Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Major Newspapers Reject Pro-Life Ad, Image of Baby “Too Controversial”
Life News ^ | July 5, 2013 | Caleb Parke

Posted on 07/05/2013 2:12:24 PM PDT by NYer

Washington, DC (LiveActionNews) – A national pro-life organization is outraged after three major American newspapers rejected a pro-life ad as “too controversial.”

The Chicago Tribune, USA Today, and the LA Times refused to run an advertisement created by Heroic Media.

The ad features a hand holding a 20- to 24-week-old baby with the quote, “This child has no voice, which is why it depends on yours. Speak Up.”

Heroic Media Executive Director Joe Young said he was shocked and angered that the media outlets were willing to talk about the issue but were unwilling to show the reality of life at 20 weeks.

“I am disturbed that these papers would run article after article promoting the notion that abortion is a victimless act without consequences,” Young said. “The fact remains, children who are unique individuals – never again to be duplicated – are being killed in the most violent way imaginable and they feel the excruciating pain of that death.”

The newspapers took issue with the image of the baby.

“It seems as though it is okay to talk about the issue in general, but when you actually put a face to the discussion, then it becomes controversial,” Young said.

Last week after the House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Heroic Media put out a statement requesting that the pro-life community contact their senators and encourage them to consider and support the Act.

“Americans deserve to know the truth about the children sentenced to die for no fault of their own and that we have a chance to spare some of them through this legislation,” Young said.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prevents an abortionist from performing an abortion at or after 20 weeks, based on empirical scientific medical evidence that proves that unborn babies can feel pain. Science shows that at eight weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch, and at 20 weeks, the unborn baby responds to what would be felt as pain.

The image shows a 20- to 24-week-old baby in a person’s hands. Heroic Media’s goal was to show what life looks like at 20 weeks. The non-profit organization has resubmitted the ad with a different image, now one of a 20-week-old baby in utero.

The Chicago Tribune has now agreed to run the ad with the second image as long as Heroic Media indicates that it is an advertisement.

“Our hope is that the American public begins to advance this debate with both the mother and child in mind,” Young said.

Heroic Media is a non-profit whose mission is to educate the public in general and reach women facing unplanned pregnancies with life-affirming alternatives through the use of mass media, such as television commercials, internet outreach, and billboards.

“This issue, the late-term killing of developing children, is one that should be addressed in the U.S. Senate, and we encourage our fellow citizens to let their Senators know our desire to see that happen,” Young said.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; advertising; deathpanels; media; obamacare; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; zerocare

1 posted on 07/05/2013 2:12:24 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; little jeremiah; narses

Ping!


2 posted on 07/05/2013 2:12:54 PM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Can’t be showing pictures of babies. They might not get aborted and the eugenicists cannot allow that.


3 posted on 07/05/2013 2:14:39 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
A national pro-life organization is outraged after three major American newspapers rejected a pro-life ad as “too controversial truthful.”
4 posted on 07/05/2013 2:16:52 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

chickenshit worthless craven bastards


5 posted on 07/05/2013 2:17:16 PM PDT by bigheadfred (barry your mouth is writing checks your ass cant cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

If it weren’t for crappy chain motels USA Today’s circulation would be about half od what it is.


6 posted on 07/05/2013 2:18:47 PM PDT by clintonh8r ("Europe was created by history. America was created by a philosophy." Baroness Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Right on....


7 posted on 07/05/2013 2:20:49 PM PDT by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Heroic Media is a non-profit whose mission is to educate the public in general and reach women facing unplanned pregnancies with life-affirming alternatives through the use of mass media, such as television commercials, internet outreach, and billboards.

Given that most women who have abortions made the deliberate choice to get pregnant with the intent of aborting the baby, waiting until women are pregnant is waiting too long.

Women need to be educated *before* they make the decision that the availability of abortion makes it okay to have unprotected sex. Accurate ads about abortion help with this education.

8 posted on 07/05/2013 2:22:21 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Yet is is Ok for the left to constantly show us people on TV without hair, legs or voice boxes.


9 posted on 07/05/2013 2:24:08 PM PDT by ColdOne (I miss my poochie... Tasha 2000~3/14/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The end of days has come...we’re merely playing out the string.


10 posted on 07/05/2013 2:28:06 PM PDT by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Tell the truth and you well be punished.


11 posted on 07/05/2013 2:29:17 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Yup... very much concur, opposition is evil... this isn’t even one of those bloody, gorey pictures, that baby is as clean as a whistle.

Only the power of the gospel can overcome Satan. Anything less is catch as catch can and may redistribute evil but will not get rid of it.


12 posted on 07/05/2013 2:30:14 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
EXACTLY!

This should be ANOTHER wake up call to the damn GOP! You do not fight and oppose lies and delusion by waging a war with the faulty ammunition of meek or compromised truth. It's time to be bold and clear damnit! No more half assed 'conservative' RINOs or their delusion placating messages!

13 posted on 07/05/2013 2:30:15 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The pro-abortion media is hiding the truth. If one didn’t read the pro-life Texas legislation one would be totally lied to by pro-abortionists.


14 posted on 07/05/2013 2:33:01 PM PDT by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Yup, Servant... my initial reaction is “what could possibly be debated here?” What they don’t want to do is see their clientele “guilt tripped.”

(As a side comment which may or may not be pertinent, I myself wouldn’t want to be the cause of a “guilt trip” whose destination was anywhere other than squarely at the cross.)


15 posted on 07/05/2013 2:34:07 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
It seems as though it is okay to talk about the issue in general, but when you actually put a face to the discussion, then it becomes controversial

The picture might upset people who don't read cursive.

16 posted on 07/05/2013 2:36:39 PM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
how bout this one then???

17 posted on 07/05/2013 2:38:10 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

Let’s be careful about how we use the word “damn.” It isn’t God’s last name, I know that. Condemning people rather than acts cuts off avenues of communication quicker than anything. We’re trying to sell the truth which is that God’s love execrates this sin and encouraging people to get a heart to see that truth.


18 posted on 07/05/2013 2:38:42 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Pro life bump


19 posted on 07/05/2013 2:42:37 PM PDT by GailA (THOSE WHO DON'T KEEP PROMISES TO THE MILITARY, WON'T KEEP THEM TO U!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
But the murders continue .....

human fetus not protected by law

20 posted on 07/05/2013 2:46:18 PM PDT by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
So, to review, this image is acceptable

while this image

is too controversial.

Got it.

21 posted on 07/05/2013 2:49:43 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

Throw up! Throw up! Ewwwwwwwww.wwwwww...My eyes...did they really pick those two men kissing to publish? Yulk!

X-rated stuff now at the news stands!


22 posted on 07/05/2013 2:51:51 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Women need to be educated *before* they make the decision that the availability of abortion makes it okay to have unprotected sex.

I appreciate your good intentions here but many women do not pay attention to this information. They are caught up in the "heat of the moment". To cite an example, while filling out forms at an ob/gyn office, I could not help but overhear the "test result" phone calls being made to patients, by one of the staffers. The first caller was told she had an STD that could be treated but not cured. Apparently the patient was confused by the acronym. The staffer explained that STD meant she had a sexually transmitted disease. The caller was now upset and wanted to know how she contracted it! The staffer not only explained the process but also advised her to contact every partner with whom she had sexual relations because they also needed to be tested.

Meanwhile, here in upstate NY, after 10 pm, Trojan is advertising special lotions to "enhance the experience". These ads, IMO, should come with disclaimers advising consumers of the ramifications, like STDs.

23 posted on 07/05/2013 2:53:03 PM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Chode

“This one” was a baby with spina bifida, whose spinal defect was repaired in utero. He was born healthy, with fewer side effects than he otherwise might have had. He can be found on YouTube, living life.

Our grandson’s spina bifida was not detected before birth. His nurses thought it was a shame his disorder was not apparent in prenatal testing, so his parents could have chosen to abort him. Nice. He’s a beautiful, happy boy of five, with some related mobility and health issues, none of which are a capital crime.


24 posted on 07/05/2013 2:57:37 PM PDT by ntnychik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ntnychik
yup, that baby had no voice but one was provided for it... God Bless
25 posted on 07/05/2013 3:05:04 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"Given that most women who have abortions made the deliberate choice to get pregnant with the intent of aborting the baby..."

