In my mind, the "mission" of Consumer Reports has always been, and should always be, to test toasters and
TV sets. Somewhere along the way they lost their vision and became a self-appointed oracle
for social conscience [their own version] and reform [also their own version]. But they have finally
gone too far when they decided to test rubbers, thereby ruining what used to be a favorite
magazine on coffee tables everywhere. What sex-oriented product will Consumer Reports decide to test
next - Viagra, vibrators, and blow-up dolls???
As you see in the picture at left, CR has even staked their claim on the side of the Abortion business by callously comparing the dangers of live birth to that of abortion, implicitly favoring abortion as the safer alternative. First coat hangers, now live babies are the poster child for the Planned Parenthood pro-abortion choicers.
Nowhere in their article did CR mention the absolute best and safest method of birth contol:
Abstinence. The notion that a moral choice was the best protection against both impregnation
and disease never seemed to be a topic worthy of even the slightest hint.
Therefore, I decided to vote with my wallet. The very same evening I aborted my subscription to Consumer Reports. To their credit, I have to say that the process was easy and straightforward. And so, these two pictures show the result and I am eagerly awaiting the $6.50 refund to appear on my VISA statement. Now I am wondering what I am going to do when I need a new toaster...
It is almost too easy to imagine that there is some consipracy afoot here, especially when one considers the concurrent United Nations advertising campaign featuring the animated characters Shaft, Stretch and Dick. [break here for adolescent sniggering and elbow-poking] These are the Three Stooges incarnated as, no less, multi-racial condoms who advocate [so-called] safe sex - completely ignoring the obvious fact that this term is a complete oxymoron. To jump to the original article, Click here.
Follow-up: Within only 3-4 days from my cancellation directive, Consumer Reports had replied with a lengthy email, reproduced here at right. To their credit, CR did not employ much boilerplate in their response. They even did a fair job of rationalizing why the recent "rubber-report" was merely one more chapter in their tradition of reporting on matters of family planning. I am not buying it. CR has a distinctly liberal (i.e., assertively secular) social agenda, which they promote by way of their 'reporting'. This is what caused me to drop my first subscription to the printed CR many years ago. The CEO of CR has been spotted at Planned Parenthood rallys. Many of the CR directors and advisors are (or have been) public educators and therefore surely associated with all the classical secular-humanist causes: Darwinism, [so-called] separation of church and state, and above all, the [so-called] right to choose [i.e., abortion on demand]. Here is a pertinent editorial opinion lambasting the sad current state of the separation issue.
The final clue that the Consumer Reports management subscribes to the New World Order mindset is their citation of the Charter on human rights (propagated by the United Nations) as their ultimate mandate. No mention, naturally, of either the Declaration of Independence, or the United States Constitution which have as their primary mission that of ensuring that each of our citizens (present and future), having been "... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...", continue to enjoy the protection of "... Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
As a final reason [?] why CR should not be criticized for their most recent foray into the bedroom, the Customer Relations Team emphasize their past [and equally intrusive , in my view] efforts where "[Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports] has published comprehensive books about women's health topics in 1979 and 1992 that covered forms of birth control and abortion in considerable detail." I rest my case.
Sidebar: The same Consumers Union test of condoms revealed that "Planned Parenthood brands" are the worst performers (tearing, leaking) of the lot. This does not seem at all strange as Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest purveyor of on-demand abortions. Could this be a not-so-subtle marketing scheme to increase the odds that a user's female partner will need their, er, services?