The Only Emergency Is That It Exists

The only emergency about Emergency Contraception is the fact that it exists and is able to be accessed to easily.

While I was at my own local doctor's office, I picked up a brochure published by Planned Parenthood on the topic of Emergency Contraception.

For those of you who may not know, Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country. Margaret Sanger, a woman who had close ties with Nazi Germany and who was well known as a racist and eugenicist, founded Planned Parenthood in the early 20th century.

The front bottom of the pamphlet states, “Planned Parenthood: America’s most trusted name in women’s health.”

Their slogan is ironic given the fact that abortion is hardly a positive woman’s service.

What is so positive about having your baby killed inside of you and then removed?

Inside the pamphlet it reads, “EC (the initials commonly used as shorthand for Emergency Contraception) prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation, fertilization, or implantation. It will not effect an existing pregnancy. And it will not cause an abortion.”

(Yes, it should be “affect” not “effect” but since 'it is the most trusted name in women’s health,’ I will let it go.)

Upon examination of the statement on how EC works, it is clear that there is contradiction.

First, it states that EC “will not effect an existing pregnancy.”

However, it also states that it will prevent implantation.

If you conceive new life, and that new life travels down a woman’s fallopian tube, arrives in the uterus and then cannot implant inside the uterine wall because EC has destroyed the lining of the uterus, then the new life dies because the new life is unable to implant in the wall and gain nutrients.

Obviously the impediment of implantation would qualify as affecting an existing pregnancy!

Towards the end of the pamphlet, it is noted, “EC will not harm a fetus. Still, you should not use emergency contraception if you are pregnant.”

If EC will not harm a fetus, why the warning?!

At another point, it reads, “Emergency contraception is meant for emergencies only.”

A page later it is stated, “Take-home kits allow women to use EC in emergency situations without having to wait to see their clinicians.”

If it should be used for emergencies only, is it all that safe to be giving out take-home kits?

Besides, what qualifies as an emergency? One may assume that Planned Parenthood only intends this for women who have been brutally raped.

On the contrary, an “emergency” is apparently any time a woman has “unprotected sex.”

(Note: if you need to protect yourself from the person you’re having sex with, that notion in itself should be a red flag that it ain’t love).

The pamphlet also states that EC, “can reduce the risk of pregnancy…”

It is absolutely degrading to women to assert that being pregnant is some sort of abnormality that should be circumvented.

Pregnancy is not a disease. Women are not broken when pregnant. The second society perpetuated the inane phrase of “risk of pregnancy” is the second that women submitted to being considered victims at the very time that they are heroes.

The topic of Emergency Contraception cannot end at the refutation a Planned Parenthood pamphlet. Truly, to give it due attention, several sources ought to be consulted and cross-referenced. While a total study of EC could fill volumes of books, it is easy enough to breakdown the essentials for this simple blog.

I just so happen to have the book, “A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill” by John Wilks lying around my house. Inside, it provides medical based descriptions and observations of the pill and it’s relatives.

Interestingly, it states that, “The drugs used after coitus are a form of the currently available formulations of the pill. To achieve a post-coital ‘contraceptive’ action, the pill is administered in high does over a period of 72 hours.” ('Coitus' means sexual intercourse).

This means that the drug “EC” is really just a high dosage of the pill. (The pill contains either progesterone and or estrogen in synthetic form.)

It needs to be understood that “Emergency Contraception” is a MISNOMER. In order to be a contraceptive, the drug must work only to prevent con-ception. However, as “A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill” points out, “If post-coital drugs acted exclusively to inhibit ovulation, then the term ‘contraceptive’ would be accurate.”

However, it is not accurate.

Even in a publication by the research arm of Planned Parenthood, concludes that EC prevents implantation of new life.

“Emergency contraceptive pills, also known as morning-after pills, are a postcoital hormonal treatment that appears to inhibit implantation of the fertilized ovum.” (C. Harper and C. Ellerton, “Knowledge and Perceptions of Emergency Contraceptive Pills Among a College-Age Population: A Qualitative Approach," 27 Family Planning Perspectives 149 [July-August 1995]).

As I read more, I came upon the side-effects. On page 155 of "A Consumer’s Guide," it states,

“When estrogens alone are used as a post-coital ‘contraceptive’, the major problems related to the excessively high does given, with the attendant risks of side-effects: the prescribed regime of 5mg/day for 5 days of ethinyl estradiol or conjugated estrogens at 30mg/day for 5 days represents the equivalent of 2 years’ use of 50mg/day combined oral contraceptive.” Studies done using these high doses of estrogen found that nausea occurred in 70% and vomiting in 33% of patients. Questions of concern are also raised about the damage to a woman’s life supply of eggs occasioned by the ingestion of such a large does of female hormone.” (emphasis added.

Can you imagine, sitting down and taking 2 years worth of the pill all at once and not thinking to yourself, hmm, maybe this could be harmful? As for the vomiting, the Planned Parenthood brochure notes that vomiting is a side-effect and even suggests that "you may want to eat some crackers."

Contrary to what Planned Parenthood claims, Emergency Contraception does cause abortions. It does so by ruining a woman’s endometrium (the lining of a woman’s uterus…it’s what sheds when she has her period…). When a new life gets to the uterus and can’t implant, the new life dies; the son or daughter is aborted.

The next time you see an ad for Emergency Contraception, note that the only emergency is the fact that it exists.

As Feminists for Life assert: Women Deserve Better.

