, and speaks. Then doesn't that mean you don't believe mutes, brain dead people and those that need ventilators as non human?

      December 10, 2011 at 1:05 am |
  2. Anne Swanson

    Good one, Zoey

    December 10, 2011 at 12:44 am |
  3. Anne Swanson

    If Government's main duty isn't protecting the innocent, then what is it?! That is something government MUST do!!

    December 10, 2011 at 12:42 am |
    • Jimtanker

      First of all, the governments job is not to protect the people. Second, an egg or a zygote is not a person. A person has a birth cirtificate.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:45 am |
    • Paul Ronco

      You mean except when children develop leukemia? Because private health insurance in America can get expensive these days I hear, and a lot of people supported a single payer system and even a public option before conservatives and billion-dollar corporations killed those bills before they even had a chance to show us what they could do.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:51 am |
    • tallulah13

      Why do you stop caring about a fetus once it's born? Do you realize that every woman who becomes pregnant was a fetus once? At what point do you judge that a woman is less important than a fetus?

      December 10, 2011 at 12:53 am |
    • Lucivar

      If the tree falls in the forest...does it make a sound?
      If your birth certificate gets misfiled or lost does that mean you are no longer a person?

      December 10, 2011 at 1:00 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If your birth certificate is lost, you can write and get a new one. Pretty tough to do if you were never born, dear.

      December 10, 2011 at 11:12 am |
  4. Anne Swanson

    HotAir you're back!

    December 10, 2011 at 12:38 am |
    • HotAirAce

      And you have not learned one, not ONE, thing while I was away (playing hockey, like a good Canadian). You are dumber than a bag of pucks!! Sorry, let me correct that – you are dumber than a single puck!

      December 10, 2011 at 1:05 am |
  5. Anne Swanson

    My point is that lots of girls would not kill their babies if they saw how human it really looks!

    December 10, 2011 at 12:33 am |
    • tallulah13

      I suspect, Anne, that either you are unable to have a child or that you had an abortion and regret it. I am sorry that you are unhappy with your life, but you don't get to make choices for others. Many women have made the difficult choice to have an abortion and do not regret it. You can decide the fate of your own body, but you have no right to choose for anyone else.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:39 am |
    • Lucivar

      You are probably right. whose fault is it though? The mother? or the doctor performing the abortion?

      December 10, 2011 at 12:40 am |
    • Jimtanker

      A fertilized egg cell does not look human at all.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:41 am |
    • Brent

      Your argument isn't supported by the facts of the vast majority of cases. Most women who get abortions aren't completely ignorant of the process of human development. Also, a zygote does not resemble a human life at all, and it is not an abortion, so your points are, once again, completely moot and relate to another discussion entirely.

      Here is my position on ACTUAL abortions: I am a man. I have no moral authority or standing to decide whether or not abortion should be legal or whether it is immoral, because it will never be a decision I have to make or even one that I can relate to.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:46 am |
    • Zoey

      tallulah13, I understand that people have rights and one would argue that you don't have the right to infringe on someone else's rights. However, that logic has to stop somewhere. One wouldn't make the argument that a person should be free from any consequences after killing an innocent child because it was "their right" to do what they wanted. Therefore, it is not an issue about rights, it is an issue about when life begins. One has to lose their "rights" when it that right becomes killing an innocent human.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:48 am |
    • Paul Ronco

      Maybe if fanatics weren't busy putting legal roadblocks and misinformation in their way when it was still a cluster of cells, the fetuses wouldn't get to that point in their development by the time she found the time, money and location to actually have the abortion.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:49 am |
    • Jimtanker

      Actually Brent you should have a position. The man is partially responsible for the creation of that zygote and will be the primary source of support for it if it is brought to term. A man should have every right to demand an abortion if a child would be brought into a situation in which it is not wanted.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:51 am |
    • Zoey

      Jimtanker, are you saying that if there is an 11-year old child that is headed to an undesirable location, they should be killed?

      December 10, 2011 at 12:57 am |
    • tallulah13

      Zoey, a fetus is not a child. The fact of the matter is, most abortions are performed before the fetus has even developed a nervous system. Why is something that can't even feel more important that a woman who is the victim of ra.pe, or a child who makes a mistake and becomes pregnant, or a woman who simply can't afford 9 months of pregnancy.

      You claim to be supporting innocents, but what you are really trying to do is to condemn real living people to situations that they find intolerable. Do you really think you are that special, that you get to decide the lives of others? If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. It is not your place to decide for others.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:58 am |
    • tallulah13

      Zoey, do you know how many unwanted children there are in this country? There are almost a half a million children in foster care in the US right now. How about you take a minute to worry about them before you work on adding to their numbers?

      December 10, 2011 at 1:00 am |
    • Zoey

      I am not saying that the fetus is more important. I am saying that it is equally important. That every life matters and someone cannot just exchange one for the other. Those are extremely terrible situations, however, you can't justify killing one person for another. (That is the argument I am trying to make. Ultimately, It is not a matter of "rights" because if the fetus is a human, they have as much right to life as any other human. I am arguing they are a human, while you are saying they aren't. I am in no way saying that one life is more important than another.) And I don't believe that I should dictate the life of someone else. However, if the life of someone else means that they are going to kill an innocent being that can't do anything for themselves to stop it, that's when I become against it and am willing to do what I can to help. (Once again, it's a matter of when life begins, not running someone's life) Finally, I am concerned for the children currently in foster care, but if I chose to be ok with abortion, it would mean killing one innocent human for the sake of another. If I followed that logic out, I would be ok with getting rid of some of the kids already in foster care so that others can have a better quality of life....which I am not ok with. I want them all to have an amazing life, but I cannot justify murdering innocent beings for that to happen.

      December 10, 2011 at 1:21 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, Zoey, a fetus is not equal to a born person under the law. If you want it to be equal, then you will have to be able to rationalize taking rights away from a woman in order to give them to the fetus. Suppose a woman is pregnant and is told that the fetus needs surgery before birth. She does not want the surgery. Her rights prevail if the fetus is not yet able to survive outside the uterus. If the fetus had rights, a woman could be forced to have surgery against her will. Are you prepared to deal with such a case? Under what other conditions can a person be forced to donate an organ or even a drop of blood against his will?

      You are not thinking beyond your love of the fetus to the results of your proposition for giving it equal rights. The rights of the fetus cannot be equal to those of a born person.

      December 10, 2011 at 11:18 am |
  6. Anne Swanson

    What IS my political agenda, Brent?! I'm not selling anything, I'm not making money buy killing babies or selling perscriptions. Look to the pharmaceutical companies for that! Besides, a baby is viable outside the womb at around 5 aand a half months now; but abortions are leagl until 9 months, so that makes NO sense!!

    December 10, 2011 at 12:31 am |
    • Lucivar

      An here I thought this was an article about Plan B NOT Abortion.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:33 am |
    • Brent

      You do not have to be selling anything or profiting in order to have a "political agenda." What it means is that you have decided ahead of time what you think the government should do, and you shape your language and advocacy around that belief, despite what empirical evidence may contradict the effectiveness of that policy decision.

      Abortions are NOT legal until 9 months. Abortion is not even available in 87% of the country, and the vast majority of locations which perform abortions have strict regulations as to how late they can be performed.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:38 am |
  7. Anne Swanson

    Brent! Don't follow the crowd ! They may be wrong!! Besides, people are so unaware of the facts or have been completely misinformed! I couceled a woman once who was DEVASTATED after an abortion because she did not know her fetus had hands and feet!!!!! She saw her baby's ripped off hands and feet lying on the Biohazard bag!!!! You really think this is ok?!?! If this is not wrong, then WHY were the facts kept from her?!?!

    December 10, 2011 at 12:23 am |
    • Brent

      She should have been more properly educated so she could make an informed decision. That is not an indictment of the procedure itself.

      Monkeys and apes have hands and feet, too. Is it an unforgivable sin or murder to kill one?

      December 10, 2011 at 12:29 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Anne, don't follow the believer crowd! They probably are wrong.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:34 am |
  8. Anne Swanson

    The Bible is filled with figuretive language! That is why we Cathoilcs do not interpret the bible on its own. If you look closely, there are many seemingly looking "contradictions". For instance the bible says the world was created in six days. That is not a definite. It could have been six million years! But the point is that He created it! As for life, the point is God created life and we have NO right to end it. It seems that the natural definition of when life begins, should be when that cell stopped being solely just the mother's or just the father's and became ITS OWN ORIGINAL being! I have science on my side!

