Anti-contraception extremists are again putting confusion to good use in trying to trick the public into supporting their cause. Fresh off a decisive defeat of their "Personhood" bill that would have granted fertilized eggs full constitutional rights and set the groundwork to ban the most commonly used forms of birth control, Colorado's anti-family planning operatives are it again. Since the personhood bill attempted to reclassify common contraceptive methods as abortion, women's health advocates this session introduced a bill that would clearly define what contraception is and what it is not based on actual science and fact. Even though the bill explains that RU-486, mifepristone, or “any other drug or device that induces a medical abortion” are not contraceptive methods, the anti-birth control folks claim that the bill is "dangerously broad." What exactly is dangerously broad about it? It does not reclassify contraceptive methods as abortion. "Dangerously broad" was how their personhood bill was described because it would have laid the groundwork for banning not only abortion and contraception but stem cell research and IVF treatment. The anti-contraception crew know an effective talking point when they're defeated by it and so, voila, the category formally known as "contraception" is now suddenly "dangerously broad."

It was also revealed this week that researchers at the University of Iowa feel good about the chances they will soon develop a birth control pill for men. According to news reports, researchers are studying a mutation in a gene critical for normal sperm movement. The mutation has been found in at least two families with fertility problems. Researchers believe blocking this gene might be one way to create a contraceptive for men. In a related story, anti-birth control researchers are hard at work designing an argument that this yet to be developed contraceptive method for men can cause an abortion.

A Virginia high school student, with the full consent of her parents, took her birth control pill at school last week. As Kerry Howley at Slate points out, she might as well have been free-basing. In fact, had she instead been doing illegal drugs on school grounds she would have only gotten a five day suspension. For some bizarre reason, the penalty for taking a controlled substance, like birth control, at school is far worse, considered equivalent to bringing a firearm with you. The prevention-minded student was given a two-week suspension and was also "recommended for expulsion." This wasn't a situation where school bureaucrats were beholden to enforcing some broad and generic regulation while recognizing the inappropriateness of such punishment in this instance. Apparently, the Washington Post reported, a "long table full of school officials weighed her case at a hearing." Wonder if the officials would react the same way if a pregnant girl had taken a prescription pre-natal vitamin at school. Considering the strong message they've now sent discouraging diligent contraceptive use, we may just get the chance to find out.

By the way, my interview with Dr. Ted Green, of the Harvard School of Public Health, about the Pope's anti-condom comments is in the final stages of being transcribed (it was a loooong interview.) I'll be on vacation next week and so expect to see it here sometime the week of the 20th. In the meantime, here's another take on the Pope's anti-condom stance: