The agenda of the right-to-life movement is falling nicely into place. This month part of that agenda was revealed in the leaked HHS proposal that defines anything that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb as an "abortifacient." And while pro-lifers claim all hormonal methods of birth control do this, the known science suggests that's not the case. What is known is that breastfeeding can help a woman prevent pregnancy just this way. Poetically, God himself is the mastermind of what ought to be, by pro-life standards, another abortifacient. And so, if the religious right is logical - a big if - it ought to target breastfeeding as well.

William Saletan, Slate columnist, only weeks ago wrote in defense of pharmacists' right to deny women birth control on religious grounds (that ground being their belief that birth control causes abortion). But given his recent satirical "Thank You" letter to Secretary Leavitt of HHS, in which he wonders if breastfeeding is next on the right to life hit list, maybe his defense of crazy pharmacists was satire too. In Saletan's recent post, he leaves no question about whether hormonal birth control can function as an abortifacient. He argues, as I do at length in my book, that there's no evidence to suggest it can. Instead what is known about hormonal birth control should quell any concerns that it could act to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. I'm choosing to think Saletan's original posting was satire too, and we all or at least I missed the joke. After all, satirizing the religious right is not the easiest of tasks; they've mastered the art of characturing themselves.