City of Birmingham, Alabama, Settles Federal Lawsuit With Pro-Lifers Denied Free Speech
Former President Bush Recollection Puts Spotlight on Miscarriage
Irish and Italian Women Rejecting Abortion: Stats
Late-Term Abortion Practitioner Carhart May Open New Centers / UPDATE: Leroy Carhart Forced to Move Late-Term Abortion Business out of Nebraska
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey Defunds Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood Abortion Center Closes in Kansas
Police Raid Australian Abortion Mill after 58 Patients Contract Hepatitis C
Commentary: How Dumb Do They Think The Public Is?
Commentary: Fetal Pain Should Prompt Abortion Backers to Reconsider Their Position
Flipsyde -- Happy Birthday
Will Horton Hear the Who? Teen Orator Lia Mills Speaks
A Nation Turns Away From Abortion
Misleading Guttmacher Study Downplays the Psychological Effects of Abortion
Newly Enforced AZ Safety Measures Prohibit Non-Doctors From Performing Abortions / UPDATE: Arizona Abortion Regulatory Laws Help Stop Women Dying From Abortions /
Arizona Judge: Planned Parenthood Can’t Have Non-Doctors Do Abortions
Quietly Racking Up the Abortion Toll
New York City Abortion Doulas
The Girl Scouts: Promoting a Pro-Abortion Agenda
Fetal Pain Abortion Law Takes Effect in Nebraska, Could Set National Trend / NE Law on Fetal Pain Could Weaken Roe v. Wade Further
Abortion Practitioner Rios, in California, Operates Despite Repeated Legal Troubles
2 Abortionists' Medical Licenses Suspended in Maryland
Investigation Finds Abortion Business Employs Rapist, Criminals, to Keep Business Open
BREAST CANCER
A Few Abortion - Breast Cancer / Komen - PP Connection e-Links: You Decide
Commentary: Fighting Against Breast Cancer With Donations... But Discovering I Was Actually Supporting Abortion
Iran Study: Abortion Boosts Breast Cancer Risk 193% Study Finds, Giving Birth Lowers It
Race for the
Truth About the Susan G. Komen Foundation: Is Abortion and Hormonal
Contraception a Prescription for Breast Cancer? / Hormone Therapy Use by
Postmenopausal Women Associated With Increased Incidence of More
Advanced Breast Cancer
JAMA Abstract: Estrogen Plus Progestin and Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality in
Postmenopausal Women
Breast Cancer Surgeon Explains How Abortion Elevates Risk for Women
Speech: Decades of Hope
Microbiologist Exposes National Cancer Institute's Cover-Up of Abortion-Breast Cancer Link 2003 Workshop, "Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer" Was Fraudulent
Commentary: National Cancer Institute Must Tell Women Abortion, Breast Cancer Linked
Six Myths About Breast Cancer / Rebuttal to Article in Prevention Magazine
Commentary: The Pink Ribbon Campaign -- Are We Funding Breast Cancer?
ella
Planned Parenthood Pushes for Universal Birth Control as Coalition Fights Abortifacient Ella 'Contraceptive'
Ella: Complications in a Developing Teen...
Unfathomable Lies and a Naive Public: Abortion and Mental Health / Other Letters on Induced Abortion & Mental Health
The AAPLOG website offers evidence based conclusions from the world literature on the mental health disasters following abortion for many women, disasters ranging from substance abuse, to depression, to suicide.
For reasons we cannot fathom, the American Psychological Association takes a position contrary to this evidence in a 2008 task force report . AAPLOG comments on the APA's sweeping and strange conclusion at http://www.aaplog.org/complications-of-induced-abortion/induced-abortion-and-mental-health/aaplog-response-to-the-apa-task-force-report/.
In the Nov 7 Washington Post, Dr. Brenda Major, psychology professor at U. California at Santa Barbara , writes an article again claiming there is no increased risk of mental health difficultes following abortion.
The following is a response to Brenda Major's piece in the Washington Post, a response that AAPLOG fully endorses:
Unfathomable Lies and a Naive Public: Abortion and Mental Health
Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D.
On Sunday November 7th, the Washington Post published an opinion by Dr. Brenda Major titled "The Big Lie about Abortion and Mental Health." I would like to offer another perspective on dishonesty permeating the scientific study and dissemination of information pertaining to abortion and mental health.
Dr. Major is absolutely correct; an informed choice regarding abortion must be based on accurate information. For abortion providers to offer an unbiased and valid synopsis of the scientific literature on increased risks of abortion, the information must include depression, substance abuse, and anxiety disorders, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), as well as suicide ideation and behaviors. Over 30 studies have been published in just the last 5 years and they add to a body of literature comprised of hundreds of studies published in major medicine and psychology journals throughout the world. The list is provided below and the conscientious reader is encouraged to check the studies out. No lies...just scientifically derived information that individual academics, several major professional organizations, and abortion providers have done their best to hide and distort in recent years.
Like Brenda Major, I too am a tenured, full professor at a well-respected
U.S. University and I too have published peer-reviewed scientific articles
in reputable journals. In fact, my publication record far exceeds that of
Dr. Major on the topic of abortion and mental health. I am not alone in my opinion, which has been voiced by prominent researchers in Great Britain, Norway, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, the U.S., and elsewhere. As a group of researchers, who in 2008 had published nearly 50 peer-reviewed articles indicating abortion is associated with negative psychological outcomes, 6 colleagues and I sent a petition letter to the American Psychological Association (APA) criticizing their methods and conclusions as described in their Task Force Report on Abortion and Mental Health.
The opinion piece by Brenda Major following on the heels of the highly
biased APA report is just the latest effort to divert attention from a
tidal wave of sound published data on the emotional consequences of
abortion.
The evidence is accumulating despite socio-political agendas to
keep the truth from the academic journals and ultimately from women to
insure that the big business of abortion continues unimpeded. The
literature now echoes the voices of millions of women for whom abortion was not a liberating, health promoting choice.
A conservative estimate from the best available data is 20 to 30 percent of women who undergo an abortion will experience serious and/or prolonged negative consequences.
Any interpretation of the available research that does not acknowledge the strong evidence now available in the professional literature represents a conscious choice to ignore basic principles of scientific integrity. The human fallout to such a choice by the APA and like-minded colleagues is misinformed professionals, millions of women struggling in isolation to make sense of a past abortion, thousands who will seek an abortion today without the benefit of known risks, and millions who will make this often life altering decision tomorrow without the basic right of informed consent, which is routinely extended for all other elective surgeries in the U.S.
In publishing Major's opinion without soliciting other voices on the topic, the Washington Post has perpetuated a serious injustice.
* Bradshaw, Z., & Slade, P. (2005). The relationship between induced
abortion, attitudes toward sexuality, and sexual problems. Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 20, 390-406.
* Brockington, I.F. (2005). Post-abortion psychosis, Archives of
Women's Mental Health 8: 53-54.
* Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker, A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2006).
Predictors of anxiety and depression following pregnancy termination: A
longitudinal five-year follow-up study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica
Scandinavica 85: 317-23.
* Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker, A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2005). Reasons
for induced abortion and their relation to women's emotional distress: A
prospective, two-year follow-up study. General Hospital Psychiatry 27:
36-43.
* Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker, A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2005). The
course of mental health after miscarriage and induced abortion: a
longitudinal, five-year follow-up study. BMC Medicine 3(18).
* Coleman, P. K. (2005). Induced Abortion and increased risk of
substance use: A review of the evidence. Current Women's Health Reviews 1,
21-34.
* Coleman, P. K. (2006). Resolution of unwanted pregnancy during
adolescence through abortion versus childbirth: Individual and family
predictors and psychological consequences. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 35, 903-911.
* Coleman, P. K. (2009). The Psychological Pain of Perinatal Loss and
Subsequent Parenting Risks: Could Induced Abortion be more Problematic than
Other Forms of Loss? Current Women's Health Reviews, 5, 88-99.
* Coleman, P. K., Coyle, C. T., & Rue, V.M. (2010). Late-Term Elective
Abortion and Susceptibility to Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms, Journal of
Pregnancy, vol. 2010, Article ID 130519.
* Coleman, P. K., Coyle, C.T., Shuping, M., & Rue, V. (2009), Induced
Abortion and Anxiety, Mood, and Substance Abuse Disorders: Isolating the
Effects of Abortion in the National Comorbidity Survey. Journal of
Psychiatric Research, 43, 770- 776.
* Coleman, P. K., Maxey, C. D., Rue, V. M., & Coyle, C. T. (2005).
Associations between voluntary and involuntary forms of perinatal loss and
child maltreatment among low-income mothers. Acta Paediatrica, 94
(10),--76-1483.
* Coleman, P. K., & Maxey, D. C., Spence, M. Nixon, C. (2009). The
choice to abort among mothers living under ecologically deprived
conditions: Predictors and consequences. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction 7, 405-422.
* Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., & Cougle, J. R. (2005). Substance use
among pregnant women in the context of previous reproductive loss and
desire for current pregnancy. British Journal of Health Psychology, 10 (2),
255-268.
* Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., Strahan, T., & Cougle, J. R. (2005).
The psychology of abortion: A review and suggestions for future research.
Psychology and Health, 20, 237-271.
* Coleman, P.K., Rue, V.M. & Coyle, C.T. (2009). Induced abortion and
intimate relationship quality in the Chicago Health and Social Life Survey.
Public Health, 123, 331-338.DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2009.01.005.
* Coleman, P.K., Rue, V.M., Coyle, C.T. & Maxey, C.D. (2007). Induced
abortion and child-directed aggression among mothers of maltreated
children. Internet Journal of Pediatrics and Neonatology, 6 (2), ISSN:
1528-8374.
* Coleman, P. K., Rue, V., & Spence, M. (2007). Intrapersonal processes
and post-abortion relationship difficulties: A review and consolidation
of relevant literature. Internet Journal of Mental Health, 4 (2).
* Coleman, P.K., Rue, V.M., Spence, M. & Coyle, C.T. (2008). Abortion
and the sexual lives of men and women: Is casual sexual behavior more
appealing and more common after abortion? International Journal of Health
and Clinical Psychology, 8 (1), 77-91.
* Cougle, J. R., Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P. K. (2005). Generalized
anxiety following unintended pregnancies resolved through childbirth and
abortion: A cohort study of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 137-142.
* Coyle, C.T., Coleman, P.K. & Rue, V.M. (2010). Inadequate preabortion
counseling and decision conflict as predictors of subsequent relationship
difficulties and psychological stress in men and women. Traumatology, 16
(1), 16-30. DOI:10.1177/1534765609347550.
* Dingle, K., et al. (2008). Pregnancy loss and psychiatric disorders
in young women: An Australian birth cohort study. The British Journal of
Psychiatry, 193, 455-460.
* Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Boden, J.M. (2009). Reactions to
abortion and subsequent mental health. The British Journal of Psychiatry,
195, 420-426.
* Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2006). Abortion in
young women and subsequent mental health. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 47, 16-24.
* Gissler, M., et al. (2005). Injury deaths, suicides and homicides
associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000. European Journal of Public
Health, 15, 459-463.
* Hemmerling, F., Siedentoff, F., & Kentenich, H. (2005). Emotional
impact and acceptability of medical abortion with mifepristone: A German
experience. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 26, 23-31.
* Mota, N.P. et al (2010). Associations between abortion, mental
disorders, and suicidal behaviors in a nationally representative sample.
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(4), 239-246.
* Pedersen, W. (2008). Abortion and depression: A population-based
longitudinal study of young women. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health,
36, No. 4, 424-428.
* Pedersen, W. (2007). Childbirth, abortion and subsequent substance
use in young women: a population-based longitudinal study. Addiction, 102
(12), 1971-78.
* Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P. K. (2006). Relative treatment for sleep
disorders following abortion and child delivery: A prospective record-based
study. Sleep, 29 (1), 105-106.
* Rees, D. I. & Sabia, J. J. (2007). The Relationship between Abortion
and Depression: New Evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing
Study. Medical Science Monitor. 13(10): 430-436.
* Suliman et al. (2007) Comparison of pain, cortisol levels, and
psychological distress in women undergoing surgical termination of
pregnancy under local anaesthesia versus intravenous sedation. BMC
Psychiatry, 7 (24), p.1-9.
Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D.
Professor of Human Development
and Family Studies
16D FCS Building
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
[15 Nov 2010, AAPLOG email, AAPLOG.org]
Dr. Renzo Puccetti has also commented on this topic: Abortion & Mental Health: Who Has the Burden of Proof?
Investigation of health consequences after an abortion presents methodological difficulties. Furthermore, investigators hardly can boast about their ethical indifference to the issue.
However, irrespectively the cause, women having an abortion experience a one year all cause mortality triple with respect to those having a birth, a seven fold higher incidence of suicidality and a seasonal overlap between abortion and suicide (1-3).
Authors denying mental consequences linked to abortion ascribe the results to confounding factors. Neverthless, even minimizing negative role of abortion in end-points, medical literature fails to
demonstrate any significant long-term positive effect on women’s mental health provided by abortion (4-6). Yet in the majority of cases national legislations consent abortion as a mean for preserving physical and mental health.
Like any other medical procedure abortion procedure should prove its efficacy. If no benefit results in mental status after an abortion we ought to wonder why physicians should perform it. In this perspective bestowing role of medical act on abortion appears inconsistent with actual scientific knowledge.
Competing Interests: None
References: 1) Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier-Colle MH, Buekens P. Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Feb;190(2):422-7.
2) Gissler M, Hemminki E, Lönnqvist J. Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study. BMJ. 1996 Dec 7;313(7070):1431-4.
3) Cagnacci A, Volpe A. Is voluntary abortion a seasonal disorder of mood? Hum Reprod. 2001 Aug;16(8):1748-52.
4) Del Campo C. Abortion denied – outcome of mothers and babies. Can Med Assoc J. 1984 February 15; 130(4): 361-2, 366.
5) Gilchrist AC, Hannaford PC, Frank P, Kay CR. Termination of pregnancy and psychiatric morbidity. Br J Psychiatry. 1995 Aug;167(2):243-8.
6) Schmiege S, Russo NF. Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study. BMJ. 2005 Dec 3;331(7528):1303.
September 03 2008, Renzo Puccetti, Promed Galileo Interdisciplinary Medical Society, Internal Medicine, Local Health Bureau-Pisa, Italy. Comment on this Editorial: Women should be offered post-abortion psychological care, The Lancet - Vol. 372, Number 9639, 23 August 2008, Pages 602
Abortion is Also a Medical Issue
10 December 2008
Renzo Puccetti, Medical Doctor European Medical Association Research Working Group, via Del Poggio, 1656011 Calci (PI) Italy,
Maria Cristina Del Poggetto, Relational Psychotherapy Institute, Pisa, Italy
Letter to journal:
Re: Abortion is also a medical issue
Renzo Puccetti, et al.
Sir,
in her commentary on Abortion and mental health disorders Patricia Casey
arguments abortion is not a psychiatric or scientific issue, but mostly a matter of
morality and ethics (1). Surely there is something true in author’s perspective.
Nevertheless abortion is provided in many countries as a medical act intended to
preserve women’s psychological health. Actually no study has demonstrated that
abortion is therapeutically effective in ameliorating women’s mental health when
long term follow-up is adopted. Prevalence of major depression, anxiety and panic
disorder among UK female general practices is estimated at 13,2%, 11,3% and
10,3% respectively (2). If esteems indicating exposure to abortion accounts for
1.5% to 5.5% of the overall rate of mental disorders are correct (3), then hundreds
of thousands women could be at higher risk for mental disorder. Therefore the need
for an exhaustive information regarding possible risks and benefits to mental health
provided in the position statement on women’s mental health in relation to induced
abortion released on March 2008 by the Royal College of Psychiatrists (4) appears
to be justifiable and in accord to Fergusson’s results. As any other patient women
have an interest in being informed about all the implications of their choices (5). At
the same time we believe that providing an exhaustive information represents a
duty that no physician can forget.
References: 1. Casey P, Oates M, Jones I, Cantwell R. Invited commentaries on...
Abortion and mental health disorders. Br J Psychiatry. 2008 Dec;193(6):452 -4. 2.
King M, et al. Prevalence of common mental disorders in general practice attendees
across Europe. Br J Psychiatry. 2008 May;192(5):362-7. 3. Fergusson DM, Horwood
LJ, Boden JM. Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year
longitudinal study. Br J Psychiatry. 2008 Dec;193(6):444-51. 4. The Royal College
of Psychiatrists. Position Statement on Women’s Mental Health in Relation to
Induced Abortion 14th March, 2008. at
<http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/member/currentissues/mentalhealthandabortion.aspx>.
Accessed 8th December, 2008. 5. Ziegler DK, Mosier MC, Buenaver M, Okuyemi K.
How much information about adverse effects of medication do patients want from
physicians? Arch Intern Med. 2001 Mar 12;161(5):706-13.
Electronic Letters to:
PAPERS:
Patricia Casey, Margaret Oates, Ian Jones, and Roch Cantwell
Invited commentaries on... Abortion and mental health disorders
The British Journal of Psychiatry 2008, eLetters for Casey et al.; 193: 452-454
Electronic letters published:
Abortion is also a medical issue
Renzo Puccetti, Maria Cristina Del Poggetto, Relational Psychotherapy Institute, Pisa, Italy (10
December 2008)
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/eletters/193/6/452
Britain’s abortion rate could be lowered with the adoption of laws requiring women to be given full information as to the effects of abortion, a British MP said earlier this month. Nadine Dorries, the MP for Mid Bedfordshire, believes abortion should remain legal, but has campaigned consistently for more restrictions.
Dorries said in a debate in the House of Commons on November 2 that in Germany, France, Belgium, Finland, informed consent laws have made the “abortion procedure a far kinder one” for women.
