I’m grateful to AAPLOGfor drawing my attention to yet another study showing a strong link between abortion and mental illness.The paper, titled ‘Associations Between Abortion, Mental Disorders, and Suicidal Behaviour in a Nationally Representative Sample’ was published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry in April 2010 and confirmed ‘a strong association between abortion and mental disorders’.
As such it adds further support to the landmark meta-analysis by Priscilla Coleman which I highlighted on this blog in August which showed that abortion raises the risk of mental health problems by an average of 81%.
The Canadian researchers used the National Co-morbidity Survey (NCS) replication data collected between 2001 and 2003. Key points (courtesy of AAPLOG) are:
• A large nationally representative US sample was examined for associations between abortion and life-time prevalence of numerous mental disorders and suicidal behaviors.
• Pro-choice researchers frequently claim the associations between abortion and mental health problems in the literature are due to an unmeasured history of violence exposure being related to both the choice to abort and to mental health problems. These researchers tested this assumption by controlling for violence in all the analyses conducted. They also controlled for age, education, marital status, household income, and ethno-racial background.
• The results revealed statistically significant associations between abortion history and a wide range of mental health problems after controlling for the experience of interpersonal violence and demographic variables.
• When compared to women without a history of abortion, those who had an abortion had a 61% increased risk for Mood Disorders. Social Phobia was linked with a 61% increased risk and suicide ideation with a 59% increased risk.
• In the area of substance abuse, the increased risk for alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, drug abuse, drug dependence, and any substance use disorder were equal to 261%, 142%, 313%, 287%, and 280% respectively.
• Between 5.8% and 24.7% of the national prevalence of all the above disorders was determined to be related to abortion.
The forces of mainstream psychology are bent on proving that abortion is a benign psychological experience for most women. The American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force report of 2008 is a classic example of this agenda (See AAPLOG critique)
This Canadian report represents the latest in a series of articles from across the globe (US, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, and South Africa) published in recent years directly contradicting the findings of the APA Task Force report.
Large scale, well-controlled studies using sophisticated data analysis methodologies consistently confirm a relationship between abortion and psychological distress that the national professional organization has dismissed.
Archive for the ‘Abortion’ Category
Posted in Abortion, Health Care, tagged AAPLOG, Abortion, Care Not Killing Alliance, Christian Medical Fellowship, Dr. Peter Saunders, Health Care, lifenews.com, mental disorders, mental health, National Co-morbidity Survey, NCS on November 3, 2011|
Susan G. Komen For The Cure And Planned Parenthood, Abortion/Breast Cancer Connection – Updated 7/19/11
Posted in Abortion, Health Care, Media, Politics, Religion, tagged ABC, Abortion, breast cancer, Catholic, Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer, Eric Winer, FOCA, Jill Stanek, Life Issues Institute, Lifeissues.org, LifeSiteNews.com, Nancy Brinker, Planned Parenthood, pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-life, Race For The Cure, Susan G. Komen for the Cure on July 19, 2011|
On Wednesday, a dear friend of mine sent me an e-mail about donating to “Susan G. Komen for the Cure” to help fight breast cancer. She has a friend who has breast cancer, so she’s doing a walk for that organization. I e-mailed her back telling her that I couldn’t help her with her cause because of the links between Komen and Planned Parenthood. It turns out that, on their website, Komen has dedicated a page and several PDF’s to soften their Planned Parenthood link and to out-rightly dismiss scientific studies that link breast cancer with abortion.
I read the letter from Komen’s Chief Scientific Advisor Eric Winer that tries to downplay Komen’s relationship with Planned Parenthood. That is exactly what he is trying to do. The first three paragraphs don’t even deal with the subject, but promote their own “good nature”.
The best, or worst depending on how you look at it, line in the entire letter is “As part of our financial arrangements, we monitor our grantees twice a year to be sure they are spending the money in line with our agreements, and we are assured that Planned Parenthood uses these funds only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs.” (emphasis mine)
First off, they freely admit to giving money to Planned Parenthood! If you had any doubts, there it is from Dr. Winer, himself, with no coverup. His statement is naive at best and downright idiotic at worst. This is like saying someone donates to the KKK, but it’s OK because they assure us they only use it for cake and punch, or they give money to neo-nazis, but that is also OK because they assure us they only use it for prostate exams. This definitely reads more like some bad joke than what Dr. Winer believes, but, alas, it is true. Even if they only used the money for cancer screenings, that means they don’t have to use their existing funds for those screenings, giving them even more resources to fund their abortions, contraception, “education”, and advertising. If you donate to Komen, part of that, without a doubt, goes directly to Planned Parenthood. Dr. Winer makes that unashamedly clear.
Nancy Brinker, who founded the Susan G. Komen Foundation, was, herself, on the advisory board of Planned Parenthood of Dallas, and has received the Gertrude Shelburne Humanitarian Award from them. Between April 2005 and March 2006, Komen affiliates gave $711,485 to Planned Parenthood.
After learning about the link between Planned Parenthood and Komen, Council Board member Eve Sanchez-Silver resigned. She has gone around the country giving talks about Komen and the link between breast cancer and abortion.
Dr. Winer goes on to say that Catholics approve of the Komen foundation. Well, some may, but many have issued statements against Komen and warned their congregations about participating with them. Catholics also voted for Barack Obama, who is the most liberal, pro-abortion President in our nation’s history. Several Cardinals have called for Obama voters to abstain from Communion until they repent for voting for him.
Dr. Winer also repeats their mantra of denying the link between abortion and breast cancer and that studies contradict other studies that confirm the link. A group dedicated to informing women about the abortion-breast cancer link is the Coalition On Abortion/Breast Cancer. They have information specifically dedicated to abortion’s link to breast cancer including information about cancer fundraising groups’ dismissal of the link.
20) I know that abortion industry experts concede that women who have abortions lose the risk-reducing benefit of childbearing. However, apart from that effect, aren’t there studies showing that an abortion raises risk very little or not at all, in comparison to not having had that pregnancy?
Yes. There are several studies that report these results. Unfortunately, when you read about it in the press, journalists often don’t understand the differences between the two cancer risks of abortion.
For instance, Valerie Beral and her colleagues published a paper in the British journal Lancet in 2004 that has been widely used to convince women that abortion is “safe.” 
The Beral paper only examined the debated breast cancer risk. Its authors conceded the recognized risk of abortion – that childbearing protects women from the disease.
“Unfortunately, misinformation has circulated in the media following an article published last year in the British medical journal The Lancet,” noted Andrew Schlafly, General Counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “The article did not deny that increased abortions result in greater incidence of breast cancer. Rather, the article merely claimed that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer, compared to the risk of someone who delayed pregnancy altogether.” 
Four experts, independently of one another, sharply criticized the Beral paper. [21,32,33,34,35] Some of the criticisms include:
1) Beral et al. did not compare groups of women who were physiologically the same. They should have compared pregnant women who aborted to pregnant women who carried their pregnancies to term. Instead, they compared the effect of aborting with the effect of not having had that pregnancy. Pregnancy brings about permanent changes in the structure of the breasts. Pregnant women who choose abortion should be compared to pregnant women who give birth after a full term pregnancy.
2) Twenty-eight out of 52 studies (a majority of the research) contained unpublished abortion data. That means that scientists cannot double-check those studies to determine if they’re flawed or if the research is even relevant. Women just have to take their word for it.
3) Beral et al. used unscientific reasons to exclude 14 peer-reviewed, published studies that reported risk increases for women who had abortions.
Ed Furton, MA, Ph.D., editor of the journal, Ethics and Medics, severely criticized the Beral paper. He said:
“The Beral study is therefore cause for alarm. When a leading scientific journal allows its pages to be used as a political platform, and sets aside objective standards of scientific research, we must begin to wonder whether the spirit of (Jacques) Derrida has infected even scientific discourse….
“Picking conclusions ahead of time, and arranging the evidence to support them, will only serve to undermine the respect that scientific inquiry deserves….
“The unwillingness of scientists to speak out against the shoddy research that is being advanced by those who deny the abortion-breast cancer link is a very serious breach…
“When the public learns that a causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been downplayed by the scientific community – for reasons that are ideological rather than factual – the feeling of betrayal will be strong.” 
Professor Joel Brind at Baruch College in New York concurs with Ed Furton. He has documented widespread bias in the scientific community against the abortion-breast cancer link. In a major paper for the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, he cited flawed research that is being used in press reports to erase any notions in the public mind that abortion is unsafe. 
In a subsequent paper for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published in 2005, Brind reviewed ten recent, prospective studies and concluded that they are seriously flawed. He wrote:
“Collectively, these studies are found to embody many serious weaknesses and flaws, including cohort effects, substantial misclassification errors due to missing information in databases, inadequate follow-up times, inadequately controlled effects of confounding variables, and frank violations of the scientific method. These recent studies therefore do not invalidate the large body of previously published studies that established induced abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.” 
Although these studies have been criticized in a medical journal for their flaws, the abortion industry and the cancer fundraising industry use them to convince women of the safety of abortion. These studies include:
Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-85.
Lazovich D, Thompson JA, Mink PJ, Sellers TA, Anderson KE. Induced abortion and breast cancer risk. Epidemiology 2000;11:76-80.
