What three organizations have backed abortion on demand? The answer that many might respond with is Planned Parenthood, the Democratic Party, NARAL or some women's group.
How about three of the largest church organizations in America: the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America (10,500 congregations), the Presbyterian Church (10,000 congregations and 2,3 million members), and the United Methodist Church (8 million members).
MEDIA ADVISORY, July 28 /Christian Newswire -
"I guess they didn't get the 'memo' from the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI), which declared back in 2003 that the non- existence of the ABC (abortion-breast cancer) link had been 'established'"! - Professor Joel Brind, Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
A retrospective study conducted by Dr. Vahit Ozmen and his colleagues at the Istanbul Medical Faculty and Magee-Women's hospital reported a statistically significant 66% increase in breast cancer risk among women who'd had any abortions.
According to Joel Brind, professor of endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York and a director at the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Ozmen's team most likely underestimated the breast cancer risk associated with abortion because of a flaw known as "selection bias."
Selection bias would also explain their team's unusual findings - significantly decreased risks for women who use oral contraceptives (OCs) and hormone replacement therapy (HRT). The World Health Organization and the NCI acknowledge that use of combined (estrogen + progestin) OCs and combined HRT increase risk.
Selection bias is a flaw in the study because only hospital or clinic patients were selected as study subjects, and they were therefore not representative of the general population.
According to Brind's hypothesis, a disproportionate number of "modern" women were likely represented among the controls, a group more likely to use HRT and OCs, have abortions and visit the hospital often for minor complaints. By contrast, a disproportionate number of "traditional" women were represented among the patients; women less likely to use HRT and OCs, have abortions and visit the hospital (except in cases of serious illness, like breast cancer).
To their credit, Dr. Ozmen et al. did acknowledge the likelihood of selection bias in their study, although they were not specific in attributing any effects on their results to it.
Brind's analysis of Ozmen's research can be read here:
www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/ BrindTurkishStudy.pdf
"Although the NCI, the nation's largest funder of cancer-research, and others have worked feverishly to suppress the ABC link by publishing fraudulent research and even leaning on scientists whose studies have shown risk increases among women who have abortions, honest research occasionally escapes the NCI's purview," declared Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
References:
1. Ozmen et al. Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women - a university hospital-based nested case control study. World J Surg Onc 2009;7:37. Available at: http://wjso.com/content/7/1/37.
This press release can be found online at: www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/0907 28/index.htm
In his Jan. 22, 2009, proclamation lauding the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Obama wrote we must "reduce the need for abortion ... [by] find[ng] common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information and preventative services."
Since then, "common ground" has become the talk of the pro-abort town.
A month ago, the pro-abortion website RH Reality Check, funded by Ted Turner, even launched an "On Common Ground" forum, inviting thinkers from both sides to publicly contemplate.
To date, of 15 contributors, only 2 are solidly pro-life - Kristen Day of Democrats for Life and Serrin Foster of Feminists for Life - and they have each only posted once.
The problem is pro-lifers fundamentally oppose every "common ground" plank Obama and pro-abortion strategists unilaterally established, which were, in English, widespread contraception distribution, comprehensive sex education and taxpayer funding of the "family planning" industry, i.e., Planned Parenthood.
The equivalent would have been for President Bush to say, "We must work to find common ground to stop government subsidizing of contraceptives, expand abstinence education and defund Planned Parenthood." Right....
Continue reading my WorldNetDaily.com column today, "'Common ground' vs. zodiac abortions."
If only America recognized we don't have to try out the liberal policies of sex and death to get results. Other countries are already experimenting with drugs - Amsterdam, Sex education, abortion and birth control - Europe and Socialism - Europe.
England is going through a major experiment with their teenagers right now. From Mail Online:
"The teenage pregnancy strategy, which has cost taxpayers more than £300million, was meant to halve the number of conceptions among girls under 18 in England between 1998 and 2010."
So England spent $452 million dollars to cut the teenage pregnancy rate? What were their methods?
"Ministers have tried to slash teenage pregnancies by freely handing out contraceptives and expanding sex education."
Wow, that sounds like a good plan. Oh yeah, we're doing that here in America, I forgot. There's some benevolent group called Planned Parenthood already doing that. Did I say benevolent? I meant to say profiteering group who is soaking Americans for over $350 million tax dollars every year for sex education, they make another $350 million by killing babies through prenatal murder, euphemistically called "abortion", and another $350 million dollars are donated to them by America hating groups and people, some guy named George comes to mind.
Whoops, sorry, my wife tells me I'm a lot like a squirrel, flitting to one branch after another. Where was I? Oh yeah, the great British experiment on sex and death.
"But the fall in pregnancy rates has not met Government targets, and in 2007 the rate actually rose."
Really? You mean if you encourage sex, hand out condoms and birth control like candy, more teenage girls will have sex resulting in higher pregnancy rates? What a surprise!!! The people doing this study must have college degrees. Ahm jest a dum 'ol hick & cudn't figure that 1 out if I tried.
So America, why do you think we will have different results? We've been doing the same thing, yet teenage pregnancies are the highest in the industrialized world. How can that be? We've been handing out condoms, birth control and abortion since I was a kid. When will this "experiment" end in America?
I wonder if reading the box would make a difference? Let's see, I think I'll check Planned Parenthood's web site for information on the effectiveness of condoms and birth control....dum de dum. Well what do you know, Planned Parenthood has their own brand of condoms, what a surprise. And in 2005 those condoms got the lowest rating by Consumer Reports.
I'm shocked!
Really, I'm totally amazed that their condoms perform so poorly, after all, when they fail, it looks bad on them and then our underage daughters are directed by the schools to go have an abortion. What? You say Planned Parenthood makes $350 million dollars a year on abortions? That's amazing!
What a scam. I'm going to try that one in a different way. I'm going to sell schools an ink pen that leaks. Then, when the students' clothes get covered in ink, they can come to my dry cleaner stores which I will have next to every high school. Smart thinking huh?
Yep, those Planned Parenthood folks sure are smart cookies. Oh wait, what's this? From Planned Parenthood South Central new York:
"AbstinenceHow it works: Choosing not to have any sex play with a partner.
Effectiveness: 100% (if used correctly)"
If used correctly? How do you use abstinence incorrectly? I feel my knuckles starting to drag. I must be one of those "right-wing nut-jobs" who doesn't believe in eevolootion you read so much about.
Let's look at some of their other stats:
Male condom 85 - 98%, Female condom 79 - 95%
Diaphragm: 84 - 94%; Cap: 71 - 86%, Shield: 85%
Spermicide: 71 - 82%
Hmm, let me contemplate this one now. by "effectiveness" they are of course referring to a statement that might read something like "resulting in a pregnancy". After all, if the condom wasn't "effective", it doesn't just mean that the girl says "aww shucks, it didn't work". It means a baby in the belly.
So, think about those stats, and imagine them in a different way. Let's say I give you a gun.
Oh no!!! He said "gun"! Call the PC police!
Now imagine I give you a bullet to put in that gun, and then I say, "spin the chamber, put it up to your head and pull the trigger". You would say "yeah right fruitcake, don't think so! Yet we're okay with Planned Parenthood giving our children "birth control" which is guaranteed to fail 3 out of 10 times" No, let me rephrase that, "guaranteed to result in the pregnancy of our daughters 3 out of 10 times?"
Remember, these are the same people who say:
"AbstinenceHow it works: Choosing not to have any sex play with a partner.
Effectiveness: 100% (if used correctly)"
Now that's like saying if I give you a gun but don't give you any bullets, you will still manage to blow your head off.
Back to the article on England. They say:
"Teenage pregnancy rates are now higher than they were in 1995. Pregnancies among girls under 16 - below the age of consent - are also at the highest level since 1998."
It took them 14 years to realize the huge mistake they have made. Countless young girls used for what I would call their 'great sex experiment', or as critics of the program over there call it the "Teenage Abortion Strategy".
What's going to be their strategy now?
"They have called for a redoubling of efforts to persuade young girls to use contraception."
They are saying to the parents of England "you people shut up about abstinence already, we're going to experiment on your daughters for another 14 years. We'll let you know how it turns out."
The nut job Ann Furedi, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service stated:
"The fact that teenagers felt able to end their pregnancy in abortion is actually a positive sign."
She probably said that with a straight face, with other nut jobs applauding. I apologize to all the nuts out there. I really do like peanuts, so it's an insult to compare them to psychotic people like these pro-aborts.
It gets better...well, worse:
"A Department of Health spokesman said: 'One of the key aims of this Government, as set out in the Sexual Health and Teenage Pregnancy Strategies, is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and consequently abortions, through better access to contraception."
What was that about Abstinence again?
