November 27, 2012

"Time honors Sandra Fluke as 'Person of the Year' finalist."

That's the Breitbart headline for an item that begins "Just when you think Time magazine can’t make any more of a mockery of itself...." But there are 40 individuals on Time's "Who Should Be TIME's Person of the Year 2012?" which gives readers a chance to vote. Included on this list are many minor newsworthy figures and many whose contributions were not clearly positive. Bashar Assad and Kim Jong Un are on the list — "honored." Nice by not really world-changing figures like gymnast Gabrielle Douglas are included.  The click-through gallery is in alphabetical order, and the first picture that hits you is a conservative old white guy, Sheldon Adelson. Now, he's not presented in a positive light:
In the post-Citizens United era, Sheldon Adelson became the public face of what critics cast as a plutocrat class trying to buy U.S. elections. But it's not clear how much the conservative casino magnate got for his money — other than a heap of bad press.
Time's perspective is obviously liberal, but within that perspective, it's quite a concession to say that Citizens United hasn't been a horror show.

Anyway, Time made an effort to amass an interesting list of people who made the news for different reasons or who represent different cultural and demographic sectors. There's E.L. James and Jay-Z and Psy. Did they "influence the news" (Time's stated standard)? The real problem here is that it seems that Barack Obama is the necessary choice for 2012, and that's simply too boring.

And in fact, he is not winning in the readers poll. The readers have decisively chosen Malala Yousafzai. She has the least negative votes ("no way") and is coming in 3d on positive votes ("definitely"). Ahead of her on the positive list are Mohamed Morsy and — I guess the vote-for-the-worst crowd is out in force — Kim Jong Un. Malala Yousafzai is the face in the gallery that makes your heart zing. I clicked through the whole thing without feeling like hitting a definitely/no way button until I got to her. I still didn't vote, of course. (My female heart is well-defended against the outreached arms of commercial media.)

Sandra Fluke's no votes far exceed yes votes —  24,809/9,356  — but I would guess that outrage from the Breitbart crowd will now skew the vote. I don't know which way, but for Time, traffic is traffic and it will experience a nice boost from the inclusion of Fluke. The "Person of the Year" event — and this post gets my "annual nonsense" tag — is a nice commercial gambit for Time. So:

Who made a mockery of itself?
  
pollcode.com free polls 

79 comments:

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quaestor said...

The only way the "Breitbart made a mockery of itself" theory works is if Time is in the process of shifting its format to compete with The Onion, which would be a smart move given its standing as the news magazine.

Bob Ellison said...

In other news, will "Sandy" drop in the rankings of baby names?

Awaiting deletion.

Quaestor said...

And why did the NHC choose "Sandy" rather than "Sandra"?

Bob Ellison said...

Quaestor, it was a very sandy event. Four feet of it on the boulevard near my place in NJ.

There's a great old cartoon of a platoon marching with the French Foreign Legion somewhere in the Sahara. One of the guys says to the other, "I'm here to forget about a girl, but it's difficult, because her name is Sandy."

FleetUSA said...

The Morsy, Assad, and Kim Jong Un votes show the web site has been attacked already. Wacko. Neither has had any real achievement yet. They would be like giving the Nobel to B0

Mitchell the Bat said...

I would welcome a Time readers poll that ranks American law schools.

Todd said...

Time is still in print? Really?

MisterBuddwing said...

::shrug:: I could nominate the professor for the Nobel Peace Prize - makes as big a difference.

MadisonMan said...

why did the NHC choose "Sandy" rather than "Sandra"?

NHC does not choose the names. The WMO does.

X said...

clearly, Julia should win. she's the poster gal of feminism.

MadisonMan said...

I went to the Time article. But I will not click 40 times to see who they deem worthy.

There is absolutely nothing more annoying to me on the internet than a multi-page article. Put it all on one page -- people have bandwidth and can handle loading the whole kit and kaboodle at once. I know it's all about ad revenues and page clicks though.

Bob Ellison said...

MadisonMan, I designed a company web page back when the web was pretty young. I'm not good at visual design, but I reasoned that it'd be easier to scroll down than to click around, so I made it mostly one long page. That decision gathered ridicule.

Nowadays, I agree with you: longer pages are easier. Too many clicks are stupid. I seek vindication for my early, long, ugly page!

Still awaiting deletion. Way off-topic.

