Overfilling the Gene Pool

By Rob Gillaspie

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Please join me in a round of sinister mocking when these ridiculous assholes take to the streets:

http://thepillkills. com/

Ahem-- from their website:

"June 7 marks the 43rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut. This was the first of many decisions that led to the culture of death we live in today.

On that day in 1965, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Griswold v. Connecticut case, it set a legal precedent for claiming that the Constitution grants women the right to privacy in matters of sexual practice. This meant that Connecticut and the rest of the United States could not stop a married woman from obtaining birth control pills. However, as Judge Andrew Napolitano has pointed out, the constitutional right to privacy has nothing to do with birth control.

The plaintiff was Estelle Griswold, then executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. She and Dr. C. Lee Buxton opened a birth control clinic. They were arrested and fined for selling birth control pills, which was illegal in Connecticut. The case was pushed all the way to the Supreme Court. In other words, Planned Parenthood was breaking the law; yet it turned this case into a legal precedent for selling contraception. Because of the Griswold case and others that followed, unmarried women and teenagers were later permitted to obtain birth control pills.

Join young people across the country on Protest the Pill Day '08: The Pill Kills Babies on June 7 and witness outside of clinics that distribute this killing poison.

Everyone should know the deadly consequences of the pill and similar contraceptive products- they cause chemical abortions. Therefore, American Life League, along with Pro-Life Wisconsin and Pharmacists for Life International Associate groups, calls all pro-lifers across the country to speak out on Protest the Pill Day '08: The Pill Kills Babies, scheduled for the Griswold anniversary of Saturday, June 7. We encourage you to gather with your friends for peaceful protests in front of facilities that distribute birth control products.

Planned Parenthood often promotes June 7 as a day of celebration because it can now sell birth control to young girls. American Life League crashed Planned Parenthood's 2005 Pill Party.

Click here to see a video of our success there in spreading the truth about the pill:

From the beginning, the pill has been an abortifacient, meaning it can cause abortions.

Using statistical estimates of the number of chemical, medical and surgical abortions combined, computed by a biostatistician and an environmental epidemiologist, both at the University of Pittsburgh, along with an Ohio State University technical consultant and Bogomir M.

Kuhar, a pharmacist, American Life League computed the following estimates for chemical abortions alone, from 1973 to 2003:

During this period, approximately 6,605,000 to 11,725,000 chemical abortions occured in the United States annually.

During this period, a total of 196,325,000 to 324,325,000 chemical abortions wiped out the equivalent of the entire United States population!"

They even have a hilarious video to go with it:

So... If THE PILL really does become illegal, are the kind folks at the AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE on standby to adopt the millions of unwanted babies that will be flooding the scene?

Wait-- I'm having a vision: We outlaw birth control, sell the babies on the black market, then use the money to pay off the crippling national debt that our current administration has saddled us with. At last! A logical way to fill this gaping hole that the Christian RIght has dug for our country. As most members of the AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE undoubtedly support our president and his fucking useless war, I'm sure they would be more than happy to see this plan into action, if for no other reason than to wash their hands of a mess that they helped create.

Am I right? Huh? Huh? Who's with me, here?

Lawrence.com blogs are collections of short, frequently updated posts by members of the Lawrence community. Blog writers, and comment posters, are solely responsible for what they say. (Please take the time to read our full policy.)

If you're interested in writing a blog on lawrence.com, send us a couple of sample entries.

Comments

lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy

Posted by matt (Matt Armstrong) on May 7, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Protected in the womb, but the second you get out you're on your own. Hypocrits.

Me and Dot went in to adopt on account a' somethin' went wrong with my semen, and they said we had to wait five years for a healthy white baby. I said, "Healthy white baby? Five years? What else you got?" Said they got two Koreans and a negra born with his heart on the outside. It's a crazy world.

Posted by monkeywrench (Tim vonHolten) on May 7, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

of course the pill kills. that's what keeps the babies from coming out. duh.

Posted by duplenty (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shouldn't super happy dipshit with the "Stop Killing my Generation" sign be posted up at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?

Oh, right, I forgot. Every life is precious, except the ones that aren't.

Posted by duplenty (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This one's for Tim Von H.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oJzLTdCaVN4&a...

Posted by pc (Phil Cauthon) on May 7, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

great... another chump mascot named Phil. Phil the Pill at least looks like it's having a good time in that video. and obviously isn't quite as bad as Phil the syPHILlis Bug.

Posted by softersink (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How fucking cute.

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Statistical estimates. Smells like grant money.

Posted by md_pinks (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 5:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The choice of not having kids and/or aborting a pregnancy in any fashion should always resides in the female who would be having the child.

Making the pill illegal would only bring about a number of ways to do it otherwise if the woman chooses to do so on her own...what world are those people living in! It's 2008 for god sakes!

Posted by mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) on May 8, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Abortion: It brings out the kid in you!

I got nothin'. These assholes make my head hurt too bad.

Posted by alm77 (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

On this "chemical abortion", what this group is saying is that the pill renders the lining of a ladies uterus unable to accept the implanting of a fertilized embryo. Now, while I am clearly pro-life (this shouldn't be news to anyone) even *I* can't see how that shouldn't be a woman's choice. The legal definition of abortion, as I understand it, is ending the process after the embryo is implanted which is why no one in the mainstream would define it as an actual abortion. While I personally am not on the pill (for this AND other reasons(fake hormones? ewww)), I would never say someone else shouldn't have that option available to them.

