"The one-year anniversary of hell breaking loose"

plan%20b.jpgOn August 24, 2006, the FDA made the morning-after pill available without a prescription to any adult (read: men, too) over 18.

In December 2003, on behalf of Concerned Women for America, I testified before an FDA committee against making the MAP available over-the-counter. My focus was on the danger to underage girls.

To celebrate the one-year anniversary, Christina Page at RH Reality Check wrote:

[H]ere's a retrospective of the arguments and forebodings the religious right made to influence the FDA's decision and mislead the public. Enjoy.

And wouldn't you know, one of my quotes made her list. I'm flattered. Here 'tis:

Making EC available would be a welcome tool for adult sexual predators who molest family members, children of friends or students. They could keep a stash in their bedroom drawer or their pocket to give their victims after committing each rape.

Amanda Marcotte, who achieved fame by being fired by the Edwards campaign for trashing Christians, copied it as well, adding her own half-cent:

The last one really betrays the anti-choice sense that women don't actually have agency, but are just braindead ciphers for male lust and men's progeny. After all, a rape victim would only take EC if forced by a rapist, wouldn’t you know?

Did Marcotte purposefully misconstrue that I was writing about adult women when clearly I was writing about minor girls - little girls, in fact - or can she not read?

I've noticed the other side takes our most logical statements and ridicules them, as if on a dare, and as if that will make them untrue.

Logical I was, but in addition I included three Planned Parenthood quotes and one Guttmacher quote to corroborate my point:

  • "The younger women are when they first have intercourse the more likely they are to have had unwanted or nonvoluntary first sex, 7 in 10 of those who had sex before age 13, for example." (Guttmacher)

  • "Teenage girls with older partners are more likely to become pregnant than those with partners closer in age." (PP)

  • "Teenagers who have been raped or abused also experience higher rates of pregnancy - in a sample of 500 teen mothers, two-thirds had histories of sexual and physical abuse, primarily by adult men averaging age 27." (PP)

  • "Among women younger than 18, the pregnancy rate among those with a partner who is six or more years older is 3.7 times as high as the rate among those whose partner is no more than two years older." (PP)
  • So Page and Marcotte may want to complain to their friends at PP if they think it illogical that adult male sexual predators would latch on to the morning-after pill as a new way to keep their trysts will little girls secret.

    Their own research condemns them as those who excel at breaking hell loose.


    Comments:

    Making EC available would be a welcome tool for adult sexual predators who molest family members, children of friends or students. They could keep a stash in their bedroom drawer or their pocket to give their victims after committing each rape.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Would you outlaw condoms because someone might use them during a sexual assault?

    Posted by: Laura at August 27, 2007 6:25 PM


    Would you force a child to go through the humiliation of a pregnancy in order to "catch" a sexual predator who got the child pregnant? The very fact that credible organizations HAVE documented the existence of sexual deviants' abuse of children / teens shows that these actions exist without the aid or lack thereof of EC. Your desire to ban / curtail the use of EC just shows that you want to hurt people who have already been hurt too much (by sexual abuse)--to want children to have to gestate pregnancies (which I take you would have them do because you're a radical anti-choicer) is simply sick.

    Your position says more about you even than anyone can say about the (justly) maligned sexual predators--you want to punish children / teens with their own bodies, in effect.

    No one wants children / teens to be sexually abused--but only people with your mentality want the abuse to go on in the form of forced pregnancies. :(

    Posted by: Anna at August 27, 2007 6:55 PM


    Texas Red, would you knock it off already? We DO care about women. You may think that you are actually helping women, but by protecting abortion clinics, you are actually hurting women. Women are dying from legal abortions. Women are being sexually abused by abortionists, and rapes are going unreported! We have the abortion clinics to thank for that.

    Posted by: Heather at August 27, 2007 8:14 PM



    "Texas Red, would you knock it off already? We DO care about women. You may think that you are actually helping women, but by protecting abortion clinics, you are actually hurting women. Women are dying from legal abortions."

    Women die from carrying to term as well heather.. please keep that in mind.

    -------------------------------------------------

    Laura brings up a great point... I am interested to see what Jill and other pro-lifers have to say about it.

    Posted by: JM at August 27, 2007 9:49 PM


    Actually, death during childbirth occurs MORE THAN TEN TIMES AS OFTEN as death from abortion.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 28, 2007 5:34 AM


    @SoMG: Could that be because there are fewer abortions than there are kept pregnancies?

    Posted by: Rae at August 28, 2007 5:38 AM


    No, Rae, those numbers are per event. The maternal mortality of childbirth PER HUNDRED THOUSAND BIRTHS is more than ten times greater than the maternal mortality of abortion PER HUNDRED THOUSAND ABORTIONS.

    I hope this clears things up for you.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 28, 2007 5:45 AM


    @SoMG: Yes, yes it does. Gracias.

    I was perusing my Global and Environmental Public Health textbook and one of the chapters was on "population control" and had a section on maternal death rates. 500,000 women die each year in Third World nations during child birth and another 10-20 million are permanently injured from child birth. The leading complication appears to be obstetric fistula which can lead to lifelong incontinence and loss of bowel control. The women with incontinence and loss of bowel control are likely to kill themselves as they have to deal with being complete outcasts for their conditions.

    I just thought this was a depressing bit of information.

    Posted by: Rae at August 28, 2007 5:58 AM


    I also very recently read that maternal death rates in the US are on the rise and we have the highest infant mortality rate in all the "westernized" and "industrialized' nations.

    I wonder why this is?

    Posted by: Rae at August 28, 2007 6:01 AM


    You know what, I am pro-life. It sure beats anti-life.
    'What about all those women who die from childbirth?' 'Poor teenagers have to go through the pain of teenage pregnancy'.
    Well, for one, abortion is murder full stop. You can't kill an innocent baby. Childbirth most often results in life, abortion always results in murder. Quite depressing, isn't it?
    And I'm sick of all those people pitying teenage mothers. Women in their teenage years had children two hundred years ago, and they went through all the pain and joy of motherhood as all other mothers do. Women in non-Western countries still have children in their teenage years, and they're quite happy with their decision. I'd prefer to have my daughter at eighteen rather than at forty when I'm an old grandma!
    I think you have it all wrong by grouping all mothers of teenage years in the same category. We are all very different. Random people who look down on me although I am married and come from a stable family, they really........have no clue, do they?

    Posted by: Maria at August 28, 2007 7:07 AM


    40 is old grandma? Lol!

    Back when women were expected to marry and start popping out babies at about 14 is also when we were not educated, forbidden the right to vote, and rape wasn't considered a serious crime.

    I prefer now, thanks.

    Posted by: Erin at August 28, 2007 7:39 AM


    My mom was 38 when I had her first grandchild. She was 16 when she gave birth to me, and I was 19 when I had my first son.

    Posted by: Bethany at August 28, 2007 8:12 AM


    Oops, she was less than 40 anyway. I just realized the math was wrong LOL

    Posted by: Bethany at August 28, 2007 8:14 AM


    This is interesting, from wikipedia..

    "Obstetric fistula is a severe medical condition in which a fistula (hole) develops between either the rectum and vagina (see rectovaginal fistula) or between the bladder and vagina (see vesicovaginal fistula) after severe or failed childbirth, when adequate medical care is not available.

