NARAL’s Hall of Fame and Shame winners and losers
RH Reality Check blogger Robin Marty couldn’t decide whether she was amused or aggravated by pro-life interest in NARAL’s Hall of Fame and Shame nominees.
In particular, Personhood USA really wanted to win NARAL’s Hall of Shame award, considering such a distinction a badge of honor.
I wondered if NARAL, obviously bereft of scruples, would deny Personhood USA the plum prize out of spite, even if it polled the winner. I suspect it did.
At any rate, here are NARAL’s winners. Congrats to late-term abortionist Carhart! Perfect choice for NARAL’s Hall of Fame. And – shock! – pro-lifers agree with NARAL that Ben Nelson is a good Hall of Shame choice. Click to enlarge…
Jan.07, 2010 10:09 am |
Industry watch |
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.
Nelson and Stupak, two pro-aborts on the same page. They certainly belong on a wall of shame together for helping keep taxpayer-funded abortion legal.
But, just not as much as NARAL would like, hence NARAL’s dislike of them. Stupak and Nelson aren’t pro-abortion ENOUGH for them.
Shocking Reversal: Researcher at National Cancer Institute Admits Abortions DO Raise Breast Cancer Risks
Karen Malec (January 7, 2010)
“Although the study was published nine months ago, the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women.”
Less than two months since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued new guidelines recommending against routine mammograms for women in their forties, a second breast cancer scandal involving a U.S. government panel of experts has come to light which has implications for healthcare reform.
An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women under age 45 contained an admission from U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Louise Brinton and her colleagues (including Janet Daling) that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%.
Additionally, Dolle’s team showed that women who start OCs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times. TNBC is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality.
“Although the study was published nine months ago,” observed Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, “the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women.”
Brinton was the chief organizer of the 2003 NCI workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link, which falsely assured women that the non-existence of the link was “well established.”
Dolle’s team reported in Table 1 a statistically significant 40% risk increase for women who have had abortions. They listed abortion among “known and suspected risk factors.”
Brinton and Daling had previously studied this population from the Seattle-Puget Sound area in the 1990s and reported risk increases between 20% and 50% among women with abortions. In the 2009 study, they and their co-authors wrote that their findings concerning induced abortion, OC use and certain other risk factors, “were consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women.”
“Obviously, more women will die of breast cancer if the NCI fails in its duty to warn about the risks of OCs and abortion and if government funds are used to pay for both as a part of any healthcare bill,” said Mrs. Malec.
A brief analysis of the study, Dolle et al. 2009, was provided by Dr. Joel Brind, professor of biology and endocrinology and deputy chair for biology at Baruch College, City University of New York.
Last year, studies from Turkey and China also reported statistically significant risk increases for women who had abortions.
Just ignore Jamie. Everyone else in the pro-life movement does.
Kelsey, exactly. The Hyde Amendment is a pro-choice piece of legislation, condoning baby killing of the baby’s father is a criminal. Would you be upset if someone said you could be murdered if your father is a criminal? It rejects the right to life of the unborn child, instead choosing to trade some lives for others, which we have no right to do.
People call these things exceptions. The problem is, those exceptions are real, innocent babies being killed. It’s not an exception. It’s a sweet little child being murdered WITH TAXPAYER MONEY under the authority of the Hyde Amendment.
And that is not pro-life. That isn’t even pro-choice. It is pro-abortion. Hyde explicitly allows taxpayer funds to pay for abortions.
ok. I’m not pro-life enough because I think it can be achieved through incrementalism AND attempts at personhood legislation, and I am not a Christian. And because I have the positions I do, I’m indirectly responsible for babies dying by the minute, and I’m actually pro-abortion.
Well, I say you’re not going far enough, Jamie S.! If you’re so much more gung-ho than everyone else, and if babies are dying by the second, what are you doing right now to stop it? If blood is really on the hands of everyone else in the pro-life movement, what are you doing differently? Are you tying up abortionists and chaining them down in your basement? Slashing their tires? Breaking their hands?
Xalisae, there’s no need to be flippant or condescending.
If you advocate for “exceptions” in abortion, then you are advocating for child-killing some babies. Indeed, that is “not pro-life enough.” It’s no different from saying “I only believe some blacks should be enslaved” or “I believe only some Jews should be gassed.” That is not a pro-life position.
We are all incrementalists. My church, my family, my friends and I rejoice over one single baby that we see saved when we are at the abortion clinic here in Denver. I have been there at those gates before, and I will be again. I have friends who are there literally every day that place is open. I have helped with the personhood initiative here in Colorado, with signature-gathering and various other aspects of volunteering. I certainly agree I don’t do enough, and I am resolving to do a lot more this year than I have done.
Your facetious attitude isn’t edifying. You and I have no moral right to commit violent vigilanteism, and you should not be advocating such a thing. Your suggestion is disturbing, and I certainly hope you do not continue to advocate that!