“All those countries with good informed consent legislation had significantly lower than average daily abortion rates than the countries that do not have such informed consent legislation. Although a causal link is impossible to prove, these figures suggest that informed consent legislation might prove a good way of reducing Britain's abortion figures.”
Britain’s abortion rate, one of the highest in Europe, slowed slightly last year, but still came close to 200,000, or approximately 572 per day.
“A woman has an assumed right to choose,” Dorries said. “However, she apparently has no right whatever to any information on which to make that choice.”
For any minor surgery, she continued, doctors are required to explain it to patients in detail. They are required to discuss possible pain, the dangers of general anaesthetic and post-operative progress is checked in follow-up appointments. “A woman who has an abortion has none of that.”
“Before the woman received the procedure, she might have felt coerced, pressurized or bullied into the abortion. To her, it might have been a life or the beginning of a life - depending on her perspective. She might have had a seed of doubt, but once she was on the conveyor belt to the clinic, she might have felt helpless and unable to step off.”
“Abortion in this country is an industry from which a small number of organisations and individuals make vast amounts of money. No sensible person would condone this.”
Anne Milton, a minister with the Department of Health, responded for the Government, saying that reducing the abortion rate is “an absolute priority” for the coalition government and that “advances” had been made to ensure women have “safe, legal abortions.”
Milton said that a White Paper report is scheduled to be issued later this year which will set out the Government’s position in more detail, and promised that the results of a review of the evidence surrounding mental health consequences of abortion will be published next year.
In the same debate, Andrew Selous, MP for South West Bedfordshire, pointed out that the cost of “counseling” for abortion is only covered by the public health service if the abortion goes ahead. The woman pays herself if she decides to allow her child to live.
Moreover, Dorries said, that only “minimal” counseling is available from NHS hospitals and private abortion facilities, and that in those places, there is a natural “conflict of interest.” If a woman is not interested in aborting her child, “no alternative counseling is provided to negate that option.”
Dorries decried the laxity of the existing restrictions that require the consent of two physicians. “Abortion clinics freely admit that consent forms pile up in their offices, waiting for the second signature, long after the event has taken place.”
But Andrew Stephenson, head of the pro-life group Abort 67, told LifeSiteNews.com that if he had Dorries in front of him, he would ask her, “Why do you want to restrict abortion? If abortion isn’t killing a small human being, then why have any restriction on it?”
Stephenson, with colleague Catherine Sloane, recently made headlines when they were arrested for showing large graphic images of abortion outside the Marie Stopes private abortion facility in Brighton as part of the Genocide Awareness Project movement.
He said, “You’ve got to ask yourself why. If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, then you can support it without any restriction. So why does Dorries want greater restrictions but not to outlaw it? But if it’s true that abortion kills an innocent human being, how can she support it?”
Stephenson and Sloane speak to women at Britain’s abortion facilities, and say that their experiences show that “girls don’t know the facts about abortion.”
“That’s perfectly true. Women have told us that they’ve been told by doctors that their baby was just a ‘mass of tissue’ like a kidney bean. So clearly something needs to be done, these women need more information.”
But there is a question of bias and motive, he said. “Whether I trust those people who would kill these women’s babies to give them genuinely accurate information is another question.”
“You’ve got to ask whether someone who is willing to kill a baby would give the sort of information required to help a woman make an informed decision.”
The work of Abort 67, which includes a website featuring graphic images and videos of abortions and aborted children, is to inform women of the grisly reality of what abortion really does to a child.
The women going into abortion facilities, Stephenson said, are often “in no fit state” to make such decisions. “They‘re often being dragged by their friends or families or boyfriends or husbands, and are not capable of understanding what is happening.”
Instead, Stephenson said, “Society as a whole needs a fuller information on this. We need to reach those who are pressuring girls to abort before the situation arises.”
The group aims to do something “much more broad” than giving information to “a girl sitting in a doctor’s surgery hearing a few stats and facts.”
“We do know that when girls see the reality of abortion up front, they change their minds. I would agree that in our experience that’s been the case many times.” This shows the need for a nation wide information campaign. “We need to see girls in schools being properly informed about what abortion is, before they get to the stage when they’re having to make this decision.
“If we’re serious about reducing abortion numbers, we need to be educating men and women from an early age about the truth of abortion. Only when the truth is known everywhere will we decrease those numbers.”
“We’ve seen it on a small scale and we know it would work on the larger scale.”
[Hilary White, LONDON, November 12, 2010, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10111203.html ]
Birmingham Alabama Settles Lawsuit With Pro-Lifers Denied Free Speech
The Life Legal Defense Foundation, a pro-life legal group, today announced the settlement of the federal civil rights action it filed last June against the city of Birmingham, Alabama.
The suit came on behalf of a group of young pro-life activists who were denied their free speech rights and the settlement includes payment to plaintiffs for both monetary damages and their attorneys’ fees.
The suit, filed in early June, arose from an incident in February 2009, when nine members of the Survivors pro-life organization were arrested and jailed overnight for displaying pro-life signs and handing out literature on a public sidewalk outside a high school in Birmingham.
Rather than investigating the incident and admitting that the police had violated the Survivors’ rights, the city later filed misdemeanor trespass charges against them. These criminal charges were only dismissed after the federal lawsuit was filed.
In the course of seeking injunctive relief against future interference with the Survivors’ right to engage in picketing and leafleting on the public sidewalk, LLDF lawyers learned that the city had a “demonstration” ordinance that required groups as small as two persons to obtain permits before engaging in various free speech activity.
“What started as a lawsuit to get fair treatment for the Survivors evolved into a broader challenge to the city’s unconstitutional permit scheme,” said Katie Short, legal director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation.
She continued: “We learned from local pro-lifers that this law had been a thorn in their side for years. We are pleased that this suit not only vindicated the Survivors’ rights, but also relieved the local pro-life community of the burden of this onerous law.”
Kortney Blythe, the former Director of Survivors Campus Life Tours, told LifeNews.com at the time that she repeatedly asked Officer Cooley, one of the arresting officers, the reason for the arrests.
He kept assuring the team that they were not arrested, they were only being detained, and he did not know on what basis they would be charged. Police officials never informed the group the reason for their arrest as they were being handcuffed, and the team said one officer questioned his superiors, “What are we arresting them for again?”
The police confiscated the team’s video cameras and personal belongings, and impounded and searched their van. They also asked the location of their hotel so that could be searched as well.
The Survivors were represented by LLDF attorneys Katie Short and Allison Aranda, as well as by local counsel Phillip Jauregui and Caroline Allen of Jauregui & Lindsey in Birmingham.
The case was Turn the Hearts v. City of Birmingham, No. 2:10-CV-01477-LSC.
[Ertelt, Birmingham, AL, 11/10/10, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/10/state-5660/ ]
Bush Recollection Puts Spotlight on Miscarriage [Ed.: While this is an article concerning miscarriage, it relates emotionally and psychologically to abortion and is thus included in this section.]
The image of a mother handing her teenage son a jar containing the remains of her just-miscarried fetus may be a disturbing one.
But the scene, described by former President George W. Bush in his interview with Matt Lauer of NBC News on Monday night, has started a national conversation — both about his mother, Barbara Bush, and about the complex psychological fallout from miscarriage.
Mr. Bush called his mother’s action “straightforward,” and added that it illustrated “how my mom and I developed a relationship.” Some opponents of abortion reacted approvingly. Other commentators called Mrs. Bush’s behavior the action of a depressed and angry person.
But experts say the incident is hard to interpret half a century after the fact. Indeed, it was extraordinary in at least one respect, they add: Mrs. Bush made a point of directly confronting the loss at a time when the subject was largely taboo.
When a middle-class woman miscarried in postwar America, doctors often whisked the fetus away as if there were no loss of life at all, only embarrassment; women whispered about it between themselves but hardly ever discussed it openly.
“It wasn’t thought of as losing a life; it was more like a medical mishap,” said Dr. Randi Hutter Epstein, a physician and the author of “Get Me Out: A History of Childbirth” (Norton, 2010). “And although women felt it privately, they didn’t feel it was worthy of going to see someone, or seeking help.”
In recent years, however, that thinking has been flipped on its head. “It’s now a much bigger deal,” Dr. Epstein said. “There are support groups where women can go,” and therapists who specialize in treatments.
Most women survive the loss without lasting psychological distress. But the experience can hit as hard as the death of a spouse or any other family member, and women’s reactions can be extreme in the months after the loss. Some isolate themselves, hiding their grief; others lean on friends and family for support; most consider the fetus to be very much a part of themselves, a ghostly presence.
“The attachment to the fetus lasts long after the pregnancy is over, for months and sometimes years,” said Richard Neugebauer, an epidemiologist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University.
In a landmark 1997 study, Dr. Neugebauer found that the rate of depression was more than twice the average among 229 women who recently experienced a spontaneous miscarriage. The timing did not matter: women were at higher risk regardless of whether the pregnancy failed after eight weeks or the child was stillborn.
The study also documented a yearning, a grief that lasted for many months and seemed to stalk the women like some shadow of the lost child, Dr. Neugebauer said. A number of women patted their bellies as if they were still pregnant; others would see children on the street, strangers, and have a sudden, visceral sensation: “That’s my child.”
In a class-action lawsuit filed in the mid-1990s, a group of women sued an Ohio hospital for psychological damages when they learned that their miscarried fetuses had been preserved — without their permission. “From their point of view, a part of them and their future had been violated,” Dr. Neugebauer said.
For those reasons, therapists often address personal issues that go deeper than the immediate loss.
“The attachment usually starts well before the child is even conceived, in the story people tell themselves when they’re fantasizing about having a child,” said Janet Jaffe, a psychologist with the Center for Reproductive Psychology in San Diego and co-author, with Martha Diamond, of “Reproductive Trauma” (A.P.A., 2011). “Everyone has this reproductive story, it’s usually unconscious, and one reason that they feel so awful is that the story has gone awry.”
The psychological wound tends to go deeper, studies find, when the woman is childless; and if it is the last of a string of miscarriages, it forces people to make a series of tough choices.
“Then it’s a question of ‘Should we adopt? Should we try again?’ and on and on,” said J. Donald Schumacher, a psychologist who is president and chief executive of the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. “And this is where you start to see discord between husband and wife.”
Each woman, and each couple, may shape the story in a different way to find relief, psychologists say.
Bereavement counselors say some couples conduct ceremonies, sometimes full religious services, complete with cards and “remembrances” of the deceased — and continue to remember with tokens like a Christmas tree ornament, year after year. Others walk away and grieve privately, independently.
None of this was the rule when Mr. Bush was a boy — when it was more likely that a woman would be told to simply let it go, that thinking about it too much would drive her crazy.
Comment: And abortion supporters continue to insist that abortion only empowers women!
N Valko, RN
[November 9, 2010, Benedict Carey, NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/health/10miscarriage.html?ref=health&pagewanted=print
Irish and Italian Women Rejecting Abortion: Stats
Abortion is losing ground in some countries of Europe, with numbers of abortions falling in Italy among native Italians and among Irish women who travel to Britain to abort.
The number of women travelling to the UK from Ireland for abortions has dropped 30 percent since 2002, government statistics show. Abortion remains illegal in Ireland and Northern Ireland, although the law is under constant pressure from foreign abortion activists.
At the same time, a recently released report from the Italian government shows that abortion rates have fallen significantly among Italian women since the practice was legalized in 1978.
Under the UK’s abortion Regulations 1991, doctors who commit abortions must send details to Britain’s Chief Medical Officer. In 2002 those records showed that 7,913 abortions were committed on women from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in hospitals and clinics in England and Wales.
By 2009, that number had fallen to 5545 - a drop of 29.9 percent.
Abortions in England and Wales overall have risen steadily since 1970, from approximately 5 per 1000 population aged 15-44, to 17.5 in 2009.
The Italian government’s 2009 report on abortion shows that abortion rates have also dropped among Italian women. In that country, abortion rates reached a peak of 234,801 in 1982. By 2009, that number had fallen to 116, 933, less than half the peak-year number. The numbers have declined steadily over the last five years.
At the same time, it is being reported by pro-abortion groups and MEPs at the EU that doctors in Italy are increasingly refusing to commit abortions. Seventy percent of Italian doctors refuse, with that number growing to over 80 percent in the region of Lazio, the region of the city of Rome.
In 2009, the Italian abortion rate was 8.3 per 1,000 women aged 15-49, a 3.9 percent decline from 2008. This compares with the 1982 ratio of 17.2 per 1,000. In 2008, the official statistics showed that foreign women accounted for 33 percent of all abortions in Italy, compared with 10 percent in 1998.
Andrew Pollard, a British business consultant and demographer who lectures on issues surrounding contraception and abortion as it relates to population decline, cautioned, however, that the abortion stats may be skewed by the popularity of the RU-486 abortion drug, commonly called “medical” abortion by advocates.
Pollard told LSN, “These numbers may reflect actual declines in surgical abortion but not the rise in chemical abortion which may be replacing it. But like contraception the chemicals don’t always work or are not taken properly so women in these situations turn to pregnancy centres (savers or killers) all the same.” [9 Nov 2010, Hilary White, ROME, November 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10110911.html
Late-Term Abortion Practitioner Carhart May Open New Centers
Late-term abortion practitioner LeRoy Carhart has gone back and forth about opening new abortion centers in the Midwest or Southwest following the death of George Tiller and there is new indication he may be moving forward.
Carhart is based in the Omaha, Nebraska area and he was good friends with Tiller, who did late-term abortions at his business in Wichita, Kansas before he was shot by someone over abortion but who was not affiliated with the pro-life movement.
With the Tiller family announcing that it will permanently close his abortion center, Carhart has been considering his future plans for more than a year.
In September 2009, he appeared intent on opening a new abortion center in Wichita to replace Tiller’s and that he would open it in Tiller’s memory. But he appeared to back off with the passage of a new Nebraska law — that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy because unborn children can feel pain – because it may hamper his efforts.
Yet, today, the Facebook page of Trust Women Movie, a pro-abortion propaganda film made to honor Tiller and promote Carhart, has a posting saying Carhart “is working on opening two new clinics” and it asks abortion advocates to donate to help support their “trip to film this.”
Update: KETV has confirmed Carhart is saying he will open three new abortion centers in December — including in southeastern Council Bluffs, another in Maryland and one in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Maryland is the site of the latest brouhaha concerning the problems at a chain of abortion centers run by abortion practitioner Steve Chase Brigham, who has stop doing abortions in three states because of violations of health and safety laws.
Julie Schmit-Albin, the director of Nebraska Right to Life, responded to the posts in an email to LifeNews.com.
“If LeRoy Carhart is opening two new abortion facilities, one wonders if they will be outside of Nebraska in order to escape our newly enacted law which bans abortion at 20 weeks based on babies feeling pain,” she said. The other potential is that “Carhart will leave Nebraska altogether for a state(s) that have fewer abortion restrictions on the books.”
Before the update, the Nebraska Right to Life director speculated New Mexico, Kansas and a short move to Council Bluffs, Iowa — a suburb of Omaha – could be potential destinations for Carhart.
“Perhaps he is confident some states won’t bother his late term abortion business,” she said. “However, the fetal pain ban is attracting legislators from many states to want to enact it probably because the Nebraska law has not been challenged and other states see an opening to do the same.”
Schmit-Albin said the fetal-pain abortion ban was not subject to a lawsuit and that leaves Carhart open to prosecution under it.
“Our opponents apparently do not have a plaintiff ready to legally challenge LB 1103 and keep it from its implementation,” she explained. “The next step of course is enforcement of the law and Carhart has to know that we will be vigilant in our efforts to ascertain whether he is complying with the law.”
[Ertelt, Omaha, NE, 11/9/10, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/09/state-5655/ ]
Leroy Carhart Forced to Move Late-Term Abortion Business out of Nebraska
Late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart has announced he will attempt to set up shop in three different states in order to continue performing late-term abortions that are now illegal under a new Nebraska law.
Carhart says he plans to have three new abortion facilities up and running by January with one in the Maryland-D.C. area, and another in Council Bluffs, Iowa offering late-term abortions. He also is acquiring an Indianapolis abortion clinic, which specializes only in early-term abortions.
He said that the reason for moving his late-term abortion business out of Bellvue is Nebraska’s new abortion ban, Legislative Bill 1103. The law prohibits elective abortions after 20 weeks post-conception on the basis that science definitively shows an unborn child feels pain at that age. That standard effectively prohibits Carhart from performing late-term abortions, which provide the bulk of his business.
“This sort of forced us. We had to do it,” Carhart told the Omaha World Herald. “In Iowa and Maryland, we can do the later cases.”
The abortionist plans to coordinate with his lawyers on filing a constitutional challenge against LB 1103, as he moves his business to the new locations.
Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, told the World Herald that Carhart’s decision to move out of state “shows that LB 1103 was the right strategy.”
Local station KETV 7 noted that Carhart said he would need to raise $1.5 million in order to set up the new facilities (the Maryland-D.C. area clinic opening on Dec. 6).
However local pro-life advocates said that Carhart’s ambitions to fundraise his clinics from private donors is more easily said than done.
“Carhart made similar headlines when he announced last year that he would be opening a late-term abortion clinic with 25 miles of Wichita, Kansas, by December 1, 2009,” said Troy Newman, president of the Wichita-based Operation Rescue. “That clinic failed to materialize and we vow to make sure that these plans don’t either.”
Another problem for Carhart is that the gruesome procedure in which he specializes is extremely unpopular in the United States, except amongst a sliver of the most extreme, hard core of the abortion movement. During a preliminary injunction hearing in a US District Court in 1997 on the issue of late-term abortions, Carhart testified that he would sometimes dismember advanced-stage unborn babies during abortions, while the babies were still alive. Carhart described in detail the process of grasping the limb of the baby to be removed, and then twisting it off. When asked if the babies usually die during the process of dismemberment, Carhart responded, "I don't really know. I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see the fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound."