    The fistula usually develops when a prolonged labor presses the unborn child so tightly in the birth canal that blood flow is cut off to the surrounding tissues, which necrotise and eventually rot away. More rarely, the injury can be caused by female circumcision, poorly performed abortions, or pelvic fractures."


    Posted by: Bethany at August 28, 2007 8:50 AM



    I was perusing my Global and Environmental Public Health textbook and one of the chapters was on "population control" and had a section on maternal death rates. 500,000 women die each year in Third World nations during child birth and another 10-20 million are permanently injured from child birth. The leading complication appears to be obstetric fistula which can lead to lifelong incontinence and loss of bowel control. The women with incontinence and loss of bowel control are likely to kill themselves as they have to deal with being complete outcasts for their conditions.
    I just thought this was a depressing bit of information.

    That really is depressing, Rae. Do you happen to have the number of deaths for all other causes combined? I wonder what causes obstetric fistula? I guess I'll research it.

    I also very recently read that maternal death rates in the US are on the rise and we have the highest infant mortality rate in all the "westernized" and "industrialized' nations.
    I wonder why this is?

    That is really interesting ... Do you have a theory on why it might be, Rae? I'm curious what your take on it is.

    Posted by: Bethany at August 28, 2007 8:50 AM


    Actually a rectovaginal fistula is worse than you describe--if you have one, feces comes out your vagina, more or less continually.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 28, 2007 11:30 AM


    Rae,
    I wonder if the infant mortality rate is up because of the increase in premature babies being born in the US?

    Just a thought.

    Posted by: Sandy at August 28, 2007 12:37 PM


    No one wants children / teens to be sexually abused--but only people with your mentality want the abuse to go on in the form of forced pregnancies. :(

    Posted by: Anna at August 27, 2007 6:55 PM

    So let's continue to let sexual abusers fill young girls with enormous levels of birth control as a plan B so they can continue to abuse them. This is abusive. How do you know these pills won't permanently harm or kill these girs????

    Your mentality is to allow the abuse to go on in the form of forced abortions. Nice.

    Posted by: Sandy at August 28, 2007 1:18 PM


    Wow Bethany,
    I had my first just a week shy of my 38th birthday. I hope I live long enough to see grandchildren!!

    Posted by: Sandy at August 28, 2007 1:24 PM


    Sandy, I agree with your post to Anna!

    Posted by: Heather at August 28, 2007 1:49 PM


    The following link is from a charity to help women with fistula. It is a worthy cause. I found out about it a couple of years ago kind of by accident. https://www.fistulafoundation.org/aboutfistula/faqs.html

    Posted by: hippie at August 28, 2007 2:57 PM


    I thought that this was the scariest paragraph from the article below:

    "Frighteningly, babies of high school dropouts have an eight times higher risk of being killed than those of college graduates.3"
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The hardships of teen pregnancy

    By Cindy Reitzi

    April 2005

    It takes a village to raise a child. -- African proverb

    Teaching hinges on hope. Without hope for our students’ future, teaching is minute by minute. And few things siphon my hopes like teen motherhood.

    Most of us live in a single to nuclear family culture: no extended family or “village” and scarce affordable daycare. Considering this, the statistical portrait of teen mothers is depressing, beginning at birth.

    Babies of teen mothers have 21% higher probability of low birth weight, increasing possibilities for infant death, blindness, deafness, chronic respiratory problems, mental retardation, mental illness, and cerebral palsy. It doubles chances for dyslexia, hyperactivity, and other disabilities.1

    Teen mothers are often victims of abuse. As Kathleen Sylvester, vice president for domestic policy of the Progressive Policy Institute, wrote: “Some studies show… as many as two-thirds were victims of rape or sexual abuse at an early age – crimes often committed by males living in the same household. ... They are easy prey for older men: young…victims of early sexual abuse often develop emotional patterns that make them vulnerable to the attentions of older men.”2 A 1995 Guttmacher Institute study suggests that almost two-thirds of the fathers of the babies are 20 or older.

    The younger the girl, the more likely sex was forced. Four in 10 girls whose first intercourse was at 13 to 14 report sex was unwanted.1

    Teen mothers start parenthood with few viable economic skills. Forty-one percent of mothers under 18 finish high school, compared to 61% of 20- to 21-year-old first mothers. A scant 1.5% of teen mothers earn a college degree by age 30.1

    Making matters worse, in the past 25 years, the median income for college graduates increased 13%, while the median income for high school dropouts decreased 30%.1

    Frighteningly, babies of high school dropouts have an eight times higher risk of being killed than those of college graduates.3

    Teen mothers are mostly single parents. Eighty percent of fathers do not marry mothers and pay less than $800 annually in child support, important income for poor children.

    Children living apart from fathers are five times more likely to be poor than children from two-parent homes. Children of uninvolved fathers are twice as likely to drop out of school, abuse alcohol or drugs or go to jail, and four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.1

    So, if teen mothers have no functional family of origin, no “village” to rely on, all parenting responsibilities fall on young girls who received little nurturing themselves. It’s no surprise they turn to welfare. One-half of all teen mothers and more than three-quarters of unmarried teen mothers receive welfare within five years of their first child’s birth.1

    While on paper, married, two-parent families sound like stabilizing alternatives, chances of marital success are slim. Only 30% of married teen mothers stay married. Teen marriages are twice as likely to fail as marriages in which the woman is at least 25 years old.1 Plus, studies of welfare mothers suggest some teen moms may be better off unmarried for safety reasons. According to Esta Soler, president of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, “Studies consistently show that at least 50% to 60% of women receiving welfare have experienced physical abuse by an intimate partner…compared to 22% of the general population… A significant number of women receiving welfare also report a history of physical and sexual abuse in childhood.” In a California study, some recipients report lifetime abuse rates of 80% to 83%.4

    While the absence of a caring father has profound consequences for children, the presence of an abusive one may be a matter of life or death. All of these factors take a toll on children. Teen parents are twice as likely as older parents to abuse or neglect their children.5 In reported incidents of abuse and neglect, 100 per 1,000 were families headed by teen mothers. The rate is less than half in families with new mothers in their 20s: 51 incidents per 1,000 families.1 Foster care placement is also significantly higher for children of teen mothers.1

    Children of teenagers, then, come to school with baggage and consequently perform poorly. They are 50% more likely to repeat a grade, do worse on standardized tests, and are less likely to complete high school than if their mothers had delayed childbearing. Sons of teen mothers are 13% more likely to end up in prison; daughters, 22% more likely to also become teen mothers.1

    But dismal statistics do not account for intangibles: persistent mother love, “villages” of grandmothers, caring teachers and teen moms in school, trying to graduate. If we as educators can help keep the mothers strong, I have better hopes that their children may thrive.

    Sources:

    National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. www.teenpregnancy.org


    “What to Do with Those Teenage Mothers,” Kathleen Sylvester. www.ppionline.org


    “A Horror Called 'Neonaticide'," Charles Downey. http://sks.sirs.com


    Testimony, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Esta Soler. http://endabuse.org


    University of Georgia. www.county.ces.uga.edu

    Posted by: Laura at August 28, 2007 3:06 PM


    SOMG:

    Haven't we gone over this before? oh, well..I guess I will repost the reason for the difference in numbers of death from abortion and childbirth.

    All information was obtained from Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004;103:729-737


    "Pregnancy-related deaths are deaths that occur among women within 1 year of pregnancy from complications of the pregnancy or delivery; deaths associated with complications of induced abortion2 (ie, abortion-related deaths) also are considered pregnancy related."

    Gee - no wonder why the childbirth numbers are so high. Those numbers include the abortion deaths.

    "From 1973 through 1997, data were received from state health departments or estimated for 52 reporting areas, including 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City."

    The data they got there information from was the CDC. If you go on the CDC you will discover that 3 states do NOT report there abortion statistics. One of those states is California. That is where the "or estimated" comes into play. They really don't know.

    "Legal induced abortion was defined as "a procedure, performed by a licensed physician or someone acting under the supervision of a licensed physician, that was intended to terminate a suspected or known intrauterine pregnancy and to produce a nonviable fetus at any gestational age." The total number of legal induced abortions was available or estimated from all reporting areas."

    So, now we just may be seeing why PP doesn't want to be regulated by the standards of Ambulatory Surgical Centers. The abortion related death is not counted if the abortionist license is invalid. Convenient huh? And there is that nasty little 2 words again: "or esteimated". hmm... even more convenient.

    "The Abortion Mortality Surveillance System defines an abortion-related death is a death resulting from 1) a direct complication of an abortion, 2) an indirect complication caused by the chain of events initiated by the abortion, or 3) an aggravation of a preexisting condition by the physiologic or psychologic effects of the abortion, regardless of the amount of time between the abortion and the death."

    Don't you just love #3? They just couldn't say that the woman had psychiatric problems because of the abortion. hmmm..So if a woman committs suicide and there wasn't a determined pre-excisting condition does that suicide get counted as abortion related? Even more covenient.

    "Multiple sources are used in the Abortion Mortality Surveillance System to identify potential cases of abortion-related mortality, including national and state vital records, reports from maternal mortality review committees, private citizens, health care providers, medical examiners, the media, and, more recently, a full-text newspaper database. For each suspected case identified, the Abortion Mortality Surveillance System requests death certificates, clinical records, and autopsy reports. Death certificates were obtained for all cases, but complete clinical records were not always available.

    There is just so much wrong with this. First, the list of way they obtain information is suppose to be biased. Just don't think so in this case. Private Citizens? Health Care workers? The media? Give me a break. The media is suppose to report a suspected death from abortion so it can become part of a statistic? Yet, not all information was available to prove one way or the other. Even more convenient.

    "Two medical epidemiologists reviewed the available records for each case to determine the cause of death and if it was abortion-related."

    Everything in this report was documented and footnoted. Why, then, is there no footnote or documentation on who those two doctors are? oh, you may be asking, "what is an epidemiologist?" Let me explain; from websters:
    a branch of medical science that deals with the incidence, distribution, and control of disease in a population. So, these 2 doctors were looking for a possible disease to see if that was the cause of death instead of an abortion. This is based on incomplete medical data. Did I ever tell you that on the my Mom's autopsy report it says that she died of "possible cardiac embolism". If the medical examiner had actually looked at my Mothers wrists, maybe he would have known the true reason for her death. I was also amazed that my Mom grew 5 inches upon her death. oops - the transcriptionist messed up and combined two reports together. Can you imagine what would have happened if these two doctors had looked just at that report on my Mom? Her death would not have been included in the suicide statistics.

    "Our analyses have several possible limitations. Although state health departments are asked to provide death certificates on all deaths associated with pregnancy and other sources are used to try to ascertain abortion-related deaths, some cases may not be identified. In addition, we were unable to obtain detailed clinical records for all cases, and therefore data on certain factors (eg, gestational age, type of abortion procedure, and other risk factors for death, such as preexisting diseases), were not available for all deaths.

    So, more inadequate information was used to get the statistics.....

    And this is my favorite line from the article...

    "Legal induced abortion is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures in the United States. With approximately 1.2 million legal induced abortions performed in 1997."

    And yet, according to PP any place that performs the most frequently performed surgical procedure should not be regulated as an Ambulatory Surgical Center.

    Posted by: valerie at August 28, 2007 3:22 PM


    Hey, I just thought of something....

    I cited where my information came from.
    Laura cited where her information came from.
    Does SOMG ever cite his sources? Nope, he just likes to throw statistic around without any information on where those number were obtained.

    He may be right - I don't know. Because I can't seem to find his statistical information anywhere.

    Posted by: valerie at August 28, 2007 3:27 PM


    valerie, you're right. He can't come up with any sources to support his claims, because they don't exist.

    Posted by: Heather at August 28, 2007 4:03 PM


    valerie, he once made a claim, and he couldn't back it up at all. He told us to look it up ourselves! LOL! How's that for a liar?

    Posted by: Heather at August 28, 2007 4:06 PM


    Heather -

    I know! Death's in childbirth are 10 times more likly than deaths in abortion? I've read many, many articles from the CDC and I've never seen that number so high.

    Posted by: valerie at August 28, 2007 4:10 PM


    Heather -

    I remember that! I believe I went ahead and found the information that contridicted his statement. He didn't provide any information after that either. He just tried to say that the information I posted was faulty, or wrong, or some sort of BS..... However, he couldn't show anything to prove his side!

    I believe it was his statement that childbirth does more damage to the cervix than abortion? Or was it one of his other "claims to fame" that he refused to prove....

    Posted by: valerie at August 28, 2007 4:14 PM


    Laura,

    Most of us live in a single to nuclear family culture: no extended family or “village” and scarce affordable daycare. Considering this, the statistical portrait of teen mothers is depressing, beginning at birth.

    There's the problem and solution right there...not abortion...but families that stay together, marriages that consist of mothers AND fathers, sex only when your married and ready for a family, and extended families taking care of their own...

    Divorce, abortion, the sexual revolution, the irresponsible mindset of today's world...these are the problem.

    More abortion and more sex are not going to fix them.

    For the record, your post was tragic. My heart is big enough, but unfortunately my home isn't, or I'd take every troubled teen in the country into my life...so much pain, such short arms...

    Posted by: mk at August 28, 2007 4:19 PM


    Yes. He made that claim too. He got so angry when we asked for proof, that he resorted to brutal name calling. LIAR!

    Posted by: Heather at August 28, 2007 4:19 PM


    Welcome to the world of SoMG...

    This is why we need you Val...While I can argue morals and philosophy, I suck at statistics...
    You're a Godsend!

    I kept trying to point out that you are pregnant for 7 months more when you carry to term than when you abort so you have 7 more months in which something could go wrong...and they argued that!

    Posted by: mk at August 28, 2007 4:24 PM


    besides, do you know how many pregnancy related illnesses are treatable?

    Posted by: Heather at August 28, 2007 4:37 PM


    @Bethany: I'm going to try to answer your questions.

    "Do you happen to have the number of deaths for all other causes combined? I wonder what causes obstetric fistula? I guess I'll research it."

    2 million women are currently living with obstetric fistulas with another 50,000 to 100,000 more cases each year. Many women with obstetric fistulas die young of infection-induced kidney failure.