    December 10, 2011 at 12:18 am |
    • Brent

      You do NOT have science on your side. You have co-opted scientific language for your own political agenda, and you have tried to make it stand for something it does not stand for. The largest portion of the scientific community defines a human life as being reasonably viable outside of its mothers' womb.

      "At birth, the soul enters the body, creating a life that sustains itself, an autonomous human being. A fetus, of course, is a living organism complete with functioning brain, heart, and limbs. But it is only an extension, albeit a living one, of its mother’s being. It contains life but is not yet an independent life, sustained by its own force. " – Rabbi Simon Jacobson

      December 10, 2011 at 12:27 am |
    • Zoey

      Brent, if one follows the logic of Jacobson's quote, he says that although the creature is living, it is not a human yet because it is not "independent life, sustainable by it's own force." Yet when a baby is born, they are still not sustainable by their own force. They need their parents for food, for shelter, for when they get sick, etc. They cannot function fully on their own. They need someone else to help keep them alive. So if one follows that logic, a baby should not yet be considered a human.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:39 am |
    • Paul Ronco

      >> As for life, the point is God created life and we have NO right to end it.

      You mean except when it's a war? Or except when it's the death penalty?

      December 10, 2011 at 12:44 am |
    • Jimtanker

      Good one PR! That will have those repulitards heads spinning. Besides, the xtian god is one of the most vile and evil characters ever written about in any book. The xtian god condones abortions in quite a few parts of the bible.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:48 am |
    • Zoey

      When looking at the character of the Christian God, they must look at His entire character. First of all, He is the Creator and He created man according to His image, without sin. However, man chose to disobey Him and therefore, became a sinner. If God is who He says He is, perfect, He cannot stand to be in the presence of sinners. Therefore, that is why you see the judgment of God poured out on people that chose to disobey Him and not follow Him. He says that the wages of "sin is death" because for God to be ok with sin, would make Him out to be a contradiction. However, that's where His love and grace come in. Although humans (as sinners) deserve this death, He made a way for us to have life and not face this judgment. He sent His son to pay the death for us, so that we wouldn't have to. Therefore, although it might seem that He is an evil God, He is really full of mercy and grace because He gave us a way to get out of the wrath that we really deserve.

      December 10, 2011 at 1:07 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Zoey, a fetus that is not viable outside the uterus cannot BE cared for by anyone else other than the woman carrying it. It is not able to survive outside the uterus regardless of whether someone else 'feeds' it. A baby does not need the sustenance of a woman's body to live. It can be cared for and fed by others. It is not dependent on one body alone.

      If it were, then babies whose mothers die in childbirth couldn't survive. It is not the inability of the being that makes it dependent on the woman-it's the fact that it is unable to survive outside the woman.

      People who are born and suffer from debilitating diseases are still born and while they may not be able to care for themselves they are not dependent on someone else's body for food, oxygen, etc.

      How is it people like you cannot seem to understand the difference?

      December 10, 2011 at 11:24 am |
    • Zoey

      I understand that there is a difference between the baby being inside the mother’s womb and outsider her womb where it can be dependent upon someone or something (like a machine) other than the mom. However, if you use this line of reasoning, when would you propose that life actually begins? If you say it becomes a human when the baby is able to depend on someone else besides the mom, that can happen when it becomes viable. Because of updated technology, viability is becoming earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. Since there is not a set time period in which this happens, it seems to become dangerous for us to take on the responsibility of determining when life should continue and when it should come to a close, simply because it is an inconvenience. I understand that there are times when it becomes a danger to the mom and I am in no way saying that her life is any less important. However, I believe human life is a gift from our Creator, and we have become very numb to the value of life and the consequences of taking it into our hands to destroy it.

      December 12, 2011 at 2:03 am |
  9. Brent

    Here is why Plan B is not an abortion. An abortion is a termination of a pregnancy. A pregnancy does not begin until the zygote successfully implants in the uterus (this is actually a common failure in the process, and a fertilized egg does sometimes naturally fail to develop into a pregnancy). Plan B prevents implantation. Therefore, Plan B prevents pregnancy; it does not terminate it. Ergo, Plan B is NOT equivalent to an abortion.

    December 10, 2011 at 12:11 am |
    • Paul Ronco

      This is a semantics argument. You could just as easily say that an abortion terminates cravings for pickles and ice cream. Plan B destroys a viable human zygote. It's therefore an abortion. It should also be safe and legal.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:43 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So? Abortion is legal. If you are opposed to it, Paul, don't have one. You don't have any right to force someone else to do as you wish unless she is infringing on rights of someone else. A fetus has no rights under the law.

      December 10, 2011 at 11:25 am |
  10. Anne Swanson

    But HOW do you determine when life bgins? You still have not answered the question!

    December 10, 2011 at 12:06 am |
    • Brent

      "I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life." – Ezekiel 37:6

      This demonstrably states that a baby is alive after it breathes its first breath. That first breath is the breath of life, a miracle delivered by God.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:08 am |
    • Keith

      Brent, I believe Ezekiel is referring to the re-birth of the state of Israel in this passage.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:16 am |
    • Keith

      Brent, This refers to the re-birth of Israel as a nation.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:17 am |
    • Brent

      Yes, but God is speaking in a metaphorical way, which directly parallels the development of a human life. He describes the re-birth of Israel starkly, in terms of human development. It is STILL the most relevant quote from the entire Bible.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:22 am |
    • Paul Ronco

      Who cares. Considering the trouble that the human race and the planet is going to be in in five or six years, zygotes don't reach high on my priority list.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:35 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Keith, have you figured out maps by now? If you can't find a town in TN, I have my doubts about your ability to interpret the word of a god.

      December 10, 2011 at 11:27 am |
  11. Brent

    The vast majority of Bible verses that "pro-life" groups use to justify their beliefs come from the Old Testament. As such, it is ludicrous to claim they still carry any weight to this day. You can't cherry-pick which parts of the Old Testament apply and which don't.

    The most commonly cited verses are also HEAVILY misinterpreted, because they say that God "knew you" in the womb or made you in the womb. Nowhere does that say that means "alive" or "human life." What these verses actually are is evidence of is God's omniscience (he is all-knowing) and his role in the development of human life.

    The biblical verse which is MOST relevant is Ezekiel 37:5-6, which lays out a process of the development of a human life. Of note is where God says you're not alive until AFTER you breathe your first breath. I'd say our laws are significantly more conservative than that, and deservedly so. But any attempt to define human life as beginning at conception has no real logical, scientific, or religious basis.

    Please, use the Bible in the way it was meant to be used. These stories are for you to teach yourself and your own children a specific code of morality. Don't use them to try to dictate how other people should live their lives.

    December 10, 2011 at 12:03 am |
  12. Anne Swanson

    It's heartbreaking, George! Especially because I've seen first hand Women who were going to have an abortion, changed there minds, and love their babies So much!!

    December 9, 2011 at 11:52 pm |
    • Lucivar

      What does abortion have to do with Plan B?

      December 10, 2011 at 12:05 am |
    • Brent

      That is very fortunate for them. Abortion should be a method of last resort for truly desperate times. It's always a better alternative to have a child born into a happy home. But there are ALSO plenty of women who have abortions and suffer no emotional or psychological turmoil.

      You have also failed to demonstrate that Plan B is effectively an abortion.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:07 am |
    • Lucivar

      My understanding is that Plan B keeps you from conceiving a child.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:10 am |
  13. George

    It just sickens me that some people write off a life in the name of women's rights just because it might be an inconvienence.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:47 pm |
    • Paul Ronco

      I could say the same for people who support wars.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:36 am |
    • tallulah13

      I sickens me that you write off a woman's rights because you think you know better than her what is going on in her life. When you get pregnant, george, you can decide not to have an abortion. Until then, it is none of your business.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:42 am |
    • George

      Sin is everybody's business.

      December 10, 2011 at 1:20 am |
    • Paul Ronco

      >> Sin is everybody's business.

      Only if it's hurting somebody else.

      December 10, 2011 at 1:26 am |
  14. Anne Swanson

    Thanks, Chad! I'm feeling outnumbered!

