Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"My Kid Is Pregnant. What Does HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt Have to Say About This?"
NARAL finds what it calls "politically biased information" on the Department of Health and Human Services website for parents, 4parents.gov:
Some teen mothers decide to continue their pregnancy and then choose adoption for their baby. Adoption may be the best choice for the baby and the teen parents. There are many adoption agencies and types of adoption...
Some teen pregnancies end in abortion. Abortions can have complications. There may be emotional consequences, as well: some women say that they feel sad and some use more alcohol or drugs than before.
No doubt true! The site's primary function seems to be baiting groups like NARAL, and I doubt there are legions of worried parents seeking advice from a Cabinet-level department on these matters. But given the almost limitless array of clauses that might have followed "some women say," it's telling that some HHS employee thought consumption of drugs and alcohol relevant to parents. That HHS bureaucrats assume the threat of teen alcohol consumption will factor into a parent's decision on whether to force a teen to carry a pregnancy to term--an option with a mortality rate many times that of surgical abortion--is pretty bizarre. Not necessarily wrong, given the depth of fear over Bacardi Breezer intake, but suggestive of some truly sorry priorities.
Roger Shrubber|7.12.07 @ 11:14AM|#
Adoptions can have complications. There may be emotional consequences, as well
|7.12.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Not that I am out of touch with reality, or anything, but I find it hard to believe it would ever occur to anybody to check a government web site for useful advice on anything.
|7.12.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Kerry, come seriously on with the "abortion is safer than childbirth" line. Deaths in either case are extremely rare. It's like commenting that Americans are ten times more likely to be hit by lightning than win a state lottery.
|7.12.07 @ 11:39AM|#
That is, deaths of the mother are exceedingly rare in abortion. Obviously, death of the unborn child is not.
VM|7.12.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Just have abortion be legal for ten years after life begins (birth that is, not forty). So this way we can get around all those pesky details.
|7.12.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Once again, the gub'ment has it all wrong.
Teen pregnancy doesn't lead to alcohol consumption.
Teen alcohol consumption leads to pregnancy.
|7.12.07 @ 11:54AM|#
Crimethink,
No one is saying that childbirth is a deathtrap, but to focus
primarily on the dangers of induced abortion is to fail to consider
the relevant alternative--actually giving birth. Even if you
consider the risks roughly equivalent (which is perfectly
reasonable) you should be able to see that portraying abortion as
uniquely dangerous to the mother is at best misleading.
|7.12.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Aren't there enough (Lifetime) movies out there to indicate that adoption can also cause "complications" "emotional consequences" and "some women say[ing] that they feel sad and some us[ing] more alcohol or drugs than before"?
John Kindley|7.12.07 @ 12:16PM|#
Kerry Howley said: "Crimethink,
No one is saying that childbirth is a deathtrap, but to focus
primarily on the dangers of induced abortion is to fail to consider
the relevant alternative--actually giving birth. Even if you
consider the risks roughly equivalent (which is perfectly
reasonable) you should be able to see that portraying abortion as
uniquely dangerous to the mother is at best misleading."
But pro-aborts love to throw out the mis-information that
childbirth is 10 times more dangerous than abortion, as Howley just
did. Crimethink accurately pointed out how misleading this is in
light of the fact that deaths from abortion and from childbirth are
both extremely rare. In contrast, breast cancer is the leading
cause of death among middle-aged women (or it was just a few years
ago), and a 1994 epidemiological study published in the Journal of
the National Cancer Institute showed that women who had abortions
before age 18 more than doubled their risk of this already common
and deadly disease. Of course, there are a lot more studies out
there. I recommend this Wisconsin Law Review article for the full
legal picture: "The Fit Between the Elements for an Informed
Consent Cause of Action and the Scientific Evidence Linking Induced
Abortion with Increased Breast Cancer Risk,"
www.proinformation.net. This lengthy thread on Volokh Conspiracy
also debates many of the issues:
http://volokh.com/posts/1164052564.shtml
VM|7.12.07 @ 12:18PM|#
... and sam, there are enough "very special" episodes out there that show that teens are more likely to engage in exchange of euphemisms than ever before!
|7.12.07 @ 12:18PM|#
What's the difference between a truckload of watermelons and a truckload of dead babies?...
|7.12.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Minion of URKOBOLD,
Good, because you can't use a pitchfork to unload the
watermelons.
|7.12.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Taktix,
I heard that one before, but it was dead kittens.
What's the difference between a red Corvette and a pile of dead
kittens?
|7.12.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Not that I am out of touch with reality, or anything, but I find it hard to believe it would ever occur to anybody to check a government web site for useful advice on anything.
