Illinois Right to Life Committee
MARCH 2008
March, 2008 Pro-Life News (see articles below): 03/28/08 Ignoring a major contributing cause doesn’t help find solutions 03/20/08 Death with dignity? 03/12/08 CDC reports 25% of teenage girls have one or more STDs 03/05/08 About abortion and alcohol
Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, March 28, 2008 Ignoring a major
contributing cause doesn’t help find solutions Both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times carried reports on March 26th regarding a study presented in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. What got their attention was a study about the long-term impact of premature birth. The Sun-Times summarized key findings as “children born early have higher death rates in childhood and are more likely to be childless in adulthood.” The Tribune summary was even more ominous, stating “Infants born prematurely are much more likely to die during childhood and, if they survive, much less likely to have children of their own in adulthood.” The death rate for the earliest preemies (22-27 weeks) was 5.3 times higher than average for 1-6 year old boys and 7 times higher for 7-13 year old boys. Again for boys who were the earliest preemies, within the timeframe of the study, only 14% have had children compared to 50% of boys born at full term. The most premature girls had a 9.7 times higher than average death rate from 1-6 years of age, but no increased risk from 7-13 years old. For girls who were the earliest preemies, within the timeframe of the study, only 25% have had children compared to 68% of girls born at full term.
Even so, both articles stated, “Most preemies grow up to have good health and normal reproduction.” Another area of analysis was educational achievement. Fewer preemies had completed high school and more full term children had taken graduate education. The data used for the study was obtained from “Norway’s extensive registry of births and medical care” using statistics for over 1.16 million singleton births from 1967 to 1988 and following them through 2002. Therefore, by the end of the study’s timeframe, the study group ranged in age from 14-35 years old. For educational achievement, the study analyzed only those born from 1967 to 1976. The study raises a number of questions. Given the disparities between female deaths in the 1-6 age range compared to the 7-13 age range, and compared to boys deaths in both categories, can the results be considered statistically sound or merely anomalies? Given that a significant portion of the study group has not reached typical childbearing age, how reliable are the differences found in reproductive outcomes? Given that in vitro fertilization was not achieved until 1978 and only single births were studied here, is it reliable to assume that the outcomes identified by this study can be applied to the explosion of preemies generated by wider use of in vitro fertilization, leading to many preemies from multiple births? Of course, a variety of experts were quoted on the potential implications of the study. Dr. Geeta Swamy of Duke University Medical Center, and lead author of the study, observed, “Are we improving their survival at the expense of significant problems down the road?” Might that be a hint that Dr. Swamy would consider abortion, or even infanticide, a better choice? The Tribune article noted that “one in eight U.S. infants is now born prematurely” while “researchers are unsure why the rate is so high, but contributing factors include the growing incidence of assisted reproduction, which often produces twins or triplets, which are more likely to be born prematurely.” Another statistic raised by Dr. Wanda Barfield of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was “In the U.S. premature birth rates among black mothers are higher than among white mothers.” The unmentioned factor that is ignored in regard to premature birth is its correlation to abortion. Since black mothers have an abortion rate four times that of white mothers, they will certainly have more premature births in later pregnancies. Since abortion became more prevalent after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, premature births have risen because more mothers have abortion in their medical background. The Sun-Times article quotes Dr. Alan Fleischman of the March of Dimes stating, “In the United States, there is an epidemic of preterm birth, and prevention is absolutely critical.” How will prevention be even remotely possible when a major contributing cause (abortion) is totally ignored as being a factor? Of course, the March of Dimes views “selective reduction” (aborting “excess fetuses” produced by in vitro fertilization) as prevention! How long will it be before the March of Dimes joins Princeton professor Peter Singer in advocating infanticide as prevention for the epidemic of preterm babies?
Illinois Right to Life News for Thursday, March 20, 2008 The slide toward euthanasia continues in Oregon. The assisted suicide law requires annual reports to the public, but the accuracy of the information is questioned because those who might abuse the rules are responsible for reporting the results. Commenting on rhetoric versus reality regarding assisted suicide, Wesley Smith wrote, “We are told by backers that assisted suicide should be restricted to cases of unbearable suffering. Yet, current legislation in California and Vermont to legalize assisted suicide contains no such requirement; nor does the law in Oregon, where doctors who assist suicides report that most patients do not seek death because of pain, but because they fear being a burden, can no longer engage in enjoyable activities, and/or fear losing dignity.” Even suspect data supports the point made by
Wesley Smith that most patients do not seek death
because of pain. The report states, “As in previous years, the most
frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns were: loss of autonomy (100%), decreasing
ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (86%), and loss of dignity
(86%). During 2007, more participants were
concerned about inadequate pain control (33%) than in previous years (26%).” Note
that last point is suspect because the report does not state if any patient actually had
inadequate pain control.
