feminine-genius

Screening love

In light of a couple's deliberate conception of a child who would be free of a particular gene leading to breast cancer, blogger Denise Hunnell makes an excellent point about eradicating illness

A few months ago I attended the funeral of an amazing woman who died of breast cancer. She was in her thirties when the disease was diagnosed. She valiantly fought this disease for six years...She was a loving wife and a faithful friend. Her funeral Mass was so packed with people it looked like Easter Sunday. Do these people in Great Britain really think it would be better if this woman had never been born?

This reminds us of how we define ourselves, whether it is "disabled," "gay" or "breast cancer survivor." Those details may [severely] impact our lives, but they shouldn't define us -- not in the way that "image and likeness of God" should define us. We cannot let the challenges to our holiness win by coopting our need to live virtue, regardless.

It also highlights the euphemisms accepted by the world, such as the one used by "March of Dimes." When they say they are "eliminating birth defects," we must respond firmly by saying that they are not. They are simply eliminating the children who have birth defects. Big difference. Likewise, this British mother talks of "screening" embryos for hereditary breast cancer.

The woman decided to have her embryos screened because her husband had tested positive for the gene and his sister, mother, grandmother and cousin have all had the cancer. The couple produced 11 embryos, of which five were found to be free from the gene. Two of these were implanted in the woman’s womb and she is now 14 weeks pregnant.

Thus in order to "save the life of her child" she created ten others who subsequently died. Rather than saying "it is better that one man die for the sake of the people," we now kill ten so that one has a chance at living. Bizarre word games; monstrous proportions. Sayeth the mother:

“It has been successful for us which means we are eliminating the gene from our line."

No, my dear. You have simply eliminated your children. You have "saved" them from knowing you and your brand of love, and you have saved yourself from looking them in the eye before death. I wish you and this surviving "miracle" every happiness, but what a price.

"Link" depends on methodology

A shining new study has been released to calm the fears of women, "proving" that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Some beg to differ:

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is providing a commentary discussing the study's serious flaws which caused an underestimation of the risk including:

1) Nearly one in five women with breast cancer in the study were counted as not having breast cancer;

2) Researchers pretended to have evidence of the lack of a loss of the protective effect of a full term pregnancy among aborted women, but, by using the wrong comparison group (i.e., comparing childless women with abortion to those who had never been pregnant), they did not show any evidence of such an effect;

3) They included an outright lie about the study, Howe et al. 1989; and

4) They omitted raw data showing how many controls had induced abortions, but not cancer.

Most of the great unwashed (the scientific illiterates, like me) would not know how to parse the numbers that lead to the conclusion. There are pro-lifers in the medical community to do the heavy lifting, and they have released a statement:

"DeLellis Henderson and her colleagues need to either learn how to do a proper study or get a conscience and stop playing politics with women's lives," asserted Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.  "Protecting Big Abortion from a tsunami of medical malpractice lawsuits isn't a priority."

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

Now, who really cares about women? And who really cares about profits? Follow the money.

Shouting into a maelstrom

A lovely young woman called on the phone, soliciting donations to a breast cancer awareness group. I kindly shut her down, delineating the link between birth control pills, abortion, and the proliferation of breast cancer. I said if funds are thrown into finding cures without considering those elements, then it's a waste of money. Surely, many contract breast cancer who have never procured an abortion nor imbibed hormone-based contraceptives, but it's folly to beat around the bush. Research would be so much more effective if those items were taken out of the equation first, and then other contributors could be identified.

Off to EWTN to tape a few shows on Mulieris Dignitatem.

Waaay too much information

Cherie Blair is thrashing a book, which is often done. And yet, in her case, decency and family privacy has been trampled for the sake of talk show flash points and lurid cameo's from a prime minister's holiday. I'll spare you the details about what was and what was not in the suitcase that weekend, but the take-away is another jab at what constitutes Church teaching:

"People seem to be quite shocked that perhaps a Catholic girl even uses contraception but it is really an important thing for women because one of the things about the book is about how women's lives have changed," Mrs Blair told Ms Kelly. "One of the reasons women's lives have changed is that they have been able to control their fertility, it is an important issue."

Mrs Blair's remarks came after she spoke of the 10 "fantastic" years she had enjoyed in Downing Street, a time when she had met the Queen and two Popes. She said meeting two Popes was a "huge thing" for a "good Catholic girl".

Mrs Blair's remarks on contraception come after Pope Benedict XVI earlier this month strongly defended the 1968 Papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, the controversial Papal document against artificial birth control.

Controversial? Not to this enlightened woman. It's a no-brainer. The comments below the story indicate that Britain's history with this couple is somewhat strained, and it's heartening to see several posters come to the defense of Church teaching.

"Behold,children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them;They will not be ashamed When they speak with their enemies in the gate" (Psalm 127: 3-5).

All in all, what adults don't seem to understand -- in their rush to defend "Me, me, me!" is the flip-side of the argument and how children receive news of their own unasked-for arrival. Children subtly learn that they must be timely, convenient and affordable, and to bear stoutly when glancing references infer that some "accidents" were nearly aborted. Tread lightly, dear little ones -- and kindly treat your aging, vulnerable parents better than they treated you.

The Spirit of Truth

Please remember that no one is beyond conversion, and the hardest hearts can be softened with grace. Carol Everett not only had an abortion, but was the owner of an abortion clinic for six years, before her tremendous change of heart. She now does all she can to provide good counseling for those with unexpected pregnancies. She reminds pro-lifers of the singular motivation of the abortion industry:

Everett has testified in the past that while she was working in the abortion industry she was on track to make over a million dollars a year. "You can imagine what my motivation was," she said. "I sold abortions."

In order to sell as many abortions as possible the telephone "counselors" at Everett's clinics were trained to lead distraught women callers to think that there is only one solution to their unwanted pregnancy, and then to assure women that their child is only a "blob of tissue" and that the procedure itself will be basically painless.

"I cannot tell you one thing that happens in an abortion clinic that is not a lie."

That motivator led her to sell over 500 abortions a month @ $25/each. Do the math, and then think about 1. choice; 2. women's rights; 3. who really cares. Her words are easily corroborated by Dr. Bernard Nathanson.

Industry giants, such as Planned Parenthood, are well-served by promoting promiscuity and selling birth control (imperfect at best) which simply lead to more unplanned pregnancies. It's a business flush with a ready supply of repeat customers.

These lies, like cockroaches, cannot stand the light of truth. Women deserve better -- but don't forget to pray for those in the abortion industry. No one is beyond God's saving mercy.

Choice, Take III

[posts I and II on choice]

Just a reminder that child-loving Chinese are particular about just which children they love:

A survivor of China's forced-abortion policy is warning Americans they share the responsibility for that nation's holocaust of government-mandated death through their consumerism.

She spoke to WND today in light of the 2008 Olympics which are scheduled in Beijing and to counter statements being released by the Chinese government that the human rights situation, long deplored as one of the worst on record, is improving.

There have been no significant changes in China's human rights, she said, since that day in 1993 when her neighbor reported to police that she appeared to be pregnant without authorization, and police officers broke down the door of her family's home to take her in shackles to a hospital where she was given a "pill" and locked up.

After all, she was 18, in a "marriage" arranged by her grandmother, and pregnant even though the law said that couldn't happen until she was 23, she told WND.

Before a physician could come to make sure the baby was dead, she said, her father bribed a nurse to look the other way and she jumped from a second-story window, then fled with some family members to escape China on a fishing boat with dozens of other women in similar condition. There were men, too, since those whose wives were found guilty in such cases often lost their jobs and homes as penalty.

Legitimate questions might arise over the history of Tibet, borders, autonomy and dominion. There can be no disputes about the forced-abortions in China and the draconian punishments for families who try to skirt them. Tibet, Sudan, and abortion: three reasons why "good wishes from China" [Olympic theme] ought to be thrown back with a request for "human rights for Chinese" instead.

[H]ow are U.S. residents a part? Because, she told WND, the exploding consumer goods market for Chinese-made products puts pressure on Chinese manufacturers to increase production; they put pressure on workers to put in long hours at the plants, and there's no room in the equation for child-bearing. The result? Forced abortions.

"[Our] prayers [are] that with the world focused on China prior to the Olympics, these horrific human rights abuses will be exposed and American free traders put to shame for how they have turned a blind eye to the human suffering for the almighty dollar," said Leslie Hanks, vice president of Colorado Right to Life.

According to information from China Aid Association, during one day in 2007 officials at the Youjiang District People's Hospital of Baise City performed forced abortions on 41 women, with another 20 victimized the next day. China Aid, which has its U.S. offices in Midland, Texas, said eyewitnesses confirmed the actions by government "family planning" authorities.

"Within 30 minutes, about 10 of them were injected forcefully for an abortion. This means within [the] last 24 hours, at least 61 babies were killed by forced abortions," the sources within China told CAA. "At bed Number 37, Ms. He Caigan was nine months pregnant. Officials injected her baby's head and 20 minutes later, her baby stopped moving and died," the sources confirmed.

Many of those targeted in the killing rampage were Christians, CAA said. "About 6 a.m. on [Wednesday], Pastor James Liang's wife Ms. Wei Linrong gave birth to a boy, but he was dead because of the injection. She received three injections – one is to induce the birth and the other two to kill the baby in the womb," CAA's sources reported.

[W]hat has come to be known as "gendercide" in China – due to a cultural preference for boys – has resulted in the deaths of at least 50 million girls.

Kim Gandy, call your office. This is discrimination your group could really fight.

Not so glorious choice

Sometimes growing up means making tough decisions in life:

Erin McKenna, a junior at the University of Pittsburgh, admits that she sometimes has to choose between purchasing textbooks for school and paying for her birth-control prescription.

"I have two jobs and I still can't afford it," McKenna said.

