NOW:53130:USA00949
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA00949
52°
H 52° L 39°
Cloudy | 18MPH

This Just In ...

Kevin Fischer is a veteran broadcaster, the recipient of over 150 major journalism awards from the Milwaukee Press Club, the Wisconsin Associated Press, the Northwest Broadcast News Association, the Wisconsin Bar Association, and others. He has been seen and heard on Milwaukee TV and radio stations for over three decades. A longtime aide to state Senate Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature, Kevin can be seen offering his views on the news on the public affairs program, "InterCHANGE," on Milwaukee Public Television Channel 10, and heard filling in on Newstalk 1130 WISN. He lives with his wife, Jennifer, and their lovely young daughter, Kyla Audrey, in Franklin.

The latest pro-life news (12/09/13)

Pro-Life news


From Pro-Life Wisconsin and Wisconsin Right To Life:


December  6, 2013

The Devastating Impact of Abortion on Minorities

The abortion of a child of any ethnicity or color is a tragedy that impacts a whole nation. But one thing the latest numbers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) tell us is that abortion continues to exact a particularly devastating toll on minority communities.

The CDC annual “Abortion Surveillance” for 2010 found a 3.1% drop in abortions from 2009, on top of a 4.6% drop from the previous year. Because the substantial decline in abortion across the board in the last twenty years (upwards of 400,000 fewer a year by the Guttmacher Institute’s more exact count), clearly raw numbers of abortions have gone down for virtually all demographic groups, minorities included. This is obviously good news and an indication that the drop that began in 1990 continues to the present day.

However, what these latest numbers confirm is that declines seem to have been greater among whites than among minorities. Put another way, demographic data from the latest CDC report clearly show that abortion continues to have a hugely disparate impact on minorities.

There is an important caveat: There are significant limitations in the CDC’s numbers. Several states, including the most populous, California, do not report their numbers to the agency. And even among those that do, the data is not necessarily gathered and sorted in the same way.

Not every state asks about race or ethnicity, so precision is difficult. But in the 28 reporting areas [1] that identified both race and ethnicity, 35.7% of abortions were performed on what the CDC refers to as “black” women, 21% were performed on Hispanics, and 6.5% were done on non-Hispanic women identified as being of “other” race or ethnicity (Table 12 in the CDC’s Abortion Surveillance for 2010).

This means that 63.2% of abortions in those reporting areas were done on minorities, or nearly two thirds.

Tallying up figures from the 2010 Census, minorities constitute 44.1% of the population: Hispanics (16%), Black (13%), Asian (5%), Native American (0.9%), Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (0.2%), “Other” (6%), or some mixed race category (3%) [2]

If 44.1% of the population is responsible for 63.2% of the abortions, unborn children in those communities are clearly under assault. It is obvious that abortion mills located in or near minority communities are doing high volumes of business.

It is possible, of course, that statistics from “missing states” could tilt the balance back towards the middle, but unlikely. While states not reporting both race and ethnicity to the CDC include predominantly white northeastern states like Vermont and New Hampshire, and Midwestern states such as Nebraska or North Dakota, other large states with significant minority populations such California, Florida, and Illinois were also not included.

If anything is likely, it is that the percentage of abortions to minorities is higher.

The drop in abortions across the board for all racial and ethnic groups shows that pro-life legislation, education, and outreach have had an impact, but these statistics are an indication that there is more work to be done in these particular minority communities.

Planned Parenthood and its allies in the abortion industry market themselves to these communities, doing Latino outreach, bringing in hip-hop celebrity spokespersons, offering themselves as allies to the poor, yet, not surprisingly, the presence of an abortion clinic has never done anything to “aid” these hurting communities.

In 2004, women, many of them minorities, told researchers from Guttmacher that abortion was not something they wanted, but was sometimes what they thought was their only option. For their sake, for the sake of their children, we need to make sure that minority women know of and have access to life-affirming and life-preserving alternatives.

Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight…

[1] The CDC uses reports from both state health departments and those from health departments in Washington, DC and New York City.

Dr. Randy O’Bannon, National Right to Life Committee


December 4, 2013

Millennials Desert Obama and Obamacare

“Similar to the way the unprecedented engagement of young Americans was instrumental to Barack Obama’s electoral successes in 2008 and 2012, enrollment by Millenials is also instrumental to the successful implementation of the Affordable Care Act….As we head into a vital period for recruiting young people into the Healthcare.gov Marketplace, serious concerns abound..”

So concludes a major nationwide survey of 2,089 18-29-year-olds conducted by the Harvard University Institute of Politics from October 30 to November 11, 2013.

Here are some major findings:

  • 56% disapprove of the Affordable Care Act (ACT) with only 39% in favor.
  • Less than 1/3 of the uninsured under the age of 30 plan to enroll for health insurance through the exchanges.
  • By a 5-1 margin, millenials believe that health care costs will increase; by a 2-1 majority, they believe that the quality of care will decrease.
  • President Obama’s approval rating among this population has plummeted from 55% in February of 2011 to only 41% in the Harvard survey.

Those surveyed were 49% male and 51% female. The survey has a + or - error margin of 2.1%

Read the full survey here.

