Tag Archives: Study

Murder rate drops as concealed carry permits rise, study claims

A dramatic spike in the number of Americans with permits to carry concealed weapons coincides with an equally stark drop in violent crime, according to a new study, which Second Amendment advocates say makes the case that more guns can mean safer streets…
NRA-ILA News

Lawmakers want $60 million to study guns

Democrats in the House and Senate are pushing to spend $ 60 million for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research gun violence, rekindling a debate over whether political agendas taint these taxpayer-funded studies.The legislation, introduced by Sen. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, New York D…
NRA-ILA News

Study Quantifies What Watching TV Can Do to Kids’ Health

“The content may be especially disruptive.”


TheBlaze.com – Stories

Study Finds This Factor Leads People to Make More Conservative Choices

“We wondered how this kind of ‘us-vs-them’ framing would be perceived …”


TheBlaze.com – Stories

StudyX flash card maker is the first general-purpose study software designed to help students learn facts faster, retain them longer, and have more fun while studying!

StudyXStudyX flash card maker is the first general-purpose study software designed to help students (elementary to graduate) learn facts faster, retain them longer, and have more fun while studying!


Giveaway of the Day

‘It’s nuts’: Joe Bastardi shreds global warming study for ‘stealing and repackaging’ ideas of others [correction added]

WeatherBell.com chief meteorologist and outspoken critic of Al Gore-style global warming “science,” Joe Bastardi, tweeted a link to a Bloomberg News article about attempts to determine “why the rate of global warming has eased in the past 20 years while greenhouse-gas emissions have surged to a record”: Global-Warming Slowdo…
Twitchy » US Politics

Study: Women Who Have Abortion 636% More Likely to Have Breast Cancer

A new study of women from India shows women who get an induced abortion are 626% more likely to have breast cancer compared with women who carry their pregnancies to term and have the baby. The study found women more likely to have breast cancer had “higher number of abortions.” This study follows closely after […]…
LifeNews.com

Concealed carry means fewer murders, says new study

Quinnipiac University economist Mark Gius has published a new study, “An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates,” in the journal Applied Economics Letters. From the abstract: The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and conceal…
NRA-ILA News

Laughter the Best Medicine? Study Details Some Harmful Side Effects

“It remains to be seen whether sick jokes make you ill…”


TheBlaze.com – Stories

Atheists face death in 13 countries, global discrimination: study

‘Hang atheist bloggers': Hundreds of thousands Bangladeshi Muslims call for execution of atheists The authors’ references to America are just. plain. nuts. The fact is — it is dangeorus for non-Muslims, whether atheists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., to live under sharia. Islamic law is the problem. Read betwen the lines. It’s the only way to re…
Atlas Shrugs

CONGRESSIONAL STUDY: MURDER RATE PLUMMETS AS GUN OWNERSHIP SOARS

A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report shows that while gun ownership climbed from 192 million firearms in 1994 to 310 million firearms in 2009, crime fell—and fell sharply. According to the report, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate was 6.6 per 100,000 Americans in 1993. Following the exponential growth in the n…
NRA-ILA News

Study: Patients Supposedly in “Vegetative” State “Not Just Aware But Paying Attention”

We have written dozens of stories the common theme of which is that patients diagnosed in a “persistent vegetative state” or “minimally conscious” are either (a) misdiagnosed or (b) much more aware than they are given credit for. Terri Schindler Schiavo captured our hearts and our imaginations but she was by no means the only person starved and dehydrated to death based on a bogus diagnosis of PVS.

 This scan depicts patterns of the vegetative patient's electrical activity over the head when they attended to the designated words, and when they when they were distracted by novel but irrelevant words Credit: Clinical NeuroscienceA tip of the hat to bioethicist Wesley J. Smith who alerted his readers to an astonishing study published in the journal “Neuroimage: Clinical.” The headline will pique anyone’s interest:

“Patient in ‘vegetative state’ not just aware, but paying attention; Research raises possibility of devices in the future to help some patients in a vegetative state interact with the outside world.”

In a word, wow! Let’s dig deeper.

The research was conducted by scientists at the Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit and the University of Cambridge. They examined 21 patients diagnosed to be in a PVS or minimally conscious and used as a control group eight healthy people. To track what was taking place in the brain, “researchers used electroencephalography (EEG), which non-invasively measures the electrical activity over the scalp.”

Without getting too deeply into minutiae, the researchers were looking for what they called “attentive awareness.” By this they meant being “able to filter out unimportant information and home in on relevant words they were being asked to pay attention to.”

One patient “in a seemingly vegetative state, unable to move or speak, showed signs of attentive awareness that had not been detected before, a new study reveals. This patient was able to focus on words signalled by the experimenters as auditory targets as successfully as healthy individuals.”

But there’s more. “Using brain imaging (fMRI), the scientists also discovered that this patient could follow simple commands to imagine playing tennis.”

In the explanation of the study, Dr Tristan Bekinschtein at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit said a number of things beyond my limited knowledge. But the key quote is, “These findings mean that, in certain cases of individuals who are vegetative, we might be able to enhance this ability and improve their level of communication with the outside world.”

Wesley writes today, “If this is true of other patients, imagine the horror of hearing ones family discussing removing your food and water. Imagine the pain of the actual event!” He goes on to explain we do have knowledge of the horrible pain. He cites the case of Kate Adamson who underwent abdominal surgery with inadequate anesthesia because she was mistakenly thought to be unconscious after a brain stem stroke. But being unfed (although hydrated) “was more painful than the sensation of being cut open!”

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

 

Wesley completes his column by first quoting from “A Painless Death,” which he wrote in 2003:

_____________

In preparation for this article, I contacted Adamson for more details about the torture she experienced while being dehydrated. She told me about having been operated upon (to remove the bowel obstruction) with inadequate anesthesia when doctors believed she was unconscious:

“The agony of going without food was a constant pain that lasted not several hours like my operation did, but several days. You have to endure the physical pain and on top of that you have to endure the emotional pain. Your whole body cries out, “Feed me. I am alive and a person, don’t let me die, for God’s Sake! Somebody feed me.”

Unbelievably, she described being deprived of food and water as “far worse” than experiencing the pain of abdominal surgery. Despite having been on an on an IV saline solution, Adamson still had horrible thirst:

“I craved anything to drink. Anything. I obsessively visualized drinking from a huge bottle of orange Gatorade. And I hate orange Gatorade. I did receive lemon flavored mouth swabs to alleviate dryness but they did nothing to slack my desperate thirst.”

_____________

Wesley concludes:

“By the way, the take away from all this? Many will say these patients are suffering by knowing of their condition, justifying doctors to lethally inject, anesthetize and dehydrate, or kill by harvesting their organs. Indeed, some bioethicists already have.

“P.S: If someone you love is thought to be unconscious, assume they can still hear you. Stories of ‘unconscious’ people recalling all that went on around them are ubiquitous.”

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in his National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.


LifeNews.com

Study Shows Big Drop in Teen Pregnancy Rates as Planned Parenthood Clinics Close

As a part of ALL’s just-released meta-study of Planned Parenthood, STOPP researchers analyzed the teen pregnancy rate in 16 counties of the Texas Panhandle. In those counties, over an 11-year period, closures of Planned Parenthood facilities were ongoing in the face of strong community opposition to the abortion giant’s presence.

Our study of teen pregnancy rates in the Amarillo area was prompted, in part, by news reports that Texas Department of Health State Services statistics for 2010 showed that the teen pregnancy rate is lower in Potter and Randall Counties of Texas—where Planned Parenthood’s business was focused and headquartered—than it has been since records have been kept.

The TDH statistics reflect the status of teen pregnancy two years after the last two Planned Parenthood centers in the service area of Planned Parenthood of Amarillo and the Texas Panhandle disaffiliated from Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

While many things factor into the teen pregnancy rate (TPR), the fact that the TPR continually declined as Planned Parenthood facilities closed, and reached its lowest point in recorded history two years after disaffiliation of the last two remaining facilities, was a significant confirmation that Planned Parenthood’s presence and its “evidence based” sex education programs are not a necessary component to reducing teen pregnancy.

