Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Health Care’ Category

Here’s a repost by lifenews.com from the blog of Dr. Peter Saunders, CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship:

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.

Read Full Post »

The most recent update is at the bottom of the article.

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.

Life Issues Institute also has more information about the ABC link, such as information specifically about Susan G. Komen for the Cure and medical institutes that DO recognize the ABC link.

From the Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer FAQ:

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.” [31]

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.” [21]

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.” [34]

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. [32]

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.” [35]

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:

ESTROGEN – THE “SMOKING GUN”

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.


Biological Explanation for the Link

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.”


EPIDEMIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

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%!


Update: 7/19/11


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

Read Full Post »

A WorldNetDaily post explains how medical studies have shown a link between birth control and increased HIV infection.  If true, then all of the contraceptive devices dumped on people and places like HIV-ravaged Africa and promoted by liberal groups like Planned Parenthood have actually been contributing to the spread of the disease, not curbing it.

Researcher: Birth-control pill boosts HIV risk

Contraception may worsen spread of life-threatening virus


Posted: May 06, 2010
12:50 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Contraceptive pills and the popular Depo-Provera injection may lead to a higher risk of sexually active women contracting HIV/AIDS, a researcher warns.Joan Robinson, a researcher at the Population Research Institute, or PRI, a non-profit research group that studies reproductive health programs, warns of a strong link between certain contraceptives and HIV/AIDS.

“More than 50 medical studies, to date, have investigated the association of hormonal contraceptive use and HIV/AIDS infection,” Robinson reports. “The studies show that hormonal contraceptives – the oral pill and Depo-Provera – increase almost all known risk factors for HIV, from upping a woman’s risk of infection, to increasing the replication of the HIV virus, to speeding the debilitating and deadly progression of the disease.”

Robinson contends that the connection has received almost no publicity or attention due to strong economic and ideological forces that push the pill.

She cites a number of studies, including a 2009 medical trial published in the journal AIDS that found “oral contraceptive pills and depomedroxyprogesterone acetate, DMPA [Depo-Provera], raised the risk of worsening HIV disease in Zambian women enrolled in a randomized trial of contraception methods.”

The study examined 595 HIV-positive women who were not receiving antiretroviral therapy, or ART, treatment that suppresses or stops a retrovirus such as HIV. At the trial’s beginning, HIV disease factors were similar in woman using an intrauterine device, or IUD, DMPA injections or oral contraceptive pills.

The researchers defined HIV disease progression as death or eligibility for ART. They didn’t find a significantly higher risk of death among women using oral contraceptives or DMPA than those using IUDs. However, women taking contraceptive pills had a 70 percent higher risk of becoming eligible for ART. Likewise, women taking DMPA had a 50 percent higher risk than women using IUDs.

“The International AIDS Society noted, “When the investigators looked at a combined disease progression metric of death or ART eligibility, they found about a two-thirds higher risk of progression in women taking oral contraceptive pills … than in women using IUDs.”

In another study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, researchers studied female sex workers attending a municipal STD clinic in Mombasa, Kenya. They found that “women who used [DMPA] had an increased incidence of HIV-1 infection. … There was a trend for an association between use of high-dose oral contraceptive pills and HIV-1 acquisition.”

The researchers noted that results of studies examining the association between hormonal contraception and HIV-1 acquisition have been “inconsistent,” and “no consensus exists regarding the influence of hormonal contraceptives on a woman’s risk of HIV-1 infection.” However, another study involving monkeys showed increased susceptibility to the simian immunodeficiency virus, or SIV, the animal retrovirus comparable to HIV, in female subjects treated with progesterone. “Fourteen of the 18 macaques treated with progesterone became infected with SIV compared with only 1 of 10 control animals,” according to the study.Robinson suggests there is an “impressive body of scientific research demonstrating a Pill/HIV link,” and yet some dismiss the connection and cite a handful of studies and highly selective trials which claim to find “no increase in HIV risk among users of oral contraceptives and Depo-Provera.”

“The problem with many of these studies, such as Mati et al. 1995, Kapiga et al. 1998, and Sinei et al. 1996 is that they were conducted with and through ‘family planning clinics,'” she notes. “Since the chief business of these clinics is the promotion, sale and distribution of contraceptives, the possibility of bias is undeniable. Who would trust Marlboro to monitor a study on the link between cigarettes and cancer?”

Robinson contends that hormonal contraceptives increase almost all known risk factors for HIV infection.