Oh yeah:
How it works: Choosing not to have any sex play with a partner.Effectiveness: 100% (if used correctly)"
I wonder if they have a manual for that?
Peter
United we stand ~ Divided they die
Pass it on
In 2003, two years after President George Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy (referred to by abortion proponents as the "global gag rule"), which denies U.S. funds to international groups that commit or promote abortion, the BBC reported the following:
Hundreds of women's health organisations in the poorest nations of the world - places where maternal mortality and infant death are high - faced a tough choice. Either sign the gag rule and be silenced on abortion, or refuse and lose millions of dollars in US aid.
Most refused to sign. As a result, thousands of family planning clinics across the developing world have closed their doors, making access to vital contraceptives hard to come by.
In reality, only five of 457 organizations declined U.S. Agency for International Development family planning assistance in protest over the Mexico City Policy in 2001.
They were...
Continue reading my column today, "5 groups profit from Mexico City policy repeal," at WorldNetDaily.com.
"The Pill Makes Women Pick Bad Mates", By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer, LiveScience.com, 12 August 2008
Not only is this study's publication brand new this week, its findings apparently have already been observed and published after being "fully peer-reviewed to the highest standards," quietly and without any media coverage I'm aware of, 11 years ago.
Read the actual abstracts and full texts for yourselves. These are clearly not biased, "pro-life" sources.
Expert: The Pill is outdated and leads to unwanted pregnancies and abortion
By Ruben Obregon
Professor James Trussell, a well recognized expert on contraceptives, told attendees of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service conference "The Pill is an outdated method because it does not work well enough. It is very difficult for ordinary women to take a pill every single day..."
Though he did not intend to, his statement in some ways vindicates those who argue that the net impact of the pill has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies and abortion.
The push to use multiple methods of contraception, along with Trussell's statement, is in part an admission that, at the population level, contraceptive programs and technologies have largely been a failure.
Predictably, Trussell
doesn't advocate abstinence over the pill - for some reason the contraception
crowd simply cannot fathom a cultural shift towards abstinence. Instead, he
calls for increased use of the IUD: "The beauty of the implant or the IUD is
that you can forget about them."
IUDs have their own problems, including the "cost" of obtaining them as well as
various side effects. . Trussell also mentioned that
studies indicated that women miss more pills than they recall - something that,
at least in this author's mind, may cast further doubt on the calculated failure
rates of combined methods as published by
Santelli et al(2006). Trussell's statement should
bring into focus the public funding of Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest
abortion chain and one of the largest distributors of the pill. Planned Parenthood is well
aware of the problems with the pill, yet over the past few decades it has
provided it to minors - sans parental consent - using public funding. In the
long run, a large population of sexually active teens and young adults dependant
on the pill or other contraceptive methods to engage in sexual activity,
sustains the demand for abortion. Planned Parenthood is well aware of this and
has capitalized on it to grow their abortion practice - at the taxpayer's
expense. Trussell's admission should
be a catalyst to re-evaluate both the public funding of contraception programs
and cultural permissiveness towards premarital sexual activity, which is largely
dependent on contraception. It should also bolster
the call to eliminate - not simply to cut
- funding for Planned Parenthood at all levels of government. Related links:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article4215441.ece?articleid=4215441 H/T
Lifenews.com
News from LifeNews.com, here, of a study indicating that 70 percent of women seeking abortions in Australia had used contraceptives reminded me of some U.S. statistics on abortion.
The Guttmacher Institute's annual "Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States" speaks volumes about birth control and abortion. Here's the "Contraceptive Use" section of Guttmacher's January 2008 report (The bold print is my emphasis on points worth noting.):
• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[9]
• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[9]
• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[1,10]
How much do you want to bet that many among the 70 percent of Australian abortion seekers who used birth control before becoming pregnant were equally irresponsible in that practice?
plus 
For more of my posts, please see: http://www.mothermayibeborn.com
California citizens, reeling under their state government's rapid financial slide, are looking at Planned Parenthood's bloated budget and recently documented abuse of our federal and state grants abortion industry handouts and saying Enough is Enough.
As a 30-7ear resident of California (I returned to Virginia in 2002), I can verify the truth of the saying "As goes California so goes the nation." While this has always meant a destructive slide, some citizens of California are determined that this budget crisis may be perfect timing for finally overthrowing Planned Parenthood's grip on state finances.
Following is the beginning of an email I received last week from the Coalition to Eliminate Abortion Funding.
During this state budget crisis, when our family healthcare services and children's school programs are experiencing drastic spending cuts, California taxpayers request the Elimination of Abortion Funding, especially from Planned Parenthood, from our state budget.The abortion industry does not need our tax dollars. As the nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, reported $1 billion in income on its 2006-07 annual financial disclosure, with $114.8 million in profit and $1.12 billion in total assets (source: Planned Parenthood). One in four abortions is done by Planned Parenthood and this organization is very politically vulnerable due to several recent newsworthy concerns.
Planned Parenthood enjoys $336.7 million in government grants and contracts, representing one-third of their annual budget (American Life League). Planned Parenthood Federation President, Cecile Richards, receives nearly $1 million annual compensation (Washington Times) while teachers and librarians are being laid-off, music programs are being cut, and families go without healthcare!
Additionally, Planned Parenthood affiliates here in California, allegedly over-charged our state by at least $180 million dollars as described in this recent LA Times article. According to Victor Gonzalez, former vice president of finance and administration of the Los Angeles affiliate, he was fired for questioning Planned Parenthood's "illegal accounting, billing and donation practices". Planned Parenthood bought contraceptives at a discounted rate and then billed the state Medi-Cal program for 12 or more times the purchase price. An audit of the San Diego/Riverside Planned Parenthood clinic found $5 million in over billing charges in just two years. Very clearly, Planned Parenthood does not deserve our hard-earned taxpayer dollars!
You can read the rest of this position paper - plus draft amendment proposals - by contacting Wynette Sills at esills(at)earthlink(dot)net to be added to their mailing list.
Important dates:
Wednesday , May 14 - CEAF planning meeting
June 16 or 17 Stop Abortion Funding rally at State Capitol.
Please contact Wynette to let her know of your support!
I'm not naïve. I know there are 12-year-olds in the world having sex. But it's not normal behavior. A 6th-grader seeking sex lives in a dysfunctional home. More likely she is being raped by an adult perpetrator. That's not what I say. That's what Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher Institute say:The younger the mother, the greater the partner age gap.... Fathers are on average 9.8 years older than mothers 11 to 12 years of age.I have never known or heard of a father, diligent or absentee, liberal or conservative, who pondered aloud that his 9-year-old daughter in three short years might have unprotected consensual sex, so we must make contraceptives and abortion available to her.
Such a father would be creepy, close to a pedophilia promoter.
Such a father would be Barack Obama, who indicated such at Sunday's Compassion Forum....
Continue reading my column today, "Obama and the sex life of 12 year olds," on WorldNetDaily.com.
By Ruben Obregon
New research, published by Child Trends in the journal Demography, confirms a long know fact that teens have a mixed track record with contraceptives. This research concludes that "Overall, teens do not use contraceptives consistently, which places them at risk of unintended pregnancy and STIs."
The research shows that across all relationships, 59% of teens always used contraceptives,17% sometimes used them, and 24% never used them.
This means that 41% of teens never or inconsistently used them, and research shows those with such a history were likely to continue in that pattern. This highlights the fact that overall, contraceptives can't solve the problems of adolescent pregnancy, child-bearing, abortion, and disease.
Despite this problem, contraceptive advocates keep pushing pills and condoms instead of pushing for a positive cultural change.
True, long term reductions in teen pregnancy, abortion, disease, and child-bearing are realized by decreases in the number of those who have ever engaged in sexual intercourse. Reliance on contraceptives - especially condoms - to solve these problems only sustains them in the long run.
Why do teens have such a poor track record with contraception? Child Trends' research identifies relationship types and characteristics of partners as factors in the consistency of contraceptive use.
The researchers found that communication about contraception among involved teens is associated with increased use, and that relationship type - casual or romantic - and partner differences - age, race/ethnicity, and social networks - may affect the ability to comfortably negotiate contraceptive use.
This may explain why some who consistently used contraception with one partner did not consistently use it, if at all, with another partner.
Not only the type, but the number of relationships is related to the consistency of contraceptive usage: 62% of teens who had just one sexual relationship used contraceptives consistently compared to 53% who had five or more such relationships.
The researchers suggest refining pregnancy prevention programs to account for relationship and partner differences. Unfortunately the authors do not even come close to suggesting that maybe contraceptive use among adolescents has been a bust, and that maybe abstinence is a better solution to the very problems they are trying to solve.
By Ruben Obregon
For the past year, news stories and studies have credited improved contraceptive use for 86% of the decline in teen pregnancy between 1995 and 2002. So far, this figure has remained largely unchallenged - until now.
I don't believe this figure accurately describes why pregnancy rates declined. Of course, I could be wrong - I'm not a statistician after all - and so I'd like to see what others think of my analysis. Regardless of where you stand on abortion and or contraception, I'd be interested in reading your opinion...
Here is why I believe this study has serious problems: (a full analysis can be found below).
1. Essentially, the study focuses on abstinence among those who have ever had sexual intercourse, and not among all teens. Granted, the study does take into account abstinence among all teens aged 15-19 in building the pregnancy risk index, but this is not the same as calculating the pregnancy rate, which is a different statistic.
The authors found that the 86% reduction in the pregnancy risk index, which they defined as the "percentage of women who were sexually active multiplied by contraceptive risk index", is due to improved contraceptive use.
This is not a finding that contraceptives are responsible for 86% of the decrease in pregnancy rates. But nevertheless the authors go on to credit the majority of the decline in the teen pregnancy rate with improved contraceptive use. *
Yet, without calculating the contributions of increased abstinence among all teens, and not just among those with a sexual history, one cannot accurately claim that contraception is responsible for a majority of the decline in teen pregnancy, as the authors attempt to do in this study.
2. In my opinion, in order properly contrast abstinence among all teens and contraceptive use in relation to overall pregnancy rates, a more thorough methodology is needed.
For example, such a methodology would have to first calculate the percentage of decline in the pregnancy rate is attributable to an increase in the number of teens who have never had intercourse, and then calculate how much of the remaining percentage is due to improved contraceptive use and increased abstinence among the sexually experienced.
Yet, such a methodology poses a problem for Santelli et all and the Guttmacher Institute - it would demonstrate that abstinence has indeed made significant contributions to the decline in teen pregnancy.
Why did these Guttmacher researchers change their methodology? I can only speculate that since past Guttmacher studies - including those written by Santelli - have shown that increased abstinence has has a significant impact on teen pregnancy rates, a change was needed.
A change had to be made in order to better attack funding for abstinence until marriage programs. After all, increased abstinence is bad for business for both the Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood.
The change in methodology, in my opinion, reflects the fact that these researchers cannot win nor frame the debate if their own studies continue to demonstrate the effectiveness of abstinence on teen pregnancy rates.
In my opinion, at best the 86% figure given by the authors reflects a change in contraceptive use among those with a sexual history, and does not reflect the impact of increased abstinence among all teens.
* The teen pregnancy rate is the number of pregnancies per
1,000 women aged 15-19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A new study found that Ortho Evra, which has been called the 'The most dangerous contraceptive on the market', carries a higher risk for blood clots than oral contraceptives.
As a result of the new study, Ortho-McNeil, the manufacturers of Ortho Evra, sought and gained FDA approval to update the warning label.
(For some background, see my article on the numerous lawsuits and claims against Ortho-McNeil, manufacturers of the patch. )
This isn't the first study which found an increased risk of VTE among patch users. The study "Venous Thromboembolism, Myocardial Infarction, and Stroke Among Transdermal Contraceptive System Users," (PDF) published in the February 2007 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, found more than a two-fold increase in the venous thromboembolism rate among patch users compared with norgestimate-containing oral contraceptives
It will be interesting to see if Public Citizen petitions the FDA to ban the patch, as they previously did with third generation oral contraceptives (OCs).
After the 2007 study was released, I contacted Frits Rosendaal, MD, co-signer of Public Citizen's petition and an internationally known expert on Venous Thromboembolism (VTE), to get his opinion on it. His reply to my inquiry:
"I am not convinced that the patch is in fact less safe than oral contraceptives with a similar dose of oestrogen"
I wonder if the new study will convince him that the patch is not safer than OCs, and that it should be banned along with third generation pills?
Finally, it's time for the FDA to step in and request a recall or demand a withdrawal of Ortho Evra. A possible reason why this hasn't been happened yet is that the FDA considers blood clots to be 'acceptable risks' of hormonal contraception. I'm not sure the parents of 14 year old Alicya Brown, who is alleged to have died as a result of using Ortho Evra, agree that the risk is acceptable.
More Resources:
Read the Ortho-McNeil-Jannssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. press release on the updated Ortho Evra prescribing information here.
Ortho Evra is Harmful website
http://www.ortho-evra-deaths.com
Jill Stanek - BC patch prey
h/t: Jill Stanek
By Ruben Obregon
MRSA TOUTED AS THE "NEW
HIV"
A study to be published in the February 19
edition of the Annals of Internal Medicine
found that a
multi drug resistant strain of staph
is common among homosexuals in certain locales, and that this infection might be
sexually transmitted.
It appears that this strain of staph is spreading through the gay community in San Francisco and Boston.
According to the study, the strain, known as
USA 300 Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), is possibly being
transmitted via sexual contact. It revealed that in San Francisco,
gay men are 13 times more likely to be infected
than
others in their
community.
UK Teen Pregnancy Prevention Campaign Called a Failure
Despite an increase in access to contraceptives, the UK's teen pregnancy campaign has been branded a failure.
According to a report in the Daily Star, Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe:
There are now nearly 50,000 teen pregnancies a year - leaving a £150million Government drive to cut the rate by half in tatters.Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, believes a new approach is necessary. He said: "The problems associated with teenage pregnancy will never be solved so long as the Government persists with its reliance on yet more contraception and sex education...What we need is a radical change away from a culture which has reduced sex to a casual recreational activity."
...
The huge Government campaign launched 10 years ago has sparked a blaze of adverts and other publicity material. There have also been various changes in contraception rules over the years, making it easier for young girls to protect themselves.These have included facilities to obtain contraception and the morning-after pill at school without the consent of their parents.
An article in the Telegraph describes why the effort has been called a failure:
Amid a rising teenage population, the conception rate has dropped by only 11 per cent since 1998, in stark contrast to the 50 per cent target. At the same time, the overall number of teenage pregnancies has gone up to more than 47,000 a year. " The Government committed itself in 1999 to halving the teenage pregnancy rate among 16- and 17-year-olds by 2010, compared with 1998 figures.However, by 2005 - the last year for which full figures are available - the rate fell by only 11.4 per cent. The same figures show that between 1999 and 2005 the overall number of 16- and 17-year-olds becoming pregnant increased from 39,247 to 39,804.
When girls aged between 13 and 15 were added, the total rose from 46,655 to 47,277, more than when Labour launched the strategy in 1999. (emphasis added)
Interesting - it appears that increased access to contraceptives hasn't resulted in a net reduction in teen pregnancy in the UK, despite the promises of its proponents.
A recent op ed in the Chicago Tribune questions why a 2006 study linking Breast Cancer to Oral Contraceptives has largely been ignored:
Not wanting to become known as the town quack, I am reluctant to write another politically incorrect column about breast cancer.Four weeks ago, when I reported a study that found a statistical link between abortion and breast cancer, the hate e-mail poured in, denouncing me for being an ignorant, stupid, anti-science, anti-choice and anti-woman lunatic. But it also brought a message alerting me to yet another study, suggesting that premenopausal women (younger than 50) who used oral contraceptives prior to having their first child faced a higher risk of breast cancer. Yes, I know, this debate has been going on for years, if not decades, and judging by the last studies given wide exposure a few years ago by the media, the issue seems settled: Oral contraception does not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer.
I covered the pill / breast cancer issue last year, but due to time constraints as well as work on another project - which will be made public in the next few weeks - I was not able to update the article with the details of a more recent recent study. So for what it's worth, here is the article from 2006:
A new study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, demonstrates that education may be associated with an increase in abstinence. While the study does not focus on contraception, you can be comprehensive sexuality education advocates will twist the results to make it appear so.
In my opinion it is ok to teach students about their bodies, as long as it's done in the context of a biology class and free of discussion of contraceptives. There is nothing wrong with knowing how reproductive organs work - in fact, if anything, it could help prevent teens from having sex in the first place.
Some excerpts from an article in Newswise Medical News:
The study did not explore the hottest debate in sex education: whether classes should teach about contraception or focus entirely on abstinence. Students received sex education if they had either or both types of instruction, according to the study.
While the study suggests a link between sex education and sexual behavior, researchers did not design it to prove a cause-and-effect relationship between the two definitively.
A recent and troublesome trend by environmentalists is to attach an environmental cost, in the form of a carbon footprint, to both born and unborn children.
The carbon footprint, according to CarbonFootprint.com, is "a measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide."
While this may not seem too urgent of a trend, consider that this line of reasoning has already cost at least one unborn child their life - Toni Vernelli, as a result of her concern for the planet, aborted her unborn child ten years ago. (A few years later after having her child aborted and in an effort to protect the planet, Mrs. Vernelli was sterilized. )
Ironically, her very own child could have been the one to solve the problem of carbon emissions sometime in the not too distant future.
Then there is the University of Western Australia's Professor Barry Walters, a clinical associate professor of obstetrics, who in the December edition of the Medical Journal of Australia, proposed that couples who have more than two children should pay an annual carbon tax. The purpose of the tax, which could amount to $800 annually, would be to offset the carbon emissions of each child over a lifetime.
Interestingly enough, Professor Walter's doesn't appear to call for a tax on adults or families that have only two children. He also doesn't call for a tax upon himself - after all, Professor Walter has his own carbon footprint. Why shouldn't he pay a carbon tax, and one that's retroactive at that to cover the span of his own life?
It's interesting how these two want others to pay the price for their ideology - for Mrs. Vernelli, she made her child pay the price, and Professor Walters wants everybody else to pay the price. It seems that the golden rule here is "to do unto others as you would not do unto yourself." (Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for either to follow their own ideology to a consistent end - I'm basically pointing out their flawed reasoning here...)
Both Professor Walter and Mrs. Vernilli advocate contraception as a solution to protecting the environment. But the production and distribution of contraceptives is not carbron free - the vehicles and machinery involved create their own greenhouse gases. Even Mrs. Vernilli's sterilization wasn't emission free, as she probably took her car to get to and from the facility where it was performed.
Additionally, some forms of contraceptives are may actually be harming the environment in other ways. Consider the situation in a mountain stream near Boulder, Colorado, where contraceptives are suspected in the mutation of the White sucker fish.
Don't get me wrong, protecting the environment is a good cause, but these people have carried it to the extreme. Unfortunately, I suspect their ideology will catch on among fellow environmentalists.
It may well be that the abortion debate is shifting from "choice/religion" versus personhood, to the environment versus personhood. If so, we had better be prepared to engage in this debate.
As the radio news report buzzed in the background of my parents' kitchen around lunchtime today, two items struck me as audacious.
My folks were tuned into WHYY, Philadelphia's public radio station.
The report of the Portland [Maine] School Committee's decision to make birth control pills and contraceptive patches available to 11 through 13-year-olds in the King Middle School raised my eyebrows and appalled my 82-year-old mother.
Here are the details from the Associated Press.
As if that was not enough...
Later in the broadcast a cheery voice announced that "Planned Parenthood is a proud supporter of WHYY." The voice added that Planned Parenthood offers a program for parents so that they can learn how to talk to to their children about contraceptives.
So the nation's busiest abortion provider supports WHYY public radio. Good. Because WHYY will never get another dime from me.
How about you?
Does Planned Parenthood support your local public radio, too?
(c) 2007 Marybeth T. Hagan
Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn
Brother Joe Kamis, the superintendent for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati, reversed himself and is allowing Catholic Schools in the diocese to donate to the Susan G. Komen Foundation:
Kamis stated that "The archdiocese reversed itself after foundation officials agreed in writing to use the money only for breast cancer research"
While this might sound ok on the surface, it simply frees up more of Komen's funding, which possibly means more, or at least sustained, funding for Planned Parenthood.
Interestingly enough, according to a statement released today by the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, a study released yesterday in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons suggests that abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer".
What are the implications? Well, one implication is that keeping the lights on at the nation's biggest abortion provider's clinics isn't going to help reduce breast cancer.
Adding to this problem is that breast cancer has been tied to use of the pill. (On that note, studies vary on the length of OC usage and the risk of breast cancer).
Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest provider of oral contraceptives and abortion, and while abortions have been declining, the number of abortions performed by PP has increased.
Now, while Planned Parenthood uses the Komen funds "only" for mammograms, the money PP receives from Komen helps keep the lights on, and that only helps keep the money pouring in and bodies pouring out.
And the more fungible money PP has, the more resources it has to open new abortion clinics in areas like Aurora, Illinois and Denver, Colorado.
As Brother Kamis stated, things may not be "black and white" - but just look at the shades of grey here. Shoring up Komen's research funds frees funds for turning over to PP, which in turn shores up PP's funds for establishing more clinics, which only helps increase the amount of abortions they perform.
To me, this isn't about shades of grey, it's about shades of red - blood red. Brother Kamis, please reverse your well intended but faulty decision.
