Saturday, February 04, 2006

Why is the editorial staff of the Peoria Journal Star obsessing over the abortion pill?  What is their motive?  Their latest rant was published on 1/30/06, page A4.  Do they actually think we will change our position on the issue if they harp about it loud enough and long enough?  Does it make them look more and more obsessed with getting an abortion pill into the hands of underage teenagers?  

In their latest propaganda piece they quote a member of the advisory panel for the Food and Drug Administration, “He said FDA scientists were told ‘that this approval was not to happen on the Bush administration’s watch.’”  All I can say is THANK YOU to the Bush administration!  Keep resolute!

Of course, one of their fallacious arguments is that this abortion pill is not an abortion pill.  The following is a quote from Encarta, 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation, Abortion, II  Abortion Methods, page 1.  Please note that headline!  This quote is under the headline of ABORTION METHODS.  “A variety of drug-based abortion methods may be carried out under a physician’s supervision.  In a method commonly referred to as the morning-after pill, a woman is given large doses of estrogen (a female hormone) within 72 hours of unprotected sexual intercourse and again 12 hours later.  Depending on where a woman is in her menstrual cycle at the time she takes the estrogen, it will either inhibit or delay ovulation, or it may alter the uterine lining, preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.”

After an earlier diatribe by the editorial staff of the Peoria Journal Star, the following letter to the editor was published in the paper. (1/5/06, page A4)  “Two recent editorials have discussed Plan B, the morning-after pill, also called emergency contraception (EC).

EC is a high dose of the birth control pill.  It works in one of three ways.  One, ovulation is inhibited—the egg is not released.  Two, the transport of sperm is altered.  Or three, the lining of the uterus is irritated so that the already formed human being does not attach to the lining of the uterus, which is a chemical abortion.  (My underlining.)

Those who say that EC is not an abortion have changed the definition of the beginning of human life.  They say life begins with implantation, after the fertilized egg has traveled the fallopian tube and implanted in the wall of the uterus.  If you read an embryology text you will find human life begins when egg and sperm unite, which is called fertilization.  (Duh!!!  Of course, the editorial writers will not admit this because it destroys their murderous position on the issue—my addition.)

Pharmacists who know that EC can cause early abortions are refusing to fill those prescriptions.  

Some side effects of EC are blood clot formation in the legs or lungs, heart attack, stroke, liver damage, gallbladder disease and high blood pressure.  There also is a 10-fold increase in ectopic pregnancy—implantation of the baby in the fallopian tube, which can be life-threatening.

What are the long-term consequences of this medication?  Will EC affect breast cancer risks or long-term fertility?  If it “fails,” how will this affect the unborn child?  I DO NOT WANT THIS MEDICATION TO BE SOLD OVER THE COUNTER TO MY 14-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER.”  (My capitalization.)  

Karen >>>>

I did something I almost never do.  I quoted the entire letter.  I just couldn’t find any portion to leave out.  As far as I know, no rebuttal letter has been published by the Peoria Journal Star nor have the editorial writers responded editorially to this letter.  So again, I ask.  Why is the editorial staff obsessing over the abortion pill?  What is their motive?


Post a Comment

<< Home