Barbara Lyons



December  3, 2013

Chinese Abortion-Breast Cancer Bombshell: Meta-Analysis Shows Abortion Increases Breast Cancer Risk by 44%

A new systematic review and meta-analysis of abortion and breast cancer (ABC link) in China, published last week in the prestigious, peer-reviewed international cancer journal, “Cancer Causes and Control,” showed that the overall risk of developing breast cancer among women who had at least one induced abortion was significantly increased by 44%. In this meta-analysis (a study of studies in which results from many studies are pooled), Dr. Yubei Huang et al. combined all 36 studies that have been published through 2012 on the ABC link in China.

These results, said the authors, “were consistent with a previously published systematic review.” This is a reference to the 1996 review and meta-analysis that I compiled with colleagues from Penn State Medical Center, and published in the British Medical Association’s epidemiology journal. Our study reported an overall significant 30% increased risk of breast cancer in worldwide studies.

Noteworthy is that the Huang study follows right on the heels of two new studies this year from India and Bangla Desh, studies which reported breast cancer risk increases of unprecedented magnitude: over 600% and over 2,000%, respectively, among women who had any induced abortions.

The new Chinese meta-analysis is a real game changer. Not only does it validate the earlier findings from 1996, its findings are even stronger, for several reasons:

1. The link is a slightly stronger one, i.e., 44% v. 30% risk increase with abortion;

2. It shows what is called a “dose effect”, i.e., two abortions increase the risk more than one abortion (76% risk increase with two or more abortions), and three abortions increase the risk even more (89% risk increase with three or more abortions). Risk factors that show such a dose effect have more credibility. Although previous studies of the ABC link were a bit more heterogeneous and the dose effect less clear, it has been shown that the risk increase is greater the longer the pregnancy continues before abortion. Hence, an 18-week abortion increases the risk more than a 12-week abortion, and a 12-week abortion increases the risk more than an 8-week abortion.

3. In their new meta-analysis Huang et al. put to rest the main argument used to discredit the ABC link, variously called the “response bias” or “recall bias” or “reporting bias” argument. The argument goes like this. Due to social stigma that is attached to having an induced abortion, healthy women are more likely to deny prior abortions in their medical history study questionnaire than are women who’ve developed breast cancer. Hence, the argument goes, it would erroneously appear that abortion is more frequent among women who’ve had an abortion.

Huang et al. dispatch of this canard. They explain, “The lack of a social stigma associated with induced abortion in China may limit the amount of underreporting and present a more accurate picture of this (abortion-breast cancer) association.” (This invokes an argument—the absence of social stigma– used by authors in an earlier Chinese study that did not find an ABC link.)

4. Huang et al. then proceed to explain why two earlier high-profile studies in Shanghai (including the one noted above) did not find the link. They do so essentially by citing and pursuing the argument I articulated in the “British Journal of Cancer” in 2004, and more importantly, proving the point by performing a “meta-regression” of all the Chinese data.

In my 2004 published letter, I explained that the Shanghai population was unsuitable for studying the ABC link in the usual manner, because the prevalence of induced abortion was too high in the general population.

In essence, the value of epidemiology is to identify exposures—like abortion—which may increase the risk of a given disease—like breast cancer—by comparing those exposed to the typical, unexposed population.

But when the prevalence of the exposure becomes the rule rather than the exception—as in the Shanghai studies, where the majority of women had had at least one abortion—the unexposed women are not typical.

Instead they are women who have had no or fewer children and/or started having children at a later age, all of which put them at higher breast cancer risk.

Hence, comparing women who’ve had an abortion to women who are at elevated risk for other reasons makes the risk due to abortion tend to disappear. Huang et al.’s meta-regression analysis showed a clear tendency for the risk due to abortion to decline as the prevalence of abortion among the healthy population increases, among all the studies in China.

As noted above the Huang study follows two new studies from India and Bangla Desh which reported breast cancer risk increases of over 600% and over 2,000%, respectively, among women who had any induced abortions.

As I have shown in previous stories for NRL News and NRL News Today, objective research like this has been relentlessly targeted by the “mainstream” abortion advocates entrenched in universities, medical societies, medical journals, breast cancer charities, and especially, government agencies such as the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

This assault culminated in a 2003 international phony “workshop” by the NCI, which officially declared the ABC link non-existent. Since 2003, armed with this new official “truth,” NARAL and their ilk have unapologetically and publicly attacked pro-life pregnancy resource centers for “lying” to women by telling them about the ABC link. In places like Maryland and San Francisco and Austin and New York City, they even went so far as to enact laws to muzzle these women helping centers. Thankfully, most courts have struck down such laws as violations of free speech rights–so far.

It is really frightening when you start doing the math on the impact of abortion on a population of over a billion women—in India and China alone: Just a 2% lifetime risk of breast cancer due to abortion—a very conservative estimate—means upwards of 10 million women getting breast cancer, and millions dying from it. Hopefully, the day is near when the official purveyors of public health information—like the NCI—will no longer be able to deny the ABC link. The new Chinese meta-analysis should hasten that day considerably.

Dr. Joel Brind

Editor’s note. Joel Brind, Ph.D. is a Professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York; Co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Somerville, NJ; and a frequent contributor to NRL News Today.



ALSO:







Let's explain.


Two-thirds of abortion in US done on minority babies.



AND FINALLY...


Meet an incredible mother.



HT: Jill Stanek


More about Sarah Kovac

This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Page Tools