Alliance for Life Ontario published an interview with Dr Chris Kahlenborn regarding Plan B.
This is an intriguing part of the interview, although I cannot vouch for its scientific basis. I'm putting it out there for public consideration.
2. Plan B is supposed to “work” if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. But your paper says if Plan B is taken on the day of ovulation or thereafter, it does not appear to impact a pregnancy. Thus, would you say Plan B is (useless) if taken during or after ovulation?
Yes, it appears to be useless or actually may increase a woman’s risk of getting pregnant when taken on or after the day of ovulation, according to the data presented by Dr. Noe in her 2010 and 2011 studies (Contraception). Other leading researchers such as Dr. Trussell and Davidoff also raise this very real possibility: “it even raises the counter-intuitive but undocumented possibility that Plan B used after ovulation might actually prevent the loss of at least some of the 40% of fertilized ova that ordinarily fail spontaneously to implant or to survive after implantation.” (JAMA, October, 2006). In practical terms this means that while Plan B likely often works by abortion if given prior to ovulation, it has either no efficacy or actually could have a pregnancy enhancing effect if given on the day of ovulation or after.
Catholic Intelligence Blog talks about St. George Elementary's School new GSA. That was not a mistake: elementary school.
Canada faces dramatic drop in citizenship, prompting concerns about disengaged immigrants. Question: what do permanent residents think of this? Anyone bothered to ask them?
Christie Blatchford: Liberal MPs accused of sexual harassment treated less fairly than VIA plot terrorists
And that was that: Two men who had been accused publicly, their reputations ruined, by the two NDP MPs who have been allowed by both parties and the press to remain anonymous, had been investigated privately, and now all their leaders could say was that there was nothing to see here, move along folks, and, oh yes, hugs for the ladies.
It seems that if two MP's reputation are ruined, the people who voted for them have the right to know the details.
The entrapment potential is huge. It's not inconceivable for a female MP of one party seduce the MP of another party, then lay false accusations and ruin his chances of re-election. You might say: that's pretty unlikely. I say: in politics, you can count on people doing the sleaziest thing for political gain.
Paul Tuns raises another relevant point:
In other words, why is whatever it is these two did a matter only for the Liberal Party and not the House of Commons. If these two did anything wrong, why is the punishment merely losing the right to caucus with the Liberals? To believe that sufficient punishment for any serious form of sexual harassment is to inflate the importance of being a Liberal above the importance of being an MP.
Cutting the TV cord? Call the anti-cable guy If you don't let people have their free market, they often find their own.