Tag Archives: the pill

Not quite Steven Hawking

Right-wingers have a strange relationship with science. They don’t do it, they don’t like it, and they don’t understand it in the least. But they employ it frequently in arguments as a trump card. Like: Studies show that guns prevent violent crime, you idiots. But of course it turns out that’s not what the studies show. And that the best research, if it’s even applicable, really supports a different view, usually the opposite one. That’s when science turns into a corrupt endeavor practiced by weasels who are in it for the money. Or for the fame. Or for any one of those other gaudy lures that a rigorous discipline is always fraught with. Also, scientists are stupid.

Myer2 wrote: Why is algebra such a problem? Most of you feel science is a leftwing plot (evolution and global warming)-

Dear Comrade No. 2:

Science is not, in and of itself, a leftwing plot. For that to be true scientists would have to be cool people, not the mathematically-gifted, socially awkward wallflowers who never really had friends- or dates- in high school.

It’s our old friend. John “gay goatee” Ransom.

Elbert Einstein was the greatest theoretical physicist ever. He had rather childish views about money, economics and politics however.

Elbert was it? What an intelligent critique. As you can see, John is a know-it-all. He reads our e-mails, he shits himself with laughter, then he writes an unintentionally funny column. After pruning his goatee with sheep shears, he thumbs through his indexed copy of The Humor of Milton Friedman for inspiration. It’s a good life.

The cool kids in politics- the people smarmy enough to get elected- use science and scientists to make the scientists feel cool and important. And then they get them to opt-in to their plan to “save the world” . .

Let’s face it; science is just a creative accounting gig.

Pretend to be a scientist’s friend and he’ll tell you whatever you want to hear. What a bunch of dorks, especially when compared to the koolster likes of the “Finance Editor for Townhall Finance”. A man like that’s a freakin’ fact-juggling Fonzie.

Inflation: It’s Back
John Ransom | February 18, 2011

Data from China, the UK and the World Bank weighed in on Tuesday, revealing the key dangers the US economy faces from the economic and social policies of the Obama administration’s loose money program. The news makes the plainest case for budget cuts and increased deficit reduction favored by some members of Congress.

Inflation, once relegated to the historical trivia of the late 1970s and early 1980s, is back.

Inflation is back. Back to where it started, near zero. Top notch analysis there.

Ignore the Rally
John Ransom | February 28, 2011

Ignore the rally.

Now is the time to filter out the background noise that comes with market rallies and concentrate on individual equities.

Don’t trust the market! I checked this: The Dow Jones at the end of February 2011 sat at 12,226. And Friday it closed at 14,712. So you can see why the Fiscal CFOs from the Finance Division of Townhall Finance appointed him “Finance Editor.” He may not be Elbert Einstein smart, but hey who is? Wait don’t tell me – Elbert Einstein?

But that’s only part of it. Scientists also let leftwingers off the hook for denying many proven scientific theories.

For example, leftwingers deny the link between breast cancer and abortions, the pill and cancer, although the science is clear.

Hello, friends, and welcome to the American Cancer Society Hour!

Another large, prospective study was reported on by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003 . .

After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer.

The California Teachers Study also reported on more than 100,000 women in 2008. Researchers asked the women in 1995 about past induced and spontaneous abortions. While the women were being followed in the study, more than 3,300 developed invasive breast cancer. There was no difference in breast cancer risk between the group who had either spontaneous or induced abortions and those who had not had an abortion.

Ding dong, who’s that at the door? It’s the National Cancer Institute.

A number of studies suggest that current use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) appears to slightly increase the risk of breast cancer, especially among younger women. However, the risk level goes back to normal 10 years or more after discontinuing oral contraceptive use.

Women who use oral contraceptives have reduced risks of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This protective effect increases with the length of time oral contraceptives are used.

So that would be yes, the science is clear. What isn’t clear is why someone like John spends any time calling other people stupid. John appears to be a fine example of what he so publicly detests.

Share

When they swear it isn’t about contraception, it’s about contraception

Seems like recent times. Not so long ago. We thought Sandra Fluke being called ‘slut’ or ‘prostitute’ had something to do with conservatives’ views on contraception. Apparently, we didn’t understand what was really going on at the time:

Birth-Control Agitprop
By Jonah Goldberg | National Review

. . “Let’s admit what this debate is really and what Republicans really want to take away from American women. It is contraception,” Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) outrageously claimed while opposing the Blunt amendment. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) said the GOP was yearning to return to “the Dark Ages . . . when women were property that you could easily control, even trade if you wanted to.”

That’s what I thought. No?

The Obama campaign insists that “if Mitt Romney and a few Republican senators get their way, employers could be making women’s health care decisions for them” and require that women seek a permission slip to obtain birth control.

It’s all so breathtakingly mendacious.

Nope. We’ve been lying shamelessly, and Goldberg’s been gasping for air. Fortunately, we went on our merry way to build a Sanger monument, and Jonah opened a window.

He had tried to tell us the truth. That this was only about the evils of abortion, nothing more. So many tried to tell us. Over and over: Contraception is a personal thing, abortion is homicide. If you want to go on the Pill, we don’t care. That’s a personal, not a criminal, matter, and conservatives are loath to mess with those.

Really, if anything, our conniption over contraception was something of a conspiracy. By shifting from their cultural indictment to a popular perception, from the evils of abortion to the benign reality of contraception, we filled the atmosphere with smoke. All the ethicists and scholars have been bumping into each other ever since, trying to find where the infanticide went:

Liberals, media try to shift debate from abortion to contraception
by Jill Stanek | jillstanek.com

I wrote last week about a theory put forth by Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff that abortion proponents were shifting strategies to focus on contraceptives rather than abortion, the reason being their own polls show abortion is no longer a winning issue with young people and women, but contraception is.

. . so pro-life Jill details how Sean Hannity, Dick Morris and others got hip to the conspiracy. Look how Rush figured it out:

“Do you remember – ’cause this is a setup for what’s coming – do you remember, we were all perplexed here. George Stephanopoulos kept hounding Romney on contraception. It had not come up, nobody had said anything about it, and we were all confused, as was Romney, what the deal was…

That’s what Morris’ theory is about what happened last week, trying to get abortion off the table because it’s a loser for the Democrats. And now instead of Republicans want to ban abortion, they want to ban contraception…

So that’s the paradigm shift here, at least so goes the theory, and it does explain why Stephanopoulos was talking about something that was not even an issue.”

Contraception was never an issue. Gee, aren’t we sneaky?

By comparison, we’re amateurs. We make the occasional penny fall out of your ear, you guys palm manhole covers. Arizona State’s news reports on new Republican legislation:

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections.

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

What does this legislation mean? It means Republicans are giving Arizona businessmen the ‘OK’ to prevent women from getting the Pill through their insurance. That’s what it means.

If you’re a Catholic man who owns a factory with 500 female employees, you can deny them contraception. While it’s not against your beliefs if a worker uses the Pill to treat polycystitis, it is against your beliefs if she uses it to prevent pregnancy. So you get to deny her that coverage. And just to be sure, if you figure out an employee is using the Pill, you can demand she produce a medical reason for the prescription.

One man’s religious conviction trumps perhaps thousands of employees’ needs. If you buy Arizona politicians’ arguments, “Freedom of Religion” is no longer about the choices you make for yourself. It’s about the choices you make for others.

But, wait, it gets potentially worse. While I can’t affirm Erin’s contention, it doesn’t seem impossible. It seems entirely plausible:

Law Will Allow Employers to Fire Women for Using Whore Pills
Erin Gloria Ryan | Jezebel

A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they’re using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona’s an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees’ sex lives could fire them as a result.

So, to recap: Based upon his private religious beliefs, your employer could deny you and hundreds of others normal access to contraception. He could do this, even though it saves you, your insurance company and your employer money. He’d be allowed, even though everyone knows it produces healthier babies and more stable families. If you did qualify for the Pill by other means, he’d have the right to vet your medical condition. And if his intuition told him you were just another ‘Sandra Fluke,’ he could fire you. And this is only a fight over abortion.

Share

Return of The Night of The Santorum

When they’ve got a Pennsylvania C.H.U.D. crawling out of the D.C. sewers, eating the eyes of villagers, why should we intervene? We shouldn’t. Gah. What’s wrong with me?

Darned compassion! Cursed rational ways!

[I] have voted for contraception, although I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that, y’know, sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young . . Birth control enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.

First: let’s dispense with dumb. Contraception works like gangbusters. Thank you, everybody who worked on the pill.

Second: If I’m madly in love with my wife (girlfriend?) and I want to have sex with her, how do I avoid being “harmful to women?” See, Rick, the problem: I love her. And I listen to her. She does not want to become pregnant. She’s very terrified of the idea.

So what’s an American guy supposed to do? What are a couple supposed to do?

Share

First: Kathryn Lopez talks sex. Next: Dung beetles on cuisine.

Contraception is Not the Solution
Kathryn Lopez | Feb 25, 2011

Why are Republicans waging war on contraception?

Idiocy? Fear of sexuality? Anger with a few, wanted children? Take your pick.

It’s not the first time the question has been asked, and it won’t be the last. Truth be told, Republicans aren’t engaging in battle on that front — but the phrase gets close to a legitimate fight.

Kathryn Jean Lopez. Ugh. What an intellect.

“Here’s a question — why do we do this stupid stuff? Aw, heck, we DON’T! Nope! NOT US! I was kidding around, throwing you a bone, having a little fun. Incidentally, I call this essay . . ‘IT’S BETTER TO BE STUPID.’

While women may want love and marriage, they don’t expect it. Justice Sandra O’Connor wrote in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey opinion that women had “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.” And why wouldn’t they? Who, nowadays, encourages them to want more?

K-Lo, pictured here . .

. . the Catholic prude, will turn 35 in a couple weeks. And she’s a virgin. Well, we can assume she’s a virgin because she’s so Catholic. Given the way she carries her faith and scolds everybody, she’d BETTER be chaste.

But sexual inexperience doesn’t cause stupidity. Kathryn, people who are sexually active are the most expectant of love and marriage. That’s how human relationships operate: they increase in intensity and intimacy as they progress. Call it “wanting more.”

We’ve come to expect less for and from ourselves, and for and from one another. In part, it’s the fruit of the contraceptive pill. New York magazine recently observed in a cover feature: “The pill is so ingrained in BLAH BLAH BLAH . . .

No. Enough of the rookie bullshit. No coaching from spectators.

Share

SEX KILLS! FILM AROUND THE CLOCK!

June 5, 2010

The pill kills the truth
By Judie Brown

judie brown 3INTRO: Saturday, June 5th is a special day for preborn babies, honest pro-life activism and families committed to ridding this nation of the sexual saturation that is killing the souls of our young people. This is why Judie Brown has a message that every American should read.

EPILOGUE: I want to hear Judie Brown’s vital message — the one that Judie Brown speaks glowingly of. Tell Judie Brown to hurry up, I’m on joodies and braouns. Juuuuddddiieeee Brrroooowwwnnnnnn. Judie Brown Judie Brown Judie Brown! Booty Drown! Crazy Hair!

– The pill kills preborn babies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCU46_lWeE

– The pill kills women http://thepillkills.com/PPD09talkingpoints.pdf.

– The pill kills the environment http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64600

I looked up your links — they don’t say what you say they say! You lie!

Each of these statements is based on irrefutable evidence.

Lie!

pill kills






Oh yeah?! Wwwweeeeeelllllllllllllll theeeeennnnnnnn . . . BABIES KILL LIES! That’s right! BABIES KILL LIES!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

June 5, 2010

I’ll Just Pull Out — You Can Trust Me
By Drunk N. Christian

Naw, no problem, piece of cake . . .

Happy Baby

NO YOU WON’T!!

June 5, 2010

Hit Me With Your Rhythm, Chick
By E. N. Droolie

Aw, yeah, the timing’s right, we gonna do it all night . . .

baby 2

SHOULDA BEEN TRIPLETS!!

June 5, 2010

We Can Do It That Other Way *wink-wink*
By I. Watchee Pron

Girl, this is gonna be rrrrreeeeeaaaaallllllllll seXXXee . . .

cry baby

NO LIKEE!!

Share

Thank God for the pill and for these hilarious Christians who hate it

These dinosaurs are funny. There’s just no way you’re going to convince the world that The Pill is some evil thing, but they sure will try. And, at least in doing so, they will provide us with a few yukks.

May 9, 2010

Has ‘the pill’ caused drive-by shootings?
By Matt C. Abbott

See? They’re already hilarious. Just how many sex jokes can you think of for that title? Must be dozens. Naw, it pretty much put an end to that. Or . . heck — you should see the drive-in. Why doesn’t this website have an editor? One who was born after Pearl Harbor?

matt c

But May’s fondness for the pill — actually, she seems fonder of the morally bankrupt Margaret Sanger than of the pill itself — is not shared by a number of women, including Chicagoan Eleanore Veronika Strong.

“It always strikes me as ironic when self-proclaimed feminists like Elaine Tyler May tout the pill as assisting women’s liberation because it does not require a man’s cooperation or knowledge,” Strong said in an e-mail. “Why would a truly empowered woman want to be with a man who is not mature enough to discuss their sexual relationship and to act in a way that is respectful of both partners’ needs?

I’m completely drawing a blank here. What are ‘both partners’ needs’? She wants to have sex, she doesn’t want to produce a pregnancy, so she takes the pill. What’s the problem? What am I missing? Does anyone here speak 19th Century Christian?

“Moreover, why would she further enable such a man’s behavior by ingesting hormones to suppress her body’s natural functioning so that she can be sexually available to him with no investment or responsibility required on his part?”

Great GOOGLY MOOGLY. Strong sees men as cardboard cutouts, sexually obsessed, shallow and abusive. I guess women would then be pathetic, needy and lonely in her eyes. What a wonderful world. What a wonderful God who made these wonderful people.

She also advocates the use of natural family planning for married couples, which the Church approves. “If a couple has discerned that they have a serious reason to avoid conception, periodic abstinence during the woman’s fertile periods is a beautiful way for a man to demonstrate restraint, maturity, and ultimately love for his partner.”

the-pillDon’t you just love sex advice straight out of The Farmer’s Almanac? ‘Animal Husbandry and the Single Woman’ anyone? When should we ‘plant the rye’, so to speak? I have no idea what I just said. I feel like I’m eavesdropping on a foreign planet.

Dawn Eden, author of The Thrill of the Chaste, also doesn’t agree with May’s assertions regarding the pill.

Holy MACKEREL.You can also buy her two other titles, Tension: Nobody’s Friend and Big Macrame For Me!, at “zzzZZZZZZZZZZZ Books”.

“Clearly, from the point of view of general trends, the pill’s enabling women to have fewer children does not make for ‘better’ motherhood, if ‘better’ means happier. Nor can it be said to make for better mothers from the child’s point of view, since using contraception makes it easier for women to commit adultery.

WOW, these people are crazy. These are horrible arguments.

In fact, [May] shows no visible concern for children’s well-being at all — which isn’t surprising, given what she’s pushing. By encouraging a culture of radical individualism that treats children as accessories, the pill has created a generation of ‘wire monkey’ mothers.”

Great, now I have to look up the ‘wire monkey‘ thing. Oh, wonderful, she’s likening modern women to lifeless wire mannequins. Okay, now I’m pissed, these people are asses.

And then the article goes on to quote at length E. Michael Jones, a guy who claims to know that Jews are outsiders and radicals to God and Christianity. “The ideology is totally wicked,” quote unquote. Alright, that’s enough of this crap.

Share

Unfrozen cavewoman pundit: Women today are confronted with this ‘pill’. Some may ‘use’ it.

I apologize for this post. Judie is so backwards, such an atavism that she beats her arguments with her own 19th century outrage. She didn’t leave me any work to do.

It’s like arguing with some guy who can’t let the horse-drawn carriage go. ‘What will you do? Invent some machine to do the labor of our equine friends?’ Yes. ‘And your machines will be some symbol of the future, eh?’ Yes.

May 6, 2010
judie brown2The pill and 50 years of misery
By Judie Brown

Isn’t it interesting that as the United States of America approaches the 50th anniversary of this nation’s most popular recreational drug, the birth control pill, special interest media is ginning up the presses — or in this case, the web sites — with all sorts of ideas for the next 50 years. A sampling of what America’s birth control worshippers are saying may give one pause to rethink.

And then Judie proves her appreciation for the next half century by being defeated by links embedding:

judie brown

If one is to believe these comments, then the pill is celebrated today as a drug that gives women “control” over their ability to conceive or not to conceive a child, depending on their whims and fancies.

Yes.

Or to put it another way, in blunt but honest terms, the unveiling of the birth control pill in 1960 invited females and their male counterparts to consider, for the first time in our brief history, the idea that fornication and adultery could be a group sport because this little chemical concoction was going to do away with the possibility of conceiving a child.

YES.

At the same time, the pill created the idea, perhaps subconsciously, that all those who used it would no longer be put in the unpleasant position of having to accept responsibility for their actions. This life-changing prescription meant not having to live with the consequence of — God forbid — being with child (i.e. pregnant). In other words, the pill changed everything, turning the truth about human sexuality — waiting until marriage to engage in relations and welcoming a child as a gift — on its head and then denying those truths because they were merely old-fashioned, outdated ideas.

Yes!

Share

north dakota: your new wild, wild west pt.i

A few days ago, North Dakota’s House passed a bill that would change, well, pretty much everything . .

North Dakota’s House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion. The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

[Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot] also sponsored today’s bill and says it is compatable[sic] with Roe versus Wade – the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion. “This is the exact language that’s required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that’s what this does.”

Oh, it does a helluva lot more than that, believe me. Since I am a Tiny Biology Guy, it’s readily apparent to me there are all sorts of new realities that are about to dawn upon ‘The Dakota State That Does Not Have Mount Rushmore.’ Once you’ve accepted that fertilized eggs are actually living people, you’ve really mixed the pot: I looked up a few statistics (no, I won’t link back to them all, I’d never get this post out), crunched a few numbers, and…hoo boy!

Hold on to your hats folks, because North Dakota is about to become the wildest western state ever

North Dakota, new birth capital of America: And how. Let’s side-step the penalty implementations of the law, which has not yet been ruled ‘constitutional’, and just look at some recent statistics to predict where North Dakota would end up on its new reproductive scale. Starting with a recent yearly statistic (2006), we can predict North Dakota will see 8,621 ‘live births’ (how quaint) this year, congratulations everyone. But, oh how the bean counters miscalculate: you’ve got all those ‘births’ they used to ignore.

From national clinical abortion rates, pro-rated for the population, they’ll also have around another 5,523 they can count. But don’t stop there, any fertilized egg is alive, right? You’ll have to take in the spontaneous abortion rate, which is pretty high, hitting between one-fifth and two-thirds of all ‘births’ before the twelfth week of ‘life’, and wow. Let’s peg it on the conservative side of the-likely-viable-old-fashioney-birth-stuff above, one-third, and you’ve got…(8,621 + 5,523) x 3/2 = 21,216. Now comes the hard part, other mechanisms of miscounting ‘life’: still births, miscarriages, medically necessary procedures, abortifacient RU-486, the morning-after pill, the regular-old Pill (too), IUDs (prevent implantation)…on and on and on. It’s very difficult to guess how many ‘births’ are usually missed here, it could easily dwarf our number so far. Let’s just be cautious and add on another one-third, to get 31,824.

Well, that is an impressive number, for sure. Considering that there are only around 640,000 people in North Dakota, that is some strapping fecundity. The typical yearly birth rate for the United states is around 16-17 per 1,000 people, but that rate is around…49.72, santa maria. That’s gotta put them way out of America’s league, that’s more like All-Planet.

Let’s see. Hmm, in the entire world, North Dakota is now…

Countries with the Highest Birth Rates

Country Birth rate
1. Niger………………48.91
2. Uganda…………..47.45
3. Mali………………..47.29
4. Afghanistan…….47.27
5. Chad……………….46.50
6. Somalia…………..46.04
7. Angola…………….45.14
8. Liberia…………….44.81
9. D. R. Congo……..44.73
10. Burkina Faso…44.46

…NUMBER ONE! Congratulations, North Dakota, human factory of the freaking planet! Niger, Uganda, Mali . . that is some heady company there.

Share