“Studies have found that hormonal contraceptives ‘alter the microenvironment of the female’ and boost the cell count of those specific cells that HIV uses to infect and proliferate,” she wrote. “What is more, a progesterone side effect known to American women as ‘breakthrough bleeding,’ is caused when hormonal contraceptives excessively thicken the uterine lining. The large, bleeding surface of the uterus creates an ideal site for HIV infection.”

Robinson added, “Progesterone also has an immunosuppressant effect, which means that women using hormonal contraceptives have less in the way of natural defenses against HIV and other STDs.”

Three studies have also found that HIV-positive women on hormonal contraceptives are also more likely to pass HIV on to their sex partners due to increased “cervical shedding” of HIV in their bodily fluids.

“High-dose pill users were over 12 times more likely to shed the HIV virus than women not using contraception, low-dose users were almost 4 times more likely, and Depo-Provera users were 3 times more likely,” Robinson wrote.

An estimated 52 percent of unmarried women in America take a hormonal contraceptive. In the interest of lowering the birth rate, she explains, the United Nations Population Fund and the United States Agency for International Development deliver large shipments of hormonal contraceptives to Africa, Haiti and other AIDS-ravaged developing nations. She adds that international aid of hormonal contraceptives may be contributing to the spread of HIV/AIDS.

“How many lives are being lost because we continue to ship boatloads of hormonal contraceptives to a continent and to countries laboring under an HIV/AIDS pandemic?” Robinson asks. “Isn’t it time that we stopped?”

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

Letter from the Capitol has a piece describing how Obamacare is just the first step in transitioning America’s citizens into paying a Value Added Tax (VAT) on goods on top of income tax in order to support our new Democratic Socialist future.  The last section on describing Obama’s impact on history is a lot nicer than I would have put it.

March 31, 2010

ObamaCare: Stalking Horse for VAT Taxation

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels says we must live “like good Europeans” as ObamaCare stifles choice & raises costs.  Which may explain why Fidel Castro called ObamaCare “a true miracle” and compared it to Cuba’s CastroCare….

Charles Krauthammer divines the true method behind ObamaCare’s fiscal madness: force adoption of a European-style Value Added Tax, creating a womb-to-tomb European Welfare State, with high taxes, high unemployment & high benefits allocated by government:

American liberals have long complained that ours is the only advanced industrial country without universal health care. Well, now we shall have it. And as we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation.

Obama set out to be a consequential president, on the order of Ronald Reagan. With the VAT, Obama’s triumph will be complete. He will have succeeded in reversing Reaganism. Liberals have long complained that Reagan’s strategy was to starve the (governmental) beast in order to shrink it: First, cut taxes — then ultimately you have to reduce government spending.

Obama’s strategy is exactly the opposite: Expand the beast and then feed it. Spend first — which then forces taxation. Now that, with the institution of universal health care, we are becoming the full entitlement state, the beast will have to be fed.

And the VAT is the only trough in creation large enough.

As a substitute for the income tax, the VAT would be a splendid idea. Taxing consumption makes infinitely more sense than taxing work. But to feed the liberal social-democratic project, the VAT must be added on top of the income tax.

One reason for a VAT is that, as economist Alan Reynolds writes, the administration’s plan to extract $1.2TR from rich taxpayers over the next decade will not work.  Such filers already pay over 50 percent of income taxes.  Reynolds explains:

President Barack Obama’s new health-care legislation aims to raise $210 billion over 10 years to pay for the extensive new entitlements. How? By slapping a 3.8% “Medicare tax” on interest and rental income, dividends and capital gains of couples earning more than $250,000, or singles with more than $200,000.

The president also hopes to raise $364 billion over 10 years from the same taxpayers by raising the top two tax rates to 36%-39.6% from 33%-35%, plus another $105 billion by raising the tax on dividends and capital gains to 20% from 15%, and another $500 billion by capping and phasing out exemptions and deductions.

Add it up and the government is counting on squeezing an extra $1.2 trillion over 10 years from a tiny sliver of taxpayers who already pay more than half of all individual taxes.

It won’t work. It never works.

The maximum tax rate fell to 28% in 1988-90 from 50% in 1986, yet individual income tax receipts rose to 8.3% of GDP in 1989 from 7.9% in 1986. The top tax rate rose to 31% in 1991 and revenue fell to 7.6% of GDP in 1992. The top tax rate was increased to 39.6% in 1993, along with numerous major revenue enhancers such as raising the taxable portion of Social Security to 85% of benefits from 50% for seniors who saved or kept working. Yet individual tax revenues were only 7.8% of GDP in 1993, 8.1% in 1994, and did not get back to the 1989 level until 1995.

