OPINION & EDITORIAL
Herald wrong to print abortion ad
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Contrary to common contention, religion inspires inquiry (March 12, 2008)
- Science only part of human condition (March 12, 2008)
- Students should respond to bogus policy proposal (March 10, 2008)
- NAFTA not making the grade (March 7, 2008)
- GOP: Give credit where credit is due (March 6, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Shout-out belittles rape (December 5, 2006)
- Special Olympics joke not tasteful (October 6, 2004)
- Herald wrong to print 'Jihad' ad (January 30, 2007)
- Herald turns page (September 4, 2006)
- Yawn -- Herald wins (April 29, 2002)
by Letters to the Editor
Thursday, March 13, 2008
I make sure to get a copy of The Badger Herald on Wednesdays like every other devout Shout-Out fan on campus. I was shocked this Wednesday to open the paper and see an advertisement that took up at least one-quarter of a page and was sponsored by Pro-Life Wisconsin.
I am adamantly pro-choice, but I am not writing just because I disagree with their beliefs. The ad briefly mentioned the upcoming spring break and making smart sex decisions and then warned of the dangers of emergency contraception for most of the advertisement. My main complaint with this ad is all of the false statements that were in it.
First of all, the ad describes emergency contraception (a.k.a. the Plan B pill) as a powerful dose of steroids that tricks your body into thinking it is pregnant. It then goes on to warn that these steroids can cause chemical abortions and deadly blood clots. I am shocked that The Badger Herald would allow such an erroneous advertisement in its publication, let alone give the ad a huge space for the misinformation to be further promoted.
I wanted to write in to clear up all of the propaganda. Since Plan B is the only legal form of emergency contraceptive in the U.S., all of my future statements refer only to that. To start, the Plan B pill is a dose of hormones, not steroids, usually progestin but sometimes also estrogen, equal to the amount of hormones that can be found in four to five regular birth control pills.
Secondly, it does not trick your body into thinking it is pregnant. Depending on your menstrual cycle, the pill either prevents the ovary from releasing an egg or prevents the sperm from fertilizing an egg. I believe that both pro-choice and pro-life activists can agree that neither of these actions would be considered an abortion. I often see in the media that the Plan B pill is referred to as the abortion pill, which is completely wrong.
Furthermore, all of the current information states that this pill is not effective if you are already pregnant and will not cause any birth defects, including abortion. Chemical abortions are performed by a doctor using the RU-486 pill and occur only in the first two months of pregnancy.
This ad could have taken a completely different approach to promoting safe sex instead of the outrageous half-truths that it chose to use. One example was on the exact opposite page and sponsored by University Health Services. It simply said to use sunscreen and condoms and to not act like an idiot; there was no hidden agenda in the ad from UHS, while the ad from Pro-Life Wisconsin had more than its fair share. I highly suggest The Badger Herald review all their ads before they are published to make sure they do not spread such inaccuracies in the future.
Kayla Hunt
UW junior, biology and psychology
Member of Students for Choice
hunt2@wisc.edu
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 3:33am):
It's all about the cash-dolla-dolla.
Discussion over.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 7:02am):
It's a free country. As long as the advertisement doesn't use certain profane words or comment slander, then the BH has the moral obligation to run the advertisement.
People like you have the right to consider any such advertisement stupid or incorrect.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 7:11am):
Gotta agree....looks like money won out over facts. Very sh*tty decision, BH.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 7:47am):
Thank you for writing this! I was also shocked that the Badger Herald allowed such an ad with so many misconceptions. I'm always so frustrated when pro-lifers stand on their soapboxes and talk of Plan B as an abortion pill. I'm all for people having their own opinions and values but don't preach unless you have the facts straight! Thanks again for writing this and thanks to the Herald for publishing it!
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 8:03am):
The manufacturers admit that it changes the lining of the womb so that an early embryo can fail to implant and is, thus, aborted.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 8:59am):
I think having a period each month is considered abortion by a good chunk of the population. If you don't fertilize every egg, you're killing potential life.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 9:16am):
"Depending on your menstrual cycle, the pill either prevents the ovary from releasing an egg or prevents the sperm from fertilizing an egg."
Then how does it prevent you from becoming pregnant when you take it the morning after?
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 9:49am):
Listen up, you morons, the Herald was just upholding its tradition of defending free speech by printing whatever anyone with a checkbook has to say! Bald-faced lies are fine, so long as they're duly paid for.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 10:07am):
"If you don't fertilize every egg, you're killing potential life."
And then there's the sin of onanism - gazillions of "lives" lost there every day.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 10:23am):
Onanism? Wow, that's quite the fancy term for "jerkin' it."
And on a separate note, I doubt the ad is really factually inaccurate, but rather takes creative liberties with terms.
For instance, it's not inaccurate to call a baby's kicks "An slow and steady war of attrition against maternal opression," but we would all acknowledge that as being completely asinine and worthy of ridicule.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 10:29am):
9:16, I really hope that you are not a woman and asked that question. wow! If you need for someone to tell you the answer that it would be that sperm can live for up to 7 days after sex. So you can have sex and get pregnant up to 7 days later.
8:03 if the embroyo never implants there is nothing to abort.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 10:42am):
The understanding of free speech here seems pretty one-dimensional. Other than yelling Fire! in a crowded theater or advocating the overthrow of the government, it's true, any idiot can say anything they wish. But it's nobody's obligation to publish it. Kinda like Imus--he can of course say anything about the Rutgers women's basketball team that he wants to say, but MSNBC was not under any obligation to give him a show to say it on.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 11:34am):
Actally, Onanism was orginally coitus interruptus, where Onan was spilling his seed upon the ground.
God killed Onan for his sin of sex without procreative intent.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 11:38am):
Every time I hear pro-lifers talk, I'm reminded of the Monty Python "every sperm is sacred" song.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 11:38am):
You said it 10:42
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 12:23pm):
Is it just me, or does the Badger Herald put people in "shock" every day?
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 1:54pm):
"I think having a period each month is considered abortion by a good chunk of the population. If you don't fertilize every egg, you're killing potential life."
No. An ignorant few maybe, but certainly not a good chunk of the population. There is no determinate being with a life to kill in the case of an unfertilized egg. You can't point at the potential of two separate things and say that the inability to achieve that potential is murder! (There's also a "too many futures" argument claimed by pro-life philosophers like Marquis to defend that an unfertilized eggs, contraception, and male masturbation is not considered murder).
Say there existed a machine that could take a cell from your body (from a scab or an eyelash for example)and make a clone from that cell or use the dna to fertilize an egg. This technology is completely plausible in this day in age. It would not be considered murder if you were to take a shower, shedding off hundreds of thousands of skin cells, depriving the hundreds of thousands of potential clones of future lives like our own.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 2:03pm):
"As long as the advertisement doesn't use certain profane words or comment slander, then the BH has the moral obligation to run the advertisement."
Actually, the BH has the moral obligation not to propagate lies. That's because it's supposed to follow journalistic standards, not propaganda.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 3:09pm):
in response to 8:59 and 1:54
The opposition to abortion is not usually based upon the potential for life. By that standard every minute that you are not having unprotected sex you are killing potential life. The standard is usually that you prevent something that would be expected under normal circumstances. A woman who is already pregnant under normal circumstances is reasonably expected to give birth to a child. Under normal circumstances monthly periods dont result in children. It would be similar to eating the seed of a plant compared to digging up one that has been planted. Every time you eat a piece of fruit you are killing potential life, but most people dont consider it this way. If however you were to dig up seeds that were already planted, while its not a plant yet it could be considered killing a plant. The difference being that when seeds are planted they can be reasonably expected to grow into plants under normal circumstances.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 3:21pm):
If the goal was to raise student awareness as spring break starts, Pro-Life Wisconsin should have listened to the concerns of these newspapers, modified their ad and still accomplished their goal. Instead, they insisted on inacurate language (steroids=hormones), issued "censorship" press releases and lost an opportunity to deliver a real message before everyone leaves town. Unless...the censorship message was more important to them than than student health. Shame on them.
A Concerned Parent
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 3:29pm):
But who gets to determine what is a lie and what isnt? While the add definitely stretches the truth, hormones and steroids are not mutually exclusive groups. In fact by definition both estrogen and progestin are steroids. So technically the add was right, but obviously they used to the word 'steroids' to imply some negative connotation to perfectly safe drugs. In most cases the truth is not very obvious and ads are designed to change your perceptions about it in some way. The BH obviously needs to use its best judgment about which ads are appropriate and which are not, but to create a rigid standard in which all ads that "lie" are forbidden is a dangerous one. Also, what about ads that use satire or fictitious scenarios be banned? Portraying talking animals is lying about animals ability to talk. Should those ads be banned? Just let the BH use some common sense.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 4:38pm):
Last time I checked estrogen and progestin, based on the 6-6-6-5 ring structures, are classified as steroids. So the ad is correct in saying that plan B is a dose of steroids-- hormonal steroids, but still steroids.
Did the author of this article, supposedly a biology major, take any chemistry classes? If not, she could have at least done a quick wikipedia search before looking like a fool.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 5:41pm):
The point of the article is not to define estrogen and progestin down to the chemical structure, it is to make aware the propaganda that pro-life wisconsin is using to make people think that the plan-b pill is dangerous and causes abortions. Using the word steroids is a direct attempt by pro-life wisconsin to associate the plan-b pill with chemicals that are mainly considered unhealthy. I know when I hear steroids, my first thought goes to steroids used by athletes, not estrogen and progestin. And you 4:38, should maybe not be such an arrogant fool who is looking at this article for definitions and not the bigger message it is trying to send.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 8:09pm):
well then 5:41 maybe the article should have done exactly what you said instead of saying the ad was factually incorrect. There is a difference between using facts to intentionally designed to change someone's opinion and flat out lying, especially when half of letter's criticism was based upon claim that the ad was factually incorrect.
Anonymous (March 18, 2008 @ 2:36pm):
Wow, I am reading all the comments. We are pretty highly educated folks.
Anonymous (March 21, 2008 @ 10:41am):
Anyone who supports abortion has blood on their hands. It is murder, plain and simple murder.
Jeff Johnson
Anonymous (March 27, 2008 @ 12:27pm):
Oh no!! I didn't realize it until I read the 3/21 comment, I'm a murderer. Shit thank you for telling me that, oh well, no more going up to women on the street and forcibly aborting with a wire hanger anymore :(. Really you just won me over with your facts right there, I am now pro-life (maybe ill even change my name to it like that guy in Idaho)
Anonymous (March 31, 2008 @ 5:43pm):
Sarcasm is the trope of last resort you anonymous coward.
You want facts? How about the fact that we cut up 1.8 millions children in this country last year with stainless steel instruments.
Jeff Johnson
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
