by Marcia Segelstein

As a former producer for CBS News, perhaps I’m especially sensitive to the often subtle bias (to say nothing of the obvious kind) that pervades the media.  It’s a bias found in questions asked and unasked, in conclusions drawn and not drawn, and in stories covered and not covered.

In Sunday’s New York Times, for example, Philip Galanes interviewed Pat Loud, matriarch of the California family followed around by PBS cameras in the early 1970’s.  “An American Family,” which aired in 1973, was famous (or infamous) for many things, among them the fact that Pat Loud divorced her husband and left her family while Americans watched with fascination from their living rooms.  In the Times interview, Loud says that she came to New York in 1974 and became a literary agent.  Galanes asks what she thinks her life would be today if they hadn’t done the TV show.  “I’ve often tried to figure that out.  I would have been up in that house, and my kids would have all gone, and I would have the empty-nest syndrome.  So I beat them to it.  I got out of there before they did.”  Carole Radziwill, a current reality TV star being interviewed along with Loud, responds with this:  “In a way, the show probably allowed you to live your more authentic life.”  “Absolutely,” Loud responds.  Really?  She isn’t asked if she has any regrets about divorcing her husband and leaving her kids, especially given what we now know about the negative effects of divorce on children.  Instead she gets a pat on the back for her “authenticity.”  It’s also interesting to note that Loud and her ex-husband reunited several years later (without remarrying) while taking care of one of their sons who was dying of AIDS.

Meanwhile, the Times Magazine section had a piece called “Unintentional Motherhood”  about a study conducted on women who were unable to have abortions for various reasons, mostly because they left it too late.  The piece starts with the story of “S,” not one of the women studied, but one who fits the profile.  “The pregnancy had crept up on S.  She was a strong believer in birth control – in high school she was selected to help teach sex education.  But having been celibate for months and strapped for cash, she stopped taking the pill.  Then an ex-boyfriend came around.”  Unable to have an abortion and unwilling to consider adoption, she had the baby and moved in with her extended family.  “S. now says that Baby S. is the best thing that ever happened to her.”  She told the reporter, “She is more than my best friend, more than the love of my life…She is just my whole world.”  It turns out that S’s experience is consistent with the study, conducted by Diana Greene Foster, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, San Francisco.  According to Foster “about 5 percent of the women, after they have had the baby, still wish they hadn’t.  And the rest of them adjust.”  The piece continues, emphasizing the point:  “[W]omen rarely regret having a child, even one they thought they didn’t want.”  There’s real news here, but it’s never even stated.  If only 5% of the women studied still wish they’d had an abortion, that means that 95% don’t.  Now there’s a headline.

What you subsidize is what you’ll get more of–and the Federal Government’s push to get more pills into the hands of young girls to make sure that they don’t have to face the decision of whether or not to go to see the local abortionist is only going to increase promiscuity and the number of abortions. That’s my conclusion after reading John Jansen’s report at LifeSiteNews. Why? Because it’s already happened and is documented here. A 1998 “press release contained this comment from one Dr. Anita Nelson, an Ob/Gyn professor at UCLA”:

It is estimated that nearly 50 percent of all abortions and unintended pregnancies in this country could be avoided if women had access to emergency contraception.

“That’s no small prediction. And looking back, it’s turned out to be not simply wrong, but astoundingly wrong.”

Who decides these things? Are they stupid? Are they the same people who tout “science” when it suits their agenda, but ignore empirical evidence that a policy does not work? When you keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect to get different results, isn’t that insanity?