The nature of Carhart’s abortion activities last year led Nebraska’s attorney general Jon Bruning to state, “I'm disgusted and I'm saddened and I hate it that he's here in Nebraska, and I hate it that he's in America.” “I mean, this guy is one sick individual.”
Newman said that Carhart “lacks the finances to implement his expansion plans” but also finds himself in a bind “because he needs to do the lucrative late-term abortions to remain financially solvent.”
The organization plans to coordinate with pro-life groups in both states to make sure that the abortionist does not follow through on his planned expansion.
Carhart for his part, has decided to remain mum about the location of his new clinics, telling the Washington Post, that he did not want to give pro-life advocates a head start. He did say he was looking for a location proximate to airports and city metros.
“The patients, when they call, will be told where to go,” he said. “The 'antis' will find out soon enough, but I don't want to help them.” [November 10, 2010, Peter J. Smith, OMAHA, Nebraska, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10111009.html
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey Defunds Planned Parenthood
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has defunded Planned Parenthood of all their state tax-dollars. If he can do it there, this can be repeated nationwide. Nothing stands in their way.
http://www.nrlc.org/NewsToday/NJ1005010.html
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/new_jersey_defunds_planned_parenthood
Planned Parenthood Abortion Center Closes in Kansas, Three Left in State
Planned Parenthood of Lawrence quietly closed its abortion facility nine weeks ago located near the University of Kansas, where it did abortions on college students attending the university.
With the closing, Kansas is now down to three abortion centers left in the state, which is good news for Kathy Ostrowski of Kansans for Life.
Like other abortion centers across the nation, Ostrowski said the Planned Parenthood abortion business in Lawrence put women’s health at risk in addition to ending the lives of unborn children.
“The Lawrence Planned Parenthood street-mall facility was not licensed or inspected by the state,” she said. “It provided contraceptives and chemical abortions with no doctor onsite.”
A notice posted on the door that KFL obtained a picture of attributes its closure to a “lack of need” and recommends the county and KU clinics as well as the Planned Parenthood clinic one-half-hour away.
The KFL legislative director says women with pregnancy needs and a potential interest in abortion have other options.
“Too many resident KU students went to this facility, instead of getting help from their family and connecting with sound pro-life physicians,” Ostrowski said. “We recommend pregnant women of any age consult the Pregnancy Care Center of Lawrence, where they can obtain physician-reviewed ultrasounds and assistance for a variety of needs.”
With the Planned Parenthood center closing, the three abortion centers remaining include the Comprehensive Health of Overland Park, a Kansas/Mid Missouri Planned Parenthood where abortion practitioner Orrin Moore does late-term abortions and has been charged with dozens of counts of doing them outside of state guidelines and filing improper paperwork.
“This is the facility involved in 7 years of litigation to avoid the current 107 criminal charges they now face,” Ostrowski said. “Before Moore, their abortionist was Robert Crist, whom KFL discovered had a minimum of 20 malpractice suits over 16 years (including suits for 3 deaths of young aborted mothers).”
Crist now does abortions at a Planned Parenthood center in St. Louis and has been a “consultant” to the KU Med Center.
The Women’s Center for Health also does abortions in Overland Park and it is run by a father-daughter team, Herb Hodes and Traci Nauser.
“Hodes did contract abortions for Comprehensive Health before Crist, and had at least 22 malpractice suits up to 2003, unearthed by KFL,” Ostrowski said.
The existence of these lawsuits against Hodes –and those filed against Crist and other Kansas abortionists– was offered in support of the clinic licensing bill –that Sebelius vetoed in 2003 as “unneeded,” she explained.
The final abortion center is the Aid for Women, a Kansas City-based abortion business that does surgical & chemical abortions and is run by Ron Yeomans, who spends part of the week doing abortions in other states.
“Aid for Women is licensed under the KSBHA, with a long history of malpractice and medical disciplinary offenses by its past abortionists Malcolm Knarr, Sherman Zaremski, Kris Neuhaus, and Krishna Rajanna,” Ostrowski said. “Knarr was forced out of business in 1994, during a time when he was acquiring a malpractice suit every few months. His partner Zaremski, recently took retirement after years of battling licensure penalties and restrictions.”
Neuhaus worked for this abortion business in the mid 1990s, during which time the KSBHA twice labeled her a “danger to the public.”
“She is under active KSBHA prosecution to remove her limited medical license, with a scheduled hearing in January. KSBHA is charging her with years of providing illegal late-term abortion referrals to the clinic of the late George Tiller,” Ostrowski said.
[8 Nov 2010, Ertelt | Lawrence, KS, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/08/state-5651/ ]
Police Raid Australian Abortion Mill after 58 Patients Contract Hepatitis C
Police have raided an abortion mill in Melbourne Australia linked to an anaesthetist alleged to have infected patients with hepatitis C.
Anaesthetist Dr. James Latham Peters was suspended in February after numerous woman were found to have been infected with hepatitis C after being treated by Peters in a suburban Melbourne abortion facility.
In the period between 2006 and 2009, the ABC reports that 58 women at the abortion centre have tested positive to hepatitis C and that of these, 35 cases have been linked back to Peters, who is himself infected with the disease.
Executive director of Australia’s Family Life International Scott McKendry responded to the news of the raid, saying, "Are we surprised when doctors who participate in abortion lose all vestiges of ethical medical practice? These medical practitioners are no longer healing but rather harming and this inversion is bound to lead to such disturbing instances of abuse as this."
Other clinics and private homes were subsequently raided. Victoria’s chief health officer, Dr. John Carnie, stated that screening of patients would be widened to include another 1100 people seen at three other clinics at which Dr. Peters worked.
Related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Abortion Clinic Anesthetist Accused of Infecting 12 Women with Hepatitis C
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041205.html
[November 8, 2010, Wanda Skowronska, MELBOURNE, AU, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10110813.html ]
Commentary: How Dumb Do They Think The Public Is?
by Mark Crutcher
For good reason, the American people are becoming more and more concerned with the rapidly expanding power of the federal government and during the just completed election season the abortion lobby tried to capitalize on this phenomenon.
They did so by regurgitating their old argument that any government powerful enough to tell a woman she can't have an abortion is powerful enough to tell her that she has to have one. The irony, of course, is that the vast majority of the people making this claim are the same ones who are supporting Comrade Obama in his efforts to transform America into a socialist utopia. But we'll let that little bit of intellectual dishonesty slide for the moment and, instead, concentrate on the fact that this entire argument is pure unadulterated nonsense.
To begin with, I challenge these people to show me one example in which the federal government, or any state legislature, ever made something illegal and then forced people to do it. Using abortion as an example, back when it was illegal, how often were American women forced by some governmental authority to have one?
Beyond that, the abortion lobby's concern about women being forced to have abortions is more than a little contrived. I mean, are we really expected to believe that these moral deviants are going to get their panties in a wad over people being forced to buy their product?
Get real!
The abortion industry routinely and gladly sells abortions to women who are being forced to have them – usually by a boyfriend who doesn't want to own up to his responsibility or by a parent who doesn't want to be embarrassed. This happens every day in every abortion mill in this country and the pro-choice mob knows it. Furthermore, not one of them is losing a minute's sleep over it. As for governmental force, I'll remind you that the very people making this bogyman argument are the same ones you often hear singing the praises of China's population control policy which includes women being forced to abort at the point of a gun.
The bottom line is, contrary to their public posturing, these people know full well that the only governments on earth that force women to have abortions are those in countries where abortion is legal – not illegal. In other words, the only way American women will ever face the risk of being forced by the government to have abortions is for abortion to remain legal.
Let's also not forget that, when the time comes that such force is attempted in this country, its most aggressive support will come from those who stand to make the most money from it.
And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who that is.
[November 2, 2010 Categories: forced abortions, abortion industry, government
http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2010/11/2/How-Dumb-Do-They-Think-The-Public-Is
Commentary: Fetal Pain Should Prompt Abortion Backers to Reconsider Their Position
The science of fetal pain remains uncertain, but we still have a duty to avoid the possibility of inflicting undue suffering.
A much-discussed new law in the state of Nebraskahas banned abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy, citing the contested notion of fetal pain. Of course, everyone can agree that we have a duty not to cause pain to others without a just cause. Bioethicists endorse the relieving of pain as an expression of the “principle of beneficence.”
And international bodies concur that access to pain relief without discrimination is a fundamental right. As a society we even take efforts to eliminate pain from the process of executing capital offenders whose guilt is manifestly established. But how do we approach the possibility of fetal pain when the science remains uncertain?
I should note that my argument is relative to a community in which abortion is legal. If abortion is wrong by virtue of the kind of act it is, namely an act of unjust killing, which I judge it to be, then aborting a fetus knowing that he or she will or might feel pain makes the act worse. But what about a society like ours where abortion is, sadly, legal?
First, pro-lifers and pro-choicers should be able to agree on the principle of full disclosure. If fetuses feel pain, then where abortion is legal, abortion providers should disclose to the gestational mother the effects of her choice on the fetus. We may disagree about whether abortion is wrong, but we should be able to agree that withholding information relevant to making an informed abortion decision would be unfair to women.
Second, if fetuses feel pain, then where abortion is legal, abortion providers should also take reasonable measures to suppress the pain. We should be able to agree that it would be wrong not to try to remove the pain, just as it is when political authority fails to take reasonable measures to remove the pain from the process of legal execution.
If, however, evidence demonstrates that fetuses do not feel pain, then, where abortion is legal, abortion providers obviously have neither the duty to relieve that which does not exist, nor to inform women of what’s untrue.
Our moral analysis then waits upon the settling of the empirical question of whether fetuses feel pain. This settling requires convincing data. But when speculative data is used to direct normative considerations of what ought to be done, the measure of certitude justified by the data is decisive for guiding action.
To clarify my meaning, let me use an example. Some abortion opponents have argued that a secondary effect of the most common drug used in emergency contraceptives–levonorgestrel–is to render the uterine lining inhospitable to an implanting embryo. If at commonly prescribed dosages this is the case, then the drug sometimes acts as an abortifacient. Whether this is the case is an empirical question. If it is the case, it has moral implications for the behavior of anyone concerned for embryonic human life and contemplating the legitimacy of taking the drug.
Let us say for the sake of argument that rigorous data is inconclusive. I am then left with a doubt as to whether or not levonorgestrel might render the uterine lining inhospitable. According to my practical knowledge, informed, let’s say for the sake of argument, by the best available evidence, I might kill an embryo if I use this drug in such and such a way. The possibility that my action will cause a death gives rise to the duty, stemming from the requisites of fairness, to refrain from that action. I would need to be reasonably certain that it will not cause death before purposeful action is justifiable. This reasonable certitude can also be called moral certitude. And reasonable doubt and moral certitude about the same fact are mutually excluding.
Let me propose one more example. If reasonable doubt existed as to whether the new device known as the “Mosquito,” which emits a high-pitched noise to disperse loiterers, not only caused minor auditory discomfort but severe pain, the burden of proof would fall upon the manufacturer to give evidence that it does not before the device should be approved for general use. Proof, of course, would be simple to arrive at: ask those exposed to the “Mosquito.” Since fetuses cannot yet provide self-report in language we cannot simply ask them whether they feel pain.
Yet I think the principle still stands: the burden of proof would fall upon defenders of the “Mosquito” to rule out a reasonable doubt that the device causes severe pain before its common use was approved, or to take action to assure that this possibility is mitigated.
The burden falls on the one who might be doing wrongful harm to rule out reasonable doubt that they are. If you were hunting in the woods and saw something moving in the distance, but were unsure of whether it was a deer or another hunter, you would be bound not to shoot until reasonable doubt was dispelled that what was stirring in the distance was not another hunter. When a doubt of fact bears on settling whether an alternative under consideration is immoral (e.g., it would be immoral to shoot in the face of reasonable doubt), one should withhold choosing till the fact has been settled.
So the question to be settled is whether or not reasonable doubt exists concerning a fetus’s capacity to experience pain. Since empirical certitude is not available, I propose, in light of what I said above, the following principle: that the judgment that fetuses do feel pain need only be a reasonable explanatory hypothesis in light of the settled evidence. Whereas the judgment that they do not requires moral certitude before providing a speculative ground for normative judgments about how to act.
Coming from one who is not a scientific expert on the question, but who has read considerably over the past four months on most all dimensions of the question, I conclude strongly that moral certitude that fetuses do not feel pain presently cannot be reached. In other words, fetal pain experience is a reasonable conclusion from the settled evidence. This evidence includes an appeal to fetal anatomical, neurochemical, physiological, and behavioral features, as well as responses to noxious stimuli (behaviors such as facial grimacing, the withdrawing of limbs, clenching of fists, opening of mouth and even crying).
Although we are not warranted in moving from these features and responses to a certain conclusion that fetuses do experience pain–I realize that fetal consciousness is a central factor in the equation–we are justified in concluding from the evidence–in fact, we are rationally required to conclude–that moral certitude does not exist that fetuses do not feel pain.
Unless and until contrary evidence is presented, we have a duty to act with the presumption that they do. In a territory such as our own where abortion is legal, we have a duty: 1) to inform women considering second- and third-trimester abortions that their actions may cause their babies pain; and 2) to guarantee that suitable analgesics and anesthesia be administered to fetuses during second- and third-trimester abortions.
E. Christian Brugger is Associate Professor of Moral Theology in Denver, Colorado. This paper is adopted from remarks given at the conference “Open Hearts, Open Minds and Fair-Minded Words,” held at Princeton University October 15th-16th, 2010. This opinion column first appeared in Public Discourse and is reprinted with permission.
[E. Christian Brugger | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 11/8/10, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/08/opi-1003/ ]
Flipsyde -- Happy Birthday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bQG8v8kTGs&ob=av2e Happy Birthday...so make a wish
Verse 1:
Please accept my apologies, wonder what would have been
Would you've been a little angel or an angel of sin?
Tom-boy running around, hanging with all the guys.
Or a little tough boy with beautiful brown eyes?
I payed for the murder before they determined the sex
Choosing our life over your life meant your death
And you never got'a chance to even open your eyes
Sometimes I wonder as a foetus if you faught for your life?
Would you have been a little genius in love with math?
Would you have played in your school clothes and made me mad?
Would you have been a little rapper like your papa da Piper?
Would you have made me quit smokin' by finding one of my lighters?
I wonder about your skintone and shape of your nose?
And the way you would have laughed and talked fast or slow?
Think about it every year, so I picked up a pen
Happy birthday, love you whoever you woulda been
Happy birthday...
Chorus:
what I thought was a dream (make a wish)
Was as real as it seemed (happy birthday)
What I thought was a dream (make a wish)
Was as real as it seemed
I made a mistake!
Verse 2:
I've got a millon excuses to why you died
Bet the people got their own reasons for homicide
Who's to say it woulda worked, and who's to say it wouldn't have?
I was young and strugglin' but old enough to be your dad
The fear of being my father has never disappeared
Pondering frequently while I'm sippin' on my beer
My vision of a family was artificial and fake
So when it came time to create I made a mistake
Now you've got a little brother maybe he's really you?
Maybe you really forgave us knowin' we was confused?
Maybe everytime that he smiles it's you proudly knowin' that your father's doin' the right thing now?
I never tell a woman what to do with her body
But if she don't love children then we can't party
Think about it every year, so I picked up a pen
Happy birthday, love you whoever you woulda been
Happy birthday...
Chorus:
What I thought was a dream (make a wish)
Was as real as it seemed (happy birthday)
What I thought was a dream (yeah, make a wish)
Was as real as it seemed
I made a mistake!
And from the heavens to the womb to the heavens again
From the endin' to the endin', never got to begin
Maybe one day we could meet face to face?
In a place without time and space
Happy birthday...
From the heavens to the womb to the heavens again
From the endin' to the endin', never got to begin
Maybe one day we could meet face to face?
In a place without time and space
Happy birthday...
Chorus:
What I thought was a dream (make a wish)
Was as real as it seemed (happy birthday)
What I thought was a dream (make a wish)
Was as real as it seemed
I made a mistake...!
[Flipsyde - Happy Birthday, www.youtube.com, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bQG8v8kTGs&ob=av2e ; Music video by Flipsyde performing Happy Birthday, Interscope Records]
**********************
Black Genocide Data:
Abortions vs. Live Births, 1970-2009
http://networkedblogs.com/ahtAb
****************************** Pastors: True or False?
In 1856, the Republican Party submitted its first ever party platform. The Republican Party Platform contained only nine planks. Six of the nine planks were bold declarations of Equality and Civil Rights for Black Americans based on a literal interpretation of the Declaration of Independence.
In... the same year the Democratic Party defended slavery. Brothers, we need to talk.
[Pastor Walter Hoye, 8 Nov 2010]
Will Horton Hear the Who? Teen Orator Lia Mills Speaks
In the Dr. Seuss story, "Horton Hears a Who," Horton is an elephant who can talk to tiny humans that live on a leaf. The other animals refuse to believe him, and call him crazy, until all the Whos call out at once -- including the littlest, youngest one.
Will the Lawmakers hear and change the laws to protect the unborn, the tiny, invisible Whos of our world? ~NHS
"When will someone else decide that you're not a person?"
(Toronto, Ontario)— - After proving the humanity of the unborn in an August video, teen pro-life orator Lia Mills has released a new video aiming to prove that the unborn are also "persons" by virtue of being human, as are other classes of humans who have been denied the status of 'person' in the past.
The video comes out as Lia [addressed] the International Pro-Life Conference in Ottawa.