Someone should do a study comparing wikipedia to gov't websites wrt
to info accuracy.
Minion of URKOBOLD|7.12.07 @ 12:37PM|#
YOU DO NOT USE A PITCHFORK. YOU TILT THE CONTENTS OF THE TRUCK
INTO THE URKOBOLD (brand) BLENDER.
YOU THEN FOLLOW YOUR FAVORITE RECIPE FOR HAGGIS.
John Kindley|7.12.07 @ 12:39PM|#
The best place on the web for scientific information about the abortion-breast cancer link is the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, at www.bcpinstitute.org. Of particular note for those inclined to give governmental pronouncements on scientific and medical issues more weight than they deserve is the fact sheet at www.bcpinstitute.org/abc_nci.htm
|7.12.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Kerry Howley,
Well, my position on abortion is not based on health concerns, and
indeed, I have a gripe of my own with pro-lifers who overstate the
health risks of abortion to the pregnant woman, diluting our case
with easily disproved arguments.
But, I took your statement as saying that even if there were a
significantly increased chance of teen alcohol abuse due to
abortions, the difference in mortality rates should automatically
trump that.
|7.12.07 @ 12:46PM|#
Crimethink,
I've heard a few versions myself, and although it is somewhat of an
old joke, what better to liven up an abortion debate than dead baby
jokes?
|7.12.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Oh yeah, I don't have a red Corvette in my garage.
Taktix, if abortion weren't a sad reality then I probably would
find dead baby jokes even more funny.
|7.12.07 @ 12:51PM|#
Not that I am out of touch with reality, or anything, but I
find it hard to believe it would ever occur to anybody to check a
government web site for useful advice on anything.
Reminds me of a pamphlet I have stashed away from college. I said
something to the tune of:
"Young people these days are taking tobacco cigars and using them
to make marijuana cigarettes, which they call 'blunts.' When
consumed with a 40-ounce malt beverage, it is commonly referred to
as a 'B-40.'"
I have have consumed the aforementioned combination, and if I had
said to my friends: "Hey guys, let's get a B-40," I would have been
smacked like the bitch I would have been.
But that's just how we roll...
|7.12.07 @ 12:58PM|#
The site's primary functions seems to be baiting groups like
NARAL, and I doubt there are legions of worried parents seeking
advice from a Cabinet-level department on these matters
Actually, I think the site's primary function is to provide
ammunition / talking points (and to give the talking points
credibility/legitimacy) to pro-life pundits out there.
Once it's on an official government site, then the pundit can
confidently go on the TEE-VEE (or pen an OP/ED) and reference this
site while putting forth all the dangers of abortion.
Jennifer|7.12.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Hasn't the abortion/breast cancer link already been
debunked?
And even assuming birth and abortion were equally dangerous to the
mother, it's pretty goddamned sleazy for a government website
that's theoretically supposed to give out neutral information to
talk only about the wonderful potential consequences of giving
birth and the nasty potential consequences of having an
abortion.
|7.12.07 @ 1:36PM|#
John Kindley,
Jennifer is right. You're a little outdated at this point. In 2003
the national cancer institute held a workshop
to evaluate breast cancer risk. One of their findings was that
induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast
cancer risk. I do encourage you to read their other findings as
well.
I find your point deceptive as well as incorrect, because it
implies that since breast cancer is a signficant killer of women,
that anything that increases breast cancer - as you assert,
abortion - must also be a signficant killer of women. Induced
abortion was never thought to be a major risk factor for developing
breast cancer, or a major contributor to breast cancer mortality.
The whole thing is a tempest in an epidemiological teacup ginned up
by people whose motivation is less to reduce breast cancer than to
scare people away from abortion with half-truths.
|7.12.07 @ 1:37PM|#
YOU DO NOT USE A PITCHFORK. YOU TILT THE CONTENTS OF THE TRUCK INTO THE URKOBOLD (brand) BLENDER.
Yes, but, Will it
Blend?
|7.12.07 @ 1:40PM|#
"""My Kid Is Pregnant. What Does HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt Have
to Say About This?""
He says, "I didn't do it"
John Kindley|7.12.07 @ 1:42PM|#
"Hasn't the abortion/breast cancer link already been
debunked?"
The abortion-breast cancer link is politically radioactive on a
nuclear scale. If it ever became common knowledge, thousands of
women who have been deceived about the "safety" of abortion would
have potential causes of action, and the ensuing litigation could
dwarf the asbestos and tobacco litigation. Even a certain stripe
(i.e. yellow) of conservative has reason to be concerned about
that.
