More Condemnation of Cuba's Tyranny (And From an Unexpected Source)

No one in the know thinks that the arts-oriented charity, English PEN, is a bastion of conservatism. And when this report was recently compiled (Freedom of Expression in Cuba), it contained some of the standard liberal complaints; i.e., a strong criticism of the U.S. embargo against Cuba.

However, the report also dared to tell the raw truth about intellectual life in the island paradise. And, in doing so, it sounded raucous alarms not normally heard in liberal circles. Note the opening lines from the report's Executive Summary:

...Cuba operates by far the most hostile approach to freedom of expression anywhere in Latin America. There are currently 26 writers imprisoned in Cuba for expressing their political beliefs. Only China, Iran and Burma imprison more writers for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

56 people including writers, librarians, book collectors, trades unionists, political activists and human rights campaigners have been in prison since the notorious ‘Black Spring’ wave of arrests which took place in March 2003.

Prison conditions for these detainees are appalling. Cuba is one of the few countries in the world that deny the International Committee of the Red Cross access to its prisons.

Cuba has rejected many of the measures suggested by the United Nations in February 2009 to improve human rights in the country.

Political conformity is imposed through the use of criminal prosecutions, long- and short-term detentions, harassment, police warnings, surveillance, house arrests, travel restrictions, exile and politically motivated dismissals from employment.

All print and broadcast media are state-controlled...

These are hard facts for the left to hear -- because they cannot be refuted. Ignored, yes. Drowned out by carping and blaming others, yes. But refuted, no. Therefore, just for bringing up Cuba's crimes, many in the British arts community are appalled at English PEN, furious that they are thus giving aid and assistance to those right-wing critics of the Cuban government who live in Miami and Washington...and the dark holes of Cuba's prisons.

John Keenan commenting in the Guardian on this liberal insistence to "tread lightly" when it comes to thugs like the Castro brothers writes,

How light must that tread be? As PEN points out, there are more writers in prison in Cuba than in any other country in the world, except for China and Iran. You can't pick and choose which authoritarian regime should be condemned or which marginalised and imprisoned writers ought to be supported.

No doubt foreign travel writers will continue to visit Cuba, and will produce reams of blithe copy about Buena Vista Social Club, the Tropicana, and unspoilt beaches. But they should do so in the knowledge that beyond the sun, sea and salsa is a world in eclipse, where people are imprisoned and assaulted for the simple act of opposing their own government.

Last week I mentioned the bold decision of arts leaders in Spain to stand against the cruelty and injustice of Cuba. Perhaps these fresh breezes of moral sanity from Europe will manage to waft their way across the pond to places like Washington and Hollywood, creating a long-overdue reaction to the harsh Communist dictatorship that rules Cuba.

We can hope...and pray.

WWII Vet Fights for the Right to Fly the Flag

Once again a shameless, vexatious order comes down from above (in this case, a property rental company) that denies an American citizen the right to fly his country's flag. And why? Apparently, to keep things looking tidy, uniform and dull.

EJL Management, the New Hampshire rental company that served up this mean-spirited order, actually went further and removed the flags and the brackets from the citizens' homes. The company defended their action by claiming the flags violate a blanket policy "prohibiting such displays."

Such displays? What exactly that means the bureaucratic boobs at EJL Management fail to explain -- except to remind the tenants that they can't have barbecue grills or lawn ornaments either. Fun landlords, huh?

There oughta' be a law against such ham-handed bullies, right?

There is.

Because there were so many of these flag prohibitions popping up, Congress passed the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act back in 2005. The law states clearly that "a condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent an association member from displaying the U.S. flag on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use."

And, yes, renters who meet the conditions of the lease, qualify for "exclusive use."

Meaning that it was EJL Management that was breaking the law, not renters like WWII veteran Joe LeVangie whose flag and brackets were removed from the front of his house.

But Joe, knowing that liberty must always be fought for, did just that. The 88-year old Navy man (who observes proper flag etiquette, by the way) complained and got the media involved which not only brought the meanness of EJL Management into the light but also won the support of the Hillsborough Police Association and American Legion Post 59.

The result? Joe's flag and those of his patriotic friends in the complex will proudly fly again.

Here's the story and video clip from WMUR.

