Pro-life blog buzz 9-23-14
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
- A Culture of Life says another study from India – that makes 12 now, from that nation alone – shows a “very strong link between abortion between abortion and breast cancer:
The average “odds ratio” of developing breast cancer in each of the studies was at least 1. But the average “odds ratio” for all 12 studies came out at 5.54. [Steven] Mosher [of the Population Research Institute] explains that this means a woman has “a 554% increased risk of developing breast cancer” if she has had an induced abortion….Mosher points out that India is a great place to do this sort of study as the women “marry early, do not use the pill, have multiple pregnancies, and breastfeed their babies. In other words, all of the other major risk factors for breast cancer are… absent.”
- Expose Abortion has this chilling quote from the testimony of Steven Massof at the Kermit Gosnell trial in 2013:
Q. And of the babies where you saw expelled from the mother with the chest movement indicating heartbeat, what would be done to them?
A. We’d sever the spine, snip the neck. - At Bound4Life, Christina shares the events through which God led her into the pro-life movement. Not only that, but the words of one person in the right place at the right time saved her life:
During my last years of college I’d become increasingly pro-life. After over 20 years of silence, my mother confessed to attempting to abort me. She paid for the procedure, but walked out of the hospital when a janitor told her God would give her the strength to carry me.
- Also at Bound4Life, Josh Shepherd writes about the shift in our culture toward life, which is reflected in not only public polling, but in the Supreme Court:
Gallup polling clearly indicates how the abortion issue has shifted in recent years. Americans increasingly identify as pro-life — with a large majority of 71% favoring at least some restrictions on abortion.
Furthermore, leaders elected at the state level in recent years are following through on their promises to uphold and strengthen a culture of life. As Vox notes, “States enacted 205 abortion restrictions between 2010 and 2013, more than the total number passed in the prior decade.”
These indicators of cultural shift partly explain what few have considered — the last five times the Supreme Court considered abortion policy, it ruled in favor of life.
- At Life Training Institute, Clinton Wilcox responds to Brandon Christen, a pro-choice atheist who “argues from logic and philosophy instead of the usual fare you get from sites like Salon or RH Reality Check“:
Christen begins his article by talking about the seeming stark divide among religious lines regarding the abortion issue — that the religious are pro-life and atheists are pro-choice. But if you look deeper into this, you’ll realize this isn’t really the case. While it may be true that the religious are more likely to be pro-life and atheists are more likely to be pro-choice, there are certainly pro-choice religious people and pro-life atheists. In fact, as Bernard Nathanson talked about in his book Aborting America, abortion was initially disguised as a religious issue by the pro-choice lobby to help get abortion legalized in the United States. Abortion, itself, is inherently not a religious/non-religious issue, just like the slavery issue wasn’t.
- Live Action News takes on Cosmopolitan for their decision to launch #CosmoVotes in an effort to endorse pro-abortion political candidates. Pro-life candidates need not apply:
Among X-rated sex tips, Fifty Shades BDSM pieces, fluff articles and celebrity gossip, the publication is now endorsing political candidates based on their support for abortion…. According to Cosmopolitan, midterm candidates are carefully selected based on what is “best for women.”
Among endorsements for skin creams and hair styles are promotional pieces favoring candidates such as Colorado Democrat Mark Udall, Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina, and Florida hopeful Gwen Graham. Cosmopolitan looks no further than a candidate’s support for abortion to make a political endorsement….
While Cosmopolitan… claim[s] to represent women, the groups truly do women a disservice. The propaganda promoted by these media giants reduce women down to mere individuals whose only wishes are abortion and birth control on demand. Women are coerced into believing that abortion is a requirement for success, and that dangerous hormonal contraceptives — labeled as a Group One carcinogen by the World Health Organization — are necessary in order for women to achieve their career and life goals.
Women deserve better.
[Massof photo via Operation Rescue; Cosmo cover via thenationalcampaign.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.
What? No endorsement of Abortion Barbie? She is trying to change her image, but I don’t know if it will work.
I mentioned my sister is a New Jersey transplant to Texas, very pro-abort and liberal, and she LOVES her. I hope the TRUE Texans come out in droves and send Babs and her pink sneakers back home!
“Cosmo” must be the silliest magazine ever, and its sad that so many young women read it. Even when I was in the magazine’s intended demographic I thought it was stupid.
Oh, no, not ANOTHER study supporting a link between abortion and breast cancer!?!
These researchers in India must be in cahoots with all the other researchers who have found links around the world.
It’s a conspiracy, I tell ya.
And ah. Cosmo. The bastion of feminism, with half-dressed women on the cover, advertising 50 new ways to please your man sexually. I guess that’s the new feminism for you: pretend to be empowered by sexually exploiting ourselves so that men will see we’re not going to fall for their dirty tricks anym— HEY, WAIT A MINUTE….
Have any of these studies sorted women by testing for the presence of the breast cancer gene or even taking family histories? Can somebody direct me to the actual published studies so I can read the methodology for myself?
I “attempted” to watch the documentary on Netflix called “No Woman, No Cry”. I say “attempted” because I thought I was watching a documentary about the difficulties women have obtaining maternal/obstetric care in poor countries (and low-income women in THIS country)…
BIG mistake! I stopped watching half way through when it suddenly turned into “Planned Parenthood” Propaganda !
Narrated by (“Supermodel”) Christy Turlington –
She actually said something along the lines of “The MAIN problem women in these countries have is -they have no access to SAFE, LEGAL ABORTION”.
Really ??? Not that they have no access to good doctors, hospitals, vitamins or nutrition – or a safe, clean environment in which to give birth- but that they have no access to… abortion ???
The ignorance gets tiring….*SIGH!*
Pam we don’t need to eat, have clean water or medical care, dontcha know? The right to abort is the most important thing in the world!
Of all those nineties supermodels Christy Turlington has become sort of a saint and Naomi Campbell just the opposite. But I havent heard Naomi shill for abortion like Turlington, Cindy Crawford, and the rest of them do. Maybe throwing cell phones at people isn’t the worst thing you can do.
Must just be a coincidence Obama rolled out his violence against women campaign right after The New Miss America announced her advocacy as “Miss” America will be the same. What are the odds?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/obama_sexual_violence_campaign_doesnt_apply_to_him.html
Now come on Pamela,
Who would better understand the problems and issues faced by impoverished women in various cultures than wealthy Christy Turlington?
It never ceases to amaze me what insight, sensitivity, and understanding pampered, wealthy women have for the plight of impoverished, struggling women the world over, and I’m just appalled you don’t see this as well. :)
Mary: It never ceases to amaze me what insight, sensitivity, and understanding pampered, wealthy women have for the plight of impoverished, struggling women the world over
Nicely said, Mary. Sort-of-related: reminds me of Sheryl Crow saying people should be only using one square piece of toilet paper, “except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required.”
Thank you Doug,
As for those “pesky occasions”, there are corn cobs.
Another thing Doug,
Don’t shake hands with Sheryl.
Sheryl Crow…she was going to go to UCLA once, but she couldn’t find a place to park.
If Cosmo proclaimed that peroxide causes breast cancer there’d be more brunettes…but just as many abortions.
Tenn2 says: September 23, 2014 at 6:09 pm
“Have any of these studies sorted women by testing for the presence of the breast cancer gene or even taking family histories? Can somebody direct me to the actual published studies so I can read the methodology for myself?”
I will eventually track them down just to have them, along with the many other recent-decade studies that have the same finding.
However, I am in no rush on this one – these are case-control studies, and case-control studies of any condition that has multiple causes, as breast cancer does, always have variable findings – it is all in the matching controls with cases; by the nature of the study, it is impossible to assign controls, across the study group, who are so similar you would expect similar health and illness across life. Siblings don’t have similar illness/health across life.
On these case/control studies, the obtained results bounce around because the population to be matched is always different and matching is done a different way by each study.
It is better to look at studies depending upon a complete cohort of women across time.
In those, there is a more consistent positive finding. Women with breast cancer are about 50% more likely than those without breast cancer to have an abortion in their history, if that woman did not have a subsequent full-term delivery in the following several years.