The debates about the abortion-breast cancer link have been
politically super-charged. All I can suggest is that the sources
I've cited be compared with the sources purporting to "debunk" the
abortion-breast cancer link for logical consistency and integrity.
It's not as hard as people assume and not above the capacity of
intelligent laypeople to sort out the relevant arguments. Two
lawsuits premised on the abortion-breast cancer link have been
successfully settled on behalf of the plaintiff. Another lawsuit,
which did not seek damages but rather an injunction preventing
untrue statements by an abortion clinic re: the abortion-breast
cancer link, went to the North Dakota Supreme Court, where it lost
not on the merits but on the basis of a judicial re-interpretation
of the standing provisions in North Dakota's false advertising
statute. The briefs in the case nevertheless have an extensive
discussion of the scientific merits. The case was titled Kjolsrud
v. MKB Management and the briefs can be found by doing a search for
that case on the North Dakota Supreme Court website.
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.12.07 @ 1:47PM|#
And if NARAL had anything to say about the message would be more
to your liking although it would not be apolitical.
it's pretty goddamned sleazy for a government website
that's......
I'd say it's pretty goddamned sleazy that my tax dollars are being
spent to give medical advice to people who should be getting it
from the doctor.
How about we skip arguing about the nuances of abortion/adoption
and abolish the entire HHS altogether.
Or is that too libertarian an idea?
John Kindley|7.12.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Tacos mmm . . .
Interesting that you cite the NCI workshop when my earlier post
suggested that interested parties should check out the Breast
Cancer Prevention Institute fact sheet on this very workshop.
This discussion will be totally unproductive and go no where if
scoffers don't bother to look at the sources I've cited and insist
on taking the pronouncements of government agencies to be the
gospel truth.
John Kindley|7.12.07 @ 1:48PM|#
"How about we skip arguing about the nuances of
abortion/adoption and abolish the entire HHS altogether."
I absolutely agree with that suggestion.
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.12.07 @ 1:52PM|#
At a government-sponsored workshop ending Wednesday,
researchers concluded that scientific evidence does not support the
notion that having an abortion increases a woman's risk of breast
cancer later in life.
Yes, and second hand smoke causes cancer and the war in Iraq is
going well.
Government says so.
Which time is the government wrong? All? None? One or more? The
time that fits our bias? The time that fits the other people's
bias?
Shrugs.
Never accept anything at face value that includes the words
government-sponsored workshop.
|7.12.07 @ 2:01PM|#
How about we skip arguing about the nuances of abortion/adoption and abolish the entire HHS altogether.
I'll toast to that.
Also, every time I read a post by Tacos mmm..., I get a hankering
for Mexican food.
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.12.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Although I'm a little testy about government websites I do love
a good dead baby joke. Even if it is older than dirt it still makes
me LOL.
And this......
URKOBOLD PLACED AN ORDER FOR THE LATTER.
..was priceless. :-)
Onward.
Recipe for a Dead Baby Float
Carefully place two scoops of dead baby into a mug of root beer,
preferably A&W Draft (not canned or bottled).
TWC
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.12.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Also, every time I read a post by Tacos mmm..., I get a
hankering for Mexican food.
I know man, I do too. Isn't that weird?
Tacos mmmmm! What a great handle. Is that the right term? Handle?
Or is that term pretty archaic and more relevant to CB radio?
elyabethe|7.12.07 @ 2:41PM|#
John Kindley and Crimethink say pointing out that a woman is less likely to die from having an abortion than by giving birth is some sort of propaganda used by "pro-aborts," as if mentioning this fact is some sort of strategy to encourage abortion. But notice that this is only brought up in the context of refuting the statement that abortion is especially dangerous. The fact that both are extremely rare is neither here nor there; if anti-choicers are going to pull the "abortion kills women" card, or even any vague implications thereof, pointing out "uh, not as many as childbirth" seems like a pretty reasonable defense?
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.12.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Hey Yellow Color, do you hold comments for approval on your blog? Or am I just not doing something right? Or maybe I'm just banned because my ISP sucks. That happens sometimes. :-)
|7.12.07 @ 3:31PM|#
The debates about the abortion-breast cancer link have been politically super-charged. All I can suggest is that the sources I've cited be compared with the sources purporting to "debunk" the abortion-breast cancer link for logical consistency and integrity.
If by other sources, you mean recent research, then yes, do
compare, although for strength of evidence, the 2003 NCI conclusion
is currently supported by the best evidence and
subsequent meta-analysis in 2004.