Today's Posts

7 Random Thoughts from Late Last Night

Women's Rights: Republicans Have An Opportunity Here

United Methodist Seminary "Re-Thinking" Christianity

"Oscar's Cuba" Is On Screens Now

Belgium's Euthanasia Horrors Just Keep Getting Worse

Gallup Polls: Pro-Life Is the "New Normal"

It's This Kind of Change That America Needs

7 Random Thoughts from Late Last Night

* For the 40 years I've been in Omaha, Cascio's Steak House has always offered a simple but delicious beef stew as one of its luncheon specials. It has been an obvious hit for decades. So why yesterday did the menu suddenly offer as the restaurant specials only BBQ ribs and beef stroganoff? Has Barack Obama's election brought change to everything we once treasured?

* How ironic is it that while women decry being treated as mere sex objects, so many draw specific attention to their posteriors by wearing clothing with words boldly printed on their bottoms? And, as you well know, many of those emblazoned words have the most striking sexual connotations.

* Why is it that several of the people who tell me (in great detail and excited tones) about the latest Hollywood film they went to see (or make it a TV program or a sporting event or a pop concert down at the city auditorium) consider it "pretentious" of me if I make the most cursory remark about attending the symphony or reading a novel that isn't about vampires or crazed killers?

* It's always disconcerting to hear that a business in your neighborhood has been robbed but this -- our suburban Baker's grocery store held up by armed thugs twice in two weeks? Yipes.

* Why is it that women of all ages, all sizes, all skill levels can look so feminine, so graceful and so downright charming when they're dancing? I first noticed this a few years back at my high school's 35th class reunion. The ladies got up and did some line dancing to a few numbers. Their flowing movement, sense of rhythm, and buoyant happiness were wonderful. I saw the same thing last week when the administrative staff at my Mom's nursing home came out dressed out in 1950's outfits and danced to the oldies sang by Terry Grable. They danced several numbers in the middle of the room -- by themselves, with each other, with residents -- and they demonstrated the same enjoyment, beauty and charm I had witnessed by the Bear Creek gals a few years ago. Keep dancing, ladies.

* Is it the dominion mandate that my Presbyterian friends talk about that makes me feel so gratified and delighted when I finish mowing my lawn? I'll stand on the deck afterward with a lemonade or a soda in my hand, carefully appreciating the beauty of the green grass (pleasantly bordered by our various bushes, columbines, daisies, etc.) and feel much like Ben Cartwright might have in looking over the Ponderosa.

* Why is it that my Mom who is steadily losing her strength, her memory and even her rational judgment (among other things, she suffers frontal lobe dementia) is the one to show me what I've lost; namely, the ability to be awed at the beauty, significance, and sheer wonderment of the birds playing outside her window? (Thank you, Mom, for continuing to teach your son. In this case, you're teaching him to take time to appreciate the intricate miracles that constantly occur all around us.)

Women's Rights: Republicans Have An Opportunity Here

The day after Iran was “elected by acclamation” to the United Nation’s Commission on the Status of Women, Jennifer Rubin at Commentary wrote, "The U.S. couldn’t muster a word of opposition -- not even call for a vote. That would be because . . . why? Because our policy is not to confront and challenge the brutal regime for which rape and discrimination are institutionalized policies. No, rather, we are in the business of trying to ingratiate ourselves, and making the U.S. as inoffensive as possible to the world’s thugocracies."

One wishes that Rubin had a voice inside the U.N. instead of the cowardly and hypocritical voice of the Obama administration which is there...but which went stone silent at this outrageous action.

No, once again we see that outside of tokenism and "reproductive choice," liberals have little interest in women's rights -- rights like freedom from torture, mutilation, sexual slavery, severe repression and death. Yet Democrats continue to believe they can downplay the desperate condition of millions of repressed and endangered women around the world and still hold a monopoly on women's votes here. As the Washington Post's Michael Shear recently reminded us (using a particularly unpropitious phrase), liberals are hoping in this next election season to "whip up women, who are a key Democratic constituency."

Isn't it time Republicans in Washington (and conservatives all around the country) make the most immediate and basic women's rights a key part of our political platform? To move against those who ruthlessly mistreat women? To address the international issues of health, family, and poverty by genuine development and not by merely shipping crates of condoms?

To help women and children is a good thing. And because it is a good thing in itself, it's a political winner too, especially as contrasted to the failed policies of liberal "family planners" and the chicken-hearted refusal of Team Obama to stand up to the "thugocracies" who bully and brutalize women.

(For more on the particular plight of women in Iran, I suggest this terrific piece by Faith J. H. McDonnell over at Front Page Magazine.)

United Methodist Seminary "Re-Thinking" Christianity

“Will Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists want to study theology at a declining, liberal Mainline Protestant seminary? Claremont’s new interfaith approach seems to undermine the transcendent claims of all faiths, and treat religion as merely a prop for the secular culture’s enchantment with multiculturalism and diversity.

“Thanks to the liberalism of seminaries like Claremont, United Methodism has lost half its membership on the West Coast. Why would other religions want to follow that example?”

That's Mark Tooley, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, commenting on the news that the United Methodists' Claremont School of Tehology is planning to launch schools of ministry for non-Christians.

The institution is creating the Claremont University Project which will “rethink classical models of theological education in an effort to promote interreligious cooperation and ethical integrity in the training of religious leaders for a variety of religious traditions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and others.”

"Oscar's Cuba" Is On Screens Now

Check out the trailer for the new documentary film, Oscar's Cuba, which not only presents the plight of human rights hero Dr. Oscar Biscet who is enduring a 25-year prison sentence but which also trumpets the cause of liberty and justice for all Cubans now suffering under Communist tyranny.

Public screenings have begun and inquiries about showing the film in your community are welcome.

Please pray that the film will have an impact on many, alerting them to the real story of what Communism has done to Cuba and the aching needs of that country's people for political, economic and religious freedom.

Belgium's Euthanasia Horrors Just Keep Getting Worse

Wesley J. Smith comments on this alarming report from Flanders News that shows two dreadful things happening in Belgium: 1) the numbers of patients being "euthanized" are being drastically under-reported (perhaps only 25% of the cases are going on record) and 2) more and more patients are getting that poison needle...40% more than just last year!

Says Smith,

This is what happens when a country jumps off a vertical moral cliff.

First, the euthanasia numbers are climbing dramatically. Second, the guidelines become virtually meaningless. As we have seen in the Netherlands, once a society countenances medical killing by doctors, the tend to do anyone they think should be euthanized regardless of the guidelines, and then just don’t report their own lawbreaking...

We are told that legalizing euthanasia makes it all so transparent. We are told it will be strictly restrained by legalization to only the most intractable cases. That pretense is clearly not working in Belgium. But will that cause the country to backtrack? Not on a bet. Once medicalized killing is accepted, the details cease to matter.

Gallup Polls: Pro-Life Is the "New Normal"

When the wording used in the public opinion polls was clear and unequivocal, Americans have always showed that they were more pro-life than pro-abortion. But the pro-life movement's educational efforts, the advance of ultrasound technology, the devastation abortion has had on millions of women, and the divine grace we have enjoyed through countless prayers have had dramatic effect in converting ever more Americans to an openly pro-life position.

Thus even pollsters like the Gallup organization are showing a substantial trend moving away from abortion.

...Gallup, which has done a lot of work in the past year on the abortion issue, has concluded that this pro-life self-identification is now the "new normal." According to Gallup's Lydia Saad, the results of a May 3-6, 2010, poll showed "Slightly more Americans call themselves 'pro-life' than 'pro-choice'"-- 47% vs. 45%...

There are many important messages coming out, but let's just talk about three. First, "While the two-percentage-point gap in current abortion views is not significant," Saad writes, "it represents the third consecutive time Gallup has found more Americans taking the pro-life than pro-choice position on this measure since May 2009, suggesting a real change in public opinion. By contrast, in nearly all readings on this question since 1995, and each survey from 2003 to 2008, more Americans called themselves pro-choice than pro-life."

Second, as Gallup has pointed out repeatedly, Republicans increasingly self-identify as pro-life and Democrats pro-abortion, according to two-year averages of results since 2001. Republicans have jumped from 57% self-identified pro-life in 2003-2004 to 68% in 2009-2010. Meanwhile "Democrats' self-identification with the pro-life position has moved in the other direction, declining from 37% in 2003/2004 to 31% in 2009/2010," according to Saad...

How about Independents who lean to neither party? They "also became more likely to call themselves pro-life' between 2003/2004 and 2005/2006, but have since held steady."

Third, and perhaps most importantly, not only do more men and more women say they are pro-life, "All age groups have become more attached to the pro-life label since 2005, with particularly large increases among young adults and those aged 50 to 64 years in the latest period between 2007/2008 and 2009/2010," Saad writes. In 2003/04, for example, 40% of 18-29 year olds identified themselves as pro-life. By 2009/10, that figure has jumped to 47%....

Here's more of the piece by Dave Andrusko of National Right to Life.

