It is not just about the babies, it is about us. edited

It is not just about the babies, it is about us.

by David B Severy 

Abortion is the most heinous crime, number one in my point of view. First let me lay out some facts:

Every year since 1973 we have abored 25% of our naturally conceived fetuses ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#2). They would each become a part of our nation for better or worse as do the other 75%. But 18 years after they are aborted someone else must be found to fill the gap we make by aborting them. In 1991, eighteen years after Roe vs. Wade was decided, all the fetuses  aborted in 1973 would have turned 18 years old , had they lived. In 1992, 1993 and each successive year until 2010 another years "crop" of aborted individuals would have turned 18. Their absence is profound. Between 1973 and 1991, 25,000,000 babies were aborted. All would be between 18 and 37 years old today. So we effectively have made room for the 20 million illegals said to be in the USA to come in and do the work the aborted shoulda coulda woulda have done.

Additionally we must see that to those who provide goods and services to parents, the economic activity resulting from raising children from infancy to early adulthood (18) is effectively cut off.  Instead illegal aliens enter and take the place of absent labor and business. They work for under the table wages and do black or grey market “baby” business. Consider the money sent out of the country by illegals. Consider the number of the aborted who would have become engineers or scientists or doctors. America continues to slip in the number of necessary professionals it produces and we look to other nations to supply them.

The loss to our nation due to abortion is enormous. In fact we are now producing on average less than 2 children per married couple. This means we are not growing in population but shrinking. Both the illegal Hispanics and the legal Muslim communities are increasing in population. If the rates hold steady the nation will change dramatically in the next 50 years. That might be ok, but it might not be ok.

MUST SEE VIDEO !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU 

We also must consider the question of how our children view their elders when they understand that their own lives were a choice rather than a highly prized right and privilege. This leads to questions about the stability of our national psychology and morality. The estimate is that half of all pregnancies are "unintended." Here we enter into the arena of judgment, and I will share why abortion is the worst crime an individual can commit and the worst a society can sanction.

Humanity is not one step better than gutter rats if it chooses to behave like them. Rats are about one thing survival. Humans have the capacity to live above the lifestyle of the rat, far above it. And by our intellect we do live above it. But when we use our intellect to live only for our selfish pleasures we become nothing more than calculating, perverse, clever rats. I believe in the Lord Jesus, the Messiah of Israel and all who believe Him. But I will give at least some kudos to any form of religious belief, societal form or political entity that values the child. It is still said in some quarters "the children are our future." They are certainly a part of our future unless we deny them their own.

So we should not fool ourselves about abortion. It is in most cases, easily over 90% of all cases, the elimination of an "unintended" UNWANTED child. It is NOT done for the health of the mother, nor to save her life. It is done because the parents have chosen not to take responsibility for the consequence of their sexual acts. Bottom line people want to go on living and pleasuring without the “burden” of another mouth to feed, another mind to educate, another child’s soul to love.

What passes as an act to improve the life of the parents ultimately has torn down the quality of life of the society in which they live. It is a sad state of affairs. When will we wake up? When will we embrace the results of our sexual acts, even the adulterous and promiscuous acts? Those results are souls just like we are. By aborting them we inhabit the most perverse gutters, dirtier than the worst slum rat ever inhabited.

The baby aborted goes straight to the arms of Jesus while we roll in the filth of our sexual misbehavior and the blood of 50 million abortions. Can the curse we bring on our nation be understood now? Twenty million illegals, 9% unemployment, economic recession, jobs sent overseas, war, drug abuse everywhere, pornography everywhere, no moral consensus, no political consensus… what will it take to wake us?

My answer is prayer and the preaching of the Gospel of God in Christ who loves us enough still to tell us the truth, and in fact to be the Truth we need. It is time for those in the pulpits to lead their preachers and teachers into the streets. It is time for the gospel to become the No. 1 message of the pro-life movement. Only the gospel can empower any man or woman to succeed, for success cannot be found apart from the Living God of the living, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Part of the Gospel requires that we exposed the evil deeds of evil doers. Abortion is a subject we in the church need to understand. We need to not only see that is is a sin (murder, and premeditiated murder at that), but that is often results from sexual sin, and almost always is done out of the sin of greed and selfishness. 

I need to add this, and thank you Nancy U. for reminding me: It is because the contents of the womb are entirely human from conception to birth that abortion is so evil and wrong. We are valuable in God's sight beyond our understanding. He sent His ONLY Son to be a fetus and baby and child just like each of us were. We may call abortion a choice, and it is a choice. It is a choice to MURDER a human being, a PERSON. It is INFANTACIDE and it is A HOLOCAUST. Fifty million babies have been aborted. Fewer that one million and ten thousand Americans have been killed in ALL the wars this nation ever fought!

.................................................. 50 periods = 50,000,000 babies

. 1 period = 1,000 000 battle deaths

It is not just about the babies, it is about us.

It is not just about the babies, it is about us.
by David B Severy

Abortion is the most heinous crime, number one in my point of view. First let me lay out some facts:

Every year we abort 22% of our naturally conceived fetuses ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#2). They would each become a part of our nation for better or worse as do the other 75%. But 18 years after they are aborted someone else must be found to fill the gap we make by aborting them. In 1991 had they lived, (18 years after Roe vs. Wade was decided) all the aborted fetuses of 1973 would have turned 18 years old. In 1992, 1993 and each successive year until 2010 another years "crop" of aborted individuals would have turned 18. Their absence is profound. Between 1973 and 1991 25,000,000 babies were aborted (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4000608.pdf see page 4). All would be between 18 and 37 years old today. So we effectively have made room for the 20 million illegals that do the work they would have done.



Additionally we must see that the economic activity that occurs in raising each child from infancy to adulthood (18) is forfeited to those illegals that fill the jobs related to their expenses. Add in the money sent out of the country by illegals. Also add in whatever number of the aborted who would have become engineers or scientists or doctors. America continues to slip in the number of necessary professionals it produces and we look to other nations to supply them.


The loss to our nation due to abortion is enormous. In fact we are now producing on average less than 2 children per married couple. This means we are not growing in population but shrinking. Both the illegal Hispanics and the legal Muslim communities are increasing in population. If the rates hold steady the nation will change dramatically in the next 50 years. That might be ok, but it might not be ok.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html



We also must consider the question of how our children view their elders when they understand that their own lives were a choice rather than a highly prized right and privilege. This leads to questions about the stability of our national psychology and morality. The estimate is that half of all pregnancies are "unintended." Here we enter into the arena of judgment, and I will share why abortion is the worst crime an individual can commit and the worst a society can sanction.


Humanity is not one step better than gutter rats if it chooses to behave like them. Rats are about one thing survival. Humans have the capacity to live above the lifestyle of the rat, far above it. And by our intellect we do live above it. But when we use our intellect to live only for our selfish pleasures we become nothing more than calculating perverse clever rats. I believe in the Lord Jesus the Messiah of Israel and all who believe Him. But I will give at least some kudos to any form of religious belief, societal form or political entity that values the child. It is still said in some quarters "the children are our future." They are certainly a part of our future unless we deny them their own.


So we should not fool ourselves about abortion. It is in most cases, easily over 90% of all cases, the elimination of an "unintended" UNWANTED child. It is NOT done for the health of the mother, nor to save her life. It is done because the parents have chosen not to take responsibility for the consequence of their sexual act. Bottom line people want to go on living without the “burden” of another mouth to feed, another mind to educate, and another child’s soul to love.


What passes as an act to improve the life of the parents ultimately has torn down the quality of life of the society in which they live. It is a sad state of affairs. When will we wake up? When will we embrace the results of our sexual acts, even the adulterous and promiscuous acts? Those results are souls just like we are. By aborting them we inhabit the most perverse gutters, dirtier than the worst slum rat ever inhabited.


The baby aborted goes straight to the arms of Jesus while we roll in the filth of our sexual misbehavior and the blood of 50 million abortions. Can the curse we bring on our nation be understood now? Twenty million illegals, 9% unemployment, economic recession, jobs sent overseas, war, drug abuse everywhere, pornography everywhere, no moral consensus, no political consensus… what will it take to wake us?


My answer is prayer and the preaching of the Gospel of God in Christ who loves us enough still to tell us the truth, and in fact to be the Truth we need. It is time for those in the pulpits to lead their preachers and teachers into the streets. It is time for the gospel to become the No. 1 message of the pro-life movement. Only the gospel can empower any man or woman to succeed, for success cannot be found apart from the Living God of the living, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


I need to add this, and thank you Nancy U. for reminding me: It is because the contents of the womb are entirely human from conception to birth that abortion is so evil and wrong. We are valuable in God's sight beyond our understanding. He sent His ONLY Son to be a fetus and baby and child just like each of us were. We may call abortion a choice, and it is a choice. It is a choice to MURDER a human being, a PERSON. It is INFANTACIDE and it is A HOLOCAUST. Fifty million babies have been aborted. Fewer that one million and ten thousand Americans have been killed in ALL the wars this nation ever fought!



.................................................. 50 periods (50,000,000 babies)

. 1 period (1,000 000 battle deaths)

More to this than meets the eye...

(It is a pro life article, read to the finish and see...)

Illegal immigration, why do we have this problem?

Many see it as a problem, and not a few are completely untroubled by it. As you might expect from me, I find the problem of illegal immigration to be found rooted in mankind’s greatest trouble: SIN. And there go most of those reading… on to another blog or web page. It is either true or not that sin is a problem, and that it is the source of all problems. If you think it is so, read on.

But what could it be that allows for the presence of perhaps 30 million illegal’s in this nation from Mexico, Central and South America, Africa, Eastern Europe Russia? We know why they come, they come for the money. Perhaps they come for the “freedom” but if they had money in their own countries would they come for the “freedom?” So who is giving out the money?

Employers and the government, the Capitalists (the employers) and the Socialists (the Government) are giving out the money. One requires you work for it and the other that you vote for it. Both are attracting illegal immigrants like honey attracts bees. So why don’t our own citizens go after this money? Most do, and most get the money, and they get it from the same two sources for the same two services, working and voting. So why do we need illegal immigrants?

We need them to do the work Americans do not want to do and we need them to do the work Americans are too dumb to do. Talk about the MIDDLE class… Make that the MEDIOCRE class.

We are now too proud to pick fruits and vegetables and not smart enough to become engineers.

But why? Could that SIN thing relate to the mess we are in? Yes, it could and does.

Many people in America are not Christians and do not agree that sin is the issue. Yet many Christians or so called Christians do not believe in sin or hell. Many other people will say that they are spiritual, and/or that there is a spiritual part of life which is very real, but they will deny sin as a reality. And others just deny the spiritual part of human life altogether.

What is at the root of the denial of sin? The desire to escape judgment in this life, and for those who think there is a God and a life after death, they desire to escape judgment in that afterlife. If they only knew how simple God has made it for us to enjoy Him and His afterlife. But that is another part of the “equation.”
What is critical to understand is that those who disbelieve sin disbelieve the one who defines sin. They will not acknowledge God, God’s authority and sovereignty. And to the point here, they will not acknowledge that God knows what sin is. Simply put, God knows what is right and what is wrong absolutely in every real case. We may know, or we may not; God does.

So we are left with two kinds of people on earth, those who seek the truth as to what is right and wrong, and those who seek to do as they wish with as little harm to themselves as possible. These are the two kinds of people. I am moving in one direction or the other. You are moving in one direction or the other.

If you are seeking to do it your way for your own benefit, what is right or wrong will not concern you much.

Not getting caught is what matters.

So it is easy to see that those who would rather sell cars than wash them compete to get those jobs… when cars are selling. Those who would rather ship fruit that pick it… the same. And those who would rather earn seven figure incomes as banking/business moguls than five/six figures as engineers, they compete for those jobs. So we have illegal immigrants picking fruit, washing cars, and surprisingly they are engineering our software in sales, industry and medicine.

But there is one other factor that really puts the proverbial kibosh on reversing the trend. It is something so obvious it pains me to think how little we see it. Surely many just float down the river in Egypt regarding ABORTION, but it really puts a finishing touch on our NEED for people to come over our borders illegally OR LEGALLY to do the work we want done.

One out of four babies conceived in America are aborted. Does this or does this not open up 25% on out of every four jobs to a foreign born person? The math seems quite simple. All other things aside, every aborted child can never hold a job in their home country. If United States citizens continue to abort 25% of their offspring, their progeny, their posterity, their own flesh and blood CHILDREN they will never ever recoup the kind of economic social and SPIRITUAL prosperity they once enjoyed. The will continue to decline until the nation bears little resemblance to what it was in 1776, 1876 or 1976. It is already happening.

The tea parties are just what? They are the moral minority plus those whose pocketbooks are finally being touched to deeply. Forget the tea party. It will do nothing except perhaps return the grievous social problems we experience into the hands of republicans who are no better equipped to fix them than democrats. We need Jesus to fix them, and if we will let Him fix us, if you and I will let Him fix us, perhaps we may have an opportunity again to fix the nation.

(The truth is that other methods birth control also suppress the birth rate and add to the decile in native born citizens. We prefer either not to raise children or not to overburden ourselves with more that 1.2 kids)

Fini.

Seen today on a t-shirt.

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

Seen today on a t-shirt at Towson Univ. Cook Library: "You think you know but you have no idea."

That sort of sums up my thoughts for us as a race, the human race that is. We think we know…

I have noticed more and more the changing face of the U.S. : so many Latinos, and not a few Africans, Asians, and South Asians. I even heard a member of a surveyor's crew calling out coordinates in a eastern European accent! I would be moved to paranoia as many are, except to remember that they are all human and for the most part all have human aspirations much the same as I do, and you.

From 1986 to 2005 The number of new legal immigrants admitted remained relatively stable at about 400,000 annually(http://www.migrationpolicy.org/) that is: eight million over the last 20 years. It is said that there are 12-20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. of A. Why has this happened? Why have 20-30 million foreign born people come to this country to live? Some come for freedom. Some come for educational opportunities. Others are recruited by industry. Each is a story in itself to be sure.

Many U.S. citizens, almost all the sons of immigrants, cry aloud, bemoaning this wave of immigration. The minor holocaust of 9/11 certainly amplified the chorus of nay and doomsayers. But if you ask this writer, we are in part, in large part responsible for this situation. The following has not been received well by those I have spoken it to, nonetheless I think we must consider our complicity in immorally and illegally making room for 20-30 million foreigners in this country.

We will fast approach the infamous distinction of having aborted 50 million. Call them fetuses, babies, unborn, preborn, infants—it hardly matters; what cannot be disputed is that almost half of those aborted would now be 18 years old, and would be English speaking persons at some adult stage of life. Many would be employed. Some would be in college. Some would be in the military, and others in Green Peace, some Democrats, others Republicans. Some would be disabled or chronically ill, or in prison. But most would be pulling their weight, and adding to the strength of the nation. In short, they would be human, and as a whole they would be just like the rest of us, but for the fact of their termination, their abortion.

Had they lived, they would be competing in the market place just like we are. And they would be spending their wages and salaries just like we do. In fact, there would be far fewer aliens sending U.S. dollars out of country! Our economy, stupid, would enjoy the fruits of their labors: millions (billions?) of dollars that now find there way into other nations economies.

I expect that half of all reading this will blow off my theory as ridiculous. But these are those who find the idea of a fetus being human ridiculous. I would not mind being deceived of all I have said. But of this I cannot be deceived: preborn infants are human at conception; their abortion is murder in the sight of God and of some men and women. If the fetus is not a human being, what are those who say it is not a human? And if and since fetuses are human, it is clear that those who have supported abortion have been deceived. And what are the deceived? They ARE DECEIVED. The deceived know not that they are deceived. Their deception calls all their knowledge into question. If you say it is no crime to abort a human fetus, I cannot even trust you to tell me water is wet.

Click for:

Latest Post(s)

Abortion and Breast Cancer LINKED. Click for:

Proof site #1
Proof site #2
Proof site #3
Proof site #4
Proof site #5

Where are we?

CLICK: Rev. 6:9-11

lambsev's blog group

Click to visit:

The Lamb's poet

little lambs

lamb alive

lambsev @ myspace

lambspace

lamb.space.googlepages.com

want to help me?

Submit your articles, or testimonies to me at lambsev@gmail.com. I they are worthy of the topic and need I will post them here wirh or without credit to your name.

Planned Parenthood Reports Record Abortions, High Profits

Planned Parenthood Reports Record Abortions, High Profits
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 15, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Despite a drop in donations and the first fall in income from clinics in its history, the nation's biggest abortion provider made a high profit last year, thanks to the American taxpayer. Pro-lifers want this to stop.

During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the nonprofit Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, attained a high profit of $55.8 million and received record taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.

According to its annual report, income is divided roughly into three major categories: clinic income (fees charged to customers at clinics); donations (gifts from corporations, foundations and individuals); and taxpayer money (grants and contracts from federal, state and local government).

For the year July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, Planned Parenthood received $345.1 million in clinic income, $305.3 million in taxpayer funding and $212.2 million in donations. Total income reached $902.8 million while total expenses came to $847.0 million, leaving a profit of $55.8 million.

Numerous calls to Planned Parenthood offices in both New York City and Washington, D.C., seeking comment for this article, were not returned, but a statement on the organization's website says that the report "illustrates the achievements of an organization founded to prevent unintended pregnancy and protect women's health and safety."

"During a year of great change and growth, and in a political climate of increasing assaults on sexual and reproductive rights and health, Planned Parenthood continued to make enormous strides toward protecting and strengthening the reproductive health and rights of women and men worldwide," the statement adds.

Jim Sedlak, executive director of Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP) International, told Cybercast News Service on Thursday that the flow of taxpayer dollars to the abortion provider "has to be stopped. Since our elected officials won't do their job, it's up to us."

"Clearly, it was a good overall year for Planned Parenthood," he said. "Total income went up 2.4 percent, passing $900 million for the first time."

At the same time, however, he said further analysis revealed "potential trouble spots" for the PPFA.

The report showed that income from clinics was down about $1.5 million from the previous year -- the first such decline in the organization's 50-year history -- while donations also fell by $3.6 million.

So why was Planned Parenthood able to report such a high profit?

"The final category of Planned Parenthood revenue sources is you and me -- the American taxpayer," Sedlak said. He noted that the amount of taxpayer funding reported by PPFA exceeded that of the previous year by $32.6 million, or 12 percent.

"The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is losing donations, its clinic income is down, and you and I are being forced to pay more so the organization can kill our children through abortion and spread its perverted ideology throughout the land," Sedlak said.

"Everyone is getting the message: Stay away from Planned Parenthood. Everyone, that is, except our elected officials," Sedlak stated. "Without the increase in taxpayer funds, Planned Parenthood would have had an overall decline in income this year."

The jump in taxpayer funding to the PPFA also drew criticism from Douglas Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International (LDI).

"This 'not-for-profit' entity ends every fiscal year with tens of millions of dollars in 'excess revenue over expenses,' which is known to regular people as 'profit,'" he said in a statement.

Referring to the closing date of the latest annual report, Scott noted that "on June 30, 2006, PPFA had net assets valued at $839.8 million, of which $330.9 million was unrestricted and another $116.6 million was temporarily restricted."

"This is essentially a savings account," he said. "The money is sitting in a bank and drawing interest that will further advance Planned Parenthood's deadly agenda."

Ratio of abortions to adoptions

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, noted that while the PPFA reported carrying out a record number of abortions in 2005-2006, it "did not record a single adoption referral."

In the previous year, PPFA reported 1,414 adoption referrals, which Sedlak said amounted to one adoption for every 180 abortions.

The fact that the organization chose not to release a number for adoptions in the latest fiscal year, he said, meant that "we can only assume the number was so low that Planned Parenthood didn't want to embarrass itself by revealing it."

"You will not find the word 'adoption' anywhere in the PPFA's 2005-2006 Annual Report," Scott observed.

Cybercast News Service previously reported that Planned Parenthood has faced financial struggles for the past several years. The organization's 2003-2004 fiscal year report showed it was performing more abortions at fewer clinics than in the past.

Cecile Richards became the group's new president in February of 2006, just as the clinics in her home state faced cutbacks and even shutdowns because of budget amendments passed by the Texas legislature.

And last December, STOPP International said that 2006 had been "another year of struggle for Planned Parenthood" since the number of clinics the organization operated had dropped to its lowest level since 1987.

Several abortion rights groups Thursday declined to comment on the finances of another organization.

In a recent statement, PPFA President Cecile Richards argued that more funding was needed for its work.

"Currently, more than 17 million women in the U.S. need publicly-funded family planning services, and there is not enough funding to meet the need," she said. "Nearly 750,000 teenagers in the U.S. will become pregnant this year.

"As the leading advocate and provider of reproductive health care, Planned Parenthood knows that affordable health care services and access to medically accurate health information and education are the keys to reducing teen pregnancy and to building strong, healthy families," Richards said.

But on Thursday, Sedlak saw the PPFA's declining number of clinics as a silver lining in the organization's new report.

"This data should encourage all who fight Planned Parenthood in your community every day," he said. "Planned Parenthood is hurting. It is closing down clinics faster than it can open new ones, and its clinic income is down. Now is the time to rededicate ourselves to a tireless fight against Planned Parenthood."

FRC's Perkins agreed. "With assets totaling more than $839 million, Planned Parenthood hardly needs a government handout," he said.

All the abortion lies fit to print

All the abortion lies fit to print

By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, January 3, 2007

It's official: The editors of The New York Times have no shame. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the Times' own ombudsman, Byron Calame.

On Sunday, Calame wrote a stunning column debunking an April 9 New York Times Magazine cover story on abortion in El Salvador. The sensational piece by freelance writer Jack Hitt alleged that women there had been thrown in prison for 30-year terms for having had abortions. Hitt described his visit to one of them, inmate Carmen Climaco. "She is now 26 years old, four years into her 30-year sentence" for aborting an 18-week-old fetus, Hitt reported.

The magazine featured heart-rending photos of Climaco's 11-year-old daughter, eyes filled with tears as she clutched a photo of her jailed mom. Cruel. Horrible. Outrageous. And utterly, demonstrably, false.

Climaco had actually been convicted of murder for strangling her newborn baby. This information was uncovered by pro-life groups. Lifesite.net obtained the court documents in Climaco's case and published them on their website in late November. Calame followed up and also independently obtained the documents easily -- records which Hitt didn't bother to try and get for himself to verify the propaganda being fed to him. Reported Calame:

"The care taken in the reporting and editing of this example didn't meet the magazine's normal standards. Although Sarah H. Smith, the magazine's editorial manager, told me that relevant court documents are 'normally' reviewed, Mr. Hitt never checked the 7,600-word ruling in the Climaco case while preparing his story. And Mr. Hitt told me that no editor or fact checker ever asked him if he had checked the court document containing the panel's decision."

Obtaining the public document was as easy as requesting that a stringer for the Times in El Salvador walk into the court building without making any prior arrangements. Which is exactly what Calame did. It took the stringer mere minutes to get the court ruling.

The facts did not fit with Hitt's pro-abortion narrative. Authorities found Climaco's dead baby hidden in a box wrapped in bags under the bed of Mrs. Climaco. Moreover, Lifesite reported, forensic examination showed that it was a full-term normal delivery. The child was breathing at the time of birth. The official cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation.

Hitt's main sources of info came from a pro-abortion group called Ipas. The group would profit from legalized abortion in El Salvador since it peddles abortion vacuum aspirators. Hitt's translator consulted for Ipas, which launched a fund-raising campaign to free Carmen Climaco and bring her to America. Pro-abortion groups recycled Climaco's story, citing the Times' bogus propaganda to scare up opposition to any abortion restrictions here.

The Times' pro-abortion poster child is a woman convicted of infanticide. But the Times, questioned by its own public editor, refuses to acknowledge Jack Hitt's false reporting.

There is "no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts as reported," the editors imperiously told Calame. They refuse to issue a correction, publish an Editors' Note or inform their readers of the ready availability of the court decision that exposes Jack Hitt's deception about the Climaco case.

Calame concluded that "Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect." That's too polite. The Times slung bull and they refuse to clean it up. The Times' Climaco-gate, like the Associated Press' Jamil Hussein-gate and Reuters' fauxtography scandal and CBS's Rathergate, will go down in mainstream history as yet another case of textbook media malpractice.

The next time you hear a New York Times columnist defend the paper's commitment to accuracy, fairness and ethical standards, give them two words: Carmen Climaco. The next time journalism elites wonder why newspaper circulation is plunging, remember: Carmen Climaco. The next time MSM apologists deny liberal bias, ask them rhetorically -- "Atlas Shrugged"-style -- "Who is Carmen Climaco?"


Michelle Malkin makes news and waves with a unique combination of investigative journalism and incisive commentary. She is the author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild .

©Creators Syndicate

NO ROOM

In recent years, television, movies, and video games have grown more and more bloody and violent. Many (most?) Americans watch them and play them without any real thought as to their appeal, acceptance, or effect. Why do we now tolerate daily what was once abhorrent to us? How have we so easily adjusted to the gore?

I remember when I first saw CSI. The show was so bloody and grotesque I turned it off. Now I can watch it and barely squirm. Are we being adjusted to accept this without squirming? The world at large lives with wars, and with terrorism, yet is never adjusted to the shock of their blood and that of their loved ones spilt senselessly on the ground.

What truly saddens me, and sickens me is that our children suffer the bloodiest violence of any age group. The number one cause of death in the U.S.A. is not heart disease, or any other disease, it is simply abortion. The CDC reported the number of deaths in 2004 to be 2,398,343. They also report the leading causes of death for 2004, the latest year, found in the list below.



Age Groups
Rank
1-85
1 Heart Disease 652,029
2 Malignant Neoplasms 553,806
3 Cerebro-vascular 149,942
4 Chronic Low.Respiratory Disease 121,951
5 Unintentional Injury 110,872
6 Diabetes Mellitus 73,134
7 Alzheimer's Disease 65,965
8 Influenza & Pneumonia 59,391
9 Nephritis 42,304
10 Septicemia 33,099

Yet in none of the CDC reports on “death” have I seen the word abortion appear. They do "track" abortion, calling it “legal induced abortion”.




One cannot escape that the fetus, the baby is alive until it is aborted. One cannot deny its DNA is different than the mother’s DNA. One cannot deny that unless the life is taken from the fetus, it will grow to become viable. Viable is the term used to mean the fetus can likely survive being born. Presently that means it must be very near 24 weeks old. But should one ever extinguish the hope of viability? This word viable itself is derived from roots meaning “live” or “alive”. From Merriam Webster’s Online dictionary, the definition of viable, comes this: Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita -- more at VITAL .

In a CDC web page I found this and quote: “In 1998 and 1999 (the most recent years for which data are available), 14 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion. Ten of these deaths occurred in 1998 and four occurred in 1999; no deaths were associated with known illegal abortion.” (From Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2000 by CDC at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm ). Notice that deaths of 14 women, (the mothers) are acknowledged as death, but for the 857,475 abortions reported to the CDC, none were acknowledged as death! “Wanted dead and alive” seems to apply, as the CDC also reports on infant mortality. I quote from the CDC again: “The infant mortality rate, the rate at which babies less than one year of age die, has continued to steadily decline over the past several decades, from 26.0 per 1,000 live births in 1960 to 6.9 per 1,000 live births in 2000.
(From: http://www.cdc.gov/omh/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm ).

The conclusion is that the CDC does not consider the fetus worthy of the appellation baby, or reckon abortion as the death of a baby. It is noteworthy that fetus is from Latin, a language still much alive in medicine and science, and fetus translated means “little one”. Yet the CDC does not associate the aborted fetus with death in any manner at all. If they did, abortion statistics, as deaths would be acknowledged as the number one cause of death in the US and many other countries. Even though now in slight decline, abortions still exceed 1,200,000 per year in the USA. Compare that figure to the chart above.

So why make all this trouble about abortion? Should we to be able to look at pictures of abortion as casually as we do CSI Miami, or 300 (the movie), or Grand Theft Auto. With this in mind open the following links:

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GFRD,GFRD:2007-12,GFRD:en&q=abortion&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

Even with all the fake blood and guts I have seen on TV, these pictures are still very difficult to look at. If you are not offended at me for suggesting that abortion end, be at offended that most who see the need for abortion do so for their own freedom from responsible sexuality and freedom from child rearing- Moms and dads alike. There is no room for neutrality regarding abortion. It is murder. It's acceptance in this country, called the land of the free, the home of the brave, betrays the hypocrisy and/or the ignorance of many, from the least to the greatest of us. Yet again I dare say: THERE IS NO ROOM FOR NEUTRALITY REGARDING ABORTION.

Written by David B, Severy © 2007

ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER LINKED

ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER LINKED

20 Year Old Findings Suppressed by Pro-choice Advocates


Since 1973 the rate of breast cancer among women in the U.S A. has nearly doubled. Abortion became legal in 1973. The rate has tripled since 1960. In Denmark, where abortion has been legal since 1939, studies show a 90% increase in risk for breast cancer in women who have had them. The studies overall have been so definitive that abortion proponents have suppressed the reports. A recent 1996 study was discredited by its own author because the studies did not agree with their pro-choice bias! Sadly, some women will likely not believe the same science that made abortion as a “procedure” safer (not safe) than those performed in the proverbial ‘back alley”, has now shown the a/bc link (abortion/breast cancer).

Dr. Joel Brind of Baruch College, a doctor of Epidemiology, broke the story in with his study in the U.S. in 1982. He states that 13 of 15 U.S. studies uphold his findings, as do 28 of 37 studies worldwide. Now the truth must out by way of the web until it gains the recognition it deserves, that which it must get to save needless suffering. Breast cancer in women is a very painful, often disfiguring disease. Not to mention DEADLY when discovered too late. What was Dr. Brind’s reward for discovering this life saving information? He was “disassociated” from two unpaid (volunteer) positions at N.Y. hospitals.
“However, in questioning Brind’s credentials, she noted that he has been fired from Beth Israel Medical Center and Mount Sinai Medical Center, both in New York. Brind, who held unpaid positions at both institutions, said the disassociations occurred after he wrote an article for an English publication on the abortion, breast-cancer link.”

In Fargo, ND an abortion clinic was sued in March, 2002 over lack of sufficient (any?) warning to their clients about the link between breast cancer and abortion. Why? : Because the clinic was distributing info that decried the reports of the link in the medical community. They have a dog in that fight. If it is important enough to women to avoid breast cancer perhaps they will choose the child, or be more careful sexually. See the quote and link immediately below.
‘A recent example comes in the form of a court case in Fargo, North Dakota. The Red River Women's Clinic was distributing a pamphlet to potential customers that said, "Anti-abortion activists claim that having an abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer and endangers future childbearing. None of these claims are [sic] supported by medical research or established medical organizations."’ (Emphasis in original.)


Others have taken a milder approach, witness the exerpt below from a June 2002 web article : “Abortion, whether spontaneous or induced, before full-term pregnancy, appears to have no protective effect. In some studies, premature termination of pregnancy appears to increase breast cancer risk.” From Oncolink : Team Univ. of Pa. Cancer Center And this report points up the long known fact that bringing a baby full term and delivered actually reduces the risk of breast cancer. It seems clear that women are designed to have children, not abort them.
25
UI - 9243587
AU - Canty L
TI - Breast cancer risk: protective effect of an early first full-term pregnancy versus increased risk of induced abortion.
SO - Oncol Nurs Forum 1997 Jul;24(6):1025-31
AD - University of Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX, USA.
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To examine the question of whether an early first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) protects against breast cancer and whether interruption of the pregnancy with an induced abortion increases breast cancer risk. DATA SOURCES: Published medical and epidemiology journal articles, books, scientific reports, news interviews of researchers, scientific journals. DATA SYNTHESIS: Continually increasing breast cancer rates cannot be explained by the American Cancer Society risk factors, which account for only 25% of cases. Induced abortion is a newly recognized risk factor and has been prevalent in our society since it was legalized in 1973. CONCLUSIONS: Early FFTP confers protection, while induced abortion confers risk. Most specific and controlled variables studies indicate 150% risk for abortions performed on women younger than 18 years of age. Studies have yet to discover the full impact of induced abortion because women who underwent legalized abortion in 1973 are just reaching ages of highest breast cancer incidence. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSES: Awareness of a controversial risk factor and its relevance to women allows nurses to include this information when educating and supporting patients. Specifically, nurses need to include questions on this reproductive risk when eliciting a patient's reproductive history. Nurses should further be aware of the emotional impact disclosure may have. Also from ONKOLINK

So I resubmit the story: Abortion Breast Cancer Link Swamped In Tide Of Cowardly Political Correctness. And again, dear reader, you must be the judge.

These facts were found on three different web pages each written by a different author :

Fact: Estrogens are strong growth promoters of normal and most cancerous breast tissue.
Fact: Most known risk factors for breast cancer are attributable to some form of estrogen overexposure.
Fact: Maternal estradiol (estrogen) rises 20-fold (2,000%) during the first trimester of a normal pregnancy. Fact: Abnormal cells are more vulnerable to cancerous changes than normal cells.
Fact: Pregnancies which abort spontaneously (miscarriage) usually generate subnormal amounts of estradiol; no increased risk of breast cancer is seen.
Fact: The incidence of breast cancer is dramatically increased in rats whose pregnancies are aborted.

www.lifenews.com/ >>>-> search exact phrase: “abortion breast cancer link”

BEST story of the decade

(used with the authors permission)
PLANNED PARENTHOOD CELEBRATION CRASHED BY ABORTION SURVIVOR

by Ted Harvey, assistant minority leader, Colorado House


She sings the anthem to applause, then her secret is revealed to stunned silence.

I want to share with you an awesome experience I had in the Colorado House of Representatives on May 8. It is a humbling experience to look back and realize that God used me to play a role in His divine orchestration.

I was leaving the House chambers for the weekend when our Democrat speaker of the House announced that the coming Monday would be the final day of this year's General Assembly. He went on to state that there were still numerous resolutions on the calendar which we would need to be addressed prior to the summer adjournment. Interestingly, he specifically mentioned that one of the resolutions we would be hearing was being carried by the House Majority Leader Alice Madden, honoring the 90th anniversary of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

As a strong pro-life legislator I was disgusted by the idea that we would pass a resolution honoring this 90-year legacy of genocide. I drove home that night wondering what I could say that might pierce the darkness during the debate on this heinous resolution.

On Saturday morning, I took my 8-year-old son up to the mountains to go white-water rafting. The trip lasted all day. As we were driving home, exhausted and hungry, I remembered that I had accepted an invitation to attend a fundraising dinner that night for a local pro-life organization. One of my most respected mentors had personally called me several weeks earlier and asked me to attend, so I knew I'd have to clean up and head over.

After our meal, the executive director of the organization introduced the keynote speaker. I looked up and saw walking to the stage a handicapped young lady being assisted to the microphone by a young man holding a guitar.

Her name was Gianna Jessen.

Gianna said "Hello," welcomed everyone, and then sang three of the most beautiful Christian songs I have ever heard.

She then began to give her testimony. When her biological mother was 17 years old and seven and a half months pregnant, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to have an abortion. As God would have it, the abortion failed and a beautiful 2-pound baby girl was brought into the world. Unfortunately, she was born with cerebral palsy and the doctors thought that she would never survive. The doctors were wrong.

Imagine the timing! A survivor of a Planned Parenthood abortion arrived in town just days before the Colorado House of Representatives was to celebrate Planned Parenthood's "wonderful" work.

As I listened to Gianna's amazing testimony, the Lord inspired me to ask her if she could stay in Denver until Monday morning so that I could introduce her on the floor of the House and tell her story. Perhaps she could even begin the final day's session by singing our country's national anthem!
To my surprise she said she would seriously consider it. If she were to agree, she wanted her accompanying guitarist to stay as well. A lady standing in line behind me waiting to meet Gianna overheard our conversation and said that she would be willing to pay for the guitarist's room. Gianna then said that she would think about it.

As I was driving home from the banquet, my cell phone rang. It was Gianna, and she immediately said, "I'm in, let's ruin this celebration." Praise God!
When Monday morning came, I awoke at 6 a.m. to write my speech before heading to the Capitol. As I wrote down the words, I could sense God's help and I knew that this was going to be a powerful moment for the pro-life movement.

Following a committee hearing, I rushed into the House chambers just as the opening morning prayer was about to be given. Between the prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, I wrote a quick note to the speaker of the House explaining that Gianna is an advocate for cerebral palsy. I took the note to the speaker and asked if I could have my friend open the last day of session by singing the national anthem. Without any hesitation the speaker took the microphone and said, "Before we begin, Representative Harvey has made available for us Gianna Jessen to sing the national anthem."

Gianna sang the most amazing rendition of The Star Spangled Banner that you could possibly imagine. Every person in the entire chamber was completely still, quiet and in awe of this frail young lady's voice.

Due to her cerebral palsy, Gianna often loses her balance, and shortly after starting to sing she grabbed my arm to stabilize herself, and I could tell that she was shaking. Suddenly, midway through the song, she forgot the words and began to hum and then said, "Please forgive me; I am so nervous." She then immediately began singing again and every House member and every guest throughout the chambers began to sing along with her to give her encouragement and to lift her up.

As I looked around the huge hall I listened to the unbelievable melody of Gianna's voice being accompanied by a choir of over 100 voices. I had chills running all over my body, and I knew that I had just witnessed an act of God.

As the song concluded the speaker of the House explained that Gianna has cerebral palsy and is an activist to bring awareness to the disease. "Let us give her a hand not only for her performance today, but also for her advocacy work," he said. The chamber immediately exploded into applause -- she had them all in the palm of her hand.

The speaker then called the House to order, and we proceeded as usual to allow members to make any announcements or introductions of guests. For dramatic effect, I waited until I was the last person remaining before I introduced Gianna.

As I waited for my turn, I nervously paced back and forth praying to God that he would give me the peace, confidence and the courage necessary to pull off what I knew would be one of the most dramatic and controversial moments of my political career.

While I waited, a prominent reporter from one of the major Denver newspapers walked over to Gianna and told her that her rendition captured the spirit of the national anthem more powerfully than any she had ever heard before.

Finally, I was the last person remaining. So, I proceeded to the microphone and began my speech.

Members, I would like to introduce you to a new friend and hero of mine -- her name is Gianna Jessen. She is visiting us today from Nashville, Tennessee, where she is an accomplished recording artist.

She has cerebral palsy and was raised in foster homes before being adopted at the age of four.

She was born prematurely and weighed only 2 pounds at birth. She remained in the hospital for almost three months. A doctor once said she had a great will to live and that she fought for her life. Eventually she was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care.

Because of her cerebral palsy, her foster mother was told that it was doubtful that she would ever crawl or walk. She could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication of her foster mother, she eventually learned to sit up, crawl, then stand. Shortly before her fourth birthday, she began to walk with leg braces and a walker.

She continued in physical therapy and after a total of four surgeries, she was able to walk without assistance.

She still falls sometimes, but she says she has learned how to fall gracefully after falling for 29 years.

Two years ago, she walked into a local health club and said she wanted a private trainer. At the time her legs could not lift 30 pounds. Today she can leg press 200 pounds.

She became so physically fit that she began running marathons to raise money and awareness for cerebral palsy. She just returned last week from England where she ran in the London Marathon. It took her more than eight-and-a-half hours to complete. They were taking down the course by the time she made it to the finish line. But she made it, nonetheless. With bloody feet and aching joints, she finished the race.

Members would you help me recognize a modern-day hero -- Gianna Jessen?

At this point the chamber exploded into applause which lasted for 15-to-20 seconds. Gianna had touched their souls.

Ironically, Alice Madden, the majority leader and sponsor of the Planned Parenthood resolution, walked over to Gianna and congratulated her.

As the applause began to die down, I raised my hand to be recognized one more time.

Mr. Speaker, members, if you would allow me just a few more moments I would appreciate your time.

My name is Ted Harvey, not Paul Harvey, but, please, let me tell you the rest of the story.

The cause of Gianna's cerebral palsy is not because of some biological freak of nature, but rather the choice of her mother.

You see when her biological mother was 17-years-old and 7-and-a-half months pregnant, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to seek a late-term abortion. The abortionist performed a saline abortion on this 17-year-old girl. This procedure requires the injection of a high concentration of saline into the mother's womb, which the fetus is then bathed in and swallows, which results in the fetus being burned to death, inside and out. Within 24 hours the results are normally an induced, still-born abortion.

As Gianna can testify, the procedure is not always 100 percent effective. Gianna is an aborted late-term fetus who was born alive. The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy.

Members, today, we are going to recognize the 90th anniversary of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood…"

BANG! The gavel came down.

Just as I was finishing the last sentence of my speech -- the climax of the morning -- the speaker of the House gaveled me down and said, "Representative

Harvey, I will allow you to continue your introduction, but not for the purposes of debating a measure now pending before the House."

At which point I said, "Mr. Speaker, I understand. I just wanted to put a face to what we are celebrating today."

Silence. Deafening silence.

I then walked back to my chair shaking like a leaf. The Democrats wouldn't look at me. They were fuming. It was beautiful. I have been in the Legislature for five tough years, and this made it all worthwhile.

The House majority leader wouldn't talk to me the rest of the day.

Was it because I introduced an abortion survivor, or was it because we touched her soul? She could congratulate an inspirational cerebral palsy victim and advocate, but was outraged when she discovered that the person she congratulated was also an abortion survivor.

The headline in The Denver Post the next day read "Abortion Jab Earns Rebuke." The majority leader is quoted as saying, "I think it was amazingly rude to use a human being as an example of his personal politics."

Yes, Representative Madden, Gianna Jessen is a human being. She was when she was in her mother's womb, and she was when she sang the national anthem on the floor of the Colorado House of Representatives.

The paper went on to quote Gianna, stating she was glad I told her story.
"We need to discuss the humanity of it. I'm glad to be able to speak up for children in the womb," she said. "If abortion is about women's rights, where were my rights?"

All I can say is, "Glory to God!" He orchestrated it all, every minute of it, and I was so honored to have been chosen to play a part. May we all continue to be filled with and to fight for the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
If you'd like to contact Ted Harvey, you may e-mail him at ted@tedharvey.com
For the fuller story and more : www.TedHarvey.com and wwww.tedharvey.com/gianna.htm

Should We Be Surprised?

Pro-Abortion Scientist Finds Abortion Causes, Rather Than Prevents, Serious Mental Disorders

Results indicate over 90% of abortions therefore likely committed in violation of law



CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand, February 10, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – New research from a pro-abortion New Zealand scientist has found that abortion causes serious mental disorders. The study, by David Fergusson at Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Sciences, tracked approximately 500 women from birth to 25 years. It showed that women who have had abortions, even when previous indicators are taken into account, have a much higher than average experience of serious psychological disturbances.

Fergusson had anticipated that his research would prove the abortion advocate propaganda that abortion relieves anxieties and gives women a greater sense of control over their lives. He assumed that problems experienced by post-abortive women would be traceable to mental health problems that had existed before the abortion.

In England and New Zealand, indeed, in most jurisdictions around the world, abortion is legal when a woman’s health is considered to be threatened by the continuance of pregnancy. The key to making this provision the equivalent to abortion on demand has been to define “health” as including “psychological health” as broadly as necessary to allow abortion in every case. The great majority of abortions are committed on the “mental health” myth, according to the abortion industry’s own admission.

That myth may now be seriously challenged by the research that showed women who have abortions, experience “elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders.”

The abortion industry is not going to be pleased with the results of the research. Fergusson presented his results to New Zealand’s Abortion Supervisory Committee, and according to The New Zealand Herald, the committee told Fergusson that it would be “undesirable to publish the results in their ‘unclarified’ state.”

See a more extensive review of the major implications of this research in today’s LifeSiteNews.com *Special Report* by the Elliot Institute:

Abortion Causes Mental Disorders: New Zealand Study May Require Doctors To Do Fewer Abortions
Pro-Choice Researcher Says Some Journals Rejected Politically Volatile Findings
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/060210a.html

Heart Healthy

Study Finds Normal Sexual Relations Have Health Benefit
but Not Gay or Other Sex

By Terry Vanderheyden PAISLEY, Scotland, January 26, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Research has long confirmed the health-promoting benefits of sexual intercourse. By strengthening the emotional bond between spouses, regular sexual intercourse has been shown to reduce the risk for heart attack by up to 50% in some studies. A new UK study adds to those findings revealing that only heterosexual intercourse - not homosexual sex or self abuse - has significant stress-reducing effects, as measured by blood pressure responses to stressful situations. The research conducted by Dr. Stuart Brody from Paisley University is summed up by its title: "Blood pressure reactivity to stress is better for people who recently had penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI) than for people who had other or no sexual activity." Published in the February issue of Biological Psychology, Brody found that blood pressure measured during stressful periods - such as after public speaking or doing "verbal arithmetic" - was significantly reduced in those who had "PVI" within a two-week period. Those who had engaged in the abnormal sexual practices had no alteration of their stress response. On average, a 14 point (systolic) reduction in blood pressure was observed in those who engaged in "PVI" before a stressful event. "The magnitude of the sexual behaviour effect on BP reactivity is greater than of other factors in the literature," his research stated. "The effects are not attributable simply to the short-term relief afforded by orgasm, but rather, endure for at least a week," he added, as reported by New Scientist. Brody speculated that oxytocin, the "pair-bonding" hormone, released between heterosexual partners may be the reason for the calming effects. Adding to this have been other reports confirming that not only is heterosexual sex more beneficial than other sexual practices, those benefits are most pronounced among couples in committed, life-long marriages. A 100-page report, by Dr. Matthew D. Bramlett and his team at U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) in Hyattsville, Maryland, confirmed that married people, as reported in the Washington Times, "are likely to live longer, engage in less risky behavior, be more health conscious and have more satisfying sexual lives, higher wages and larger savings than unmarried people. Marriage Means Happier Relationship Says Study http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jul/02072504.html

I'll see you

I’ll see you forever
For you are a part of me
And I myself a part of thee
Inseparable in God

Thre is no tomorrow now
Though sun may rise and set
And sleepy eyes may slumber, still
Eternity now is set

It’s stamped upon my heart and yours
It’s seal : the Love of Christ
Which willingly I have received
And cherish more than earthly life

This soul awaits a body that will not die-
This soul awaits to see Him with it’s eye-
This soul awaits our meeting in the sky-
For faithful is our God
Who once did die , but now’s ALIVE :
We’ll se Him forever...

copyright 2005 by david severy

The Mathematics of Life

The following from James Baxter. (visit His site at: http://www.choicemaker.net/)


The Mathematics of Life

In ancient Israel, the pre-born human being was

considered to be a person and, at birth, one-year

old. The wisdom of Israel held that the value of

the single life defined the value of the Twelve

Tribes of Israel.



History records that when the individual person

is of expedient non-value, the value of the plural

unit, the whole society, becomes regressive and

expendable.



Today, there are those who say, "Abortion is

such a messy negative subject." The American

new age holocaust is what it is. Regardless of a

sophisticated rationale it is a form of cannibalism

- devouring one's own kind - and has no place as

a 'choice' in a free humane society based on individual

worth. America!



If the individual is worth zero what will our Nation

be worth? Isn't the whole the sum value of the

parts - the individuals who make it up?



Is there any other kind of human? After all, isn't

every "group" merely a verbal convenience about

individuals?



Ask any ten-year old, "If one equals zero what

does twelve equal?"



If each individual is worth zero what will society

be worth? The consequences accrue to each and

every individual in our Country.



Dear Reader: Don't you qualify as an individual?

Are YOU prepared to be weighed in the balances

of your own choosing? The perverse cause

produces the perverse effect. Obviously and

sadly it is happening.



Dear Trendy-One: Are there any questions about

our Nation? YOUR future? How about arithmetic?

The next step down? Assisted suicide. Murder +



"The fool foldeth his hands together and eateth

his own flesh." Ecclesiastes 4:5

The Studies

Dear little lambs, this may be as good as it gets:



As of 2003, 29 out of 39 studies show that women who had an induced abortion have an increased risk of developing breast cancer, as noted in the bar graph below.
View Printable PDF Version (article below)

Overview:Breast Cancer and Abortion
Q-A: Why would a woman who has an induced abortion before her first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) suffer an increased risk of developing breast cancer?
A woman’s breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic (ie, cancer producing) influences before she delivers her first child. When a woman becomes pregnant, a number of hormone levels increase dramatically in her body. Three especially notable ones are estradiol, progesterone (ie, the female sexual hormones), and hCG (human Chorionic Gonadotropin). All of these hormones, especially the latter, serve to stimulate immature breast cells to mature into fully differentiated cells [1]. If this process is artificially interrupted by way of an induced abortion, the hormone levels drop suddenly and dramatically, thereby suspending the natural process of maturation of many of the woman’s breast cells. This is referred to as a “hormonal blow” by researchers. These cells are now “vulnerable” to carcinogens because they started the maturation process but were never able to complete it. (Cells that have fully matured are less vulnerable to carcinogens than cells that are in the process of maturation).
Q-B: Do any animal models support the claim that abortions early in life increase breast cancer risk?
Yes. Russo and Russo, in their classic work published in 1980 [2], studied several groups of rats which were given a specific carcinogen (cancer producing agent) called DMBA. They noted that 77% of the rats who underwent an abortion developed breast cancer and 69% of the virgin rats developed breast cancer, but 0% of the rats who were allowed to complete their pregnancy developed breast cancer.
Q-C: Could you tell me about the history of the abortion/breast cancer debate?
As early as 1957, Segi et al noted that women who had induced abortions had at least a 2-fold increased risk of breast cancer [3]. In 1981, Pike et al [4] published their notable work showing that young women (under the age of 32) who had experienced an abortion before their first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) had a 140% increased risk of breast cancer. A number of studies followed but in 1994, Daling et al [5] published a large study which noted that women who had an abortion before their FFTP suffered a 40% increased risk. This risk increased to 150% if the adolescent had her abortion before the age of 18. In addition, Daling et al noted that if adolescents under the age of 18 aborted a baby that was more than 8 weeks old, they suffered an 800% increased risk of developing breast cancer.
Finally, in 1996, in what is openly regarded as the most meticulous and comprehensive meta-analysis (ie, a synthesis of all the major studies done in a particular field concluding in an overall risk for the pooled studies) of all the abortion/breast cancer research articles ever done, Brind et al [6] found that women who had an abortion before their FFTP had a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer whereas women who had an abortion after their FFTP sustained a 30% increased risk.
Q-D: If Dr. Brind et al’s study was so conclusive, then why is the subject still being debated?
Because of the controversy regarding abortion, Dr. Brind’s study came under intense scrutiny; however, the results seemed irrefutable. Janet Daling — a prominent epidemiologist (a researcher who studies trends in the medical field) — was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as stating that Brind et al’s results were “very objective and statistically beyond reproach.” [7] Then in early 1997, the New England Journal of Medicine published the results of a large prospective study by Melbye et al [8] which claimed to show that abortion did not increase the risk of breast cancer.
Q-E: Was there any problem with the study by Melbye?
Yes. It is astonishing that the New England Journal of Medicine allowed it to be published in its submitted form. It had several glaring problems that have been pointed out in a follow-up letter to the New England Journal of Medicine [9]. The main ones include the following: 1) Melbye’s data actually pointed to a 44% increased risk of breast cancer due to abortion, but they never printed this result; 2) The follow-up period for the “cases” (ie, women who had an induced abortion) was less than 10 years, whereas it was over 20 years for the “controls” (ie, women who did not have an induced abortion). A follow-up period of less than 10 years is not long enough to show the effect of an abortion (ie, too short of a latent period); 3) Over 30,000 women in the study who had abortions were “misclassified” as not having them — thus 30,000 women were counted as not having abortions, when in fact they really had abortions; and 4) The study did note that women who had an abortion after the 12th week sustained a 38% increased risk of breast cancer, whereas women who had late-term abortions (ie, after 18 weeks) had a statistically significant increase of 89%. Both of these results received little media attention.
Q-F: Dr. Melbye claimed that his study did not suffer from “recall bias.” What did he mean by this?
Some researchers have claimed that retrospective studies suffer from “recall bias.” (An example of a retrospective study is one in which women with breast cancer would be interviewed and asked questions about their risk factors such as family history, induced abortion, etc.) The recall bias hypothesis can be defined as the following: “The hypothesis that people who develop a disease (eg, breast cancer) are more likely than people who do not develop that disease to admit that they participated in a ‘controversial risk factor’ (eg, an induced abortion or oral contraceptive pill [OCP] use) for that disease.” In essence they claim that women who have breast cancer are more likely to be truthful about the fact that they had an induced abortion than women who do not have breast cancer.
Q-G: On what basis do such researchers make such a claim?
This claim of recall bias is based on a study by Lindefors-Harris et al [10] from Sweden. She compared the responses of “cases” and “controls” to the national register which reportedly keeps an accurate record of all women who had an abortion. The study claimed to show that in the group of women who indeed had an induced abortion (according to the national register), the women who had breast cancer were about 50% more likely to admit that they had the abortion than the women who did not have breast cancer. The study has been criticized by Daling, a prominent epidemiologist, who noted that the study actually showed only a 16% “recall bias” (versus the reported 50% figure), when analyzed properly [5].
Q-H: Were there any problems with the study?
Yes. The study noted that 7 out of the group of 26 women with breast cancer who stated that they had an abortion at a young age, actually did not have an abortion according to the national register. This implies that 7 women out of the 26 women, or 27% of these “cases,” stated that they had an abortion at a young age, when they really did not. Obviously, this undermines the credibility of the study. Who would place any confidence in a study in which more than one quarter of a group of women with breast cancer reportedly lied and said they had an abortion when they actually had not?
Q-I: Is there any way to get around the “recall bias” problem?
Yes. A direct way to “get around it” is to measure it. Researchers did this already in the oral contraceptive and breast cancer debate in which some researchers claimed that women with breast cancer would be more honest about their history of oral contraceptive use. A number of studies refuted this claim by going back to a woman’s medical records and comparing the results of her interview response to that of the written record. All three of the studies that did this found less than a 2% difference between “case” and “control” responses [11,12].
Q-J: Can the same technique be used in regard to the abortion and breast cancer studies?
Absolutely. Most good obstetricians and gynecologists obtain a thorough medical history of their patients especially on their initial visit. A standard question would be to ask a woman how many miscarriages and/or induced abortions she had. If one wished to measure the degree of “recall bias” between “cases” and “controls,” one could simply compare their oral responses to that of the written medical record. Any degree of bias would be recorded and accounted for.
Q-K: This seems so basic. Why has it not been done?
That is a good question. Perhaps the question that should be asked is: Has someone done it and not reported it for fear of going against the bureaucratic forces within the political and medical establishments?
Q-L: Do women who had an abortion or miscarriage, or used oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) early in their reproductive life develop a more aggressive breast cancer?
Yes. Olsson et al has noted [13]: “These results indicate that the rate of tumor cell proliferation [ie, rate of growth of cancer cells] is higher in patients with breast cancer who have used oral contraceptives at an early age or who at a young age have had an early abortion. . .”


Q-M: Do miscarriages carry the same risk of breast cancer as induced abortion?
Women whose pregnancies end in miscarriage usually do not experience the same increase in estradiol and progesterone (ie, the female sexual hormones) or hCG levels that would result from a healthy pregnancy. Therefore, when a woman experiences a miscarriage, there is a less dramatic shift in hormone levels and less of a “hormonal blow” to the breast. Studies have shown that miscarriages, in general, have less of a risk than induced abortions. However, several studies show that miscarriages before a first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) may still carry a significant risk of developing breast cancer as noted in Table 2A below. (Further research in this area is critical to determine if an early miscarriage does indeed increase the risk of breast cancer.)

Table A:

RISKS OF BREAST CANCER IN WOMEN WHO HAD A MISCARRIAGE BEFORE THEIR FIRST FULL TERM PREGNANCY

AUTHOR
YEAR OF PUBLICATION
PERCENT CHANGE
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL




Pike et al [138]
1981
151% increase
unknown
Brinton [101]
1983
9% increase*
0.8-1.5
Hadjimichael [107]
1986
250% increase
1.7-7.4
Rosenberg [149]
1988
10% decrease*
0.7-1.4**
Ewertz/Duffy [106]
1988
163% increase*
0.83-8.32***
Adami [96]
1990
20% increase*
0.7-2.0
Daling [103]
1994
10% decrease*
0.6-1.3
Rookus [141]
1996
40% increase*
1.0-1.9
* This result reflects a trend towards an increased or decreased risk but does not attain statistical significance
** Inappropriate age matching in this study: median age of "cases" and “controls” were was 52 and 40 respectively


Q-N: Is the prognosis of a pregnant woman who currently has breast cancer improved if she has an induced abortion?
No. Clarck and Chua noted that: “Those (pregnant women with breast cancer) undergoing a therapeutic abortion had a poorer prognosis compared to a live birth and even a spontaneous abortion.” [20] King et al obtained a similar result. “. . .patients who had termination of the pregnancy had a five year survival rate of 43 percent, whereas patients who underwent mastectomy and who went to term had a five year survival of 59 percent.” [21].

Q-O: What should women be told in general about having an abortion at a young age and the risk of breast cancer?
Women who have an elective abortion before their firstborn baby suffer at least a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer according to the best meta-analysis done to date. The risks are almost certainly higher for women who have had an abortion before the age of 18, or those who have additional risk factors, such as a positive family history or use of oral contraceptives before a FFTP. (The person who is interested in an excellent review article describing the physiologic reasons behind the link between abortion and breast cancer should see Canty’s article [22].)


References:

1. Russo J, Russo IH. Toward a physiological approach to breast cancer prevention. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. 1994; 3: 353-364.
2. Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. Am J Pathol. 1980; 100: 497-512.
3. Segi M, et al. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. GANN. 1957; 48: 1-63.
4. Pike MC, Henderson BE, et al. Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women. Br J Cancer. 1981; 43: 72-76.
5. Daling J, Malone K, et al. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994; 86: 1584-1592.
16. Brind J, Chinchilli M, et al. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 10/ 1996; 50: 481-496.
17. Lagnado L. Study on abortion and cancer spurs fight. Wall Street Journal. Oct. 11, 1996.
18. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, et al. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336: 81-85.
19. Brind J, et al. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336: 1834.
10. Lindefors-Harris BM, Eklund G, et al. Response bias in a case-control study: analysis utilizing comparative data concerning legal abortions from two independent Swedish studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1991; 134: 1003-1008.
11. Chilvers C, McPherson K, et al. Oral contraceptive use and breast cancer risk in young women (UK National Case-Control Study Group). The Lancet. May 6, 1989: 973-982.
12. Rookus MA, Leeuwen FE. Oral contraceptives and risk of breast cancer in women ages 20-54 years. The Lancet. 1994; 344: 844-851.
13. Olsson H, Ranstam J, et al. Proliferation and DNA ploidy in malignant breast tumors in relation to early contraceptive use and early abortions. Cancer. 1991; 67: 1285-1290.
14. Brinton LA, Hoover R, et al. Reproductive factors in the aetiology of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1983; 47: 757-762.
15. Hadjimichael OC, et al. Abortion before first live birth and risk of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1986; 53: 281-284.
16. Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, et al. Breast cancer in relation to the occurrence and time of induced and spontaneous abortion. Am J Epidemiol. 1988; 127: 981-989.
17. Ewertz M, Duffy SW. Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark. Br J Cancer. 1988; 58: 99-104.
18. Adami HO, Bergstrom R, Lund E, Meirik O. Absence of association between reproductive variables and the risk of breast cancer in young women in Sweden and Norway. Br J Cancer. 1990; 62: 122-126.
19. Rookus M, Leeuwen F. Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996; 88: 1759-1764.
20. Clarck RM, Chua T. Breast cancer and pregnancy: the ultimate challenge. Clinical Oncology. 1989; 1: 11-18.
21. King RM, Welch JS, et al. Carcinoma of the breast associated with pregnancy. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics. 1985; 160: 228-232.
22. Canty L. Breast cancer risk: Protective effect of an early first full-term pregnancy versus increased risk of induced abortion. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1997; 24: 1025-1031



Currently 28 of 37 Studies Show an Induced Abortion Increases Risk of Breast Cancer

Other Half of Studies


Overview of TPRI
Breast Cancer & Abortion
Breast Cancer & Oral Contraceptives
Postfertilization Effect of Emergency Contraception
Postfertilization Effect of Oral Contraceptives
Newsletters
Support TPRI
Medical Ethics
Frequently Asked Questons
Guest Book
Home

Facts for thought

In 1871 the AMA recommended dealing with medical abortionists in the following manner:
"These men should be marked as Cain was marked; they should be made the outcasts of society . . . respectable men should cease to consult with them, should cease to speak to them, should cease to notice them except with contempt . . . Resolved, That we repudiate and denounce the conduct of abortionists, and that we will hold no intercourse with them professionally or otherwise, and that we will, whenever an opportunity presents, guard and protect the public against the machinations of these characters by pointing out the physical and moral ruin which follows in their wake."
The American Medical Association on Abortion: An Anatomy of Contrasting Policy Statements

————When Does Human Life Begin?————
1871 — "No other doctrine appears to be consonant with reason or physiology but that which admits the embryo to possess vitality from the very moment of conception."
1967-70 The AMA abortion policy statements of 1967 and 1970 include no references to the scientific fact that human life begins at conception.
————What is Abortion?————
1859 — "The slaughter of countless children; such unwarrantable destruction of human life."
1967 — "The interruption of pregnancy; the induced termination of pregnancy."
1871 — "The work of destruction; the wholesale destruction of unborn infants."
1970 — "A medical procedure."
———What Should the Ethics of Abortion Be?———
1871 — "Thou shalt not kill. This commandment is given to all without exception . . .it matters not at what stage of development his victim may have arrived."
1967 — "This is a personal and moral consideration which in all cases must be faced according to the dictates of the conscience of the patient and her physician."
———Who Should Perform Abortions?———
1871 — "It will be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion."
1970 — "Abortion should be performed only by a duly licensed physician."
———Who Are Physician Abortionists?———
1871 — "Men who cling to a noble profession only to dishonor it; false brethren; educated assassins; modern Herods; the executioners."
1967 — "Conscientious practitioners; conscientious physicians."
——What Should Be Done to Physician Abortionists?——
1871 — "These men should be marked as Cain was marked; they should be made the outcasts of society."
1970 — They should be permitted to perform as long as they take place "in an accredited hospital."
W. Brennan, The Abortion Holocaust, Landmark Press, 1983, p. 191

Dr. Leon Alexander, an authority writing after the Nuremberg trials, said it well, and the parallel with the creeping deterioration of today's societal ethics is telling. "The beginnings were at first merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitable sick." L. Alexander, "Medical Science Under Dictatorship," New England Jour. Med., vol. 241, July 14, 1949, pp. 39-47


A very early admission of the agenda (in the U.S): "The reverence of each and every human life has been a keystone of Western medicine, and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human life. "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception, and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because, while a new ethic is being accepted, the old one has not yet been rejected." Editorial, Jour. CA State Med. Assoc., Sept. 1970

Rationale
THEN "A doctor may interrupt a pregnancy when it ‘threatens the life or health of the mother [and] an unborn child that is likely to present hereditary and transmissible defects may be destroyed.’" (German Penal Code and Hamburg Eugenics Court, 1933)
TODAY "A licensed physician is justified in terminating a pregnancy if he believes that pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother or that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defects." (American Law Institute Model Penal Code, 1962)
THEN "Only persons of ‘German or related blood’ can be citizens; this does not include Jews." (Reich Citizenship Law, 1935)
TODAY "The word ‘person’ as used in the fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." ( U.S. Supreme Court, Roe vs. Wade, 1973)
THEN "The authority of physicians is enlarged to include the responsibility for according a ‘mercy death [to] incurables.’ " (Hitler’s Euthanasia Order, Sept. 1939
TODAY "The abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently and primarily a medical decision and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician." (U.S. Supreme Court, Roe vs. Wade, 1973)
Obedience to Authority
THEN "The accused did not act wrongly because they were covered by law [and] were carrying out the laws of the land." (Hadamar Euthanasia Hospital Trial, 1945)
TODAY "I did nothing which was illegal, immoral or bad medicine. Everything I did was in accordance with law." (Dr. Kenneth C. Edelin, 1975)
THEN "The physician is merely an instrument as in the case of an officer who receives an order." (Dr. Karl Brandt, Doctors’ Trial, 1947)
TODAY "The physician is only the instrument of her decision." (Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, 1974)
Subhumanity of the Victims
THEN "The Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars personify a repulsive yet characteristic subhumanity." (Dr. August Hirt, 1942)
TODAY "For the first four and one-half months the fetus is subhuman and relatively close to a piece of tissue." (Amitai Etzioni, Ph.D., 1976)
THEN "It had nothing to do with humanity — it was a mass. I rarely saw them as individuals. It was always a huge mass." (Franz Stangl, former commandant of Treblinka, 1971)
TODAY "What is aborted is a protoplasmic mass and not a real, live grown-up individual." (Drs. Walter Char & John McDermott, 1972)
THEN "Whenever Jews are left to themselves they bring brutal misery and depravity. They are pure parasites." (Adolf Hitler, 1943)
TODAY "A parasite can commit murder, what attention has Catholic thinking or the law given to the fetus’s capacity to murder its mother?" (Dr. Natalie Shainess, 1968
THEN "If it is now pointed out that the Jew is human, I then reject that totally." (Antisemitic speech, Reichstag, 1895)
TODAY "It is a wild contention that new-born babies are persons." (Dr. Michael Tooley, 1972)
The Language of Killing
THEN "Fifty-nine thousand persons were evacuated by July 31." (Warsaw, Poland, 1942)
TODAY "The uterus was evacuated." (Dr. David Edelman & Colleagues, 1974)
THEN "The Baron de Hirsch ghetto would have to be emptied." (Max Merten, 1943
TODAY "The uterine cavity was emptied." (Dr. A.K. Mukerjee, 1973)
THEN "The removal of the Jewish element." (Hans Frank, 1943)
TODAY "Remove the products of conception." (Dr. Thomas Dillon & Colleagues, 1974)THEN "The treatment was administered to the children of the Haar-Eglfing Institution." (Dr. Pfannmuller, 1945)
TODAY "Abortion as treatment for the sexually transmitted disease of unwanted pregnancy." (Dr. Willard Cates & Colleagues, 1976)
THEN "The method of injection is a completely painless method." (Dr. Adolf Wahlmann, 1945)
TODAY "Evacuate the conceptus painlessly within 45 seconds." (Dr. Harvey Karman, 1972)
Experimental Exploitation
THEN "If you are going to kill all these people, at least take the brains out so that the material could be utilized." (Testimony of Dr. Julius Hallervordan, 1947
TODAY "In the case of abortion the fetus cannot be ‘helped’ by being experimented upon since it is doomed to death anyhow, but perhaps its death can be ennobled . . . when the research has as its objective the saving of lives (or the reduction of defects) of other wanted fetuses." (Drs. Willard Gaylin & Mark Lappe, 1975
THEN "The victims of this Buchenwald typhus test did not suffer in vain and did not die in vain . . . people were saved by these experiments." (Dr. Gebhard Rose, Doctors’ Trial, 1947)
TODAY "With changes in the abortion laws fetuses as valuable research material is on the increase." (Dr. Leroy Jackson, 1975)