    Other causes of maternal death: Postpartum hemorrhage (this happened to my mom), which is the leading cause of maternal death; blood poisoning/sepsis (also caused by unsafe abortions); anemia; pregnancy induced hypertension; obstructed labor.

    11% of live births lead to severe bleeding.
    10% of live births lead to infection during or after labor (sepsis).
    6% of live births lead to obstructed or prolonged labor.
    6% of live births lead to pregnancy-induced hypertension (preeclampsia and eclampsia).

    16% of complications are due to unsafe abortions.

    Please note that these are from third world countries.

    The textbook I got this out of is called:
    "Our Global Environment: A Health Perspective, 6th Edition" by Anne Nadakavukaren; Waveland Press, Inc, 2006. pp 78-80.

    "That is really interesting ... Do you have a theory on why it might be, Rae? I'm curious what your take on it is."

    Well, from what I read about the increased maternal deaths in the US, I think it's likely from complications due to being overweight/obese during pregnancy. Being overweight/obese is already very taxing on the body and adding pregnancy on top of that probably isn't wise. My other guess would be due to the increase in elective c-sections, which is MAJOR surgery and can lead to complications in future pregnancies (if something wasn't sewn up right or something?). That's my guess anyway, as to why maternal deaths are on the rise.

    Perhaps a lack of proper prenatal care also has an effect on maternal health. By not getting care all through pregnancy, signs of future complications go undetected until it's too late?

    As for the high infant mortality rate, I think it has to do with a lack of proper care for the infant, and by care I am talking health care. Without proper health care, infants are more likely to get ill or injured. And as Sandy said, I think also premature births may also be a reason for the high mortality rate in infants. I recall reading somewhere (somebody please correct me if I am wrong) that you are more likely to have a premature birth *after* having a c-section, is this true? If so, that could be a reason as to why more infants are dying, because they are being prematurely c-sectioned or they are being born prematurely *after* a sibling was c-sectioned, leading to the higher infant mortality rates.

    Overall though, I think it has to do with the poor quality and/or lack of affordable health care available, which I think is very sad and unfortunate and shouldn't have to happen in our country.

    These are just my opinions/thoughts. I honestly can't say I know enough about this stuff to have truly informative opinion on the matter.

    Posted by: Rae at August 28, 2007 5:29 PM


    Valerie, I have posted sources for this information so many times I cannot count them any more. But here, just for you, it is ONE MORE TIME:

    http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/140/8/620

    Also: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/268/22/3231

    I'll quote from the latter source (JAMA): "Legal-abortion mortality between 1979 and 1985 was 0.6 death per 100,000 procedures, more than 10 times lower than the 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births between 1979 and 1986. Serious complications from legal abortion are rare. "

    If you search Jill's archives, you can count the number of times I have cited this source; I've lost count.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 28, 2007 8:14 PM


    Those sources are for the relative mortalities, not specifically for damage to the cervix. To verify that childbirth causes more damage to the cervix than early abortion, you should ask any gynecologist.

    (Some facts are too obvious to find a source for them. For instance, try to find an internet source for the fact that deep stab wounds are worse than peripheral stab wounds, or that it's better to get hit by a bicycle than by a truck. You can't find sources for these facts because they are too obvious to post.)

    I can tell you that among GYNs, the rule of thumb is, for just about any type of gynecological trauma, childbirth is approximately eleven times worse than early abortion, because the cervix must dilate about eleven times more to give birth. But I've not been able to find a source for the specific question of damage to the cervix; you'll have to ask your GYN.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 28, 2007 8:28 PM


    Here's an interersting article on another topic:

    http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/94/8/1352

    Posted by: SoMG at August 28, 2007 9:01 PM


    Rae I don't know whether a c-section in the history increases the risk of premature birth. I do know that if you have one c-section, OBs recommend c-sections for all subsequent births. (Danger of ripping open the scar during contractions, you know.)

    Posted by: SoMG at August 28, 2007 9:37 PM


    Valerie: He (SOMG) may be right - I don't know. Because I can't seem to find his statistical information anywhere.

    Yes, he's right. Continuing pregnancies and giving birth has a mortality rate some eleven times higher than for abortions. For the vast majority of abortions, which are not done late in gestation, abortion is some 30 to 40 times safer. For early-term abortions (which I think comprise about 59% of abortions), like 9 weeks or less, abortion is roughly 100 times safer. The Centers for Disease Control have all the figures you want.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at August 28, 2007 9:41 PM


    SOMG:

    This is my favorite line from the Annals of Internal Medicine -

    "The National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood Federation of America have helpful Web sites and networks of high-quality clinics."

    Here is a very small list of women who have died from the hight-quality national abortion federation: http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/blnafdeaths.htm

    I also like how they announce all the numbers as facts, when they are really just estimates, as shown in my post above. I will provide more information on those estimates in a moment.

    And where is it that JAMA gets their statistical information from?

    "data from 1973 through 1985 are from the Centers for Disease Control and The Alan Guttmacher Institute. Trends in serious abortion-related complications between 1970 and 1990 are based on data from the Joint Program for the Study of Abortion and from the National Abortion Federation. "

    Such unbiased sources for them to get their information from. Did you know that according to Planned Parenthood's 2005 - 2005 annual report the Alan Guttmacher Institute gave them 7.9 million dollars? Why would they do that do you think? Did you also know that Planned Parenthood gives The Allan Guttmatcher Institute money too?

    Anyway, like I said, the numbers are estimates and not facts. From a study by Lisa M. Koonin, M.N., M.P.H. and Jack C. Smith, M.S. (this study is found in numerous places on the CDC website) Taken from Division of Reproductive Health
    National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention
    and Health Promotion
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    Atlanta, Georgia

    "NCCDPHP(National Center for Chronic Disease
    Prevention and Health Promotion)compiles tabular data, aggregated at the state and area levels, received from 52 reporting areas: 50 states, New York City, and the District of Columbia. The total number of legal induced abortions are available from all reporting areas, most of which provide information on the characteristics of women obtaining abortions. Each year, in about 45 reporting areas, data are provided from the central health agencies. � In the remaining reporting areas, data are provided from hospitals and other medical facilities."

    *******************
    In seven reporting area's there is not a consistent way to get the information. The information can be incomplete. I'll continue:
    **********************

    "Approximately half of women obtaining abortions are having the procedure for the first time, whereas approximately 15% have had at least two previous abortions."

    *************************
    The majority of complications from childbirth happen after the first child. This is not taken into consideration when data is compiled.
    *********************

    "The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports higher
    numbers of abortions in a given year than does
    NCCDPHP. However, the institute does not
    conduct abortion surveillance annually; in the
    1980s, data were not collected for 1983, 1986,
    and 1989. The number of abortions reported to
    CDC has consistently been about 19% lower
    than the number ascertained by the Alan
    Guttmacher Institute."

    ****************
    Wait a minute here! Jama listed the Guttmatcher institute as one of the places they obtained there data from. So, they receive data from faulty statistics.
    *********************

    "The smaller number of abortions reported to NCCDPHP from health departments is likely the result of inconsistencies among states in abortion reporting requirements and methods. Specifically, the completeness of state health department data varies widely because 1) some states require reporting from all licensed facilities whereas others have a voluntary abortion reporting system, 2) the types of providers that must report vary among states, and 3) the completeness of reporting varies among states. These factors probably contribute to underreporting in some states, which can lead to an underestimation of the national abortion rate and ratio."