Tank said...

The more I think about it, Fluke is the perfect choice. She should win.

AprilApple said...

You know American pop culture has hit rock bottom when a greedy skank named Sandra Fluke is named "Person of the year".

Yeah. That's right. I called her a greedy skank.

Tank said...

April

"a greedy skank"

Yes, that's why she's the perfect modern American. 51%.

Maguro said...

Adelson has to be the most overhyped cartoon villain ever, demonized for donating...Dr Evil style pause...TEN....MILLION....DOLLARS to a Romney Super PAC.

He damn near stole the election from poor Barack Obama, who only got to a measly Billion dollars on his reelection campaign. Amazing he was able to pull through and defeat Romney depite Adeldon's TEN. MILLION. DOLLARS.

AprilApple said...

Fluke is the perfect combination of Greed and Skank.

Shouting Thomas said...

Republicans must adapt and learn how to win the Greedy Skank vote!

Otherwise, there is no hope!

AprilApple said...

When large corporations, greedy killers of whole currency, and Hollywood billionaire moguls give generously to the democrat party - (millions and billions) - hey, no problem!

When anyone else with big money gives it to a Republican- why - evil!! evil!! whaaaa! Citizens United! waaaaa.

AprilApple said...

I really have zero desire to suck up to the greedy skank vote. If America wants to pay higher taxes so that weird girl dem-props like Fluke can have free stuff - I surrender.
America is over.

Some Seppo said...

Was Citizens United really about campaign finance reform?

For example, Stewart was asked by Chief Justice John Roberts what would happen if a corporation were to publish a 500-page book discussing the American political system which concluded with a single sentence endorsing a particular candidate. Kagan’s deputy answered that such an endorsement would constitute “express advocacy” and therefore the corporation could only fund the publication of the book through a political action committee. “And if they didn’t, you could ban it?” asked the chief justice. “If they didn’t, we could prohibit publication of the book,” Stewart replied.

As far as Sandy goes, she can slut walk all over Georgetown for all I care.



YoungHegelian said...

I have two words for how Time magazine makes a mockery of itself everyday: Joe Klein.

Renee said...

As much as I disagree with Fluke, she was just was a regular law student with a back ground in anti-domestic violence and and anti-human trafficking on her resume. These two issues are in alignment with any Catholic Institution.

Contraception wasn't really 'her niche', until there was a press conference made to look like a hearing where she testified that women had to actually pay for their contraception.

Now that the pill will more likely then not be sold 'over the counter', the point is really not relevant.

The push is to market IUDs to parents for their teenager daughters, prior to any sexual activity. Something teenage girls can not take out independently, only with 'access to a doctor'. The pharmaceutical makers of these IUDs are going to really rich out of this. They've proven the risks are low enough for wide-spread use.

I see contraception not as a woman's freedom, but world-wide instrument to be used as coercive population control. In this country we actually have freedoms, that the government can't force contraception on us, but they will do everything possible to market a culture and create economic situations not to have large families.

Housing and children shouldn't be that expensive, but are artificially inflated so individuals choose not to have larger families.

Even when I was OK with contraception, it was something I purchased with my own money as a teenager, and when I was 18 I was competent enough to make my own appointment with a gynecologist to get a prescription. I thought it was being a responsible feminist at the time, a misplaced action in the proper ideal I should be more responsible with my sexual health.

Contraception does send mix messages. Sure no babies, but it initially messes up how real adult relationships should work. Eventually most women want to be in a stable relationship, you can't get there randomly hooking up hoping something will stick.

Shouting Thomas said...

Drank Keg Yes is an anagram of Greedy Skank!

Renee said...

@SHouting Thomas

Yes, that's is pretty much the demographic. Obama's "First Time" commercial and Jay-Z as his surrogate in commercial markets worked very well. Obama won fair and square, no need of any conspiracies of voter fraud.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Eventually most women want to be in a stable relationship, you can't get there randomly hooking up hoping something will stick.

Isn't the whole point of an IUD to insure that something doesn't stick?

Bob Ellison said...

Renee said "Contraception does send mix messages. Sure no babies, but it initially messes up how real adult relationships should work. Eventually most women want to be in a stable relationship, you can't get there randomly hooking up hoping something will stick."

Sure no babies?

Women tend to want babies. Men, too. At least the good ones.

Is the stable relationship the only goal? Why bother? There are cheap appliances that are very stable.

LarsPorsena said...

Shouting Thomas said...

Drank Keg Yes is an anagram of Greedy Skank!

11/27/12 9:22 AM
______________________________

I object to the 'greedy skank' description. I think it's more like entitled skank.

Chef Mojo said...

Time's ______ Of The Year has all the irrelevance of the Nobel Peace Prize, but without the tuxes. May as well give Fluke that, and just be done with it. At least she could take the cash prize, and take care of her lady parts without bothering me about them...

edutcher said...

Considering we have no regard for the Man of the Year anymore, why should Ms Fluck make a difference?

Shouting Thomas said...

I prefer my Skanks to be humble and to disavow all wordly goods.

No Greedy Skanks for me! Spiritual Skanks are OK!

Hagar said...

Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" is supposed to be chosen by the editors of the magazine as the man who most influenced the news during the past year.

It is not an award and is not supposed to be subject to popularity polls.

LoafingOaf said...

I guess i'd make Obama's assassination czar, John Brennan, the person of the year, because the drone program and the kill list - or "disposition matrix" - has made President Obama a lawless murderer, and perhaps every president going forward will get drunk on those new powers to assassinate people without due process. Will this be America anymore?

Or, since the Person of the year doesn't have to be a person, perhaps the Surveillance State should be chosen.

MadisonMan said...

is supposed to be chosen by the editors of the magazine as the man who most influenced the news during the past year.

This way they can't be held up for ridicule. They didn't choose the person, some other group did.

Just another worker shirking his or her reponsibility.

Renee said...

No we were taught not even allowed to think about babies until we were 35. That was the message, all through out high school in the 90s.

The script was this.

Go to college, travel, go to grad school, travel, work, travel, find a husband at 30, travel, buy a McMansion, complain you can't travel as much, and have a baby of one gender, complain you can't sleep in, then try to have a baby of the other gender. Brag constantly how much better of a mom you are, because you waited and had so much fun in your 20s. Then complain the cost of children is expensive.

Meanwhile over in the UK, they're telling parents to freeze their daughter's eggs.

Egg freezing should be every father's graduation present to his daughter, claims leading fertility expert

ricpic said...

The person of the year is the Great American Shlub, who now rules, baby!

Shouting Thomas said...

Renee...

Yes, the Woman in the Gray Flannel Suit has become the corporate drone.

What was once hip is now indoctrinated dogma.

LarsPorsena said...

@Renee

"...Meanwhile over in the UK, they're telling parents to freeze their daughter's eggs."

An item on Instapundit the other day said they are selling more adult Depends than baby diapers in Japan.

A preview of coming demographic attractions.

Chuck66 said...

I'm with you, Shout-T. My whores hang out in bars and troll for guys. The only free thing they demand is drinks. They don't go on national TV and demand free condomns.

Renee said...

I know my comment's tone on 'the script' sounds mean, it wasn't meant to be a judgment of other women. It's not about judgment, it is about what we are taught and what we are rewarded when we follow the script. All of my friends, are doing the script. So when they get to the bragging part about waiting to have children, I remind them I turned out OK without traveling, having a big house, or waiting to have children.

harrogate said...

God, it was so painfully predictable how readers of the blog would overhwelmingly vote. Even though the very obvious explanation appears in Ann's own post. Because people like Breitbart and don't like Time or Fluke, I suppose, it means that the former can never make a mockery of itself in this context, no matter what crazy bullshit it spews.

Sad. People are supposed to have some measure of thinking.

Renee said...

@ Lars

Same thing in Korea, thanks in part to a partnership with Planned Parenthood and the United States

"Where Have All the Children Gone?

"So in 1961, the Planned Parenthood Federation of Korea was established as a joint effort between Koreans and the United States. The new group worked closely with the government to launch a National Family Planning Program, the goal of which was to stop Koreans from having so many babies. It was a multipronged push. There was propaganda, with the government warning citizens, “Unplanned parenthood traps you in poverty” and “Sons or daughters, stop at two and raise them well.” Efforts were made to increase women’s enrollment in high school. Contraceptives were handed out freely to anyone who would take them. Men were exempted from mandatory military service if they submitted to vasectomies."

----------

Reproductve Rights isn't really a legal concept, it is just a marketing slogan to push people into having smaller families.

What about a woman's reproductive right to have as many children as she wishes, if it is beyond two? We still have the right here in the United States, and those who utilize that right get stigmatizes as 'religious kooks', but the United States did a lot to push other countries we were suppose to be helping to coerce their men and women to control their freedom to have a family. No aid unless a country controls their population, isn't true charity from a free country like the United States.


AJ Lynch said...

Fluke and Adelson are both private citizens and in a non-Bizarro world, Fluke would have been the one getting the most scorn and ridicule.

jr565 said...

Sandra should win if they add "Most Annoying" to the title. Then i'd vote for her.

sydney said...

Renee said,

The push is to market IUDs to parents for their teenager daughters, prior to any sexual activity. Something teenage girls can not take out independently, only with 'access to a doctor'. The pharmaceutical makers of these IUDs are going to really rich out of this.

This is exactly right. The contraceptive mandate most benefits big pharma. Within days of the HHS mandate being announced, my patients were telling me their birth control pills had gone up by $20-$30 per month. They had to sneak in the price increase before the insurance companies could notice when the mandate kicked in. Now, you have medical professional groups not only recommending IUDs for the non-sexually active teenager, but the morning after pill as well, "just in case." What an elegant way to increase the number of prescriptions for the product. How many non-sexually active teenage girls are going to keep their morning after pills at hand "just in case" and how many will have to have them refilled when they actually need them because they can't find the first set? Double your profits, baby.

Renee said...

It's was hard to put off the issue of sex, when the guy had a condom in his drawer 20 years ago. Now he knows you probably have Plan B in the house. Really is there any chance of delaying sexual activity in a relationship/non-relationship with men?

If I had an IUD at 15, I wouldn't let it go to waste just sitting there. Same thing with the Pill, actually quite depressing to the Pill every day when you're not in a sexual relationship. It's like a waste of contraception, while someone is making money off of it.

Condoms not used in the drawer, that are about to expire? When at least they can be recycled into some juvenile pranks.

Condoms will be nothing more the relics.

Mr. D said...

I wonder how Cindy Sheehan fared back in 2005.

Synova said...

TIME says that the voting is just for the fun of it, that the "whatever" of the year is chosen by the editors. And how many hits have they gotten from the voting thing?

I voted for Curiosity. If they had a faceless "the protester" last year they can have a robot this year.

Curiosity is actually doing something remarkable and Historic.

tim maguire said...

I imagine Time does this on purpose. You have ot reach pretty far down inside the well to come up with 60 newsmakers in a year. Probably half were put there in the hopes of generating some kind of controversy.

As for Breitbart.com, I'm underwhelmed by most articles. I prefer to remember Andrew Breitbart as a relentless agitator against partisan bullshit (and when you're talking mass media, that means liberal partisan bullshit).

Breitbart.com has a different goal that doesn't help me remmebr Andrew as I prefer to.

Synova said...

But TIME won my scorn and mockery by explaining the amazing sky crane landing as the mars lab being lowered from a mother ship.

Truly mockworthy, that. Made me distrust the descriptions of every other entry. Obviously this was about writing something hip and entertaining about each instead of writing something true.

(For Althouse's poll I'm one of the few who chose "neither." It's all pretty standard output for TIME and for Breitbart.)

Nathan Alexander said...

God, it was so painfully predictable how harrogate (or one his fellow liberals) would react to this post. Because certain types of people like the illusion that of moral superiority, so they will believe whatever the NYT tells them to feel superior about, no matter what crazy bullshit it spews.

Sad. But then, it has been obvious from the liberals who post here that they almost entirely lack some measure of thinking.

Greg said...

Last years winner - The Protester. I assume that was for the occuturds since the Arab spring was later. That was real precient, since they have been so relevant lately. Even this years protesters seem to be exchanging one dictator for another.

Colonel Angus said...

Contraception does send mix messages. Sure no babies, but it initially messes up how real adultrelationshipsshould work.

How so? If you want a child, don't use birth control. If you don't want a child and just the sex, use birth control. That process works simultaneously with married and unmarried couples.

Colonel Angus said...

Sad. People are supposed to have some measure of thinking.

I think many people thought a 30 year old law student attending a $48,000 per year law school should be able to pay for her own birth control.



Renee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Synova said...