She [was] joined by a star-studded cast of major leaders from the international pro-life movement, including North American pro-life pioneer Dr. Jack Willke.
"The unborn are definitely human. It's obvious and it's supported by science," says Lia in her new video. She points out, however, that people now generally accept the unborn's humanity and argue instead that they can be killed because they are not yet 'persons'.
"How can we tell when exactly the unborn gain their personhood?" she asks.
To help, she goes to a dictionary, which defined person as "a human being." "Since the unborn are humans, that means based on this definition the unborn are persons as well," she says. But she then concedes that the issue is more complicated, because the definition of person changes depending on the academic discipline.
In law, she points out, "a person is whoever the governing authorities decide to give rights to. Under the law, you're only a person if the lawmakers say you are."
Lia then discusses four examples in history when lawmakers denied personhood to a certain class of people—Jews in the Holocaust, black slaves in the US, North American natives, and women.
"The Jewish people were stripped of their personhood and thereby stripped of their rights and their value, and that's why all of the atrocities committed against them were considered acceptable," she explains.
"People are quick to judge the Germans at the Holocaust, but we have our own Holocaust that's taking the lives of millions of unborn babies every year," says Lia. "We do it using the same tactics that the Germans did. We deny personhood to the unborn and thereby deny them their rights and justify our own actions."
"Who decided that the Jews weren't persons, that the natives and slaves weren't persons, and that women weren't persons?" she asks. "Lawmakers."
"Who decides today that the unborn aren't persons? Lawmakers."
"Personhood has become a fabricated term used by lawmakers to decide who has rights and who doesn't," she continues. "Personhood is denied to [the unborn] because they're dependent, because they look different, and because they can't do what older babies, children, and adults can do."
"Should those in power be allowed to decide which humans are 'persons' and which are not, who gets rights and who doesn't?" she asks in conclusion. "Once you allow one group of humans to lose their personhood, every other group's personhood becomes vulnerable and no one is safe.
"When will someone else decide that you're not a person?"
The International Pro-Life Conference [was] the first of its kind to take place in Ottawa in 20 years. Lia [spoke] at the conference Friday with Rebecca Richmond of the National Campus Life Network on youth in the pro-life movement.
Watch this video -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJGFPdspOrY&feature=player_embedded
Other videos of Lia's talks: Abortions and Ice Cream: A Personal Preference
Paul told his young protégé, Timothy, to "Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the Believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity." Seemingly walking it out is Lia Mills, a teen orator and a champion for the culture of life, with an amazing gift of communication. Her compelling argument on the personhood of the unborn is presented in her latest video, which can be viewed by clicking on the link toward the end of this article. I highly recommend it. –Aimee H, BCN.
A Nation Turns Away From Abortion
It's not true that abortion statistics are irreversible. Italy proves it.
As the United Nations, encouraged by the US Administration, presses on with advancing abortion across the globe as a form of family planning – and even a human right – not all countries have embraced this practice. As reported in MercatorNet last year, one major country that is turning away from abortion is Italy. Abortion numbers and rates there have continued on a downward trend for over two decades.
The recently released 2009 report on abortion – which the Ministry of Health presents to Parliament each year – confirms another drop in the number of abortions and in the abortion rate. Abortion, which was legalized in Italy in 1978, reached a peak of 234,801 cases in 1982. In 2009, 116,933 abortions were performed, a decline of 3.6 percent from the previous year – a figure that for the first time was less than half the number in the peak year. The numbers have declined consistently for the last five years.
The abortion rate for women of child-bearing years (15-49), a more meaningful measurement of abortion prevalence, in 2009 showed a result of 8.3 per 1,000 women, a 3.9 percent decline from the previous year. In 1982, the ratio had been 17.2 per 1,000.
Interestingly, abortions have declined for all age segments of child-bearing women and are particularly low for minors especially when compared with other developed countries.
For females under age 20, in 2008 the abortion rate was 7.2 per 1,000 in Italy, down from 7.5 the year before, and differed sharply compared with 13.5 for Spain, 15.6 for France (2007 data), and 20.5 for the United States (2004). Only Germany had a lower rate of 5.0 per 1,000.
Observing a divergence in trends, since the mid 1990s the Ministry of Health began disaggregating data to show abortions by both Italian and foreign women in Italy.
The abortion rate for foreign women alone has continued to rise since data commenced, and for 2008, the latest data available, foreign women accounted for 33 percent of all abortions in Italy, compared with 10 percent in 1998.
Were it not for the foreigners, Italy’s abortion total and abortion rate would be even lower.
Compared with 1982, the number of Italian women having recourse to abortion dropped by nearly two-thirds – by 65.2 percent to be exact!
The trends indicate that the most rapid decline in abortions has occurred among the more highly educated, the employed and married women. In 2008, among Italian women having abortions, 45 percent reported not having any children, compared with 33 percent for foreign women. About half of both groups were married.
Data for repeat abortions (second or higher) showed that in 2008 the rate held steady at 27 percent, of which 22 percent was applicable to Italian women and over 37 percent to foreign women. By this yardstick, Italy again compared favorably with such countries as Spain (34 percent), Sweden (38 percent) and the United States (47 percent)
The growing number of foreign women resorting to abortion has been attributed to increased immigration, failed contraception practices, and looser attitudes towards terminating a pregnancy held by women from foreign countries especially by Eastern Europeans who accounted for 52 percent of non-Italian abortions.
In 2009, foreigners comprised 7 percent of Italy’s resident population of 60.3 million.
To allow international comparisons, the Italian Ministry of Health report assembled a list showing abortion rates for 19 countries.
The compilation, presented below, indicates that there are four European countries which have a lower abortion rate than Italy. However, all of them were reported to have a much higher rate of contraceptive usage.
To determine the latter, recourse to United Nations data showed that for the 2003-2008 period, the contraceptive prevalence rate – defined by the UN as the percentage of women aged 15-49 in union currently using contraceptives – was 60 for Italy, while the other four ranged from 75 to 82. (The rate for the United States was 76 and 84 for the United Kingdom.)
Abortion rates per 1,000 women aged 15-44, 2005-2009
Country Year Abortion rate
Switzerland 2009 6.4
Germany 2009 7.0
Netherlands 2008 8.7
Belgium 2007 9.6
ITALY 2008 10.3
Finland 2006 10.8
Spain 2008 11.8
Lithuania 2006 12.7
Canada 2006 13.0
Denmark 2006 14.3
Norway 2008 16.8
France 2007 17.4
England & Wales 2009 17.5
USA 2005 19.4
Sweden 2008 21.3
Hungary 2006 22.3
Bulgaria 2006 23.5
Romania 2006 31.3
Russian Federation 2006 40.3
Source: Compiled by the Italiam Ministry of Health from national statistics, Eurostat and the Guttmacher Institute.
Another positive phenomenon in Italy is the rising number of doctors who are declared conscientious objectors.
The percentage of doctors who refuse to perform abortions rose from just under 70 percent in 2007 to 71.1 percent in 2008. The highest share was accounted for by the Lazio Region, which includes the City of Rome, where the proportion rose from 80 percent to 85.6 percent over the same period.
So why do Italian women turn away from abortion, make less use of contraception compared with other Europeans -- but also have a fertility rate that is below the European Union average (1.4 versus 1.5)?
The Ministry of Health report does not present any analysis as this is outside its competence, but does make a passing reference to “socio-cultural issues.”
From other sources, it can be observed that in Italy the concept of the traditional family remains strong (divorce rates are lower as are out of wedlock births compared with the rest of the European Union), religious practice is higher than in many other European countries and, unlike many northern European countries, secularism and relativism are not widespread in Italy...Finally, Italians do celebrate life in faith, music, art, and traditions – and a sense of caritas prevails.
Women in Italy, however, do face discrimination in the workplace which helps explain why not only fertility but the employment rate too, is much lower in Italy than in most other European or North American countries. Only 47 percent of working age women were employed in 2008, compared with an average of 59 percent for the European Union.
Professional and non-professional women struggle to cope with practices that are not sanctioned in other developed countries. For example, the prospect of pregnancy – as in the case of a newly married woman who “might” get pregnant – could result in that woman being laid off.
Some employers discriminate by letting women go after they return from maternity leave – which is granted by law for 20 weeks – simply because they may feel that a woman with a newborn at home could not be as attentive and productive as previously. This is very different from the United States where the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act provides that women cannot be fired or denied employment or promotions due to pregnancy.
Large industries, where unions secure job protection, may not be guilty of such practices, but most Italian industry is comprised of small and medium-sized companies that function very independently. Simply making maternity-related discrimination illegal could result in more births in a country where abortion and contraception are notably on the wane.
Vincenzina Santoro is an international economist in New York. She represents the American Family Association of New York at the United Nations.
[Vincenzina Santoro | Monday, 13 September 2010, http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_nation_turns_away_from_abortion/ ]
tags : abortion, demography, Italy
Misleading Guttmacher Study Downplays the Psychological Effects of Abortion
By Michael J. New
Last month, the Guttmacher Institute released a study [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4223010.html] that received considerable praise from the mainstream media. This study purportedly finds that teens who undergo abortions are at no greater risk for depression than teens who choose to give birth.
Not surprisingly, Guttmacher has spun these results to denigrate both parental-involvement laws and laws requiring counseling prior to an abortion.
Priscilla Coleman, an associate professor of human development and family studies at Bowling Green University who has published a number of studies in peer-reviewed journals documenting the negative psychological effects of abortion, has authored a very persuasive critique [http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Sept10/nv092910.html] of the Guttmacher study.
For one thing, Coleman finds fault with the small sample size. The researchers were able to analyze the psychological health of only 69 teens who reported having abortions — too small a sample to make definitive conclusions.
Coleman also criticizes the measure of depression the authors used. The authors of the Guttmacher study used a self-reported self-esteem measure. However, the use of professional counseling for psychological problems is a more valid measure of depression or psychological distress.
The Guttmacher study’s data comes from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which surveyed adolescents in grades 7–12 beginning in 1994–95, asking the same cohort questions every few years. The authors compared the psychological health of teens who had abortions between Wave 1 (1994–1995) and Wave 2 (1996) to teens who became pregnant and gave birth during this time.
About 7,500 girls answered both the Wave 1 and the Wave 2 surveys. Since the annual teen abortion rate for those years was approximately 30 per 1,000 teen girls, we would have expected approximately 225 girls to have had abortions between Wave 1 and Wave 2. However, the researchers were only able to analyze 69 teen girls who reported obtaining an abortion. This raises serious questions about the reliability of the survey. Furthermore, it seems likely that girls who were psychologically healthy might have been more willing to report their abortions than girls who were psychologically distressed. This further skews the results.
Overall, there is a significant amount of evidence, both anecdotal and in public-health journals, about the negative psychological effects of abortion. In a country where abortion remains legal, it would be heartening to see an organization like Guttmacher make meaningful efforts to assist women who are suffering with the aftermath of abortions, instead of pretending these problems do not exist.
— Michael J. New is an assistant professor at the University of Alabama and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute; October 28, 2010,
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/251352/misleading-guttmacher-study-downplays-psychological-effects-abortion-michael-j-new ]
Find more research and information on the risks of abortion at www.AbortionRisks.org
New Arizona Abortion Regulatory Law
AAPLOG does not view elective induced convenience abortion as "healthcare." Pregnancy is not a disease. Compounding this assault on women's "healthcare" is the practice of non-physicians doing the procedure. (and, in Iowa, the "physician," being nowhere near the woman, using telemed abortions to prescribe the abortion pill "mifeprex.")
Here is a judicial decision in which the abortionist is held at least to the standard of care that physicians doing a legitimate procedure would be held to. Does this legitimize abortion? Not for those of us who believe purposefully killing the innocent unborn is wrong. But in the real (ugly) world, it is a medical safety measure for the 24,000 women each week who choose to have a legal abortion. As physicians, we grieve for the women (and their babies) who make this destructive choice. As physicians, we are glad to see restraint against flagrant healthcare abuses toward women.
ARIZONA WOMEN PROTECTED: NEW SAFETY MEASURES PROHIBIT NON-DOCTORS
FROM PERFORMING ABORTIONS
A Superior Court judge denied Planned Parenthood's motion to block abortion clinic regulations from taking effect this Monday. These regulations were passed more than 10 years ago by the state Legislature after Lou Anne Herron's tragic death in an Arizona abortion clinic. The rules ensure, among other things, that non-doctors may not perform surgical abortions. The abortion industry has held up these regulations in court for the past decade.
The health and safety regulations that are slated to take effect November 1, 2010, include:
• A doctor must estimate the gestational age of the pre-born baby.
• A doctor must perform a physical examination on the woman to determine if she is healthy enough for the surgery.
• A doctor is the only one who may perform surgery.
• A doctor with admitting privileges at an accredited hospital is at the clinic in case of an emergency.
• A doctor must remain on the premises of the clinic until all patients are stable and ready to be discharged.
To read the full regulations that go into effect on November 1, click here: http://bit.ly/aaFooW.
Women's health and safety is best protected by having a licensed physician involved from the moment they are admitted to a clinic to when they are discharged. Arizona has witnessed the dangers women face when they are operated on and treated by under-qualified medical personnel.
Judge Donald Daughton denied Planned Parenthood's emergency motion to amend their complaint late Wednesday, opening the door for these common-sense regulations to take effect. To read Judge Daughton's decision, click here: http://bit.ly/9h6rxQ.
The abortion clinic regulations that the Arizona Legislature passed 10 years ago are based on Planned Parenthood's own policies. CAP President Cathi Herrod asks, "If Planned Parenthood claims to care about women's health and safety, why fight safety measures that provide women with the typical standard of care?"
[29 October 2010, email, AAPLOG]
Arizona Abortion Regulatory Laws Should Help Stop Women Dying From Abortions
In April 1998, Lou Anne Herron, a 33-year-old mother with two young children already at home, entered the A-Z Women’s Center in Phoenix seeking a late-term abortion.
An initial ultrasound examination showed that Ms. Herron was 26 weeks pregnant, 2 weeks beyond the limit of Arizona’s ban on post-viability abortions. Undeterred, clinic staff performed multiple ultrasounds before obtaining one that “estimated” a gestational age of 23 weeks, knowingly disregarding Arizona law.
Abortionist John Biskind then performed the dangerous and illegal abortion, tearing a two-inch hole in Ms. Herron’s uterus.
Medical evidence indicates that, within 10 minutes of the abortion being completed, Ms. Herron was in “serious trouble.” As she lay in what medical assistants described as a pool of blood that soaked the bedding and ran down her legs, Ms. Herron was heard crying for help and asking what was wrong with her.
Where was the abortionist, Biskind? He was eating lunch in the break room, refusing requests to check her condition, and later left her bleeding and unconscious to visit his tailor.
Ms. Herron later died, after being left in the care of panicked and inadequately-trained medical assistants and bleeding for more than two hours in the clinic’s inadequately-outfitted recovery room.
In response, Arizona legislators acted quickly to adopt comprehensive health and safety regulations for abortion clinics operating in the state. These regulations came to be known as “Lou Anne’s Law.”
However, on the eve of the regulations going into effect in April 2000, Arizona abortion advocates sued to block their enforcement.
More concerned with their profit margins than women’s health and safety, they cynically claimed that the regulations were prohibitively costly to implement and medically-inappropriate, blatantly ignoring that the regulations were based on national abortion care standards promulgated by Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation.
Americans United for Life quickly joined forces with Arizona officials to defend “Lou Anne’s Law” and, last week, after more than ten years of litigation and desperate obstructionism by abortion advocates, Arizona’s comprehensive abortion clinic regulations went into effect [http://www.lifenews.com/2010/10/28/state-5621/ ].
Enacting comprehensive abortion clinic regulations is a critical and sensible solution to the problem of unsafe abortions in America. These regulations are designed to safeguard against unsanitary conditions, inferior equipment, and the employment of unsuitable and untrained personnel. They are also intended to put an end to substandard medical practices that injure and kill untold numbers of women each year.
States have the authority to intervene and the duty and responsibility to act when a public health problem exists.
One woman’s death is too many. One woman left infertile because of any infection caused by unsanitary conditions is too many. One woman rushed bleeding to an emergency room with a punctured uterus because her abortionist was in a hurry to complete as many abortions as he or she could in an afternoon is too many.
The abortion industry will not police itself, so state officials must act to protect women.
[Bill Saunders | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 11/5/10, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/05/wbs-105/ ]
Arizona Judge: Planned Parenthood Can’t Have Non-Doctors Do Abortions
To hear abortion backers like Planned Parenthood tell the story, abortion is supposed to be between and woman and her doctor.
But a county judge denied a request from the abortion business to subject women to abortions done by someone other than a licensed physician.
A Superior Court judge denied Planned Parenthood’s motion to block a law from taking effect. The law, containing regulations on abortion businesses, was passed by the state legislature 10 years ago after Lou Anne Herron’s tragic death in an Arizona abortion center.
The rules ensure, among other things, that non-doctors may not perform surgical abortions, but Planned Parenthood has held up the health and safety standards ever since.
Judge Donald Daughton denied Planned Parenthood’s emergency motion to amend their complaint late Wednesday, opening the door for the pro-life law to take effect.
“Women’s health and safety is best protected by having a licensed physician involved from the moment they are admitted to a clinic to when they are discharged,” said Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod. “Arizona has witnessed the dangers women face when they are operated on and treated by under-qualified medical personnel.”
She told LifeNews.com, “The abortion clinic regulations that the Arizona Legislature passed ten years ago are based off of Planned Parenthood’s own policies. If they claim to care about women’s health and safety, why fight safety measures that provide women with the typical standard of care?”
The law requires that a licensed doctor do the abortion and, beforehand, he must estimate the gestational age of the pre-born baby and perform a physical examination on the woman to determine if she is healthy enough for the surgery.