    *******************
    ummm...okay. there isn't any form of consistency from state to state. Some abortions go unreported because the state doesn't require unlicensed facilities to report. Another reason why PP doesn't want to be a ASC.
    **********************

    "Not all states have recognized the need for
    state-based abortion surveillance, and some
    states have recognized the need but have been
    unable to gather information because of the
    sensitivities that abortion generates."

    *************

    You're numbers and your sources are faulty. The statistical data is a joke. No one really knows for sure the true numbers because there isn't any true regulations on how this is reported and who it is reported too. Not to mention that the entire state of California has no regulations at all. (Can be found in the 2000 survaliance of abortion from the CDC). Not to mention that deaths from abortions are also considered deaths from pregnancy in some states. That means that one death is counted twice: once on the abortion mortality and once on the childbirth mortality. This increases the deaths from childbirth when it was actually a death from abortion.

    Do you get it now? Your little statistic is worthless.


    Posted by: valerie at August 28, 2007 10:03 PM


    SOMG and Doug

    I have a response that needs Jill's approval before it will be posted..... so keep checking


    SOMG and Rae -

    They no longer recommend C-sections even if you already have had one. 2 of my friends have had natural births after C-sections.

    SOMG -

    I did ask my OB/GYN your question about the cervix being damaged more in childbirth. His answer: Wrong! During childbirth the hormones that the woman releases allows for the cervix to soften making the opening of the cervix much easier with minimal strain. During an abortion the cervix is not soften by hormones and the medication given to open it is very harsh on the tissue. This is my doctor didn't want to do a D&C on me during my 1st miscarriage. Because he knew of the possible damage it could cause to my cervix. however, risk of infection was greater and I had to have one.

    My cervix was weekend during my son's birth because he was born 9 weeks early. My hormones had not released the necessary amount to soften my cervix, therefore it was unnaturally stessed. This childbirth was more dangerous than an abortion. But this kind of premature delivery is very rare. regualar childbirth, allowed to happen naturally, is very easy on the cervix with very minimal damage if any.

    Posted by: valerie at August 28, 2007 10:13 PM


    Wrong, Valerie. When you see a scarred cervix, it almost always turns out to be from a birth, not a D&C.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 28, 2007 10:18 PM


    "They no longer recommend C-sections even if you already have had one. 2 of my friends have had natural births after C-sections."

    @Valerie: Thanks for the info. What made them change their minds on that?

    Posted by: Rae at August 28, 2007 10:27 PM


    SOMG:

    This is my favorite line from the Annals of Internal Medicine -

    "The National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood Federation of America have helpful Web sites and networks of high-quality clinics."

    Here is a very small list of women who have died from the hight-quality national abortion federation: http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/blnafdeaths.htm

    I also like how they announce all the numbers as facts, when they are really just estimates, as shown in my post above. I will provide more information on those estimates in a moment.

    And where is it that JAMA gets their statistical information from?

    "data from 1973 through 1985 are from the Centers for Disease Control and The Alan Guttmacher Institute. Trends in serious abortion-related complications between 1970 and 1990 are based on data from the Joint Program for the Study of Abortion and from the National Abortion Federation. "

    Such unbiased sources for them to get their information from. Did you know that according to Planned Parenthood's 2005 - 2005 annual report the Alan Guttmacher Institute gave them 7.9 million dollars? Why would they do that do you think? Did you also know that Planned Parenthood gives The Allan Guttmatcher Institute money too?

    Anyway, like I said, the numbers are estimates and not facts. From a study by Lisa M. Koonin, M.N., M.P.H. and Jack C. Smith, M.S. (this study is found in numerous places on the CDC website) Taken from Division of Reproductive Health
    National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention
    and Health Promotion
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    Atlanta, Georgia

    "NCCDPHP(National Center for Chronic Disease
    Prevention and Health Promotion)compiles tabular data, aggregated at the state and area levels, received from 52 reporting areas: 50 states, New York City, and the District of Columbia. The total number of legal induced abortions are available from all reporting areas, most of which provide information on the characteristics of women obtaining abortions. Each year, in about 45 reporting areas, data are provided from the central health agencies. � In the remaining reporting areas, data are provided from hospitals and other medical facilities."

    *******************
    In seven reporting area's there is not a consistent way to get the information. The information can be incomplete. I'll continue:
    **********************

    "Approximately half of women obtaining abortions are having the procedure for the first time, whereas approximately 15% have had at least two previous abortions."

    *************************
    The majority of complications from childbirth happen after the first child. This is not taken into consideration when data is compiled.
    *********************

    "The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports higher
    numbers of abortions in a given year than does
    NCCDPHP. However, the institute does not
    conduct abortion surveillance annually; in the
    1980s, data were not collected for 1983, 1986,
    and 1989. The number of abortions reported to
    CDC has consistently been about 19% lower
    than the number ascertained by the Alan
    Guttmacher Institute."

    ****************
    Wait a minute here! Jama listed the Guttmatcher institute as one of the places they obtained there data from. So, they receive data from faulty statistics.
    *********************

    "The smaller number of abortions reported to NCCDPHP from health departments is likely the result of inconsistencies among states in abortion reporting requirements and methods. Specifically, the completeness of state health department data varies widely because 1) some states require reporting from all licensed facilities whereas others have a voluntary abortion reporting system, 2) the types of providers that must report vary among states, and 3) the completeness of reporting varies among states. These factors probably contribute to underreporting in some states, which can lead to an underestimation of the national abortion rate and ratio."

    *******************
    ummm...okay. there isn't any form of consistency from state to state. Some abortions go unreported because the state doesn't require unlicensed facilities to report. Another reason why PP doesn't want to be a ASC.
    **********************

    "Not all states have recognized the need for
    state-based abortion surveillance, and some
    states have recognized the need but have been
    unable to gather information because of the
    sensitivities that abortion generates."

    *************

    You're numbers and your sources are faulty. The statistical data is a joke. No one really knows for sure the true numbers because there isn't any true regulations on how this is reported and who it is reported too. Not to mention that the entire state of California has no regulations at all. (Can be found in the 2000 survaliance of abortion from the CDC). Not to mention that deaths from abortions are also considered deaths from pregnancy in some states. That means that one death is counted twice: once on the abortion mortality and once on the childbirth mortality. This increases the deaths from childbirth when it was actually a death from abortion.

    Do you get it now? Your little statistic is worthless.


    Posted by: valerie at August 28, 2007 10:03 PM

    Posted by: mk at August 28, 2007 10:32 PM


    So Valerie, let me see if I understand you-- you think there's some kind of conspiracy going on, with Guttmacher deliberately underreporting the number of deaths from abortion? By a factor of ten?

    Is the editorial staff of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in on it too?

    What about the faculty of the CDC?

    You wrote: "... they announce all the numbers as facts, when they are really just estimates"

    Everything in epidemiology is an estimate. For that matter everything in science is an estimate. Why do you think statisticians get such high salaries?

    I agree with you that statistics should be gathered and kept more consistantly.

    By the way, it is a rhetorical mistake for you to try to back up an argument with a list of the names of victims of rare events. It's juvenile. Your thesis committee would laugh you to scorn.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 28, 2007 11:00 PM


    Somg, I never had a doctor tell me that childbirth could damage my cervix. Not a male or a female.

    Posted by: Heather at August 29, 2007 9:26 AM


    Rae -

    "@Valerie: Thanks for the info. What made them change their minds on that?"

    I have no idea why specifically. But I have been told that with the new technology used for C-sections it doesn't do as much damage to the muscles as it used to. I'll see if I can find anything on it though.....

    (Remind me if I forget...)

    Posted by: valerie at August 29, 2007 10:14 AM


    SOMG -

    " you think there's some kind of conspiracy going on, with Guttmacher deliberately underreporting the number of deaths from abortion? By a factor of ten?"

    No. Re-read my post. It wasn't me who said that they under-report. Actually, no one said that they under-report; they said over-report the number of abortions. Not the deaths. Statistically, the more abortions there are, the more deaths. .6 per 100,000 1.2 per 200,000...and so on. I don't say there is a conspiracy...I don't believe I used that word. But I do believe that the studies are seriously faulty and cannot be taken in any realm of fact.

    "Is the editorial staff of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in on it too?

    What about the faculty of the CDC?"

    Once again.... All there studies and "fact finding" is done in different manners and from different organisations/groups. No one is "in on it" - but even in there studies they do admit that it is faulty because the states do not have any regulations on how to report.

    "Everything in epidemiology is an estimate. For that matter everything in science is an estimate. Why do you think statisticians get such high salaries?"

    If this is the case, then your numbers aren't of any concern to anyone. There is no need to believe anything that comes from science. However, studies that are uniformed with the same manner in compiling the data are closer to fact then some hodgepodge collection of numbers that no one can prove is even accurate.

    "By the way, it is a rhetorical mistake for you to try to back up an argument with a list of the names of victims of rare events. It's juvenile. Your thesis committee would laugh you to scorn."

    Probably. But it made me feel better.


    "Wrong, Valerie. When you see a scarred cervix, it almost always turns out to be from a birth, not a D&C."

    You told me to ask my Doctor. And I did. And I reported what he said. He has a degree and works in the OB/GYN field. What is it that you do that makes it that you know more than him? If you are in the same field, with the same level of expertise, then you should be able to provide data on the subject.

    Posted by: valerie at August 29, 2007 10:29 AM


    I think you need a new OB/GYN, Valerie.

    The reason they don't have you push during labor until the cervix is fully dilated is because of the risk of tearing the cervix. It's one of the more common childbirth-related injuries.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 29, 2007 11:14 AM


    Check out, for instance, http://books.google.com/books?id=DXdWk_b0dsoC&pg=PA736&lpg=PA736&dq=childbirth+cervix+tear&source=web&ots=4SRa1nG7X8&sig=3GyX6tj0rACEEviGxQW70tc-oG8#PPA735,M1

    Posted by: SoMG at August 29, 2007 11:31 AM


    Or check out http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/complications/tears-and-lacerations.aspx

    I'll quote:

    "How common is it [cervical tearing during childbirth]? As many as half of all women will have at least a small tear after childbirth.

    Who is most at risk? Anyone having a vaginal delivery is at risk for a tear. "

    Posted by: SoMG at August 29, 2007 11:38 AM


    Oops--that's for all tears, to the perineum as well as the cervix.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 29, 2007 11:39 AM


    A New York abortion clinic reports a 0.5% risk of cervical tearing during abortion.

    http://www.nyabortion.com/services_abortion/1st.shtml

    Posted by: SoMG at August 29, 2007 11:47 AM


    Yes, it's printed up from an abortion clinic. Why should we believe them? They lie about everything else.

    Posted by: Heather at August 29, 2007 11:51 AM


    SoMG,

    You're statistics are useless, not only for the above reasons, but because as I have said before so many times I can't count (you can go back through the posts and count them if you want) that you cannot compare an abortion at 8 weeks to a live birth at 40 weeks.

    Still not accurate, but a little closer in similarity, would be some statistics on abortions after 21 weeks compared to live births...

    Give me those and I might actually look at your sources. Until then, I'm afraid you've proven nothing.

    There's more damage done to the cervix from having an abortion than from using a tampon, too, but so what? They are not comparable.

    Having a bowling ball come out your cervix is not the same as having a tube go in.

    The point is that having a tube go in can cause damage to the cervix and this is something to take into consideration when having an abortion. Like any surgical procedure, it has it complications. It can be dangerous!

    Damage can be done to the cervix when giving birth, so you should be aware of this if you decide to have a child.

    I just don't see the point of comparing the two as they are not comparable.

    Posted by: mk at August 29, 2007 1:03 PM


    MK, any two things are comparable. I can even compare apples and oranges. Ready? Here goes: Apples are crunchier than oranges. See, I compared them.

    Childbirth has a mortality rate. So does early abortion. The two can be compared. And when you compare them, you find that early abortion is more than ten times less dangerous than childbirth.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 29, 2007 1:26 PM


    From

    Obstetrics: a text-book for the use of students and practitioners By John Whitridge Williams

    "Slight degrees of cervical laceration must be regarded as an inevitable accompaniment of childbirth."

    Posted by: SoMG at August 29, 2007 1:29 PM


    Fine SoMG,

    You've compared them... Are you so proud? Is him a big boy?

    What is your point?

    Adj. 1. comparable with - similar in some respect and so able to be compared in order to show differences and similarities; "pianists of comparable ability"; "cars comparable with each other in terms of fuel consumption"
    comparable - able to be compared or worthy of comparison

    I was sort of goin' with the worth of comparison idea, but I'll play your game.

    HAVING AN ABORTION WILL CAUSE MORE CERVICAL DAMAGE THAN SLEEPING ON YOUR BACK. THEREFORE YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE ABORTIONS!

    Posted by: mk at August 29, 2007 2:12 PM


    SOMG:

    Your funny! The book you referenced was published in 1904.

    "Obstetrics: A Text-Book for the Use of Students and Practitioners
    from Medscape General Medicine™
    Posted 04/05/1999
    J. Whitridge Williams, MD; originally published by D. Appleton and Company, New York and London, 1903. Special Collector's Edition with Introduction by S.L. Clark and G.D.V. Hankins; 845 pages, hardcover, $150, Appleton & Lange, Stamford, Conn., 1997."

    Did you know that medicine has advanced since then?

    Also the abortion clinic you referenced...

    "POSSIBLE COMPLICATIONS

    First trimester abortions are one of the safest surgical procedures and are approximately 9-10 times safer than normal childbirth. There are both minor and major complications possible, but most are minor and easily treated. Possible complications include:
    Infection (less than 1%) § § Heavy bleeding (1/2 of 1%)
    Incomplete abortion (less than 1%)
    Damage to the uterus or nearby internal structures (less than 1/2 of 1%)
    Cervical tear (1/2 of 1%)
    Continuing pregnancy (less than 1%)
    Death (1 in 160,000) "

    These stats are inconsistent with the stats on the websites your previously provided. I will get to that in my next post.....

    Posted by: valerie at August 29, 2007 2:52 PM


    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

    And he wonders why we don't take him seriously!!!!

    1904???!!!???!

    Posted by: mk at August 29, 2007 3:20 PM


    1904.....MK get that buzzer out!

    Posted by: Heather at August 29, 2007 3:32 PM


    Allow me........1904 WRONG! *sound the buzzer, and try again*

    Posted by: Heather at August 29, 2007 3:36 PM


    You think the rate of cervical tearing during childbirth has changed since 1904?

    Posted by: SoMG at August 29, 2007 3:43 PM


    Uh, the times have changed, dummy! Yes!

    Posted by: Heather at August 29, 2007 3:53 PM


    Here we go... See if you can keep up.

    My husband is a Metrologist. This is someone who deals with precise measurement. The use of statistics is used all the time in his career as he sells equipment that assists with this precise measurement. The statistic for marginal error of any measurment is extremely important in his field, if the marginal error is too high cars could fall apart or airplanes may fall out of the sky. Not to mention that if the lids to food containers such as jelly jars are not sized correctly then food can spoil. So... I showed him all of this on this post.

    First of all, the statement that a woman is ten times more likely to die in childbirth than someone who has an abortion is mathematically correct. However, it is extremely deceptive. We are talking about 10 times more in fractions, not whole numbers. This changes alot. In percentages women who die from abortion is .0006% and women who die from childbirth is .0091%.

    Also, you can compare and make a statistic for anything. However, in order to have accurate information reporting there must be levels of consistencies in order to complete this accuracy. Let's say that we make a statitic for vaginal tears in women who did kagel excercise vs women who didn't before childbirth. This is a consistent study as the majority of factors are as similar as possible with the exception of the factor being studied. This means that the women in this study were all in full term childbirth with no complications. If there is a deviation from this control meathod (example, premature delivery), then that deviation would not be counted as it doesn't comply with the consistencies of the study.

    Now, comparing the maternal deaths from an 8 week gestation abortion to a 36 week gestation childbirth does not meet the level of acceptable consistencies because very minimal factors are similar. The other problem with this comparison is the lack of consistent collection of data. This makes the statistic very iffy and problamatic. It also makes the conclusion questionable because of the difficulites in comparison.

    In order to have the correct control, the examiners must not have too many deviations. In order to comply with proper control then the study must keep gestational age similar as this is the biggest deviant in the study and one of the only deviants that is reported. Other deviants would be race, age and prenatal care. However, since some states do not report this information it would be impossible to control those deviations. However, gestational age is reported by states in abortion research in order to obtain safety records for the different methods that must be used the older the gestational age. Also, gestational age is reported by states in order to study cause and effect of childbirth and to correctly compile complications that arise before, during and after delivery.

    So, in order to figure out which method of ending a pregnancy, be that abortion or birth, ends in more maternal deaths the gestational age must be as accurate as possible as this is the biggest and only controlable deviant. However, For abortion, the older the gestational age, the higher the risk for maternal death. For childbirth there doesn't seem to be a consistent gestational age for complications, however there aren't many pregnancy associated maternal deaths in the first trimester. This comparrison also makes the study difficult and problamatic.

    Most abortions are done in the first trimester, primarily between 8-10 weeks and the first trimester is the safest time to have an abortion. Childbirth is almost always consistent with the 3rd trimester which is a time when most abortions are not done.

    How then, with all these deviations can there be an accurate study? All of these inconsistencies only prove one thing in a statistical sense. That abortions should be done at or before 8 weeks gestation in order for it to be safer than childbirth. And since most abortions are performed at this time, then that is where the data of abortion being safer than childbirth has come about. However, the deviations make this almost impossible to determine the accuracy.

    Now - the maternal death rates for an 8 week gestational age abortion and 8 week gestational age pregnancy is virtually non-exsistant. However, the older the fetus, the more complications can arise from abortion. and childbirth complications can only be compiled the older the fetus.

    In other words, it is impossible to compare the two because there are virtually no similarities and too many deviations.

    Posted by: valerie at August 29, 2007 4:25 PM


    SOMG -

    I forgot to get to the stats that contridict each other, and i have to make dinner now, so I'll do that tonight...

    Also, to your comment "You think the rate of cervical tearing during childbirth has changed since 1904?" the answer: Yes. Back then most women didn't give birth in hospitals and usually without a doctor or midwife. This caused alot of complications that are not seen today. Not to mention that medical science now knows more about the female body then they did back then. Also, in the mid and late 1800's when doctors were active in removing midwives from the profession of child delivery it was considered "unproffessional" for a male doctor to look at the womans genitalia.

    Posted by: valerie at August 29, 2007 4:31 PM


    I have to say that this website is a sham. You aren't interested in discussing anything other than the fact that you are always and I do mean always anti abortion.

    I'm glad abortion is legal and available for women who choose it. If you don't like abortion. Don't have one.

    I've never seen a website pretend to exchange ideas, when in fact, your minds are closed.

    I'm glad you are impotent whether other's choose to gestate and keep, adopt out or abort if they so choose.

    What a waste of time this place is!

    Posted by: Merry at August 29, 2007 6:09 PM


    Merry, I hate abortion. It's murder! Closed minds to what? Yep. My mind will stay closed to murder!

    Posted by: Heather at August 29, 2007 6:19 PM


    Merry, try a pro choice site. Everyone there will agree with you. I guarantee it!

    Posted by: Heather at August 29, 2007 6:23 PM


    I have a question for anyone who would knows if there is any disaggregated data on abortion risks.

    What is the mortality rate of abortion and or childbirth for women with no risk factors?

    When I say risk factors I mean everything from serious heart conditions right down to minor ones like gestational diabetes.

    I ask this because when I would for statistics on any topic from doctors, educators, tax attorneys, no matter, I always got the grand total for the entire population, which, in a way, is irrelevant.

    I am not looking for a stat one way or the other, just what is the mortality rate for completely healthy vs. completely heathy or
    serious risks vs, serious risks etc.

    thanx

    Posted by: hippie at August 29, 2007 8:05 PM


    I don't care if everyone agrees with me. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But the sites you use to back up your "arguments" quite frankly suck. I donate to Planned Parenthood under the screen names of anti choicers every chance I get.

    Welcome to my donation club, Heather!

    As for murder? Name one woman that has ever been charged with murder that has aborted? I'll keep laughing. Even when abortion was illegal, no one was ever charged with murder.

    That's $5.00 from Jill. That's $5.00 from Heather.

    thanks for contributing folks. Planned Parenthood thanks you for your donations!

    Posted by: Merry at August 29, 2007 8:07 PM


    Hippie -

    Excellent question and one I would like to know as well. Unfortunately not all states report that information so it is impossible to tell. Actually 4 states, including California and I think Oregon, don't report anything to the government. All the statistic's from those states are from the health departments - when they get the info from the abortion providers - and there is no way to verify the numbers.


    Merry -

    don't forget to add my name.

    You don't really think that bothers us do you?

    would you like a list of the things throughout history that were once legal and no one went to jail for? Gladiators, slavery, wife beatings, raping a wife, dog fighting, ... etc.

    Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right.

    oh - and by the way - you need to read up on the history of midwifery. Not only did the midwives go to jail for performing abortions but so did the mother.

    Posted by: valerie at August 29, 2007 8:41 PM


    ROFLOL!

    Not because they were protecting the fetus. The medical Drs. wanted midwifes banned so they could make more dollars, dearie.

    Posted by: Merry at August 29, 2007 8:47 PM


    Merry,

    Having a bad day are we?

    Even as FBI and local searchers prepared Wednesday to finish a three-day search of 37-year-old Christy Freeman's home, the four sets of pre-term remains already recovered pose dilemmas.

    Investigators must first determine whether all four bodies were the offspring of Freeman, who has four living children. She has been charged in the death of one of the pre-term infants, a 26-week-old fetus discovered under her bathroom sink last week.

    There's one...do you want more?

    Oh and my real name is Mary Kay...two words. and put me down for $10.00!

    Posted by: mk at August 29, 2007 9:00 PM


    Merry,

    Planned Parenthood thanks you for your donations!

    There going to need it. I just read that they can't open their Aurora clinic until an investigation is done and there is no time limit on the investigation. Plus, they are being sued for fraud!

    I have to say that this website is a sham. You aren't interested in discussing anything other than the fact that you are always and I do mean always anti abortion.,?i>

    Hmmm...let's see...pro-life website...run by pro-lifers...fighting for pro-life...trying to get everyone to become pro-life...

    What were we thinking...you're right. I've changed my mind. I'm pro-choice now. All you had to do was ask...what a crazy notion, sticking to your guns, standing up for your convictions, refusing to back down on something you believe...we must be nuts! Put me down for another $5.00!

    Posted by: mk at August 29, 2007 9:09 PM


    Merry,

    Thats not very merry of you.

    Posted by: jasper at August 29, 2007 10:25 PM


    Merry -

    "ROFLOL!

    Not because they were protecting the fetus. The medical Drs. wanted midwifes banned so they could make more dollars, dearie."

    Then why did the mothers go to jail too? That would be taking their dollars away not being able to get out of jail..... AND midwifes and mothers got in trouble LONG before medical doctors decided to take over the pregnant women. This is why I suggested you read up on it so you could properly educate yourself. The midwife and mother went to jail for the death of the unborn.

    Posted by: valerie at August 29, 2007 10:32 PM


    Valerie, you wrote: "We are talking about 10 times more in fractions, not whole numbers. This changes alot. "

    What??

    Posted by: Anonymous at August 29, 2007 11:09 PM


    Whoops, forgot to enter my screen name.

    Anyway, we may have gotten better at treating cervical tears, we may even have learned to prevent some of them (by not pushing until the cervix is fully dilated, for example), but the fundamental tendency of the cervix to tear during childbirth has not changed.

    Posted by: SoMG at August 29, 2007 11:11 PM


    SOMG -

    "Valerie, you wrote: "We are talking about 10 times more in fractions, not whole numbers. This changes alot. "

    What??"

    What part is confusing you? ;-) In mathmatics .6 is actually six-tenths. And 9.1 is actually 9 and one-tenths. (I know you know this - just the set up) We are comparing those numbers to one hundred thousand NOT one hundred. This means that we are dealing with small numbers that make the difference obsolete. How many maternal deaths from abortions are there? .0006% of all abortions. How many maternal deaths from childbirth? .0091% of all births.

    Mathmatically is this 10 times more? Yes. Does this mean that you are 10 times more likely to die in childbirth vs abortion? Not really. We are dealing with fractions which means that the possibility of dying for either way to end a pregnancy is less than 1%.

    As a society we are not well versed in statitics and how it can be manipulated and twisted. The majority of Americans only know basic math. This means that when you and others say 10 times more likely, the immediate reaction is that for every 10 women that die in childbirth only 1 woman dies from abortion. That is not correct. Why is it not correct? Because we are dealing with one hundred thousand people in the study, not one hundred.

    Now, do less women die in abortion than in childbirth? yes. In the concept of death and not injuries a woman is .0085% more likely to die in childbirth. So in reality, a woman is 0.1 times more likely to die in childbirth than in abortion. In fractions that is 10 times more. In whole numbers that is one-tenths times more.

    Did that help?

    Statistics by any and every organization can be manipulated to represent the outcome that they want. This is not a conspiracy thing, EVERY group, organization, business does this. Just watch commercials.

    Posted by: valerie at August 30, 2007 8:15 AM


    SOMG - I have more to say, but I have to go grocery shopping before it starts to rain here.

    Posted by: valerie at August 30, 2007 8:40 AM


    Valerie and SoMG,

    This post is about to be dropped...I'm moving you to the Shrimp boat thread...I'll take the last 6 posts and put them there...

    Posted by: mk at August 30, 2007 8:51 AM


    Texas Red, would you knock it off already? We DO care about women. You may think that you are actually helping women, but by protecting abortion clinics, you are actually hurting women. Women are dying from legal abortions. Women are being sexually abused by abortionists, and rapes are going unreported! We have the abortion clinics to thank for that.

    Posted by: Heather at August 27, 2007 8:14 PM
    ***************
    No, Heather, you dont. You dont care about anyone but yourself. You couldnt care less about what the woman thinks feels and believes. You harbor the delusions that YOU know what is 'best' for her - how laughable! I wouldnt trust your judgment on what flavor of ice cream to buy, let alone on something significant. Pretending that women are 'hurt' my being able to make their own decisions is simple minded stupidity. MORE women die of gestation and childbirth than abortion. Whimpering about sexual abuse and pretending its typical is an example of just how stupid antichoice arguments are.

    Posted by: TexasRed at August 30, 2007 3:09 PM


    Texas Red, would you knock it off already? We DO care about women. You may think that you are actually helping women, but by protecting abortion clinics, you are actually hurting women. Women are dying from legal abortions. Women are being sexually abused by abortionists, and rapes are going unreported! We have the abortion clinics to thank for that.

    Posted by: Heather at August 27, 2007 8:14 PM
    ***************
    No, Heather, you dont. You dont care about anyone but yourself. You couldnt care less about what the woman thinks feels and believes. You harbor the delusions that YOU know what is 'best' for her - how laughable! I wouldnt trust your judgment on what flavor of ice cream to buy, let alone on something significant. Pretending that women are 'hurt' by being able to make their own decisions is simple minded stupidity. MORE women die of gestation and childbirth than abortion. Whimpering about sexual abuse and pretending its typical is an example of just how stupid antichoice arguments are.

    Posted by: TexasRed at August 30, 2007 3:09 PM


    And I'm sick of all those people pitying teenage mothers.
    *******************************
    And then antichoicers cant understand why their control freak misogyny is so obvious.

    Posted by: TexasRed at August 30, 2007 3:11 PM


    Do you get it now? Your little statistic is worthless.

    *********************************
    MK why dont you throw yourself down on the floor, drum your heels into the carpet and hold your breath until your face turns blue while youre at it? Your little hysterical temper tantrums are hilarious.

    Posted by: TexasRed at August 30, 2007 3:14 PM


    Merry, I hate abortion. It's murder! Closed minds to what? Yep. My mind will stay closed to murder!

    Posted by: Heather at August 29, 2007 6:19 PM
    ********************************
    Since abortion isnt murder this is more proof of how antichoicers are willfully stupid and refuse to deal with reality.

    Posted by: TexasRed at August 30, 2007 3:16 PM