Harvard's Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Study

Here's a Reuters article in the Boston Globe.

I could only get the abstract of the study since the full thing costs money.

The thing that stood out to me in the abstract was the percentage of women whom reported having had abortions (15%) vs. having had miscarriages (21%). To me the percentage having abortions seems low. From all the statistics I've seen, the number of abortions performed nationally in a certain year is usually higher than the estimated number of miscarriages. In Michigan, our abortion rate is 11.6 (the national rate is probably in the high teens) and yet Michigan's estimated number of miscarriages is only slightly higher than abortions. If Michigan's abortion rate was higher (as it was in the 80's) and close to where the national average is now, then there would be around 20% more abortions than miscarriages. The percentages in the study show the exact opposite with there being 26% more women reporting miscarriages (21,753) than abortions (16,118). Oddly, reporting bias is typically how pro-choice groups try to discount studies which show a link between abortion and breast cancer though I don't know if they've done this by comparing reported miscarriages vs. reported abortions. The lead author even notes in the Reuters article her way of starting with women who didn't have breast cancer was supposed to help prevent reporting bias (though it also would exclude women who already had breast cancer and previously had abortions).

With regards to reporting bias, the authors of older abortion-breast cancer study, which found "among parous women (women who've given birth) a history of induced abortion was associated with a 90% increased risk of breast cancer," suggest the stronger association between breast cancer and abortion in certain regions of Netherlands could be because of reporting bias.

The AP article on the Harvard study includes this paragraph:

What evidence shows is that childbearing before the age of 35 reduces a woman's risk of developing breast cancer, and breast-feeding also helps, said the new study's lead author, Karin Michels of Harvard Medical School. Scientists believe breast cells that have gone through a full-term pregnancy gain protection against cancer, she said.

The article asserts childbearing before 35 and breastfeeding help protect against breast cancer and that breast cells which have gone thru a full term pregnancy gain protection against cancer. Wouldn't the average person after reading that think: Doesn't having an abortion prevent breast cells from going thru at least one full-term pregnancy? Often times before a woman has given birth? If going through full-term birth protects against cancer then wouldn't, at the bare minimum, having an abortion prevent this protection at least until a woman gives birth?

Tags: abortion, breast cancer

More on the use of the term "abortion doctors"

Stuart Buck points out that Gloria Feldt used the terminology "abortion doctor" herself at least once when she was President of Planned Parenthood and Ed Whelan points out where NARAL uses the same terminology on their web page.

Meanwhile, the liberal Think Progress cites Ginsberg's dissent for how putting the word "abortion" before "doctor" is "based on a deep hostility to women's rights."

Gloria, Gloria, Gloria

In some ways, I miss Gloria Feldt being the president of Planned Parenthood because I miss reading and just laughing out loud and how ridiculous what some of what she writes is.

Case in point - this post at the RH Reality Check blog about the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart.

She scolds Justice Anthony Kennedy for using the terminology "abortion doctor" in his majority opinion. She writes, "Why did he not simply refer to doctors as "doctors", or if ob/gyns call them "ob/gyns"? If another surgical procedure were under scrutiny, would he have he referred to "tonsillectomy doctor" or "hysterectomy doctor"?"

I wonder if Gloria would also like to attack pro-choice writer Katha Politt who used the terminology "abortion doctor" in a 2006 article entitled Pro-choice Puritans. Or maybe Gloria should scold abortionist Suzanne Poppema who has written a book entitled "Why I am an Abortion Doctor"

Or maybe she should chastise her former organization which has used the terminology "abortion doctor" on their web site and gave a Maggie award (named after Margaret Sanger) to a Glamour magazine article entitled "An Abortion Doctor's Diary of Terror."

Tags: gloria feldt, abortion doctor

Friday Cat Blogging

Somebody needs to spend more time exercising and less time at the food bowl.

Overheard

"Roe nevertheless survives as symbol, and a very powerful symbol it is. A confused and confusing pro-choice majority on the Court clings to it like a drowning man clutching at a life preserver. Aging feminists rally 'round it as the sine qua non of their liberation from antediluvian religious authority and male bondage. Postmodernists of various stripes, who look to the Court as the font of endlessly evolving constitutional aspiration, continue to hail it as the moral equivalent of Brown v. Board of Education. Roe also hovers like a malign shadow, omnipresent even if not always explicitly acknowledged, over increasingly nasty judicial confirmations; and in the larger political realm, the case remains the supreme iconic representation of the differences that divide "red" and "blue" America. No Democrat can hope to be nominated without performing obsequies before Roe's altar, and the current boomlet for Rudy Giuliani notwithstanding, it seems unlikely that a Republican can be nominated who fails to distance himself from the decision's moral and legal implications."
- Michael Uhlmann:

"That's just a lay term made up to incite the public.... What they describe could be actually almost any abortion procedure."
- Dr. Amy Meg Autry, a clinical professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California at San Francisco, regarding the language of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 used to describe partial-birth abortion which says, " the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which --

(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that theperson knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus;"


"If any doctors are still confused maybe I can put it in even simpler terms: If the baby's whole head is sticking out, don't kill her; if the baby's bottom half is sticking out and you can see where the umbilical cord attaches, don't kill him. If you're still confused then you need to put down the head-crushing forceps. For while you might be evil enough to be an abortionist, you're too dumb to be a doctor."
- Joe Carter

"It was the best decision I have ever made"

Almost a year after originally posting (this was the post where an abortion clinic worker commented "Your pregnancy now is a tiny sac, the size of a peanut, with some liquid on the inside") her thoughts about the possibility of having an abortion to LiveJournal's Abortion Info page, a young woman came back to say she decided to have the baby and it was the best decision she ever made.

Who wants partial-birth abortions?

Don't you love the start of this AP article?

Women who want a controversial abortion procedure for health reasons have few options beyond going to court and trying to prove that a Supreme Court decision banning the practice should not apply.

Because you know all those women looking for late term abortions enter an abortion clinic, look over the menu which describes different abortion procedures and then decide they want the procedure where the abortion provider will dilate their cervix for 2 days, fully deliver the unborn child except the head, use an object (be it scissors, a finger or something else) to puncture the child's skull so the contents of the child's brain contents will come out and the head can be removed.

The most hilarious part of all the wailing pro-choice organizations are doing is when they act like pregnant women are the ones who choose this procedure and will be greatly hurt because one of their options is no longer legal.

Partial-birth abortion is a method some abortionist prefer. It's not a procedure method pregnant women are clamoring to choose over other abortion procedures.

Tags: partial birth abortion

The Push for Human Cloning in Michigan Continues

Andy Meisner has reintroduced legislation to legalize human cloning for research and the killing of human embryos for research in Michigan. This legislation, H.B. 4616, no longer merely crosses the term embryo out and deceptively changes the definition of human cloning. Instead it provides an add-on saying killing human embryos is permitted as long as they're being killed for their stem cells and they meet certain criteria. There's also an add-on allowing human cloning which says,

"the utilization of a somatic cell nuclear transplantation procedure which was for the sole purpose of creating nuclear transfer blastocysts for the extraction of embryonic stem cells. As used in this subdivision, "blastocyst" means an embryo that has developed to a stage where it consists of a sphere made up of an outer layer of cells, a fluid-filled cavity, and an inner cell mass."

Notably, this legislation actually admits that a embryo is created via somatic cell nuclear transfer. Meisner's past pro-cloning legislation labeled human embryos created by cloning as "resulting product(s)."

But why is this specific change in wording being enacted? Were opponents of Meisner's original legislation correct when they labeled it deceptive? And if so, then should the Michigan Senate pass legislation introduced this year by Gretchen Whitmer (S.B. 52) which uses the same language as Meisner's former legislation?

Proponents of human cloning for research will also continue to claim they're trying to "strengthen Michigan's cloning ban" with H.B. 4617 which adds 5 years onto the punishment for human cloning (except of course human cloning to create "nuclear transfer blastocysts for the extraction of embryonic stem cells").

Tags: stem cell, human cloning, michigan, meisner, h.b. 4616

Ginsberg's dissent

While reading Justice Ginsberg's dissent one thing that stood out to me was how she seems to believe the testimony of abortionists (who perform partial-birth abortions) are significantly more authoritative than the testimony of physicians who deal with maternal health problems during pregnancies but who don't perform partial-birth abortions. Starting on page 12 of her dissent, Ginsberg writes,

In this insistence, the Court brushes under the rug the District Courts' wellsupported findings that the physicians who testified that intact D&E is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman had slim authority for their opinions. They had no training for, or personal experience with, the intact D&E procedure, and many performed abortions only on rare occasions.

In other words, the government witnesses had slim authority that partial-birth abortion was never necessary to preserve a woman's health simply because they hadn't performed one. What kind of horrible logic is that?

By that logic, an abortionist could know very little about maternal health issues during pregnancy but be an expert at performing partial-birth abortions and they would have more authority about whether this procedure is necessary to preserve a woman's health simply because they've performed the procedure.

In what other areas of medicine would this argument hold up? Would the testimony of heart experts about the necessity/safety of certain heart procedures or drugs be dismissed simply because they hadn't performed the procedure or prescribed the drugs? Of course not.

This judgement of authority as applied by Ginsberg and also applied in the District Court partial-birth abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft would allow anyone who performs any kind of procedure to have their testimony held in higher esteem than anyone else who hasn't performed the procedure regardless of other pertinent qualifications. This contrived judgement of authority is inherently and intentionally biased towards the performer of the procedure. If this judgement of authority stood, how could one then prove a procedure isn't necessary to save the health of the mother? Would doctors have to perform a procedure they think isn't necessary and may feel is even more dangerous than more commonly used procedures to become "experts" on whether a certain procedure secures a woman's health?

"They lack only the nerve to take their reasoning to its logical conclusion."

Ten bucks says Ramesh Ponnuru wrote at least this section of the National Review's editorial on the partial-birth abortion decision:

The liberal dissenters have not merely made a minor logical error here. Take their argument seriously for a moment. They claim that it is conceivable that in some cases, partial-birth abortion is the safest method of abortion, and therefore it has to be allowed. (And it has to be allowed whether or not the pregnancy itself threatens the mother's health.) They further claim that it should make no difference to anyone where the child's feet are positioned when he is aborted.

Let's apply this argument to infanticide. It is conceivable that in some cases removing the child from the womb completely before killing it is the safest option. And surely it should make no difference to any rational person whether the infant was fully within the womb, partly inside it, or all the way out when his skull is crushed? Four justices on the Supreme Court have accepted all the premises for a constitutional right to infanticide. They lack only the nerve to take their reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Adult stem cells restoring vision

Another breakthrough:

A man's vision has been restored by a corneal patch grown from adult stem cells by a team at the University of Melbourne's Centre for Eye Research Australia (CERA) and the Bernard O'Brien Institute of Microsurgery (BOBIM).

The patch, which replicates the cornea, was cultivated from a single stem cell from a donor eye and was transplanted to the surface of the man's eyes.

Breaking: Supreme Court upholds the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Here's a link to the AP story.

It was a 5-4 vote with Justice Kennedy writing the majority decision.

UPDATE:
National Review has posted the text of the decision.

UPDATE #2:
Planned Parenthood can't even bring themselves to say "so-called partial-birth abortion ban" in the brief comments on their web site about the ruling. They call it the "Federal Abortion Ban."

Bench Memos has some opinions on the opinion.

UPDATE #3:
From the decision:

It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.

Tags: supreme court, partial-birth abortion

Why I don't read the Huffington Post

Because when I do, I consistently read things like this post by Robert Elisberg which would be lucky to garner a passing grade in a high school persuasive writing class.

Elisberg seems unaware that
1.) there is a difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells
2.) adult stem cells were the kind of cells which were used to help treat Type 1 diabetes patients in Brazil
3.) President Bush is a big supporter of adult stem cell research
4.) President Bush didn't "veto stem cell research" - he vetoed a bill to expand the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research
5.) The United States government currently provides millions of dollars in funding for both embryonic and adult stem cell research

When you wonder why some people just don't seem to have a clue what's going on with this issue, it's because they're reading the writings of ginormous ignoramuses like Robert Elisberg.

Tags: robert elisberg, stem cell research, huffington post

Life Links 4/17/07

Wesley Smith in First Things on the Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.

Gorsuch also digs deeply into the philosophical issues raised in the debate. He points out that the provision in law that a patient be "terminally ill" in order to qualify for assisted suicide has little rational basis in a policy that places such tremendous emphasis on personal autonomy. After all, if "choice" is the issue, and killing is determined to be an acceptable response to the problem of human suffering, what does dying have to do with it? Many people who are not terminally ill suffer more intensely—and for a far longer period—than do the terminally ill. This being so, why should they be refused access to "aid in dying"?

Rich Lowry has posted Rudy Guiliani's comments at a recent event in Iowa about the abortion issue . Will someone please ask Rudy why he supposedly hates abortion?


A spoof - Opossum Stage May End Abortion Debate

Life Links 4/16/07

A crime prevention officer in South Carolina has been charged with assault with intent to kill after pointing a gun at a woman he impregnanted and demanding that she have an abortion.


In the UK, it is supposedly becoming increasingly harder to get doctors to perform abortions. While I don't doubt a fair portion of doctors don't want to perform abortions, I'm suspicious this might be part of a ploy to allow nurses to perform abortions as is suggested by a spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists.


Wesley Smith on a horrible case where a 17-year-old mother is charged with stabbing her newborn girl 135 times. If newborns aren't "persons," then would this be a crime?

How should pro-choicers deal with prolife signs?

Take ‘em down and throw 'em away. Or at least that's what Eyelid (who heads the abortion information community at myspace) suggests.

Class act, huh?

Imagine the indignant cries (That's a violation of free speech! Fanatical, violent anti-choicers!) if any pro-choice sign of theirs was ever tampered with.

Oh, and when pro-choicers act like women won't reconsider their choice to have an abortion if they see an ultrasound of their child (supposedly because they've already weighed everything and completely understand what they're doing)- read this from someone who seems to still be leaning to having an abortion.

When I saw the ultrasound, I realized that I could not do this - I saw a little clump of life inside of me, and became instantly protective of it. I kept going with the rest of my appointment and scheduled my procedure regardless, because I knew that a crowded abortion clinic would not be the place to discuss this with my boyfriend.

Life Links 4/13/07

Caitlan Moran, a columnist for the London Times, argues that abortion is the ultimate motherly act.

Seriously. It's sickening. Here's just a taste:

By whatever rationale you use, ending a pregnancy 12 weeks into gestation is incalculably more moral than bringing an unwanted child into this world. Or a child that, through no fault of its own, would be the destructor of a marriage, a family, a parent. It's fairly inarguable to say that unhappy children, who then grew into very angry adults, have caused the great majority of mankind's miseries.

"By whatever rationale you use, killing a born child at 12 weeks is incalculably more moral than allowing an unwanted child to stay in this world." Using Moran's thinking shouldn't we then be allowed to kill "unwanted" children at 12 weeks of age simply because they could possibly cause various miseries to mankind. Also, Moran provides no argument to how unwanted children have caused "the great majority of mankind's miseries" because it is somehow "fairly inarguable." I guess that's what happens when you don't have an argument.


In the meantime, in Belgium, half of the children who die before the age of one are euthanized . Around 30% are done because the child will have "an acceptable quality of life" and 16% are done without consulting the parents.

HT: Wesley Smith


Researchers from Germany have transformed stem cells found in bone marrow into premature sperm cells. Some papers have decided to run this story leading with how this research could possibly create sperms cells from women so lesbians could have biological children.

Clinging to your beliefs

I'm always amazed at how some people can cling to what they think is true (seemingly based solely on how they feel/what they think is commonsense) when there's a mountain of evidence which shows what they think isn't true. This letter to the editor in the Portsmouth Herald/Seacoastonline is a perfect example of that. The writers writes,

I don't agree with partial-birth abortion, I consider it brutal and believe it should not be legal.

However, I don't believe for an instant that the fetus is cut open at the neck so that the brain can be sucked out. What would be the point? Those are "facts" that are presented for the sole purpose of sensationalism, not truth. And gullible, idealistic young people (and older people) are the pawns in this plan. The procedure destroys the fetus; there is no life left. The brain, whatever there is there, is not active.

Imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to hold this kind of position. The writer believes partial-birth abortion exists and thinks it is a brutal procedure which shouldn't be legal yet doesn't believe the procedure involves puncturing the child's skull and removing her brains.

The writer also doesn't understand what the point of removing the brains out would be. Let's try to think about this for a second. The writer believes that partially-born children are killed through partial-birth abortion. How do you think he or she thinks the children get killed? I'm having a hard time coming up with how this individual thinks the child dies. Does she think the child dies while the abortionist is pulling most of the child out? How does he or she imagine the head is delivered? How does the procedure "destroy the fetus" in his or her mind?

This situation reminds me of an earlier situation awhile ago when a friend of mine told me he had a co-worker who didn't believe partial-birth abortion existed. I guess he thought it was all completely made up. If I recall correctly, I e-mailed my friend some of the court transcripts of abortionists describing how they perform partial-birth abortion and Martin Haskell's instructional paper describing how he performs partial-birth abortions which my friend then passed on to his co-worker. The response from his co-worker was something like this, "Thanks, but I'm doing my own research and that's not what I'm looking for."

Tags: partial-birth abortion

Self-abortion charge update

According to this news story, the woman in New York who tried to abort her pregnancy by combining over-the-counter and prescription drugs is still pregnant. The story also notes she has 3 children and there is a history of domestic violence between her and her husband. A hospital representative sums up the situation by saying,

"She obviously has some problems that led her to a desperate act, and I hope she gets the help that she needs," Greenwood said. "She's obviously feeling very desperate."

I think this is definitely one of those situations where abortion is not going to solve this woman's problems.

Stem cell votes and President's statement

Here's the roll call votes on S. 5 (the legislation to expand the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research) and S. 30 (the bill to promote research on means of obtaining pluripotent stem cells without the destruction of living human embryos).

The President has issued a statement saying he will veto S. 5.

Tags: stem cell legislation