The number of Planned Parenthood facilities in the Texas Panhandle diminished over a number of years in the face of active opposition to Planned Parenthood and its agenda. Education and activism against Planned Parenthood began on a large scale in 1997. In 1999, Planned Parenthood of Amarillo and the Texas Panhandle shut down five facilities. In 2001, it shut down seven more facilities. From 2003 to 2006, it shut down four more facilities. By the end of 2008, there were no Planned Parenthood facilities remaining.

Numbers obtained from the Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Annual Report, Table 14B, for the years 1994 through 2010 confirmed that, indeed, dramatic declines occurred in the teen pregnancy rates as opposition to Planned Parenthood increased and the Planned Parenthood facilities were shutting down across the Texas Panhandle.

In 1996, the year before opposition to Planned Parenthood began, the average teen pregnancy rate in the 16 counties where Planned Parenthood operated facilities was 43.6 per 1,000 girls aged 13 to 17. By 2002, the rate had dropped to 28.6. In 2008, the year the last two Planned Parenthood facilities disaffiliated from PPFA, the teen pregnancy rate was 27.2. And in 2010, two years after the Texas Panhandle became Planned Parenthood-free, the teen pregnancy rate had fallen to 24.1.

Other salient facts borne out by the statistics:

• Taking just these 16 counties, with a teen population stable at about 13,000, the actual number of teen pregnancies fell from an average of 544 per year in the five years before Planned Parenthood started closing its doors to an average of 373 in the last five years.

• The two prime counties of Planned Parenthood’s operation saw significant declines in teen pregnancies:

Randall County teen pregnancies fell from 70-80 a year to 40-50.

Potter County teen pregnancies fell from 200-250 a year to 129.

In Deaf Smith County, with a total teen population of 900 or less each year, the number of teen pregnancies fell from 40-57 a year in the years preceding Planned Parenthood’s closure to the 20s in recent years.

Despite the fact that statistics show that Planned Parenthood’s “evidence-based, comprehensive sex education” is not a necessary component in reducing the teen pregnancy rate, the abortion giant continues its unholy crusade to spread its programs into schools and community organizations across the nation, as it works to eliminate abstinence until marriage education funding.

Its school programs target children as young as kindergarten age and place a special emphasis on students in middle school—as young as 11 years old—imposing explicit sexual information on them during a period in their lives when it can do great psychological and physical harm. These programs—if they touch on abstinence at all—define abstinence as abstaining from sexual activity that can cause pregnancy, and give the green light to “protected” sex.

The children get the message loud and clear that sex outside of marriage is good, necessary, and expected, but that resultant pregnancies are to be avoided or eliminated at all cost. This lays the groundwork for young women and men who default to abortion when a pregnancy occurs. That results in yet another huge revenue source for Planned Parenthood. In fact, in 2011, it is estimated that abortion accounted for 57 percent of Planned Parenthood’s clinic income.

While Planned Parenthood claims that the number of American children and parents impacted by its “comprehensive sex education” is hovering around 1.1 million per year, it is now forming coalitions of Planned Parenthood affiliates and partnering with publicly funded universities and other entities to receive the lion’s share of $ 75 million annually earmarked by Obamacare for use in developing and implementing “comprehensive” sex education programs in public schools and other community settings.

Matt Barber, an attorney concentrating on constitutional law, wrote in an article published by World Net Daily in October 2012 confirming what we have been warning parents and school officials for decades: Planned Parenthood—now in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services via the Obama administration—is grooming children for sexual abuse through programs which are based on “criminally fraudulent” research conducted by Alfred Kinsey, “a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist,” whose research included serially sexually abusing children as young as two months of age.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

 

According to Barber:

Among other things, Kinsey asserted that children are “sexual from birth.” He further concluded, based upon experiments he directed and documented in his infamous Table 34, that adult-child sex is harmless, even beneficial, and described child “orgasm” as “culminating in extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting.” Many children suffered “excruciating pain,” he observed, “and [would] scream if movement [was] continued.” Some “[would] fight away from the [adult] partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive[d] definite pleasure from the situation.”

Planned Parenthood is frequently invited into publicly funded schools and, according to its annual report, spent at least $ 41.5 million on indoctrinating children with its “comprehensive sex education” programs in 2012. Our study makes it clear that, based on empirical data, Planned Parenthood comprehensive sexuality education programs are not an essential element in reducing teen pregnancy. Since the programs can harm the children they are inflicted upon, they should be removed from all communities.

LifeNews.com Note: Rita Diller is the national director of American Life League’s Stop Planned Parenthood Project.


LifeNews.com

Study: Planned Parenthood Health Services at Lowest Point Since 2006 While Tax $ Up 78%

The Planned Parenthood abortion business says it repeatedly:  it’s about women’s health care not abortion. The abortion business will have much to explain following a new study released today by American Life League.

For years, conservatives and pro-life groups have fought public tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood because it is primarily an abortion business and the new study backs up that claim. The meta-study by American Life League shows that the total healthcare services delivered by Planned Parenthood have reached their lowest point since 2006, while taxpayer funding has increased 78 percent over the past six years.

“Taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood reached a record of $ 542 million last year, almost half its $ 1 billion-plus budget,” said Jim Sedlak, vice president at ALL. “Yet, the number of female contraceptive clients is down 18 percent since 2006 and cancer screenings fell 29 percent over the last two years. Every delivery area is down, except one—-abortions.”

Sedlak says that the meta-study, conducted by ALL’s STOPP project, took many months to complete. The report, Planned Parenthood Federation of America: A 5-Part Analysis of Business Practices, Community Outcomes, and Taxpayer Funding, concludes that “Three primary rationales used for taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood—-women’s wellness, reduction of teen pregnancy, and serving the poor—-are invalid.”

The results of the report should not be surprising. Earlier this year, the annual report released by the national Planned Parenthood abortion business shows it did more abortions in its last year than ever before in its history.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

 

The annual report released by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) showed the abortion giant did a record 333,964 abortions on unborn children during the 2011-2012 fiscal year. Those abortions were estimated to have generated $ 150 million dollars for the “nonprofit” organization.

While the number of abortions reached a record high, only 2,300 Planned Parenthood customers were referred to adoption agencies during the 2011-2012 fiscal year.

In its prior annual report, Planned Parenthood did 329,445 abortions in 2010 while it provided prenatal care to only 31,098 women and referred only 841 women to adoption agencies.

Read the new STOPP report: http://www.stopp.org/PPFAReports/PPFA_2013_Report.pdf


LifeNews.com

Study Findings Alleviate Some Anti-Fracking Fears

  • A new study found drilling and fracking for natural gas doesn’t release a substantial amount of methane gas into the air. 
  • Some had feared the naturally occurring gas being released into the atmosphere might refute some of its more environmentally friendly points as an energy source, because as a greenhouse gas it could lead to planet warming.
  • Despite the study’s findings, some are saying the drilling operations evaluated were not necessarily indicative of “real operations.”
  • “They do better when they know they are being carefully watched.”  – Robert Howarth of Cornell University
Fracking Study Finds Practice Doesnt Release Too Much Methane Into Air

In a July 18, 2013 photo, a huge plume of gas burns while work progresses at a fracking site run by Encana Corporation in a heavily wooded area between Kalkaska and Grayling, Mich. (Photo: AP/Detroit News, Dale Young)

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — A new study found drilling and fracking for natural gas doesn’t seem to spew immense amounts of the greenhouse gas methane into the air, as has been feared.

The findings bolster a big selling point for natural gas, that it’s not as bad for global warming as coal. And they undercut a major environmental argument against fracking, a process that breaks apart deep rock to recover more gas. The study, primarily funded by energy interests, doesn’t address other fracking concerns about potential air and water pollution. Recent studies have found no indication of the activity contaminating water.

The results, which generally agree with earlier Environmental Protection Agency estimates, were published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

About 90 percent of the study funding came from nine energy companies that drill for natural gas with the rest coming from an environmental group. But study authors said they controlled how the research was done and how the wells were chosen for study. And even Robert Howarth of Cornell University, one of the scientists who first raised the methane leak alarm, calls the results “good news.”

Howarth, who didn’t participate in the new work, did caution that the results may represent a “best-case scenario.” It might be, he said, that industry can produce gas with very low emissions, “but they very often do not do so. They do better when they know they are being carefully watched.”

Oil Drilling Illinois

A protester against fracking attends a House Committee hearing on oil drilling, “fracking” legislation at the Illinois State Capitol Tuesday, May 21, 2013, in Springfield, Ill. The Illinois House considers a pioneering bill to regulate high-volume oil and gas drilling in hopes of kick-starting an industry that proponents say could bring thousands of jobs. (Photo: AP/Seth Perlman)

He and the study authors say more research is needed to explain why some studies have found high rates of leaking methane and others have not.

The University of Texas study wasn’t a comprehensive study of all the places natural gas can leak. But Steve Hamburg, chief scientist at the market-oriented Environmental Defense Fund, which helped fund the study, noted that it presents “direct measures of things that everyone’s been hand-waving about before. These are hard numbers using the best scientific approach that we can.”

The study found that during the process of extracting natural gas from the ground, total leakage at the study sites was 0.42 percent of all produced gas. That is a bit less than what the EPA suggested is the national average. The U.S. produced 24.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2012, so that means about 101 billion cubic feet of methane leaked into the air during the first stage of production. Additional leaks occur in the second half of the process: delivery from wells to homes and power plants.

The study was one of the first time scientists were allowed to visit wells and use company data to measure escaping methane, said study lead author David Allen of the University of Texas.

Some experts who didn’t participate in the work praised it for its direct measurements and access, but said the way it was designed had limits and they worried about making broad conclusions from it.

Although the study team looked at 489 wells across the country, that’s about one-tenth of 1 percent of all the natural gas wells in the United States. “Even very high quality measurements cannot overcome the small number of operations or sites measured,” said Gabrielle Petron, a top methane monitoring scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She said she worried about high-emitters, which are rare but can account for a whopping portion of emissions.

Ira Leifer, a University of California Santa Barbara scientist who has driven across country measuring methane leaks, said there’s a problem in looking at “normal operations,” as the new study did, versus “real operations,” which includes big leaks that companies will steer scientists away from:

“Their study was not designed to look at the combination of normal and abnormal operations,” Leifer said.

Over the last five years, advances in technology have led to a surge of gas drilling in states such as Pennsylvania, Colorado, Arkansas and North Dakota. Previously inaccessible deposits of shale oil and gas have been unlocked by fracking. Leakage of methane, the primary component of natural gas, has been an issue because the gas is 21 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat. But it generally lasts in the air about a decade, rather than hundreds of years as carbon dioxide does.

While methane concentrations in the atmosphere have been rising since 2007, federal scientists say they’ve found no sign that gas or oil drilling is contributing because the methane emissions come from a different part of the globe.

Some environmental groups that oppose fracking said the industry funding of the $ 2.3 million study presented a conflict. But Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences and an atmospheric scientist who has researched methane, disagreed. Cicerone said the authors represent “some of the very best experts around the country. It doesn’t matter who is paying these people. They’re going to give you the straight scoop.”

Begos contributed to this report from Pittsburgh.

Read more stories from TheBlaze

‘Religion Is the Enemy of Science’: Bill Nye Joins Bill Maher in Lambasting Creationism

Sarah Palin Was Just Sued For This

As It Happened: Mass Shooting at Washington Navy Yard

Here’s the Mug Shot of the Navy Yard Shooter and Everything Else We Know About Him

Shock: Mom & Dad Planned to Have Sex With Their Kids Before They Were Born — and Did

TheBlaze.com – Stories

Peer-Reviewed Study: Abortion is Not Safer for Women Than Childbirth

How often do you hear a child disposal apologist repeat the talking point that abortion is safer for the mother than childbirth?

