“When you have sex with someone, you are having sex with everyone they have had sex with for the last ten years.”
-- Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop
July 2006: Life Matters
Alabama Unborn Victims Act Takes Effect 1 July 2006
Successful Treatment for Pregnant Women With Cancer
US Supreme Court: Pro-Life License Plates Acceptable
Warren Buffet Fdn + Bill Gates Fdn = Millions More for Abortion, Sterilization
Same-Sex Marriage Flounders - Numbers Drop Each Year
ALABAMA UNBORN VICTIMS BILL TAKES EFFECT 1JULY06 TO PROTECT PREGNANT WOMEN and their unborn children from acts of violence. The measure holds criminals who kill or injure a mother's baby accountable for two crimes when he attacks a pregnant woman.
The law applies throughout pregnancy and makes the state one of 24 to protect women during all 9 months of pregnancy and one of 34 that offers legal protection through all or part of pregnancy. "I think it's a major step forward in Alabama for protecting the lives of children in Alabama at every stage of development," said state Sen. Bradley Byrne, a Republican and one of the lawmakers who sponsored the new law.
The bill is referred to as the “Brody Bill” in memory of Brody Parker, the unborn son of 23-year-old Brandi Parker of Albertville, who was 8 months pregnant with Brody when she was fatally shot in July, 2005. Roger Parker of Guntersville pressed for the law for daughter and unborn grandson. The Parkers attended the bill-signing ceremony with several lawmakers. [29June06, Montgomery, LifeNews.com]
NEW NOTIONS ON PREGNANT WOMEN WITH CANCER. Amy Langford was utterly surprised when, at 42, she found out she was pregnant. Her joy dissipated a few weeks later, when she and her husband were told that a suspicious lump in her right breast was cancerous.
"The doctor came back and said he had 'not very good news,' " recalled Amy's husband, Gregg. "His second words were, 'Of course, this means you will have to terminate your pregnancy.' "
But the Langfords, of League City, Tex., did some research and found a group of physicians who specialize in treating pregnant women with breast cancer at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in nearby Houston. Mrs. Langford underwent amniocentesis, followed by breast-conserving surgery and four courses of chemotherapy. On May 23, 2005, she delivered Bryan, a healthy 6-pound-12-ounce baby boy. Radiation treatment was done only after that.
"I had no hair when he was born," Mrs. Langford said, "but he had a head full of hair."
For many years, the consensus in much of the medical community has been that pregnant women with breast cancer cannot undergo treatment without harming their babies — and must make a dreadful choice. That assumption is being challenged by the results of a small observational clinical trial carried out at M. D. Anderson, which found that women with invasive breast cancer may undergo surgery and chemotherapy during pregnancy and still have healthy babies.
Under the protocol studied, chemotherapy is postponed until after the first trimester of pregnancy and radiation until after the birth.
"We can now say that the ethical dilemma has been eliminated," said Dr. Richard Theriault, a professor of medicine in the department of breast medical oncology at M. D. Anderson, who presented the findings at an American Medical Association news briefing in Manhattan recently. "We can safely and successfully treat the disease with a positive outcome for both the patient and the baby."
Dr. Theriault is the senior author of a paper about the trial, which he said had been accepted for publication in a medical journal. Dr. Karin Hahn, Mrs. Langford's physician, is the first author.
Though small, the study is important, said Dr. Carolyn D. Runowicz, president of the American Cancer Society and moderator of the news briefing. Each year, breast cancer is diagnosed in about 3,000 pregnant American women, but pregnant women are usually excluded from clinical trials for ethical reasons.
"This is a big leap forward, with a reasonable follow-up period and with pregnancy outcomes, so women and their doctors can feel reassured that there is some data to base their decision on," Dr. Runowicz said.
A 1999 study from M. D. Anderson reported on the treatment of 24 pregnant patients.
Dr. Larry Norton, medical director of the Evelyn H. Lauder Breast Center at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, agreed that there is no need to terminate a pregnancy. "Chemotherapy can be used safely as long as you avoid certain agents," he said.