I have written on these pages about unwelcome changes in the U.S. military.  The affirmation of homosexual and lesbian soldiers who openly flaunt their “lifestyle” has contributed to the marginalization, and punishment, of Christian military personnel.  As one recent example, the Air Force censored a video created by a chaplain, Captain Douglas Hess, because it included the word “God.”  Originally posted on the YouTube channel of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, the Air Force feared that the use of the name of God in the video would offend Moslems, agnostics, and atheists.  It was based upon a poem, “God Created A First Sergeant,” by Chaplain Hess, and was developed into a video with narration.  First Sergeants are senior non-commissioned officers who look after enlisted airmen.  The video was modeled after last year’s Super Bowl commercial titled, “God Created A Farmer” with the voiceover by the late Paul Harvey.  Although the Air Force has removed the video, my readers can watch the touching video here.

In an email obtained by Fox News, the chief of the Air Force News Service Division, stated, “Proliferation of religion is not allowed in the Air Force or military.  How would an Agnostic, Atheist or Muslim serving in the military take this video?  I would not recommend using this at all.”  He also took issue with the wording of the video.  “The choice of ‘On the Eighth day’ verbiage to begin this video is highly suggestive from the book of Genesis in the Bible and has Christian overtones,” he wrote.  (Score 100% on that one, Chief!  Of course, it could also be that the chief is anti-Semitic as well.  But I digress.)

In response to these efforts, Representative John Fleming (R-Louisiana) has proposed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) that would protect the religious rights of military personnel, including Christian service members, who increasingly face growing hostility towards their faith in Jesus Christ.  Representative Fleming, a member of the Armed Services Committee, stated:

The men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms should not have their own religious freedom jeopardized during their military service. . . .  My amendment is necessary to ensure that men and women of faith will not be discriminated against in the Armed Forces, and will be free to exercise their religious beliefs.

Importantly, the Obama Administration “strongly objects” to Rep. Fleming’s proposed amendment, stating said the Fleming amendment would have a “significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.”  Rep. Fleming responded, “This administration is aggressively hostile towards religious beliefs that it deems to be politically incorrect.”  Indeed it does seem to be that way.  Nevertheless, the Armed Services Committee passed Representative Fleming’s amendment on a 33 to 26 vote.  However, the Obama Administration has threatened a veto of the House version of the NDAA, which might not be the wisest plan in light of Mr. Obama’s third undeclared war.  The Washington Blade (self-described as “America’s Leading Gay News Source”) noted, “[The Fleming Amendment is] seen as a way for troops to harass their gay colleagues for religious reasons without fear of reprisal.”  Further, Zeke Stokes, spokesperson for OutServe-SLDN, the network of LGBT active-duty military, stated, “The fact is that [the Fleming] amendment would protect inappropriate, defamatory, and discriminatory speech and actions – a significant expansion of current protections – and would leave commanders with no recourse against such prejudicial conduct when it occurs in their units.”  [Emphasis added.]  The Fleming amendment buttresses the First Amendment freedoms of speech and free exercise of religion because it permits speaking about one’s personal beliefs, which can only be restricted in cases of “military necessity” and only if they do “actual harm.”  This is in contrast to the Obama Administration policy that prohibits expressions that “threaten,” but may not harm at all.  If passed, the Fleming amendment would make it far more difficult for this Administration to punish and court-martial soldiers for sharing their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ with their colleagues.

Late Monday evening, President Obama’s Administration announced that it will stop all further attempts to limit the sale of emergency Plan B (“Levonorgestrel”) anti-contraception, morning-after pills.  This comes about as the Obama Administration buckles under pressure from pro-abortion groups.  As a result, the Administration’s decision will make the so-called morning-after pill available to females of all ages without a prescription and without identification.  The Obama Administration views this as a great victory for “reproductive justice” for tweens and teens.  Further, the Obama Administration will withdraw its appeal on this case ending the litigation.  Previously, the morning-after pill was only available without a prescription to females 17 and older who presented proof of age to a pharmacist.  Levonorgestrel is an emergency contraceptive that is used to prevent pregnancy after sexual intercourse, or after the failure of another birth control method.  It prevents a woman’s egg from developing fully, and may also prevent attachment of the woman’s egg to the wall of the uterus.  It is important for my readers to note that this will occur after fertilization.