Although you say that the issue is "nuclear" in important, HRT is
much more strongly linked to breast cancer, and was much more
common than abortion, and it hasn't "blown up" as a liability
issue. The abortion/breast cancer link, if it even existed
(currently a proprosition with less support)
|7.12.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Oops. Hit submit early. Just wanted to add that if a link existed, it would be too small to be significant to an individual woman. The reason that some people run the science on this issue through a microscope is likely the reason that some people care intensely about inexplicable peculiarties in evolutionary theory and insist that alternative evidence be examined, while ignoring the gaping holes in modern physics.
|7.12.07 @ 3:36PM|#
This discussion will be totally unproductive and go no where if scoffers don't bother to look at the sources I've cited and insist on taking the pronouncements of government agencies to be the gospel truth.
I use pubmed. The abstracts are out there for anyone to find. I
certainly don't think that the government is any more reliable than
the gospel.
|7.12.07 @ 4:20PM|#
elyabethe,
I didn't say what you claim I did. In fact, I criticized pro-lifers
who present dubious arguments about the dangers of abortion. My
stance on abortion is framed purely as a human rights issue, not a
public health one.
VM|7.12.07 @ 6:49PM|#
What Seitz said.
Media - woo hoo!
(continues contemptuous scoffing at anti abortion people who want
to force their beliefs on everybody else)
Chad|7.12.07 @ 10:49PM|#
" to carry a pregnancy to term--an option with a mortality rate
many times that of surgical abortion"
Isn't the entire abortion debate centered around the philosophical
question of whether the surgical abortion mortality rate is .0001
or 1.0001?
"continues contemptuous scoffing at anti abortion people who want
to force their beliefs on everybody else"
Just like your "forcing your belief" that it is wrong to shoot your
mother on me, right? Or how you are "forcing your belief" that a
fetus is a hunk-of-meat upon the fetus, stripping it of all
rights?
Silly rhetoric is for kids. The abortion debate is outside of the
libertarian's core principles, which do not in any way address what
entities deserve to be protected by its principles.
Jennifer|7.13.07 @ 10:38AM|#
Just like your "forcing your belief" that it is wrong to
shoot your mother on me, right? Or how you are "forcing your
belief" that a fetus is a hunk-of-meat upon the fetus, stripping it
of all rights?
I'm pretty sure VM was talking about forcing your belief upon a
pregnant woman that she has to carry the baby around for the next
nine months whether she wants to or not.
But you'd rather pretend that telling me "No, you are not allowed
to pay for and receive this medical procedure" is no different from
telling me "No, you cannot murder my mother."
Silly rhetoric is for kids. The abortion debate is outside of
the libertarian's core principles, which do not in any way address
what entities deserve to be protected by its principles.
So "women" are not necessrily entities to be protected by
libertarian principles, and it is open for debate whether the state
can force them into a form of temporary slavery by requiring her to
carry a pregnancy to term against her will, I take it.
John Kindley|7.13.07 @ 10:49AM|#
Tacos mmm . . .
You can't just go by the abstracts on pubmed. You have to also take
into account the logical criticisms of the methods used by certain
studies. Such criticisms of the methods used by the 2004
meta-analysis you cite, e.g., are to be found on the Breast Cancer
Prevention Institute website. I personally had the opportunity to
cross-examine some of the authors of these studies in Kjolsrud v.
MKB Management, and some of the most salient testimony exposing
their mistakes and dissembling are cited in the briefs to the North
Dakota Supreme Court (You can be confident that the brief's
quotation of this testimony is accurate because if it wasn't the
defendant's brief certainly would have called us on it).
HRT hasn't blown up as a liability issue because, in contrast to
the abortion-breast cancer link, users and prospective users of HRT
were generally informed about its potential link with breast
cancer. As far as the risk increase if it exists being too small to
be significant to an individual woman, that is false. The legal
standard is "materiality," and the Wisconsin Law Review article I
cite analyzes the evidence in terms of this standard and
demonstrates that the evidence meets this standard and therefore
that there is a legal obligation to disclose the risk (or
"potential risk," if you prefer) to women considering abortion.
Moreover, one of the MKB Management's own hired experts admitted on
the stand that if it were established that the 30% average risk
increase reported by the 1996 Brind meta-analysis were real that
women considering abortion should certainly be informed about it.
It's a no-brainer.
|7.13.07 @ 3:55PM|#
According to crimethink, a collection of cells in a petri dish has more human rights then a living, breathing, gay person. This tells you all you need to know.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245