Treatment remains controversial because of ethical questions about the use of chemotherapy during pregnancy, as well as uncertainty about the baby's long-term health and the possibility that the baby could be left motherless, Dr. Theriault said.
"Some people think we're a little crazy," he said.
But, he added, "Not as much of the chemotherapy is delivered to the baby as to the mother."
And Dr. Theriault dismissed concerns that high hormone levels during pregnancy may accelerate cancer growth, saying most of his patients have estrogen receptor-negative tumors.
The trial examined the outcomes of 57 women and 57 live births. The babies were slightly smaller than average, with a mean birth weight of 6.4 pounds. And they had a slightly increased risk of neonatal complications, with 37 percent requiring ventilator support compared with an average of 29 percent of babies born at large tertiary-care hospitals, Dr. Theriault said.
Several of the babies were born with anomalies, but none was attributed to the chemotherapy regimen. One had Down syndrome, one was born with a club foot, and one had a not uncommon disorder called congenital bilateral ureteral reflux. Though one mother died of a pulmonary embolism after a Caesarean section, 43 of the mothers, or 75 percent, are currently healthy and cancer-free, Dr. Theriault said.
Researchers have continued to monitor the health of the children. Of 40 children, range from 2 to 15 years old, 39 are developing normally, according to parents and guardians interviewed, the sole exception being the baby with Down syndrome.
The Langfords' son just celebrated his first birthday. His mother worries about his long-term health. But, she said, he has just started walking, follows his 7-year-old sister everywhere and "is just the sweetest thing."
[Valko Comment: I can't help but wonder about all the women who had abortions unnecessarily because of this poor info. Years ago, when I worked in oncology, one of the clinical specialists told me about such a case. The mother did have the abortion but became severely depressed and died rather quickly from the breast cancer. The specialist wondered if the depression had a detrimental effect on the cancer.]
[27June06, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/health/27brea.html, Rabin; N Valko RN]
PRO-LIFE LICENSE PLATES OK: US SUPREME COURT. The US Supreme Court has ended years of legal battles over the right of citizens to display pro-life messages on their cars’ license plates. The court declined to review lower court decisions, and let stand decisions by the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals that permitted pro-life license plates to be sold in Louisiana and Tennessee. [A LA attorney plans to file a suit to eliminate all specialty tags in LA in order to eliminate the Choose Life tags.]
Bearing the message “Choose Life,” the plates offended abortion supporters who claimed that the tags violate the First Amendment by not permitting an abortion rights message in the same forum.
“Tennesseans have waited long enough to get this plate on the road and generating proceeds for agencies which help women and families facing difficult pregnancies,” said Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life, according to The Tennessean.
In New York earlier this year, a court ruled that displaying pro-life opinions on the back of one’s car was a matter of free speech rights.
‘Choose Life’ License Plate Lawsuit Victory in New York http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06030903.html [Hilary White, WASHINGTON, June 28, 2006 LifeSiteNews.com]
WILLIAM BUFFETT DONATION TO BILL GATES' FOUNDATION MEANS MILLIONS FOR ABORTION Omaha, NE (LifeNews.com) -- Investment guru Warren Buffett says he will donate the bulk of his fortune to the pro-abortion foundation set up by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his wife.
That the world's second richest man would leave about 80 percent of his estate to the Gates' foundation is a huge concern for pro-life advocates because of the groups it supports.
Buffet is the 75 year-old chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and he told Fortune magazine he will begin making contributions to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation next month by giving it stock options in the company.
According to an Associated Press report, Buffet will give the Gates foundation 12,050,000 in Class B shares of Berkshire Hathaway. One share of the stock sells for just over $3,000, and would give the Gates foundation another $37 billion. It already has $29 billion, which makes it the world's largest charity.
