8mm
Posted on 03/26/2007 4:10:18 PM PDT by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The nation's largest abortion business has launched a new campaign to push the morning after pill on every American community.
Pro-life advocates oppose the use of the drug because it fails to lower abortion rates and can lead to risky sexual behavior by teenagers. It may also cause an abortion in some circumstances.
In an email Planned Parenthood sent to LifeNews.com late last week, the group said its signing up activists to go to every pharmacy in the country.
"Every day in America, women are forced to play the lottery when they walk into their neighborhood pharmacies and ask for Plan B emergency contraception," the group said.
The pro-abortion activists it signs up in the "Pill Patrol" campaign will ask whether the store sells the drug and will attempt to purchase it to see how much resistance they encounter from the pharmacist on duty.
They will then report the findings back to Planned Parenthood, which may result in pressuring the store or company to make the drug more available.
In the email, Planned Parenthood said it's targeting pharmacy chains and large retailers with pharmacies such as Costco, Target, Wal-Mart, and Supervalue/Osco stores.
Pro-abortion activists are asked to become "secret shoppers" and to report back on how much the Plan B drug cost and whether it was in stock at the time of the attempted purchase.
Studies, including one done by a Planned Parenthood medical director in San Francisco, find the morning after pill does not reduce abortion and pregnancy rates.
Researchers at the University of California at San Francisco, that found increased access to the "morning after" pill did not lower pregnancy or abortion rates because many women did not use the pills.
Wendy Wright, the president of Concerned Women for America says that analysis is right.
"The claim that pregnancies and abortions would reduce by half is based not on science or fact, but 'faith' with no substance in reality," she said.
No. There is such a thing as personal responsibility PRIOR TO HAVING SEX.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
In today's world, young people think they have a right to carefree sex without any real world consequences. They think of sex as natural as eating, breathing, and sleeping. Or I should say too many think of gratification of any sex desires as being only natural. Out of this mindset comes the thought that if a morning after pill isn't readily available everywhere, that somehow this infringes on their "right" to the carefree sex.
The culture of death and it's armies just keep on marching in step towards hell.
More bending over to the religion of peace.
This article illustrates that they (the leftist dead-souls) are bringing hell to us rather than marching away to it themselves.
Unfortunately, you're right.
Therein lies the real "Choice." Yes, people, you can CHOOSE whether to have sex or not...
This kind of activity by Planned Parenthood is utterly demented, and outright freakin' sick.
"Every day in America, women are forced to play the lottery when they walk into their neighborhood pharmacies and ask for Plan B emergency contraception," the group said."
What a steaming pantload. I call Hotel Sierra.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
If a pharmacist is so proud of not selling plan B, why doesn't he/she post it prominently at the front of the store?
The pharmacist can run his store any way he wants, women can not waste precious time going to pharmacies that don't sell the drug they want.
I think that sounds like a fine idea (if I had such a store in my area, I'd be far more likely to transfer my prescriptions to that store!)...they could call themselves "Humanae Vitae-friendly" shops.
As long as we're on the subject of full disclosure, why do abortionists call it "Women's Health?" Along the same lines, I'd think they'd gladly call it "pre-natal infanticide" and have, as their emblem, a graphic of a dismembered fetus.
On a related subject, Libertarianchick, just curious what you think about the subject of Libertarians who are pro-life (i.e., anti-abortion &tc)?
I've recently read a lot of Libertarians for Life, and I find their arguments fairly compelling, if not necessarily what I think most people want to hear (personal responsibility and parental duty to children you create). I can't think of any direct arguments against them that are not the product of making sex without consequences a "right." (I see that, and I'm somewhat pro-choice)
I do have a major problem with the anti-birth control crowd. I don't think there is any argument, Libertarian or otherwise, why a woman is obligated to allow herself to ovulate and keep her uterine lining as robust as possible if she does not want to get pregnant. You can argue all day that to remove and kill an established fetus is abandonment and murder, but the same doesn't hold up against birth control that may or may not slightly thin the uterine lining, making the already dicey proposition of implantation go down slightly. There is no way to know what action plan B may take in a particular woman, and for pro-lifers to compare it to abortion really screws over their cause.
I appreciate what you're saying and, on one level can appreciate it.
I've posted before (from the drug maker's website) that the 'plan b' drug has three mechanisms of action:
For me, personally, the potential of the third mechanism happening is what makes me opposed to the drug. That third mechanism makes it an abortifacient. (FWIW, I am equally opposed to any hormonal birth control and to the IUD for the same rationale). For those who believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization, the intentional termination of life is abhorent, whether that life be one minute after fertilization or 388,000 minutes after fertilization.
If it wasn't for that third action, I would, as a practicing Catholic, still be opposed to the drug, but the opposition would not be nearly as vehement...as the actions that the person using the drug would be impacting herself and not impacting a third party w/o any say in the matter (i.e., the blastocyst, which in 380k +/- minutes, emerges through the birth canal as an infant).
Perhaps the above will help you recognize that we all aren't a bunch of wild-eyed loons...but just trying to be consistent in our pro-life views.
I understand the 3 mechanisms and why the 3rd one is against your beliefs. But there is also the fact that women can't get pregnant except for a small time in their cycle, so most women taking plan B would probably not get pregnant anyway. There is also the fact that less than 50% of embryos implant even if the uterus is prefect.
So there are actually about 5 mechanisms before you get to the "true abortifacient" action. In my view, I don't think it's an abortion anyway, but the chance is truly quite small.
Catholics (and others) have to do what they have to do...but nobody is going to reduce abortion if you're against birth control. People have sex and always will. Most families can't have 6 kids and most women can't use natural family planning.
I just wonder, is it better to be perfectly consistent, or to reduce abortion of known fetuses by the use of birth control, even if there might be small, unknown loss of some embryos? I know where I stand.
I think it is terrible that pharmacists should be forced to sell a drug if they are pro-life. Believing that life begins at conception, I, if I were a pharmacist, would not be willing to sell that particular drug. There is a possibility the drug could end the life of a newly conception male/female, and that is a risk I would not wish to take. I would also be hesitant about selling other abortaficient forms of birth control. I think companies should allow an exception for their pharmacists. If not, strong pro-life pharmacists would have to attempt to find work elsewhere.
Yes. They hate God and his Church that much. Like demons.
You offered, "There is also the fact that less than 50% of embryos implant even if the uterus is prefect." Since there is absolutely no way this statistical assertion can be proven or scientifically extrapolated from scant data, why do folks like you continue to assert this as if a gospel? With even a very small effort, you could discover the truth regarding this topic, and see that assertions like the one you've repeated are typical falsehoods generated by those defending abortion on demand.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
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.