By Nathan Tabor
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
I was heartened to see anchorwoman Katie Couric including a free speech segment in her new version of the CBS Evening News. Free speech remains one of the greatest liberties available to us as american citizens.
and yet, the cost of free speech can be quite dear for those who engage in speech that is considered politically incorrect.
For instance, when you write a column taking on the abortion industry, you can expect to be called a liar, ignorant, and, of course, wrong.
But, since the criticism comes from a group of individuals who believe that killing a partly-delivered baby in a partial-birth abortion represents some sort of freedom, you have to take the diatribes with a grain of salt—or a mountain of it, as needed.
a few months ago, I was taken to task by Planned Parenthood for writing that "some leading medical experts say that the morning-after pill doesn't just prevent pregnancy—it can also kill a child who has already been conceived in her mother’s womb."
In big letters, the nation’s largest abortion operation wrote that my words were factually incorrect.
But I am certainly not alone in stating that the morning-after pill can act as an abortion pill. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has written, "a woman who uses EC (the morning-after pill) after unprotected sex clearly intends to prevent pregnancy. However, she may be quite unaware of 'where' she is in her cycle (i.e., whether or not she has ovulated). although she may not intend to abort, the drug’s action of altering the endometrium to interfere with implantation may in fact abort the developing embryo."
and, as the Pontifical academy for Life stated regarding the morning-after pill, 'It is clear…that the proven 'anti-implantation' action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing."
Planned Parenthood and other members of the abortion industry want to change the definition of pregnancy, claiming that pregnancy begins with implantation of a fertilized egg, rather than at fertilization—the point when the egg and the sperm unite. By altering the definition of pregnancy, Planned Parenthood officials can claim with a straight face that the morning-after pill can prevent abortion rather than cause one. That's an important line of rhetoric—since, while polls show the vast majority of americans accept contraception, women do not crave an abortion as they would a Porsche or a day at the spa.
Still, let’s accept Planned Parenthood’s line of reasoning for the moment. Let’s say that Plan B is a modern medical miracle—just the thing that will lay the abortion debate to rest once and for all. If Plan B (notice the pro-abortion crowd seems fixated on the word "plan" and "Planned") is so wonderful, than pro-lifers should grab hold of this and ride it! We can use the argument that we have Plan B—therefore we don’t need Plan a—abortion on demand.
Once that egg is safely implanted in a mother’s womb, he or she is a baby and should be protected—even Planned Parenthood now says it's a baby!
If a pill is going to end all of our unexpected pregnancies, then why on earth do we need to allow a procedure that involves jamming scissors in a baby’s skull and suctioning out the little one’s brains? That Planned Parenthood officials would continue to defend partial-birth abortion seems especially abhorrent—if Plan B is all that they claim it is.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement