Green Fetuses and Spam

I thought I was losing my feel for the madness of fetus fetishists. I really thought this story would bust the Shrieeeeek-o-meter.

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’

While that piece garnered more than 1800 outraged comments, now closed, the story didn't seem to catch fire as I expected.

I guess what I failed to take into account is that it happened Elsewhere, i.e. in Britain, not the United States of Asshatitude.

They're on it now. And trotting out all the predictable comparisons.

From LifeShite:

While the pro-abortion movement frequently condemns pro-life advocates who draw comparisons between abortion and the Holocaust, the report of babies burned to heat UK hospitals is a shocking reminder of the callous way human life was treated by the Nazi regime. According to the report in the London Telegraph newspaper, the aborted babies were incinerated as “clinical waste” in “waste to energy” plans at British hospitals.

And from the WingNutDaily:

The UK is in an advanced stage of moral collapse as was seen in a shocking TV documentary aired this week exposing that foetal remains are being incinerated as ‘clinical waste’, many of which are burned in incinerators that produce energy to heat in at least one of the hospitals identified.
. . .
Since the program aired the morass of bureaucracy has shown itself to be thicker than the London Fog that hid Jack the Ripper, making it virtually impossible to ascertain which body is to be held ultimately responsible for regulating what should be clear moral guidance in handling the human remains of tiny babies.

Extra points for Jack the Ripper! Don't often run into a Jack the Ripper reference in the abortion wars.

Well, what the hell else is tissue removed by medical procedure but "clinical waste"?

And if it is to be incinerated, why not put the heat generated to a useful purpose?

I'd say the hospitals were being conscientious and environmentally responsible.

ADDED: Interesting comment by choice joyce moved up for the click-averse.

Someone in the UK who I know made the following astute remark about this 'scandal':

"It’s a very clever form of demonisation of hospitals who do abortions, with yet another non-reason to 'trash the National Health Service' thrown in for free. And of course it allows a Tory health minister to claim the moral high ground on yet another non-subject and give absurd orders that make him appear to be an authority. Sick-making."

World War on Women

Women's rights are in peril again -- now in the UK too.

The new Minister for Women, Maria Miller, who has the gall to call herself 'a very modern feminist', wants to lower the legal abortion limit from 24 to 20 weeks.

Prime Minister David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May also back a reduction to 20 weeks.

And now the new Minister of Health, Jeremy Hunt, is going even further. He wants to lower the limit to 12 weeks.

Note that this Minister of Health backs homeopathy, or as a science blogger put it, 'he believes in magic'.

And of course there, as here, women's rights are considered a frippery, subject to a free fucking vote.

And there, as here, women's rights are always open for negotiation. Abortion came up in the 2010 election, not long after a similar reduction in the time limit was voted down in 2008 but only because Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, whipped her party members, demonstrating again why people call her Harriet Hardwoman.

To add insult to injury, 40 Days of Harassment has slithered across the pond. Abortion clinics are under siege from Christian nutters, who learned from their USian counterparts.

This is at least the second year the UK has been invaded by clinic harassers. Last year I started following someone calling herself @40daysoftreats, who countered the fetus fetishists' efforts by encouraging people to bring treats for clinic workers and patients. Insults outside, Jammie Dodgers inside.

Natch, the Brits are appalled. There, as here, sane people watch what's going in the USian War on Women in slack-jawed wonder, thinking: 'That can't possibly happen here'.

Oh yeah?

The UK rightly prides itself on its abortion law. It's been legal there since 1967, albeit with some conditions.

Conditions that sane people would like to see liberalized, not CONservatized.

Viz, the first comment here by Josh Kutchinsky.

UK law should be brought in line with that of Canada in relation to abortion, i.e. repealed so as to decriminalise abortion.

I am more pro-life than many who usurp the name but not the meaning. I would provide good sex and relationships education. I would provide support and counselling. I would provide contraceptives and knowledge as to how to use them properly. This is how to reduce all abortions not just control some in order to increase the number of back street ones or encourage self administered procedures. Numbers of foetuses aborted would be reduced, number of women dying reduced, number of unwanted, malnourished, sick and dying children reduced. Respect for women as autonomous human beings to be treated with dignity and equality and not patronised and infantalised would be much increased. That's really pro-life.

Yep. That's what I would call pro-life too.


ADDED: A call to arms from a British blogger, who warns that anti-choice will win if pro-choicers aren't prepared. A lesson we've learned well in Canada,eh?

Truthiness

Last night I responded to Chris Selley's tweet promoting his opinion piece in the NatPo.

No acknowledgement. So I'll post what I cited in my tweets to him.

This jumped out and seemed scientifically incorrect to me; I found stats to challenge it.

“It’s a fraught issue, which stirs emotions on each side,” Ms. Newman wrote, in the Telegraph piece that touched off this controversy. “Is it right that we terminate pregnancies, which might, with the medical care now available, result in healthy babies?

That "healthy babies" claim sounded suspiciously like the glurging over that pro-liars do when they have no cogent argument to present, when they're presented with scientific facts, data and stats.

So I went looking and I found evidence about extreme neonates that refutes Newman's pretense.

In the UK, nine out of a hundred neonates born at 23 weeks of gestation will survive; only one of them will live a fully able-bodied life. 

What this means is that 91 of every hundred fetuses born at 23 weeks of gestation in the UK will die in the neonatal intensive care unit, eight others will be afflicted for the rest of their lives with grave handicaps or severe medical conditions while only one will be able to live a normal life. 

Only one percent.

Like Stephen Woodworth and his many fake claims that it's all about the science, it's not. It's about morality and punishing women by forcing them to remain pregnant, even when a fetus has stopped developing and is putrefying inside her uterus.

It's actually about the government interfering with the provision of a legal medical procedure that is available to pregnant women.

It's about criminalizing women, physicians and abortion.

It is christian Sharia.

A New Euphemism!

Sassy, in the comments here, informs us of another bit of Sanity on the Rise.

The UK is going to allow TV ads for private abortion clinics.

Previously, ads for reproductive services had been allowed only for non-profit clincs. Only one ad was run and remember the SHRIEEKING that occasioned?

So this should be even more fun.

What struck me in Sassy's link though is the new euphemism.

A source close to the changes said: ‘This isn’t about all-out adverts for abortion – it’s for post-conception advisory services. It will be places saying, “Come and chat to us for advice”. Of course, a lot of those organisations will provide terminations.

I just love it. It will drive fetus fetishists around the twist.

UK Abortion Counselling Saved by Sane People

This is how to deal with rightwing nutjobs.

Trounce 'em.

An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons this afternoon after a split between the original supporters of the amendment.

MPs voted by 368 votes to 118 – a majority of 250 – to reject the amendment by the Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries after she lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field.

The health minister said they would look into the guidelines and consult interested parties and Field said that was good enough (for him to weasel).

But Dorries is still whinging.

Dorries claimed that the prime minister changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: "Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP."

Oooh. 'Blackmail' is some pretty strong language, Ms Dorries. You lost. Deal with it.

Update on the UK abortion counselling kerfuffle

Sense may yet prevail in the UK's current abortion stupidity.

The government has reversed its position on moves to strip charities and medics of their exclusive responsibility for counselling women seeking an abortion, saying it will now advise MPs to vote against proposals from a Conservative backbencher if they are put before the Commons next week.

But the situation is still dodgy, because like our idiot Liberal Party here, abortion there is not considered a human right but a 'conscience' issue.

If the amendment is selected next week, it will be a free vote for MPs, as is the tradition with the most controversial "matters of conscience". But coalition MPs will be steered to vote against it. It is understood that the prime minister, the health ministers and other senior members of the government will vote against. Labour has adopted a similar position.

But a combination of the unpredictable intake of new Tory MPs, split between social conservatives and modernisers, the number of Roman Catholic Labour MPs, and the high degree of nuance of the amendment make it extremely unclear which way the vote will go.

Again, with the 'nuance'. Is that journamamalism for 'voters are too stupid to understand and we're too lazy to explain'?

War on Women Goes Global

Weird, dark days for women's rights and not just in the Excited States, though they do take the (fruit) cake.

In the UK, they have an adoption czar, who wants women to, guess what? Give up unwanted children for adoption.

Women who are pregnant with unwanted babies should be advised to have the child and give it away for adoption, the Government’s new adoption czar said today.

They should be offered adoption as a routine ‘third option’ alongside abortion or struggling to raise the baby themselves, he said.

What are the qualifications for adoption czar, you ask?

Mr Narey, a former Prison Service chief who became an advocate of adoption while running the children’s charity, said social workers should no longer press pregnant women with personal difficulties that they should bring up their child.

This, a day after scandalous abortion stats were released showing that some women aborted fetuses that would have become 'special needs' children. So, I guess those women should have carried to term and loving couples would be lined up around the block to adopt.

Yeah. Right.

Now, Poland, poor benighted Poland, where fetus fetishists are also on a roll and want to outlaw abortion altogether.

The draft had been submitted to parliament by anti-abortion activists, drawing support from about 450,000 petitioners from the conservative opposition as well as a rightist, liberal party in the ruling coalition.

Abortion is outlawed in Poland except in cases when pregnancy results from rape or incest, poses a health risk to the mother or if the foetus is severely deformed.

But even under such conditions, hospitals are known to refuse abortions.

Illegal abortions can be punished by up to two years in prison for those who perform them, while the women themselves are not liable.

Polish women's rights group say there are up to 180,000 illegal abortions in Poland each year, while official data indicates just hundreds of legal terminations annually.

We've followed stories from Poland before: like this one of a raped 14-year-old girl caught between the forced birth gang and more humane forces. She was separated from her mother and bullied by a priest into refusing an abortion. Sense prevailed.

This story didn't have a good outcome. A severely myopic woman feared for her eyesight if she continued her third pregnancy. She consulted a bunch of doctors who agreed that her sight was endangered but who wouldn't sign the permission for an abortion. Right to (fetal) life trumps right to see.

And now for some good news.

Last year, Spain liberalized its abortion and contraception laws. The Poop was pissed and Spain was declared to be on a direct route to hell.

Well, looky here. A year later, abortions have declined.

Funny, innit? Treat people like grownups and they act like grownups.

Fetus Fetishist Frenzy

Fetus fetishists -- notably SUZY CAPSLOCK -- are in seventh heaven.

They've won a battle with the UK government to have abortion statistics released.

Here's some background.

The arguments date back to 2002, when figures were released showing that an abortion had been carried out, after 24 weeks, for a cleft lip and palate. It led to huge debate about the ethics of abortion and whether this malformation, which can be corrected surgically, was sufficiently serious to warrant a termination.

The Department of Health has now released nine years data in one go. It shows that in the period 2002-2010 there were 27 abortions for cleft lip and palate, one of those occurring after 24 weeks.

The government has been fighting the zygote zealots, citing privacy, arguing that the numbers are so low that individuals could be identified. The stats also include information on other fetal conditions, age of women/girls, etc. Just about everything a rabid misogynist needs to prove just how damned selfish and irresponsible these women are.

But to go back to the cleft palate SHRIEEEEK outrage:

The new data may lead to fresh argument but it does not shed much light on individual cases. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has guidance on the issue.

This says: "cleft lip and/or palate are, in some cases, indicators of serious congenital malformations". In other words, they can be markers for other, more severe problems, which include brain development and heart disease.

The Royal College argued that the interpretation of 'serious abnormality' should be based upon individual discussion agreed between the parents and the mother's doctor.

There they go with that facty-sciency stuff again.

But fetus fetishists don't give a damn about individual cases. They just want to know the details to shame the sluts more effectively. Or, more politely put:

Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), said: 'The publication of these statistics after a campaign by the anti-abortion lobby reveals little more than their own vindictiveness.'

In related news, UK fetus fetishists will get a chance to go apeshit again, because abortion clinics will be able to advertise on telly.

Under the draft recommendations, drawn up by the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice, which regulates TV and radio commercials, dozens of independent hospitals carrying out abortions will be able to advertise their services to consumers.

Until now, restrictions have meant abortion clinics can only advertise their services if they are not run for profit. Because of the rules, just one advert, by charity Marie Stopes International has ever been aired, last year, to great controversy, and more than 4,500 complaints.

Remember that SHRIEEEK-FEST?