It’s never been quite the showstopper they hoped for, since annual pregnancy-related deaths in the United States (650) are less than a thousandth of 1% of the annual number of live births (3,953,590), because it seems like a new abortion mill is being busted for health violations almost every week, and ultimately because it wouldn’t change the fact that abortion’s mortality rate for the baby is virtually 100%.

Now, I know this may come as a shock to you, as pro-aborts are typically paragons of honesty and integrity, but it turns out that that fact might not be so factual after all.

Via Personhood Education comes word of a new study by Dr. Byron Calhoun, vice chair of West Virginia University-Charleston’s Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and published in the peer-reviewed Catholic medical journal Linacre Quarterly, has reviewed US data on abortion-related deaths and declared the talking point essentially groundless. Here’s the study’s full abstract:

It was quoted recently in the literature that “The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than with abortion.” This statement is unsupported by the literature and there is no credible scientific basis to support it. A reasonable woman would find any discussion about the risk of dying from a procedure as material, i.e., important and significant. In order for the physician‐patient informed consent dialogue to address this critical issue, the physician must rely upon objective and accurate information concerning abortion. There are numerous and complicated methodological factors that make a valid scientific assessment of abortion mortality extremely difficult. Among the many factors responsible are incomplete reporting, definitional incompatibilities, voluntary data collection, research bias, reliance upon estimations, political correctness, inaccurate and/or incomplete death certificate completion, incomparability with maternal mortality statistics, and failing to include other causes of death such as suicides. Given the importance of this disclosure about abortion mortality, the lack of credible and reliable scientific evidence supporting this representation requires substantial discussion.

Personhood Education relays some of the report’s more specific findings:

1. Abortion is underreported by a factor of up to 50% when complications arise, making data unreliable.

2. Abortion-related mortality is demonstrably underestimated. Additionally, “indirect abortion-associated deaths,” such as “substance abuse, depression, anxiety, and suicide” arising from abortion, ”are likely to be many times higher than those deaths directly caused by obstetric complications.”

3. Serious health complications arising from abortion which threaten the life of the woman are usually handled by hospital emergency rooms, not the abortion provider. Despite being the result of physical complications of the abortion procedure, these abortion-related deaths are reported as maternal deaths.

Abortion-related mortality is vastly underreported “due to poor quality reporting and definitional issues”.  Dr. Calhoun’s research shows that  ”maternal deaths,” “late maternal deaths,” “pregnancy-related deaths,” and “pregnancy-associated deaths” are being defined to include, but not identify, “abortion-related deaths.”

Gee, who would have guessed that aborting a biological process by violently ending the life of the person it creates wouldn’t be safer than letting it naturally run its course? And how were we supposed to anticipate that abortionists’ complication reporting might be anything less than sterling?

Given the sputtering rage pro-aborts level at pro-lifers for our alleged willful ignorance of science and evidence, I’m sure all of our pals at Slate, Salon, RH Reality Check, NARAL, Jezebel, Vanity Fair, ThinkProgress, etc. will all acknowledge Dr. Calhoun’s findings and amend their future arguments accordingly, right? Right?

I’ll pause for a minute for you to wipe up the beverages most of you just spit at your keyboards.

The truth is, their self-serving odes to evidence have always been a lie. The defense of abortion is built on lying about virtually every factual question the issue contains—what the embryo biologically is, whether there’s evidence for fetal pain, what happened to women without legal abortion, what the Constitution says about abortion, how crisis pregnancy centers treat women, how the percentages of Planned Parenthood services actually break down, whether “respectable” pro-abortion institutions enable the criminal ones, whether abortion carries risks to physical and mental health, whether abortion restrictions are effective, and more.

So while abortion may not be safer than childbirth, to be fair, there is more evidence for that claim than for the claim that abortion defenders have scruples.

LifeNews.com Note:  Calvin Freiburger is a Live Action contributing writer. This column appeared at Live Action News and is reprinted with permission.


