What a cheerful
introduction to abortion we have by Holly Auer in Monday's
Newsless Courier. The article, "The Safety Net," which practically gushes over the advantages of making Plan B available in South Carolina, manages to cite all the great advantages to this controversial drug while making the reader wonder why anyone has ever considered it controversial!
All it does is work "by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus." Golly, what was all the fuss about? Why were anti-abortionists upset?
Give up? Since a "fertilized egg" does not require "implantation . . . in the uterus" in order to become a full-blown
baby, Plan B makes everything okay by allowing the user to be blissfully unaware of whether or not she has terminated a life. Why would that bother anyone? Apparently it doesn't bother any one of the proponents interviewed by the reporter.
I wonder : did Holly Auer contemplate interviewing
opponents of this new method of abortion when she gathered the information for her article. Or did she assume that there was only one side of the issue? I see quotes from the New Morning Foundation, Advocates for Youth, Plan B's makers (who will make $$ from sales), the Charleston County Teen Pregnancy Prevention Council, and a "health educator" at the College of Charleston who blithely recounts prescribing the drug for students under 18 without needing to notify parents. The College of Charleston has also provided a $1000 "seed grant" for a brochure encouraging its use. In fact, this health educator suggests stocking up on the drug and providing it to friends. Wow.
I wonder why "some [major drugstore] chains will allow each store to make their [
sic] own decision about whether to stock [the drug]."
Mysterious, isn't it?
And the
Newsless Courier claims merely to present the facts.
Posts
