Yesterday I was interviewed over the phone by a UPI reporter in Washington, D.C. The topics included contraception and the concern from "pro-choice" advocates that not enough taxpayer money is being given to the effort of decreasing unintended pregnancies. No surprise that the eventual story, located here on the Washington Times website, failed to emphasize what I emphasized to the reporter; namely, the monumental difference between genuine contraception and the host of drugs and devices inaccurately described as contraception which are, in fact, abortifacients.
I believe the reporter was trying to be fair (she misquoted me less than is usual in these things) but the article shows the general bias of the culture in favor of contraception at all costs to keep the sexual revolution rolling along. This means ignoring biblical sexual morality, refusing to deal with the huge cultural and economic crises created by "birth dearth," dissing abstinence-only sex education, and insisting (even at taxpayer expense) the proliferation of abortion drugs and gizmos as the best (or only!) way to reduce teen pregnacies.
The story has already shown up at other places on the web today (and probably in some hard copy newspapers). Among them Science Daily, the UPI site, the M&C News page, and, of all places, the Middle East/North Africa Financial Network.