Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) had struggled to distinguish herself from a large Democratic primary field by campaigning almost exclusively on women’s rights. That has not succeeded in moving Gillibrand from the bottom of the pack of candidates with less than one percent in most polls. However, Gillibrand doubled down this week with a startling interview where she not only pledged to impose a litmus test on any judicial nominees but said that being pro-life is equivalent to being racist or anti-Semitic.
Trump also crossed this line in pledging to appoint pro-life nominees though his nominees insist that they were not asked about their view of the constitutionality of abortion. Other Democratic candidates have pledged to appoint pro-choose nominees without saying how they would confirm such views. Gillibrand is the first to say that pro-life views are the same as racist views.
In an interview with The Des Moines Register on Tuesday, Gillibrand rejected the issue of abortion as a political matter and instead portrayed it as an anti-human rights viewpoint that is disqualifying for any jurist:
“I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have, as a society, decided that the other side is not acceptable. Imagine saying that it’s OK to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic. Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America … I don’t think those are political issues anymore.”
Senators have long rejected the notion of litmus tests for nominees as threatening judicial integrity and independence. Indeed, many nominees refuse to answer questions about matters that may come before them.
When pressed on litmus tests, Gillibrand does not back down or deny that she would use a direct litmus test.
Gillibrand, who once ran on a fairly conservative agenda in New York, suggests that she would fight the agenda of the Trump Administration by imposing her own agenda. The reason is that her agenda is the correct one: “All these efforts by President Trump and other ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our Constitution, and that’s what this is. There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism. And I do not believe that there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom.”
The question is whether this will now prompt other candidates to pledge a similar litmus test and declare pro-life views as indistinguishable from racism.
It is always a good thing for lay people to discuss medical scientific published data. The field of medicine takes its practitioners from the general population thus whatever you find in the latter you will find firmly in the former. It is folly to think the medical scientific community speaks una voce.
I baited the trolls yesterday by posting a study from a group of Asian scientists that tried to assert there is no link between abortion and cancer. I included all of the scientific data from the ABSTRACT (which is minimal than the actual full study), and purposely commented below my post to note the p values.
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/06/12/gillibrand-pledges-litmus-test-for-judges-after-saying-pro-life-is-same-as-racism/comment-page-2/#comment-1857479
When a p value is (less than) 0.05. Thus far the pro-abortion proponents and paid trolls on this forum have produced none. I however have produced several studies with worthy p values.
There are medical journals and then there are medical journals. The American Medical/Mafia Association is a political animal and their publications (JAMA, et al) all have a political agenda. For this reason physicians abandoned their membership to the AMA, most recently when the AMA supported Obamacare. Less than 1/3 of licensed physicians in America belong to the AMA because the AMA does not speak for us. This is to say that the articles in JAMA are not taken seriously by clinical physicians and medical researchers. If you want serious journals consider New Journal of Medicine, Nature, and many specialist specific journals like Cardiology, Cancer and others.
Most of the published data since 1990 on abortion/cancer has been driven by political slant precisely because most hungry medical scientists feed off the trough of funding from federal government. Connect the dots
If you want to truly understand the abortion/cancer link you have to consider what abortion and “the pill” do: interrupt the normal physiology and hormonal cycles in women. Cancer is defined as dysregulated invasive growth of tissue. Cancers stem from interrupting the normal cascades, cell signaling and cycles in our human bodies. Thus it follows if you interrupt the fertility cycle, if a woman’s body is created to deliver life via pregnancy, and that is terminated, that is an interruption at the physiological level that promotes cell cycle dysregulation.
Abortion and birth control promote cancer because they interrupt the normal cascades, physiological rhythms and cell cycles that the female body was created and has evolved to undergo. When you externally insult and interrupt the body’s normal cycles, cancer is ripe for birth.
Read the data.
L’Chaim…To Life!
Estovir, most regulars to these threads think of ‘you’ as the troll. So it’s comical that you keep referring to others as trolls. You’re like the gate crasher who keeps asking if others were invited.
“It is always a good thing for lay people to discuss medical scientific published data.”
– Estovir
_______
Voila!!!
Obongocare!!!
A couple of joints and the brotha dreams that s— up!
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
The Greeks, Romans and American Founders restricted the vote but the Founders failed to codify it.
Obongocare!!!
A couple of joints and the brotha dreams that s— up!
Just say no
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HhfXQwkdKY
The Greeks, Romans and American Founders restricted the vote but the Founders failed to codify it.
I worry about you sometimes George….
Sillibrand!
A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females
Cancer Causes & Control! February 2014, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 227–236
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10552-013-0325-7
Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the association between induced abortion (IA) and breast cancer risk among Chinese females.
Methods
We searched three English databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Wiley) and three Chinese databases (CNKI, WanFang, and VIP) for studies up to December 2012, supplemented by manual searches. Two reviewers independently conducted the literature searching, study selection, and data extraction and quality assessment of included studies. Random effects models were used to estimate the summary odds ratios (ORs) and the 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
A total of 36 articles (two cohort studies and 34 case–control studies) covering 14 provinces in China were included in this review. Compared to people without any history of IA, an increased risk of breast cancer was observed among females who had at least one IA (OR = 1.44, 95 % CI 1.29–1.59, I 2 = 82.6 %, p < 0.001, n = 34). No significant publication bias was found among the included studies (Egger test, p = 0.176). The risk increased to 1.76 (95 % CI 1.39–2.22) and 1.89 (95 % CI 1.40–2.55) for people who had at least two IAs and at least three IAs, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed similar results to the primary results. Meta-regression analysis of the included studies found that the association between IA and breast cancer risk attenuated with increasing percent of IA in the control group (β = −0.022, p < 0.001).
Conclusion
IA is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases. If IA were to be confirmed as a risk factor for breast cancer, high rates of IA in China may contribute to increasing breast cancer rates.
NO SCIENTIFIC SOURCE HERE
PAID TROLL ABOVE HOOKED ON CRYSTAL METH
Compared to people without any history of IA, an increased risk of breast cancer was observed among females who had at least one IA (OR = 1.44, 95 % CI 1.29–1.59, I 2 = 82.6 %, p < 0.001, n = 34
The above is a stellar p value. The null hypothesis is accepted
Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer: Information for the Adolescent Woman and Her Parents
https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/health-issues/abortion-and-the-risk-of-breast-cancer-information-for-the-adolescent-woman-and-her-parents
American College of Pediatricians – December 2013
ABSTRACT: Studies from many nations suggest that induced abortion (IA) may be a causal risk factor for the development of breast cancer. Researchers agree that IA contributes to the increased risk of breast cancer by delaying the timing of a full-term pregnancy which is a protective factor. Increasing numbers of studies now show that IA prior to 32 weeks in and of itself is a risk factor for breast cancer due to the physiology of breast development and the manner in which abortion interferes with the maturation of the breast cells. Although largely ignored by the mainstream medical community, this risk information deserves a prominent place in the education of all adolescent women who may, in the future, consider an IA.
Introduction
Induced abortion (IA) prior to 32 weeks gestation appears to increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. This association is largely ignored by the mainstream medical community, not included in sex education programs, and even disputed by some. For example, the Guttmacher Institute claims, “Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and British governments have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancers.”[1] However, as documented by the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, the vast majority of studies (57 of 73 worldwide) do show a strong association between IA and an increased risk of breast cancer.[2] This discrepancy exists for many reasons, including bias in the selection of articles chosen for “exhaustive review,” as well as flaws in methodology (e.g. including spontaneous abortions along with IAs) of some studies that discount the association. As with any medical treatment or recommendation, a lack of 100 percent certainty and the need for constant re-evaluation is not a legitimate rationale for withholding potentially life-threatening information concerning an elective procedure.
Estovir, You are infringing on women’s “reproductive rights” by daring to engage in discussion of potential health risks associated abortions. Be careful, you might be accused of civil rights abuse by engaging in such incendiary dialogue.
Sticks and stones….
Just pay me small bills in brown paper bags
Left trying to wordsmith no limitations on abortions into women’s “reproductive rights” and “healthcare”. They try to tee up/characterize any debate or challenge to their views as being against women’s rights and healthcare.
Bill, notice how Estovir has NOTHING from the American Cancer Society..??
Why is that?? Nothing from the AMA. Why is that??
Nothing from the AMA. Why is that??
The American Mafia Association has less than 30% of licensed physicians in their membership. There is a reason for that
Show us your data, Peter Shill.
Start with explaining the significance of a p value as I mentioned below. Hint: when a p value is > 0.05, the study is rejected. Bring us data where the p value supports the study, otherwise stuff it
In God We Trust….all others must bring data
W. E. Deming
Estovir, you’ve got no scientific sources!!!!
You do realize you look like an idiot, right?
Peter Shill troll$ for dollar$
the more he posts comments, the more he keeps David “Daddy” Brock happy
Peter:
See my link below to the American Cancer society.
Karen, I don’t have to look below! You’re cherry picking the early paragraphs of the statement that ‘I’ posted. But you left out the “Conclusion”.
This is what The American Cancer Society says in the “Conclusion” of their statement on abortion and breast cancer.
“The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most challenging aspects of studies of people and how those studies do or do not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints in many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women aside from skin cancer; and breast cancer is the second leading cancer killer in women. Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms. At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer”.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
SEE THAT LAST SENTENCE, KAREN??
Here it is again:
“At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer”.
Peter – yes, I read the conclusion. After all, I’m the one who linked the website. I made remarks about the problems with the studies, both self reporting bias, as well as other issues in study design. It is literally not “cherry picking” when I purposely included their concern with flaws in self reporting. I also noted that they admitted that study results were mixed. Which means inconclusive. Which means further study is needed. In order for the Society to state that there is a definite link, they need more than mixed results.
Do you have anything to add about:
1. The studies that showed no links were decades old and didn’t study today’s medications, rendering them meaningless for chemical abortions?
2. We need separate studies for each medication used? The FDA clinical trials renders a medication available, but once out in the population, they are used by a far wider range of genes, with individual health problems, toxin loads, etc. than in any single study design. That is why drugs sometimes get recalled or there are class action lawsuits
3. If there is a risk, is it gestation-dependent? Many pregnancies spontaneously abort due to genetic abnormalities or other problems, often before the woman knows she’s pregnant. Do both early abortions and spontaneous natural abortions carry cancer risk, as opposed to second or third trimester abortions?
Here is an example of mixed results. I have not reviewed the study parameters and make no assertions as to the quality of the study design. For instance, this article has 86 references, which I have not reviewed. I also do not know if the studies followed chemical or surgical abortion, which methods used, all of them put together…
https://jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf
“Significantly, the absolute numbers of reported excess cases agree with a prediction made in a 1996 review and meta-analysis.4 6 Its lead author, Joel Brind, Ph.D., professor of biology and endocrinology at City University of New York’s Baruch College, concluded from a review of the 2001 report: “Abortion can explain the entire rise in breast cancer since the mid 1980s, and it’s not just because the rise is in women young enough to have had an abortion. It’s also that the absolute numbers of increased cases fall within the range of the numbers we predicted in our 1996 meta-analysis” (Brind J, personal communication, 2002).
Brind et al. estimated that in 1996 an excess 5,000 cases of breast cancer were attributable to abortion, and that the annual excess would increase by 500 cases each year. They predicted 25,000 excess cases in the year 2036.
Among the three oldest age groups (50-64, 65-74, and 75 and older), only the 50-64 group had an increase in breast cancer rates betweentheyears1987and1998.4 7ThesewomenbelongtotheRoe v. Wade generation and were just young enough for some to have had abortions.”
“A web page of the National Breast Cancer Coalition,5 8 on the other hand, cites a 1998 study by McCredie et al.5 9 and a 1995 study by Calle et al.6 0 in support of its statement that “there is no association between abortion and risk of breast cancer.” However, the former didn’t report any data on induced abortion and the latter only examined the effect of spontaneous abortions. An overwhelming majority of the studies reporting risk elevations are omitted from the web pages altogether.”
Please not that these were studies referenced in the American Cancer Society website, too.
Karen, if the scientific community honestly believed there was a link between abortion and breast cancer, mainstream media, medical and science journals would have an abundance of stories supporting that conclusion. But they don’t!
Look at Estovir’s posts. None are from mainstream sources. If you have to beat the bush to find these stories, that should tell you something.
About one third of all women will have an abortion in their lifetime. And beast cancer is an all too common malady. So its reasonable to assume that a fair number of women who’ve had abortions will eventually get breast cancer.
Therefore someone, with a political agenda, could cherry pick statistics and say there is a link. And those early paragraphs of The American Cancer Society report cover that possibility. They’re trying to say, as nicely as possible, that junk science is out there without offending Republicans.
But their conclusion says that scientific evidence does not support the link.
“Karen, if the scientific community honestly believed there was a link between abortion and breast cancer, mainstream media, medical and science journals would have an abundance of stories supporting that conclusion. But they don’t!”
Peter, it’s not some big conspiracy. How it typically works with these things is that there are some studies that take a hit or miss approach at the beginning. You get conflicting results. Then there needs to be further study done.
One of the problems is that science and research has been politicized. Not only do you have to find researchers interested in answering this question, but they have to get grants or university funding.
Abortion research is highly politicized. It’s hard to find researchers who are unbiased, and just looking at it like any other hypothesis, going wherever the data takes them. Many academics are heavily Left wing biased, which means that very few of them would be interested in looking into a downside of abortion. They might be concerned about backlash, such as is often witnessed on this blog. Such backlash can be career ending. So without there being an over conspiracy to suppress findings, there is an inherent low pool of researchers interested in this link. That may be why so many of these studies are abroad.
Plus, such research is often financed by those with an agenda – such as abortion providers deliberately designing studies to minimize negative findings, or abortion opponents looking for all the negative findings possible. Either way, each study produced is automatically criticized as having been paid for by a biased organization. There does need to be some improvement in the entire grant and funding process to remove such bias. Having worked in science myself, I have personally witnessed researchers deliberately tweaking data or pushing it right up to, or even over, the line of ethics.
In any case, it typically takes years for such research to slowly wend its way forward. An example is that morning sickness medication that caused terrible birth defects. It took a while for that cause to be firmly linked and published. Doctors were still prescribing it as safe while studies were ongoing into a suspected link.
“And those early paragraphs of The American Cancer Society report cover that possibility. They’re trying to say, as nicely as possible, that junk science is out there without offending Republicans.” No, that’s not what it said at all. It said that a randomized, double blind study, the gold standard, would be unethical to undertake, for the reasons I described earlier. It stated that some studies depended upon foreign databases that followed patient records. Other studies used personal recall. Memory can be faulty, which is a concern. However, as I pointed out, decades old studies do not have the opportunity, obviously, to study the medications available today. In addition, there may be gestational differences. Perhaps there is a higher risk factor for later abortions, rather than earlier ones, which would be in the time frame of a spontaneous natural abortion that so often occurs. Politicized scientific fields have never shied away from “offending Republicans.” Which you know, you cheeky thing.
Do you know what else uses recall? Reporting of adverse events in which a patient describes their experience, in addition to the obvious vitals. Patient reported outcomes.
You have to remember that most of the time, there will be studies that prove a mediation’s safety, before there are enough studies with a more drilled down design that may discover its risks. Think about all of the pesticides that were initially deemed safe, that the EPA has now banned. There was evidence, at one time, that they were safe.
Don’t be afraid of data. There is nothing wrong with more studies. However, there needs to be more unbiased research, which is very hard to obtain in the abortion debate.
‘For example, the Guttmacher Institute claims, “Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and British governments have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancer’
Planned Parenthood created and continues to fund the Guttmacher Institute to serving at PP’s research unit.
FarOut, are we to believe that the American Cancer Society and AMA are covering up a cancer danger? If that’s what you’re saying, it sounds like urban legend.
Current PH – new cancer risks are found every year. That does not mean that those who discounted the risk lied about it, as was the case in the tobacco industry. Rather, there are study designs that can be improved, or the pool of subjects could widen.
Do you recall when studies appeared to show that the glyphosphate in Roundup was safe? Hundreds of studies. Then a recent study showed a link to AML in users with the highest exposure. It turned out that previous studies included mostly subjects with low exposure, which diluted the result.
I recall a chemistry professor told me years ago that around a couple thousand novel new chemicals are released every year. It is physically impossible to design a safety study on the short term, and long term effects, of each new chemical in a human body, and how it might interact with the thousands upon thousands of chemicals already out there. Synergy can be surprising.
Health effects come out after release.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/it-could-take-centuries-for-epa-to-test-all-the-unregulated-chemicals-under-a-new-landmark-bill
As for the American Cancer Society, this is what they actually say about studies regarding possible links between abortion and breast cancer:
“What do the studies show?
The results of studies looking at the possible link between breast cancer and induced abortion often differ depending on how the study was done. Cohort studies and studies that used records to determine the history of abortions have not found an increased risk. Some case-control studies, however, have found an increase in risk.”
The site goes on to discuss the problems with such studies. For one, you cannot create a randomized, double blind study. That would require gathering together thousands of women, randomly sorting them into two groups, and then having one group get an induced abortion, and the other not, and then study breast cancer risks over the next 20 years. That’s the only way to have no statistical difference between the subjects themselves.
It also discusses the problems with recall bias.
There were a few studies that showed no link. They were based in Denmark, Holland, France, etc. with just one or two in the US. the ones referenced took place decades ago. On the one hand, the exposure would have to have happened years ago to give cancer a chance to grow and be detected. On the other, that means that they did not study current abortion methods. There are myriad contraception and abortion medications available today that were not available in the 1970s. Therefore, any study considering results from decades ago does not examine the medications available today.
These are prescription meds. Do you ever watch TV and see all the lawyer ads for people who were harmed by various medications or medical devices that were, at one time, deemed safe?
I do not know if there is a link. Since the studies are contradictory, and most did not study the methods available today, then more study is warranted. Specifically, they need to separate out the different medications. Instead of lumping them all in, where perhaps only one might be a risk, but its effect would be diluted out, they need a separate study for each one.
There’s nothing wrong with more studies.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/medical-treatments/abortion-and-breast-cancer-risk.html
Dang it. That turned out longer than I thought.
To sum up, the Cancer Society admitted that some studies did not show a link, while others did. A correct study cannot be performed due to ethical considerations. Further, the studies that did not show a link occurred decades ago and did not cover today’s available medication.
Conclusion – further study is warranted. There should be a separate study done on each medication available today. Maybe there is a link. Maybe not.
These are prescription meds. Do you ever watch TV and see all the lawyer ads for people who were harmed by various medications or medical devices that were, at one time, deemed safe?
Plus I linked an article on how we release 2,000 new chemicals each year with no way to study safety on their interaction with the human body and the thousands of other chemicals already out there.
the end.
No, I stated that Planned Parenthood founded, funds and operates the Guttmacher Institute.
True. And funding creates researcher bias. I’ve seen it personally. That is why we need unbiased results, but where to find it in an abortion issue? Most of academia itself is biased.
American College of Pediatrics Press Release
https://www.acpeds.org/know-your-abcs-the-abortion-breast-cancer-link
Know Your ABCs: The Abortion Breast Cancer Link
The American College of Pediatricians urges women to “Know your ABCs” since abortion appears to be linked to breast cancer. Although the medical community has been reluctant to acknowledge the link, induced abortion prior to a full term delivery, and prior to 32 weeks of gestation, increases the likelihood that a woman will develop breast cancer. This risk is especially increased for adolescents.
In February 2013, Dr. Johnson and her colleagues made national news when they reported an increased incidence of metastatic breast cancer in young women in the U.S. aged 25 – 39 years. Other epidemiological studies from China, India, and Romania demonstrate an increasing incidence of breast cancer as abortions increased – with a “dose effect” showing an increasing risk of breast cancer with each subsequent abortion. President Den Trumbull states, “When one considers the normal anatomy and physiology of the breast it becomes clear that this link is causal not merely correlational.”
The College looks to the day when the lives and health of all children from conception to natural death will be respected and protected. In the mean time, the College urges all health care providers to educate women on the risks associated with induced abortion, including the increased risk of breast cancer.
WIKIPEDIA NEVER HEARD OF THIS GROUP
No entry for ‘American College Of Pediatrics’
Conservative organization of pediatricians.
https://www.acpeds.org
It’s in Wikipedia, too. Perhaps you spelled it wrong.
really? wiki didn’t print this overnight. either you didn’t look or you missed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians
This article is about a socially conservative advocacy group. For the major professional association of pediatricians, see American Academy of Pediatrics.
