Pharmacists told to check their conscience at the door

Whatever happened to "do no harm" in the medical profession?

Via American Papist blog again:

"New Jersey Forces Pharmacists to Dispense Abortifacient Drugs Regardless of Conscience"

"Another domino falls:

The state of New Jersey has passed a law denying the conscientious objection right of pharmacists, won in other states through lengthy court battles, to refrain from dispensing abortifacient and contraceptive drugs.“Discussions of morals and matters of conscience are admirable, but should not come into play when subjective beliefs conflict with objective medical decisions,” said state Sen. Joseph Vitale, D-Middlesex, a bill sponsor.

The decision comes just days after Pope Benedict XVI gave his support to pharmacists worldwide who reject the culture of death in their profession. “Pharmacists must seek to raise people's awareness so that all human beings are protected from conception to natural death, and so that medicines truly play a therapeutic role,” the pope said on Monday.

He called the right of conscientious objection, “a right that must be recognized for people exercising this profession, so as to enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia.”

The New Jersey law was passed in the context of numerous battles in courts and legislatures between pro-abortion governors and pharmacists fighting for conscience rights currently raging across the US. - LifeSiteNews

Once again, I reiterate. "

Video of Youth For Truth Rally against Planned Parenthood in Aurora, IL

Blogger Fighting Irish Thomas has a wonderful video of the the "Youth for Truth" rally that took place in Aurora, IL. to combat the opening of the new Planned Parenthood "abortion fortress."

Check out the video and related news links on his site:

http://www.fightingirishthomas.net/2007/09/
video-auroras-youth-for-truth-rally-9.html

Also,

Read this post from a Yahoo discussion board:

The new Planned Parenthood building in Aurora, IL has been dubbed the "Abortion Fortress" [Photo above by EJS]
______________________________________
Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NLY8h9SXMk

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/08/
prolife_protest.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytZvxkFpVso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnA3aGEeOcs

Get involved:

www.familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org

http://www.prolifeaction.org/

Join the 40-Day Prayer Vigil For the 40 days before Planned Parenthood's scheduled opening on September 18, Families Against Planned Parenthood are holding a Prayer Vigil at the site (map). Rain or shine, day or night, hot or cold, we will be there praying that Planned Parenthood never opens. Please joins us, and sign up for an hour of prayer.

Participate in a Special Event FRIDAY, September 7, 2007: Candelight Vigil—9:15-10 p.m. The Most Reverend Peter Sartain, Bishop of the Diocese of Joliet, has called for a day of prayer and fasting to for the intention of keeping Planned Parenthood out of our community, September 7. Many parishes will be holding prayer services that evening. All the faithful are invited to gather at the Vigil site from 9:15-10:00 p.m. for a Candelight Vigil to close the day of prayer and fasting.
_______________________________________

Remember, those of you who do not live anywhere near the Chicagoland area, you can still observe 9/7 as a day of prayer and fasting for this situation in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Prayer knows no boundaries.

Contraception and Abortion (post #3)

RESPECT LIFE

This is the third of three posts in response to Aus Blog who commented on my post on pro-life resources. (Though, I also would like to post a summary of Hummanae Vitae a bit later).

Aus Blog has a blog entitled simply "Abortion." On this blog, Aus Blog has one post entitled "An Atheist's View on Abortion":
http://abortion-whats-your-oppinion.blogspot.com
/2006/11/atheists-view-on-abortion.html#links

Aus Blog is an avowed atheist, but he/she believes abortion is immoral in 98% of the cases (when it is used only as a form of contraception vs. the 2% of times that it is used in the case of rape, incest, or for health condition of the mother).

I read the post and would like to make some comments.

Aus Blog (comments in green) states: "I am a 98% pro-lifer, 2% Pro-choicer, who has no religious convictions at all. I didn't need the fear of god or anything else to come to my decision, just good sense of what is right and wrong."