"Gates and Buffett are birds of a feather, having both been long time supporters of population control, giving large sums of money to groups that advocate abortion, contraception and sterilization, usually in the name of stopping AIDS or poverty." [26June, LifeSiteNews.com]
The donation causes huge concerns for pro-life advocates as the Gates Foundation has given the Planned Parenthood Federation of America abortion business almost $12.5 million since 1998, including funds to persuade teenagers to support abortion and to lobby the United Nations to advance pro-abortion proposals. The Gates foundation has also given nearly $21 million to the International Planned Parenthood abortion business over the last seven years.
The funds have gone to promote abortions in third-world nations and to set up pro-abortion family planning centers in South America, Africa and eastern European nations. Bill Gates and his wife have also spent millions promoting abortion closer to home.
Their foundation has given nearly $2 million to Planned Parenthood of Central Washington and Planned Parenthood of Western Washington to fund abortion centers. The Gates Foundation also gave the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada more than $1.3 million to promote abortions there.
"The tragedy of Bill Gates' support of abortion and population control is that technology leads to development," says Steven Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute.
"Unfortunately, the developing world will grow old before it develops because of population control. Gates, in supporting population control, is out of step with other great minds who have viewed people as humanity's greatest resource," Mosher said.
Buffett has also donated large sums for the advancement of "reproductive health" and abortion worldwide. In the past Buffett’s own charitable foundation has supported groups including Planned Parenthood of America, the Population Council, NARAL, 'Catholics' for Choice, and numerous other similarly pro-abortion/anti-life groups.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, PO Box 23350, Seattle, WA 98102, (206) 709-3140,
BILL GATES' PLANNED-PARENTHOOD-PRESIDENT DAD INSPIRED PRO-ABORT FUNDING NEW YORK, May 9, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a lengthy interview with Bill Moyers released today, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates reveals the inspiration for his funding of pro-abortion population control measures. Responding to a question by Moyers on how he came to fund "reproductive issues" Gates answered, "When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it's fascinating. At the dinner table my parents are very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that."
In the interview Gates says he is moved by measurable progress and on "safe birth reproductive family planning issues" he says, "There's a measurable impact when you can go in and educate families, but primarily women, about their different choices. There's real impact that you can have in this area. Anything to do with reproductive health."
He claims he has seen beyond Malthusian conceptions of useless eaters since, he says, he has seen that by improving health and education population decreases as parents decide to have less children. Despite all his distancing from Malthus, Gates remains steadfast to the unfounded Malthusian fear of overpopulation.
See the transcript of the interview with Gates at: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gates.html See The Quiz Gates Failed http://www.all.org/gates/index.htm UN POPULATION FUND RECEIVES $57 MIL FROM GATES http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/apr/00040504.html
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE FLOUNDERS - FEW HOMOSEXUALS INTERESTED IN TYING THE KNOT. After the clamor to legalize same-sex marriage, it turns out that not many homosexuals really want it. Following a bitter battle last year, the Spanish government gave homosexuals the right to marry. Since the law took effect last July 3, until May 31, only 1,275 same-sex marriages took place, reported the Madrid daily newspaper ABC last Saturday.
Comparatively, that would add up to a mere 0.6% of the 209,125 marriages contracted in Spain during 2005. Of the total number of same-sex marriages, 923 were between males and 352 among females.
A recent study by the Virginia-based Institute for Marriage and Public Policy did a roundup of same-sex marriage trends. The study, "Demand for Same-Sex Marriage: Evidence from the United States, Canada and Europe," was published April 26.
So far the highest estimate of the proportion of homosexuals who have used the new laws to marry is in the American state of Massachusetts, with 16.7% tying the knot. But this seems to be an exception. In the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage has been established the longest, the percentage was far lower.
The authors of the study, Maggie Gallagher and Joshua Baker, warn that it is often difficult to obtain precise data, either on the number of same-sex marriages, or on the number of homosexuals in a given geographical area.