The abortion practitioner must also have admitting privileges at an accredited hospital in case of a medical emergency, and must also remain on the premises of the abortion facility until all patients are stable and ready to be discharged.
The new rules take effect on Monday [1 Nov 2010].
[Ertelt | Phoenix, AZ | 10/28/10, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/10/28/state-5621/ ]
Find more research and information on the risks of abortion at www.AbortionRisks.org
Quietly Racking Up the Abortion Toll
Planned Parenthood's business model depends on delivering death
While Planned Parenthood continues to sit on its annual report for 2008-2009, new documents found hidden on its labyrinthine website give taxpayers an insider's look into the beleaguered abortion monopoly it is helping fund.
The numbers paint the grisly picture of an organization beset by financial problems yet determined to increase income by killing more preborn human beings.
But that's not the surprising part. The shocking thing about these numbers is that they are finally dispelling the ubiquitous Planned Parenthood lie that the organization is about something other than abortion.
Planned Parenthood's own numbers dispel the myths:
Myth 1: Planned Parenthood offers "choices"to women. While Planned Parenthood claims it is all about "choice,"a look at its maternity-related services to pregnant women paints a horrific picture of death and destruction inside the innocuous-looking facilities found in nearly every major American city.
The 2008 service figures show that 96.5 percent of pregnant women who received maternity-related "services" from Planned Parenthood aborted their children, with only 3.5 percent receiving prenatal care or adoption referrals.
So much for "choices."
Myth 2: Planned Parenthood is working to reduce abortions. While many Americans continue to believe the urban legend that Planned Parenthood is in the business of reducing abortions through birth control and sex education, the numbers tell a different story.
The year 2008 marked the 26th consecutive year Planned Parenthood increased its share of the U.S. abortion market, by performing 324,008 abortions. All told, Planned Parenthood affiliates brought in an estimated $152,283,760 via its abortion business.
Another disturbing trend is Planned Parenthood's uncanny ability to monopolize and profit off a "service" on the decline. Nationwide, abortion numbers fell dramatically in the 1990s and into the beginning of the millennium. But while national rates were going down, Planned Parenthood managed to more than triple its share of the market. In 1990, Planned Parenthood performed 8 percent of U.S. abortions. By 2008, its share of the abortion market had catapulted to 26.8 percent.
Myth 3: Abortion is only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood services. Knowing that community support and government funding will evaporate if the American people understand the truth, Planned Parenthood has been aggressive in marketing the oft-quoted notion that abortion is only 3 percent of what it does.
Pencils ready? Planned Parenthood arrives at 3 percent by dividing its total number of abortions by its total number of "services." For 2008, that would be 324,008 divided by 10,940,609.
To illustrate the absurdity of such a statistic, note that if Planned Parenthood hands out 97 condoms, it could count that as 97 "services." Then it does three abortions and claims that, because it also handed out 97 condoms, abortion is 3 percent of its business. This statistic is specifically designed to lead the American people and the legislators who continue to give government money to Planned Parenthood to believe that a very small portion of Planned Parenthood's business is abortion-related.
A better way to illustrate Planned Parenthood's abortion-centered business model would be to see what percentage of its total clinic income is attributable to abortion. When we do the math, we see that Planned Parenthood's estimated $152,283,760 abortion income in 2008 amounts to 40.6 percent of its 2007-2008 clinic income.
Here is an invitation to Planned Parenthood: Please prove us wrong. While Planned Parenthood cannot argue with the facts stated above, one way to dispel the many theories surrounding Planned Parenthood's failure to produce its annual report would be for it to actually release the report... [see page 2 for remainder of article]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/28/quietly-racking-up-the-abortion-toll/?page=1
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/28/quietly-racking-up-the-abortion-toll/?page=2
[The Washington Times, September 28, 2010, By Rita Diller and Katie Walker; 29 Oct 2010, www.afterabortion.info]
Find more research and information on the risks of abortion at www.AbortionRisks.org
New York City Abortion Doulas
New York City has a reputation for the unusual. Now it's given "birth" to the idea of "abortion doulas" The ironic choice of words was intentional. Lauren Mitchell and her colleagues, Mary Mahoney and Miriam Perez, have formed what they call the Doula Project operating from two Manhattan abortion 'businesses', one specializing in late-term abortions.
Doula comes from a Greek word meaning a female caregiver. A modern-day doula provides non-medical assistance before, during and after childbirth. Her goal is to see to the physical and emotional needs of both mother and child. This could include pre-birth advice on parenting, massages during labor and even help taking care of the child and household chores after delivery.
If Mitchell et.al. get their way, the positive, life-affirming reputation of doulas could be tainted by abortion -- teaching to coach mothers not in the birth, but killing of their children...
[for the remainder of this article, visit -- http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/pdfs/Oct10.pdf , page 7]
The Girl Scouts: Promoting a Pro-Abortion Agenda
Recently the Boy Scouts of America distanced itself from the Girl Scouts and entered into an agreement with American Heritage Girls to provide mutual support to one another.
The mission of the Boy Scouts has always been to prepare young men to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Okay, but where are the Girl Scouts in this picture and who are American Heritage Girls?
American Heritage Girls was founded to offer faith-based leadership and character development programs to girls age five to eighteen. Its mission is to "build women of integrity through service to God, family, community and country." The small all-girl unit within the American Heritage Girls troop structure provides a nurturing environment for learning and building positive relationships, character development and spiritual enrichment.
At this point, you may be thinking this is what Girl Scouts have been doing....
It is quite obvious that Boy Scouts are now considered a controversial group because they won't allow homosexual troop leaders. You may also be thinking that the Girl Scouts aren't controversial... [current Girl Scout leaders] hope to make these little girls the "shock troops" of an ongoing feminist revolution... [see http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/pdfs/Oct10.pdf
for the remainder of the article]
Fetal Pain Abortion Law Takes Effect in Nebraska, Could Set National Trend
http://lifenews.com/state5554.html , Life News; ALL Pro-Life Today, 15 Oct 10]
A new fetal pain law is taking effect today in Nebraska that targets late-term abortions based on the pain an unborn baby will likely feel during the abortion procedure. The law could set a national trend of other states and Congress considering such measures and could lead to a Supreme Court battle.
New Abortion Law in Nebraska on Fetal Pain Could Weaken Roe v. Wade Further
The Nebraska legislature has signed off on a bill that Governor Dave Heineman will sign today that could head to the courts and ultimately weaken further the Roe v.Wade Supreme Court decision that has resulted in 52 million abortions. The bill bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the well-established concept of fetal pain.
By a vote of 44-5, the Nebraska unicameral legislature this morning gave final passage to the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act introduced by Speaker Mike Flood.
The legislation has been hailed by pro-life advocates across the country for its innovative approach and focusing the public's attention on unborn babies who have been medically documented as pain capable at 20 weeks gestation.
National Right to Life attorney Mary Spaulding Balch told LifeNews.com that the bill could make its way to the Supreme Court to alter national abortion law further and set a wide-ranging precedent.
"Although it will be a case of first impression, there are strong grounds to believe that five members of the current U.S. Supreme Court would give serious consideration to Nebraska’s assertion of a compelling state interest in preserving the life of an unborn child whom substantial medical evidence indicates is capable of feeling pain during an abortion," she said.
The ban on partial-birth abortions that made its way to the Supreme Court twice brought home the pro-life message that abortion kills an unborn child and was responsible for shifting public opinion on abortion squarely into the pro-life category.
It also paved the way for states to, for the first time since Roe, ban at least some abortions.
The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act could see the same group of five members of the Supreme Court uphold it as constitutional and allow more abortions to be prohibited.
Balch says the genius of the measure is the scientific fact that unborn children can feel pain.
"By 20 weeks after fertilization, unborn children have pain receptors throughout their body, and nerves link these to the brain," she told LifeNews.com. "These unborn children recoil from painful stimulation, which also dramatically increases their release of stress hormones. Doctors performing fetal surgery at and after 20 weeks now routinely use fetal anesthesia."
The pro-life attorney rebutted the response from pro-abortion groups that unborn children cannot feel pain until later in pregnancy when nerves reach the cerebral cortex.
“Since 2007, medical research, triggered by the identification of consciousness in children lacking a cortex from birth, has indicated that nerve connection to the cortex is not essential to experience pain. In fact, informed specialists have concluded that the subcortical plate, to which nerves from the pain receptors are linking at 20 weeks, fulfills that function," she explained.
A first of its kind in the United States, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother "has a condition which so complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function or...it is necessary to preserve the life of an unborn child."
Ironically, Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban led to the first Supreme Court case, in 2000, that declared the ban unconstitutional.
The high court, after member changes, came back recently and overturned that decision in a new case concerning a national partial-birth abortion ban Congress passed.
When looking at abortion case law, NRLC says it hopes a new analysis can be established that would ultimately lead to overturning Roe.
Balch says the pro-life group wants the Supreme Court to redraw the line away from the viability standard about when abortions can be prohibited.
“What I would like to bring to the attention of the court is, there is another line,” Balch said. “This new knowledge is something the court has not looked at before and should look at.”
Fetal pain is not a new concept and the leading national expert on the topic confirms unborn children definitely have the capacity to feel intense pain during an abortion.
Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand of the University of Arkansas Medical Center has said he and other specialists in development of unborn children have shown that babies feel pain before birth as early as 20 weeks into the pregnancy.
Anand said many medical studies conclude that unborn babies are "very likely" to be "extremely sensitive to pain during the gestation of 20 to 30 weeks."
"This is based on multiple lines of evidence," Dr. Anand said. "Not just the lack of descending inhibitory fibers, but also the number of receptors in the skin, the level of expression of various chemicals, neurotransmitters, receptors, and things like that."
Anand explained that later-term abortion procedures, such as a partial-birth abortion "would be likely to cause severe pain."
Dr. Jean Wright, an anesthesiologist specializing in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, has also confirmed the existence of fetal pain during Congressional testimony.
“[A]n unborn fetus after 20 weeks of gestation, has all the prerequisite anatomy, physiology, hormones, neurotransmitters, and electrical current to close the loop and create the conditions needed to perceive pain. In a fashion similar to explaining the electrical wiring to a new house, we would explain that the circuit is complete from skin to brain and back," she said.
And Dr. Richard T.F. Schmidt, past President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, confirms, “It can be clearly demonstrated that fetuses seek to evade certain stimuli in a manner which an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a reaction to pain.”
An April 2004 Zogby poll shows that 77% of Americans back "laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancy be given information about fetal pain before having an abortion."
Only 16 percent disagreed with such a proposal, according to the poll, commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee.
[April 13, 2010, Ertelt, Lincoln, NE, http://www.lifenews.com/state4986.html]
Abortion Practitioner in California Operates Despite Repeated Legal Troubles
South California abortion practitioner Feliciano Rios continues to
operate an abortion business and do abortions in Chula Vista despite
significant legal trouble. The pro-life group Operation rescue has
obtained legal documents showing the numerous issues Rios has deal with
over the last two years.
Papers from the California Board of Medicine filed earlier this year
show Rios was indicted by a San Diego County Grand Jury on five felony
counts of grand theft and Medi-Cal fraud.
He was also charged with Perjury Under Oath for lying to the grand jury that eventually indicted him.
On July 2, 2009, Rios pled guilty to perjury and insurance fraud, both
felonies. he was given a sentence of three years of formal probation.
The conditions of the probation included Rios having 365 days of
confinement stayed pending successful completion of probation, payment
of fines totaling $1,360, he cannot possess a firearm, ammunition, or
deadly weapon, and he must obey all state laws.
However, in December, Rios become the subject of an investigation
because records showed that Rios had three firearms registered to him
without a change of ownership on file. Police conducted a search of
Rios' residence and he admitted to the police that he still had the guns
in his possession at his Chula Vista abortion clinic. [Full story at
LifeNews.com -- San Diego, CA, LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report
10/14/10 #5000 -- http://www.lifenews.com/state5544.html ]
2 Abortionists' Medical Licenses Suspended in Maryland
The Maryland Board of Physicians has ruled that abortionist Nicola Riley's medical license remain suspended.
Riley's license was originally suspended on an emergency basis on August 31, 2010 after complaints were filed against her employer, Steven Chase Brigham, for a severely botched abortion that required emergency surgery to save the woman's life.
It was then discovered that Brigham, who is not licensed in Maryland, was operating an illegal late-term abortion scheme where abortions as late as 36 weeks would be started at his office in Voorhees, New Jersey and completed at a secret abortion clinic in Elkton, Maryland.
Police raided the Elkin facility and discovered the remains of 35 babies in the freezer!
Brigham's New Jersey medical license has since been suspended, as has the license of George Shepherd, Jr., an 88-year-old former abortionist who was found to be aiding and abetting Brigham in the unlicensed practice of medicine.
Riley was training under Bringham in Maryland and was the abortionist who performed the botched abortion, which lead to this discovered. After the abortion, Riley rushed the woman to the emergency room in the back of her rental car after refusing to call an ambulance.
After the emergency suspension on August 31st, Riley decided to fight the suspension and submitted testimony and documents at last Thursday's hearing.
The Maryland Board of Physicians responded with the following:
"The Board (has) concluded that the arguments and documents submitted, and the responses to the Board's questions did not significantly change the Board's questions and did not significantly change the Board's findings or conclusions regarding the danger to the public which would be opposed by Dr. Riley practicing medicine at this time."
While still suspended in Maryland, Riley is still licensed to practice medicine in Utah where she continues to do abortions.
Bottomline: Abortionists like Brigham and Riley continue to put women's lives at jeopardy and take the lives of innocent preborn children!
[2 Nov 2010, Medical Students for Life of America, http://med.studentsforlife.org/]
Investigation Finds Abortion Business Employs Rapist, Criminals to Keep Businesses Open
A pro-life organization has completed a new investigation of the American Women’s Services abortion business operated by embattled abortion practitioner Steven Chase Brigham in New Jersey.
The probe found it employs abortion practitioners who have criminal convictions and other problems in their backgrounds.
Brigham is the abortion practitioner and abortion facility owner who has already had his medical license suspended in New Jersey and other states because of numerous violations of health and safety standards.
Operation Rescue reviewed files associated with the abortion business that operates in four northeastern states, including Pennsylvania, Virginia and Maryland.
Because Brigham faces so many problems, he has had to employ other abortion practitioners to do abortions and keep AWS open during Brigham’s medical license suspension. OR found they have shocking backgrounds that are so pervasive it believes the entire chain of abortion centers should be shut down.
“Brigham’s abortion business is a haven for the bottom of the barrel criminals and quacks masquerading as medical doctors, and that’s just the unvarnished truth,” Operation Rescue president Troy Newman told LifeNews.com today. “We have reviewed hundreds of pages of disciplinary documents. Every medical misfit on the east coast that has run out of options seems to have found a welcome home in Brigham’s abortion organization.”
Abortion practitioners Brigham have employed include an admitted sex offender and drug abuser, two convicted drug violators, and a convicted income tax cheat who once paid out $3.5 million in a malpractice suit.
Others include an abortion practitioner convicted of billing fraud, and several abortion practitioners who are unable to obtain hospital privileges so they can admit patients in cases when abortions are botched and women need immediate medical attention.
Abortion practitioner Vikram Hiralal Kaji continues to work for Brigham at his Voorhees and Woodbridge, New Jersey, abortion centers and he has no hospital privileges.
Kaji was convicted by the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners in 1993 for having improper sexual contact with three patients.
After a lengthy relationship that involved improper sexual conduct, Kaji reportedly had sex without a condom with one young girl in the birthing center of his office during business hours, OR said.
He knew his victim was vulnerable to his advances because she had been a depressed victim of child sex abuse with a history of psychiatric hospitalization. He later misprescribed drugs for her including Seconal and steroids. Kaji at first fought the charges, saying the sex was consensual, but later admitted that he had made an error in moral judgment.
David Reid Peters works for Brigham at his Virginia Beach, Virginia, location.
In 2001, he was charged by the Virginia Board of Medicine for prescribing drugs “outside of a bona fide practitioner-patient relationship, as required by law.”
He further “authorized the prescriptions without obtaining a medical or drug history, performing a comprehensive physical examination, providing information about the benefits and risks…and without initiating additional interventions and follow-up care.”
Brigham was suspended in New Jersey after a botched abortion led to the discovery of his illegal late-term abortion scheme that spanned two states. All of Brigham’s abortion centers in Maryland have closed, at least temporarily, but he continues to operate abortion clinics in three other states.
“We have a message for the authorities in Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia: For the love of God, please close these abortion clinics,” said Newman. “As relieved as we were by the suspensions and clinic closures, the authorities really need to do more and close AWS down permanently. What we discovered about Brigham’s current abortion staff was worse than we had imagined.” [4 November 2010, Ertelt, Voorhees, NJ, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/04/state-5644/ ]
A FEW ABORTION - BREAST CANCER/ KOMEN - PP CONNECTION E-LINKS: YOU DECIDE
At www.physiciansforlife.org search for "komen abortion pp" /all words
It is important to educate people about the Komen - PP Connection...
People's hearts are in the right place; they just need to be given the facts...
http://www.lifeissues.org/AbortionBreastcancer/komen/fact_sheet.pdf
http://www.bdfund.org/breastcancer.asp
http://www.bdfund.org/breastcancerorgs.asp (authentic research organizations truly seeking
a cure without blocking the abortion-breast cancer link...)
Help spread the admission from the National Cancer Institute branch chief Louise Brinton that abortion raises breast cancer risk...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSmma0COO1E
Komen for the Cure Donated $730K to Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz in 2009
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/10/12/nat-6765/
http://lifenews.com/nat6787.html
Iran Study: Abortion Boosts Breast Cancer Risk 193% Study Finds, Giving Birth Lowers Risk
Researchers in Iran have published the results of a new study showing women who have an abortion face a 193% increased risk of breast cancer. On the other hand, women who carry a pregnancy to term find a lowered breast cancer risk compared with women who have never been pregnant.
The study folllows on the heels of new reports indicating Komen for the Cure gave $7.5 million to the Planned Parenthood abortion business in 2009. [see this article on this webpage]
The findings were reported in the April 3, 2010 issue of Medical Oncology but are coming to the public's attention only now.
Hajian-Tilaki K.O. and Kaveh-Ahangar T. from Babol University of Medical Sciences compared 100 cases of women who were newly diagnosed with breast cancer compared with 200 age-matched controls to review several reproductive factors.
The researchers discovered abortion significantly elevated breast cancer risks. Also, having a first pregnancy at an older age increases the breast cancer risk by 310 percent -- which has implications for women who have relied on birth control and delayed a first pregnancy until later in life.
The Iranian scientists also confirmed what other studies have found, namely that increasing parity or the number of births reduces the breast cancer risk significantly.
Reporting on the study, the FoodConsumer web site indicated women with parity equal to or greater than 5 reduced their breast cancer risk by 91 percent compared with women who had never been pregnant and not given birth. Each additional birth also reduced the breast cancer risk by 50 percent.
The Iranian study came just before another research study conducted by scientists in Sri Lanka, which found women who had an abortion in the past were 242 percent more likely to contract breast cancer.
That study was published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology and found a 3.42 odds ratio against women having abortions compared with those who kept their baby.
Abortion was the most significant factor in the study on breast cancer risk and researchers found a significantly reduced risk associated with prolonged duration of breastfeeding a newborn.
Malintha De Silva and colleagues from the University of Colombo led the study.
Combined with the Iranian study and others from the U.S., China and Turkey, five studies in the last 18 months have shown abortion elevates breast cancer risk.
In the one from the United States, Louise Brinton, a NCI branch chief, served as co-author.
She and her colleagues admitted that "...induced abortion and oral contraceptive use were associated with increased risk of breast cancer." The authors cited a statistically significant 40% increased risk of breast cancer following an abortion.
"It's becoming increasingly difficult for the NCI to keep its fingers and toes in the dike," said Malec, "especially since many researchers in other parts of the world do not depend on the agency for grants."
[13 October 2010, Babol, Iran, http://www.lifenews.com/int1665.html ]
Commentary: Fighting Against Breast Cancer With Donations... But Discovering I Was Actually Supporting Abortion
While the noble mission of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation is to save lives and rid the world of breast cancer, there has been a great deal of concern recently over the foundation's growing relationship with the nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
The multitude of Komen's pro-life sponsors are questioning how Komen - a group dedicated to preserving life - could align philosophically and financially support Planned Parenthood (PP), a group that boasts of taking the lives of 342,008 children annually, according to its latest records.
Komen admits to donating more than $730,000 to Planned Parenthood in 2009 and approximately $3.3 million from 2004 to 2009. In reaction to this news, Komen has lost support from pro-life advocates and has received numerous letters questioning this partnership.
Komen has posted a letter responding to pro-life supporters' concerns on its website. In it, Komen states that money donated to Planned Parenthood pays solely for breast cancer screening, education and health programs. It also assures supporters that Komen is closely monitoring the grants.
While it is true that Komen is financing breast-cancer-related activity, in choosing the nation's largest abortion provider to act as the recipient of these funds, Komen is subsidizing PP's overhead: equipment, salaries, etc., thereby freeing funds that can be used for abortion - which indisputably is Planned Parenthood's main business.
Komen additionally states that Planned Parenthood is located in remote and low-income areas where other breast-cancer-screening opportunities are not readily available. However, Komen could develop mobile screening units and/or partner with other local health facilities that affirm life at all stages (diseased or otherwise). In doing so, Komen actually would provide a further service, beyond breast cancer education, by building the capacity of local organizations. This would stand in stark distinction from contributing to the already hefty profit Planned Parenthood takes in: $85 million, according to its latest annual report.
Komen further names two Catholic ethicists, Ron Hamel and Michael Panicola, who, it states, "examined the moral implications of our funding decision" and concluded that it is morally permissible for the church to be involved. This statement is confusing and inaccurate in that the ethicists in question do not officially represent the Catholic Church. Rather, they are merely issuing their personal opinions. The fact that they are Catholic gives them no standing to speak for the church itself.
Moreover, these men have represented a well-known organization that frequently has been incompatible with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, most recently regarding the question of abortion funding and health care.
Finally, there have been a number of studies recently (some conducted by abortion advocates) showing a strong connection between abortion and a propensity for breast cancer. While this topic is sometimes hotly debated, a group dedicated to ridding the world of breast cancer would be wise to take every necessary precaution, including erring on the side of caution, when creating financial and medical partnerships.
The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation's tireless work and commitment to ending breast cancer should be applauded. But its decision to begin and remain in a financial relationship with Planned Parenthood at best lacks prudence and at worst advances the very cause it is fighting against.
[Jeanne Monahan is director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council.
9 Nov 2010, Jeanne Monahan, The Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/9/i-fought-breast-cancer/print/ ; N Valko RN, 11 Nov 2010]
Race for the Truth About the Susan G. Komen Foundation: Is Abortion and Hormonal Contraception a Prescription for Breast Cancer?
Everywhere I looked this month, I saw a pink ribbon. It was on my dry cleaning bag, grocery bag, coffee cup, mail catalogs, receipts, billboards it goes on and on. Don't get me wrong. I
love the color pink, and breast cancer prevention and finding a cure is critical to women today.
However, I also love the truth.
That is why October 2010 is a good time to take Breast Cancer Awareness
Month to a whole new level with some facts which can lead to both the
physical and spiritual health of women in America and across the world.
We live in the world of media messaging where the one with the most money
and the loudest message wins the day.
What is the "Race for the Cure"?
Why are we not being told the truth about the real risks and prevention for breast cancer?
According to the SEER data at the National Cancer Institute,there has been a 400% increase in non-invasive -- or "in situ" (in the same place) -- breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975.
How do abortion, hormone replacement therapy, and hormonal contraception factor into the equation?
For years, abortion, hormonal replacement therapy and hormonal contraception
have been largely ignored by most of the medical community and the media in
general as significant risk factors for breast cancer. However, studies have
consistently concluded that breast cancer risk increases as a result of
these three factors.
Researchers in Iran have published results of a new study showing that women
who have had an abortion face a 193% increased risk of breast cancer.
This has to do with the interruption of breast tissue development during pregnancy.
It is important to note that this (and other studies like it) have nothing to do with a person's belief in abortion.
It has everything to do with the scientifically undeniable development and growth of breast tissue within a woman's body.
There are many other studies that have been published as well that confirm that abortion presents increased risk to women for breast cancer, and that confirm that carrying a baby to full term provides a natural protection to the mother if the pregnancy is not unnaturally interrupted.
For years, doctors have been prescribing hormone replacement therapy for
women who experience hot flashes and periods of sweating in menopause. The
widespread belief was that these hormones would not only reduce a woman's
risk for heart disease but also keep her "youthful, sexy, and healthy."
This week the New York Times reported that studies have now confirmed that taking
these hormones not only increases breast cancer risk, but "also make it more
likely that the cancer will be advanced and deadly" (New York Times, Oct.
19, 2010).
This revelation, finally being recognized by the mainstream medical
community and media, makes our final topic on hormonal contraception
downright frightening.
Obstetricians and gynecologists across the country freely encourage
long-term use of hormonal contraception such as "the Pill," the intrauterine
device (IUD) Mirena, NuvaRing, Yaz, Yasmin, and all forms of emergency
contraception without giving adequate attention to the short- and long-term
side effects.
Pediatricians have also joined in on this by encouraging mothers to place their young daughters on "the Pill" to help with acne or torelieve monthly menstrual cramps.
Recently, a college student shared with me that inside her dorm, cell phones go off in the early morning hours as a reminder to the girls to take their birth control pills...
The number of young women on "the Pill" is alarming.
Have these girls been told that "the Pill" has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency on Research for Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO)?
Are women in general being informed that any form of hormonal (estrogen-progestin combination) birth control (including "the Pill," the patch, Depo-Provera, Norplant, Ortho Vera Patch, or any others on
the market) are actually increasing risk for breast, cervical, and liver cancer?
The sad reality is that any woman who takes a hormonal contraceptive for four years prior to her first full-term pregnancy increases her risk for breast cancer by 52%.
It is worth noting that this same research arm of the World Health Organization also places "the Pill" in the same category with asbestos and cigarettes.
The difference is the dose
So, you may ask, what is the difference between the hormones that are given
to women during menopause, which cause deadly breast cancer, and the
hormones that are given to young women in the form of "the Pill"?
The answer is shocking. The hormones in the drugs are the same.
The only difference is in the dose that is given to the younger women and girls.
It is necessary to give a much higher dose than that given in hormone replacement therapy
because younger women have active, healthy ovaries.
Does this give better context to the 400% increase in "in situ" breast cancer in pre-menopausal
women since 1975?
In order to silence the public discussion of the harms of contraception we
have often been told that we are pushing our "Catholic" views on women. This
has effectively kept many health care providers and pro-life groups silent
on this issue. Do you know what has nothing to do with being Catholic?
Experiencing breast cancer in your 30s, having a stroke in college, or
having an undetected and sudden blood clot that results in permanent health
damage or death are life-threatening side effects that visit women of all
faiths.
Women deserve to know the truth. They have been failed by physicians in not
being warned of the physical damage that they are doing to their bodies, and
they have been failed by their priests in not being warned of the spiritual
damage that they are doing to their souls.
The New York Times article on Oct. 19 published information by "The Journal
of the American Medical Association" that is a real breakthrough and victory
for women's health.
The exposure of this important medical information further reveals the outrage of Komen for the Cure giving $7.5 Million back to Planned Parenthood in 2009.
This was money from trustful donors who were unaware that they, indeed, gave to a cause working against the cure of breast cancer. Clearly, both abortion and hormonal
contraception, a huge source of Planned Parenthood's income, are contributing risk factors for breast cancer.
October 2010 is the time to recognize the seamless pink ribbon that connects
breast cancer with abortion, hormonal contraception and hormone replacement
therapy... [for remainder of article, visit http://www.zenit.org/article-30799?l=english]
[Jenn Giroux is the executive director of HLI America, a program of Human
Life International. She is a registered nurse, wife, and mother of nine. She
and her husband, Dan, live with their family in Cincinnati, Ohio. For more
information go to hliamerica.org. 29 Oct 2010, Jenn Giroux, CINCINNATI, OH, Innovative Media Inc., http://www.zenit.org/article-30799?l=english, ZE10102903]
Hormone Therapy Use by Postmenopausal Women Associated With Increased Incidence of More Advanced Breast Cancer
Follow-up of about 11 years of participants in the Women's Health Initiative finds that among postmenopausal women, use of estrogen plus progestin is associated with an increased incidence of breast cancers that are more advanced, and with a higher risk of deaths attributable to breast cancer, according to a study in the October 20 issue of JAMA.
In the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) randomized, placebo-controlled trial of estrogen plus progestin, after an average intervention time of 5.6 years and an average follow-up of 7.9 years, breast cancer incidence was increased among women who received combined hormone therapy. "... questions of clinical relevance remain, including the cumulative, long-term effect of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer incidence and whether breast cancer mortality is increased by combined hormone therapy use," the authors write.
Rowan T. Chlebowski, M.D., Ph.D., of the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif., and colleagues analyzed data and report updated information on breast cancer incidence and, for the first time, information on breast cancer mortality related to combined hormone therapy use in the WHI trial.
A total of 16,608 postmenopausal women ages 50 to 79 years with no prior hysterectomy from 40 U.S. clinical centers were randomly assigned to receive combined conjugated equine estrogens, 0.625 mg/d, plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, 2.5 mg/d, or placebo pill. After the original trial completion date (March 31, 2005), re-consent was required for continued follow-up for breast cancer incidence and was obtained from 12,788 (83 percent) of the surviving participants.
The researchers found that in intention-to-treat analyses including all randomized participants and censoring those not consenting to additional follow-up, estrogen plus progestin compared with placebo increased the incidence of invasive breast cancer (385 cases [0.42 percent per year] vs. 293 cases [0.34 percent per year], respectively).
A significantly larger fraction of women in the combined hormone therapy group had breast cancers with positive lymph nodes compared with women in the placebo group (81 [23.7 percent] vs. 43 [16.2 percent], respectively).
"More women died of breast cancer in the combined hormone therapy group compared with the placebo group (25 deaths [0.03 percent per year] vs. 12 deaths [0.01 percent per year]), representing 2.6 vs. 1.3 deaths per 10,000 women per year, respectively," the authors write. "Consideration of all-cause mortality after breast cancer diagnosis provided similar results; among women in the combined hormone therapy group, there were 51 deaths (0.05 percent per year) compared with 31 deaths (0.03 percent per year) among women in the placebo group, representing 5.3 vs. 3.4 deaths per 10,000 women per year, respectively."
"With some exceptions, the preponderance of observational studies have associated combined hormone therapy use with an increase in breast cancers that have favorable characteristics, lower stage, and longer survival compared with breast cancers diagnosed in nonusers of hormone therapy. However, in the WHI randomized trial, combined hormone therapy increased breast cancer risk and interfered with breast cancer detection, leading to cancers being diagnosed at more advanced stages. Now, with longer follow-up results available, there remains a cumulative, statistically significant increase in breast cancers in the combined hormone therapy group, and the cancers more commonly had lymph node involvement. The observed adverse influence on breast cancer mortality of combined hormone therapy can reasonably be explained by the influence on breast cancer incidence and stage."
"Following the initial report of results from the WHI trial, a substantial decrease in breast cancer incidence occurred in the United States, which was attributed to the marked decrease in postmenopausal hormone therapy use that occurred after publication of the trial results. The adverse influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer mortality suggests that a future reduction in breast cancer mortality in the United States may be anticipated as well," the researchers note.
(JAMA 2010;304[15]:1684-1692. Available pre-embargo to the media at www.jamamedia.org)
October 19, 2010, Chicago, JAMA News Release, http://pubs.ama-assn.org/media/2010j/1019.dtl; New York Times; PBS – Study: Hormone Therapy Leads to More Advanced Breast Cancer http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/10/study-hormone-therapy-leads-to-more-advanced-cancer.html
Media Advisory: To contact Rowan T. Chlebowski, M.D., Ph.D., call Laura Mecoy at 310-546-5860 or email
To contact editorial author Peter B. Bach, M.D., M.A.P.P., call Courtney DeNicola at 212-639-3573 or email
{SEE ABSTRACT below}
Editor's Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, financial disclosures, funding and support, etc.
Editorial: Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy and Breast Cancer - An Uncertain Trade-off
In an accompanying editorial, Peter B. Bach, M.D., M.A.P.P., of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, comments on the findings of Chlebowski and colleagues.
"... the available data dictate caution in the current approach to use of hormone therapy, particularly because one of the lessons from the WHI is that physicians are ill-equipped to anticipate the effect of hormone therapy on long-term health. Clinicians who prescribe brief courses of hormone therapy for relief of menopausal symptoms should be aware that this approach has not been proven in rigorous clinical trials and that the downstream negative consequences for their patients are of uncertain magnitude. One option—discussing with patients the risk-benefit tradeoffs in pursuit of an informed patient decision—may seem at first blush to be a reasonable approach given this lack of evidence. But the reality is that informed patient decisions are not valid when the information underlying the decision is itself speculative."
(JAMA 2010;304[15]:1719-1720. Available pre-embargo to the media at www.jamamedia.org)
http://pubs.ama-assn.org/media/2010j/1019.dtl#3
ABSTRACT
Estrogen Plus Progestin and Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Postmenopausal Women
Context In the Women's Health Initiative randomized, placebo-controlled trial of estrogen plus progestin, after a mean intervention time of 5.6 (SD, 1.3) years (range, 3.7-8.6 years) and a mean follow-up of 7.9 (SD, 1.4) years, breast cancer incidence was increased among women who received combined hormone therapy. Breast cancer mortality among participants in the trial has not been previously reported.
Objective To determine the effects of therapy with estrogen plus progestin on cumulative breast cancer incidence and mortality after a total mean follow-up of 11.0 (SD, 2.7) years, through August 14, 2009.
Design, Setting, and Participants A total of 16 608 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years with no prior hysterectomy from 40 US clinical centers were randomly assigned to receive combined conjugated equine estrogens, 0.625 mg/d, plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, 2.5 mg/d, or placebo pill. After the original trial completion date (March 31, 2005), reconsent was required for continued follow-up for breast cancer incidence and was obtained from 12 788 (83%) of the surviving participants.
Main Outcome Measures Invasive breast cancer incidence and breast cancer mortality.
Results In intention-to-treat analyses including all randomized participants and censoring those not consenting to additional follow-up on March 31, 2005, estrogen plus progestin was associated with more invasive breast cancers compared with placebo (385 cases [0.42% per year] vs 293 cases [0.34% per year]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.46; P = .004). Breast cancers in the estrogen-plus-progestin group were similar in histology and grade to breast cancers in the placebo group but were more likely to be node-positive (81 [23.7%] vs 43 [16.2%], respectively; HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.23-2.58; P = .03).
There were more deaths directly attributed to breast cancer (25 deaths [0.03% per year] vs 12 deaths [0.01% per year]; HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.00-4.04; P = .049) as well as more deaths from all causes occurring after a breast cancer diagnosis (51 deaths [0.05% per year] vs 31 deaths [0.03% per year]; HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.01-2.48; P = .045) among women who received estrogen plus progestin compared with women in the placebo group.
Conclusions Estrogen plus progestin was associated with greater breast cancer incidence, and the cancers are more commonly node-positive. Breast cancer mortality also appears to be increased with combined use of estrogen plus progestin.
Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000611
[JAMA, Vol. 304 No. 15, October 20, 2010,
Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD; Garnet L. Anderson, PhD; Margery Gass, MD; Dorothy S. Lane, MD; Aaron K. Aragaki, MS; Lewis H. Kuller, MD; JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH; Marcia L. Stefanick, PhD; Judith Ockene, MD; Gloria E. Sarto, MD; Karen C. Johnson, MD, MPH; Jean Wactawski-Wende, PhD; Peter M. Ravdin, MD, PhD; Robert Schenken, MD; Susan L. Hendrix, DO; Aleksandar Rajkovic, MD, PhD; Thomas E. Rohan, PhD; Shagufta Yasmeen, MD; Ross L. Prentice, PhD;
JAMA. 2010;304(15):1684-1692. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1500http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/304/15/1684?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Hormone+Therapy+Use+by+Postmenopausal+Women+Associated+With+Increased+Incidence+of+More+Advanced+Breast+Cancer&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT]
Breast Cancer Surgeon Explains How Abortion Elevates Risk for Women
As breast cancer awareness month winds down, one leading breast cancer surgeon and professor has written a full explanation of one of the risks women need to keep in mind when talking with friends and family about the deadly disease -- abortion.
Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey.
She is a surgeon who, as the co-director of the Sanofi-aventis Breast Care Program at the Steeplechase Cancer Center, has treated countless women facing a breast cancer diagnosis. Lanfranchi was named a 2010 Castle Connolly NY Metro Area “Top Doc” in breast surgery.
In an article she wrote for the medical journal Linacre Quarterly, Lanfranchi talks about why abortion presents women problems and increases their breast cancer risk:
A growing amount of evidence from quality studies suggests that induced abortion, but not spontaneous abortion or miscarriage, increases risk of breast cancer.
Of course, induced abortion is not the only risk factor for breast cancer. Most women diagnosed with breast cancer have never had an abortion. Most women who have had an induced abortion will not get breast cancer. Like a family history of breast cancer, which is involved in about 15 percent of all breast cancer cases, induced abortion is just another risk factor.
Cigarette smoke is a carcinogen. While only 15% of cigarette smokers get lung cancer, the risk has been well acknowledged. In comparison, induced abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer is somehow not as widely publicized.
Induced abortion boosts breast cancer risk because it stops the normal physiological changes in the breast that occur during a full term pregnancy and that lower a mother’s breast cancer risk. A woman who has a full term pregnancy at 20 has a 90% lower risk of breast cancer than a woman who waits until age 30.
Breast tissue after puberty and before a term pregnancy is immature and cancer-vulnerable. Seventy five percent of this tissue is Type 1 lobules where ductal cancers start and 25 percent is Type 2 lobules where lobular cancers start. Ductal cancers account for 85% of all breast cancers while lobular cancers account for 12-15% of breast cancers.
As soon as a woman conceives, the embryo secretes human chorionic gonadotrophin or hCG, the hormone we check for in pregnancy tests.
HCG causes the mother’s ovaries to increase the levels of estrogen and progesterone in her body resulting in a doubling of the amount of breast tissue she has; in effect, she then has more Type 1 and 2 lobules where cancers start.
After mid pregnancy at 20 weeks, the fetus/placenta makes hPL, another hormone that starts maturing her breast tissue so that it can make milk. It is only after 32 weeks that she has made enough of the mature Type 4 lobules that are cancer resistant so that she lowers her risk of breast cancer.
Induced abortion before 32 weeks leaves the mother’s breast with more vulnerable tissue for cancer to start. It is also why any premature birth before 32 weeks, not just induced abortion, increases or doubles breast cancer risk.
By the end of her pregnancy, 85% of her breast tissue is cancer resistant. Each pregnancy thereafter decreases her risk a further 10%.
Spontaneous abortions in the first trimester on the other hand don't increase breast cancer risk because there is something wrong with the embryo, so hCG levels are low. Another possibility is that something is wrong with the mother’s ovaries and the estrogen and progesterone levels are low. When those hormones are low, the mother’s breasts do not grow and change.
A woman can use this information to make an informed decision about her pregnancy. If she chooses to abort her pregnancy for whatever reason, she should start breast screening about 8-10 years later so that if she does develop a cancer, it can be found early and treated early for a better outcome.
If she doesn't have the resources to raise a child or is not ready to be a mother, there are millions of couples waiting to adopt any child, even one with disabilities.
Women need to understand their own bodies so that they can make the best decision for themselves. [10/21/10 | Steven Ertelt Washington, DC, http://lifenews.com/nat6787.html (LifeNews.com]
Decades of Hope
Speech in Somerville, New Jersey on Courthouse Steps for Somerset County Cancer Coalition and Freeholders -- http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/LanfranchiSpeech10-2010.pdf
By Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS
Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery
UMDNJ Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center
October 6, 2010
Breast cancer not only affects A woman. It affects her spouse, family, friends and most especially her children. Yet what we see here today are examples of women who rose to that challenge. What better way to conquer fear than the grace of hope. Hope in a cure. Hope in prevention. Hope that whatever it is they will be challenged with, that they will be able to surmount it and live their lives to fullest each day into their survivorship.
In October, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, we all hear that 1 in 8 women, or 12.5% of women, will develop breast cancer in their lifetime. That is the cumulative lifetime risk for breast cancer, which is a statistically derived number that assumes all women will live to be the age of 82 and not die of something else first. Many times, women hear that number 1 in 8 and they look about the room and start counting off. 1, 2, 3…they believe that someone in that room will get breast cancer if there are more than 8 of them.
But we also need to know that if a women has no risks for breast cancer (other than that she is a woman, living in this country and getting older) her risk of getting breast cancer is only 3.3%.
Unfortunately few women have no risk factors. But even if she has a risk factor the increases her risk 100%, or doubles her breast cancer risk, her risk is now only 6.6% That‟s a lot different from one in eight.
We also need to hear is that a woman‟s chance of dying from breast cancer in this country is 1 in 35, or less than 3%.
So can we really hope for a cure?
Most women are unaware that it‟s already happening.
Lots of women are being cured without great fanfare. You see, one is only officially cured of breast cancer when one dies of something else first, like a heart attack in old age.
That‟s just how statistics are done and reported. We hear about 5 and 10 year survival rates. Maybe some 10 year survivors will have a relapse of cancer. So we have to wait „til they die of something else first before we say they were cured.
But what about women who have stage 0 breast cancer, also known as ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS ? With a partial mastectomy and radiation, they have a 97% cure rate. With mastectomy they have a 99.9% cure rate. No chemotherapy is needed to cure them. According to the American Cancer Society, there will be 62,280 women diagnosed with in-situ breast cancer in 2009. We can expect that a minimum of 60,411 to be cured! We just can‟t know who they are until they die of something else first.
2 What about women with Stage 1 invasive breast cancers? Those are the women with small tumors, less than ¾ of an inch, which have not spread to the lymph nodes under the arm. Those women have a 95% cure rate. Since there are many patients with Stage 1 breast cancer treated at Steeplechase, I would expect the vast majority to be cured to be with present treatment regimens.
At the Steeplechase Cancer Center where I work, 53% of all patients who are found to have cancer just because they went for a screening mammogram, (nobody thought they had cancer when they were screened), 53%, or over half, were Stage 0 and Stage 1. That‟s why mammograms are so important. They give women excellent odds for a cure and no bookie would take a bet against them. Based upon data when treatment wasn‟t as sophisticated and effective as it is now, the 5 year survival rate for tumors up to 2 inches and which had already spread to local lymph nodes, or Stage 2 breast cancers, is 86%. So I do believe there will be even higher cure rates in the future.
We know for sure that there is hope for prevention.
Look at what happened in 2002 after the Women‟s Health Intiative Study became known to the public because it made the 6 o‟clock news. Women found out that hormone replacement therapy, Pempro, increased breast cancer risk by 26%. That summer 15 million or half of the 30 million women that were on HRT abruptly stopped. As one of my patients said, “I‟d rather have hot flashes than cancer.”
Just a few years later in 2007, it was reported that there was an 11% decline in breast cancer rates in women over 50 with estrogen receptor positive cancers. After much scientific debate, those in the medical field conceded that the decline in rates was attributable to the reduction in the use of HRT.
Information that these hormones could cause breast cancer was in the medical literature for over 20 years. But when that knowledge was put in the hands of women who needed and considered it, many acted upon it and breast cancer rates fell.
What do you think will happen when women learn that these same hormones are in oral contraceptives but in much higher doses? Will half of the 75% of premenopausal women in the United States who take hormonal contraceptives stop these hormones like their mothers did after menopause?
What if they learn that in 2005 the UN‟s World Health Organization listed oral contraceptives as Group 1 carcinogens, the same group that contains asbestos and cigarettes? I bet that they will learn about the safer methods of fertility control, especially if they have a family history of breast cancer. Breast cancer rates will fall for women less than 50 too.
What if women knew that having children and breastfeeding decreased breast cancer risk substantially?
Would we wait so long to have our children if we knew that a woman who waits to have her first child at 30 has a 90% higher risk of breast cancer than the woman who has her first child at 20? I wouldn‟t have waited „til I was 41 to have my first and only child if I had known. Unplanned pregnancies could bring unplanned joy and adoption could be a better option.
3 It is often said by cancer organizations that 70% of women with breast cancer have no identifiable risk factors and that we should give them money to find a cure.
It is simply untrue that 70% of all breast cancer patients have no identifiable risk factors. If 75% of women of reproductive age have taken oral contraceptives they are at increased risk. If 20% of the women in this country remain childless, they are at increased risk. If 50% of post menopausal women have taken hormone replacement therapy, they are at increased risk.
Let‟s be more more than “aware” in Breast Cancer Awareness Month. You‟d have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to be aware that breast cancer exists and is a threat to many women. It‟s on the TV news and cable channels, radio, the internet, magazines, newspapers, and even the shopping channel as a patient once told me. You can‟t even go to the grocery store in October without being faced with pink ribbons on food containers to benefit one organization or another.
Let‟s be proactive and not just aware. Let‟s be pro active make and women aware that breast cancer is curable in many cases if not in at least half those diagnosed with screening mammograms.
We already know lots about what causes breast cancer and what can increase a woman‟s risk. Breast cancer is not the fickle finger of fate randomly pointed at women. There are many other avoidable risks. We can hope and expect to reduce breast cancer rates with prevention.
And what of the hope in survivorship?
There are 2.5 million survivors of breast cancer in our country right now.
Wouldn‟t it be a shame if they worried everyday that their cancer might come back, waiting for the other shoe to drop or with the sword of Damocles over their head? Not able to enjoy life to the fullest? Or didn‟t do the things that would reduce the risk of it coming back?
They need to know that there is a wonderful survivorship programs with the Wellness Community of Central NJ which is just down the street from here. The name of one program is Transitions. It is a national Wellness Community program that helps women to overcome the challenges of survivorship. There is also a Kids Connect program that helps children to overcome the challenges of having a parent with a cancer diagnosis.
In a nutshell, hope comes through knowledge and the gift of faith. Both are free for the asking. And in that spirit I will give a copy of my booklet. Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention to anyone who asks me for it.
[October 6, 2010, Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery, UMDNJ Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center, http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/LanfranchiSpeech10-2010.pdf ; PharmFacts E-News Update -- 13 Oct 2010 ]
Microbiologist Exposes National Cancer Institute's Cover-Up of Abortion-Breast Cancer Link 2003 Workshop, "Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer" Was Fraudulent
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer notes that microbiologist Gerard Nadal, PhD is exposing on his blog the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) cover-up of the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link at its 2003 workshop entitled, "Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer."
Dr. Nadal, who has taught at St. John's University and Manhattan College, accused the organizer of the workshop, NCI branch chief Dr. Louise Brinton, of having "done violence to the truth." He compared her statements about the ABC link to a Wimbledon match and charged that she and her colleagues are "sincerely unethical and corrupt."
Dr. Leslie Bernstein, a leader/moderator at the workshop, gave her reasons for covering up the ABC link in an interview with CancerPage.com a few days after the workshop had concluded. She said:
"There are so many other messages we can give women about lifestyle modification and the impact of lifestyle and risk that I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk....I don't want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be part of the mix of the discussion of induced abortion its legality, its continued availability. I think it should not be part of the argument." [1]
The NCI's misconduct was previously revealed in a detailed letter to President Obama and Congressional leaders on January 25, 2010 which called for a Congressional investigation of the NCI and its failure to issue timely warnings about the breast cancer risks of abortion and oral contraceptives. [2] Those signing the letter include the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, two scientists - Dr. Nadal and Professor Joel Brind - three medical groups, 15 physicians and 19 pro-family organizations. So far, Obama and Congressional leaders have not exhibited the slightest interest in protecting women's lives.
Dr. Nadal has promised to review one study on the ABC link every day until he has exhausted all of the research in January or February of 2011.
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
References:
1. Lowe RM, NCI scientific panel concludes abortion has no impact on breast cancer risk. CancerPage.com, March 3, 2003. Available at: <http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=5601>.
2. See also two press releases from the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer which reveal there is a discrepancy between what Dr. Louise Brinton says as a scientist representing the official policy of the NCI (ie, there is no ABC link) and what she says as a scientist publishing her findings in peer-reviewed medical journals. The press releases are available at:
Press Release: "2nd Breast Cancer Scandal: National Cancer Institute Researcher Louise Brinton Reverses Position, Finally Admits Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk in Study that Fingers Oral Contraceptives as a Probable Cause of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer," January 6, 2010. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/100106/index.htm
Press Release: "Groups Request Congressional Investigation of National Cancer Institute's Misinformation on Breast Cancer Risks of Abortion, Oral Contraceptives," January 25, 2010. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/100125/index.htm
[October 7, 2010, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, Press Release, Contact: Karen Malec; PharmFacts E-News Update -- 13 Oct 2010 ]
Commentary: National Cancer Institute Must Tell Women Abortion, Breast Cancer Linked
As October has closed, so does another Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It is a noble and worthy endeavor to raise awareness of this dread disease and how it affects the women we love and their families.
We have indeed made great strides against this disease in all areas: etiology, early detection, and treatment.
However, the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) pro-abortion political correcting of honestly assessing all areas of causality undercuts the effectiveness of this month’s activities, and leaves millions of women at needless increased risk.
Specifically, we need to consider the risks associated with oral contraceptive (OC) use and abortion.
At my blog, I have been analyzing the peer reviewed scientific and medical literature showing the association between OC use, abortion and breast cancer.
For a half-century now, well over a hundred studies have indicated a link between abortion and breast cancer, with increased risks being upward of 50% for abortions before a first full-term pregnancy, with many showing increased risks above 100%.
The biological explanation for this link is very simple and has been demonstrated repeatedly in animal studies. Prior to a first full term pregnancy a woman’s breasts are not fully developed, with her lobules made up of immature and cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 cells.
When she conceives a child, estrogen levels rise dramatically, along with the pregnancy hormone HCG, which stimulate the lobules to undergo massive cell proliferation, roughly doubling in number. These first trimester events leave the woman with twice as many cells where cancer can start.
At the end of the second trimester, the baby begins to protect the mother by secreting the hormone human placental lactogen. This hormone matures the lobule cells into cancer-resistant Type 4 cells, which will produce milk.
By the end of the pregnancy 85% of the lobule cells will have undergone this differentiation. The remaining 15% will undergo differentiation to Type 4 Cells during breastfeeding and subsequent pregnancies.
As animal studies bear out, if pregnancy is ended by abortion, the woman is left with twice as many immature, cancer-prone cells where cancer can start, but she does not derive the protective effect of the third trimester.
OC’s work by the same mechanism of stimulating cell proliferation, without the protective effect of a full term pregnancy. It is simple, elegant, and devastating.
Women who miscarry have abnormally low hormonal levels, and in all studies are shown to be at no increased risk of developing breast cancer.
So where does this political correcting at NCI come from?
Pro-abortion feminist researchers in and associated with the National Cancer Institute convened a panel in 2003 to craft a denial of their own research showing the abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link. Their dismissal of the data was founded on the absurd notion that women with breast cancer are more apt to recall and truthfully report their prior abortions during detailed health histories in research studies than healthy women in the control groups of these studies. This phenomenon is alternately dubbed “recall bias” and “reporting bias”.
Such preposterous thinking is in contravention to the denial that accompanies such devastating disease. If anything, the reverse would be true. However, these researchers suggested that the only valid studies would be those that start in the present and move forward over time. These are known as prospective studies, and are thought to be advantageous over their retrospective counterparts.
But as my ongoing analysis of these studies indicates, these prospective studies are often conducted and funded by the same pro-abortion folks who denied the validity of their own published retrospective studies. These prospective studies, which have purportedly shown no recall bias, are so methodologically flawed, deliberately so, as to literally violate the scientific process.
In the biggest prospective study to allegedly show no ABC link, the Melbye study, the authors began counting breast cancer cases in 1967, but didn’t start a consideration of abortions before 1973. This puts the cases of disease six years before the suspected exposure to the potential cancer-producing cause. I would fail an undergraduate biology student on a research project for making such an obvious blunder. But this is the best study to which the pro-aborts point. But even Melbye’s studies indicate a 3% rise in risk of breast cancer for every week a woman waits to have an abortion, until at 18 weeks gestation her risk rises to 89%.
Further, when Melbye studied premature births, it was found that breast cancer risks are elevated in women who deliver before 32 weeks at the same levels that the retrospective studies establish for women who have induced abortions. Melbye notes the loss of protective effect in these cases of premature delivery. What Melbye refuses to admit is that the sudden end of pregnancy, through either induced abortion or premature birth, are equivalent biological events where the risk of breast cancer is concerned.
