Jivin J’s Life Links 3-19-10
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
Boehner believes that abortion will be the key complication for on-the-fence Democrats in the final hours. “I’ve always thought that this would be the issue,” he says. “This is public funding for abortion. They know it can’t be fixed. There just aren’t the votes in the Senate.” He says he respects pro-life congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) for holding firm, but cautions that he “never thought that Stupak could hold 10 to 12 votes.”…
Boehner says there will be major political consequences for pro-life Democrats who break from the Stupak bloc. “Take [Rep.] Steve Driehaus, for example,” he says. “He may be a dead man. He can’t go home to the west side of Cincinnati. The Catholics will run him out of town.”
Women given an advance supply of emergency contraceptives were no more likely to have unprotected sex, to get an STD or to change how they used other contraceptives, compared to women not given advance supplies. This suggests that they are not less vigilant about safe sex as a result.
But surprisingly, the women were just as likely to get pregnant. This was true in all the studies.
The researchers aren’t sure why having an advance supply didn’t lower pregnancy rates, especially since women who had these pills were more likely to use them.
Hmmmm…. well, maybe the pills aren’t effective as you thought they were. Wouldn’t that be the most obvious possibility?
The money from the Robertson Foundation will establish a Translational Cell Therapy Center at Duke for cell-based treatments, notably the work of Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg (pictured right). It is the latest large donation from private sources to advance medical research at local universities.
Kurtzberg has used umbilical cord cells to treat cancer and genetic disorders in children. In many cases, infusions of cord blood have reversed and even cured otherwise fatal disorders. Kurtzberg has recently begun using the once-discarded material in hopes it can also mend brain damage in children diagnosed with cerebral palsy.
[Photo of Plan B: ktar.net; Kurtzberg photo: DukeHealth.org]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Bravo Dr. Kurtzberg!! I donated my daughter’s umbilical cord blood!
My mom runs our local CPC, and she says that the number of girls/women coming has been dropping off. She attributes it to the availability of the morning-after pill. She really hasn’t any hard facts, just a feeling. Wish there were more information available about this.
There is no abortion funding in the health care bill.
– Most of the money falls under the Hyde Amendment.
– The funding for community health centers, which does not fall under the Hyde Amendment, is governed by 42 C.F.R. § 50.303 (http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/50-303-general-rule-19796938), which unequivocally mandates that “Federal financial participation is not available for the performance of an abortion in programs or projects to which this subpart applies” except under specified circumstances. These specified circumstances are limited to those in which the life of the woman would be endangered, 42 C.F.R. § 50.304, or in cases of rape or incest, 42 C.F.R. § 50.306.
– Community Health Centers do not provide abortion services, never have, and have no plans to start.
What is in the bill are measures that will most likely reduce the abortion rate — increasing Medicaid (which many pregnant women are eligible for); giving insurance to at least 20 million of the uninsured; grants for training doctors in prenatal care; coverage for giving birth in birth centers and for providers like midwives; state needs assessments that include reporting on “communities with concentrations of premature birth, low-birth weight infants, and infant mortality, including infant death due to neglect, or other indicators of at-risk prenatal, maternal, newborn, or child health” for the purposes of targeting services; making grants available to families for prenatal care, infant health, and early child development (through the home visitation programs); and many more measures directed specifically at improving prenatal and postnatal care.
Universal health care has been shown to reduce abortion rates. While this bill is not universal health care, it’s a significant start, and with all the measures that will help women who are pregnant and may be considering abortion, has the power to reduce abortions and help more women and families keep their babies. Doesn’t that seem like something the pro-life community should be supporting?
Violet,
If what you say is true then why all the fuss? Why not just accept the Stupak language and get on which your takeover of health care? Hmmmm
I can hardly wait for your answer.
truthseeker:
Why? Because the Stupak language adds additional restrictions on what insurance can offer, and given that the bill already prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services, the people who are against the amendment feel it’s unnecessary, and that it unnecessarily restricts abortion rights.
Not that anything I say here is going to make a difference.
Violet,
I am not that concerned how people against the amendment “feel” about it. We all know that the Stupak amendment does not allow abortion services in plans that the government subsidizes. That is the current status quo already so there are no additional restrictions in that. My question to you is specifically what “additional” restrictions does the Stupak amendment add?
truthseeker: see my reply to you at http://is.gd/aPH1L — don’t see any need to repeat it here as well.
Violet,
Thanks for your honest answer but I don;t understand how you think the Stupak amendment cuts off non-federal funding of poor peoples abortions. I’ll look for your answer on the other thread.
Lori-
There could be a lot of reasons that the CPC isn’t seeing as many clients as before, but I doubt the availability of the morning-after pill has much to do with it. Do you know what she is basing that idea on?
Has the number of women having abortions compared to giving birth dropped in your area? How long has your mom observed this trend (weeks, months, years…)? Is she getting increased enquiries for MAPs? Is the CPC’s overall client traffic down, or just abortion-vulnerable women?
There are still a LOT of women getting abortions in every area, so they are going somewhere- there are a lot of reasons they may be avoiding the CPC, and some of those reasons can be fixed if you can identify them.
Michelle, as I said, she doesn’t have anything but a feeling to go on. There isn’t any abortuary in my area, though there is one in the state capital, 50-some miles away. So women really aren’t getting abortions right in my area, they have to go 50 miles or so. I guess that’s why she thinks the MAP may be attractive to women here. But as you said, the MAP may not have much to do with the question.