It's This Kind of Change That America Needs

Republican Dale Peterson of Birmingham, Alabama is running for Alabama's Agriculture Commissioner but he's running on a shoestring budget. Yes, he managed to make a video ad but he didn't have the money to put it on TV.

So he uploaded it onto You Tube. For free.

It's bold, winsome and unapologetic appeal to traditional American values and a man's man proudly standing up for them was an immediate sensation. Within 48 hours, nearly a half million people viewed that ad with references and links to it being featured in many national publications and TV programs.

With the numbers of viewers continuing to climb, Dale Peterson has become a star.

The Peterson ad (I post it below) presents a polar opposite to Barack Obama and other milquetoast liberals. For the viewer sees in Peterson someone who will talk straight, spend wisely and stand tall for America. No apologizing for America's greatness. No defense of illegal aliens. No bowing to foreign potentates.

Yesterday's election results showed how weak is the appeal of Washington liberals. But Republicans will capitalize on this political opportunity only if they find candidates who will run on (and stay true) to the principles and spirit of what Dale Peterson shows in this ad.

Today's Posts

Checkbook Euthanasia: How Selfish Can We Get?

WaPo: "Abortion Could Be Sleeper Issue in Supreme Court Confirmation." (Golly, Ya' Think?)

Why Do Liberals Refuse to Acknowledge "Radical Islam?"

A Pointed Hypocrisy

Homosexuals Denied Hospital Visitation Rights? Obama Got It Wrong.

Democrat Called Out (Finally) For Lying About War Record

Checkbook Euthanasia: How Selfish Can We Get?

Talk about "a duty to die" made me think back to my early childhood in the South, during the Great Depression. One day, I was told that an older lady -- a relative -- was going to come and stay with us for a while, and I was told how to be polite and considerate toward her.

"Aunt" Nance Ann had no home of her own. But she moved around from relative to relative, not spending enough time in any one home to be a real burden.

At that time, we didn't have things like electricity or central heating or hot running water. But we had a roof over our heads and food on the table -- and Aunt Nance Ann was welcome to both.

Poor as we were, I never heard anybody say, or even intimate, that Aunt Nance Ann had "a duty to die." I only began to hear that kind of talk decades later, from educated people in an age when even most families living below poverty level owned a car and had air-conditioning.

It is today, in an age when homes have flat-paneled TVs, and most families eat in restaurants regularly or have pizzas and other meals delivered to their homes, that the elites -- rather than the masses -- have begun talking about "a duty to die."...

Thomas Sowell's column (here in the New York Post) provides one of the most memorable and compelling analyses of today's unnecessary, inhumane and self-centered euthanasia movement. Check it out.

WaPo: "Abortion Could Be Sleeper Issue in Supreme Court Confirmation." (Golly, Ya' Think?)

In a remarkably sophomoric article (even for the Washington Post) entitled "Abortion Could Be Sleeper Issue in Supreme Court Confirmation Process," Michael D. Shear gets today's award for "Thinking I'm Clever Because I See What's Overwhelmingly Obvious to Everybody Else."

Since Roe v Wade in 1973, abortion has always been THE issue in every Supreme Court confirmation process. There is no real question about it. And Elena Kagan's confirmation battle is certainly no exception. Yet the Post thinks it's on to something novel here, something under the radar. Could it be that they really read nothing else than their own newspaper?

But Shear isn't just "ordinarily" clueless in his article. He manages to so ignore the known facts that he believes Ms. Kagan might well support tougher restrictions on abortion, drawing the inference that Barack Obama may thus be able to "mute right-wing groups."

Now that is novel.

With such an outlandish passage, I might think that Michael D. Shear was deliberately distorting the case due to liberal prejudices. That has been known to crop up every once in awhile at the Washington Post. But the disorganized structure and poor writing of the piece makes me believe it's more a matter of "Shear incompetence."

How else could one explain the reporter's horrible word picture describing how Democrats were hoping for a fight over abortion so they could, excuse me, "whip up women, who are a key Democratic constituency?"

No, I think Shear must just be a lousy writer; not even a Post writer could be so conniving a cad.

Why Do Liberals Refuse to Acknowledge "Radical Islam?"

During questioning before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, a visibly nervous Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. tried valiantly not to utter the expression "radical Islam." The twisting began when Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, asked whether the men behind three recent terrorist incidents - the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas Day bombing attempt and the Time Square bombing attempt - "might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam...."

