Post a Comment On: Vigilance

Thanks to Squeezy Chortle for pointing out this unintentionally humorous anti-abortion web site: The Pro-Life Action League.

Like a lot of the abortion-issue groups, they have an opinion about sex-education. And it really is intriguing to note that these groups that are so adamantly opposed to abortion are also opposed to the education and contraception that would help make abortion unnecessary. One theory is that these are people who are really into sweat-popping, fingernail-busting, teeth-gritting willpower for its own sake. Like, here's a motto for them: Delayed gratification is its own reward.

I really don't think people prefer delayed-gratification over actual gratification, so there is some reason to think this theory is better: Maybe these are people who don't want women to be making a lot of their own decisions. Oh, sure, it's OK if women decide to get married and have a family. But of course, when only one choice is acceptable ... you didn't really have a choice to begin with.

Well, of course, they'll never say that, you have to figure it out.

Anyway, this web site, the Pro-Life League of Super-Heroes, not surprisingly, has an opinion about sex-ed. They start this section with birth control:
The Pro-Life Action League opposes artificial birth control (contraception), not only because it destroys the inherent meaning of the sexual act as a sign of permanent, life-giving love, but because of the disastrous consequences it has wrought on our society.

We are often told that in order to reduce the number of abortions, we ought to promote birth control, distribute condoms and demand so-called "comprehensive" sex-ed. At first glance, these proposals see reasonable, but ultimately contraception actually increases abortion for four key reasons:
Contraception increases risky sexual behavior among those who use it.
Contraceptives often fail to work, especially among the young and unmarried.
Using contraception predisposes a woman to abort her child when contraceptives fail.
Contraception distorts the cultural sexual environment even for those who don't use it.
These points are supposed to link to some explanations, but there's nothing there.

There is some elaboration, though, and -- it gets pretty funny.

Like this:
Condoms fail. Even when used "correctly and consistently"—which is uncommon among those at greatest risk of unplanned pregnancy and sexually trasmitted diseases—the World Health Organization admits that a pregnancy will occur 3% of the time. For typical use, the WHO admits that the rate of pregnancy is much higher—anywhere from 10% to 14%. (See WHO Fact Sheet.)
Now ... follow that link to the "WHO Fact Sheet." There you will find the strongest endorsement of condoms ever. The WHO loves condoms. They want to give them to everybody. The article starts out: Condoms are the only contraceptive method proven to reduce the risk of all sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. They can be used as a dual-purpose method, both for prevention of pregnancy and protection against STIs. Looking at this site, I don't see much in the way of "admitting" anything -- these guys seem totally enthused about the idea of condoms.

The Pro-Life Action Heroes also write:
Not only are condoms less effective for preventing pregnancy than commonly believed, but they are even less effective for preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Condoms have been repeatedly shown to be relatively ineffective in protecting against HIV/AIDS. A massive study co-sponsored by the NIH, CDC, FDA, and USAID issued findings in July 2001 that condoms, even when used "correctly and consistently," provided only 85% protection against the spread of AIDS. (See Government Study.)
Now, this is weird. We have seen many instances where the CRC and other rightwing groups have put out some statement that links to some information that contradicts the statement. They are counting on you not looking at the link.

You aren't a thinker, a questioner, you are a person who will be told something and will believe it.

You're not? So ... click on the "Government Study" link. What do you see? Do you see a paper titled, Scientific Review Panel Confirms Condoms Are Effective Against HIV/AIDS, But Epidemiological Studies Are Insufficient for Other STDs?

I do.

This "Government Study" says exactly the opposite of what the Pro-Life Power Rangers say. It says, Meta-analysis of several studies showed an 85 percent decrease in risk of HIV transmission among consistent condom users versus non-users. These data provide compelling evidence that consistent use of the latex male condom is a highly effective method for preventing HIV transmission, the report said. Studies also show a 49 percent to 100 percent reduction in risk of gonorrhea among men reporting condom use compared with non-users. For the other STDs reviewed, existing studies were found insufficient to accurately assess effectiveness. For HPV, the panel found there was no evidence that condom use reduced the risk of HPV infection, but study results did suggest that condom use might afford some reduction in risk of HPV-associated diseases.

Finally, they get to the "sex-ed" section.
So-called "comprehensive sex education" programs condone various practices such as premarital sex, oral sex, solitary and mutual masturbation and contraception—all under the guise of providing personal health information. Such programs are pose serious dangers to impressionable young people. The decision to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage is extremely risky for many reasons, and it can never be condoned.
These guys are more concerned about "condoning" something than doing anything about it. Tut-tut -- mustn't appear that we approve of something that ninety-nine percent of Americans are doing. Must ensure they remain ignorant while they do it. Must not condone.

At least they didn't try to link to some web page to "support" their assertions.