A letter writer is offended that City Weekly accepts advertisements from PregnancyResource.net [see “Pregnancy Ads Offensive,” Dec. 16], an agency she accuses of using rape-like imagery to describe abortion procedures. Nicole Hendricks, of Salt Lake City, takes issue with the Website’s language, like, “The doctor must first stretch open the cervix using metal rods.” Another example: “The suction pulls the fetus’ body apart.” OK, point taken: The language is problematic and loaded.

But Hendricks also suggests that City Weekly—a Planned Parenthood sponsor— should refuse advertising from Pregnancy Resource. An editor’s note explained that City Weekly’s diverse advertisers may offer contradictory information, and that we “encourage a robust idea emporium,” which includes advertisements for inspired ideas like back-, crack-, and sac-wax services for men.

Online commenter Sonny agreed that the paper should refuse the ads, but online commenter Longfellow said content-based censorship is tantamount to fascism. Online commenter killyerself offered the consolation, “if your [sic] offended by it don’t look.”

Rant Control doesn’t like all of the advertised services and products, either, but hopes that our editorial content keeps readers loyal. Also, Hendrick’s concerns have now been published in print and online—twice each—which couldn’t happen without the advertisers, including Pregnancy Resource.