Posted by alm77 (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and btw, these guys are Catholic and the Pope clearly came out against the war while he was here, so no, they would be pro-life on that front as well.

Posted by alerixon1 (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Always confuses me, what about the millions of people (including babies!) that are killed every year because of starvation & disease, which is caused by over-population. Something tells me the extra 324,325,000 might not exactly help that Could never get a straight answer from an anti-choicer on this. . .

Posted by alm77 (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

alex, two things, I know several families who have adopted babies from Asia who have been, in effect, rescued from those kinds of conditions. What's sad is that adopting is so difficult. It's difficult to adopt an American baby of any race and it's expensive and difficult to adopt children from overseas. The other thing, I don't believe overpopulation, starvation and disease, in this day and age, have to be interconnected, I think these things are caused by lack of development (including pharmaceutical birth control) and stable government, both of which we have in this country.

Posted by md_pinks (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Agreed alm, over population (in said case) is kind of an absurd theory.

We're talking about countries who health care still relies heavily on traditional methods of treatment dating back way before modern medicine. And no, that doesn't include the current over the counter things we have available. I'm talking vaccines, antibiotics, documented tomes of knowledge about health issues, ect. that keep people alive and functioning in society.

Posted by lori (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would just like to point out the main action of the pill is not to create chemical abortions. It suppresses ovulation by inhibiting the release of luteinizing hormone (FH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and changes the cervical mucus so that sperm have a difficult time trying even getting into the party. If, by chance, ovulation and fertilation occur, then yes, in theory the endometrium should be less suitable for implantation. But in reality, that isn't the case. Chemical abortion rarely occurs; if the pill doesn't have the effect of suppressing the hormones that cause ovulation, then the fact that ovulation occurs is going to cause the endometrium to mature and become hospitable to implantation.

Just thought I'd post this, on the off chance that anyone here is actually interested in things like follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing horomone, and mature endometriums.

Posted by alm77 (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lori, its my understanding that when the pill was invented in the 60's then yes, the main action was to suppress ovulation, but since the high amounts of estrogen were causing cancer, and much outrage, the formula was changed (less estrogen more progesterone) so that the secondary action (uninhabitable uterus) is now the primary method of preventing pregnancy. But I don't have a degree in pharm, so I could be wrong.

I just know that I, personally, want my uterus to be as healthy and hospitable to any inkling of life as possible, should anything, even unintentional, happen.

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...on the off chance that anyone here is actually interested in things like follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing horomone, and mature endometriums."

Too bad Kumar the pharmacist wasn't.

Posted by lori (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Alm--most pills still contain significant amounts of estrogen; it's just that now we know that lower amounts of estrogen will still work well for most women. As far as I know, only one pill--Micronor--is progesterone only (depo is, too--one of the main complaints with depo is that it works too well, and a lot of women have problems with ovulation suppression far after the 12 week period of efficacy). And the main function is still ovulation supression.

The uninhabitable uterus doesn't occur unless there is ovulation suppression. The same hormones that are involved in ovulation are the ones that influence the proliferation of the endometrial lining. So it stands to reason that being on regular pills cannot cause an abortion if they weren't even suppressing ovulation--if the body was able to ovulate, it will also be able to create a suitable environment for implantation. Does that make sense?

Posted by funkdog1 (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, Lori. Really. It's nice to hear from someone on a blog who knows what the hell they're talking about.

Posted by alm77 (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That does make sense. I was once on a "minipill", was that Micronor? It did weird things to me, hated it.

Also, I did some research and I found this nifty slideshow to back up what you are saying:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/sfeatu...

I've found documents to say that that the pill does in fact effect the uterine lining, but none to say that it is the primary method of pregnancy prevention (again, backing up what you said) which I was told as fact and thought to be true.

So, I went to wiki, aka the source of all knowledge, and found this: "One example is endometrial effects that prevent implantation of an embryo in the uterus. Pro-life groups consider such a mechanism to be abortifacient, and the existence of postfertilization mechanisms is a controversial topic. Some scientists point out that the possibility of fertilization during COCP use is very small. From this, they conclude that endometrial changes are unlikely to play an important role, if any, in the observed effectiveness of COCPs.[60] Others make more complex arguments against the existence of these mechanisms.[61] And some scientists argue the existing data supports such mechanisms.[62] The controversy is currently unresolved."

Reference 62 regarding the controversy and informed consent can be found here: http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint...

But like I said, I would never say someone else shouldn't have the option of The Pill available to them.

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 1:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Heady stuff, y'all, but I've been doing some statistical estimating my own self. Think about it. If abstinence is the safest form of birth control, then think of how many babies we are killing while we are not having sex.

Now, I'm not a biostatistician or an environmental epidemiologist, but I live in a university town, so I'll let my credentials speak for themselves. The number I just pulled out of my nose is - prepare yourselfs - GAJILLIONS.

That ain't right.

Fix it.

Overfilling the Gene Pool

Comments

Post a comment