In early April, federal Judge Edward Korman said the US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) had been “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable” in rejecting that emergency contraception be made available over the counter to girls of all ages.  Plaintiffs in this action claimed that the FDA limit unfairly kept women and girls from obtaining the drug, which is most effective when taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse.  Judge Korman then ordered the FDA to make emergency contraception available without age or any point-of-sale restrictions.  Annie Tummino, the plaintiff in this case and the coordinator of National Women’s Liberation movement (yes, really!), said: “This decision by the [Obama Administration] affirms what feminists have been fighting for all along: the morning-after pill should be available to females of all ages, on the shelf at any convenience store, just like aspirin or condoms.”  In an emailed statement, Ms. Tummino further observed that women and girls should have “the absolute right to control our bodies without having to ask a doctor or a pharmacist for permission.”  And NARAL Pro-Choice America president Ilyse Hogue further welcomed the decision by the Obama Administration.

Like most other medications, Levonorgestrel has significant side effects.  The Office of Population Research at Princeton University notes, “About 20% of women . . . experienced headaches following . . . treatment, 13-14% experienced painful menstruation, and 11-12% experienced nausea.”  Dr. David B. Samadi, Vice Chairman of the Department of Urology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, who might know more about this issue than even a federal judge, said in a recent interview:

[Y]ou have everybody that can get this medication without any doctor supervision, without any prescription.  And it can really encourage and promote having a lot of sexual activities which can spread all the sexually-transmitted diseases, [cause] unwanted abortions, on and on.  This decision just doesn’t make much sense medically and morally and ethically.

As to side effects, Dr. Samadi said, “There’s bleeding and there’s many others.  It affects hormonal changes in young girls like this, so it’s not just … there are no consequences.  It’s got to be done under doctor supervision and not on your own.”  I can readily imagine that young women, often lacking mature judgment in these matters, might pop these pills like little chocolates each time they engage in sexual relations as a pregnancy preventive measure, which may lead to catastrophic consequences.  Since the tweens and teens can soon get this medication without a prescription, there is no required visit to a physician, and the parents might not know.  And through peer pressure, as Dr. Samadi acknowledged, it might lead some girls to become more sexually active at a younger age.  After all, television programs such as MTV’s Teen Mom and 16 and Pregnant (among others) promote and glamorize pregnant teens as celebrities, notwithstanding the fact that teen pregnancy usually leaves the mothers in a cycle of poverty.  Further, we are in the midst of an epidemic of sexually transmitted infectious diseases (“STDs) in the United States.  In fact, the United States presently has the highest rate of STD infection in the industrialized world.  According to the federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), there are about 20 million new infections in the United States each year, with young people age 15 to 24 accounting for 50 percent of all new STD infections, a rate much higher than the proportion of teens in the population.  Sadly, one in four teens will contract an STD each year.  And the highest infection rate for gonorrhea is found among teen girls age 15 to 19.  Moreover, please don’t think that it can’t happen to your child, or the child of a family member, or your neighbor’s child: STDs affects young people of all racial, cultural, socio-economic, and religious backgrounds.  The CDC estimates that simply the direct medical costs of STDs are approximately $16 billion annually.  And yet, morning-after pills are not 100 percent effective against pregnancy.  Of course, everyone acknowledges that the only real way to avoid an STD or pregnancy among unmarried teens is through abstinence until marriage.  However, you may recall that the Obama Administration eliminated more than $170 million in annual federal funding targeted at sexual abstinence programs.  During 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama, in a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, famously observed: “I’ve got two daughters: 9 years old and 6 years old.  I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals.  But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.  I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.”  Now that Malia is 14 and Sasha is 12, President and Mrs. Obama may never know if their daughters will get morning-after pills.  But at least, the Obamas can rejoice that their daughters, and countless other young women of the same age, might not be “punished” with a baby.  However, STD risk affecting 1 in 4 teens remains the same.