Somehow, the anti-choice, anti-contraceptive clan considers the FDA approval of another choice for contraception an attack on women and families. Huh?!

On FoxNews, Leslie Unruh said this about the new oral contraceptive pill, Lybrel:

Big Pharma, here we go again, attack on children and families and on women. I want more babies. More babies. We love babies.

For the full dose of crazy, watch the interview:

http://feministing.com/...

Sure, it’s ridiculous for them to use "loving babies" as justification for being against contraception. And sure, it’s tempting to ignore it because it’s, well, bizarre. But it’s really important that we respond to their claims of being pro-baby, pro-family and replace it with a more accurate frame. If we don’t counter them, they will succeed in framing themselves as "pro-family" and us as "anti-family".  Our frame—Contraception: The Morality of Responsible Parenting.

Only if you work very hard to keep yourself from understanding the evidence about the consequences of your policies.

Katha Pollitt writes an excellent essay about her interview with the president of Feminists for "Life". Serrin Foster, while trying to answer Pollitt's basic questions about birth control, making abortion illegal, and the phony breast cancer claims, shows herself to be pitifully uninformed.

Conservatives have created all sorts of negative, false, stereotypes about what a "liberal" is while defining "Conservative" as anything good, wholesome, or patriotic. What they lack in truthfulness, they make up for in repetition. I suggest we neutralize their faulty frames and start defining what Left really is.

It is a tragedy when any woman dies from pregnancy related causes. It is a sad fact that "Pro-Life"/ Conservative groups and politicians work so diligently to implement policies that will increase the number of women dying.

Since we have invited the "Right-to-Life" Groups to join us in preventing unintended pregnancies, I've seen this question directed to us. It echoes an argument I've heard from several anti-choice sources meant to cast doubt on our desire to help women prevent unintended pregnancies. The question is also used to pull the debate into their faulty frames. Even though it is usually stated as a snarky, "gotcha" kind of question, I think rephrasing the question and answering it as if it were meant sincerely provides us with an excellent opportunity to replace their faulty frames with our accurate frames. In fact, there are many snarky questions we can approach this way (future diaries).

It may be turning out that the anti-choice/punishment/"pro-life" will be held accountable for their deceptive and harmful actions. They are making it very clear---and we need to continue pointing this out---that opposing contraception is more important to them than preventing pregnancies or reducing abortions.

Here is a interesting piece from the Punishment/anti-choice/"pro-life" side:

False Pregnancy: Who really wants to debate the morning-after pill?--William Saletan

http://slate.msn.com/id/2117374/

 I am an obstetrician-gynecologist who is committed to the health and safety of women, children, and families. I am also the author of the essay "A Roadmap for Defining and Winning the Real Abortion Debate: Prevention vs Punishment" posted on the Rockridge Institute website.  I am convinced that we can win the Abortion Debate. Our values are nobler, the evidence is on our side, and our policies result in fewer unintended pregnancies, fewer abortions, and fewer women dying. These should be common goals. So, why is the national debate going so badly and how can we turn it around?