This statement is interesting on a couple of levels. I also do not believe that one needs to be a Christian or even a believer in God to see the immorality of abortion. However, it is always curious to me what atheists cite as their source of "right and wrong." My source of morality is natural law (known through my conscience) which is aided by divine revelation (which reached its highpoint in Jesus Christ and His Church). I am not sure what atheists hang their hat on (if there is no God... where does such abstract concepts of "right and wrong" come from?). Still, I am glad that Aus Blog is an atheist who believes in ethics and morality. Atheists who forego ethics and morality can be far more dangerous than "religious extremists" (I refer to the bloody reign of the communists).

Aus Blog displays some sound logic as to why all people (be they religious or not) should be against abortion: because it destroys a defenseless human life who has no choice in the matter.
Aus Blog says "What is she [your mother] had decided to terminate? Would that have been OK?" ... Lucky you had a mother that made the choice of life for you."

Aus Blog also states the correct understanding of when life begins: "At the point of conception is when life began for you" ... and later... "egg + sperm = human being"

But then there are errors: "Though it pains me to say it, there may always be a need for the 2% medical reasons and such, but that's all."

To this, I would ask 'why?' Are the 2% of humans conceived through rape, incest, or with associated medical risks to the mother any less human than the 98% of humans who were conceived by the consent of two healthy non-relatives? Do they have any less inherent human dignity just because of the situation surrounding their conception? Should the child of a rapist suffer the death penalty for his father's sin? Does a mother's attitude (whether she desires the child or not) make a child human... or is human dignity inherent in the person?

At any rate, Aus Blog then zeroes in on the 98% who abort as contraception: "How do we get the other 98% to be responsible...."
Ah, there is the key word--responsible. Many atheists would probably cringe at this reality, but the fact is that the Christian view of human sexuality is the only one that teaches true responsibility. In fact, Karol Wojtyla (before he was elected Pope John Paul II) wrote a famous theological/philosophical treatise entitled "Love and Responsibility" that deals with this issue. His "theology of the body" is the most beautiful expression of the truly responsible and liberating exercise of human sexuality is.

Aus Blog continues: "Sadly many prefer an occasional abortion, over using birth control, they have all kinds of reasons, each of them selfish."

This presumes that the use of abortion and contraception are not intimately related (see the article by Janet Smith in post #1 "Is 'more contraception' the answer to limiting the number of abortions?"). It also presumes that the use of contraception is not selfish. The use of contraception is selfish in that it says that I want the benefits of sexual union without the natural consequences of human life... it objectifies men and women and makes them means towards sexual gratification without the committment and responsibility inherent in monogamous parenthood.

"Then there's the christian impossition, (all a bit talibanish), and their men in high places (church and state should never entwine) their stance against birth control has only added to the numbers."

This is bad logic now. The Church must oppose birth control because it is intrinsically evil and violates the entire point of sexual union (the union of a married man and woman, and procreation... in other words, "bonding and babies"). What else should the Church do, lie about contraception and pretend that it is good for women and society just because that may be the popular opinion? Should they pretend that contraception would lead to a responsible use of human sexuality when it does just the opposite? I am not sure how much power the Church has in New Zealand, but there is no "talibanish" regime in the U.S. where abortion on demand is available up to "partial-birth" and contraception, divorce, fornication, homosexuality, etc. are all legal practices. (In fact, in some countries, religious rights are being tramped upon by countries that make preaching of homosexual acts as immoral as a "hate crime" [Canada], or by forcing Catholic institutions that have been providing adoption services for centuries to have to give children to same-sex couples, etc [U.S.A.].). People should have the legal right to be free to sin, but I do think that abortion should be illegal because it is an infringement of another's human right to life. People often blame the Church for the plague of abortion and AIDS because the Church opposes the false idea that contraception leads to sexual responsibility. I, on the other hand, would stop blaming the Church and look more towards what sexual practices lead to abortion and AIDS (adultery, prostitution, fornication, etc.). If people obeyed Church teaching there would be far less AIDS and abortions. Of course, we must help to treat those with AIDS... just like we must work with out of wedlock pregnancies (encourage keeping the child or adoption)... but let's not pretend that the fault lies with the Church for the recklessness some people choose.

Aus Blog: "People should be able to choose the use of birth control, to avoid having to make another choice."
I think that these people who choose birth control also choose irresponsible sex, and then choose abortion when their contraception fails (see Janet Smith's article). Ask Planned Parenthood how many abortions they perform on women who have been using contraception the month before they come in.

