Judicial Life Potentially Enters the Womb
550 U.S. ___ (2007)
On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States decided, 5 to 4, in Gonzales v. Carhart (Carhart) that the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 (Act) was constitutional in view of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (PP), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (Roe). The Act banned the abortion procedure identified as “intact D&E” but kept legal the “standard D&E” procedure Continue reading
Did you hear the new statistic about premarital sex? 90% of people surveyed have had premarital sex.
The results of the analysis indicate that premarital sex is highly normative behavior. Almost all individuals of both sexes have intercourse before marrying, and the proportion has been roughly similar for the past 40 years.
We interrupt the choir to recommend a donation in support of South Dakota’s Referred Law #6. Apparently Planned Parenthood is throwing its considerable, federally subsidized, and out-of-state blood-money resources to defeat the proposed abortion ban. Out-of-state prolifers should feel free to play at that game too. (Knit cap tip: Amy.)
Pop quiz:
If your answer is to any of these is “yes” you may be surprised to learn you’ve been misinformed, and a conference being held at CMU is just what you need.
The mode of action of [emergency contraception, EC] has become he subject of heated debate in North America and in several Latin American and Caribbean countries. The main question is centred on whether or not EC prevents pregnancy by interfering with post-fertilization events. This issue is of importance for many people who consider that a new human life begins at the time that fertilization is completed. Accordingly, interference with post-fertilization events would lead to loss of human life. In spite of a lack of scientific evidence to support a post-fertilization effect, this possibility is used as an argument to turn legal, political and religious constituencies against the availability and use of EC. (Ortiz, et al, 2004)
In order to satisfy my own curiosity and my critics, I’ve reviewed recent scientific literature related to the question of whether or or not Plan B is abortifacient. I do not wish to appear to be in any way “rooting” for Plan B and/or its supporters. I am not. However, I have been very frustrated by the way that many of my fellow pro-lifers have repeatedly stated confidently that Plan B sometimes acts after fertilization and is therefore abortifacient. I do not believe such confidence is supported by scientific evidence. The goal of this literature review is to present a fair appraisal of the likelihood of postfertilization effects caused by Plan B to the pro-life community.
For the most part my analysis will proceed in chronological order, but I’ll begin with a newer article (Croxatto, Ortiz, and Müller, 2001) that provides an brief primer on the relevant reproduction science. Continue reading