Consumer Reports Refers to Unborn Children as "Uterine Content"

In an E-Mail from Austin Ruse, he states:

Consumer Reports Magazine just rated the whole panoply of contraceptives and in the report referred to unborn children as "uterine content." They also write approvingly about abortion. This is an outrage.

Spread the word.
Yours sincerely,
Austin Ruse
President

Action item: Call Consumer Reports to cancel your subscription or otherwise complain. You can reach them at 1-914-378-2029. EVERYONE SHOULD CALL. IF IT IS BUSY, TRY AGAIN.Culture & Cosmos

January 18, 2005 Volume 2, Number 24
Consumer Reports Refers to Unborn Children as "Uterine Content"

A series of articles in the February Consumer Reports magazine rates condoms, hormonal birth control and many other forms of artificial contraception and also gives advice on abortion options where it refers to unborn humans as "uterine content." The article gives short shrift to abstinence and betrays a misunderstanding of natural family planning, a surprise given Consumer Reports' reputation of high credibility and thoroughness.

The group of articles, called CR's Guide to Contraception, begins with an evaluation of 23 kinds of condoms. It calls condoms the "only method" of preventing pregnancy "that also can help prevent sexually transmitted diseases." The article fails to discuss the permeability of condoms to human papillomavirus (HPV) which, according to the Centers for Disease Control, is the most common form of STD and can cause cervical cancer.

The Guide to Contraception includes a sidebar disparaging the fact that the CDC's current fact sheet on condoms has changed to advocate sexual abstinence. According to the report, "A CDC spokesperson said the new fact sheet is more science-based than its predecessor and is meant for health professionals, but critics, including experts on reproductive health, charge that it puts ideology before science and encourages distrust of condoms."

The report also evaluates 17 different types of contraceptives and lists the "rhythm method" as one form. Andy Alderson, executive director of the Couple to Couple League which instructs married couples on how to use Natural Family Planning, said the Consumer Reports failed to do their home work on NFP and disputes their claim that the method has a "high failure rate if woman has irregular cycles." Anderson told Culture & Cosmos, "This is simply a false statement and shows a complete lack of understanding about NFP. Failure rates for irregular cycles were higher 30-40 years ago with the calendar-based rhythm method. But modern methods of NFP based on an awareness of a woman's signs of fertility (mucus, cervix, and temperature) work extremely well for women that have regular or irregular cycles."

The report also includes a sidebar titled, "Abortion options." In its explanation of drug-induced abortion it notes that the FDA recently strengthened the warning label that comes with the abortion pill Mifeprex "after reports of three patient deaths." It fails to note the 676 reports of problems with the drug, including 72 cases of blood loss requiring transfusions and 7 cases of serious infections.

Consumer Reports did not return Culture & Cosmos calls seeking comment but a statement was obtained by WoldNetDaily in which a magazine spokesman cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as justification for its report, "[W]e support the consumer's right to be informed (part of the United Nations charter on human rights). As one way to fulfill our mission, we publish factual, scientifically based information on public health topics and on legally available products and services provided by the medical profession and health-care industry."

Copyright 2005---Culture of Life Foundation.
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

Culture of Life Foundation
1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-2500 Fax: (202) 289-2502
E-mail: clf@culture-of-life.org Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org

I cancelled my subscription to Consumer Reports many years ago - I don't recall exactly why I decided the magazine was not worth the money. What I do recall is that there was something fundamentally repulsive about some of the articles. The particular issue discussed above should be reason enough to consider canceling one's subscription. Those who continue the dissemination of error are certainly not deserving of the public's funds.