Vatican Issues "Sweeping" Statement on Bioethical Issues
The Vatican has issued its most "authoritative and sweeping document on bioethical issues in 20 years" on Friday, reports the New York Times. A few of its significant conclusions:

The Vatican says these techniques violate the principles that every human life — even an embryo — is sacred, and that babies should be conceived only through intercourse by a married couple...to bioethical questions raised in the 21 years since the congregation last issued instructions...

It bans the morning-after pill, the intrauterine device and the pill RU-486, saying these can result in what amount to abortions." The document, however, does not take a clear stand on "adopting" embryos generated through IVF but unused...

The document does little to clarify the Vatican’s position on whether couples can “adopt” surplus embryos that have been frozen and abandoned. Such “prenatal adoption,” although rare, has been promoted by some Catholics and evangelical Christians. The document says that while “prenatal adoption” is “praiseworthy,” it presents ethical problems similar to certain types of in vitro fertilization — in particular, surrogate motherhood, which the church prohibits." 

On the Women's Bioethics Blog, Kelly Hillis has a different take on the Catholic Church's stance on "prenatal adoption":

The second, and much larger issue, is the chapter on "The use of human “biological material” of illicit origin". This chapter discusses the obligation of researchers to refuse to use materials of illicit origin - that is, human cell lines obtained from stem cells, aborted fetuses, etc. Many, if not most, news outlets are reporting this to mean that the Vatican has said that Catholics may not use vaccines which are grown on human cell lines created from the lung tissues of aborted fetuses (the Meruvax rubella vaccine, at the very least).

Reading the chapter, though, instead of relying on news reports, gives a slightly different interpretation. While the document is clearly against researchers using any biological material of so-called illicit (theologically) origin, and suggests that ethical researchers will refuse to use these mediums, it draws a different line for the general public. The document allows that

Grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such “biological material. Thus, for example, danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available.

Unfortunately, this again raises more questions than it solves. If there is such a thing as a single grave reason that may be morally proportionate to justify the use of illicit biological material - vaccinating your child from a deadly disease - then why are there not other grave reasons? Isn't this suddenly a large degree of "wiggle room" that will allow individuals an out, who can say that this document is not intended for the lay Catholic but the scientist Catholic, the researcher who spends their life in this and thus needs to consider ethics and morality at a different level than the average person (or at least average Catholic)?

Thanks to Christine Cupaiuolo at Our Bodies, Our Blog for the links.

FDA Advisors Support Approval of Female Condom
An FDA committee voted unanimously to approve a second-generation female condom, a quieter and cheaper version.  Reports Reuters,

"The current version requires welding sheets of polyurethane to form a sheath, then welding rings at each end. The newer one, made of synthetic rubber, uses a simpler process similar to male condoms that should cut costs, the company said."

"The key in the U.S. has always been cost," Mary Ann Leeper, an adviser and former president of the company, told Reuters. A female-initiated STI prevention method is critical to stemming the HIV epidemic, say reproductive health advocates:

More than a dozen health advocates urged panel support of FC2, saying its use was critical to help more women protect themselves. Unlike male condoms, the female product can be inserted well before sexual intercourse begins.

"Female condoms are the only woman-controlled method of safer sex, and we also know what the birth control pill did for women: it allowed them an unprecedented control over their reproductive status," said American Social Health Association Vice President Deborah Arrindell.

Ross Douthat Misses the Point, Again
Even if only three percent of Planned Parenthood's costs are related to abortion services, anti-choicers aren't misguided in their campaign to defund the reproductive health organization, says Ross Douthat on the Atlantic online. "[E]ven if their non-abortion business were enormous enough to make that three percent claim legitimate - they would still be performing more than 250,000 abortions a year. That's a 2, a 5, and four zeros - a figure that accounts, by Allen's reckoning, for somewhere north of $100 million in annual revenue for the organization, and that contrasts rather strikingly with the number 1,414, which is how many women the organization referred to an adoption agency in 2004-2005. (They've since stopped even reporting the adoption-referral number, apparently.)," writes Douthat.  But federal government funding - what the anti-choice groups like Family Research Council are protesting - isn't funding abortion. Thanks to the Hyde Amendment, federal Medicaid dollars cannot be spent to cover abortion care for women.  Instead, federal funding provides contraceptive access and sexuality education counseling to low-income women.  How is the number of abortions Planned Parenthood performs relevant to the conversation?

On Slate, William Saletan, meanwhile, calls Planned Parenthood a highly effective pro-life organization:

The campaign to defund Planned Parenthood is really about abortions. FRC would like to see fewer of them. So would I. And that's the crux of the idiocy: The single best thing you can spend money on to reduce the number of abortions, not just in this country but around the world, is Planned Parenthood.

I'll say that again: If you define pro-life as preventing abortions, Planned Parenthood is the most effective pro-life organization in the history of the world. No, it doesn't give teenagers the idea of having sex. That idea comes to them quite naturally, thank you very much. What Planned Parenthood does, more comprehensively than anyone else, is to distribute the means and knowledge to control your risk of getting pregnant when you don't want to be pregnant. And those two things, combined with pressure to exercise that control assiduously, are the surest way to prevent abortions. If you wait till women are already unhappily pregnant, you're too late.

Afghans Want More Children, Can't Afford Them

Women in Afghanistan have an average of seven children, the highest fertility rate in Asia, reports the San Francisco Chronicle, and yet "Today, many Afghan couples are torn between adhering to the tradition of large families and the financial reality of caring for many children...Indeed, a faltering economy has caused many villagers to reduce the size of their families and turn to family planning services that offer birth control pills and injections and condoms." But economic factors should not be the only determinants of desired family size in that country, the Chronicle suggests:

A U.N. Population Fund report released in July warned that Afghanistan's current population growth rate will more than double the demand for water and land, stress the country's inadequate infrastructure and damage the environment.

Experts say increasing population has already contributed to astounding levels of maternal and infant mortality, which are among the highest in the world. In Afghanistan, there are 1,600 maternal deaths per 100,000 births, a rate 123 times higher than in the United States. The infant mortality rate is 154 deaths per 1,000 live births. In contrast, the U.S. rate is 6.3 per 1,000 live births, according to CIA data.

The U.N. report also said that easing population growth would allow the Afghan government to direct more attention to reducing maternal and infant deaths, while improving services for children's health and education, and developing the country's roads and energy sources.