The designation of “brain death” is a controversial one and presents moral and ethical issues, especially when the life of a baby is involved. There are many cases where babies have survived after the mothers have experienced similar situations to that of Marlise Munoz. There is a very strong possibility that Marlise’s baby could survive, given a little more time.

“We feel great compassion for the family of Marlise Munoz and her pre-born baby. No one ever wants to be in their difficult and tragic situation,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “Marlise wanted this baby, and as long as there is a chance that he or she can be saved, we support John Peter Smith Hospital in their bid to follow the law and protect this baby’s life.”

Writing at LifeNews, Calvin Frieberger says abortion activists are upset.

As Newsbusters’ Katie Yoder documents, pro-aborts far and wide are seething with rage over this. But curiously, that’s despite the fact that almost none of their token justifications are present. Delivery will no longer affect Marlise’s well-being, and as Cox points out, whatever end-of-life wishes she had told Erick almost certainly didn’t account for the remote possibility that ending her life would also end her son or daughter’s, in what is presumably a desired pregnancy.

That means a man is presuming to make a woman’s reproductive decision for her—with the full backing of the supposed “reproductive rights” champions. Apparently the outcome of a dead baby is all that matters.

Learn More:

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/01/17/judge-in-case-of-father-trying-to-kill-his-unborn-child-recuses-herself/

BY JOEL BRIND, PH.D

January 15, 2014 (NRLC) – Hot on the heels of the new systematic review and meta-analysis of the abortion-breast cancer (ABC link) in China published by Dr. Yubei Huang last November and reviewed in NRL News Today in December, comes yet another blockbuster study from the Asian subcontinent.

On Christmas Eve, a study by A.S. Bhadoria et al. of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences—“Reproductive factors and breast cancer: A case-control study in tertiary care hospital of North India”–appeared online in the “Indian Journal of Cancer.” These new Asian studies are changing the game in ABC link research

The Bhadoria study of 320 breast cancer patients and 320 age and socio-economic status-matched healthy control women reported a 403% increased risk of getting breast cancer among Indian women who have had any abortions. Not only is this increase much larger than what had been reported in the Huang meta-analysis (44%) and by my colleagues and I in our worldwide meta-analysis of 1996 (30%), but it closely matches the 538% among Indian women reported earlier in 2013 by Dr. Ramchandra Kamath et al.

Also in 2013, Dr. S. Jabeen and colleagues reported a risk increase of almost 2,000% among women in Bangladesh!

Taken collectively, the studies from Asia should completely abolish any lingering credibility of the US National Cancer Institute’s politically correct” dictum that there is no ABC link.

As explained in my December article (“Chinese Abortion-Breast Cancer bombshell: Meta-analysis of 36 Chinese studies shows abortion increases breast cancer risk by 44%”), the Huang meta-analysis reproduces and validates our findings from 1996. It also demonstrates what is called a “dose effect,” i.e., two abortions increase the risk more than one abortion (there is 76% risk increase with two or more abortions), and three abortions increase the risk even more (an 89% risk increase with three or more abortions).

Risk factors that show such a clear dose effect have more credibility.

I also previously described how the Huang “meta-analysis” (a study of studies) dispatched with the tired old canard used to discredit the ABC link, variously called the “response bias” or “recall bias” or “reporting bias” argument. The argument goes like this.

Due to social stigma that is attached to having an induced abortion, healthy women are more likely to deny prior abortions in their medical history study questionnaire than are women who’ve developed breast cancer. Hence, the argument goes, it would erroneously appear that abortion is more frequent among women who’ve had an abortion.

Although no credible evidence for this response bias hypothesis has ever been presented in ABC link research (and there is plenty of good evidence against it), the NCI and others have continually cited it as if it were a matter of fact in order to deny the reality of the ABC link. Huang et al. argued for the absence of response bias (abortion is very common in China and there is a lack of social stigma), but ABC-link detractors still cite response bias.

But the sub-continental studies really do put the final nail in the coffin of the response bias argument. Such response bias is only even plausible when the relative risk is relatively low, such as around 1.5 (i.e., a 50% risk increase).

But such bias becomes extremely implausible when the relative risk is strong—e.g., 5 or 6 (i.e., a 400-500% risk increase) or more. Thus, while one might attempt to explain how some women with breast cancer might be more or less inclined to report their history of abortion, the numbers from India and Bangladesh are just too overwhelming.  That’s why the percentage risk increases come out so high.

In the Bhadoria study, for example, the majority (61%) of the breast cancer patients had had at least one abortion, whereas only 16% of the control women were post-abortive. The data from the other two studies show similarly lopsided comparisons of cancer patients and controls. That’s why the risk increases come out so high.

It is important to note that these high relative risk numbers raise the question as to why, if abortion should have the same effect on women everywhere, there should be such a strong link on the Asian sub-continent. The answer is straightforward.

In India and Bangladesh, breast cancer is still relatively rare because a) early marriage and childbearing—the best known protection against breast cancer—is nearly universal; and b) breastfeeding (also a protective factor against breast cancer) is also nearly universal. Consequently, there’s not much in Bangladesh besides abortion to cause breast cancer, so it really stands out.

As noted in my earlier piece on the ABC link in China, the impact of abortion on a population of over a billion women—in India and China alone—means breast cancer cases exceeding 10 million for the current generation of women of childbearing age, and millions of them dying from it. And by the way, in contrast to the typical age of onset of breast cancer in the West, Asian women are stricken more often when in their 40′s.

Welcome to the real war on women.

Learn More: 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/evidence-of-abortion-breast-cancer-link-explodes-on-the-asian-subcontinent

BY LIFESITENEWS STAFF

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 16, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com)– A new paper released today by the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) compiles new evidence showing that emergency contraceptives can operate as abortion-inducing drugs. Author Susan E. Wills, JD, LLM, examines the latest scientific studies and explains how IUDs and so-called “morning after pills” have been shown to occasionally prevent newly created embryos from implanting in the uterine wall, therefore facilitating early abortion.

The report looks at the current state of the science regarding the three most common types of emergency contraception available in the United States: the Copper-T IUD (marketed as ParaGard® T 380A Intrauterine Copper Contraceptive), Ulipristal acetate (marketed as Ella® and ellaOne®), and levonorgestrel EC or LNG-EC (marketed as Plan B®, Plan B One-Step® and Next Choice®).

“As we await a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the HHS mandate, this timely research sheds light on the fundamental difference between abortion and the prevention of pregnancy.  These are simply not the same and we can only have a good outcome when the terms are properly understood,” said Chuck Donovan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. “This review of the newest research confirms the Obamacare mandate as a blunt and sweeping assault on the freedom of conscience of those who oppose the killing of human embryos.”

“Given the dangers to the future of conscience rights posed by the Affordable Care Act, an honest debate over the ‘contraception mandate’ is a necessity,” concludes author Susan E. Wills, JD, LLM. “Numerous studies have shown that the most popular emergency contraceptives can cause the death of embryos. For the sake of full and accurate informed consent for patients and for the sake of the integrity of the medical profession and research community, this reality must be acknowledged.  Only then will we be able to make informed decisions about our personal healthcare and healthcare policy.”

In August 2011, Department of HHS Secretary Sebelius herself said that the mandate includes drugs that are “designed to prevent implantation” of embryos, causing abortion.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute was launched in 2011 as the education and research arm of Susan B. Anthony List.  The CLI is a hub for research and public policy analysis on some of the most pressing issues facing the United States and nations around the world.  The paper released today is a part of the Charlotte Lozier Institute’s American Reports Series which presents analysis of issues concerning life, science, and bioethics and that affect national policy.

Learn More: 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-study-proves-all-emergency-contraception-can-cause-early-abortion

BY MICHAEL NEW

Earlier this month, the journal Obstetrics and Gynecologypublished a study which has the media swooning. It analyzed over 15,000 abortion-minded women in California in 2011 — some of whom decided to view an ultrasound image of their unborn child. The study purportedly found that these ultrasound images did very little to dissuade women from obtaining an abortion. This study has received significant attention from a number of media outlets including Slate,Time magazine’s Health and Family blog, and RhRealityCheck. The spin is that this study debunks pro-life claims that ultrasound images are effective in persuading abortion-minded women to choose life for their unborn child.

However, a closer look at this study reveals some important limitations with the research. Most important, these ultrasounds were performed by a Planned Parenthood who had a vested financial interest in seeing that the women chose abortion. So there is a good chance the ultrasound images seen by these women were not particularly clear or vivid. Furthermore, the study did show that among women who were conflicted about how to proceed with their pregnancy, the ultrasound image made them statistically less likely to submit to an abortion. This finding held even when a variety of demographic and economic variables were held constant. As such, this study provides good evidence that for a significant subset of abortion-minded women, ultrasound images steer them toward life-affirming choices.

The coverage of this study provides yet another example of the mainstream media doing its best to portray pro-life efforts as ineffective. For instance, when reporting on declining abortion numbers, most media outlets give increased contraception use most of the credit. However, they fail to report that the unintended pregnancy rate has held constant over the years and that contraception use started to increase well before the abortion rate started to fall. Declines in teen sexual activity typically get little coverage. Similarly, the substantial body of  academic research demonstrating the effectiveness of both public-funding restrictions on abortion and pro-life parental-involvement laws receives scant attention from the mainstream media.

Learn More: 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/media-misleads-on-recent-ultrasound-study