In April 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to legally recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. From this date till the end of last year, 8,127 same-sex couples married in the Netherlands. Dutch survey data suggest that 2.8% of Dutch men and 1.4% of Dutch women are homosexuals. Assuming all same-sex partners who wedded in the Netherlands were residents, roughly 6.3% of homosexuals married by year-end 2005. The percentage, both here and in the following countries, includes all who were ever married, not necessarily the number of current marriages.
Belgium, in June 2003, followed the Netherlands. During the rest of that year, 1,708 same-sex couples married in Belgium. By year-end 2004 this increased to 2,204 couples. The authors did not find official estimates of the numbers of homosexuals in Belgium. If it were the same percentage as in the Netherlands, then roughly 4.7% of Belgian homosexuals had married by year-end 2004.
In Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeals led the way for same-sex marriages in June 2003. Eventually, courts in various provinces followed suit. Same-sex marriage was legalized at the national level last summer.
The law allows couples to marry without either of them being resident in Canada. After checking newspaper reports and contacting statistics offices, Gallagher and Baker confirmed that many of the same-sex marriages are between non-Canadian couples, mostly from the United States.
Gallagher and Baker were able to obtain data on same-sex marriage from nine of Canada's 13 provinces. In British Columbia, 2,531 same-sex marriages were contracted from July 2003 through year-end 2005. In Quebec, same-sex marriages have been available since March 2004. Between then and last September, 574 homosexual couples married.
The Canadian Community Health Survey conducted by Statistics Canada first asked about sexual orientation in 2003. This resulted in 1.3% of men and 0.7% of women aged 18 to 59 identifying themselves as homosexuals. Of the seven provinces that have had same-sex marriage for at least one year, between 0.15% and 14% of Canadian homosexuals entered such marriages.
South of the border, in Massachusetts, same-sex marriage was introduced on May 17, 2004. That year, 5,994 same-sex couples married. Recent official data indicate that an additional 1,347 same-sex couples married in Massachusetts last year, for a total of 7,341 such unions between May 2004 and December 2005.
According to the study, there are not reliable estimates of the homosexual population in Massachusetts. Assuming the proportion is the same as the national average (2.3% of men and 1.3% of women), and assuming all the marriages are between local residents, 16.7% of homosexuals entered into same-sex marriages.
Information from newspaper reports and data collected by Gallagher and Baker suggest that the number of same-sex marriages, after an initial burst, appears to be decreasing with each passing year.
This is clearest in the Netherlands. In 2001, from April to December, 2,414 couples entered into same-sex marriages. In 2002, the number of new same-sex marriages dropped to 1,838. By 2003 this decreased to 1,499. In 2004 there was a further fall, to 1,210. Recently released statistics put the number for 2005 at 1,166 couples.
The data contained in Gallagher and Baker's study was supported by Hudson Institute fellow Stanley Kurtz. Writing on June 5 in National Review Online, he argued that statistics from Northern Europe confirm the trend to low levels of same-sex unions.
Kurtz drew his information from a new study by a pair of Scandinavian demographers, Gunnar Andersson and Turid Noack: "The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden."
Scandinavian countries have had legally recognized same-sex unions for many years, and for all intents and purposes there is little to distinguish them from marriage. In Norway, from 1993 through 2001, only 1,293 same-sex partnerships were contracted, compared with 196,000 heterosexual marriages. In Sweden, 1,526 same-sex partnerships registered between 1995 and 2002, compared with 280,000 heterosexual marriages.
Australia's national government overruled an attempt by local authorities in the Australian Capital Territory, the relatively small area where Canberra is located, to introduce same-sex marriage, under the guise of civil unions.
The federal Cabinet decided to invalidate the new law introduced in mid-May, the Age newspaper reported June 7. Prime Minister John Howard branded the law "a plain attempt to equate civil unions with marriage -- and we don't agree with that." The federal Parliament voted in 2004 to explicitly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The numbers elsewhere indicate that traditional marriage remains far more popular too.
Current Headlines 
