Obama administration using graphic images to stop people from smoking. Now … how about doing that to discourage abortion?


Read more

And more

The casualty count every time a pregnant woman walks into a Planned Parenthood abortuary is one dead, one wounded. It’s about time we provided some “graphic warning labels” about that.

The New York Times is all aflutter with the happy news that the FDA is going to put graphic warning labels on cigarette packs to scare people straight when it comes to smoking.

A total of 36 scary warning labels have been proposed, including one showing a toe tag on a corpse, another with smoke pouring out of a hole in a man’s throat, and another with a mother blowing smoke on her baby. The FDA will choose the most frightening nine by next June.

The labels are designed to cover half the surface area of a pack or carton of cigarettes, and a fifth of any cigarette advertisements. The idea, according to the Times, is to provide “graphic reminders of tobacco’s dangers.”

In Europe, some of the labels are even more gruesome, featuring photos of blackened teeth and decaying mouths.

Fine. I’ve got no brief for cigarette smoking. But if we’re going to put graphic warning labels on cigarettes, which is a legal product, it’s time we put graphic warning labels on the front door of every abortion clinic in America.

Link

Furious Dr. Hans Keirstead (who advocates wantonly destroying human embryos) uncomfortable in the light of day

Dr. Keirstead is spearheading the first FDA approved human trial of injecting embryonic stem cells into spinal-cord patients.

Hans Keirstead’s main arguments were exactly the ones used by the Nazi doctors who were doing lethal experiments on Jews. Their victims were subhuman, they were destined to die anyway, it was all legal, other countries were doing it and it would benefit all mankind to find cures for dread diseases. He was standing in front of a sign with the covers of the books quoting those exact arguments and the irony was totally lost on him. He just stood there parroting propaganda like a programmed robot.

Keirstead deliberately used dehumanizing rhetoric to refer to the babies, alternately calling them “the products of united sperm and egg cells” and “fertilized eggs.” I told him he was doing what racists do when they dehumanize blacks with the “N” word or anti-Semites when they use the “K” word to slur their Jewish victims. The fertilized egg reference wasn’t even the biologically correct term for embryos at the stage at which he is killing them. When Keirstead tried to deny that he was personally killing them I asserted that he was at least complicit in their killing and he changed the subject. I also reminded him that the term “embryo” describes a stage of life, not a type of life.

Read more

PBS tells the whole story about artificial birth control – and actually gets most of it right!

By Janet E. Smith

In Focus: Uncovering a string of lies

The science is unequivocal. Fifty years after the FDA approved the pill, chemical contraception is bad for women, couples, society and the environment

This year we “celebrate” the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill, or “the pill.”

For the 40th anniversary of the pill, PBS produced a thorough retrospective on its history. The material is still on the PBS website and is an invaluable resource for those interested in this subject.

The story PBS tells is fascinating and, without meaning to denigrate PBS, the broadcaster tells the history of the pill in a surprisingly honest way — surprising not only because of PBS’ usual biases, but also because the pill is a subject that involves a great deal of dishonesty. PBS is even honest about the dishonesty and even simple foolishness that surrounds the pill. For instance, when it reports on early efforts to get the pharmaceutical companies — including Searle, which eventually became the first company to receive FDA approval to sell birth control pill — to develop a chemical contraceptive, PBS notes:

“Beyond the legal and religious complications, Searle executives just didn’t believe there would be a huge market for an oral contraceptive. The men at Searle found it inconceivable that any woman would consider taking pills every single day just for contraception. The prevailing wisdom was that no healthy woman would ever willingly take a drug that neither treated nor prevented disease.”

Read the whole article

Birth control roulette: Contraception typically fails 1 time out of 5 during initial 2 year period

Summary: 21% of Teen Women Using Contraception Will Be Pregnant Within Two Years of Beginning Use

The average failure rate for reversible contraceptives over a two-year period is 19% for all women. Various socioeconomic factors, including a woman’s age, also affect contraceptive success.

  • Thirteen percent of women using reversible methods of contraceptives will experience contraceptive failure (e.g. pregnancy) in their first year of use and 8 percent in the second year of use. Contraceptive effectivness also varies based on four socioeconomic factors: women’s age, union status (e.g. married, cohabiting, not in a union), poverty status, and race or ethnicity. Of women younger than 18 years old, 21.1% experience an unintended pregnancy (contraceptive failure) in the first two years of use.1

1Contraceptive Failure in the First Two Years of Use: Differences Across Socioeconomic Subgroups, Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 33, No. 1, January/February 2001.

Contraceptive Failure Rate Chart

FDA Warning: Condoms are not 100% safe, but if used properly, will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. (Chances of “getting something” are about 1 in 6).

Why Planned Parenthood gives out free condoms

CDC Reports 15% Increase in HIV/AIDS Cases (Claims it doesn’t know why).