Tang NC, Weiss NS, Malone KE. Induced abortion in relation to breast cancer among parous women: A birth certificate registry study. Epidemiology 2000;11:177-80.
Goldacre MJ, Kurina LM, Seagroatt V, Yeates. Abortion and breast cancer: a case-control record linkage study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:336-337.
Ye Z, Gao DL, Qin Q, Ray RM, Thomas DB. Breast cancer in relation to induced abortions in a cohort of Chinese women. Br J Cancer 2002;87:977-981.
Newcomb PA, Mandelson MT. A record-based evaluation of induced abortion and breast cancer risk (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2000;11:777-781.
Erlandsson G, Montgomery S, Cnattingius S, et al. Abortions and breast cancer: Record-based case-control study. Int J Cancer 2003;103:676-679.
Paoletti X, Clavel-Chapelon F, E3N group. Induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk: Results from the E3N cohort study. Int J Cancer 2003;106:270-276.
Brewster D, Stockton D, Dobbie R, Bull D, Beral D. Risk of breast cancer after miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record linkage case-control study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2005;59:283-287.
Palmer J, Wise L, Adams-Campbell LL, Rosenberg L. A prospective study of induced abortion and breast cancer in African-American women. Cancer Causes and Control 2004;15:105-111.
For more information, see Dr. Brind’s review article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons at: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf
In 2007, Patrick Carroll, a British statistician and actuary, reported that abortion is the “best predictor” of breast cancer rates in eight European countries (including the U.K.), and fertility is also a useful predictor of those trends. [39,40] Carroll demonstrated that he could predict future breast cancer cases for England and Wales for the years 2003 and 2004 with nearly 100% accuracy by using abortion rates and, to a lesser extent, fertility rates in his mathematical model.
They also state:
Most of the risk factors associated with breast cancer involve estrogen overexposure. Women who experience more menstrual cycles are exposed to higher levels of estradiol, a form of estrogen, over the course of their lifetimes. Women who reach puberty at an early age or menopause at a late age or who have fewer or no children, experience more menstrual cycles. Ergo, they are known have a higher risk of breast cancer. Women who have more children and who nurse them, on the other hand, experience fewer menstrual cycles and reduce their risk of breast cancer by doing so. Similarly, a low fat diet and avoidance of alcohol reduce a woman’s exposure to estrogen.
Estrogen is a secondary carcinogen. It promotes the growth of normal and abnormal tissue. In fact, estrogen replacement therapy, which is generally the same chemical form as the estrogen naturally produced by a woman’s ovaries, was included on our nation’s list of known carcinogens in 2001.
For an exhaustive explanation of estrogen’s role in the promotion of breast cancer, see the Web Site for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute at and click on “The Estrogen Connection,” www.BCPInstitue.org.
The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains unrefuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.
A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy – after 32 weeks gestation – that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.
When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.
If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.
If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated — and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells — than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.
In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.
For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, www.BCPInstitute.org and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”
The first epidemiological study was reported in an English language journal in 1957. Researchers found a 160% elevation in risk among women who’d obtained abortions. [Segi M., et al. GANN (1957); 48 (Suppl): 1-63]
The first study to examine the abortion-breast cancer link among American women was published in 1981 and reported that abortion “appears to cause a substantial increase in risk of subsequent breast cancer.” A 140% risk elevation was reported. [Pike MC et al., British Journal of Cancer (1981;43:72-6]
Howe et al. 1989, the only statistically significant study conducted on American women in which medical records of abortion were used, not interviews after the fact, reported a 90% increased risk of breast cancer among women in New York who had chosen abortion. [Howe et al. (1989) Int J Epidemiol 18:300-4]
Our bar graphs reveal the relative risk found for each epidemiological study. These graphs were developed for our website by Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., author of the book, Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill.
Let me give you the simple version of how the ABC works:
When a women has her monthly cycle, her breasts fill with a cancer causing toxin (estrogen). When she becomes pregnant, her cycle stops for the 9-month period. That in itself has always been an indisputable key factor to lowering breast cancer. The earlier a woman completes a full-term pregnancy, the better, and the more children, the better. Breastfeeding also helps stave off breast cancer. But in addition, when a pregnancy is suddenly aborted, breasts that were preparing to nourish a baby are left with more undifferentiated, i.e., cancer-vulnerable cells, than before she was pregnant. The fact is, abortion can increase a woman’s risk factor up to 160%!
LifeSiteNews.com has published an article now detailing that Komen has been granting money for embryonic stem cell research. The evidence comes from Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.
Now, Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer has spent time examining Komen’s 990 Forms for the IRS for 2010 and she found that Komen has active relationships with at least five research groups or educational facilities that engage in embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of unborn children in their earliest days for stem cells that have yet to help any patients.
Komen is careful in its documents to state that none of the funds directly support embryonic stem cell research, saying in its Group Return for 2010 under a section entitled “Grant Statement” that “While Komen affiliates do not fund research grants directly, a portion of the funds raised by every Komen affiliate (approximately 25%) go to support the research and training grants program at Komen’s International Headquarters.”
The return shows donations from Komen totaling $3.75 million to Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, $4.5 million to the University of Kansas Medical Center, $1 million to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, $1 million to the Society for Women’s Health Research, and $600,000 to Yale University.
Looking at those institutions, Yale not only engages in embryonic stem cell research but, in 2006, came under federal investigation for apparently mismanaging federal stem cell research grants. Also, a Johns Hopkins researcher also came under fire in December 2008 for trashing peer-reviewed research showing abortion’s link to negative mental health issues and problems for women. And the National Cancer Institute has been repeatedly blasted by pro-life advocates for denying the abortion-breast cancer link exists.
“Komen’s Parent Return for 2010 shows that millions of dollars in grants were given to research facilities that have policies supporting experiments on human embryos,” Malec says, adding that the list of schools is only a partial list of the facilities engaging in embryonic research that received grants.
Recent statements from the Catholic Bishop of Toledo, the Most Reverend Leonard Blair, bring up both abortion and the potential of Komen indirectly supporting embryonic research as reasons for Catholics to have misgivings about the breast cancer group. Malec says the statements from Bishop Blair “suggest that local Komen officials may have misled him and his associates with respect to the organization’s practices involving experiments on human embryos.”
“They are open to embryonic stem cell research and may well fund such research in the future,” the bishop noted.
Combined with the millions in donations to the nation’s biggest abortion business, Komen says the new information about the Komen ties to embryonic stem cell research centers makes it so the breast cancer group is not worthy of support. She says Komen needs to be honest with women about the abortion-breast cancer connection.
“It’s more than ironic that Planned Parenthood receives contributions from an organization allegedly dedicated to the eradication of breast cancer,” Malec says. “Abortion and the birth control pill – which Planned Parenthood sells – are risk factors for the disease. It’s certainly bad for business to tell women the truth about the abortion-breast cancer link. Knowledge of that risk would cause some to turn their backs on induced abortion and cut into Planned Parenthood’s profits.”
“On the other hand, warning women about the breast cancer risk of abortion would mean fewer breast cancer patients and, therefore, a reduction in donations for Komen. Telling donors that their previous abortions may have been responsible for their breast cancers is simply not a good fundraising tactic,” she concludes.
Before anyone starts formulating their arguments: does this mean that everyone who gets an abortion will get breast cancer? No. Did everyone with breast cancer have an abortion in the past? No. Does having an abortion increase the risk of breast cancer. Undeniably, yes.
This is the simple truth: Susan G. Komen for the Cure gives money and resources to Planned Parenthood. That alone should give you cause for great concern, but they also deny critical information to women about the link between abortions and breast cancer.
If you support Susan G. Komen for the Cure, congratulations, you help support abortion.
Helpful Information: Fact Sheet by Life Issues Institute Linking Susan G. Komen with Planned Parenthood
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
Jill Stanek’s Blog
Life Issues Institute
OneNewsNow Reports On The Komen/Planned Parenthood Link
Planned Parenthood Encourages HIV-Infected Youth To Have Sex, Not Tell Their Partners About Their Infection
Posted in Abortion, Education, Health Care, News, Politics, Religion, tagged AIDS, Austin Ruse, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, CNSNews, CNSNews.com, Girl Scouts USA, HIV, International Planned Parenthood Foundation, Planned Parenthood, U.N., United Nations on April 9, 2010|
CNSNews brings us a story where the International Planned Parenthood Federation has published a guide that encourages HIV-infected youth to have sex, not tell their sexual partners they are infected, and denounces laws requiring persons with sexually transmitted diseases to tell their sexual partners or face criminal charges.
Planned Parenthood Guide Tells HIV-Infected Youth to Enjoy Sex, Denounces Laws on Disclosure of HIV/AIDS to Sexual Partners
Friday, April 09, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer(CNSNews.com) – In a guide for young people published by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the organization says it opposes laws that make it a crime for people not to tell sexual partners they have HIV. The IPPF’s “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide also tells young people who have the virus that they have a right to “fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives.”
HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.
“Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else,” the guide states. “These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.”
Under the heading “Sexual Pleasure and Well-Being,” the guide declares that it is a human right and not a criminal issue as to whether a person decides if or when to disclose their HIV status, even if they engage in sexual activities.
“You know best when it is safe for you to disclose your status,” the guide states. “There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of the stigma and discrimination within their community.”