By my observations, this cannot be true. Most women who get abortions are not deliberately pregnant; they are deliberately cooperating in baby-making acts by their husbands or boyfriends (having live sperm injected into their genital tracts) but not intentionally getting pregnant.

That's the disconnect. That's why contraception triggers more abortions than it prevents. Contraception has two effects: the pharmaceutical one, and the psychological-behavioral one. The pharmaceutical one reduces the likelihood that any individual act of intercourse will result im pregnancy. The psychological-behavioral one vastly increases risk-taking by both males and females, by creating a cognitive disconnect between sex and fertility.

The second effect overwhelms the first effect.

Thus contraceptives increase unwanted pregnancies. This can be verified by the fact that whenever a new group of emales become contraceptive acceptors, their unwanted pregnancy rate, nonmarital childbearing rate, and abortion rate goes up -- not down.

26 posted on 07/05/2013 3:07:24 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer

and none dare call it murder

it is aimply a fact of nature that a pregnant women has in her responsibility not just her own life but the life of another living human being - in need of more development yes, but a living human being none the less


27 posted on 07/05/2013 3:11:00 PM PDT by Wuli (qu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Excellent!


28 posted on 07/05/2013 3:11:21 PM PDT by seeker41 (take your country back by whatever means necessary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Yet another reason to keep not buying the Trib.


29 posted on 07/05/2013 3:15:55 PM PDT by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

if it was a dog and you killed it
wow you would be in trouble


30 posted on 07/05/2013 3:42:28 PM PDT by genghis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Wow! I think I saw it in the AJC! I guess it didn’t get the “boycott” notice.


31 posted on 07/05/2013 4:01:37 PM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

Excellent. Hadn’t seen that before. Thanks for posting.

My question: What exactly do they find “disturbing” about the ad? Is there something “gruesome” about it? Major papers print plenty of disturbing images on a regular basis, but this normal-looking picture they reject.


32 posted on 07/05/2013 4:17:35 PM PDT by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks NYer.


33 posted on 07/05/2013 4:25:32 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Chode

The boy, Samuel Armas, 13, inspires us still.


34 posted on 07/05/2013 4:26:49 PM PDT by ntnychik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

2 Kings 17:17
17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. They practiced divination and sorcery and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, provoking him to anger
NIV

 

Ps 106:38-39
38 They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.
39 They defiled themselves by what they did; by their deeds they prostituted themselves.
NIV


Ezek 16:20

20 "'And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? 21 You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols.


Deut 32:17-23
17 They sacrificed to demons, which are not God — gods they had not known,gods that recently appeared,gods your fathers did not fear. 18 You deserted the Rock, who fathered you;you forgot the God who gave you birth.
19 The Lord saw this and rejected thembecause he was angered by his sons and daughters. 20 "I will hide my face from them," he said,"and see what their end will be;for they are a perverse generation,children who are unfaithful. 21 They made me jealous by what is no godand angered me with their worthless idols.I will make them envious by those who are not a people;I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding. 22 For a fire has been kindled by my wrath,one that burns to the realm of death below.It will devour the earth and its harvestsand set afire the foundations of the mountains.


23 "I will heap calamities upon them and spend my arrows against them..."
NIV


Same Ol'

35 posted on 07/05/2013 4:32:23 PM PDT by TArcher ("TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men" -- Does that still work?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Re-write the ad, pointing out that the publisher and editor-in-chief of the Tribune have systematically censored publication of the science on the abortion issue, violating their pledge to inform the public.....

....and then distribute copies by hand, urging people to cancel their subscriptions.


36 posted on 07/05/2013 4:40:22 PM PDT by cookcounty (IRS = Internal Revenge Service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: generally

It has to do with their format. Their Liberal format. Anything that goes against it is not worthy of a story or picture. That’s why I go to the foreign press to see what’s happening in the US.


37 posted on 07/05/2013 4:40:53 PM PDT by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: All

Yet baby pics of Trayvon Martin are plastered all over the news...


38 posted on 07/05/2013 4:55:40 PM PDT by Rodney Dangerfield (Weiner-Holder 2016!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NYer

It’s really simple.

The baby should be black.

They don’t care if a white baby gets dismembered. That’s “just retribution” in their minds.

But violate the Civil Rights of a future African American?

That’s a heinous crime.

Could shut down the abortion murder industry overnight.


39 posted on 07/05/2013 5:09:31 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
By my observations, this cannot be true. Most women who get abortions are not deliberately pregnant; they are deliberately cooperating in baby-making acts by their husbands or boyfriends (having live sperm injected into their genital tracts) but not intentionally getting pregnant.

I have never encountered anyone who had an abortion because a contraceptive failed. I have, however, known of plenty who had abortions who didn't bother using contraceptives. I've personally heard statements to the effect of "Oh, I don't have to worry about birth control, since I can always just get an abortion." I've had men tell me that girls they were dating told them the same thing; I've read it in articles by those who are "pro-choice" (who, unsurprisingly, had at least one abortion).

The only place I ever saw that featured women claiming to have had abortions because of contraceptive failure was an article in Health magazine several years ago, where they featured a few women in this category. Unfortunately, the article's definition of contraceptive use was extremely generous. The only other source I've seen that contraceptive failure is a major contributor to abortion is the Guttmacher institute; given that it's a branch of Planned Parenthood, its claim is highly suspect.

There is nothing stopping any abortion client from claiming she was using contraceptives when she is asked about it; that is probably the biggest factor in the supposed high failure rate. Listen to someone explaining why she had an abortion, but without prompting her by asking about contraceptive use: in this situation, women do not volunteer that their contraceptives failed--in other words, they weren't using any.

It plays into the abortion industry's hands to accept their claims that a large fraction of their clients had their contraceptives fail. There isn't a lot of corroborating evidence, however. For one thing, if contraceptive failure was a major cause of abortion, you would expect the abortion rate to be the same across the board: there would be no difference between races, and the rate would decline with age in conjunction with fertility loss. However, neither of these patterns are seen: the differences in abortion rates between different races are drastic, and the majority of abortion clients are young teens. This tells me that irresponsibility is the major driver of abortion.

There are other pieces of evidence, as well. However, I have already written enough!

Well, except for one little thing: I have known of three women who did get pregnant despite contraceptive use. All three put their babies up for adoption. I do believe that one's views on abortion are the major factor driving whether one will endeavor to use contraceptives correctly, or will use them incorrectly--if they bother even using them at all.

40 posted on 07/05/2013 6:18:44 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

The fact that after 50 years of reliable contraceptives and 40 years of legal abortion there are still “unintended” pregnancies leads me to believe that something else is going on. Perhaps the biological imperative to procreate is so strong that women subconsciously allow themselves to get pregnant even, when they claim they don’t want to.


41 posted on 07/05/2013 6:39:33 PM PDT by informavoracious (We're being "punished" with Stanley Ann's baby. Obamacare: shovel-ready healthcare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
It is is true that self-reporting is a dicey way to get the statistical truth, but realistically, unless we had all women under gynecological surveillance (God forbid --- that's what they do in China) --- it's the only way to get a picture of what's happening.

And, although the Alan Guttmacher Institute was founded as the research arm of Planned Parenthood, they are still regarded as the most complete and accurate source of contraceptive and abortion-related data: more reliable than the NIH, the CDC, or the World Health Organization. In fact, much of the damnable stuff we know about PP, we know from analyzing AGI data.

Various forms of contraception have widely varying levels of effectiveness. All of the barrier and spermicide methods have high rates of user-failure, which is why the spaying industry is trying to herd as many females as possible onto the long-acting hormonal implants and injections, the endocrine disruptors.

Much of the information people "think" they know is inaccurate: for instance, the idea that the majority of abortion clients are young teens. Not so. Only eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain 11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%.

Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions. This age group centers on college students, and women in entry-level employment.

Anecdotal information is worth -- well, whatever it's worth. Every woman I know who has had an unexpected pregnancy --- that is of those whom I know well enough to know such an intimate thing about them --- was a contraceptive user. Whether she was a careful, methodical, defense-in-depth, doubled-down jellies-jams-plugs-rubbers user or not, I must leave unanswered.

I will say that without serious endocrine disruption, it's pretty hard for a sexually active woman in her 20's not to get pregnant. Think of it: every single one of our ancestors, without exception, over 10,000 generations, 100,000 generations, was fertile and gave birth. It's a force of nature so strong in young women, you have to sabotage her normal physiological function pretty comprehensively if you want her barren as a brick.

What a disaster for women, this repugnant so-called Sexual Revolution.

42 posted on 07/05/2013 6:43:57 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r
If it weren’t for crappy chain motels USA Today’s circulation would be about half of what it is.

Here's a way to hurt them: tell the hotel or motel you are not interested in receiving "USA Today" and to deduct the cost of providing it to you from your bill. I understand that this can be done.

43 posted on 07/05/2013 6:53:03 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

Better yet, make the baby “gay” ; - )


44 posted on 07/05/2013 7:47:37 PM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NYer

So Trib readers are so stupid they’d look at that photo and think it was a Trib article?


45 posted on 07/06/2013 3:05:12 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
And, although the Alan Guttmacher Institute was founded as the research arm of Planned Parenthood, they are still regarded as the most complete and accurate source of contraceptive and abortion-related data: more reliable than the NIH, the CDC, or the World Health Organization. In fact, much of the damnable stuff we know about PP, we know from analyzing AGI data.

Considered by whom?

In medical research publishing, all authors must declare whether they have a conflict of interest in the study they want to publish. That's because the introduction of a money motive does influence the conduct and interpretation of research. In the case of Guttmacher Institute, the money motive is so strong that barely any reliable research comes out of that place. Their studies are designed to give pro-abortion results.

Whenever I look at studies involving any aspect of abortion, the first thing I look at is the source of the study. Most of these studies originate from some abortion associated group; those studies can be discounted without bothering to read past the abstract.

Much of the information people "think" they know is inaccurate: for instance, the idea that the majority of abortion clients are young teens. Not so. Only eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain 11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%.

I was not sure whether to include young 20 somethings among the frequent abortion customers. The salient point is that the rates of abortion are highest among those who are *not* in steady relationships. Women in long-term relationships are more likely to use contraceptives; it is not unusual for a woman to go decades without getting pregnant after she has had as many children as she wants (which is less than 2, these days). If we were to take various estimates of contraceptive effectiveness at face value, we'd expect a much higher pregnancy rate than is actually seen.

Anecdotal information is worth -- well, whatever it's worth. Every woman I know who has had an unexpected pregnancy --- that is of those whom I know well enough to know such an intimate thing about them --- was a contraceptive user. Whether she was a careful, methodical, defense-in-depth, doubled-down jellies-jams-plugs-rubbers user or not, I must leave unanswered.

I do not know why, but it seems like every woman I've known who has had abortions feels a need to tell me about it. I don't even have to know them all that well--they just tell me. Also, I read a lot--it is not difficult to find some hyper-defensive woman writing a blog or article about why her abortions were perfectly justified. Among probably dozens of these accounts, I have *never* seen anyone volunteer that they were using contraceptives at the time they got pregnant, even if they give a fairly detailed account of how they got pregnant. That is a pretty clear indication that they were not. You don't need a study to figure this out: you just need to understand human nature. There is a stigma associated with abortion, which is even greater if the woman didn't bother to try to avoid pregnancy. Therefore, women who are asked point-blank if they were using contraceptives will very often lie and say they were, especially if they sense that the person asking will judge them negatively if they tell the truth.

You don't need to have intrusive medical tests to verify whether a woman is using contraceptives or not, in order to design a study that can accurately determine contraceptive effectiveness. The study does need to be prospective. If I were designing such a study is to include a survey on attitudes towards abortion. I think a prospective study on contraceptive effectiveness, coupled with attitudes towards abortion, would be extremely powerful. There is every reason to think that contraceptive efficacy would be highest among those who have a strong desire to not get pregnant and who will NOT use abortion as a backup under ANY circumstance.

46 posted on 07/07/2013 8:02:53 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
ExDemMom, I've been working for the pro-life movement, as full-timer and as volunteer, for over 30 years, and I've neve heard a conservative or pro-life person impugn the reliability of Guttmacher statistics. Such groups as Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, American Life League, Life Dynamics, and others, use Guttmacher as their go-to source for abortion and contraception data. (Notice I said "data." Not the analysis or interpretation of the data, which might be quite another thing.)

Richard Doerflinger of the USCCB Pro-Life activities committee (and a way-back-when colleague of mine) points out that Guttmacher is always more accurate than the Centers for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance System, since AGI depends on detailed interviews and questionnaires of the abortion industry and the contraception-abaortion population, whereas CDC relies on legal reporting. There is no uniform abortion reporting requirement across all states in the U.S., and California hasn't reported to the CDC for years. That's why CDC's figures are always significantly less accurate than AGI's --- because CA, the #1 abortion state in the USA, does not report to CDC.

It is factually baseless to say that abortion-associated group' studies "can be discounted without bothering to read past the abstract." I don't know of a single pro-life, profamily or conservative group that takes that approach. In fact, exactly the opposite: they would mine the study for data, and forget the "abstract", which is likely to be a summary of their own tendentious "conclusions" cooked for abortion-friendly editorial writers and policy makers.

Abortion rates are comparatively low among married women, because, by far, married women's #1 form of "contraception" is in fact surgical sterilization, i.e. tubal ligation. Their #2 form is long-term endocrine disruption, i.e. hormone-based patches, inserts, and injections which impair normal physiological function (Ovarian follicle and corpus luteum).

Naturally anybody who's achieved long-term surgical or chemical sterilization is going to have fewer "omigod" surprise pregnancies, than some first-year college student who's still fumbling around with foams, sprays and rubbers. You can't can get past the slip, rip and drip factor, plus "I was away for the weekend and I left my Trojans in my other purse."

I hope this information is useful to you.

47 posted on 07/07/2013 9:05:02 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("OK, youse guys, pair off by threes." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I know it’s been a while, and I’m not going to take the time now to fully address your post. I’m sure the same issues will arise in future discussions.

However, I will say that what you said there clarifies a lot. I have often wondered why pro-lifers promote the message that contraceptives are ineffective just as avidly as pro-aborts do, because it makes no sense. It is clear why pro-aborts promote that belief—abortion is exceedingly profitable—but not why pro-lifers would promote that exact same belief, because preventing pregnancy eliminates abortion. But now that you have informed me that the major pro-life organizations get their info from Guttmacher—well, that explains a lot. That is a serious problem for the pro-life movement. I will research this connection some more and think about it... as pro-lifers, we cannot afford to keep spreading the pro-abort profit-motivated message.


48 posted on 07/20/2013 6:32:42 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
ExDemMom, you are under the impression that as conrtaceptive acceptance increases, abortions decrease. This seems self-evident, almost intuitive, and yet it is not so.

Think of this: most women who get abortions are not deliberately pregnant. True, they are deliberately cooperating in baby-making acts by their husbands or boyfriends (having live sperm injected into their genital tracts) --- but they have psychologically suppressed what should have been an overwhelming and lasting awareness: that this could get them pregnant.

That's the disconnect. That's why contraception triggers more abortions than it prevents. Contraception has two effects: the pharmaceutical one, and the psychological-behavioral one. The pharmaceutical one reduces the likelihood that any individual act of intercourse will result in pregnancy. The psychological-behavioral one vastly increases risk-taking by both males and females, by creating a cognitive disconnect between sex and fertility.

The second effect overwhelms the first effect.

Thus contraceptives increase unwanted pregnancies. This can be verified by the fact that whenever a new group of females become contraceptive acceptors, their unwanted pregnancy rate, nonmarital childbearing rate, and abortion rate goes up -- not down.

The first Birth Control clinics were set up in New York City approx. 90 years ago. At that time, the abortion rate was 17 per 100 live births.

Now, 2013, in New York contraceptives are available in every grocery store, every drug store, every corner bodega, approx. 25-33 cents apiece for latex, or $9 a month for the classic oral endocrine disruptor; free from all the the Borough health centers; free from the Student Health and Wellness office; urged upon them since they were 5th graders; exhorted upon female commuters by posters in the bus stops and subway platforms; couldn't be more available if they came with M&M's -- and the abortion rate is 70 per hundred live births.

While at the same time, the nonmarital birth rate is 70% of all births.

Yes, there are other factors. But this one fact is undeniable: the contraceptive mentality has been part of the problem, far more than part of the solution.

49 posted on 07/20/2013 7:22:24 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Credulity is believing something upon scant evidence, upon no evidence, or against evidence,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson