the wounds have healed.

i went and read ambra's blog this morning. i think it's symbolic, that on the day of the idiot's inauguration, that i was able to go and read the blog of a conservative i respect, something i haven't been able to do since the election.

and since i enjoyed waging a (one-sided) debate against someone on the same side of the fence with me earlier this week, why not do the same with the 'ol right winger?

aaaaand boy do i have some stuff to talk about.

first off, ambra has a brief post on consumer reports' condom survey results. noting that consumer reports rated two brands of planned parenthood's condoms as ones people should avoid, ambra wrote:

Consumer Reports recently released some research that suggests that just maybe, they hand out condoms and birth control with the hopes that youth will fail and become customers in the infanticide turned big business holocaust known as "abortion clinics". Ya don't say?

Apparently, the condoms Planned Parenthood give out rank very low compared to other brands. And here I thought PP wasn't capable of lies...

i have multiple problems with this.

first off, she incorrectly attributes consumer report's survey as suggesting that planned parenthood hands out condoms with the hopes that youth's attempts at contraception will fail. consumer reports offers no opinion on any condom manufacturer's intentions and offers no opinion about anything relating to contraception other than the facts they discovered through scientific testing.

secondly, i think it's ridiculous to believe that an organization that is about providing contraception would want their customers to fail. just because you don't agree with abortion doesn't give cause to demonize a group that provides women a choice other than (a) needlessly dying from an STD and/or (b) getting pregnant before one is (economically, emotionally) ready to be. (now we could get into the debate about whether someone who isn't emotionally ready for a child shouldn't be having sex, but that's for another day.) that seems more of what a pro-life organization would do to further undermine the truth that condoms do work.

thirdly, perhaps we should compare the sources of these different condoms before we even blame planned parenthood for deceit. all of the condoms tested were from for-profit companies, except for planned parenthood. planned parenthood relies on volunteers, grants and private contributions, among other things, to keep running. planned parenthood condoms are distributed for free or little cost, in comparision to some of the best testing condoms, which are sold for (at least) $16 for a pack of 24. therefore, it is understandable if they are not able to have as great condom quality as the for-profit condom providers.

lastly, she fails to note that not all planned parenthood condoms were poo-pooed; their "lollipop" brand landed in the middle of the pack as far as quality is concerned.

perhaps i should consider the source which she got her news from. but as an intelligent, thoughtful writer, i would have expected her to wage her arguments more on fact than the opinion of a news source that makes no bones about being slanted to one side.

i would love to talk about her other posts that insist that the martin luther king holiday is useless and that calling new washington governor christine gregoire's husband "first gentleman" is a ridiculous "fake title to keep the feminists happy." ugh. when did feminism and feminists become a dirty word? when did it become so horrible to want men and women to be treated equally?

but i'm tired. maybe i'll get on that later.

**update @ 3:30:**
ambra's response:

Um, to all the folks suggesting that the report didn't seek to connect motives. DUH.
People take reports and draw their own conclusions. Life news drew theirs and it's not far-fetched.
Considering the fact that abortion clinics are strategically placed similarly to Liquor Stores in the center of many an urban community, I think we ought to be just a little honest with ourselves and consider the very foundation of an organization like PP.
Plain and simple, PP benefits from teenagers screwing up (no pun in tended). That in and of itself leaves gaping opportunities for foul-play.
The least we can do is admit that.

PP is an organization composed of other non-profit organizations. non-profits do not serve to profit(as indicated in their names), but instead provide a service. PP's service is to provide means of contraception and education about contraception for those who cannot afford it, and/or are unaware of their options.

which goes to the other point that abortion clinics are placed in the center of many urban communities -- unlike liquor stores, which serve a product for profit that only negatively affects those who take it, the foundation of an organization like PP is to provide another choice. people don't get pregnant b/c the abortion clinic is around the corner. people get pregnant b/c they are either irresponsible and do not take the proper precautions when they have sex, or are uninformed on their options for contraception. PP doesn't profit from abortions and unplanned pregnancies any more than the Red Cross profits from natural disasters.

i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.