April 9, 2007
Time evidently thinks EC is abortion
I’m willing to believe that the majority of people who conflate emergency contraception (EC), also called the “morning-after pill” with chemical abortofacients in pill form (e.g. RU-486) aren’t doing it on purpose. When I was a teenager, there was debate as to whether or not the abortion pill would or should become available in the United States. Then EC became a topic of debate over the past few years, and I can see how someone who wasn’t really paying attention might think that people are discussing the same issue from back in the ’90s. However, I think there are some people who deliberately muddle the issue for political gain, just as there are people who should know better. To wit, how did the following sentence make it into print?
As a result, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, a socialist, late last year sanctioned the free distribution of abortion-inducing “morning-after” contraception pills at government-run hospitals.
Yes indeed, that sentence, from an article recently published in Time, states unequivocally that EC induces abortion. That is just not true. I have to imagine that the article was read by more than just the author before it was published, so what’s the deal? I’m not a regular reader of Time, so I can’t speak to where it falls on the political spectrum (though I’ve heard it’s more conservative than Newsweek, which I read regularly for about a year–if that is indeed the case, then… woof), but my feeling is that politics can’t–or shouldn’t, anyway–justify blatant misinformation.
If you agree, you might consider writing a letter to the editor, which can be easily done by going to the linked story and clicking on the author’s name.
[h/t to Feministing]