More people received lethal drugs from doctors
to kill themselves than in any previous year under Oregon's first-in-the-nation law
legalizing assisted suicide, euphemistically called the Death With Dignity Act. During 2007, 85
prescriptions for lethal medications were written under the provisions of the Death With
Dignity Act compared to 65 during 2006. Of
these, 46 patients took the medications, 26 died of their underlying disease, and 13 were
alive at the end of 2007. Since the Oregon assisted suicide law took effect 10 years ago, 341 patients have killed themselves, at least according to the records submitted to the state. How many more have died under questionable circumstances that never got reported because if the facts became known, they would point to obvious violations of the law?
Illinois Right to Life News for Wednesday, March 12, 2008 CDC reports 25% of
teenage girls have one or more STDs The media made a big splash about STDs among teenage girls when a Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report became public on March 11th. The headlines read, “One in 4 teenage girls has at least one sexually transmitted disease.” The data for this study came from information collected from 838 teenagers who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2003 and 2004. We are assured that these 838 teens are “a nationally representative sample.” Is it realistic to accept this premise? How many concerned parents would allow their teenage daughter to participate in an intrusive government program seeking all kinds of information about their daughter’s health, including her sexual activity. I certainly would not have allowed such participation. I can only conclude that the so-called representative sample was actually drawn from teenagers who had much less parental supervision than normal. Surveys have shown that these teens are much more likely to experiment with sexual activity than those who have strong families and supportive parents. How can conclusions be reached about what is happening currently from data that was collected in 2003-2004? Proponents of so-called comprehensive sex education are claiming that this study proves abstinence education does not work. Since abstinence education funding increased gradually under the Bush administration, few of the teens in a survey from 2003-2004 would have any significant contact with Federally funded abstinence education. Given that, to be effective, education in any subject needs repetition, it is not logical to blame abstinence education for results produced from that timeframe, already suspect with a question mark about how representative the sample of participants really is. Jill Stanek points out that Planned Parenthood’s own Guttmacher Institute affiliate indicates only one in four sex education teachers taught abstinence. If 75% of the instruction used Planned Parenthood’s preferred alternative to abstinence education, how can abstinence education be blamed for the prevalence of STDs? I suspect that if the study results are analyzed by state, the states that are now rejecting Federal abstinence funds have higher STD rates than the states that are using Federal abstinence funding. For the current fiscal year, tragically, so far 17 states have rejected Federal funding for abstinence education. The encouragement of casual sexual activity, including use of pornography, contained in so-called comprehensive sex education contributes to the tragic increase in sexual activity leading to increased occurrence of STDs among teenage girls. With the expanded access to the Plan B morning-after pill without a prescription, more teenagers are vulnerable to STDs because they are that much less likely to see a physician where they might get tested for STDs. Since that change in access occurred after 2004, current STD rates could be getting worse. The problem of STDs among teenage girls is certainly serious, though it might be
overstated if participants were not really a representative sample. In any case, abstinence education is not
contributing to the problem. Abstinence
works every time to prevent STDs.
Illinois Right to Life News for Wednesday, March 5, 2008 About abortion and alcoholI received an email from Cindy that
demanded a response. She raised a concern
about our cause, stating, “This whole ‘pro-life’
word really bothers me. It makes it sound
like everybody else is ‘pro-death.’” Cindy
maintains that she needs to have the right to abortion in case of rape, even though she
considers it “terrible” that some women “may get abortions willy-nilly as a
form of birth control.” Cindy then
suggests that we join her “in speaking up against how so many people promote and
glorify drug use.” Her definition of
drug use includes all alcoholic beverages. Here
is my response: Cindy: Thank you for your
feedback. You make the
argument that the government should not interfere with your choice to have an
abortion. Given your criticism of legal alcoholic beverages, including
"Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.", do you propose that
we return to prohibition, or do you think that everyone should be able to make their own
choice regarding use of alcoholic beverages? How about their decisions to drive a
car after consuming a bit too much? Since many people consider use of alcoholic
beverages normal social behavior, don't they have the right to make that choice? To be consistent
with your argument against Pro-Life efforts to end abortion, why do you think that you
have a right to criticize people who use alcoholic beverages? Don't they have a
right to make their own moral decisions? Jesus turned water into wine. If it
was a moral evil or as dangerous to human beings as you indicate (when used in moderation,
of course), then that would seem to make Jesus a hypocrite. He actually encouraged
the use of alcoholic beverages by providing more wine when the wine ran out at a wedding.
He did not condemn the use of alcoholic beverages. Given these facts,
it seems that your campaign to end the use of alcoholic beverages completely is far more
controversial than our effort to ban abortion. We believe that just because abortion
is legal doesn’t make it right. If Mary,
the mother of Jesus, had the choice of abortion, she could have ended her
inconvenient and embarrassing pregnancy that was leading Joseph to his decision to divorce
her quietly. Jesus was not a blob of tissue, but was acknowledged very early in
Mary's pregnancy as both God and man by Elizabeth when Mary went to visit her right after
learning from the angel that she had conceived the Savior. Abortion cannot be
justified, because it destroys innocent human life. What do rape
victims want? Have they been heard? Are you aware of the
"ad hoc committe of women pregnant by sexual assault" (http://www.afterabortion.info/news/WPSApetition.htm)?
These women are petitioning for a voice in the debate. The petition from
the Ad Hoc Committee of Women Pregnant by Sexual Assault (WPSA) asks federal and state
legislators to "hold public hearings at which we and other women who have become
pregnant through sexual assault will be invited to discuss our unique needs and
concerns." WPSA was formed after the publication
of Victims and Victors:
Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault,
a book of personal testimonies collected from women who have experienced a sexual assault
pregnancy. The group says that pregnant sexual assault victims have been either ignored or
misrepresented by politicians and the media because of the polarizing effects of the
national abortion debate. "In most cases, it is only in the
context of highly divisive debates over abortion that we are discussed," the petition
reads. "In virtually every case, the people who claim to be defending our interests
have never taken the time to actually listen to us to learn about our true circumstances,
needs, and concerns." Kathleen DeZeeuw, who became pregnant
after being raped as a teen and gave birth to a son, Patrick, wrote in Victims and
Victors that she feels "personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that
abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used to
further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the
story." WPSA members say that because women
who have actually been pregnant following sexual assault have never been given a forum to
describe their real experiences, public policies fail to offer pregnant sexual assault
victims the care and support they need. Instead, public funding for abortions following
rape or incest may give women, their family members, and health care providers the false
impression that abortion is proven to be helpful in these circumstances. Scientific research on the matter is
scarce. According to David Reardon, Ph.D, an editor of Victims and Victors and
author of numerous studies on post-abortion complications, there are actually no published
studies that have demonstrated any therapeutic benefits of abortion, either in general or
in the specific case of pregnancies resulting from sexual assault. "Those who favor abortions have
simply assumed that abortion will produce benefits," Reardon said. "But the
women who have actually been in these circumstances who have come forward are more likely
to report that their abortions deepened and aggravated the psychological trauma they had
already experienced as sexual assault victims. Abortion is not a cure-all." Purpose of
laws and controlling our bodies Do you follow the
law and use your seatbelt when you drive a car? Don't you realize that the
government is controlling your body? How about anti-smoking laws? Again, the
government is controlling your body? Do you think prostitution should be legalized?
If not, you are allowing the government to control women's bodies. Why
would the government not allow people to make their own choices in these and many other
cases? Because they consider these actions dangerous and are trying to protect human
life. There are many laws dealing with alcoholic beverages as well, though some may
not be enforced as well as they should be. If people should
always be able make their own moral decisions without government interference, why are any
of these laws on the books? I am sure that some poor people have a moral reason to
steal so they can eat. Should we drop the laws against stealing while we are at
it? Are you aware that
liberal groups are pushing for legalization of prostitution? They have succeeded in
Germany. Now when a woman on unemployment in Germany has trouble finding a job,
she may be pushed to take a job as a prostitute because it is legal, gainful
employment. Now, THAT is what I would call allowing the government to control
women's bodies! I am sure you have
heard about the one child policy in China. That policy has resulted in forced
abortions and forced sterilizations and many other abuses. Now, THAT is what I would
call allowing the government to control women's bodies! Did you know that
Planned Parenthood has praised that policy of the Chinese government. They have even
suggested that the government in our nation should limit the number of children women can
have. They are actually working toward a vaccine to prevent pregnancy. Once
that is accepted as just another childhood vaccine following in the footsteps of Gardasil,
the government could control the use of the reversal drug to decide when
and who gets pregnant. Now, THAT is what I would call allowing the government
to control women's bodies! Current
Impact of Planned Parenthood You belittle
"All the talk about Planned Parenthood 'luring young people into unhealthy sexual
behavior', etc." and state "it all boils down to people’s morals and how
they were raised." Do you consider it a problem if the morals instilled by the
parents are challenged and ridiculed at school? Maybe you should take a look at the
materials that Planned Parenthood includes in "comprehensive sex education".
Most parents who review these materials consider them pornographic.
Information was recently publicized that Planned Parenthood's web site for teens (www.teenwire.com) encourages teenage use of
pornography. Based on their sex ed programs, their web site, and quotes from
Planned Parenthood leadership over the years, the evidence is clear that
Planned Parenthood promotes and encourages casual sex at any age as long as it
is "consensual." How about this quote: "Teachers and parents
should help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex
before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt." That is just the tip of the
iceberg in evidence of Planned Parenthood's agenda. You express concern
because "so many people promote and glorify drug use." We are expressing
concern because Planned Parenthood is violating parents' rights to teach their own morals
to their children by promoting and glorifying casual sex. Dangers of
drug use I agree with your
concerns about the promotion and glorifying of drug use. Are you aware that the
Democrats in Illinois have a bill to legalize "medical" use of marijuana?
Similar bills have already become law in some states, including California. A review
of the results reveals that unethical doctors make it easy for anyone to get access to
marijuana for "medical" purposes. Are you working to prevent this bill
from becoming law in Illinois? Tragedies such as
the recent snowmobile accident that killed news reporter Randy Salerno confirm that you
have valid concerns. The evidence suggests that Wisconsin laws against driving
snowmobiles under the influence of alcohol are being ignored, and there is no serious
effort to stop the abuse of these laws by tavern owners and snowmobile drivers. I
think such laws should be enforced, and I agree with efforts to increase penalties for
drunk drivers on the road as well. When traffic accidents occur, often we learn
that the enforcement has failed us because the driver had previous convictions, but was
not prevented from continuing to drink and drive. Consistent
argument? However, if I would
accept your premise that the government has no right to control my body, then what's
the problem? You said, "Again, I know there will be some who use abortion as a
form of birth control so they can sleep all over the place. That is not good. But that is
how some people are, and hopefully they will change and develop better morals. But it is
not up to the government to decide what they do with their body." If I am to be
consistent, then allowing some deaths from snowmobile accidents is just the cost of
keeping the government from controlling my body when I want to drink, similar to your
contention that babies killed by abortion are the cost of making sure you can control your
body in case of rape, not the government, regardless of how many babies die given
"some who may get abortions willy-nilly as a form of birth control." Of course, since I
have already said that I think the laws against alcohol abuse should be enforced, I am not
being inconsistent when I also seek laws to protect the lives of unborn children from
abortion. Should the child who is conceived in rape receive the death penalty for
the crime of his/her father? Even the rapist will not receive the death penalty.
How can it be acceptable to execute the child? I think you need to
re-evaluate your position on the role of law and government in our society. You
cannot expect to expand regulation of, or even ban, alcoholic beverages based on the
danger they pose to the abusers and others while maintaining the government has no right
to provide protection for the unborn child because you want the right to decide if a child
should live or die while a resident of your womb. That unborn child has at
least as many human rights as the victims of traffic and snowmobile accidents that are
caused by alcohol, whether these rights are currently recognized by the government or not.
Ironically, if the
unborn child in your womb was killed against your will, the law in many states recognizes
the personhood of the child and is able to charge the person responsible with homicide.
Thus, if your unborn child is killed by a drunk driver in Illinois,
the personhood of the child is recognized, but if you want to abort this same child
because he is inconvenient, he is not a person under current law. This illogical and
unjust exception for abortion must be removed from the law so the human rights and
personhood of the unborn child are consistently protected. Regards, Bill Beckman P.S. You make
the point that alcoholic beverages are very dangerous to women. Your statement was
"SIGNIFICANTLY raises the risk of breast cancer in women." Below is
information that seems to challenge the accuracy of your claim on this point. On the
other hand, there are a large number of scientific studies that show the significant
increase in breast cancer risk caused by abortion. The minimum increased risk is 30%
and it goes up rapidly when other risk factors are also present. Check the
Coalition on Abortion / Breast Cancer (http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/) for
details. Medical Reports on
Alcohol and Breast Cancer
Folate,
Alcohol & Breast Cancer Risk Folate,
Alcohol, and Breast Cancer Breast
Cancer and Folic Acid Moderate
Drinking and Breast Cancer Alcohol
and Breast Cancer Alcohol
and breast cancer in the elderly
|