It is the type of decision that more and more college women are facing since a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ended the practice of drug companies providing birth-control medicines to colleges at a steep discount.

So when the going gets tough, the tough march to their legislators for help:

McKenna and a group of other college students, along with actress Amber Tamblyn, went to Washington, D.C., this week to lobby Congress for passage of a bill that would restore the discounts.

Boggles the mind. Sayeth the child: I want to do something that is psychologically, physiologically, socially, and morally damaging, but it costs too much. Will you help me pay for it? Could the taxpayers pass the hat so that I can get randy any time I want? The guys down the hall said they really, really like me! I'd hate to sacrifice my bio textbook, but ...

[Btw, what's with those "steep discounts" anyway? Do they come with up-front information about the harms attached to the Pill? I assume it's the drug companies' investment to establish that life-long relationship that is so cozy in a woman's life.]

Ah, glorious choice

Operation Rescue does the heavy lifting, Lifesite reports:

Women have told Operation Rescue they had horrific experiences with late abortions at Tiller's Women's Health Care Services in response to an Internet appeal for their stories. Those experiences include:

- An abortion on a 14-year old girl who did not understand what was happening to her. Her traumatic abortion resulted in drug abuse and suicidal thoughts.

- An unwanted abortion on a 17-year old whose abusive parents forced her to abort. The girl was drugged into submission and her pleas for help ignored by clinic staff.

- A forced abortion on a 19-year old whose last word before succumbing to the anesthesia was, "Nooooo!"

- A step-mom who coerced a young girl into an unwanted abortion contrary to the wishes of her rightful parent, resulting in a disturbing personality change in her daughter.

The irony is that the "choice" is always in the hands of the one with the leverage. The mother over the infant, the step-mother over the teenager, the boyfriend over the pregnant girlfriend. The ones who suffer the most have the least say over their lives.

More misinformation

Dr Angela Lanfranchi, a cancer expert, has charged the National Institutes of Health of providing inaccurate information, and points out that federal agencies and academia conspire to keep this information from the public.

Lanfranchi, a clinical assistant professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center, provided shocking examples to show how federal officials have suppressed information concerning the breast cancer risks related to abortion. "Informed patient consent for medical treatment is required by both law and medical ethics. Yet, both federal agencies and academicians are participating in the suppression of information about the heightened risk of breast cancer posed by oral contraceptives and induced abortion," she explained.

She said both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have "violated their mission statements" by refusing to acknowledge the abortion-breast cancer link. Lanfranchi says the NCI "changes its website information frequently -- it was revised more than 20 times in the first 7 months of 2007." That hardly gives patients confidence in the information the government agency produces.

She pointed to "blatantly incorrect information" on the National Cancer Institute web site saying that estrogen levels decrease during pregnancy. The surgeon says the opposite is true, which explains why early first full term pregnancy reduces breast cancer risk and premature birth before 32 weeks and abortion raises risk. "In fact, pregnancy levels of estrogen increase by 2,000% by the end of the first trimester," the doctor explained. "These same biological facts of breast maturation also account for the increased risk of breast cancer due to induced abortion."

The omissions and misleading information could be willfull ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation, but the evidence they ignore is consistent and logical, given the nature of a woman's body and pregnancy.

More information here. Women deserve better.

Regrets

This woman had an abortion 40 years ago, and has regretted it ever since. Holding her niece's newborn child, she was overcome with memories of her own "inconvenient" child so long ago:

How could I admit that all I could think about was the baby I'd killed and what might have been?

We're always told time is a great healer, but for me - at least when it comes to the termination I had - it has proved to be the opposite. I had an abortion believing it was the right thing to do, and I presumed I would move on from the procedure without so much as a backward glance.

But I was wrong in thinking abortion was the easy way out of what, at the time, felt like an intolerable situation. With hindsight and maturity, I now know that I could have coped, and with each year that has passed I've only felt a growing sense of guilt and regret over my actions.

It makes my blood run cold when I hear of the many young women today who see abortion as little more than a form of contraception. No doubt many of them go into it, just as I did, thinking little beyond their desire to get rid of the baby that, for whatever reason, they don't feel they are ready for. I wonder how many stop to think that perhaps they, too, in 40 years' time will still be feeling the ramifications of their actions.

She recounts the surrounding atmosphere of reproach back then -- reproach for her failed marriage, reproach for her single motherhood, reproach for all mistakes. Wrong and bad, and yet it's the kind of shunning that did deeply affect a community. People chose from the acceptable options (as they do today) for the wrong reasons.

I think that atmosphere of outside pressure still seems to have affected her, because although she clearly mourns the child she killed, she still wants abortion within a time frame and for girls to feel more shame if they must choose it. Imperfect contrition to say the least, and perhaps a very poorly formed conscience.

Going forward, we have to take into account all these things so that we don't simply railroad folks into decisions. We insist that "choosing abortion" isn't a choice, because so many girls feel they have no other options, making "choice" a lie. And yet we are told in Scripture, "choose life." An informed decision for the good is superior to all. So much to work towards.