The guide continues: “They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like that they are using injecting drugs or, having sex outside of marriage or having sex with people of the same gender. People in long-term relationships who find out they are living with HIV sometime fear that their partner will react violently or end the relationship.”
“Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure,” the guide states under the heading “Sexual Pleasure; Have Fun Explore and Be Yourself.”
“Sex can feel great and can be really fun!” the guide says. “Many people think sex is just about vaginal and anal intercourse …. But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex.”
“Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking and cuddling,” the guide states. “Some people like aggressive sex, while others like to have soft and slow sex with their partners (sic).”
“It’s a vile and vulgar brochure,” Austin Ruse, president of the United Nations watchdog group Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, told CNSNews.com.
Ruse’s group has been reporting on the “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide in recent weeks after Sharon Slater, president of Family Watch International, attended an event for the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women and found copies of the guide in a room where Girl Scouts were meeting.
The Girls Scouts of the USA released a statement denying they were distributing the guides and suggesting the guides may already have been in the room they were using.
Ruse said that aside from the graphic promotion of sex for young people with HIV, the guide also falsely claims that there are international laws to protect their “human rights.”
“There is no such international right that says that you are not required to reveal your HIV status before having sex,” Ruse said. “There’s no such thing.”
“It is a flat-out lie to say otherwise, and in this brochure it is lies from stem to stern,” he said.
Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, told CNSNews.com: “To the extent that ‘sexual rights’ and ‘reproductive rights’ are mentioned in documents of the U.N. or other international agencies, even informally, these terms often have a meaning contrary to that which IPPF gives them. For example, ‘sexual rights’ usually means the right to say NO to unwanted or coerced sex — not a right to HAVE sex under almost any circumstances.”
“By the same token, ‘reproductive rights’ usually involve the right to have children — not the right to destroy them through abortion,” Sprigg said, adding that laws requiring people to disclose to sexual partners that they have HIV protect people and promote sexual health.
IPPF defends its position, saying laws aimed at people with HIV hurt efforts to prevent the spread of the disease and discriminate unfairly against people who have the virus.
“Punitive laws that criminalise HIV transmission will jeopardise global HIV prevention efforts by acting as a disincentive for knowing one’s HIV status and by incorrectly placing an undue burden of responsibility for all safe sex behaviour on people living with HIV (who in many societies are already marginalised and stigmatised),” Kevin Osborne, IPPF senior advisor on HIV told CNSNews.com. “Alternatives to the criminal law must be used to foster increased HIV prevention efforts and behaviours.”
The guide also makes a plug for Planned Parenthood’s profitable “reproductive services.”
“Your local family planning clinic can help you create a plan, whether it is for having children safely, preventing or terminating unplanned pregnancies, or figuring out how to start a family if you are single or in a same-sex relationship,” the guide states.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America receives more than $350 million of taxpayer funding annually, although federal law prohibits those funds from being used for abortion.
In his early days in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order reversing the Mexico City Policy that prohibited the use of taxpayer funds to promote or provide abortions abroad, opening the way for U.S.-funded abortions around the world.
Posted in Abortion, Health Care, News, Politics, Religion, tagged Abortion, Barack Obama, Bart Stupak, Brian Burch, CatholicVote.org, CNSNews, Democrat, H.R. 3590, liberal, Obama, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama, President Obama, pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-life on March 22, 2010|
CNSNews has this story. Instead of sticking to his (apparent) principles, Rep. Stupak folded into pressure from his fellow demons Democrats and voted for H.R. 3590 because Obama promised to sign an executive order affirming the ban of federal dollars funding abortions. The problem with this is that federal law can override executive orders (the “law” isn’t permanent), and they can be rescinded at any time by the President. Obama also promised to be more transparent and to change the way politics were conducted in Washington, D.C. We’ve all seen how well that has gone.
Stupak Decision Blasted As ‘Unconscionable’
Monday, March 22, 2010
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor(CNSNews.com) – Pro-life activists call it “regrettable” that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) ended up abandoning those who stood by him in his opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion in the Democrats’ health care bill.
Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, said Stupak’s decision to accept the promise of a presidential executive order as a solution to the abortion-funding issue is “unconscionable.”
“The Executive Order fix is a band-aid solution that fails to solve the fundamental problems in this bill, and can be repealed at any time, for any reason, by the president or future presidents. The order is likely to be challenged by pro-abortion groups, and could be struck down by the courts,” Burch said in a news release issued Sunday night.
“The Catholic Bishops along with CatholicVote.org and every major pro-life organization oppose this ‘fix.’ We have defended Rep. Stupak for months, but today we stand in protest of his decision,” Burch added.
Stupak’s last-minute decision to vote in support of the health care bill he opposed for so long made all the difference in Democrats’ getting enough votes for passage.
“Since I was first elected to Congress I have fought to provide quality, affordable health care for all Americans and I am proud to be able to vote for this historic legislation,” Stupak said Sunday in a message posted on his Web site. He said he’s witnessed the struggles that families and employers in his northern Michigan congressional district face under the current system.
“Although this legislation is not perfect and does not do everything I believe is necessary to reform our health insurance industry, it is a tremendous step forward for northern Michigan residents and for our nation,” Stupak said. He said he looks forward to the president signing the health care bill into law.
Stupak has insisted from the beginning that no federal funding be used to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortion. Abortion should not be recognized as a benefit in federal health plans, he said.
To mollify Stupak, President Obama announced he would sign an Executive Order reaffirming that the Hyde amendment can not be circumvented and that no taxpayer dollars would be used to pay for health plans that cover abortion.
“I have said from the start I would not vote for health care reform without adequate protections in place to make sure the current law of no federal funding for abortion is maintained,” Stupak said on Sunday. “The president’s Executive Order upholds the principle that federal funds should not be used to subsidize abortion coverage.”
President Obama promised to sign the Executive Order following passage of H.R. 3590.
But pro-life activists say the Executive Order on abortion funding will further politicize the issue. It will put decisions on taxpayer funding for abortion as well as conscience protections in the hands of Obama, future presidents, and Health and Human Services Secrtary Kathleen Sebelius, Burch said.
“Catholics have worked hard to make the protection of the unborn a two-party effort, and pro-life members of the Democratic Party encouraged these efforts over the last year, Burch noted. He said Stupak’s decision to accept an Executive Order “will be difficult to overcome.”
“We are convinced Rep. Stupak will come to deeply regret today’s decision,” Burch said.
Posted in Abortion, Economy, Health Care, News, Politics, Religion, tagged Alabama, Attorneys General, Barack Obama, CNSNews, Congress, Democrats, Florida, H.R. 3590, Health Care, health care overhaul, lawsuit, Nancy Pelosi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Obama, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pennslyvania, President Barack Obama, President Obama, Reuters, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington on March 22, 2010|
CNSNews has two different stories here and here saying that the lawsuits against the U.S. Government are about to begin as soon as Obama signs the health care legislation (H.R. 3590) into law. The lawsuits are an attempt by States and other agencies to strike down the required health care insurance law in the latest bill.
Update (1/22 @13:29): Reuters reports that 11 Attorneys General are geared to sue the Government after it is signed. The full story is at the bottom.
Health Care Legislation: Here Come the Lawsuits
Monday, March 22, 2010
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor(CNSNews.com) – The American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative civil liberties group, says it is preparing to file a federal lawsuit challenging the “flawed” health care package that passed the House 219-212 on Sunday night.
The law “fails the American people and does not provide permanent protections for the life of the unborn,” the group said in a Sunday night news release.
The ACLJ said it would file a lawsuit “soon” in federal court, challenging the forced mandate that penalizes Americans who choose not to participate in universal health care. “That is unconstitutional, and we believe ultimately it will be overturned by the courts,” it said.
“The fact remains that the actual health care bill just approved does fund abortion,” ACLJ said.
“Those self-proclaimed pro-life Democrats put their trust in an executive order — subject to being rescinded by the president — a move that is not only short-sighted but does not provide the guarantees and pro-life protections secured by statutory language in a law approved by Congress.”
Which President Obama do you believe? ACLJ asked: The president who repeatedly and publicly opposed the pro-life language in the earlier House-passed bill, or the president who now promises an Executive Order to secure the votes he needed to pass a very dangerous health care package?
ACLJ noted that an executive order “is not a legislative fix and does not carry the force of congressionally approved legislation. It does not supersede law. It can be rescinded.”
Another concern, the group said, is that the executive order promised by President Obama will put Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in charge of the funding process – and she is a cabinet member “who has a long and documented history of supporting abortion.”
Virginia Is First to Announce Lawsuit Over Health-Care Bill
Monday, March 22, 2010
By Bob Lewis, Associated Press
Richmond, Va. (AP) – Less than eight hours after Congress passed sweeping healthcare reforms, Virginia’s Attorney General became the first to announce a legal challenge against it.
Republican Ken Cuccinelli said early Monday that he will file a court challenge against what he and other conservatives decry as an unconstitutional overreach of federal authority.
Cuccinelli said he would file the lawsuit as soon as President Barack Obama signs the bill passed Sunday night into law.
Earlier this month, Virginia became the first state to finish legislative passage of a law that bucks any effort by President Barack Obama and an allied Democratic Congress to impose federal health care reform in the states.
Similar measures were filed or proposed in 34 other state legislatures.
Cuccinelli is expected to argue that the bill, with its mandate that requires nearly every American to be insured by 2014, violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The attorney general’s office will file suit once President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which could occur early this week.
“At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service,” Cuccinelli said in a statement Sunday night.
Word of the impending legal action came as the U.S. House debated late into the evening and passed the landmark reform legislation, 219-212.
Update from Reuters:
States launch lawsuits against healthcare planCHICAGOMon Mar 22, 2010 1:21pm EDT
CHICAGO (Reuters) – Less than 24 hours after the House of Representatives gave final approval to a sweeping overhaul of healthcare, attorneys general from several states on Monday said they will sue to block the plan on constitutional grounds.
Republican attorneys general in 11 states warned that lawsuits will be filed to stop the federal government overstepping its constitutional powers and usurping states’ sovereignty.
States are concerned the burden of providing healthcare will fall on them without enough federal support.
Ten of the attorneys general plan to band together in a collective lawsuit on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
“To protect all Texans’ constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation’s founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation,” said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in a statement.
The Republican attorney generals say the reforms infringe on state powers under the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who plans to file a lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, said Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. The bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance, he added.
“If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce,” Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. “If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?”
In addition to the pending lawsuits, bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
So far, only two states, Idaho and Virginia, have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. But the actual enactment of the bill by President Barack Obama could spur more movement on the measures by state lawmakers.
As is the case on the Congressional level, partisan politics is in play on the state level, where no anti-health care reform legislation has emerged in Democrat-dominated states like Illinois and New York, according to the NCSL.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican candidate running for governor, said the mandate would cost Florida at least $1.6 billion in Medicaid alone.
All states would receive extra funding to cover Medicaid costs that are expected to rise under the reform, including 100 percent federal coverage for new enrollees under the plan through 2016.
Medicaid is the healthcare program for the poor jointly administered by the states and federal government.
CNSNews brings us a report explaining that a new study conducted in Chile finds that the pro-abortionist’s arguments that banning abortions will lead to more maternal deaths is false, cutting one if their greatest counterpoints to banning abortions. In fact, the study finds that maternal deaths decreased after abortions were banned.
Abortion Ban Does Not Mean More Maternal Deaths, Chilean Study Finds
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
By Karen Schuberg(CNSNews.com) – Initial findings by a prominent biomedical researcher which examines the drastic drop in maternal deaths in the last 50 years in Chile challenges the claim made by global abortion lobbyists that broad abortion laws are necessary to guard women’s health.
“This study provides evidence that the legal status of the therapeutic abortion is not related with maternal mortality reduction. Moreover, after abortion was prohibited, an additional reduction in maternal and abortion mortality was observed in Chile,” Dr. Elard Koch, an epidemiologist on the faculty of medicine at the University of Chile, said in an e-mail to CNSNews.com.
Illegal abortions do not necessarily correlate with unsafe abortions, Koch continued.
“Although (it) is frequently considered that illegal abortion is related with ‘unsafe abortion’—especially in developing countries with restrictive abortion laws, our preliminary findings suggest that although in Chile abortion is fully clandestine, it occurs in very low-risk sanitary conditions,” Koch explained.
Koch said that education and improved health care access appear to fuel the decrease in maternal deaths in Chile.
“The increasing education level appears as the most important factor predicting maternal mortality reduction in this developing country, likely influencing other factors such as reproductive behavior (fertility rate) and maternal health facilities,” Koch said.
To assess if legal abortion is associated with lower rates of maternal deaths in Chile, Koch examined vital statistics data for maternal deaths from 1960 to 2007.
“Historically, an active epidemiological surveillance in maternal mortality has been carried out in Chile, including deaths by abortion,” Koch said.
Abortion was legal in this Latin American country until 1989 when it was completely outlawed. Abortion was legal from 1931 to 1988.
Koch observed that maternal mortality peaked in 1961, abortion causing 34% of maternal deaths. From 1960 to 2007, total reduction in maternal mortality rates equaled 97.9% – regardless of whether or not abortion was legal.
“The present study provides preliminary evidence that indicates that in Chile, the elimination of therapeutic abortion did not translate into increases in maternal mortality. Thus, access to legal abortion does not appear to be necessary to achieve low rates of maternal deaths,” Koch said.
Koch added that the association between poor education and high maternal mortality should be studied further.
Dr. Susan Yoshihara, vice president for research at Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), told CNSNews.com that Koch’s study is significant because global abortion lobbyists equate illegal abortion with unsafe abortion and claim maternal deaths would decline with liberal abortion laws.