LifeNews.com

Shocking study: abortion is not safer for women than childbirth after all

shocked_baby_27160How often do you hear a child disposal apologist repeat the talking point that abortion is safer for the mother than childbirth?

It’s never been quite the showstopper they hoped for, since annual pregnancy-related deaths in the United States (650) are less than a thousandth of 1% of the annual number of live births (3,953,590), because it seems like a new abortion mill is being busted for health violations almost every week, and ultimately because it wouldn’t change the fact that abortion’s mortality rate for the baby is virtually 100%.

Now, I know this may come as a shock to you, as pro-aborts are typically paragons of honesty and integrity, but it turns out that that fact might not be so factual after all.

Via Personhood Education comes word of a new study by Dr. Byron Calhoun, vice chair of West Virginia University-Charleston’s Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and published in the peer-reviewed Catholic medical journal Linacre Quarterly, has reviewed US data on abortion-related deaths and declared the talking point essentially groundless. Here’s the study’s full abstract:

It was quoted recently in the literature that “The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than with abortion.” This statement is unsupported by the literature and there is no credible scientific basis to support it. A reasonable woman would find any discussion about the risk of dying from a procedure as material, i.e., important and significant. In order for the physician‐patient informed consent dialogue to address this critical issue, the physician must rely upon objective and accurate information concerning abortion. There are numerous and complicated methodological factors that make a valid scientific assessment of abortion mortality extremely difficult. Among the many factors responsible are incomplete reporting, definitional incompatibilities, voluntary data collection, research bias, reliance upon estimations, political correctness, inaccurate and/or incomplete death certificate completion, incomparability with maternal mortality statistics, and failing to include other causes of death such as suicides. Given the importance of this disclosure about abortion mortality, the lack of credible and reliable scientific evidence supporting this representation requires substantial discussion.

Personhood Education relays some of the report’s more specific findings:

1. Abortion is underreported by a factor of up to 50% when complications arise, making data unreliable.

2. Abortion-related mortality is demonstrably underestimated. Additionally, “indirect abortion-associated deaths,” such as “substance abuse, depression, anxiety, and suicide” arising from abortion, ”are likely to be many times higher than those deaths directly caused by obstetric complications.”

3. Serious health complications arising from abortion which threaten the life of the woman are usually handled by hospital emergency rooms, not the abortion provider. Despite being the result of physical complications of the abortion procedure, these abortion-related deaths are reported as maternal deaths.

Abortion-related mortality is vastly underreported “due to poor quality reporting and definitional issues”.  Dr. Calhoun’s research shows that  ”maternal deaths,” “late maternal deaths,” “pregnancy-related deaths,” and “pregnancy-associated deaths” are being defined to include, but not identify, “abortion-related deaths.”

Gee, who would have guessed that aborting a biological process by violently ending the life of the person it creates wouldn’t be safer than letting it naturally run its course? And how were we supposed to anticipate that abortionists’ complication reporting might be anything less than sterling?

Given the sputtering rage pro-aborts level at pro-lifers for our alleged willful ignorance of science and evidence, I’m sure all of our pals at Slate, Salon, RH Reality Check, NARAL, Jezebel, Vanity Fair, ThinkProgress, etc. will all acknowledge Dr. Calhoun’s findings and amend their future arguments accordingly, right? Right?

I’ll pause for a minute for you to wipe up the beverages most of you just spit at your keyboards.

The truth is, their self-serving odes to evidence have always been a lie. The defense of abortion is built on lying about virtually every factual question the issue contains—what the embryo biologically is, whether there’s evidence for fetal pain, what happened to women without legal abortion, what the Constitution says about abortion, how crisis pregnancy centers treat women, how the percentages of Planned Parenthood services actually break down, whether “respectable” pro-abortion institutions enable the criminal ones, whether abortion carries risks to physical and mental health, whether abortion restrictions are effective, and more.

So while abortion may not be safer than childbirth, to be fair, there is more evidence for that claim than for the claim that abortion defenders have scruples.

The post Shocking study: abortion is not safer for women than childbirth after all appeared first on Live Action News.

Live Action News