American College of Pediatricians
American College of Pediatricians (emblem).jpg
Founded 2002; 17 years ago
…
Website http://www.acpeds.org
The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States.[1] The group was founded in 2002 and claims to have over 500 members, although independent sources report that group has between 60 and 200 members and only one employee.[2][3] The group’s primary focus is advocating against the right of gay or lesbian people to adopt children, and it also advocates conversion therapy.[4]
The organization’s view on parenting differs from the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which holds that sexuality has no relation with the ability to be a good parent and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.[3][5][6] ACPeds has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for “pushing anti-LGBT junk science”.[4] A number of mainstream researchers, including the director of the US National Institutes of Health, have accused ACPeds of misusing or mischaracterizing their work to advance ACPeds’ political agenda.[7][8]
…
Founding and membership
The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP’s support for adoption by gay couples.[7][2] ACPeds reports its membership at “over 500 physicians and other healthcare professionals”.[9][3]
Positions
ACPeds has vehemently condemned the American Psychological Association as a “gay-affirming program” which “devalues self-restraint,” and supports “a child’s autonomy from the authority of both family and religion, and from the limits and norms these institutions place on children.”[10] Contrary to what some bloggers have reported, ACPeds does support childhood vaccination.[11]
Publications
In response to the publication by the medical and professional organization American Academy of Pediatrics of Just the Facts, a handbook on teen sexual orientation aimed at a school audience, ACPeds issued its own publication, Facts About Youth, in March 2010,[7] accompanied by a web site. Facts About Youth, along with a cover letter, was mailed to 14,800 school superintendents on behalf of Tom Benton, president of ACPeds. Facts About Youth was challenged as not acknowledging the scientific and medical evidence regarding sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual health, or effective health education by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[12]
The ACPeds letter to the superintendents primarily addressed same-sex attraction, and recommended that “well-intentioned but misinformed school personnel” who encourage students to “come out as gay” and affirm them as such may lead the students into “harmful homosexual behaviors that they otherwise would not pursue.” The ACPeds letter to the superintendents also stated that gender dysphoria will typically disappear by puberty “if the behavior is not reinforced” and similarly alleged that “most students (over 85 percent) with same-sex attractions will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged.”[13][14]
Reception
Some scientists have voiced concerns that ACPeds mischaracterized or misused their work to advance its political agenda…..
Seems like the wiki crowd doesn’t like them too much. but there it is
I wonder, are they against “gender reassignment” surgery for minors with “gender dysphoria”?
I think any “doctor” who chops off a confused kid’s member should go to jail for life.
Advocating for killing of unborn babies without limitations aint gonna get this broad elected. One percent candidate to start with and needle will only go down below one percent with this extremist view. Jon Turley wasting his time writing about this flip-flopping/blood-thirsty broad.
ACCORDING TO “BLACK ENTERPRISE”..
GILLIBRAND IS RIGHT.
BLACK WOMEN HAVE MOST TO LOSE
t’s well-established that there is inequity in healthcare. “The sexual and reproductive health of African American women has been compromised due to multiple experiences of racism, including discriminatory healthcare practices from slavery through the post-Civil Rights era,” writes researchers in the report Racism, African American Women, and Their Sexual and Reproductive Health: A Review of Historical and Contemporary Evidence and Implications for Health Equity.
Those discriminatory practices exist today. Black women, many with limited resources, often have unequal access to quality healthcare. For example, the above study found that black women often are subjected to unnecessary hysterectomies. Infant mortality, pregnancy complications, and access to vital prenatal care are all issues affecting black women’s reproductive health.
And it doesn’t matter if you are a rich and famous black woman as we discovered when Serena Williams opened up about her life-threatening pregnancy complications. In fact, black woman’s reproductive health status is at such a red alert that Sen. Kamala Harris introduced legislation to address the black maternal mortality crisis.
What the anti-choice advocates conveniently leave out of their hateful, misogynistic narrative is that the same facilities that provide abortions are also safe havens for women to receive prenatal care, sexual education, and pregnancy care. These facilities are particularly crucial to low-income black women and those in rural areas.
Yet, the states with high populations of black women—and some with the worst records on black women’s healthcare—are the ones pushing hardest for abortion bans: Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, and Georgia. As a result, many of these states are closing facilities that not only provide abortions but other critical women’s health services. Currently, only one abortion clinic remains in Missouri; three in Alabama; and one in Mississippi.
Missouri, Alabama, Ohio are ranked among the worst states for black infant mortality rates in the aforementioned study. From that report, “Mississippi has the largest proportion of babies born with low birth weight among Black women as well as all women (16.1% and 11.5%, respectively). The states with the next largest proportions of babies born with low birth weight to Black women are Louisiana, West Virginia, Colorado, and Alabama.”
What is the impetus to place women’s reproductive freedom back 50 years? Anti-choicers cite their religious beliefs as justification—bestowing personhood onto fetuses.
But perhaps the underlying reasons are even more sinister. America is becoming browner. With the influx of immigrants from Latin America, and more people open to the idea of interracial relationships, millennials and Gen Z are the most diverse generations ever.
Edited from: “Abortion Bans Are A Health Crisis For Black Women. They Mean Devastation”
Black Enterprise, 5/16/19
“The sexual and reproductive health of African American women has been compromised due to multiple experiences of racism, including discriminatory healthcare practices from slavery through the post-Civil Rights era,”
This is the kind of victim profiteering garbage that is like a mad lib. Just fill in catch words and it gets published.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html (Researchers pranked dozens of journals in submitting deliberate garbage, and got published.)
“One paper, published in a journal called Sex Roles, said that the author had conducted a two-year study involving “thematic analysis of table dialogue” to uncover the mystery of why heterosexual men like to eat at Hooters.
Another, from a journal of feminist geography, parsed “human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity” at dog parks in Portland, Ore., while a third paper, published in a journal of feminist social work and titled “Our Struggle Is My Struggle,” simply scattered some up-to-date jargon into passages lifted from Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.””
Please provide examples of how black women are denied healthcare because of racism. Don’t include examples from 150 years ago. But today.
A disparity does not mean it is caused by racism.
Rather, I’ve provided numerous studies in the past that showed that single motherhood with absentee fathers was the highest risk factor for the mothers to live in poverty, children to be born into poverty, drop out of school, do drugs, commit crimes, join gangs, perpetrate or be the victim of gun violence, etc. etc.
There are areas where 95% of the children there are born to single mothers. Therefore, those single mothers are poor.
Poor people do not have access to good healthcare, it’s true. Obamacare was a false promise of improvement. Rather, the good doctors don’t accept that 30% paycut. So they still don’t have good quality care.
That’s not because of racism. It’s because Democrat policies destroyed the nuclear family, Democrats fight with everything they have every time Republicans try to fix the Welfare system which punishes nuclear families, and Obamacare didn’t give access to quality healthcare to the poor. None of that is racist. All of it can be improved.
The problem is not with the data, but rather the politicized interpretation.
This is why social science is not really considered a science.
Is she polling at 0%?
A little less.
Checked with the Sharps in Vegas. I’ve got the same odds of getting the nomination as Marlboro Girl Gillibrand: 12,000,000 to 1.
THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
DISMISSES ABORTION-BREAST CANCER PROPOGANDA
“17 states now mandate that clinicians provide women seeking abortions with scripted counseling that includes false information on at least one of the following topics: a link between abortion and breast cancer, the ability of a fetus to feel pain, and long-term mental health consequences for women who have abortions [6]. These statements are not evidence-based and have been countered in the literature [13-15]. To require that clinicians give inaccurate information to patients is, to say the least, unethical”
Regarding Above
Here’s a link to an American Medical Association statement on the ethics of abortion bans. Included in state is the paragraph above decrying as ‘unethical’ the claim that abortion is linked to breast cancer.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/legislating-abortion-care/2014-04
The race to the bottom is only worth watching at the finish line. Tally ho! Or in Kamala’s case, it’s Tally Hoe!
The American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists On Abortion Bans
May 9, 2019
Washington, D.C. — Ted Anderson, M.D., Ph.D., president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), issued the following statement in response to the many restrictions being placed on abortion access across the country:
“ACOG strongly opposes political efforts to limit a woman’s ability to get the care she needs, including bans on abortion care. ACOG recognizes that abortion is an essential component of health care for millions of women and opposes political interference in health care. As the nation’s leading group of physicians providing health care for women, ACOG is dedicated to evidence-based and compassionate care.
“Across the country, legislation is advancing restrictions that would impose professional, civil, and even criminal penalties on physicians for providing safe, high-quality abortion care to their patients. These restrictions range from total bans to bans at arbitrary gestational ages, bans on the safest method of abortion after 12 weeks, bans based on a woman’s reason for seeking care, bans on medically-induced abortion via telemedicine, bans on physicians’ ability to exercise their best medical judgment according to their medical training, limits on which clinicians can provide abortion care, and more. Any of these restrictions would make safe and timely abortion care increasingly unavailable, which increases women’s health risks.
“Lawmakers must support health policies based on sound science and evidence. Politicians must seek to improve access to care, not restrict it. Legislative restrictions fundamentally interfere with the patient–provider relationship and decrease access to necessary care for all women, and particularly for low-income women and those living long distances from health care providers. Health care decisions should be made jointly only by patients and their trusted health care professionals, not by politicians.”
###
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is the nation’s leading group of physicians providing health care for women. As a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization of more than 58,000 members, ACOG strongly advocates for quality health care for women, maintains the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education of its members, promotes patient education, and increases awareness among its members and the public of the changing issues facing women’s health care. http://www.acog.org
The data on abortion & cancer have been published ad nauseam ad infinitum but the liberal media cherry picks the results. Since most Americans do not bother to ask the hard questions, they never learn the truth.
Dig deep.
Oral Contraceptives and the Risk of Breast Cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 94, Issue 23, 4 December 2002, Pages 1773–1779
Background: Oral contraceptive use has been associated with an increase in the risk of breast cancer in young women. We examined whether this association is seen in women at high risk of breast cancer because they carry a mutation in one of two breast cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2.
Methods: We performed a matched case–control study on 1311 pairs of women with known deleterious BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations recruited from 52 centers in 11 countries. Women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer were matched to control subjects by year of birth, country of residence, mutation (BRCA1 or BRCA2), and history of ovarian cancer. All study subjects completed a questionnaire about oral contraceptive use. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived by conditional logistic regression. All statistical tests were two-sided.
Results: Among BRCA2 mutation carriers, ever use of oral contraceptives was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.72 to 1.24). For BRCA1 mutation carriers, ever use of oral contraceptives was associated with a modestly increased risk of breast cancer (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.40). However, compared with BRCA1 mutation carriers who never used oral contraceptives, those who used oral contraceptives for at least 5 years had an increased risk of breast cancer (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.60), as did those who used oral contraceptives before age 30 (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.52), those who were diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 (OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.72), and those who first used oral contraceptives before 1975 (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.75).
Conclusions: Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, women who first used oral contraceptives before 1975, who used them before age 30, or who used them for 5 or more years may have an increased risk of early-onset breast cancer.
Citation
Steven A. Narod, Marie-Pierre Dubé, Jan Klijn, Jan Lubinski, Henry T. Lynch, Parviz Ghadirian, Diane Provencher, Ketil Heimdal, Pal Moller, Mark Robson, Kenneth Offit, Claudine Isaacs, Barbara Weber, Eitan Friedman, Ruth Gershoni-Baruch, Gad Rennert, Barbara Pasini, Theresa Wagner, Mary Daly, Judy E. Garber, Susan L. Neuhausen, Peter Ainsworth, Hakan Olsson, Gareth Evans, Michael Osborne, Fergus Couch, William D. Foulkes, Ellen Warner, Charmaine Kim-Sing, Olufunmilayo Olopade, Nadine Tung, Howard M. Saal, Jeffrey Weitzel, Sofia Merajver, Marion Gauthier-Villars, Helena Jernstrom, Ping Sun, Jean-Sebastien Brunet, Oral Contraceptives and the Risk of Breast Cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 94, Issue 23, 4 December 2002, Pages 1773–1779, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/94.23.1773
Estovir, if you’re trying to tell there ‘is’ a link between abortion and breast cancer, find a SCIENTIFIC source. You’ve got nothing here!
Personally I could care less about women who have abortions getting extra breast cancer or not.
I also don’t care too much that promiscuous women who have slept around a lot and had HPV have higher rates of cervical cancer., Now, that’s a pretty well established fact, again, not that I would care too much if it was or wasnt.
One thing I don’t really like about prolife cause is all the whining about woman’s health. Oh, help the girls and women,. blah blah blah. I’m sick of it. Really I have compassion fatigue from decades of hearing this. I hear it from the prochoicers and the prolifers, and it’s like nobody ever touches on that one crazy thing that we all seem to agree is irrelevant:
every “Fetus” has a father!
who has zero say in the matter.
That always pissed me off a lot, being a man and all. But I never hear the prolifers bring it up, almost never,, today it was a first in a long time when karen mentioned it. But overall they would seem to care as little about men on the prolife side as the prochoice side. Ok, this is between women then? Then I am not going to break a sweat over it. And men who do are probably wasting their energy.
Women who are in good, healthy relationships with the sperm donor will most likely consult with him and take his views into account, but it is still her body and her decision. Donating sperm doesn’t automatically make a man a father.
It is absolutely disgusting to see a room full of old white men, few, if any with any medical knowledge, in legislatures thinking they know what’s right for the health care of women. They don’t have a clue.
They don’t have a clue.
Actually people of your ilk don’t have a clue in how to read scientific data in published medical literature.
Feel free to produce scientific literature rebutting the studies I posted.
don’t forget proper citation
Waiting….
Induced abortion and breast cancer: An updated meta-analysis
Deng, Yongchun, MD; Xu, Hua, MM; Zeng, XiaoHua, MD*
Medicine: January 2018 – Volume 97 – Issue 3 – p e9613
Our meta-analysis results based on 25 studies, including 5 studies with Chinese patients, indicated that there was no association of IA with breast cancer (OR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.98-1.19, P = .1). However, significant heterogeneity was observed, and thus further subgroup analyses were conducted. The combined OR of subjects with only 1-time IA was 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18, P = .63, while for subjects with 2 or more IAs, it was 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, P = .58. In addition, the ORs of subjects, with 1st IA age either less than 30 or older than 30, were 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26, P = .59, and 1.18, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.49, P = .17, respectively. These observations indicated that number of IAs and the age of 1st IA were not associated with breast cancer risk. Due to lack of dose-response relationships, it is difficult to say if number of IAs contributed into statistical heterogeneity. But after subgroup analysis, the age at the 1st IA appeared to impact the statistical heterogeneity. The different reproductive history appears to account for the high heterogeneity among individual studies. Also analysis of nulliparous women showed no significant difference in the association of IA and breast cancer (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.86-1.21, P = .85). However, parous women had higher IA rate in case group than control group (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.20, P = .01).
Note the p values, please
LOL
Nope, not going to do it. Too much work and I don’t understand it. I just want your opinion banned, it’s much simpler for me.
Spoon feed me or I’m out!
Too much work and I don’t understand it.
Just repeat after me: Abortion is killing a life
Now you owe me a consultation fee payable in small bills.
🤡
Sorry, apparently becoming a new leftist myself, I just don’t get it… can you explain it to me again?
I just want my free stuff.
Oh, a fertilized zygote has to have a mother and a father, yes, in the biological sense it does.
But keep on denying that core basic biological fact which is precisely what the current status quo does. The fetus is property for the woman, but never the man. That’s the underlying concept.
And it’s the only kind of property that can be deprived of a man without due process or any consent whatsoever.
I don’t need the law to be changed in that regard, but at least i have the eyes to see what it really means. Men are inferior to women under this scenario, is what it means.
Nature is unfair– it makes women carry the burden to term. The laws of the state try and be fair, and take this into account, by letting them women be the legal boss of the job. Ok, i can understand this. Fair perhaps but not equal. Nature imposes a special duty on women, in biological terms, and the state allows them a special privilege to match it. Not the same, not equal, but arguably, fair, to let women have the say on abortions, and totally cut men out of it as if they did not exist and it was a parthenongenesis in every instance.
In the old days, Christians believed that Mary had a virgin birth. That was called a miracle. Materialists denounced this and called it a lie.
They have replaced one fiction with a bigger one: a legal pretense that every pregnancy was an immaculate one, as if there was no father but the God in which they don’t believe.
That’s modern “reason” in a nutshell. It’s a different form of religion, basically, even less grounded in reality than the supposed superstitions it was to have replaced.
Actually, donating sperm literally makes a man a biological father, just like a woman who gives birth is known as the “birth mother.”
“It is absolutely disgusting to see a room full of old white men, few, if any with any medical knowledge, in legislatures thinking they know what’s right for the health care of women. They don’t have a clue.”
Do you have to experience a problem for yourself to think it’s wrong? Do you have to own a slave, or be a slave, to know it’s wrong? It’s a free country. People have the right to express an opinion, and vote accordingly, if they believe that killing babies in the womb is wrong. It’s not actually the mother’s body, but rather the mother’s body and the baby’s body.
Most people believe that abortion should be limited, at least by the third trimester. I have already had my child. Should I not be allowed to talk, or vote, about the issue because it won’t affect me?
Our country does not require that only those affected by the outcome be allowed to vote on a subject. However, if we’re going to go there with abortion, then only those who are affected by Obamacare should vote on it, and only those affected by tax increases, should vote on it, etc.
The issue discussed should be whether it’s right or wrong, not if anyone has the right to speak about it. That’s not how our country was founded.
I’m pretty sure that if a father found out that after they broke up, his ex-wife aborted their child that they’d planned together, he’d be personally affected. He’d go home to that empty nursery, and know that if she’d waited a week, it would be filled with a cooing child. But she was mad, and late term abortions are not, statistically, performed because of fetal abnormalities. Rather, breakups are one of the common factors. So the stress of thinking about shared custody got her a full term abortion, and she had to go through labor to get it. Dad had no say. No opportunity to have full custody of the full term healthy child she didn’t want.
At some point, most of America, black, white, Asian, woman, man, all agree that there should be limits on abortion.
People who bring up race, gender, and other identity politics are employing racist, sexist arguments, instead of discussing the pros and cons.
I am sympathetic to both sides. There are times that a first or second trimester pregnancy endangers a mother’s life – ectopic, mother has cancer and requires chemo. There are concerns that we abort babies with disabilities, like sweet Downs Syndrome babies, as unworthy of life. That’s straight out of Nazi eugenics, which exchanged ideas across the pond with Californian progressives.
“Women who are in good, healthy relationships with the sperm donor will most likely consult with him”. Opinion, not fact. No data. Also, restrictive on when fathers get input.
There are many options that conform to most people’s desire to avoid aborting full term healthy babies. There are arguments to be made for and against each. One of the first steps is that there needs to be a standard medical definition to “threat to the woman’s health”.
I think abortion is tragic. I don’t know what a good law would look like, exactly. There are cases like ectopic pregnancies, or cancer detection requiring chemo, etc. We’ll never get good laws with partisan bickering.
We as a society want fathers to be protective of children. One of the most disturbing aspects of The Shining was that the homicidal maniac was the father. Society is horrified at the murder of pregnant women (Lacey Peterson, rest her soul) for convenience so the guy can move on to a new woman.
We adore seeing the solicitous husband out at midnight in his slippers getting ice cream and pickles. I would wake my husband up before dawn and desperately require a particular food, immediately, to avoid being sick, and “run get it” was not a figure of speech. No. Really. Run!
We want these protective instincts to kick in as soon as they find out about the pregnancy, but they are supposed to evaporate if the woman decides to abort the baby.
Remember all those times I’ve droned on about the vital importance of fathers to the outcome of children, with my single motherhood statistics? The vital importance of fathers. Kurz is right to be concerned about the lack of emphasis placed on the other side of the two people it takes.
—–Thought Exercise——
Full term pregnancy. Due date 3 days. Mother and father had contentious breakup. Mother decides to abort full term, healthy baby boy. Abortion will take 2 to 3 days, and will require labor. It will create more risks to the mother than either induced vaginal delivery or C-section. The health risks of labor and delivery and pregnancy were not avoided at all for the mother no matter what she chooses, at this point.
If the father wants the healthy, full term baby, and the mother does not, should the father be allowed the right to have custody of the baby she doesn’t want? Or should she be allowed to kill a healthy, full term baby boy out of spite, as long as he didn’t draw a lungful of air?