Quotes taken from: Emergency Contraception © Revised version December 2002 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. Original copyright 1996 PPFA. All rights reserved.

A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs by John Wilks B. Pharm. M.P.S.
Published by ALL Inc. Stafford, Virginia, 1997.

No, Virginia, There Are No Unwanted Children

It doesn’t take a doctor of semantics to decipher the fact that Planned Parenthood’s tag-line, “Every child a wanted child,” carry’s absolutely no substance at all. The phrase is used to justify abortion, which is by definition, the killing of an unborn baby. Planned Parenthood touts the phrase around and around the country, and we, the really educated citizens of the states have not united in coming up with cogent rhetoric as to why there is no such thing as “unwanted children.”

Before we deconstruct the idea of “unwantedness,” let’s recognize the appeal of the tag-line. It is appealing to consider that every child will be absolutely cherished by his or her birth parents upon birth. The appeal comes from the imbedded notion that “wanted babies” will live a life of giggling while the so-called “unwanted babies” will live a life of crying.

Giggling vs Crying.

“I want you, therefore thou shall giggle.”

“I just wanted sex and now I have a new, little, pooping human, therefore thou shall cry.”

Planned Parenthood likes the giggles, right? There’s where it gets the tag line, right? If only that were remotely true, I could be writing blogs about fashion or celebrity divorces, or something else Really Important. Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood isn’t thinking giggling vs crying. Planned Parenthood is a business and it wants your money. The way it gets your money is by scraping the lining of your uterus with a curette and emptying the “contents of the uterus” (read: YOUR BABY) out into a collection bottle. (I am not trying to be crass. I am seriously just telling the truth.)

Let’s go deep. The entire idea of “unwanted children” is a FICTIONAL IDEA. As in, it’s fake. There’s actually no such thing as unwanted children. A human being in and of his or herself cannot be ‘unwanted.’ The basic reason for this is the fact that every human being has human dignity! (Dignity means “worth.”) You’ve got it. I’ve got it. The babies of Papa New Guinea have got it. It is The Reason why we can’t abort babies.

Human dignity is understood to be inherent; something that is “inherent” is integral to our very being. The U.S. government does not grant this unto us, the National Education Association doesn’t vote on our dignity, and Kofi Annan has no part in the delineation of dignity. Human beings have the right to live solely on the basis of being human.

Furthermore, since unborn humans are human, they have the same inherent right to live as humans that are born. The unwanted state of being pregnant and the human inside of a pregnant woman is often confused. We transfer the idea that when being pregnant is not the desired outcome of sex, that a child is unwanted as well. This false correlation of ours does not strip the baby of his or her inherent human dignity. Just because we don’t “get” that sex makes babies, does not give us license to kill babies.

Remember that in-utero and out-of-utero, we are talking about the same child. Just as we cannot kill a child that is, for example, orphaned, out-of-utero, we cannot kill a child who is theoretically orphaned while he or she is still in-utero. Killing is still killing even if the location has changed.

The following may illustrate more clearly why ‘wanted-ness’ is not a measure by which we can justify the legality of abortion. You are walking down the street and come upon an infant lying on the sidewalk with a sign above him or her that states, “Unwanted, do not disturb.” How many people would keep walking past the baby because the sign says “unwanted?” I truly think that whether you are a business man speed walking to a meeting, a fourth grader in route to the park, or a grad student on the way to defend a doctoral thesis, you would stop in your tracks, pick up the baby, call the police, and hold the baby until the police arrive.

Consider another angle. “Wanting” someone is a changeable feeling from one human to another human. Human feelings change. Monday: I “want” you. Tuesday: I don’t “want” you. We cannot have legal abortion based upon a sentiment that changes. It is often argued that it is “not fair” to bring a child into the world under particular circumstances. So is dismemberment the answer? Being killed is “more fair?” Besides, the unborn are already in the world. They are “brought in” by sex, not by birth. Birth is an event that happens in life, it does not give life.

Randy Alcorn, in the book, “Pro-Life Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments,” comments on why it is invalid to assert that abortion is in the best interest of the child.

“One of the most misleading aspects of prochoice argumentation is that it makes it appear that abortion is in the best interests of the baby. This is so absurd that it would be laughable if it were not so tragic. A little person is torn limb from limb, never to see the light of day, for her benefit? Slave owners argued that slavery was in the best interest of the blacks, since they couldn’t make it on their own. Today people say, “I can’t have this child because I can’t give it a good life.” And what is the solution to not being able to give him a good life? To take from him the only life he has. Exploiting people and stripping them of their rights is always easier when we tell ourselves we’re doing it for their good rather than our own.” (page 142)

It is our adult assumption that babies born into particular circumstances are destined to be unhappy. It is then our assumption that we should kill people who are destined to unhappiness. We forget that the babies are already in the world and are alive. We forget that it is our adult problem of not loving enough, our adult problem of not wanting, and our adult problem of not seeing that unhappiness is not a true destiny, it is a projected assumption. How dare we assume another person’s life is doomed based upon circumstances of his or her parents.

We are being lied to by Planned Parenthood. The lie is, “You don’t have the capacity to love children that did not spring from your very own loins.” However, as the example of coming across a baby with an “unwanted” sign illustrates, we do truly have the capacity to put aside our very important lives and care for the smallest, most defenseless among us. We must recognize the lies of Planned Parenthood, we must ignore the signs above unborn babies heads that figuratively read, “Unwanted,” and we must publicly and confidently acknowledge that the standard of being “wanted” is an invalid measure when it comes to the legality of killing a little baby.