Put simply, taxpayers alter their investment, tax & work strategies to minimize the impact of punitive levies.

Herb London warns of ObamaCare’s threat to liberty.  A WSJ 3/30 editorial explains what I missed last week; ObamaCare does not explicitly call for hiring 16,500 IRS agents.  The figure is a GOP extrapolation from the IRS budget, to derive an estimate of what will be needed to enforce compliance on the new levies; if the IRS is left at present levels of resources revenues will be lost.

A WSJ editorial last week offered emerging examples of diminished health care choice, already underway due to ObamaCare.  At NRO Rich Lowry warns that deteriorating finances will force choosing between guns and butter, and that Obama clearly will choose to preserve the latter.  Nobel economist Gary Becker’s WSJ interview presents an optimist, but one who fears, as in the old joke about optimism & pessimism, that his optimism may be unjustified.

A WSJ editorial notes major companies already writing down their asset values due to anticipated ObamaCare impact–$14B during 2010, according to one consultant.  Naturally, a senior Obama administration hack calls these “irresponsible” while California thug-Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hillbillies) plans an April 21 kangaroo-court show trial of major CEOs.  NRO’s Rich Lowry adds detail on Waxman’s efforts to muzzle companies hit by ObamaCare.

A WSJ editorial today describes just how outrageous this pressure is–companies are required by law to do what Waxman warns them not to do:

So the wave of corporate writedowns—led by AT&T’s $1 billion—isn’t caused by ObamaCare after all. The White House claims CEOs are reducing the value of their companies and returns for shareholders merely out of political pique.

A White House staffer told the American Spectator that “These are Republican CEOs who are trying to embarrass the President and Democrats in general. Where do you hear about this stuff? The Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative Web sites. No one else picked up on this but you guys. It’s BS.” (We called the White House for elaboration but got no response.)

In other words, CEOs who must abide by U.S. accounting laws under pain of SEC sanction, and who warned about such writedowns for months, are merely trying to ruin President Obama’s moment of glory. Sure.

Presumably the White House is familiar with the Financial Standard Accounting Board’s 1990 statement No. 106, which requires businesses to immediately restate their earnings in light of their expected future retiree health liabilities. AT&T, Deere & Co., AK Steel, Prudential and Caterpillar, among others, are simply reporting the corporate costs of the Democratic decision to raise taxes on retiree drug benefits to finance ObamaCare.

Mark Steyn notes that one firm is heading for incorporation in Canada, no less–yes, CANADA:

In 2003, Washington blessed a grateful citizenry with the Medicare prescription drug benefit, it being generally agreed by all the experts that it was unfair to force seniors to choose between their monthly trip to Rite-Aid and Tony Danza in dinner theater. However, in order to discourage American businesses from immediately dumping all their drug plans for retirees, Congress gave them a modest tax break equivalent to 28 percent of the cost of the plan.

Fast forward to the dawn of the ObamaCare utopia. In one of a bazillion little clauses in a 2,000-page bill your legislators didn’t bother reading (because, as Congressman John Conyers explained, he wouldn’t understand it even if he did), Congress voted to subject the 28 percent tax benefit to the regular good ol’ American-as-apple-pie corporate tax rate of 35 percent. . . . I refer you to the decision last year by the doughnut chain Tim Hortons, a Delaware corporation, to reorganize itself as a Canadian corporation “in order to take advantage of Canadian tax rates.” Hold that thought: “In order to take advantage of Canadian tax rates”—a phrase hitherto unknown to American English outside the most fantastical futuristic science fiction.

Another little-noticed provision in ObamaCare: Money for long-term care will be automatically deducted from worker paychecks unless employees opt out; it is an estimated $146/month payment to give $75 daily care; some cost estimates peg the deduction at $240/month.  Cost at the lower figure is estimated at $100B.

Weekly Standard editor Matthew Continetti sums up what ObamaCare will do to Obama’s historical reputation:

The liberal line is that President Obama has secured his place in history by signing into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. And secured it he has. Henceforth Obama will be remembered as the man who accelerated America’s mad dash toward bankruptcy. He will be remembered as the leader who promoted a culture of dependency. He will be remembered as the figure who sacrificed a dream of national unity upon the altar of big government liberalism. It’s true: Obama is now a president of consequence. And almost all of those consequences are bad.