LOLFetus

From Gawker:

The abortion debate has devolved to the zygote version of a LOLCat. A lady got an ultrasound, and her unborn child looked like it was smiling. Thus, "a baby can experience feelings such as happiness" earlier than previously thought.

(I'm not putting a copy of the thing here. You can view it at the Gawker link or at the UK rag, Daily Mail, where it originally appeared.)

Professor Stuart Campbell, who took the picture at his London clinic with 3-D and 4-D scanning equipment, said it did not necessarily show the unborn child had feelings - but it was certainly displaying human behaviour.

Well, FFS, what other species' behaviour should it be displaying? That fetus fetishists' vehemently made argument -- abortion is wrong because a fetus is human -- infuriates me. We pro-choicers never contend that a fetus is non-human. Of course it's human. What it is is a non-person.

Let's hear some more from the good professor:

'This is a joyful expression of the humanity of the foetus. I have seen a foetus making a crying face at around 18 or 19 weeks, but not a nice smile.

'This is the earliest on record - it is just a delight.'

Oh, gag me.

Go have a look at the thing. It is not a delight. It's creepy and weird-looking and -- as one commenter at Gawker pointed out -- it appears to be making a peace-sign. Are fetuses capable of complex moral reasoning as well?

This would be merely weird and creepy, but it happened in the UK, where in 2008 there was a heated debate in Parliament about lowering the abortion limit of 24 weeks' gestation to 22 or even fewer. (The motion lost and the limit is still 24 weeks.)

This will surely rev up the Brit chapter of Fetus Fetishists International.

And it will no doubt have an impact in the gun-lovin'-abortion-hatin' Excited States, where lawmakers in Nebraska banned abortions after 20 weeks, based on faulty science that claimed fetuses can feel pain after that point. The ff'ing lawmakers ignored all kinds of sciencey-facty-neurologicky testimony to inflict yet another blow on women's rights for spurious reasons.

I can't wait to read what SUZY ALLCAPSLOCK makes of it. 'i'm in ur uterus, smiling for the camera?'

Plummeting Teen Pregnancy Rate

We must be doing something right.

Teen pregnancy rates have fallen more steeply in Canada over the last decade than in the United States, England or Sweden, a new study shows.

Between 1996 and 2006, the most recent year for which information is available for all four countries, Canada's teen pregnancy rate declined in each consecutive year, falling from 44.2 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 in 1996 to to 27.9 in 2006. That represents a 36.9% decline over the course of a decade, compared to a 25% decline in the U.S., a 4.75% dip in England (where statistics include Wales) and a 19.1% increase in Sweden.

"What's striking is that the magnitude of decline appears to be more significant in Canada," says Alex McKay, lead author of the study and research co-ordinator with the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada (SIECCAN), which released the study Wednesday morning. "Declining teen pregnancy rates for the country in general are indicative of better sexual and reproductive health among young women."

In 2006, Canada's teen pregnancy rate was lower than any of the other three countries, he says, and Canada has seen a decline both in babies born to teenage mothers and pregnant teens seeking abortions.

The Canadian teen birthrate fell 38% over a decade and the teen abortion rate declined by 35.7%, compared to a 21.7% decrease in the teen birthrate in the U.S. and a 28.6% drop in the teen abortion rate. In England, by comparison, teen birthrates fell 13.2% and the abortion rate increased by 9.1%, while Sweden's teen birthrate dropped 22.1% and abortions rose by 30%.

Canadians teens are availing themselves of our sensible attitude towards abortion.

Over the last decade, just over half of Canadian teen pregnancies ended in abortion, with births accounting for 45 to 50% of teen pregnancies in any given year. In the U.S. over the same time period, births accounted for 65 to 70% of teen pregnancies, while in England, that figure hovered between 58 and 64%.

And using effective contraception.

"By and large, the Canadian teenager today is not more or less likely to be sexually active than the Canadian teenager from a decade ago," Dr. McKay says. "But what is different is that the sexually active teenager today is more likely to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections."

And the next state to get riled up over abortion is. . .

The UK.

Really.

A general election has been called for May and the Conservative leader, David Cameron, is definitely opening the abortion debate.

Cameron himself calls for the lowering of the abortion time limit, giving one of the first interviews of his election campaign to the Catholic Herald. He says that he thinks "the way medical science and technology have developed in the past few decades does mean that an upper limit of 20 or 22 weeks would be sensible." (The current limit is 24 weeks.)

That Cameron should choose to deliberately make abortion an election issue - and so early in the campaign - is deeply alarming. Those vociferous anti-choice Conservatives who hijacked the last Human Fertility and Embryology Bill in order to launch an unsuccessful assault on abortion rights have pledged to reopen the debate if elected. It's a terrifying prospect that they should now enjoy their leaders' support so explicitly.

Cameron is entirely wrong that scientific advances require a revision of the upper limit. The government's own science and technology committee, reporting to parliament in 2007 at the time of the HEF Bill, along with the Royal College of Gynaecologists and the British Association of Perinatal Medicine all concurred that the survival of babies born under 24 weeks has not improved to such an extent that they see any value in redefining the limit.

It's also worth remembering that late abortion (at 20 or more weeks' gestation) is rare, accounting for just 1.6% of all procedures. And those women who opt for them are the most vulnerable of abortion recipients, often suffering from mental illness or domestic violence.

In short, it's time to dust off your pro-choice banners. Meanwhile, remind your socially liberal neighbour who is still flirting with voting Tory about the harsh reality of their compassionate Conservatism.

Thing is, they just had the abortion debate in Britain.

His comments brought an angry reaction from pro-choice groups, which accused him of resurrecting an issue that has already been comprehensively debated in parliament.

In 2008 MPs rejected a free vote to reduce the time limit to 22 weeks by 304 to 233 – with wider margins on alternatives proposals to reduce it to 20, 18 and 12 weeks.

Remember how Harriet Hardman, Deputy Labour Leader, whipped that vote?

Technically, once the MPs turned up, they could vote either way. In reality, sources say, they were greeted by Ms Harman’s group, who pressured them to vote against the move, proposed by Tory MP Nadine Dorries.

According to one account, women Labour MPs formed a ‘human corridor’ to channel their colleagues into the ‘No’ lobby. One Labour MP claimed to have heard one of Ms Harman’s team shout: ‘Vote against us and the sisterhood will never let you forget it.’

Ah, if only the fucking Liberals here had a Harriet Hardwoman.

But, hey, it's politics, where women's rights are ALWAYS negotiable.

Too Young to Invade Italy

It seems the UK has a teensy problem with teen pregnancy, like, it's right behind the Excited States in knocked-up kids among developed countries. And Canucks shouldn't be too smug in this department. We're in the top six, five of which are the UK and its former colonies, US, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and, oddly, Hungary. (All -- except Hungary -- repressed Anglo cultures unable to talk birds and bees with our children?)

So, the Brits decided to tackle the problem by making sex ed mandatory in schools -- all schools, including the 'faith' schools.

Well, you know what happened next, right?

The Catlicks went berserk, demanding an opt-out.

But the government held firm . . .

Oh. Wait. There's an election coming up.

The bill was passed but with an amendment allowing misogynist Christoids faith schools to teach that birth control is wrong but still requiring them to teach it.

Commenter Mark Steel rants:

How can there be so many lunatics opposed to sex education? And apart from anything else, what makes them think a lesson about sex is going to make kids go out and immediately have sex? It's education about it, not an instruction to get it done before dinner break. Maybe they should demand an end to history lessons as well on the grounds that "I don't want my fourteen-year-old learning about Napoleon as he's too young to invade Italy."

It continues to astonish me that weaselly pols bend over and grab their ankles for this crap.

Feminism Dead Again?

Er, no.

The March of the New Feminists

They are the Topshop generation: young girls more used to partying than protesting; keener on women's looks than women's lib. But now they have had enough. A new wave of feminists, some still in their teens, are putting the struggle for women's rights back on the agenda for the first time in a decade.

The feminist resurgence has spawned a flurry of new blogs, magazines, books, societies, conferences and protest marches – and this time dungarees are out.

On university campuses, women's groups are thriving once more, while hundreds of women each month are joining new feminist networks in cities from Birmingham and Manchester to Glasgow and London.

The old-school Fawcett Society, which dates back to the suffragists, has seen its membership jump by 25 per cent in the past 12 months and the number of its newsletter subscribers double; while earlier this month, more than 2,000 women took to London's streets to "Reclaim the Night" from the men who make them unsafe. Similar marches have been held in cities all over the country. And websites such as The F-Word, started by Catherine Redfern eight years ago as a forum for contemporary feminism, is getting more than 110,000 hits a month.

From The F-Word site:

This webzine exists to help encourage a new sense of community among UK feminists, and to show the doubters that feminism still exists here, today, now - and is as relevant to the lives of the younger generation as it was to those in the 60s and 70s. The webzine was founded by, and is mainly written by younger feminists, those of us born during or after the feminism of the 60s and 70s. Although we encourage contributions from feminists of all ages, we are particularly keen to encourage and showcase the new voices of younger feminists, our peers. To this end, contributions from new writers of all ages, and young women and girls are particularly welcomed and encouraged.

What is contemporary UK feminism? It is impossible to define: it can appear in many different people's lives in many different ways. The F-Word does not define what contemporary UK feminism is but instead allows a place for different people to share their different opinions and views. The contributors to the site may have opposing views on certain issues, and that's fine; it simply demonstrates that feminism is a diverse, living and healthy ideology which is confident enough to question itself. There is no "party line" in feminism, there is no "feminist rule-book." Feminism in the UK today is whatever we make it.

Just out of curiosity I googled 'feminism+dead' and got well well over two million results and for 'feminism+alive' just over one million.
Sensationalist headlines or wishful thinking?

And then, of course, there are the fabulous Canadian F-Word Awards, inspired by the enduring dunderheadedness of the boyos at the Canadian Blog Awards.




Feminism dead? No freakin' way!

ADDED: To be clear, DJ! is not a winner of an F-Word Award. I just grabbed that badge from ACR's place.

Buy Nothing Day in the UK

Yes, we know. Buy Nothing Day was started in North America as a responsible and forward-thinking answer to the problems of rampant consumerism, the worst example being "Black Friday", the shopping orgy that is held the day after US Thanksgiving. The HQ and brain trust behind the campaing is Adbusters, an organization based in Vancouver, BC.

But on so many levels, the UK approach resonates more strongly with Canadians, I'd venture to say. For one thing, it's held on the last Saturday of November, when the 'shopping days before Xmas' count-down becomes frenzied and incessant.

Here's one social marketing that the UK genius folks have developed.



More inspired anti-shopping YouTubes here.

From the UK Buy Nothing Day website:

Everything we buy has an impact on the environment. Buy Nothing Day highlights the environmental and ethical consequences of shopping. The developed countries
- only 20% of the world population are consuming over 80% of the earth's natural resources, causing a disproportionate level of environmental damage and an unfair distribution of wealth.

And voluntary responsible consumer simplicity can continue every day of the year if you keep the following in mind.

Ask yourself these simple questions:

Do I need it? How many do I already have? How much will I use it? How long will it last? Could I borrow it from a friend or family member? Am I able to clean and/or maintain it myself? Will I be able to repair it? Am I willing to? Have I researched it to get the best quality for the best price? How will I dispose of it when I'm done using it? Are the resources that went into it renewable or nonrenewable? Is it made from recycled materials, and is it recyclable?

If not shopping today disrupts your schedule and standing in solidarity with the campaign would mean that you're deprived of ciggies, your kitty of litter or your children of milk, pick another way to be a conscientious consumer.

SHRIEEEEKING from across the pond

While Merkin fundies are SHRIEEEKING over the FDA's sensible decision to stop playing politics comply with a court order to make emergency contraception available to 17-year-olds, Brit fundies are SHRIEEEEKING about this.

Furious parents called up radio phone-in shows in their hundreds to complain about the first television ad for the morning-after pill, which broke last night.

AEEIIII! An ad! On telly!



It's kinda odd, isn't it? The cartoon woman's surprise/shock/distress countered by the bouncy music. Not to mention the Pink.

So, the usual lying liars trot out their usual lies.

The ProLife Alliance has also condemned the ad claiming: "It is advertised inaccurately as emergency contraception when in fact its major function is to cause the abortion of an embryo that has already been conceived, not as suggested by the name to prevent conception."

Um. No. That's bullshit.

Anyway, good on ya, Britain. May we see such sense here.