“(Global abortion lobbyists claim) illegal abortion, or unsafe abortion, is causing a certain number of deaths—anywhere between 13,000 and 80,000 a year in the world—and therefore, abortion has to be legalized in order to make it safe. And (they claim) that will save women’s lives,” Yoshihara said.
Yoshihara called the data which abortion supporters cite to make that claim “unsubstantiated” and “unverifiable.”
Yoshihara called the Chilean study “very exciting” because though preliminary, its data is “outstanding,” setting it apart from other studies on maternal mortality rates in developing countries.
“This study is remarkable because Chile, although it is considered a developing country, has outstanding maternal health data dating all the way back to the beginning of the 1900s,” Yoshihara said.
Because this study shows a steady decline in abortion after 1961, it undercuts the abortion lobbyists’ claim that liberal abortion laws are needed to protect women’s health, Yoshihara said.
“And it’s pretty clear that maternal mortality decreased whether or not abortion was legal in that country,” she added.
Yoshihara said both sides of the abortion debate agree that there is a dearth of reliable data on maternal mortality rates in developing countries.
“The reason for that is that the developing world doesn’t keep good records,” she said, explaining, “It’s very rural, (and) they don’t have good health infrastructures.”
Yoshihara said that to make claims based on weak data is unreasonable because “we all know you just can’t get that kind of good data in the developing world.”
She predicted that Koch’s study will be published this year.
Last September, Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion access, said in a report titled “Estimates of Health Care System Costs of Unsafe Abortion in Africa and Latin America” that 19 million unsafe abortions occur each year in developing countries, resulting in approximately 5 million women treated for “serious medical complications.”
The study concludes that the costs of treating medical complications from unsafe abortions significantly burden the public health care systems of the developing world and that post-abortion injuries “are a significant cause of maternal morbidity.”
In a report from last October, Guttmacher Institute President Dr. Sharon Camp states, “Legal restrictions do not stop abortion from happening, they just make the procedure dangerous. Too many women are maimed or killed each year because they lack legal abortion access.”
The report, titled “Abortion and Unintended Pregnancy Decline Worldwide as Contraceptive Use Increases, But Progress Over Past Decade Has Been Uneven, and Unsafe Abortion Remains a Key Challenge to Women’s Health,” also states, “Unsafe abortion causes an estimated 70,000 deaths each year, and an additional five million women are treated annually for complications resulting from unsafe abortion. Approximately three million women who experience serious complications from unsafe procedures go untreated.”
Guttmacher Institute Communications Associate Rebecca Wind declined to comment on the initial findings of Koch’s study.
“(Chile) is not a country we have expertise in, so it’s not something we would comment on,” Wind said.
Koch presented his preliminary findings at the inaugural meeting of Women and Children First: International Working Group for Global Women’s Health Research last January in Washington, D.C.
A consortium of region specific working groups, Women and Children First brings together maternal health researchers from the United States, Peru, Chile, Mexico, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Lithuania, France and several other nations to address the critical need for evidence-based research on maternal mortality causality and methods to decrease maternal mortality.
ABSTRACT FROM KOCH’S STUDY
Is there an association between maternal mortality reduction and abortion legalization? Preliminary data from time series analyses in Chile, 1960 – 2007.
Elard Koch1 on behalf of The Chilean Maternal Mortality Group
1Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Background: Nowadays, the impact of abortion prohibition on maternal mortality trends in developing countries is unknown. Chile offers the opportunity for assessing the impact of different factors related with maternal mortality reduction, including two periods before and after abortion was prohibited in this Latin American country.
Methods: Time series of maternal mortality ratio (MMR) and abortion mortality ratio (AMR) from 1960 to 2007 were analyzed using multiple autoregressive moving average (ARIMA) models. Therapeutic abortion was legal until 1989 and was considered as a dummy variable in statistical analyses along time series of social and demographic factors and maternal health facilities.
Results: During the study period, MMR decreased from 293.7 to 18.2 per 100,000 live births (-93.8%); AMR decreased form 92.5 to 1.7 per 100,000 live births (-98.1%). No significant effect of legal and illegal abortion periods on these decreasing trends was observed in ARIMA models. After abortion was fully prohibited, MMR and AMR decreased from 41.3 to 18.2 (-44.1%) and 16.5 to 1.7 (-10.3%) per 100,000 live births respectively. The average of education years, illiteracy rate, GDP per-capita, and the percentage of delivery by skilled attendants were all significant predictors of MMR. The same factors along decreasing fertility rate were significant predictors of AMR trends.
Conclusions: Reductions in MMR and AMR are not related with legal/illegal therapeutic abortion periods in Chile. The increasing education level appears as the most important factor predicting maternal mortality reduction in this developing country, likely influencing other factors such as fertility and maternal health facilities.