The fiscal picture was bleak before Obama made it worse. Government debt is 60 percent of the gross domestic product and climbing. The deficit is projected to remain above 4 percent of GDP for the next decade. The week before the president signed his health care reform into law, Moody’s warned that America’s AAA bond rating may be downgraded. The day before the signing ceremony, the nation learned that Warren Buffett is a safer investment than U.S. treasuries. One needn’t look across the Atlantic, where a penniless Greece is a supplicant to the IMF, to see our future. Look to California, where the economy is crippled by high taxes, high spending, and burdensome debt….

Gone is the charismatic young man who told the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston that there was no Blue America and no Red America, only the United States of America. All that remains is a partisan liberal Democrat whose health care policy bulldozed public opinion, enraged the electorate, poisoned the Congress, and set into motion a sequence of events the outcome of which cannot be foreseen.

This tarnished White House complains incessantly about the crises it inherited from its predecessor. Crises? You ain’t seen nothing yet.

The latest public health care horror show from the UK–presaging America’s ObamaCare future: nurses declining to bring a dying patient a glass of water.

CAN’T WAIT, CAN YE?

Bottom Line.  Coupled with America’s rapidly deteriorating financial position, ObamaCare is a massive, potentially fatal economic train wreck in the making.

Read Full Post »

The Alliance Defense Fund brings us news that they secured an agreement with Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown, West Virginia to keep a disabled 40-year-old woman on dialysis after the hospital’s so-called “death board” “ethics board” determined to stop dialysis treatments over the objections of the family. This is just a glimpse of what is to come under Obamacare.

ADF-allied attorney secures agreement with hospital to extend vital care for 40-year-old woman

Family agrees to seek transfer to new medical facility by April 9 when hospital may discontinue life-sustaining treatment
Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 12:00 AM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020



MORGANTOWN, WV — An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney secured an agreed-upon court order Friday that extends care for a 40-year-old woman on dialysis at Ruby Memorial Hospital after the hospital originally said it would end treatment on March 27 against the wishes of the woman’s family.The hospital agreed to continue care while the family of Rebecca Bennett locates another medical facility willing to continue treatment. The family agreed that if the transfer does not occur by 5 p.m. on April 9, they will no longer oblige the hospital to continue dialysis treatment for the seriously disabled woman, but the hospital will still continue her other basic care. So far, another facility has not been found.

“A hospital should not be allowed to cease care for a family’s loved one when state law gives the family the right to make medical decisions in such circumstances. Becky’s family simply wants to honor their mother’s wishes,” said Jeremiah Dys, general counsel of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia and one of more than 1,600 attorneys in the ADF alliance.

“We were pleased to assist the family in securing this agreement; however, Becky seriously needs life-sustaining dialysis treatment beyond April 9,” Dys explained. “It’s our hope that another facility will be found that is willing to work with the family to give Becky a chance to fight for her life.”

Bennett went into a coma due to complications from diabetes. The hospital’s board of ethics decided that it would stop dialysis on March 27, despite the expressed objections of Sierra Kisner, a member of the family acting as her legal surrogate. ADF attorneys argued that the hospital’s decision violated West Virginia law, which gives the surrogate decision-making power and which requires the hospital to continue care or cooperate in obtaining a transfer. It does not allow the hospital to unilaterally determine that care will cease.

The complaint and motion for temporary restraining order in Kisner v. West Virginia University Hospitals was filed with the Circuit Court of Monongalia County Friday and led to the agreed order issued the same day.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.  Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

www.telladf.org facebook.com/AllianceDefenseFund twitter.com/AllianceDefense

Note: Facts in ADF news releases are verified prior to publication but may change over time. Members of the media are encouraged to contact ADF for the latest information on this matter.

Read Full Post »

WorldNetDaily tells us that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has brought a lawsuit against the passage of the health care bill H.R. 3590.

Physicians group sues over health-care law

Says it violates Constitution in several ways


Posted: March 29, 2010
11:09 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons became the first medical society to file suit to overturn the newly enacted health-care law.“If the [law] goes unchallenged, then it spells the end of freedom in medicine as we know it,” said Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of AAPS. “Courts should not allow this massive intrusion into the practice of medicine and the rights of patients. There will be a dire shortage of physicians if the [new law] becomes effective and is not overturned by the courts.”

The law requires most Americans to buy government-approved insurance starting in 2014, or face stiff penalties. The AAPS says insurance-company executives will be enriched by this requirement, but it violates the Fifth Amendment protection against the government forcing one person to pay cash to another.The group also charges violations of the Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the provisions authorizing taxation.

AAPS asks the U.S. District Court to enjoin the government from promulgating or enforcing insurance mandates and require Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue to provide the court with an accounting of Medicare and Social Security solvency.

The group bills itself as “a voice for patient and physician independence since 1943.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »