RFFM.ORG

Canadian Researcher Brent Rooney Cites Double Abortion Disaster: Cerebral Palsy & Breast Cancer

British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Reveals Abortion Boosts Odds of Premature Births, Cerebral Palsy and Breast Cancer

 

Researcher Brent Rooney says, "Since the British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology is very prestigious, its abortion-preemie revelation is HUGE."

 

On Sept. 16, 2009 Dr. Prakesh Shah (U. Toronto) had his abortion-preemie 'study of studies' published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Using data from 37 prior studies, Dr. Shah reported that 1 prior induced abortion boosted relative odds of a premature birth by 35%.[4] Abstract:  http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122591273/abstract

Was it a mere fluke that the Institute of Medicine identified “Prior first trimester induced abortion” as an “Immutable Medical Risk Factor Associated with Preterm Birth” in the 2006 & 2007 editions of its mammoth book about preterm birth?[1]; URL:  http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625 ]  On 12 January 2009 three (3) preterm birth heavyweights (Dr. Jay Iams, Dr. Robert Romero & Dr. Robert L. Goldenberg) confirmed the IoM finding in a medical journal of the highest prestige, Lancet, on page 165.[2]

Two 2009 massive studies confirm that women with prior IAs (Induced Abortions) have higher risk of premature (under 37 weeks' gestation) and handicapped newborn babies.[3,4] A woman who delivers a baby under 32 weeks' gestation also doubles her lifetime risk of breast cancer.[5,6] In February 2009 Dr. Hanes Swingle (U. South Alabama) reported that women with prior IAs raised their relative odds of a birth under 32 weeks' gestation by 64%; Dr. Swingle and colleagues used data from 4 prior studies to get that result.[3] Babies under 32 weeks' gestation have 55 times the Cerebral Palsy risk as fullterm (at least 37 weeks ) newborns.[7] Canadian Dr. Prakesh Shah, who is employed by the Mount Sinai Hospital ( Toronto ) and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, using data from 37 prior studies report that 1 prior IA boosts relative preterm birth odds by 35% but more than 1 prior IA raises preterm birth odds by 93%.[4] Dr. Shah advocates that women receive informed medical consent about the abortion-premature birth of prior induced abortions before the procedure is performed.

But are these two (2) massive 2009 studies enough to demonstrate that induced abortions pose an increased risk of preterm birth and thus CP risk? In the 'Court of Medicine' a 'defendant' new surgery (or new drug) is presumed guilty of serious adverse side-effects until by strong evidence it is demonstrated to be 'innocent'. This is the exact opposite of a court of law, where the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

'Suction' (vacuum aspiration) abortion was invented by doctors in communist China & 'announced' to the world in 1958 in the Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Fifty years later the British Medical Journal had that 1958 article translated into English.[8] From 1958 to 2009 there has never been a 'study of studies' (termed "meta-analysis") or SYSTEMATIC review that cleared by very strong evidence the most common induced abortion procedure, 'suction' abortion, of the risk of a later preterm birth or the low birth weight baby (under 1,500 grams which is 5 pounds 8 ounces) baby.

In 2007 Dr. Calhoun, Dr. Shadigian, & Brent Rooney (MSc) estimated that there were 1,096 newborn U.S. babies under 1,500 grams with CP in 2002 due to their mother's prior induced abortions.[9]

 

Brent Rooney (MSc), Research Director – RPRC
http://www.justiceforkids.webs.com
fullterm40@gmail.com

Links:

 

Breast Cancer risk: http://bcpinstitute.org/booklet4.htm

'Swingle' abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19301572?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

References

 

1 Behrman RE, Butler AS, Alexander GR. Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention. National Academies Press 2007
[ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625 ]

 

2 Iams JD, Romero R, Culhane JF, Goldenberg RL. Primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions to reduce the morbidity and mortality of preterm birth.  Lancet 2008;371:164-175 [ Dr. Jay Iams email: <iams.1@osu.edu> ]

3 Swingle HM, Colaizy TT, Zimmerman MB, Moriss FH.  Abortion and the Risk of Subsequent Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Reproductive Medicine 2009;54:95-108

 

4 Shah P. et al. Induced termination of pregnancy and low birth weight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis BJOG 2009;116(11):1425-1442
URL: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122591273/abstract

5 Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-MN, Westergaard T, Andersen PK. Preterm Delivery and risk of breast cancer. Brit J Cancer 1999;80(3/4):609-613

 

6 Innes KE, Byers TE. First pregnancy characteristics and subsequent breast cancer risk among young women. International J Cancer 2004;112(2):306-311

7 Himpens E, Van den Broeck C, Oostra A, Calders P, Vanhaesebrouck P. Prevalence, type, and distribution and severity of cerebral palsy in relation to gestational age: a meta-analytic review. Developmental Med Child Neurology 2008;50:334-340

 

8 Wu Yuantai, Wu Xianzhen. A report of 300 cases using vacuum aspiration for the termination of pregnancy. Chinese Journal Obstetrics Gynecology 1958:447-449 . English translation:
URL: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/data/336/7657/1332-a/DC1/1

9 Calhoun BC, Shadigian E, Rooney B. Cost Consequences of Induced Abortion as an Attributable Risk for Preterm Birth and Informed Consent. J Reprod Med 2007;52(10):929-937

 

Rooney B, Calhoun BC. Induced abortion and risk of later premature births. J American Physicians Surgeons 2003;8(2):46-49
[ URL: http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf ]

 

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Birth Control Pill: 50 Year Legacy Of A Carcinogen: No Cause For Celebration

Dear Friends:

Some people will be celebrating the birth control pill's 50th birthday next year, but they probably won't be cancer patients and survivors whose health was damaged by the pill. The Sun-Times News Group is kicking off the celebration early with a story by Jeanne Millsap that contains many inaccuracies. Her story is entitled, "The pill's versatility."

Millsap quotes obstetrician/gynecologist Dr. Mary Fitzgibbon of Provena St. Joseph Medical Center who encourages teens to take the pill during the most cancer-susceptible time of their lives to treat acne, irregular menstrual periods and menstrual cramps. Irregular menstrual periods are beneficial in reducing breast cancer risk because, by having fewer cycles, the young woman is exposed to less estrogen. Cramps can be treated with ibuprophen, and acne can be treated with antibiotics.

Fitzgibbon is wrong about the protective effect of the pill against colon cancer. You can read Millsap's article and our letter to the editors of the Sun-Times News Group's newspapers below.

Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Letter to editor
Sun-Times News Group
Re: "The pill's versatility," by Jeanne Millsap, 9/2/09. Available at:
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/lifestyles/1746742,4_5_JO02_PILL_S1-090902.article

Dear Editor:

It's unwise to advise patients to take a carcinogen to prevent cancer. Dr. Mary Fitzgibbon claimed the pill reduces the risk of some cancers ("The pill's versatility," 09/02/09). However, far more Americans die annually from cancers the pill causes than cancers it prevents.

In 2005, World Health Organization scientists said the pill containing estrogen and progestin increases breast, liver and cervical cancer risk, but decreases endometrial and ovarian cancer risk. They wrote, "Most combined contraceptives are taken orally, but they can also be delivered by injection, transdermal patch or vaginal ring." [1,2]

In 2006, Mayo Clinic Proceedings' meta-analysis found a 44% increased risk in premenopausal breast cancer for the pill's users before first full term pregnancy (FFTP). [3]

Nearly all of the breast lobules are cancer susceptible before FFTP. The latest issue of The Linacre Quarterly says breast cells don't become cancer resistant until they undergo lactation. During the last months of FFTP, the fetus produces hormones that mature 85% of the mother's lobules into permanently cancer-resistant lobules. The journal says:

"[A]fter the Hiroshima atomic bomb exposed women to high doses of radiation, it was young, nulliparous (childless) women who later developed breast cancer while the older parous women (with children) did not." [4]

Cancer-causing, steroidal hormones shouldn't be peddled to teens during the most cancer-susceptible period of their lives. Alternative treatments for acne and cramps are available.

Professor Joel Brind (Baruch College, City University of New York) corrected Fitzgibbon's false claim that the pill reduces colon cancer risk by 25%. He said:

"Not only has no such decreased risk of colon cancers for oral contraceptives (the pill) users been established, but the largest and most recent study of over 1/4 million Chinese women published this year revealed a statistically significant 56% increased risk of colon cancer among women who had taken the pill for 10 years or more." [5,6]

Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

References:

1. International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Available at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/crthgr01.php

2. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.

3. Kahlenborn C, Modugno F. Potter D, Severs W. Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings2006;81(10):1290-1302. Available at: <http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf/8110/8110a1.pdf>.
 
4. Lanfranchi, A. Normal breast physiology: The reasons hormonal contraceptives and induced abortion increase breast cancer risk. The Linacre Quarterly 2009;76:236-249. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/LQ_76_3_2_Lanfranchi.pdf

5. Private communication with Professor Joel Brind.

6. Rosenblatt KA et al. Oral contraceptives and their risk of all cancers combined and site specific cancers in Shanghai. Cancer Causes and Control 2009;20:27-34.

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.

Click here to make tax-deductible, credit card donations. Donations can be mailed to:

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
P.O. Box 957133
Hoffman Estates, IL 60195

The IRS recognizes the Coalition as a 501(c)3 organization.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
 
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
 
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
 
Polycarp Research Institute
 
This newsletter can be viewed online by clicking here.
 
Click here to view past new articles.

**********

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Obama Health Care Would Include Tax-Payer Funded Abortions: The Deadly Secret Is Not In The Details

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

The controversy over President Barack Obama's plan to reform health care in America has led to one of the most contentious political debates in modern history.  Some of those who feel most threatened are seniors who recognize Medicare is targeted for $500 billion in cuts.  Their concerns are justified and seniors should be afraid--deathly afraid--because it is certain one day bureaucrats will make life and death decisions over the medical care the elderly will receive based on economics alone.  According to data, 25% of Medicare's budget is spent on the last year of a person's life.

However, there is a dirty and deadly little secret regarding what health care reform would mean to human beings whose life outside the womb has not yet begun.  I'm talking about the innocent unborn and since Obama decided the health care system in America, which represents over one-sixth of the nation's economy, needs to be put under government control, the issue of abortion has come to the forefront.

Some have speculated on the strategies being implemented by those who believe in abortion rights.  In an excellent WorldNetDaily piece written by Jill Stanek, titled "Why pro-aborts went silent on healthcare" [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107335], the former labor and delivery nurse addresses the varied tactics being used by groups like NARAL regarding the debate over the health care issue.  NOTE:  Jill Stanek exposed the barbaric procedure which many call "live-birth abortion", a medical practice which allowed newborns who survived abortions to be left to die without any medical intervention.  Barack Obama, while a state senator from Illinois, voted against a bill that would have banned the practice (Born-Alive Infant Protection Act).  George W. Bush eventually signed into law legislation banning the practice.

As Stanek and others point out, the pro-abortion lobby has taken an ambiguous approach regarding the health care reform debate.  However, recently the pro-abortion community has, for the most part, kept its political powder dry concerning open promotion of Obamacare.  And for those who believe the killing of the innocent unborn is a Constitutional right, keeping silent on the issue is a wise strategy.  As Stanek points out, this seems to be their tactics of late.

The deadly little secret regarding any health care reform bill is the fact abortion is lawful.  Therefore, legislation put forth by either the United States Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives would not specifically have to address the subject.  Since abortion is seen or interpreted as a form of "medical care", the pro-abortion lobby is recognizing there is no need to generate even more controversy by making abortion an issue in the legislation which the far left so desperately seeks.

If you are looking for proof regarding how taxpayers would be footing the bill for women seeking abortions, you need look no further than the Democratic response to amendments that would exclude abortion funding from any health care reform legislation.  Indeed, there have been numerous attempts by pro-life Republicans to introduce amendments that would ban abortion in any Obamacare bill, but each attempt has been soundly defeated by the Democratic majority which controls both Houses of Congress.

This is a rare case where proof is offered by a negative.  The pro-abortion lobby fully understands their goals concerning the coverage of abortions would be included in any attempt to reform national health care, unless such provisions against the practice are specifically written into the legislation.  And, sadly, with abortion being the law of the land, the procedure would automatically come under "women's health care".

These facts have left groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood in a quandary.  With recent polling, for the first time, indicating over 50% of Americans now consider themselves pro-life, putting abortion in the forefront of this political debate would be counter-productive.  It would be one more obstacle in the way of health care reform which is quickly losing public support day by day.

But there is a reality regarding abortion and those who provide the procedure which cannot be denied.  The taking of innocent human life is a multi-billion dollar business.  Indeed, abortion is an industry which puts big dollars in the pockets of abortion providers (like Planned Parenthood--the nation's largest) and subsequently, politicians.  One bloody hand washes the other.  Yet polling indicates even some Americans who support abortion would not favor requiring taxpayers to subsidize this so-called "choice".

Even though the pro-abortion lobby may try to keep a low profile in the debate over health care reform, those like myself who believe in the sanctity of human life must not be silent.  The thief often comes during the dark of night and, in this case, the ultimate and deadly goal of this thievery is human life.

Life from conception to our latter years is under attack by this health care reform initiative which devalues the precious gift God has given us.  The motives of the left cannot be swept under the proverbial rug.  The ideology promoted by the Obama administration has been made crystal clear since his first day in office.  One of President Obama's first edicts was to continue U.S. funding of abortion abroad.  We should not be fooled in thinking this anti-life agenda is not meant for us all.  Therefore, the pro-aborts can be silent on this issue in their attempt to deceive the American public.  However, those who hold life precious should be vocal regarding the deadly secret.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Canadian Researcher Asks Obama Not to Press FOCA

Open letter to the U.S. Surgeon General by Brent Rooney

Editor's Note: Brent Rooney is a medical researcher with a special focus on preterm birth risk factors.

To Dr. Sanjay Gupta:

It would be a wonderful achievement, if President Barack Obama
reduces the incidence of childhood Cerebral Palsy (CP) and autism.
This achievement alone would merit the "Commander-in-Chief" the title
of "The Children's President".  As a neurosurgeon you are aware that
preterm birth is a major CP and autism risk factor.  In 2007 eminent
scientist Greg  Roy Alexander (ScD), representing the Institute of
Medicine, identified  "Prior first trimester induced abortion" as an
"Immutable Medical Risk Factor Associated with Preterm Birth".
[Behrman, 2]  The world's most respected preterm birth expert,
Dr. Emile Papiernik (France) was co-author of a 2004 Human Reproduction
study reporting statistically significant results:

 a. Women with one (1) prior IA (Induced Abortion) had 34%
   higher relative odds of a very  preterm ( under 33.0 weeks' gestation )
   birth  compared to women with zero prior IAs.
 b. Women with more that one prior IA had 82% higher relative
   odds of a very preterm birth.  [Ancel, 6]

In  1961 the legendary FDA official Dr. Frances Kelsey delivered
a 'knock-out' against the sale approval for the teratogenic drug Thalidomide.
Whereas about ten thousand  European newborns suffered severe birth
defects, very few American newborns suffered a like fate from Thalidomide.
[Brynner, 7]

Dr. Gupta, Chemie Grunenthal (Thalidomide's creator) only tested
its sedative drug on rats, mice, cats, dogs, rabbits and guinea pigs
before marketing it as "morning sickness" remedy on 1 October 1957
Chemie Grunenthal performed no Thalidomide testing on non-human
primates BEFORE that birth defect epidemic.  [Brynner, 7] The animal
testing for the most common induced abortion procedure, "suction"
(i.e. vacuum aspiration) abortion, was much less adequate than
Thalidomide testing, since:

There are zero published animal studies of "suction" abortion. [Rooney, 4]

Dr. Gupta, you may disbelieve that statement. However, you have never
seen such an animal "suction" abortion study nor have you seen a
reference to such study.  For an objective person, such as yourself, the
clincher is  that Dr. Sharon Camp ( scamp@guttmacher.org ), Alan
Guttmacher  Institute  President ) on 16 January 2008 conceded that AGI
staff could not find such a published animal "suction" abortion study.
On 4 June 2008 in  Vancouver, Canada I swore an affidavit that there
are no published animal studies of "suction" abortion (copy enclosed).

It is my considered estimate that "suction" abortions have caused at
least 30 times as many birth defected  babies as did Thalidomide.
You and President Obama are firm believers in the 1947 Nuremberg Code.
The Nuremberg Code (rule 3) insists upon safety validation of new
medical procedures on animals BEFORE human trials commence.
"Suction" abortion has failed rule 3.

FOCA, if signed by President Obama, continues and finances an
unproven and experimental procedure ("suction" abortion) that is crippling
American newborn.  Please inform President Barack Obama
immediately that 100% of all "suction" abortions violate the 1947
Nuremberg Code.

I am a medical researcher with a special focus on preterm birth risk factors.

Thanks, in advance, for your help in assuring that the full Nuremberg
Code is respected by President Barack Obama's administration.  More
details  about  upholding  the  Nuremberg Code are in the Appendix.

Cc:  President Barack Obama, William McGurn (Wall Street Journal),
 Tara Parker-Pope (New York Times), Dr. Jerold Lucy (Pediatrics),
 Jay Sekulow (ACLJ), Dr. Emile Papiernik, Matt Drudge

Cordially,
Brent Rooney (MSc)
Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition
3456 Dunbar St. (Suite 146)  Vancouver, Canada V6S 2C2
email:  fullterm40@gmail.com
web:  http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf

 Appendix: FOCA (Freedom Of Choice Act) and the Nuremberg Code

 President Obama can outshine the legendary Dr. Frances Kelsey
         - FOCA War on Informed Medical Consent -
                          by Brent Rooney (MSc)

 Dr. Sarah Winter and colleagues reported in 2002 that a black
American baby in Atlanta, Georgia had a 53% higher relative risk
of being diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy than a Caucasian baby.

 President Obama can surpass the legendary Dr. Frances Kelsey
in preventing birth defects in American babies. However, to do so
requires the new U.S. President to do something legendary Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher refused:  make a political 'U-Turn'.

 8,000-12,000 European newborn babies were birth defected due
to the drug Thalidomide between 1958 and 1962, but the U.S. toll
was tiny. In 1962 President John Kennedy awarded the Gold Medal
for Distinguished Civilian Service to  Canadian born FDA official
Dr. Frances Kelsey.  Despite  the  most intense pressure Dr. Kelsey
denied Thalidomide approval for sale in the U.S., since she was not
convinced  that  there was sufficient evidence  validating its safety.
U.S. President Barack Obama can save far more babies worldwide
and in the U.S. from the  birth  defect  of  Cerebral Palsy  (CP) than
the fantastic Dr. Kelsey  did  from  malformations; and as a bonus
fewer American infants will develop autism.

 In 2007 the very prestigious Institute of Medicine, represented by
Greg  Alexander (ScD), identified "Prior first trimester induced
abortion" as an "Immutable  Medical Risk Factor Associated with
Preterm Birth" ([Book:] Preterm Birth:  Causes, Consequences, and
Prevention (Behrman, RE, Butler AS, Alexander GR, National Acad-
mies Press  2007). In 2007 Dr. Byron Calhoun et al. estimated 1,096
excess cases of  Cerebral Palsy in U.S. newborn under 3 pounds 5
yearly due to prior induced abortions.  Preterm birth is a very well
accepted risk  factor for Cerebral Palsy.  Dr. Calhoun's article in the
Journal of Reproductive Medicine has never been challenged via a
'letter to the editor'.  To term IAs as "Surgical Thalidomide" would
underplay the injury done by IAs; the bulk of Thalidomide's damage
was inflicted over four (4) years, but the damage of IAs has spanned
decades and the per year damage is at least four (4) times worse.

 There are about 1.2 million IAs (Induced Abortions) performed in
the  U.S. yearly, but the worldwide IA total is very conservatively
estimated to be 14.5 million by Wm. Robert Johnston (MS).  Thus, it
is a conservative estimate that prior IAs cause over ten thousand
cases of CP yearly worldwide, which is about 4 times the yearly
terrible birth defect toll inflicted by Thalidomide.

 President Obama can learn from Dr. Frances Kelsey, who knew
that Thalidomide had only been tested on lower animals (i.e. mice,
rats, cats, dogs, rabbits and guinea pigs), but not on the best animal
model (i.e. non-human primates such as monkeys and chimpanzees). 
It was only after the Thalidomide tragedy that non-human pri-
mate testing was done.  For the most common abortion procedure,
"suction", the testing has been outrageously more lax than Thalido-
mide testing.  In the  Winter 2008 issue of the Journal of American
Physicians and Surgeons  Brent Rooney (MSc), Dr. Byron Calhoun,
and  Lisa Roche (J.D.) revealed that "suction" abortion has zero
published studies in medical journals to validate its safety; [URL:
http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf].  "Suction"  abortions
thus violate the 1947 Nuremberg Code which insists that new
medical treatments be first safety validated on animals before
human trials begin.  As for "chemical abortifacients" (RU-486 etc.)
there are no published non-human primate studies demonstrating
that these drugs do not elevate neurological damage risk in babies
in subsequent pregnancies; neurological damage causes Cerebral
Palsy (and epilepsy, mental retardation and many suspect, autism).

 In 2002 Swedish researchers reported that women with prior IAs
had 60% higher odds of a newborn with CP than women with zero
prior abortions.  One must suspect that the researchers attempted to
'bury' this result, since it was not in 'summary' section, nor in the
main text, but it was merely an entry in a table.

 During the 2008 election campaign, candidate Obama promised
that he would promptly sign FOCA into law after being sworn in.
FOCA smashes women's right to informed medical consent for
induced abortion.  Smashing informed consent will result in more
babies with Cerebral Palsy, autism, mental retardation, blindness,
deafness, respiratory distress, and epilepsy (all risks of premature
birth).  President  Obama becomes the "Children's President" if he
vetoes FOCA (Freedom Of Choice Act) and denies all government
funding for IAs until safety from breast cancer and premature birth
risk is proven in non-human primate studies and a full & honest
review of existing human studies is performed by the U.S. Surgeon
General. For President Obama this is actually a critical "fork in the
road" decision. By protecting newborn babies from excess Cerebral
Palsy risk and mothers from breast cancer, Barack Obama can right-
fully carry the mantle of the "Children's President". But, if President
Obama signs FOCA and allows governmental abortion funding to
continue, he becomes "Mengele's Man".  Let us have a President
with the courage to do a "U-Turn" and become: "the Children's President".

(I am a medical researcher with a special focus on preterm birth
risk factors.  As a  result of the May 2003 Rooney/Calhoun review
study of the APB (Abortion Preterm Birth) risk, the  state of Texas
has warned women that prior IAs elevate the future risk of preterm
and handicapped newborn;  URL:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/pdf/booklet)

***************

References:

 [Winter study finding that Black Newborn have 53% higher risk of
 CP than Caucasians:]
 1 Winter S, Autry A, Boyle C, Yeargin-Allsopp M. Trends in the
 Prevalence of Cerebral Palsy in a Population-based Study. Pediatrics
 2002;110(6):1220-1225  [ abstract URL:
 http://pediatrics.aappublicatons.org/cgi/content/abstract/110/6/1220 ]

 [Institute of Medicine book identifying prior abortions as a
 preterm birth risk factor:]
 2 Behrman RE, Butler AS, Alexander GR. [Book] Preterm Birth: Causes,
 Consequences, and Prevention.  National Academies Press 2007
 [ URL: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625 ]

 [Rooney/Calhoun review of over 49 studies finding that abortions
 boost preterm birth risk:]
 3 Rooney B, Calhoun BC. Induced abortion and risk of alter premature
 births. J Amer Phys Surg 2003;8(2):46-49
 [ URL:  http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf ]

 ["Suction" abortion violates the Nuremberg Code via no published
 animal studies:]
 4 Rooney B, Calhoun BC, Roche L.  Does induced abortion account
 for racial disparity in preterm births, and violate the Nuremberg Code?
 J  American Physicians Surgeons  2008;13(4):102-104
 [ URL:  http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf ]

 [2002 Swedish finding prior abortions elevate CP odds in a newborn by 60%:]
 5 Jacobsson B, Hagberg G, Hagberg  B, Ladfors L, Niklasson A,
 Hagberg H.  Cerebral Palsy in preterm infants: a population-based
 case-control study of antenatal and intrapartal risk factors.  Acta
 Paediatrica 2002;91:946-951

 [Abortion-Preterm-Birth study of ten (10) European Countries
 with Papiernik as co-author]
 6 Ancel P-Y,  Lelong N,  Papiernik E, Saurel-Cubizoilles M-J,
 Kaminski M.  History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm
 birth in European countries: results of the EUROPOP survey.  Human
 Reproduction 2004;112:734-740 [ abstract URL:
 http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/734 ]

 7 Brynner R, Stephens T.  [Book:] Dark Remedy.  2001 New York.  Basic Books

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

"An Open Letter to World Magazine" by Karen Malec, President, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

A new article by Alisa Harris in World Magazine discusses the relationship between Komen and Planned Parenthood.  Her story includes misinformation and omissions about the abortion-breast cancer link for the magazine's Christian readers. 

Following this message, you will find my open letter to the editor of World Magazine.  In that letter, I wrote:

"I challenge Komen, the American Cancer Society and other cancer groups that have the audacity to deny the ABC link to either prove Brind wrong or stop misleading women and causing more breast cancers than they prevent."

ACTION ITEM:  Write or call the magazine to request a correction.

Letters to the editor:
Email: mailbag@worldmag.com
Phone: 828-232-5415
Fax: 828-253-1556

Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

"An Open Letter to World Magazine"

by Karen Malec, President, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Re: "Life or death? ABORTION PRESENT: Group that fights breast cancer maintains troubling ties to Planned Parenthood," By Alisa Harris, January 17, 2008.  Available at: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/article.cfm?eid=A7F4B067-EC95-B315-9BF5442343E44C33

Dear Editor:

A new article in World Magazine discussed the disturbing financial relationship between the breast cancer group, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and an organization that is the primary cause of the breast cancer epidemic in the U.S. - Planned Parenthood. 

The author, Alisa Harris, correctly reported that basic medical textbooks acknowledge that full term pregnancies offer women a considerable reduction in breast cancer risk.  Logically, that means that the woman who chooses not to have a baby (i.e. by having an abortion) has a higher breast cancer risk than does the one who has a baby.  The loss of the protective effect of a full term pregnancy is the first of three ways that abortion is linked with increased breast cancer risk (known as the "ABC link").

Harris' story, however, included inaccuracies and omitted important facts.  Eight medical organizations acknowledge that abortion further raises a woman's risk (independently of the loss of the protective effect of childbearing) by leaving her breasts with more places for cancer to start. [1] 

I am troubled that Harris left her readers in doubt about the existence of the independent link.  She said Komen's officials dispute the independent link because:

"In 2003, 100 experts from the National Cancer Institute concluded there was no link between breast cancer and either miscarriages or induced abortions. Harvard University and Oxford University have found similar results in the past two years."

If Harris would read the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) workshop conclusions, she would find that the federal agency acknowledged the protective effect of a full term pregnancy, but then blatantly contradicted itself by denying an ABC link. 

Research shows that abortions raise risk, but most miscarriages do not raise risk.  The NCI throws up fairy dust and confuses the public by mixing up these effects.  More about that later.

It is disheartening that Harris did not inform her Christian readers about a shocking quote from Dr. Leslie Bernstein, a lead moderator at the NCI's workshop (which has been called a "political sham").  The quote reveals Bernstein's motivation for concealing the ABC link from the public.  After the workshop, she told a journalist at CancerPage.com that an early first full term pregnancy (before age 24) provides women with the best way to prevent the disease, but Bernstein doesn't want women to know about it.  She said:

"The biggest bang for the buck is the first birth and the younger you are the better off you are...There are so many other messages we can give women about lifestyle modification and the impact of lifestyle and risk that I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk.

"I don't want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be part of the mix of the discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued availability.  I think it should not be part of the argument." (Available at: http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id+5601)

Bernstein's abandonment of fundamental ethical principles is not uncommon among scientists today whose own textbooks encourage them to become activists. (For example, see: Understanding the Fundamentals of Epidemiology: An Evolving Text by Victor J. Schoenbach, Ph.D. and Wayne D. Rosamond, Ph.D.  Available at <http://www.epidemiolog.net>)

The journal Nature published an article, "Scientists behaving badly," in 2005 showing that in an anonymous survey of several thousand career scientists who receive funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an astounding percentage admitted to participating in the most egregious misbehaviours. [2]  For instance, 15.5% were willing to admit they had "changed the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source" (that would be the NIH) within the previous three years.

When scientists become unethical, they can do great harm to the dignity of mankind.

The biological reason for the ABC link is extremely compelling, but Harris' article (and even Komen whose mission is to "eradicate breast cancer") omits any discussion of it.  Even the most virulently pro-abortion scientists - who (appallingly) testify as expert witnesses for abortion providers in lawsuits challenging state parental notice and consent laws that protect minors from predatory abortion industry practices - have never attempted to refute the biological reason for the ABC link because it is physiologically correct.

Harris, furthermore, inaccurately quoted New Jersey breast cancer surgeon Angela Lanfranchi.  Harris wrote:

"But Lanfranchi would add that abortions, both spontaneous and induced, create cancer-vulnerable breast tissue...."

Lanfranchi's medical journal articles make it abundantly clear that most miscarriages do not raise risk, but abortions do raise risk. [3,4]  Most miscarriages are abnormal first trimester pregnancies with low hormonal levels that are insufficient to maintain those pregnancies, but most abortions are normal pregnancies with elevated hormonal levels.  Studies have demonstrated that doctors can predict when a woman will have a miscarriage by drawing her blood and measuring hormonal levels.

The ABC link is about cancer-susceptible breast lobules being overexposed to the hormone estrogen, which is known to be a cancer-causing agent. Most of the lobules in a childless woman's breasts consist of cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules. That is where 95% of all cancers originate. 

During a normal pregnancy, estrogen causes breast growth by stimulating the lobules to multiply, so the woman who has the abortion is left with more places in her breasts for cancers to start (the independent link). However, the woman who has a full term pregnancy experiences a protective process during the last months of pregnancy known as "differentiation," which by the time of delivery, matures 85% of her lobules into fully cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules.  That explains the protective effect of a full term pregnancy.

There is strong biological support for the independent link in other related scientific evidence.  Similar biological events should have similar results.  Several studies have found that a premature birth before 32 weeks of pregnancy increases breast cancer risk. [5,6,7,8]  Why?  For the same biological reasons explained above.  The mother experiences the same hormonal influence on her breasts as the one who has an abortion.  She, too, is left with more places in her breasts for cancers to start.

Scientists do not challenge the evidence supporting a link between premature birth before 32 weeks gestation and breast cancer, but they disingenuously challenge any findings that implicate their beloved surgical procedure - abortion - as an independent link for the disease.  Komen (and other cancer groups) does not reveal this uncomfortable truth to its supporters either.

A Danish study, Melbye et al. 1997, found a 3% increase in risk for every week of pregnancy that passed before an abortion took place. [9]  The biological explanation is very simple.  The longer the mother is pregnant before her abortion takes place, the longer she is overexposed to estrogen, and the greater the number of cancer-vulnerable lobules that her breasts grow. 

Importantly, the Institute of Medicine recognizes abortion as an "immutable medical risk factor for premature birth." [10]  The Stop Cancer Coalition in Vancouver reports that some 100 studies support that link.  Therefore, it can be concluded that abortion can cause a woman to have a premature birth in a subsequent pregnancy and - if she gives birth before 32 weeks of pregnancy - it puts her at risk for breast cancer (not to mention the fact that her premature child is at risk for cerebral palsy and other serious conditions).

Harris' article omitted other important facts. The overwhelming majority of epidemiological studies report risk increases for women who have had abortions. One study in 2007 found abortion to be the "best predictor of breast cancer" for eight European nations. [11]  Patrick Carroll, a statistician and actuary, proved that he could predict future breast cancer rates for England and Wales for the years 2003 and 2004 with nearly 100% accuracy by using abortion rates. 

The British insurance magazine, The Actuary, reported his findings in November of 2007 [12]; and the Royal Statistical Society sponsored a panel discussion of it last year.  Strangely, Komen (and other cancer groups supposedly dedicated to the eradication of breast cancer) does not talk about that study either, not even during Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

As for the studies by Oxford and Harvard researchers that Komen likes to use to deny an ABC link, women have a right to know that these studies have been criticized in medical journals for having serious flaws. [13,14] The Oxford study received criticism from four researchers (independently of one another) in five separate medical journals. [15,16,17,18]  That fact doesn't seem to faze Komen's officials.

The Harvard study received criticism for violating a basic scientific principle of allowing sufficient time to pass after an abortion before following-up to see how many subjects in the study have developed breast cancer. [19] A minimum follow-up time of eight to ten years is considered ideal.

According to Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, opponents of the ABC link are fond of incorporating a lack of follow-up time in the prospective studies that they use to deny an independent link. [19]

In 2005, Brind reviewed 10 prospective studies that abortion zealots use to deny the independent link (including the Oxford study). [20]  He concluded that they are severely flawed and cannot be used to deny the much larger body of studies that support that link.  Although the journal that published Brind's review has no time limit for critics to send letters proving Brind was wrong, no one has ever challenged his conclusions. 

I challenge Komen, the American Cancer Society and other cancer groups that have the audacity to deny the ABC link to either prove Brind wrong or stop misleading women and causing more breast cancers than they prevent.

There is no doubt that Planned Parenthood causes more women to develop breast cancer through its sales of cancer-causing hormonal contraceptives/abortifacients.  The World Health Organization assigned combined (estrogen + progestin) oral contraceptives ("the pill") and combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) the highest level of carcinogenicity - Group 1 - in 2006. [21,22] 

Both contain the same type of drugs - estrogen + progestin.  In the case of combined oral contraceptives (drugs which can be delivered through the pill, IUD, injection, vaginal ring or transdermal patch), exposure often takes place during the most cancer-vulnerable time of a woman's life - before first full term pregnancy when nearly all of her breast lobules are cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules.

Recognition of a breast cancer risk involving either use of the pill or HRT containing estrogen and progestin also provides additional biological support for an independent link between abortion and breast cancer.  The biological basis is the same.  It's about cancer-vulnerable breast lobules being overexposed to estrogen while in the presence of progesterone.

According to a 2008 report from STOPP International, Komen gave Planned Parenthood $711,485 between April 2005 and April 2006. [23]  Is it reasonable for Komen to entrust Planned Parenthood with the important job of breast cancer screening, even when there are so many legitimate organizations that already carry out this function? Certainly, not!  It is as scandalous and offensive as if the American Lung Association had entrusted the tobacco company, Philip Morris, with funds to screen its customers for lung cancer!

Komen's former Latina adviser, Eve Sanchez Silver points out that Planned Parenthood does not even serve the right demographic for breast cancer screening.  Planned Parenthood's customers are young people. Breast cancer occurs most often in women 50+ years old.

In conclusion, I ask World Magazine to correct Harris' misinformation.

Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com

References:

1. For a list of the medical organizations recognizing the independent link, see: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/medicalgroups/index.htm

2. Martinson B, Anderson M, de Vries R. Commentary: Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005;435.

3. Lanfranchi A. The science, studies and sociology of the abortion-breast cancer link. Research Bulletin 2005;18:1-8. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/June2005.pdf

4. Lanfranchi A. The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link. Imago Hominis 2005;12(3): 228-236. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Lanfranchi060201.pdf

5. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-M N, Westergaard T, Andersen PK. Preterm delivery and risk of breast cancer. Bri J Cancer 1999;80:609-13.

6. Hsieh C-c, Wuu J, Lambe M, Trichopoulos D, et al Delivery of premature newborns and maternal breast-cancer risk. Lancet 1999;353-1239.

7. Vatten LJ, et al. Pregnancy related protection against breast cancer depends on length of gestation. Br J Cancer 2002;87:289-90.

8. Innes K and Byers T. First pregnancy characteristics and subsequent breast cancer risk among young women. Int J Cancer 2004; 112:306-311.

9. 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.

10. Richard E. Behrman, Adrienne Stith Butler, Editors. Preterm birth: Causes, Consequences and Prevention. Committee on Understanding Premature Birth and Assuring Healthy Outcomes. Institute of Medicine.  Appendix B, Table 5, p. 519.  Available at: <http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625>.

11. Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." J Am Phys Surg Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78.  Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf>.

12. Carroll P. The Breast Cancer Epidemic. The Actuary (November 2007) p. 30-31. Available at: <http://www.the-actuary.org.uk/pdfs/07_11_30-31.pdf>.

13. Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G. Collaborative Group of Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries. Lancet 2004;363:1007-16.

14. Michels K, Xue Fei, Colditz G., Willett W. Induced and Spontaneous Abortion and Incidence of Breast Cancer Among Young Women. Arch Int Med 167:814-820.

15. Schlafly A. Legal implications of a link between abortion and breast cancer. J Am Phys Surgeons 2005;10:11-14. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf>.

16. Brind J. The abortion-breast cancer connection. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2005; p. 303-329. Available at: <http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com/Brind_NCBQ.PDF>.

17. Lanfranchi A. The abortion-breast cancer link revisited. Ethics and Medics (November 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-4.

18. Furton E. The corruption of science by ideology. Ethics and Medics (Dec. 2004) Vol. 29, No. 12, p. 1-2.

19. Brind J.  Induced abortion and breast cancer: A critical analysis of the report of the Harvard Nurses Study II. J Am Phys Surg 2007;12(2)38-39.

20. Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective data. J Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at: < http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf>.

21. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.

22. Press Release No. 167, "IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives (the "pill") and Menopausal Therapy Are Carcinogenic to Humans," World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer, July 29, 2005. See <http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/pr167a.html>.

23. Baggot, M. "Report Reveals Komen Gave Over $700 Thousand to Planned Parenthood in One Year / STOPP calls for end to Komen funding," LifeSiteNews.com, April 10, 2008. Available at: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08041002.html

#####

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.

Click here (http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/support/) to make tax-deductible, credit card donations. Donations can be mailed to:

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
P.O. Box 957133
Hoffman Estates, IL 60195
 
The IRS recognizes the Coalition as a 501(c)3 organization.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
 
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com

This newsletter can be viewed online by clicking here:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/090107.htm

Help Reduce Cerebral Palsy and Autism, Mr. Daschle, by Stopping Induced Abortions, Especially on African-American Women

Obama Can Become the "Children's President" if ...

An Open Letter to Sen. Tom Daschle from Brent Rooney (MSc)

Senator Thomas Daschle (Alston and Bird),

By reducing Cerebral Palsy and Autism rates President Obama will
become the "Children's President". You have been selected to be the
next Secretary of Health and Human Services. As HHS Secretary you
can slash the incidence of Cerebral Palsy (CP) and Autism inflicted
on Black American babies. Dr. Sarah Winter et al. reported in 2002
that Black American newborn have a 53% higher relative CP risk
than Caucasian newborn. [Winter, 1] By adhering to the 1947
Nuremberg Code of medical ethics fewer newborn with CP, AUTISM,
mental retardation, epilepsy, etc. plus improved reproductive health
for women will result. As a supporter of the Nuremberg Code, you
assuredly would be most appalled, if a common medical procedure
has not been validated as safe by published animal studies. However,
as documented in the 2008 Rooney/Calhoun/Roche ('RCR') article
(enclosed) and the enclosed sworn affidavit, vacuum aspiration
(aka 'suction') abortion has never been validated as safe via published
animal studies. [Rooney, 2] However, if you can cite a specific
published animal study (in a peer-reviewed medical journal) of vacuum
aspiration abortion, we would be most interested to be informed of
that study.

In 2007 an Institute of Medicine textbook identified "Prior first
trimester induced abortion" as an "Immutable Medical Risk
Factor Associated with Preterm Birth". [Behrman, 3] Extremely
preterm newborn (under 28 weeks' gestation) have a 14.6%
CP risk. [Himpens, 4] As documented in the 'RCR' study six
(6) statistically significant studies reported higher risk of
extremely preterm birth (XPB) for women with prior IAs (induced
abortions). [Rooney, 2] In October 2007 Calhoun et al. estimated
1,096 excess CP cases in U.S. newborn under 1,500 grams in
2002 due to prior IAs. [Calhoun, 5] 'Calhoun' has never been
challenged via a 'letter to the editor'.

Black American Women have quadruple the XPB risk as
Caucasian women [Behrman, 3] and 4.3 times the induced
abortion rate as non-Black women. [Struass, 6]. As you well know,
Senator Daschle, in science the BURDEN of PROOF lies
entirely upon those making a claim. Those who support the claim
of safety for 'suction' abortion have not even proven safety of
'suction' abortion on animals, much less on humans. You have a
chance to make a tremendous contribution to women's
reproductive health and to removing Black American women as
the prime 'Guinea Pigs' of the unproven and experimental
procedure of 'suction' abortion.

Thus, we ask you, Senator Tom Daschle, to urge President Obama,
when sworn in, to deny funding (direct and indirect) to any
organization that provides induced abortion procedures that violate
rule 3 of the 1947 Nuremberg Code. To our knowledge, not only
has vacuum aspiration abortion not been validated via published
animal studies, but the same applies to D & C (Dilation & Curettage),
D & E (Dilation & Evacuation), and D & X (Dilation and eXtraction).
The era of using Black American Women as 'Guinea Pigs' must end.
Let us have fewer Black, Caucasian, Hispanic, et al. newborn with Cerebral
Palsy and AUTISM. By denying funds to organizations which make
pregnant American women 'Guinea Pigs' for an unproven and experimental
procedures that violate the 1947 Nuremberg Code, President Obama
will truly be the "Children's President".

Thank you, in advance, for your help in reducing Cerebral Palsy and
AUTISM rates in Black American infants. (I am a medical researcher
with a special focus on premature birth risk factors.)

Cc Harriet Washington (PhD), Alveda King, William McGurn (Wall Street Journal) Senator Tom Coburn, Prof. Susan F. Wood, Teresa Collett (PhD), Jay Sekulow, Prof. Lainie F. Ross (U. Chicago), Dr. Lawrence Altman, Melanie Beck (WSJ)

Cordially,

Brent Rooney (MSc)
Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition 3456 Dunbar St. (Suite 146)
Vancouver, Canada V6S 2C2 web: http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf
Sent via courier on December 1, 2008

References
3 of 3
1 Winter S, Autry A, Boyle C, Yeargin-Allsopp M. Trends in the Prevalence
of Cerebral Palsy in a Population-based Study. Pediatrics 2002;110(6):1220-1225
[ URL: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/110/6/1220]

2 Rooney B, Calhoun BC, Roche L. Does Induced Abortion Account
for Racial Disparity in Preterm Births, and Violate the Nuremberg Code? J Amer
Phys Surg 2008;13(4):xx-yy [ URL: http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf
3 Behrman RE, Butler AS, Alexander GR. [Book] Preterm Birth: Causes,
Consequences, and Prevention. National Academies Press 2007
[ URL: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625]

4 Himpens E, Van den Broeck C, Oostra A, Calders P, Vanhaesebrouck P.
Prevalence, type, distribution and severity of cerebral palsy in relation to
gestational age: a meta-analytic review. Developmental Med Child Neur
2008;50:334-340

5 Calhoun BC, Shadigian E, Rooney B. Cost Consequences of Induced Abortion
as an Attributable Risk for Preterm Birth and Informed Consent. J Reprod Med
2007;52(10):929-937

6 Strauss LT, Gamble SB, Parker WY, Cook DA, Zane SB, et al. MMWR Surveillance
Summaries. Abortion Surveillance (United States, 2004) November 23, 2007/56
(SS09):1-33 [ URL: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm]

7 Nuremberg Code URL:
http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.htmlaccessed on 6 August 2008

8 Moster D, Terje R, Markestad T. Long-term Medical and Social Consequences
of Preterm Birth. New Engl J Medicine 2008;359:262-273
Appendix A: Rule 3 of the 1947 Nuremberg Code

"3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal
experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or
other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the
performance of the experiment." [7]

Appendix B: Preterm Birth Risk and Autism

The 2008 Rooney/Calhoun/Roche study identified six (6) statistically
significant studies that reported higher risk of extremely preterm birth
(XPB) for women with prior induced abortions compared to women
with zero prior induced abortions. [Rooney, 2] In 2008 Norwegian
researchers reported that XPB babies have 9.7 times the odds of
developing AUTISM compared to full-term newborn. [Moster, 8]

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Autism and Abortion: The Tragic Link by Brent Rooney (MSc)

GUEST COMMENTARY by BRENT ROONEY *

     In the 15 October 2008 McCain/Obama debate AUTISM was
mentioned at the beginning and at the end of the debate.  Three times
as many families are affected by the serious behavioral problems
of autistic children than the number of families affected by CP
(Cerebral Palsy).  Male infants have higher autism risk than do female
infants; gastrointestinal problems are a likely autism risk factor.  Whether
vaccinations elevate autistic risk is not a settled issue. There is evidence
than metal poisoning (e.g.s. mercury, lead) raises autistic risk.  Estimates
of the prevalence of autism vary by a factor of 5 or 10.  In a 2006 article
by Judith Grether a prevalence of 6-7 per one thousand U.S. children with
autism was used and I'll use Grether's modest estimate of 6-7 per thousand.

     Premature birth is a risk factor for many serious birth defects, including
CP, mental retardation, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, respiratory distress,
gastrointestinal problems, serious infections, AUTISM, etc.  In 2008
Norwegian researchers led by Dag Moster reported that extremely premature
newborns (under 28 weeks' gestation) had 9.7 times the autism risk as full-term
newborns (at least 37 weeks' gestation). [Moster, 1]  In another 2008 study
(Catherine Limperopoulos et al.) it was reported that newborn under 1,500
grams (i.e. 3 lbs. 5 ozs.) had an absolute 26% risk of autism. [Limperopoulos, 2]

     Since 1992 there have been five (5) statistically significant studies to
report that women with prior induced abortions had higher risk of delivering
an extremely preterm newborn. [Smith, 3; Lumley, 4-5; Moreau, 6; Stang,
7]  Opposed to these five studies are zero statistically significant studies
reporting that women with prior induced abortions have a lower risk of
an extremely preterm newborn compared to women with zero prior induced
abortions. In 2007 the Institute of Medicine in a textbook identified "Prior
first trimester induced abortion" as an "Immutable Medical Risk Factor
Associated  with Preterm Birth" [Behrman, 8]; [ URL: 
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625 ].

    Bottom line: Abortion and Autism are Linked.  The most common abortion
procedure (vacuum aspiration abortion) has zero published animal studies to
validate its safety.  The lack of such animal studies means that 100% of 'suction'
abortions violate rule 3 of the 1947 Nuremberg Code (i.e. animal testing of
a new surgery or new drug must precede human trials).

     * Rooney is a medical researcher with a special interest in preterm birth
risk factors. [Rooney, 9,11]

................................................................................

Brent Rooney (MSc)
Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition
3456 Dunbar St. (Suite 146)
Vancouver, Canada  V6S 2C2
email: fullterm40@gmail.com

References

 1  Moster D, Terje L, Markestad T.  Long-Term Medical and Social
     Consequences of Preterm Birth.  New England Journal of Medicine
     2008;359:262-273  [ Abstract URL:
     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18635431?dopt=Abstract ]

 2  Limperopoulos C, Bassan H, Sullivan NR, Soul JS, Robertson RL, et al.
     Positive Screening for Autism in Ex-preterm Infants. Pediatrics 2008;121(4):
     758-765  [ Abstract URL:
     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18381541?dopt=Abstract ]

 3 Smith GCS, Shah I, White IR, Pell JP, Crossley JA, et al. Maternal and
    biochemical predictors of spontaneous preterm birth among nulliparous women:
    a  systematic analysis in relation to the degree of prematurity.  Int J Epidemiol
    2006;35(5):1169-1177

 4 Lumley J.  The association between prior spontaneous abortion, prior induced
    abortions and preterm birth in first singleton births. Prenat Neonat Med
    1998;3:21-24

 5 Lumley J.  The epidemiology of preterm birth.  Bailliere's Clinical Obstet
    Gynecol  1993;7(3):477-498

 6 Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY, Bouyer J, Escande B, et al: Previous induced
    abortions and the risk of very preterm term delivery: Results of the EPIPAGE
    study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol  2005;112:430-437 [ abstract URL:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15777440?dopt=Abstract ]

 7 Stang P, Hammond AO, Bauman P.  Induced Abortion Increases the Risk of
    Very Preterm Delivery: Results of a Large Perinatal Database.  Fertility Sterility
    Sept. 2005:S159 [here 'Very' means under 28.0 weeks' gestation] 

 8 Behrman RE, Butler AS, Alexander GR.  [Book] Preterm Birth:
    Causes,  Consequences, and Prevention. National Academies Press 2007
    [ URL:    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625 ]

 9 Rooney B, Calhoun BC.  Induced abortion and risk of later premature births.
    J Amer Phys Surgeons  2003;8(2):46-49 [URL:
    http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf ]
 
10 Thorp JM, Hartmann KE, Shadigian E.  Long-Term Physical and Psychological
     Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence.  Obstet Gynecol
     Survey  2003;58(1):67-79

11 [IN PRESS} Rooney B, Calhoun BC, Roche L.  Does Induced Abortion Account
     for Racial Disparity in Preterm Births, and  Violate the Nuremberg Code?
     J Amer Phys Surg  2008 or 2009

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org 

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Canadian Researcher Blasts Palin Critic Who Said Choice of Life For Son Wrong

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is an open letter to Nicholas Provenzo from Canadian researcher Brent Rooney.  Provenzo criticized Sarah Palin's decision not to abort her son, Trig, a child with Down Syndrome, in an article titled:  Palin's Down syndrome child and the right to abortion. 

To: Nicholas Provenzo
From: Brent Rooney, MSc

Subject:  More Suicides by Women Okay by Nicholas Provenzo

     In less than 20 minutes a pregnant woman can almost double her risk of

being a homicide victim in the next 8 years and multiply her risk of suicide

by 2 1/2 in the following 8 years. [Reardon, 1]  Thus, anyone suggesting that

induced abortion is a smart and moral option must be 'smoking something'.

                              

     You, Nicholas Provenzo, pretend to be an advocate of Ayn Rand's

philosophy of self-interest and unfettered capitalism.  Nicholas Provenzo

writes about Sarah Palin and her son Trig (who has Down syndrome) as follows:

 

     "Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being

      marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision,

      unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for a lifetime of assistance that

      their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's

      life upon others." [Provenzo, 2]

 

You, Mr. Nicholas Provenzo, founder of the Center for the Advancement of

Capitalism, state in your 16 September 2008 essay, "it is crucial to reaffirm the

morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome..."  Thus, you believe 

it is moral for parents to abort 'useless eaters'; 'useless eaters' is NOT Provenzo's

term, but a term used by the Nazi's in the 1930s to persuade the public that badly

handicapped people were worthless and approximately 70,000 of these innocent 

handicapped people were murdered by the Nazis. The Nazis also used the term

'life unworthy of life'. [Glass, 3]

 

     Ayn Rand was a brilliant novelist and philosopher who advocated self-interest,

rationality and capitalism (which gets 4+ cheers from Brent Rooney).  Rand also

advised her 'objectivist' followers to prepare themselves very well before they

entered the public arena.  Sadly, Nicholas Provenzo, has failed to brief himself on

the medical disaster that is induced abortion. A 2002 study of low income

California women in the Southern Medical Journal reported that women with an IA

(Induced Abortion) had 2 1/2 times the suicide rate in the 8 years after as women

who delivered. [Reardon, 1]  In the 2 years after 'pregnancy end' women who had

an IA had twice the total risk of dying as women who delivered and in the 8

years after the women with IAs had 60% higher total risk of dying as women who

delivered. [Reardon, 1]  Can Mr. Provenzo cite just one study following women

for at least one year 'after' showing that women with induced abortions have a

lower total death risk (medical jargon: all-cause mortality) than women who

delivered?

 

     Perhaps Nicholas thinks that 2002 study of California women 'is just

one study' and that it has not been validated by any other study.  In 1997 Finnish

researchers led by Dr. Mika Gissler reported that Finnish women who ended

their pregnancy via induced abortion had 3.5 times the total death risk in the

one year 'after' as women who delivered. [Gissler, 5]  In the one year 'after'

women with an induced abortion had 6.5 times the risk of suicide and 14 times

the risk of being a murder victim as women who delivered. [Gissler, 5]

 

     Those who want to know the wide range of physical and mental damages

inflicted by induced abortion can read the online version of Women's Health

after Abortion (URL: http://deveber.org/text/whaa-chapters.html ).

[Ring-Cassidy, 5]

 

     Lastly, why would you, Nicholas  Provenzo, advocate that women undergo

experimental and unproven surgery?  The most common induced abortion procedure

is vacuum aspiration (aka 'suction') abortion.  'Suction' abortion has zero published

animal studies to support its safety. [Rooney, 6]  Dr. Sharon Camp of the Alan

Guttmacher Institute admitted in an email to Brent Rooney (MSc) on 16 January

2008 that AGI could not cite any such animal study for vacuum aspiration abortion.

Dr. Sharon Camp's email address is:  scamp@guttmacher.org . As you may know,

Nicholas Provenzo, to not first validate a new surgery or new drug on animals

BEFORE human trials commence violates rule 3 of the 1974 Nuremberg Code.

[Nuremberg Code, 7]

 

     [I am a medical researcher with a special focus on premature birth risk

factors.]

 

Objectively, Medically Informed, and Cordially Yours,

Brent Rooney (MSc)

Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition

Vancouver, Canada

web:  http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf

 

References 

 

1 Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren F, Cougle J, Coleman PK, et al.   Deaths

   associated with pregnancy outcome: A record linkage study of low income

   women.  Southern Med J  2002;95(8):834-841  [ Abstract URL:

   http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13850014 ]

 

2 Provenzo N.  Palin's Down syndrome child and the right to abortion

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/09/palins-down-syndrome-child-and-right-to.htm

 

3 Glass JM. [Book:] Life unworthy of life: racial phobias and mass murder in

   Hitler's Germany.  New York, Basic Books 1997

 

4 Gissler M, Kauppila R, Merilainen J, Toukomoa H, Hemminki E.  Pregnancy-

   associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994: definition problems and benefits of

   record linkage.  ACTA Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica  1997;

   76(7):651-675  [ Abstract URL:

   http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a791454723~db=all ]

 

5 Ring-Cassidy E, Gentles I. Women's Health after Abortion.  Toronto, deVeber

   http://deveber.org/text/whaa-chapters.html  

 

6 Rooney B, Johnston WR. Mored adverse effects of abortion.  J Am Phys Surg

   2007;12(4):97-98 [ URL: http://www.jpands.org/vol12no4/correspondence.pdf ]

 

7 Nuremberg Code  http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html 

   [accessed on 13 March 2008]

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: Dan@rffm.org

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.

Living Wills: Signing Your Own Death Warrant? A Christian Lawyer’s Perspective

by Stephen Bloom  

 

Editor’s Note: Stephen Bloom is a Christian attorney with more than 20 years experience in private practice. He is a frequent media guest, speaker, and writer on Christianity and the law, a Lecturer in Management and Business at Messiah College, and a Consultant to the United Methodist Stewardship Foundation of Central Pennsylvania. He is a legal columnist for Good News Daily, former host of the "Practical Counsel - Christian Perspective" radio program, and founder of the Estate Planning Council of Cumberland County. Bloom has been actively involved in the leadership of numerous community and ministry organizations, including his church, where he serves as a Certified Lay Speaker. He is a longtime member of the Christian Legal Society.

 

The signs of confusion are pervasive and troubling. My legal clients ask, “Should I carry my Living Will with me, in case I’m in an accident while traveling?” A major newspaper story laments that “too often” Living Wills aren’t available “when decisions about life support must be made.” Retirement community residents are directed to keep Living Wills taped to their refrigerators, for quick and easy access. Credible stories are told of first responders and emergency room personnel withholding care from patients with Living Wills.

 

What’s wrong with this picture? What does everyone seem to be missing? Isn’t this what Living Wills are all about? Well, hard as it might be to believe in the midst of a culture that seems to place less and less value on human life, no! Living Wills were never intended to prevent urgent lifesaving treatment!

 

The Living Will was developed to address situations of prolonged and permanent unconsciousness, not cases of sudden illness or injury. Yet a popular assumption seems to be taking hold across our society that people with Living Wills simply want to be left to die in the event of any medical crisis. As a practicing lawyer, I’ve observed signs that this deadly assumption is becoming so prevalent that anyone with a Living Will needs to consider whether they may have inadvertently signed their own death warrant.

 

In recent decades, the Living Will concept was promoted and recognized by law as a means for patients to decide in advance what medical treatment they wished to receive (or not receive) should they ever become permanently unconscious with no realistic hope of significant recovery. Living Wills were touted as a way to give a voice, in advance, to terminally ill patients who could no longer communicate for themselves. That idea may sound reasonable enough at first, but the emerging perception reflects a tragic misunderstanding of the original intent.

 

The promise was that Living Wills would help hopelessly ill (as determined through a careful, deliberate and measured evaluation process) patients avoid being kept alive indefinitely by prolonged artificial life support treatments. The reality is that Living Wills are too often being misused, in the heat of the moment, to rush patients into premature death.

 

For those interested in learning more about this important topic, I present an engaging discussion of the moral, spiritual, and legal issues surrounding Living Wills and end-of-life decision-making in one of the chapters of my new book, “The Believer’s Guide to Legal Issues” (Living Ink Books, 2008, ISBN 0899570313). The book, written in plain English for non-lawyers, also addresses many other commonly encountered legal issues from a practical Christian perspective. Visit my website http://www.IsThereALawyerInTheChurch.com or any major online retailer to purchase the book, or order a copy from your favorite bookstore.

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org

 

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.

"Living Will" Becomes a License to Kill: The Horror Goes On In 2008

Editor's Note: Bill Beckman, Executive Director, Illinois Right to Life Committee, updates RFFM.org's readers regarding the issue of living wills.  During the last week, RFFM.org posted a series on end of life issues which were first seen on RFFM.org in 2006.  Beckman's latest column is an insightful look into the confusing and sometimes deadly result of signing a living will.

 

AUGUST 18, 2008

by Bill Beckman, Executive Director, Illinois Right to Life Committee *

While the Terri Schiavo case was in the news back in 2004, another Florida case got much less publicity.  Hanford Pinette had signed both a living will and a durable power of attorney for health care that designated his wife as agent.  When he had congestive heart failure, he needed a ventilator. 

His doctors insisted he had no hope of recovery so the provisions of his living will should be exercised by removing the ventilator.  When his wife Alice refused, hospital officials took the case to court and won.  Even though Hanford was still conscious, doctors removed his ventilator and he suffocated within two hours.  

On August 13, 2008 in Rochester, NY local TV news reported on the case of Dorothy Livadas, 97, who lives with the aid of life support.  Though she had signed documents giving her daughter, Ianthe Livadas, the power to make medical, legal, and financial decisions for her, she had also signed a "living will" instructing that she be taken off life support if she lapsed into a state where there was no reasonable expectation of recovery.

The dispute over her mother's condition forced Ianthe Livadas into a five-month legal battle against doctors, attorneys, and the Catholic Family Center.  "You don't expect a hospital to be threatening you that they're going to put aside your mother's choice of health care proxy and power of attorney, and replace you," Ianthe said.

Medical "experts" testified in court that there is no chance Dorothy will awaken or communicate.   Livadas’ daughter disagrees.  "Just the other day, I saw a sneer on her face when I mentioned someone she doesn't like very well.  When you know someone all their life, you can tell what they're thinking by subtle movements in their face that others would miss," she said.

However, the courts have ruled that Ianthe Livadas no longer has a say in her mother's care as Justice Harold Galloway awarded custody to Catholic Family Center.  He said that Ianthe "fails to appreciate her mother's true medical condition," and that she "lacks the objectivity and insight to make necessary decisions."

This is just the latest known case where signing a "living will" allows the medical profession to stop "life support" of a conscious individual because they have "no hope of recovery" even when the agent designated by a durable power of attorney for health care disagrees.  The living will simply makes it that much easier for the medical profession to get the agent declared incompetent. 

The news report did not identify whether "life support" consists simply of a feeding tube or includes a ventilator as well.  From past experience, I would be suspicious that use of the generic phrase "life support" would likely indicate that only a feeding tube was involved.  If that be true, they plan to starve Dorothy to death because doctors have agreed she has "no reasonable expectation of recovery."  That is called euthanasia!  

At the same time, more debate is occurring about the ability of the medical profession to establish the mental capabilities of disabled patients using their traditional approaches.  Michael Egnor, M.D., professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, contends that the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state, in Terri Schiavo’s case specifically, and in other cases more generally, is of dubious validity.  Dr. Egnor references a study of the brain of a PVS (persistent vegetative state) diagnosed patient that reveals mental activity almost identical to that of conscious volunteers who were given the same instructions.

The results suggest that patients diagnosed as PVS are truly conscious.  Those findings certainly support the contentions of Alice Pinette about her husband’s responses and Ianthe Livadas about her mother’s responses, even though in both cases medical professionals testified in court that they were unresponsive so their living wills should be enforced. 

Would you want your “living will” enforced when you are still conscious?  Do not ever sign a “living will” because it amounts to a license to kill you!

Dr. Egnor describes the Cambridge testing scenario as follows: 

In the September 2006 issue of Science, Dr. Owen and his Cambridge colleagues published a study entitled "Detecting Awareness in the Vegetative State."  Owen and his colleagues studied the responses of a woman who was in a persistent vegetative state, which was the consequence of severe diffuse brain damage that she had suffered in an automobile accident the year before.

The patient had no evidence of any mental function. Based on a battery of standard tests, including MRI scans, electroencephalograms (EEG’s — brain wave tests), and careful bedside examinations by neurologists and neurosurgeons, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state.  Persistent vegetative state means that she had no mental state — no consciousness.  She was, in a sense, a shell, a human body without a mind.  That’s what "vegetative" means.

Owen and his colleagues did a fascinating series of tests.  First, they asked a group of normal volunteers to have a kind of research MRI scan of their brain, called a functional MRI (fMRI). fMRI doesn’t measure the actual activity of the neurons in the brain, but it measures the blood flow and brain metabolism in specific regions of the brain.  It has been found to correlate to some extent with mental activity.  Thinking about things can make the metabolism in certain parts of the brain increase, and fMRI can detect this. The observation that brain activity can locally increase brain blood flow and metabolism was originally made a century ago, in animals in the lab, so it’s not new.  What is new is that we can now measure it in living people non-invasively, using fMRI.

The Cambridge researchers asked the volunteers to think of things, like playing tennis or walking across the room, and they recorded their fMRI brain responses.  They also presented the volunteers with nonsense words, to distinguish understanding in the brain from the mere reflex to sounds.  The response to understanding was different from the response to sound.  The fMRI test seemed to test understanding, not just reflexes.

They did the same tests to the woman who was in a persistent vegetative state.  They asked her to imagine playing tennis or imagine walking across the room, and they did the sham test with random words as well.

When they examined her fMRI responses, they found that her fMRI patterns were identical to those of the normal awake volunteers.  By fMRI criteria, she understood.  In fact, by fMRI criteria, she was as conscious as the normal volunteers.  Her brain was massively damaged, to the extent that she had been diagnosed as having no mind at all.  Yet the blood flow and metabolism patterns in her brain were those of a normal person.  And just like normal people, she showed different fMRI responses to nonsense words.  So she not only heard what was said to her, but she understood, and complied with the researchers’ requests to think about specific activities like playing tennis and walking across a room.

Owen’s study generated enormous interest among researchers, physicians and the public, not only for its implications for diagnosis of persistent vegetative state (e.g. the implications for the Terri Schiavo case), but because of what it suggests about deeper questions about the relationship between the mind and the brain. Many other studies of fMRI in patients in persistent vegetative state are underway, and several studies recently completed with other patients tend to support Owen’s findings.

Illinois Right to Life Committee's website:  http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.