Some contraception may interfere, chemically, because it effects moods and stuff and supposedly hormone levels actually determine who you're attracted to and who you aren't.

But I think that recreational sex does probably skew how relationships work since, sort of by definition, it's about recreation and not relationships. And while I suppose it's entirely possible for lots of people to hook-up and whatever without getting messed in the head, other people most surely do get messed in the head and have their ability to form healthy, adult relationships messed up by what other people tell them they should be able to do without consequence.

Renee said...

@ Colonel

Human beings are not machines.

Emotions matter, and occur with sex. Like it or not.

Sex is a form of communication, not just an outlet for when you are horny or when you're biological clocks sounds the alarm. Feminists may say I'm just oppressed by some patriarchy. I want the fullness of love, sex just happens to be the outward expression of that fullness.

Women say they want more sex, but really they want love. But love makes anyone (man or woman) vulnerable, you know emotional.

For all this talk about contraception for teens, no one talks about relationships. Again relationships are suppose to happen later on in 'the script', but we're so busy just 'f*cking around' playing house or whatever, we don't know what sex was suppose to be.

carrie said...

That's another example of why I'm not going to renew my Time subscription. I switched to Time from Newsweek 4 years ago and now I guess I'll have to switch again.

n.n said...

How appropriate. 2012 is the year when progressive corruption evolved to become conclusive corruption.

What better figure to select than a degenerate woman who rejects responsibility for her voluntary actions and refuses to demand her "friend with benefits" contribute to their mutual physical gratification; who devalues human life through elective abortion of conscious human beings; who denigrates individual dignity through selective recognition; who rationalizes involuntary exploitation; who, in short, exhibits behaviors which are violations of commonly understood human and civil rights, and constitute evolutionary dysfunction (i.e. generational suicide).

Yes, 2012 is the year of the Fluke; but, unfortunately, is not a fluke. The progress of degenerate behaviors follows a historical cycle, which, apparently, is inevitable.

harrogate said...

Colonel Angus wrote:

"I think many people thought a 30 year old law student attending a $48,000 per year law school should be able to pay for her own birth control."

Which would have maybe been an interesting and relevant point. If it had anything at all to do with the post or, with Time's stated rubric for its nominees.

veni vidi vici said...

If the Breitbart cast were as clever as their namesake, they'd have called for a flood of "yes" votes for Fluke so that if she won the award, the magazine would colossally beclown itself.

Unfortunately, the crowd running that site anymore aren't possessed of much of a sense of humor, and earnestness runs tiresome after awhile.

n.n said...

Renee:

A majority don't even understand or ignore the purpose of dating. Perhaps that's why there is a popular perception which equates dating with prostitution, and, later, marriage with slavery. Either way, their mutual knowledge is limited to physical and fiscal assets.

Consider "barefoot and pregnant" has progressed to "barefoot and available"... for sex and and taxation.

harrogate said...

Nathan,

Seriously. The voting indicates people's dislike of Fluke and of Time. Which is to be expected on this site. But none of that makes the explanation for why she is on the list any less obvious or true. why doesn't Breitbart whine about the inclusion of Kim jong Whomever, and fight the same old fight of whether it is appropriate for Time to nominate only people everyone loves, or at least people Breitbart and Nathan Alexander love.

The vote and most of the comments reflect a desire to rehash disagreement wih Fluke. That, though, has nothing at all to do with the post. It does not take much thinking to see that. hell, it really doesn't take any.

Inga said...

"Contraception does send mix messages. Sure no babies, but it initially messes up how real adultrelationshipsshould work."
-------------------------
Colonel Angus said,
"How so? If you want a child, don't use birth control. If you don't want a child and just the sex, use birth control. That process works simultaneously with married and unmarried couples."

11/27/12 12:16 PM
-------------------------
Hallelujah, a voice of reason.

Inga said...

Who here gets to define how an adult relationship works?Why this weird anti contraception push, regressive and foolish. The anti abortion folks should understand just how foolish this is. What prevents unwanted pregnancies? Young women and men abstaining from pre marital sex or birth control? Also, married women should not have to live with the prospect of a pregnancy every single month when they are not seeking to have another baby at that time.

Why am I even having to ask this question in the year 2012?

Lydia said...

Inga, as usual, you're skewing the discussion to just where you libs want it -- Conservatives are against contraception!

No one here has said that. What they're talking about is the hook-up culture that dismisses the importance -- especially to women -- of solid, stable relationships.

Inga said...

Lydia, perhaps you should read what Renee wrote here and in other threads about contraception.

Seriously?

Lydia said...

I did read Renee's comments, Inga, but I don't see them as being against contraception per se.

What she says is that contraception sends mixed messages, which it does. Or do you dispute that?

Renee said...

Personally I'm against contraception. I'm not a conservative, since I agree with many social programs on a state level. My opposition to contraception, comes actually from being a feminist and environmentalist and how contraception removes the natural elements of human sexuality.

I learned about the science of Natural Family Planning for about a decade now from non-religious purposes. I've been using Natural Family Planning for about 4 years 'to avoid'. I never worry about getting pregnant, even though I'm sexually active on a regular basis with my husband.


It's free. Because everyone woman has the right to know how fertility works, instead we buy this an do this to your body to make it acceptable to have sex. Women (and men) deserve better, we deserve the truth. As a feminist, we should be on the same page with that.

The information on fertility awareness has been around for decades, but big pharma keeps this information to merely 'superstition' and claims it doesn't work.

I enjoy my sex organic. You would think that would be embraced by liberals.

ambienisevil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Renee said,
"Personally I'm against contraception. I'm not a conservative, since I agree with many social programs on a state level. My opposition to contraception, comes actually from being a feminist and environmentalist and how contraception removes the natural elements ..."

11/27/12 2:24 PM

More power to ya sister, as long as you understand that your personal choices are not those of other women. You and I get to choose, yeah us!

Lydia, sorry, but I guess I was right about Renee and contraception.:)

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

And here comes Ambienisevil! Yep, push that no contraceptive sex to young single women who already had a few abortions or live children.

Contraception is evil!

Lydia said...

Inga, Renee says she's personally against the use of contraceptives.

I take that to mean she's not against others using contraceptives. Which is what you and the looney-tunes Ms. Fluke rave about.

But I could be wrong on that. Renee, what say you?

Inga said...

I'm not against Renee being able to make a personal choice for her OWN form of contraception, but what you Lydia miss is that she is saying is that its an unhealthy option for all women. I didn't see her say that she wants it regulated, which is good.

That's why I told her "more power to ya sister".

Kirk Parker said...

carrie,

Newsweek ==> Time ==> ???

Drudge, maybe?

Synova said...

"Who here gets to define how an adult relationship works?Why this weird anti contraception push, regressive and foolish. The anti abortion folks should understand just how foolish this is. What prevents unwanted pregnancies? Young women and men abstaining from pre marital sex or birth control? Also, married women should not have to live with the prospect of a pregnancy every single month when they are not seeking to have another baby at that time.

Why am I even having to ask this question in the year 2012?
"

Because your side screwed it up so bad.

I'm Protestant... Thus, pro-contraception within marriage, anti-sex outside of it. And not just because God said so.

WE as a society define what is "healthy" all the time when it comes to relationships. We define statutory rape because we believe that emotional maturity and not just sexual maturity matters. Thus, sex with a 10 or 12 year old who is fully capable of becoming pregnant because she is sexually *mature* is a crime, just like sex with the pre-pubescent 8 or 9 year old is a crime.

What I see is profoundly selfish adult women who, because they are emotionally mature, advocate consequence free sex and the "hook-up" culture for women who are vulnerable. Because what is more important? Raging against regressive sexual mores or protecting the vulnerable?

A loving person, a caring person, would say to young women (and men too, for that matter)... this can HURT you, and a pregnancy is just the smallest part of that hurt.

Those worst hurt by the dissolution of "regressive" social mores are the poor, the most vulnerable, the people that those trying so hard to remove all social restrictions on their own behavior supposedly care about.

Synova said...

I'm "against" hormone based contraception for me because there can be nothing healthy about it. This isn't a drug I want to take if I have any sort of choice otherwise. If I have a medical need, sure, but subverting a healthy physical system isn't a medical need.

The idea that "morning after" pills are promoted for young women who could, given human nature, face repeated applications gives me the creeps. Abortions raise the chance of serious health issues, breast cancer, yes? Why? Answer that and is there any possibility that a massive hormone flush on the "morning after" won't have the same result?

Does anyone care? Or is it simply a price "responsible" women are willing for other women to pay for a culture that allows them sexual license?