The Obama administration seems to have issued an internal gag order that forbids any official statements that might cast even the most extreme interpretations of the Islamic religion in a negative light. The "force protection review" of the Fort Hood massacre omitted any mention of shooter Nidal Malik Hasan's openly radical Islamic worldview or the fact that he made the jihadist war cry "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire. Initially, the Obama administration refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, much less radical Islamic terrorism.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security Domestic Extremist Lexicon, which was pulled out of circulation in the wake of controversy with other department publications, listed Jewish extremism and various forms of Christian extremism as threats but made no mention of any form of Muslim extremism. The Feb. 1, 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review discusses terrorism and violent extremism but does not mention radical Islam as a motivator, or in any context. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review likewise avoids any terminology related to Islam.

The Obama administration may not like to think of being at war with radical Islam, but the jihadists are definitely at war with the United States. Rather than running from the expression "radical Islam," the administration should be openly discussing the ideological motives of the terrorists and finding ways to delegitimize them. Instead of hedging, obfuscating and ignoring, these Democrats should confront the challenge frankly, openly and honestly. Pretending that a radical, violent strain of Islam does not exist will not make it go away. To the contrary, it will make the situation much worse.

President Obama's continuing solicitude toward the faith of Muhammad is inexplicable, and as these acts of denial continue, it is becoming dangerous. The United States will not defeat an enemy it is afraid to identify.

(Read the whole Washington Times editorial here.)

A Pointed Hypocrisy

(From Terrell at AfterMath. Hat tip: Lucianne.com)

Homosexuals Denied Hospital Visitation Rights? Obama Got It Wrong.

Last month President Obama made a news splash by instructing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prepare new laws protecting the right of homosexual partners to visit their loved ones in the hospital.

But were new laws really required? Was there any evidence that hospitals were denying visitation privileges? Or was this all a tempest in a teapot, designed to brew up sympathy and momentum for other homosexual issues?

In a terrific piece of reporting published at the Family Research Council blog, Peter Sprigg sets the record straight about how the Obama White House curried favor with homosexual activists, how those activists deliberately misrepresented the facts about hospital visitation policies, and how the New York Times and Washington Post demonstrated a remarkable lack of balance, professionalism and objectivity in its coverage of the matter.

Democrat Called Out (Finally) For Lying About War Record

The Attorney General of Connecticut, Democrat Richard Blumenthal, is now running for the United States Senate. But his cause suffered a hard blow this morning when the New York Times reported his long history of lying about his service record.

Yes, lying.

The newspaper gives several direct quotes of Blumenthal saying he had served in Vietnam though he never set foot in the country. Also laid out are numerous reports from the Connecticut press and even national media that touted Blumenthal's Vietnam service -- reports that were never corrected. Blumenthal didn't even set the record straight when he was publicly introduced to audiences as a Vietnam vet.

Yes, Richard Blumenthal is a liar. And yet only now is he being called out for it.

He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.

The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post’s publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House.

In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. He joined a unit in Washington that conducted drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive...

On a less serious matter, another flattering but untrue description of Mr. Blumenthal’s history has appeared in profiles about him. In two largely favorable profiles, the Slate article and a magazine article in The Hartford Courant in 2004 with which he cooperated, Mr. Blumenthal is described prominently as having served as captain of the swim team at Harvard. Records at the college show that he was never on the team...

Mr. Blumenthal has made veterans’ issues a centerpiece of his public life and his Senate campaign, but even those who have worked closely with him have gotten the misimpression that he served in Vietnam...

One wonders just how the press has missed this amazing story for so long. Blumenthal, after all, has been active in Connecticut politics for three decades. Has he been given a free pass because he's been seen as a child of privilege -- and a Democrat? And even now will the local press call Richard Blumenthal to account for his egoism, his misdirecting the public, and his outright lies?

Today's Posts

The Pill Is 50. So Why Am I Not Celebrating?

Have You Heard "The Call?"

Easy Steps to Greater Facebook Security

The Pill Is 50. So Why Am I Not Celebrating?

It's an article you wouldn't expect in a pop culture/style magazine like Salon but, given the widespread misery that the so-called birth-control pill has brought to countless women, such stories as Glamour editor Geraldine Sealey's "Why I Hate the Pill" is certainly relevant to Salon's readership.

The "pill" is 50 years old this month and there's a score of MSM articles praising it for liberating women, putting them in the workforce, revolutionizing culture, decreasing population growth, even improving motherhood.

For instance, in a Forbes article, Hannah Seligson quotes Jane Wurland as saying the pill gave her the opportunity to start her own company and Elaine Tyler May describing it as making it possible "for women to walk through doors that had once been closed to them." Gloria Feldt, former CEO of Planned Parenthood, goes further -- "the pill literally saved my life...It enabled me to purposefully have a life that I designed."

But amid the birthday celebrations are some voices of concern -- many more than have been raised in the past. Some are of the expected type such as Katie Couric's frustration that the government isn't paying for even more oral contraceptives. In her CBS notebook, she joins with Planned Parenthood's call for taxpayers to pick up the tab for the pills of 17.4 million low-income women.

But it's the other concerns that create a damper for the pill's birthday party. Those concerns include the Raquel Welch piece from CNN that I referred to earlier this week in which the famous sex symbol decries the damage the pill has caused women, society and morality.

And those concerns include the debilitating effect the pill creates on many women's sex drives which is the focus of Sealey's Salon article. Sealey writes,

"I felt flat, with no detectable mid-cycle hormonal surge. Eventually, my libido dissipated so that just the thought of sex repulsed me, which left me confused, depressed and cut off from myself and my partner...On the pill, I felt as turned off as a burned-out bulb, and off the pill, I did not.

Doctors who treat sexual disorders have long recognized the pill's potential for dampening sex drive in some women. And researchers have a good grasp on why it happens: Oral contraceptives lower levels of available testosterone, a key to libido. 'If you play around with sex steroid hormones, you play around with sexual function,' says Irwin Goldstein, M.D., director of San Diego Sexual Medicine at Alvarado Hospital, who has been involved with sexual dysfunction research for decades."

(This CBS News story has much more about the negative impact on sex drive.)

But that's not all. Sealey speaks of how many of her friends have suffered other excruciating side-effects from the pill. "In my own life, female friends and acquaintances have abandoned hormonal birth control for a variety of reasons. It made them nauseous, moody or depressed, caused unacceptable weight gain, paralyzing migraines or breakthrough bleeding, put them at risk of blood clots, or drove their blood pressure to dangerous heights.

Or they were just damned sick of taking pills every day. 'I was a crazy woman on birth control,' says Dr. Basinski, who's had her own personal battles with the pill over the years. 'Out of control emotional. I used it on and off for 13 years and really struggled with it.' In her practice, Basinski sees patient after patient who want off their pills. 'Many women just don't feel good on them,' she says."

And what about the scientific studies which establish a link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer? For a long time these studies have been ignored (even suppressed) by those who believe the benefits the pill brings to the sexual revolution outweigh anything else. But the facts are just too strong. Therefore even such common sources as WebMD and the American Cancer Society are now acknowledging the connection.

Is that enough to make one reconsider whether the birth control pill really deserves a birthday party?

If not, consider a few of those other concerns that are surfacing with greater regularity and force. Issues like the environmental damage being wrought by the pill's estrogen component being flushed out into the water supply. Read "Bringing Cancer to the Dinner Table" at Scientific American for something to think about.

Or contemplate how the pill has escalated the world's looming demographic disaster. Miranda Devine examines this impact in her column "Copulate to Populate" published in the Sydney Morning Herald.

As the tattered sexual revolution spawned by the pill hits middle age we can see the consequences of unmooring sex from the possibility of children, and the rejection of the age-old imperative to be "fruitful and multiply".

The result is a so-called contraceptive culture, societies which regard children and childbearing as a nuisance, a burden and an expense, rather than a blessing....

As fewer babies are born and people live longer, we face the perfect demographic storm, with the greying of the population stressing welfare and health systems, which are funded by less tax from a shrinking workforce.

There is one more effect of oral contraceptive pills that must be addressed. And for all those who understand the crucial nature of God's command "Thou shall not kill," this should be the most important of all.

For the so-called birth control pill kills human embryos.

Perhaps not as the chemicals' first mechanism, but there are secondary effects which cause changes in the uterine lining so that if "breakthrough conception" does occur, the new life meets a hostile environment when it arrives in the uterus 6 to 10 days later. The little one cannot implant. It dies. This is, no doubt about it, an abortifacient action of the pill.

It means that for whatever other reasons one should avoid it, the potential destruction of a preborn boy or girl should put the pill way beyond consideration.

So yes, the birth-control pill is turning 50.

But an honest survey of what it has done to our culture, to the health of countless women, and to the lives of millions of unborn, unmourned children should keep us from joining the party.

Have You Heard "The Call?"