You’re funny.
But you still haven’t answered my question…what are you doing differently, and if you’re resolving to “do more”, what exactly are you talking about?
Xalisae, do you think this is a funny matter? What many people call “exceptions” are actually little babies being dismembered or burned to death with chemicals. This is not a funny matter.
Why do you think this is about me? I wish I hadn’t even posted that above, because I am not the issue here. The issue is God’s enduring standard of right and wrong. And it is never right to make so-called “exceptions.”
Do you think God cares so little about the exceptions? The ONLY thing He cares about is the exceptions. Did God care about all the fruit Eve did not eat? Did He care about all the women King David did not sleep with? Or all the babies that Herod did not kill?
Of course not. Exceptions are the only thing that matter. And when YOU find yourself as an exception someday, at least then maybe you will come around and realize how true that is. Nelson, Stupak, Hyde, all make “exceptions” and therefore deny the God-given right to life of the unborn. That right is an “inalienable” right. No one has the right to reject or ignore that right. The child of a rapist has a right to life.
Your incrementalism is no such thing; it is surrender. It is a step backward, not a step forward. And laws like that only entrench the perceived validity of abortion.
Do you not realize that abortion was decriminalized based specifically on rape, incest and supposed “life of the mother?” That is not the standard of right and wrong. That was the standard of how to make abortion LEGAL. That was the foundation for introducing legal abortion, leading to abortion on demand. So, proposing and supporting initiatives and legislation that has exceptions for rape, incest and supposed “life of the mother” is not a step forward. It is a step 43 years backward, to when abortion was legalized in 1967. That is a move toward abortion on demand. Not away from it. Reverse incrementalism.
I’ll preface this by saying I make jokes. About everything. All of the time. Because that’s how I cope with things in my life. If I’m not laughing, I’m crying, and that doesn’t mean I don’t take things of grave importance seriously. It just means that if I couldn’t laugh at the absurdity and horror of the world, I’d be as much of a tight-ass as you, and right now you’re sounding a lot like some guys with explosive underwear I’ve been hearing about in the news lately, just that their say “jihad” and yours have “pro-life” written on the waistband.
ok…first of all, in my mind, “God” doesn’t care about anyone or anything, because he doesn’t exist.
Secondly, you make no sense, because this fight needs people like you. Going after the heart of the issue while others pick their battles and do what they can in the meantime is a good thing because, as you said yourself, there is a person to be saved in every case of abortion that is prevented. However, you’re too busy chasing your tail (attempting to call out other pro-lifers) it’s a wonder you can accomplish anything at all. You’re shooting yourself in the foot, but who cares, at least you’ll be first in line for heaven. Right.
Third, umm…no? Abortion was finally accepted and eventually put forth as a legal avenue through deceit and manipulation of public opinion via those lies in the media. Lawyers lied during a trial to exclude consideration of the unborn human being at the center of the abortion decision, and that decision was accepted by the nation because of the lies about all the women dying in “back-alley abortions” that the media was dishing out. But how many abortion-centric trials has the SCOTUS heard? Roe wasn’t the last, was it…INCRIMENTALISM WORKED FOR THEM, DUH.
And that “supposed ‘life of the mother'” is something that, as a woman, I’m rather concerned about, sir. A large number of people I’ve talked to only oppose us at first because they’ve been told that we would rather have women die than allow a pregnancy that was threatening a woman’s life to be ended, even at the cost of her child’s, as sad as something like that is. If it weren’t for people like you, we’d have a lot more within our ranks, for certain. But I guess to you, they wouldn’t REALLY be pro-lifers. So what if we could’ve stopped the bloodshed 10 years ago if only people like you hadn’t presented such a masculine hard-line image allowing the myth that “Pro-lifers don’t care about women!” to be spun ad nauseum, at least you look like a hardcore badass!
Whatever. This whole thing IS about you, because you make it about you, and you/your affiliates being more pro-life than anyone else around you. But here’s your wake-up call: most of the people you’re going to NEED in order to get what you want done look and sound more like ME than YOU.
Jamie,
There’s a difference between advocating for exceptions and accepting the reality of incremental gains. If the Hyde amendment could pass without any exceptions, but some person calling themselves “pro-life” worked to get those exceptions in, I would agree with you that they aren’t authentcally pro-life. But that’s not the reality. The reality is that those exceptions are the hard cases – the ones that are most difficult for people and that require the most change of heart. It’s better to take incremental steps to save any babies we can in the areas where the majority of people agree and then work like crazy to get those other babies legal protection too. The reality of all or nothing thinking is that while you’re holding out for all, you get nothing. No lives saved…nothing. Incrementalists work for all but we’ll take some in the meantime b/c the “some” here are innocent human lives.