Serge over at the Life Training Institute points out that another study shows that emergency contraception (EC) has not decreased pregnancy rates.
Pro-abortion advocates claimed that EC would prevent abortions, but it hasn't. They campaigned for EC on the basis of a false dilemma - that it was either emergency contraception or abortion. They accused the pro-life movement as contributing to abortions by opposing EC.
Obviously if EC hasn't reduced pregnancy rates, it hasn't reduced the abortion rates either.
The wishful thinking on the part of the EC advocates hasn't translated into results.
The report concludes that "This intensive strategy to enhance access to emergency contraceptive pills substantially increased use of the method and had no adverse impact on risk of sexually transmitted infections. However, it did not show benefit in decreasing pregnancy rates."
Intensive strategies, such as The The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) "ask me" campaign, have been a total flop. And these are the experts who the public is supposed to trust on these issues?
It's not too surprising though, since science takes a back seat when it comes to contraception and abortion for organizations like the ACOG. After all, they led the effort to redefine conception and pregnancy for nothing other than social reasons.
(On that note, here is a brochure from The No Room for Contraception Campaign: Pregnancy, Contraception, and Abortion: Frequently Asked Questions - Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view...)
In the debate over Plan B, the media bought into the arguments of the EC advocates without question. Maybe now they will start to question the credibilty of these "experts"???
it's as if their logic circuits are fried, as if they can't understand that if you make an enjoyable activity seem low-risk, more people will participate in it more often.
yes, for woman a, having access to a pill that might keep her from ovulating might keep her from getting pregnant if she has unprotected intercourse. in that one instance. but her life is made of multiple moments. reduce her perception of how risky unprotected intercourse is, and she will indulge in it more often. multiply this by the number of women in the population and simple logic will tell you that though the odds of pregnancy from a single act of unprotected intercourse may go down, the number of events of unprotected intercourse will skyrocket and thus offset the proposed benefit.
they seem convinced that people's sexual behavior is some sort of unchangable constant. no matter how much evidence to the contrary -- both statistical and anecdotal, not to mention their own life experiences -- they're presented with.