So we have progressed through another Breast Cancer Awareness Month where the pro-abortion gang at NCI has conspired to keep the whole truth about risk factors from women, including their chief epidemiologist’s (Dr. Louise Brinton) own paper last year which indicates that women who begin OC use before age 18 are at 540% increased risk of developing the most aggressive and deadly form of breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer.
One wonders why there is not near hysteria in the media over such a catastrophic correlation, especially when Planned Parenthood dispenses OC’s to teens as though they were M&M’s.
It remains for us, the pro-life community, to patiently bring these scientific truths forward. The only force more ruthless and uncaring than the pro-abortion crew at NCI is nature. The laws of physiology and disease are coldly unforgiving of ignorance, political correctness, and willful disobedience. Dr. Louise Brinton and her handpicked coterie of abortion enthusiasts have betrayed women, betrayed scientific integrity, and betrayed their duty to the truth by politically driven machination. Having dug in their heels, we must simply maneuver around them and take the lead.
[2 November 2010, Dr. Gerard Nadal, Washington, DC,
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/02/gn-102/]
Six Myths About Breast Cancer
It must be Christmas in October for the breast cancer charity industry, notes Joel Brind, Professor of Biology and Endocrinology and Deputy Chair for Biology and Environmental Sciences at Baruch College, City University of New York. It is that time of year when breast cancer profiteers and misinformed writers for health publications spread myths about breast cancer to an unsuspecting public.
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer has published an open letter to editors at Prevention [http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/101004_1.htm] asking them to make corrections in its story, “Twelve myths to ignore about breast cancer,” for the sake of protecting women’s lives. [1]
The Coalition is also publishing a REAL list of BREAST CANCER MYTHS spread by the cancer charity industry:
Myth #1: Scientists still have no idea what causes breast cancer.
Myth #2: There Is no cure for breast cancer.
Myth #3: Breast cancer is not preventable.
Myth #4: Most women diagnosed with breast cancer have no known risk factors for the disease.
Myth #5: Induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk.
Myth #6: There is little or no risk associated with taking oral contraceptives (the pill).
The Coalition’s open letter debunks these myths.
“Disease prevention is far better than being cured of that disease,” said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, “especially when the cure entails the loss of a woman’s breasts, chemotherapy and radiation.
If the cancer charity industry had been honest about the risks of the pill, combined hormone replacement therapy, and induced abortion when the evidence became available in the 1980s, many thousands of American lives could have been saved.
It’s a crime impacting far more people than the recently reported atrocity involving U.S. government doctors who deliberately infected some Guatemalans with sexually transmitted diseases in the 1940s for the sake of science.”
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women’s organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
References:
1. Danielle Kosecki and Lauren Gelman, “Twelve myths to ignore about breast cancer,” Prevention, October 1, 2010. Available at:http://health.msn.com/health-topics/breast-cancer/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=100264189>1=31
[4 October 2010, Prevention; posted October 28, 2010, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer Press Release]
Rebuttal to Article in Prevention
Dear editor of Prevention:
I am writing in regards to your story entitled, "Myth: Birth control pills cause cancer," by Danielle Kosecki and Lauren Gelman.
Scientists agree that most breast cancers are connected to overexposure to the hormone, estrogen. The World Health Organization assigned estrogen-progestagen oral contraceptives the highest level of carcinogenicity - as a Group 1 carcinogen (cancer causing substance) - in 2005.
Here is the scientific review that accompanied the World Health Organization's press release:
Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.
Although the WHO's list states that combined (estrogen + progestin) oral contraceptives provide a protective effect against cancers of the endometrium and the ovary, Cogliano and his colleagues stated in their paper that these drugs put women at risk for cancers of the breast, liver and cervix and that they can be delivered via the pill, skin patch, injection and vaginal ring. Over two times as many American women die every year from the cancers that the pill causes than the cancers it prevents. Telling women to take the pill to prevent cancer is like telling them to take a carcinogen to prevent cancer!
Combined oral contraceptives and combined hormone replacement therapy contain the same type of drugs, but the former have a larger dose. Unlike combined hormone replacement therapy, women often use oral contraceptives before first full term pregnancy. That is when nearly all of their breast lobules are immature and the most susceptible to carcinogens. (By the end of first full term pregnancy, 85% of the lobules are fully and permanently matured into cancer-resistant lobules. Each subsequent full term pregnancy further reduces risk by 10% and matures more lobules into cancer-resistant lobules. That accounts for the reduced risk of breast cancer among women who have more children, starting at a younger age before age 24.)
Women should beware of cancer fundraising charities that downplay the risk of using oral contraceptives by calling it a "small risk" with no further explanation. The increased risk of using combined hormone replacement therapy is small - 26% - but since the average American woman has a high lifetime risk for the disease, that means that when its use was widespread, many more women developed breast cancer than would otherwise have developed it.
A search on Medline shows that the evidence for this risk dated from 1987, but women weren't informed about it until 2002; and that happened only by accident after the national press learned that the Women's Health Initiative had been stopped mid-way due to concerns about heart attacks and strokes. One year later after women across the country had stopped using combined HRT, Dr. Peter Ravdin and his colleagues reported at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Conference that there were 14,000 fewer cases of breast cancer. Our press release and the abstract from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Conference reported on this.
Research shows that the risk of using the pill is higher than that of using combined hormone replacement therapy. For example, the latest meta-analysis of the studies in this field was published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, and the authors found a 44% increased risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer among users of oral contraceptives.
Kahlenborn C, Modugno F. Potter D, Severs W. Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302. Available at: <http://www.polycarp.org>.
Triple-negative breast cancer is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with a high mortality rate that occurs most often among African Americans and young women under age 50. A study last year by Jessica Dolle and her esteemed colleagues, National Cancer Institute branch chief Louise Brinton, Dr. Janet Daling and others at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center showed that users of oral contraceptives before age 18 multiply their risk of triple negative breast cancer by 3.7 times. Recent users within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times.
The study, Dolle et al. 2009, is available online.
<http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf>.
Dolle's team wrote that they had included induced abortion and oral contraceptives "among known and suspected risk factors" for the disease. They said unequivocally that induced abortion and oral contraceptive use were risk factors for breast cancer. Although the study is 18 months old, no efforts have been made to inform women nationwide. Our group and 3 medical organizations, three scientists, 15 physicians and over a dozen other groups sent a letter to President Obama and leaders of Congress complaining of the National Cancer Institute's misconduct. We called for a Congressional Investigation of the National Cancer Institute because of its failure to issue timely warnings about these risks. See:
<http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/100125/index.htm>
Scientists agree the best way to prevent breast cancer is by having more children, starting at an earlier age (before age 24), and breastfeeding for more months during one's reproductive years. Avoidance of combined hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptives and induced abortion also provide ways to prevent the disease. For a discussion on prevention, see the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute's booklet, "Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention," at <http://www.bcpinstitute.org>.
Finally, scientists have reported their concerns about a large body of evidence of contamination of drinking water because of EE2, estrogen from oral contraceptives. Others have found abnormalities in the reproductive organs of fish in rivers and lakes and demonstrated that low doses of EE2 (10 parts per billion) negatively affects fertility in male rats. [Fawell JK et al. Water Research, Vol. 35, Issue 5, April 2001, 1240-1244; and Vosges M. Reproductive Toxicology 25 (2008)161-168.]
If you care about women's health, then please correct your story immediately. Oral contraceptives, combined hormone replacement therapy and induced abortion are big, money-making industries that are being protected in much the same way that the tobacco industry was protected by leading scientists and doctors.
We look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
P.O. Box 957133, Hoffman Estates, IL 60195
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com
1-877-803-0102 (toll free)
Commentary: The Pink Ribbon Campaign -- Are We Funding Breast Cancer? by Chuck Colson
Susan B. Komen for the Cure, formerly known as the Susan B. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, is a big promoter of the pink ribbon campaign. It raises money for breast cancer detection and research, and it awards grants to many worthwhile programs.
But as the Life Issues Institute points out, "In a counterproductive twist, Komen is also funding a group that actually promotes a possible cause of breast cancer."
The cause? Abortion.
The group? Planned Parenthood.
According to Life Issues Institute, in at least 22 states, Komen affiliates send donated money directly to Planned Parenthood--$3 million dollars over the last five years. This money frees up Planned Parenthood's own funds for other purposes-such as promoting the morning after pill and performing abortions.
Komen for the Cure denies the abortion-breast cancer link. But many studies seem to confirm it. For instance, Dr. Joel Brind, an endocrinologist and founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, found that "choosing to end a pregnancy through an induced abortion, especially the first pregnancy as a teenager, significantly increases breast cancer risk."
Dr. Janet Daling, a cancer epidemiologist who supports legal abortion, says, "I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate." And in 2007, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons found that women who have an abortion increase by 40 percent their risk of breast cancer.
Many Americans who buy those pink bracelets may not be aware of the strong Links between Planned Parenthood and the Komen foundation. Komen founder Nancy Brinker once served on the advisory board of Planned Parenthood of Dallas.
One Komen Advisory Board member, Eve Sanchez Silver, resigned when she found out how just how strong the link was between Komen and the nation's Number One abortion provider.
Shockingly, Silver says the Komen Foundation's "Concern for the heath of women is now parallel to Planned Parenthood's concern for the health of the children that they abort." Those are strong words.
The Komen Foundation also endorses embryonic stem cell research, which kills human embryos.
Odd as it may seem at first glance, the link between abortion and breast cancer is evidence for the truth of the Christian worldview. The scriptures teach that murder is wrong in God's eyes, including the murder of those who are being knit together in their mother's womb. We should not be surprised to learn that abortion, which involves a sudden disruption of the mother's natural physical processes, carries with it the seeds of destruction for mothers, as well.
If you want to support breast cancer research-a very worthy cause--check out the Polycarp Research Institute or the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. But before you donate to any organization, do your own research.
And when you see people wearing those pink ribbons, tell them that you like raising awareness of breast cancer, but caution them that they're funding an outfit that may actually be increasing the breast cancer rate: Planned Parenthood.
Get Links to further information on the Abortion - Breast Cancer Research - Komen - Planned Parenthood Connection, and Alternative Groups to Support -- http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/15647
Life Issues Institute
http://www.lifeissues.org/AbortionBreastcancer/komen/index.htm
Polycarp Research Institute
http://www.polycarp.org/overview_tpri.htm
http://www.polycarp.org/overviewabortionbreastcancer.htm
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
http://www.bcpinstitute.org/home.htm
Pink Money
www.pinkmoney.org
[28 October 2010, Chuck Colson, Breakpoint, http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/15647]
Planned Parenthood Pushes for Universal Birth Control as Coalition Fights Abortifacient Ella 'Contraceptive'
As abortion giant Planned Parenthood pushes to force health insurers to cover all birth control, a coalition of pro-life leaders is sounding the alarm about ella, a drug the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved as an emergency contraceptive despite its ability to kill newly-conceived children.
EllaOne, approved unanimously by an FDA advisory panel June 17, is advertised as effective "contraception" up to five days, or 120 hours after intercourse. However, pro-life leaders and experts have castigated the FDA for approving the drug as a contraceptive despite the fact that its chemical make-up and function are nearly identical to the abortion drug RU-486, which has been linked to the reported deaths of at least twelve women, according to the Family Research Council's tally.
A pro-life coalition, including Students for Life of America, the Family Research Council, Life Issues Institute, the Human Life Alliance, and Concerned Women for America, has created a website aimed at revealing the truth behind the drug. The drug's packaging contains no reference to its potential to kill embryonic children.
In a Family Research Council video, Dr. Donna Harrison explains that RU-486 is the "parent drug" of ella. "They are of the same class of drugs," says Harrison, "which is progesterone reception modulators" - a function that can block conception, but also disallows an already-conceived embryo from receiving nourishment in its mother's womb.
The Ella Causes Abortion website now features a downloadable flyer by the Family Research Council petitioning pharmacists not to stock the abortifacient drug.
"By labeling ella an EC [emergency contraceptive], the FDA is denying informed consent to women who will take ella AND to pharmacists who will not know that ella can cause an abortion," states the flyer. "Pharmacists who are asked to fill prescriptions for ella have an ethical right to know that the drug may cause an abortion and women desiring to purchase ella have a right to know it may cause an abortion."
Planned Parenthood has meanwhile launched a campaign to make birth control available for free to every woman under federal health care reform - a plan that, coupled with the devastating effects of ella, would unleash abortions on an unprecedented scale throughout the country.
"Affordable prescription birth control is an essential part of health care for millions of women," states Planned Parenthood on its political action website. "The time has come to provide birth control at no cost to every woman who wants it."
The organization has launched a petition to urge the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to interpret the new health reform law to "require health plans to provide prescription birth control to women with no co-pays" as part of "preventive care."
Perhaps the only direct challenge to Planned Parenthood's campaign so far has come from the USCCB, which argued in a letter to the HHS last month that birth control is not preventive health care at all, since “abortion is not itself a disease condition, but a separate procedure that is performed only by agreement between a woman and a health professional."
The letter also pointed to the link between contraception and higher abortion rates among unintended pregnancies.
"[Contraception] is almost always prescribed for personal or lifestyle reasons, not for any specific medical justification, and it poses its own serious risks and side-effects, some of which can be life-threatening," they wrote. "Use of prescription contraception actually increases a woman's risk of developing some of the very conditions that the 'preventive' listed in the Interim Final Rules are designed to prevent."
The USCCB also noted that forcing health insurers to cover birth control would amount to "an unprecedented threat to rights of conscience for religious employers."
"Currently, [employers and insurance providers] are completely free under federal law to purchase and offer health coverage that excludes these procedures," they wrote. "They would lose this freedom of conscience under a mandate for all plans to offer contraception and sterilization coverage."
Video -- http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10101206.html
Related: http://www.christian.org.uk/news/video-contraception-drug-acts-to-induce-abortions/
[12 Oct 2010, Kathleen Gilbert, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10101206.html]
Ella Drug Causes Abortions, Pro-Life Groups Held WebCast Showing How
The concern about the ella abortion drug the FDA recently approved is so great that a collection of pro-life groups has put together an informative webcast planned for Tuesday evening to explain how the so-called expanded morning after pill causes abortions.
The new drug ella has been sold to the public as an expanded and improved version of the Plan B drug and one that can be used to prevent pregnancy days after sexual intercourse.
But, at that point, conception [fertilization] has already occurred and the drug will destroy the life of a unique human being -- a conception the organizers of the webcast will explain in scientific detail.
The webcast, entitled "What They Won't Tell You About ella and Abortion," will feature Wendy Wright from Concerned Women for America, Jeanne Monahan from the Family Research Council, and Dr. Angela Lanfranchi from the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. LifeNews.com is a co-sponsor of the pro-life educational forum.
Kristan Hawkins, the director of Students for Life of America and the main organizer of the panel, talked with LifeNews.com about the upcoming event.
“As many people know, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. During this month, numerous organizations and companies have been promoting women’s health issues. In that spirit, Students for Life of America decided to organize an educational webcast to inform women about two topics they will rarely hear about," she said.
That includes "the dangers of the ella abortion pill and the link between abortion and breast cancer."
"Our webcast was specifically designed to unveil the dangerous effects of ella and abortion on women, which have been suppressed by the pro-abortion industry in an effort to increase their profits. On Tuesday’s webcast, we will ask participants to take action to inform women of the dangerous side effects of ella, as well as educate women about the link between abortion and breast cancer," Hawkins explained.
Hawkins says the public needs to understand that what the media and abortion industry fail to tell women is that abortion is one of the best predictors of breast cancer and can increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer by 30%.
She also wants participants to know the FDA approved ella and labeled it as a contraceptive instead of what it really is, an abortion drug like RU 486.
"Make sure to join us for this important webcast where we will explain these dangerous facts and give you the tools you need to take action in your community and on your campus," she said.
Related web sites:
Pro-Life Webcast on Ella and Breast Cancer -
http://www.studentsforlife.org/ella-webcast Ella Causes Abortions - http://www.ellacausesabortions.com
[October 22, 2010, Washington, DC (LifeNews.com]
ELLA: COMPLICATIONS IN A DEVELOPING TEEN
Dr. Donna Harrison, OBGYN, voices her concerns about the FDA’s approval of the emergency contraception drug ella and the effects that drug may have in a developing teenage girl. This drug could have long-term effects on the ovary’s ability to determine the proper amounts of the hormones estrogen and progesterone. FDA approval now does not equal a safe product.
What is the effect of “Ella” on a teenage woman’s body?
by Jeanne Monahan
October 13, 2010
Today Dr. Donna Harrison, OBGYN and president of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) completes our educational series on ella by discussing safety concerns for adolescent women who might take ella.
The FDA issued no age limitations for ella. Dr. Harrison explains that no studies have been completed concerning the impact of ella on a developing female teenager.
She explains that adolescent girls require estrogen and progesterone to properly develop, and therefore the impact of impeding this development could potentially be serious. For example, it is not known if a young woman might have difficulty in recovering ovarian activity once it has been intentionally blocked.
Dr. Harrison makes the point that more studies should take place to assure ella’s safety for young women.
Watch the video clip to learn more. Please send this to the women in your life.
Women deserve to know the truth about ella and how it will work on their bodies and babies -- http://www.frcblog.com/2010/10/what-is-the-effect-of-ella-on-a-teenage-womans-body/
[13 Oct 2010, http://www.frcblog.com/2010/10/what-is-the-effect-of-ella-on-a-teenage-womans-body/ ; OCT 25, 2010, www.abstinence.net]
Current Headlines 