Aus Blog: "Sanity must provale [sic], abortions should remain available and safe for the 2% and such and the rest need to have a good look at themselves and get their act together."

Yes, I agree... sanity must prevail! However, contraception and irresponsible sex that is divorced from love, committment, and oppenness to human life is neither sane nor responsible... and will not help people "get their act together."

In short: I thank you for your thoughts, Aus Blog. I would say that you are 98% right and only 2% wrong... but your underlying assumptions about contraception miss the mark.

Contraception and Abortion (post #2)

RESPECT LIFE

This is my second of three posts in response to Aus Blog's comments to my post on Pro-Life resources.

I believe, contrary to Aus Blog, that:
1. contraception and abortion are related abuses of human sexuality
2. increased use of contraception would not necessarily result in a a decrease in abortion
3. contraception is actually harmful to women physically and spiritually.

Premise #2 is dealt with in the post below entitled "Is 'more contraception' the answer to limiting the number of abortions?."
Premise #3 is dealt with by referring to some links that I list below:

When does human life begin? [Aus Blog, you are right on this... at conception!]
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm


The link between abortion and breast cancer:

http://www.polycarp.org/
overviewabortionbreastcancer.htm

“If a woman takes the oral contraceptive pill before her first full-term pregnancy, she suffers a 40% increased risk of developing breast cancer compared to women who do not take oral contraception pills. If she takes oral contraception pills for 4 years or more prior to her first full-term pregnancy, she may have an even higher risk.” [The Polycarp Research Institute]:
http://www.omsoul.com/newsview.php?idnum=170
http://www.polycarp.org/overviewbreast
canceroralcontraceptives.htm
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kah/
kah_01pillbreastcancer1.html
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kah/
kah_05ocpworldramification.html

How about a link between oral contraception and cervical cancer?

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kah/
kah_17chapt13oralcontra.html


How does “the pill” work… can it fail… and can it cause an early abortion?

http://www.polycarp.org/how_does_the_pill_work.htm
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/wilks/
wilks_04pillworks1.html

What are the medical side effects of the pill?

Medical side effects: The birth control pill increases the risk of breast cancer by over 40% if it is taken before a woman delivers her first baby.4 This risk increases by 70% if the Pill is used for four or more years before the woman’s first child is born.5 Other side effects that women have experienced include the development of high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, heart attack, depression, weight gain, migraine, dark spots on the skin and difficulty with breast-feeding. Diabetics who take oral contraceptives may note increased sugar levels. Some women who stop taking the Pill do not have a return of their fertility (menstrual cycles) for a year or longer. Although the Pill decreases ovarian and some uterine cancers, it increases breast, liver, and cervical cancer.4 At least three studies have noted that the AIDS virus is transmitted more easily to women who are taking the Pill and whose partner(s) has the HIV virus. 6, 7, 8 The cost of using the Pill for five years is over $1,000.

See the full article at:
http://www.omsoul.com/contraception-side-effects.php

Will giving people more birth control solve the problem of abortion? [this pertains also to premise #2]

The following excerpt is from the book Why Can’t We Love them Both by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Wilke (available on-line at:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_
them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_
both_1.asp#Contraception: )

“A major thrust of pro-abortion rhetoric has been the assumption that if only young people were given adequate education in how to use contraceptives, and then adequate access to them, the problem would be solved.
A portion of the pro-life side has serious moral reservations about contraception per-se. Many other pro-lifers do not share this. Almost universally, however, pro-lifers feel that pushing contraceptives onto teenagers encourages fornication and at younger ages. Most pro-lifers oppose contraceptives for premarital sex, for adultery, and for homosexual liaisons.
Title X, the U.S. federal family planning program which has expended billions of dollars giving contraceptives to teenagers over the last three decades, has proven to be a colossal failure. Wherever its clinics have been established, an intense campaign has been launched to teach contraceptive use to unmarried teens. The result? The pregnancy rate has gone up. The sexually transmitted disease has gone up. The abortion rate has gone up. The age of first sexual encounter is younger. Planned Parenthood has reported that 60% of women getting abortions had used contraceptives the month they became pregnant (Chapter 35). This evidence, along with other studies, has convinced many that the siren song of "give them contraceptives and the problem will be solved," is not part of the solution, but rather part of the problem.”

How effective is contraception in preventing pregnancy?

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/
love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_35.
asp#How%20effective%20are%20contraceptives%20in
%20preventing%20pregnancy?

An article on the declining population rate [another by-product of the contraceptive mentality]:
http://wf-f.org/02-2-lifeissues.html

Is "more contraception" the answer to limiting the number of abortions?

RESPECT LIFE

This post is in response to a comment Aus Blog made to my post about pro-life resources.
Briefly, Aus Blog wrote:
"World estimations of the number of terminations carried out each year is somewhere between 20 and 88 million (likely 55 to 60). Over 3,500 per day / Over 1.3 million per year in America alone. 50% of that 1.3 million claimed failed birth control was to blame. A further 48% had failed to use any birth control at all. And 2% had medical reasons. That means a staggering 98% of unwanted pregnancies may have been avoided had an effective birth control been used. People have to stop using abortion as birth control. People should be able to choose to use birth control, to avoid having to make another choice. I'd like to see effective birth control made available to all who can't afford it." "People should be able to choose to use birth control, to avoid having to make another choice. " [emphasis mine]

I respect Aus Blog's right to his/her opinion... but I must disagree. Well, people ARE able to choose to use birth control, but I disagree that birth control really limits the amount of abortions that would otherwise occur. Also, I believe contraception to be harmful to women biologically and spiritually.

Aus Blog draws a sharp distinction between abortion and contraception, as if the two are not intimately related abuses of human sexuality. I am going to paste in its entirety an article by Janet Smith, PhD (Philosophy Dept. of University of Dallas). In addition, I will also post some links to scientific studies showing the damaging effects of contraception (link to breast cancer, cervical cancer, etc.). I know that such ideas go against the almost universally held dogma that contraception is the greatest invention since sliced bread... but if the Catholic Church has a prophetic voice on this matter... a voice that demands to be heard. Later (perhaps in another post) I will also give a summary of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae (on the regulation of birth). This article is long... but worth the read [all lines in bold are my emphasis]:

The Connection between Contraception and Abortion

Janet E. Smith, Ph.D. Philosophy Department,University of Dallas
Reproduced with permission [via http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/
smith/smith_02contraandabortion.html ]

Many in the pro–life movement are reluctant to make a connection between contraception and abortion. They insist that these are two very different acts — that there is all the difference in the world between contraception, which prevents a life from coming to be and abortion, which takes a life that has already begun.

With some contraceptives there is not only a link with abortion there is an identity. Some contraceptives are abortifacients; they work by causing early term abortions. The IUD seems to prevent a fertilized egg — a new little human being — from implanting in the uterine wall. The pill does not always stop ovulation but sometimes prevents implantation of the growing embryo. And, of course, the new RU 486 pill works altogether by aborting a new fetus, a new baby. Although some in the pro–life movement occasional speak out against the contraceptives that are abortifacients most generally steer clear of the issue of contraception.

This seems to me to be a mistake. I think that we will not make good progress in creating a society where all new life can be safe, where we truly display a respect for life, where abortion is a terrible memory rather than a terrible reality until we see that there are many significant links between contraception and abortion and that we bravely speak this truth. We need to realize that a society in which contraceptives are widely used is going to have a very difficult time keeping free of abortions since the lifestyles and attitudes that contraception fosters create an alleged "need" for abortion.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the recent Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade, stated, “in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception . . . . for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.”

The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary any efforts to “expose” what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not because contraceptives are ineffective that a million and half women a year seek abortions as back–ups to failed contraceptives. The “intimate relationships” facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions “necessary”. “Intimate” here is a euphemism and a misleading one at that. Here the word “intimate” means “sexual”; it does not mean “loving and close.” Abortion is most often the result of sexual relationships in which there is little true intimacy and love, in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse. Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care for babies, to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives and they turn to the solution of abortion.

Contraception currently is hailed as the solution to the problems conosequent on the sexual revolution; many believe that better contraceptives and more responsible use of contraceptives will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions and will prevent to some extent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

To support the argument that more responsible use of contraceptives would reduce the number of abortions, some note that most abortions are performed for “contraceptive purposes”. That is, few abortions are had because a woman has been a victim of rape or incest or because a pregnancy would endanger her life, or because she expects to have a handicapped or deformed newborn. Rather, most abortions are had because men and women who do not want a baby are having sexual intercourse and facing pregnancies they did not plan for and do not want. Because their contraceptive failed, or because they failed to use a contraceptive, they then resort to abortion as a back–up. Many believe that if we could convince men and women to use contraceptives responsibly we would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions. Thirty years ago this position might have had some plausibility, but not now. We have lived for about thirty years with a culture permeated with contraceptive use and abortion; no longer can we think that greater access to contraception will reduce the number of abortions. Rather, wherever contraception is more readily available the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions increases greatly.

The connection between contraception and abortion is primarily this: contraception facilitates the kind of relationships and even the kind of attitudes and moral characters that are likely to lead to abortion. The contraceptive mentality treats sexual intercourse as though it had little natural connection with babies; it thinks of babies as an “accident” of pregnancy, as an unwelcome intrusion into a sexual relationship, as a burden. The sexual revolution has no fondness — no room for — the connection between sexual intercourse and babies. The sexual revolution simply was not possible until fairly reliable contraceptives were available.

Far from being a check to the sexual revolution, contraception is the fuel that facilitated the beginning of the sexual revolution and enables it to continue to rage. In the past, many men and women refrained from illicit sexual unions simply because they were not prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood. But once a fairly reliable contraceptive appeared on the scene, this barrier to sex outside the confines of marriage fell. The connection between sex and love also fell quickly; ever since contraception became widely used, there has been much talk of, acceptance of, and practice of casual sex and recreational sex. The deep meaning that is inherent in sexual intercourse has been lost sight of; the willingness to engage in sexual intercourse with another is no longer a result of a deep commitment to another. It no longer bespeaks a willingness to have a child with another and to have all the consequent entanglements with another that babies bring. Contraception helps reduce one's sexual partner to just a sexual object since it renders sexual intercourse to be without any real commitments. Certainly one can easily imagine how attractive abortion would be in the face of a contraceptive failure — one has made not commmitment to one's sexual partner or exacted one, so how can one expect one's self or one's sexual partner to take on the responsiblity of raising a child. Some clinics report that up to 50% of the abortions are of pregnancies that resulted from contraceptive failure.

Futhermore, the casualness with which sexual unions are now entered is accompanied by a casualness and carelessness in the use of contraceptives. Studies show that the women having abortions are very knowledgeable about birth control methods; the great majority — eighty per cent — are experienced contraceptors but they display carelessness and indifference in their use of contraception for a variety of reasons. Contraception has enabled them to enter a sexual relationship or a life style, but while the relationship or life style continues the contraceptive practise does not continue..

One researcher reports the reasons why sexually active, contraceptively experienced women stop contracepting: she observes that some have broken up with their sexual partners and believe they will no longer need a contraceptive but they find themselves sexually active anyway. Others dislike the physical exam required for the pill, or dislike the side–effects of the pill and some are deterred by what inconvenience or difficulty there is in getting contraceptives. Many unmarried women do not like to think of themselves as sexually active; using contraceptives conflicts with their preferred self–image. The failure to use birth control is a sign that many women are not comfortable with being sexually active. That is, many of the women are engaged in an activity that, for some reason, they do not wish to admit to themselves.

One researcher, Kristin Luker, a pro-abortion social scientist, in a book entitled Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision not to Contracept attempted to discover why, with contraceptives so widely available, so many women, virtually all knowledgeable about contraception, had unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The conclusions of her studies suggest that it is not simple “carelessness” or “irresponsibility” that lead women to have abortions, but that frequently the pregnancies that are aborted are planned or the result of a calculated risk. She begins by dismissing some of the commonly held views about why women get abortions; she denies that they are usually had by panic–stricken youngsters or that they are had by unmarried women who would otherwise have had illegitimate births. She also maintains that statistics do not show that abortion is an act of final desperation used by poor women and “welfare mothers” or that abortion is often sought by women who have more children than they can handle. What she attempts to discern is what reason women had for not using contraception although they were contraceptively experienced and knew the risks involved in not using contraception. Luker seeks to substantiate in her study that “unwanted pregnancy is the end result of an informed decision–making process. That pregnancy occurred anyway, for the women in this study, is because most of them were attempting to achieve more diffuse goals than simply preventing pregnancy.”

Luker argues that for these women (women who are having non–contracepted sex, but who are not intending to have babies), using contraceptives has certain “costs” and getting pregnant has certain “benefits”. The women make a calculation that the benefits of not using contraception and the benefits of a pregnancy outweigh the risks of getting pregnant and the need to have an abortion. She concurs that many women prefer “spontaneous sex” and do not like thinking of themselves as “sexually active”. She notes that some wondered whether or not they were fertile and thus did not take contraceptives. The “benefits” of a pregnancy for many women were many; pregnancy proves “that one is a woman”, or that one is fertile; it provides an excuse for “forcing a definition in the relationship”; it forces a woman's or girl's parents to deal with her; it is used as a “psychological organizing technique.”

In the end, almost all of the unmarried women Luker interviewed had the option to marry (and supposedly to complete the pregnancy) but none chose this option. Luker attributes this to unwillingness of women to get married under such conditions, to the disparity between this kind of marriage and their fantasy marriage, and to their belief that they were responsible for the pregnancy, and thus they had no claim on the male's support. One of her examples is of an unmarried woman who did not like using the pill because it made her gain weight. Coupled with this was her wish to force her boyfriend to openly admit his relationship with her to his parents who rejected her, and possibly to force marriage and thus she decided not to use contraception. Upon becoming pregnant, this woman had an abortion.

Much of this data suggests that there is something deep in our natures that finds the severing of sexual intercourse from love and commitment and babies to be unsatisfactory. As we have seen, women are careless in their use of contraceptives for a variety of reasons, but one reason for their careless use of contraceptives is precisely their desire to engage in meaningful sexual activity rather than in meaningless sexual activity. They want their sexual acts to be more meaningful than a handshake or a meal shared. They are profoundly uncomfortable with using contraceptives for what they do to their bodies and for what they do to their relationships. Often, they desire to have a more committed relationship with the male with whom they are involved; they get pregnant to test his love and commitment. But since the relationship has not been made permanent, since no vows have been taken, they are profoundly ambivalent about any pregnancy that might occur. They are very likely to abort a pregnancy they may even have desired. It may sound far–fetched to claim that some women may in some sense “plan” or “desire” the very pregnancies that they abort but this analysis is borne out by studies done by pro–abortion sociologists.

Contraception clearly leads to many abortions by those who have sex outside of marriage. Even within marriage, those who contracept are more likely to abort than those who do not, especially those who use NFP. It is easy to understand why contraceptors would be more likely to abort. Those using contraception who get pregnant unexpectedly, are generally very angry, since they did everything they could to prevent a pregnancy. The pregnancy is seen as a crisis. The married have often planned a life that is not receptive to children and are tempted to abort to sustain the child–free life they have designed. I am not, of course, saying that all those who contracept are likely to abort; I am saying that many more of those who contracept do abort than those who practice natural family planning.

It should be no surprise that unlike contraceptors, those using methods of natural family planning are highly unlikely to resort to abortion should an unplanned pregnancy occur. Some argue that couples using natural family planning are as closed to having babies as are those that use contraceptives; that they too wish to engage in “baby–free” sexual intercourse. But the crucial difference is that those using NFP are not engaging in an act whose nature they wish to thwart; they are keeping to the principles of sexual responsibility. Their sexual acts remain as open to procreation as nature permits. They are refraining from sexual intercourse when they know they may conceive and engaging in sexual intercourse when they are unable to conceive — precisely because of their desire to be responsible about their child–bearing.

It should be no surprise that countries that are permeated by contraceptive sex, fight harder for access to abortion than they do to ensure that all babies can survive both in the womb and out. It is foolish for pro–lifers to think that they can avoid the issues of contraception and sexual irresponsibility and be successful in the fight against abortion. For, as the Supreme Court stated, abortion is “necessary” for those whose intimate relationships are based upon contraceptive sex.