    December 9, 2011 at 11:46 pm |
    • George

      Anne you're doing a good job. Don't mind Tom. When he is losing he resorts to 1.) pointing out grammatical errors and 2.) vitriole.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:49 pm |
    • tallulah13

      If you don't want an abortion, Anne, don't have one. But don't you dare tell another woman how to live her life when you don't know her situation. It is not your place to tell another how to live their life. You don't have that right.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:44 am |
    • Paul Ronco

      >> Thanks, Chad! I'm feeling outnumbered!

      Good. The majority of sane Americans hope you stay that way.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:54 am |
  15. Anne Swanson

    And also, to pose a provocative question, when will the father have a choice in the matter. It takes two to tango, you know; and this is just as much his child as the woman's.....

    December 9, 2011 at 11:45 pm |
    • Paul Ronco

      No it's not. The man invests 5-30 minutes in the consummation of this life. The woman invests nine months.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:37 am |
  16. Anne Swanson

    Even though it's a seperate life from it's mother!?!? With DNA defining all it's individual characteristics!?!? At this point it's not even ATTACHED to the mother?!?! And when does life begin and how do you believe what you believe?

    December 9, 2011 at 11:42 pm |
    • Paul Ronco

      I believe that life starts at conception and I also believe that the mother should have the right to terminate it.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:39 am |
  17. Anne Swanson

    We have to stop cowering behind political correctness and rhetoric and admit a person is a person no matter how small! Darned if I'll be silent

    December 9, 2011 at 11:26 pm |
  18. Anne Swanson

    Brent, the sad thing is is that I'm not even using the Bible to defend my position! This is about the natural law written in all of our hearts and our common belief that murder is wrong! Reason should lead us to see that ripping apart an unborn fetus in the womb, killing the most innocent of all human beings, is intrinsically wrong!!

    December 9, 2011 at 11:23 pm |
    • Chad

      well said Anne!

      December 9, 2011 at 11:43 pm |
    • Brent

      If it's written in ALL of our hearts, then why don't the majority of Americans agree with you? Why do the VAST majority of Americans refuse to define life's starting point at the same point you do?

      December 10, 2011 at 12:13 am |
    • Paul Ronco

      Don't turn to natural law to defend your argument. Animal mothers kill their offspring in the wild all the time. The only difference between them and us is, as soon as they recognize a logistical problem with the raising of that offspring, they do it immediately.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:40 am |
    • tallulah13

      Funny, I think that a woman has the right to decide what happens to her own body. A woman is not a slave, simply because she becomes pregnant.

      Shame on those of you who think your hysterical emotions are somehow more important than the facts that inform every woman's decision on whether or not she should terminate a pregnancy. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. That is the only say you have in this matter.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:48 am |
  19. Reality

    Before the morning after pill:

    Cont-raceptive method use among U.S. women who practice con-traception, 2002 (From Guttmacher Inst-itute data)

    Method..... No. of users (in 000s)......................... % of users

    Pill....................... 11,661........................................ 30.6

    Male condom ........6,841........................................ 18.0 "

    As per Guttmacher data, the pill fails to protect women 8.7% during the first year of use . (Guttmacher data)

    i.e. 0.087 (failure rate)
    x 62 million (# child bearing women)
    x 0.62 ( % of these women using contraception )
    x 0.306 ( % of these using the pill) =

    1,020,000 unplanned pregnancies
    during the first year of pill use.

    For male condoms (failure rate of 17.4 and 18% use level)

    1,200,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of male condom use.

    The Gut-tmacher Inst-itute) notes also that the perfect use of the pill should result in a 0.3% failure rate
    (35,000 unplanned pregnancies) and for the male condom, a 2% failure rate (138,000 unplanned pregnancies).

    o Conclusion: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or condoms properly and/or use other safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.

    from the CDC-2006
    "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

    And from:
    http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/20/yes-or-al-se-x-is-se-x-and-it-can-boost-cancer-risk/?npt=NP1

    "Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-

    Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.

    "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'"
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    December 9, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
  20. Anne Swanson

    TomTom! I don't have the time for all those errors!!! They're endless!

    December 9, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yet you have time to post drivel. Great.

      December 10, 2011 at 10:22 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.