Obama Misleads Voters on His Abortion Record
Didn't Illinois law really protect abortion survivors anyway before the BAIPA? No. The law "on the books" — 720 ILCS 510.6 — applied only where an abortionist declared before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb." So if the doctor was wrong and the baby was capable of survival, the law didn't allow anybody to second-guess him. The baby was not a baby under the law, because the abortionist had declared him or her to not be a baby by the mere decision to proceed with the abortion in the first place. (You can read here about how George Tiller determines if a fetus is pre-viable and thus suitable for aborting. I'm not sure what methods Illinois abortionists use.)
Doesn't Obama only support third trimester abortions when they're necessary to protect the mother's life or health? Only if you define "health" so broadly that "She feels distressed and thinks an abortion will alleviate her distress" actually constitutes "health".
Doesn't Obama want to focus on "common ground" efforts to support women who don't want abortions? No. He wants to cut off funding to the very pregnancy centers that help women to avoid unwanted abortions.
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Showing posts with label abortion agenda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion agenda. Show all posts
Friday, October 17, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
More scare tactics from the abortion lobby
My email from NARAL was headed, "Does John McCain Understand Women Could Die?"
Presumably, if McCain nominated strict constructionist Supreme Court justices, Roe might be overturned, returning abortion to the states.
And, supposedly, this would result in droves of women reflexively reaching for the coathangers.
First of all, let's reiterate an inconvenient little fact that NARAL and other members of the abortion lobby tries to keep hidden: Women are dying now. And the abortion lobby knows this. They just don't want you to know this.
Ah, but wouldn't more women die if abortion were to be re-criminalized?
The assumption -- the unquestioned, unproven assumption -- is that making abortion legal reduces abortion mortality. But let's look at the data. Just look at the abortion deaths since 1940:
You'll see that abortion deaths were plummeting -- a fall even abortion guru Christopher Tietze attributed to the availability of blood transfusions and antibiotics -- long before legalization.
The drop leveled off in the 1950s -- with the introduction of The Pill!
It then resumed its fall in the 1960s.
Before abortion was legalized.
In fact, legalization didn't seem to have any real impact at all. The trend just continued where it had been:
Attributing the fall in abortion deaths to legalization is fatuous.
And anybody who takes an honest look at the data knows this.
So who are they trying to fool? And why?
For more abortion deaths, visit the Cemetery of Choice:
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Presumably, if McCain nominated strict constructionist Supreme Court justices, Roe might be overturned, returning abortion to the states.
And, supposedly, this would result in droves of women reflexively reaching for the coathangers.
First of all, let's reiterate an inconvenient little fact that NARAL and other members of the abortion lobby tries to keep hidden: Women are dying now. And the abortion lobby knows this. They just don't want you to know this.
Ah, but wouldn't more women die if abortion were to be re-criminalized?
The assumption -- the unquestioned, unproven assumption -- is that making abortion legal reduces abortion mortality. But let's look at the data. Just look at the abortion deaths since 1940:
You'll see that abortion deaths were plummeting -- a fall even abortion guru Christopher Tietze attributed to the availability of blood transfusions and antibiotics -- long before legalization.
The drop leveled off in the 1950s -- with the introduction of The Pill!
It then resumed its fall in the 1960s.
Before abortion was legalized.
In fact, legalization didn't seem to have any real impact at all. The trend just continued where it had been:
Attributing the fall in abortion deaths to legalization is fatuous.
And anybody who takes an honest look at the data knows this.
So who are they trying to fool? And why?
For more abortion deaths, visit the Cemetery of Choice:
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Wrong on three counts
The "Campaign for [Un}Healthy Families" put out this ad, featuring a couple who faced a prenatal diagnosis of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS):
Now, I have no way of knowing if the Campbells, like Bill and Karen Bell, were lied to by abortion advocates in order to gain human shields. They might be entirely innocent. They might simply have believed what abortion advocates told them and agreed to tell their story in the ad. It's entirely possible. In fact, it's likely. And I, for one, will make this assumption until it's proven otherwise.
It's also entirely possible that the Campbells are die-hard abortion advocates who know that the ad is based entirely on false premises but are hoping nobody will challenge it for fear of seeming to be attacking them.
Either way, the ad is totally misleading on THREE counts:
1. Abortion isn't an established treatment for TTTS. There are two interventions used if it becomes clear that both twins are in serious danger: either transfer amniotic fluid to balance the load, or seal off a few blood vessels to reduce the imbalance. While both these treatments carry risk to both babies, neither one of them is considered an abortion. Neither one of them would be restricted in any way under South Dakota's law.
2. None of this matters anyway because there are only ten specialty centers in the country that treat TTTS anyway, none of which are in South Dakota.
3. The risky procedure this couple ended up choosing -- deliberately causing the death of one fetus to try to save the other -- is again a specialty procedure not performed anywhere in South Dakota because nobody in South Dakota has this particular, very rare, skill. The law simply wouldn't apply.
Read what these physicians have to say.
To email this post to a friend, use the email icon below.
Now, I have no way of knowing if the Campbells, like Bill and Karen Bell, were lied to by abortion advocates in order to gain human shields. They might be entirely innocent. They might simply have believed what abortion advocates told them and agreed to tell their story in the ad. It's entirely possible. In fact, it's likely. And I, for one, will make this assumption until it's proven otherwise.
It's also entirely possible that the Campbells are die-hard abortion advocates who know that the ad is based entirely on false premises but are hoping nobody will challenge it for fear of seeming to be attacking them.
Either way, the ad is totally misleading on THREE counts:
1. Abortion isn't an established treatment for TTTS. There are two interventions used if it becomes clear that both twins are in serious danger: either transfer amniotic fluid to balance the load, or seal off a few blood vessels to reduce the imbalance. While both these treatments carry risk to both babies, neither one of them is considered an abortion. Neither one of them would be restricted in any way under South Dakota's law.
2. None of this matters anyway because there are only ten specialty centers in the country that treat TTTS anyway, none of which are in South Dakota.
3. The risky procedure this couple ended up choosing -- deliberately causing the death of one fetus to try to save the other -- is again a specialty procedure not performed anywhere in South Dakota because nobody in South Dakota has this particular, very rare, skill. The law simply wouldn't apply.
Read what these physicians have to say.
To email this post to a friend, use the email icon below.
1977: The death the abortion lobby had been waiting for
In 1976, the Hyde Amendment went into effect, banning the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions except to save the mother from an immediate threat to her life. The measure was named for its author, Congressman Henry Hyde. Abortion advocates had been keening from the moment the Hyde Amendment was up for vote. They painted a ghastly picture of coathanger-impaled women littering the streets as poor women were driven to desperation by lack of "access" -- much the way they are keening now about the upcoming vote in South Dakota.
When the Hyde Amendment went into effect, abortion advocates ramped up the hysteria and waited for a death, any death, they could hang around Henry Hyde's neck.
On October 3, 1977, the abortion advocacy vultures got what they'd been waiting for: a dead woman they could use as leverage in the fight to once again force taxpayers to fund elective abortions.
On September 26, 1977, 27-year-old Rosie Jiminez had shown up at the emergency room of McAllen General Hospital in the Texas border town of McAllen, with septic shock. She was put in intensive care, but died on October 3 from renal and cardiac failure caused by disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (failure of the blood to clot properly) triggered by gas gangrene from a criminal abortion. She left behind one child.
The initial response of the abortion lobby to news of Rosie's death was little short of euphoric. They had their trophy, their dead woman whose story they could leverage, they hoped, into the restoration of tax money flowing into abortion clinics.
One voice stood out from the crowd: Ellen Frankfort, author of Rosie: the investigation of a wrongful death. Frankfort was disgusted with the bulk of the prochoice movement, who seemed content to make note of the death and then milk it for political gain. She began an investigation into what had led Rosie to her death, and she found a lot that neither the Centers for Disease Control nor abortion advocacy organizations had been willing to look for, since all they'd wanted was political leverage. They weren't looking for the real culprit behind Rosie's death: they'd had a bogeyman in mind even before she'd died, in the form of Henry Hyde.
Off to McAllen Frankfort went, to learn all she could.
Rosie had already undergone two abortions at taxpayer expense. The first time, she had not been using contraception, and a private ob/gyn in McAllen aborted her 9-week fetus on July 15, 1975. She went on birth control pills after this abortion, but quit using them when a physician told her they might impair future fertility. She quickly became pregnant again and had a second tax-funded abortion, this one done at a facility Rosie had been referred to by a local Planned Parenthood, at 11 weeks of pregnancy.
The CDC's investigation after Rosie's death could not determine if she used any form of birth control after this second abortion. She became pregnant yet again. In September of 1977, she suspected that she was again pregnant, and consulted with a cousin and a friend, who told her that Medicaid would no longer pay for elective abortions.
Rosie had also gone to her family physician, Dr. Homer, in McAllen for treatment of pain in her sternum. She mentioned that she might be pregnant. The physician did not arrange for a pregnancy test or discuss her options with her in any way. He simply informed her that Medicaid would no longer pay for abortions, and let it rest at that.
It is interesting to note that in all the finger-pointing following Rosie's death, no prochoicer thought to place any blame on this physician. Evidently he knew about the two previous Medicaid abortions. Why did he consent himself with telling Rosie that there would be no more free abortions? A referral seemed to have been in order, either to a prolife center that would help her with the expenses of continuing the pregnancy, or to the local Planned Parenthood, that could arrange an abortion on a sliding scale and could possibly help her tap into private funds for elective abortions. Dr. Homer, in fact, was very much in favor of abortions and was aware the Dr. C performed them and that Planned Parenthood referred for them on a sliding scale.
Regardless, Rosie's physician just dropped the news -- no more tax-funded abortions -- and effectively abandoned his patient.
The week of September 19, Rosie went to Mexico for some sort of injection to cause an abortion. She had the shots at a pharmacy, at $5 each. The second injection made her ill, and she abandoned this means of attempting to get rid of the unwanted fetus.
On September 25, she consulted with her cousin, saying that she wanted to find a cheap abortionist quickly. Rosie's cousin brought her to a lay midwife in McAllen, who charged $120 to insert a catheter into Rosie's uterus. Fifteen minutes later, she sent Rosie home.
Rosie had pain and cramping upon returning home. Over the next 12 hours, she developed an increasing fever, and had nausea, vomiting, chills, dizziness, and increasing vaginal bleeding. The next afternoon, Rosie was unable to get out of bed. She asked a friend to take her to the hospital. She was admitted at 5 p.m., roughly 22 hours after the abortion.
Rosie lied to the doctors when she was admitted, telling them that she was suffering from leg cramps and abdominal pain, saying that her period had just started and denying an abortion. She had a fever of 100.8, a rapid pulse of 108, respiration of 24, and a blood pressure of 110/80. These vital signs are an indication that something is wrong, but are not in and of themselves alarming.
The physical examination, however, revealed cause for concern. Her abdomen was tender and guarded -- meaning that she tensed up when touched. Her uterus was enlarged and tender, and her cervix was soft and dilated wide enough for doctors to pass a ring forceps inside. She had dark bloody vaginal discharge. These are all signs of a recent terminated pregnancy -- whether by miscarriage or by induced abortion -- with infection and possible retained tissue.
So despite Rosie's insistence that nobody had done anything to terminate her pregnancy, McAllen General's doctors accurately diagnosed a septic incomplete abortion. They did a blood culture and found clostridium perfringens bacteria -- gas gangrene.
The doctors immediately put Rosie on intravenous antibiotics and fluids. They also performed a D&C to remove retained tissue from Rosie's uterus. These tissues, also, showed clostridium perfringens infection. Doctors also found placental tissue, confirming their belief that Rosie had indeed been pregnant.
Despite the aggressive treatment, Rosie's condition deteriorated over the next twelve hours. She developed severe jaundice. Her pulse was a racing 160 beats per minute. She developed a rash over her torso and thighs. Her urine output fell, causing the doctors to suspect kidney failure.
More laboratory tests were performed, which led the doctors to believe Rosie was developing disseminated intravascular coagulopahty. They performed a hysterectomy to get rid of the source of the infection. After surgery, her blood pressure was a low 90/60, her pulse a still-rapid 120, and her respirations a panting 30 breaths per minute.
Within six hours of surgery, Rosie's heart failed. A consulting physician recommended intense measures to support Rosie's failing body. Over the next three days, her respiratory problems grew worse, and she was put on a ventilator. Doctors administered medications to correct the clotting failure, antibiotics to attack the infection, and intensive supportive therapy to support her failing organ systems, to no avail. Rosie died on October 3.
The doctors reported the death to the CDC, the CDC notified their allies in the abortion lobby, and Rosie's death was quickly trumpeted nationwide as proof that Henry Hyde was a murderer and taxpayers should immediately resume funding elective abortions to prevent another such death.
What is particularly telling in Rosie's death is that prochoice groups had been very successful in spreading the word that public funding for abortion had been cut -- Rosie's friend and cousin, as well as her physician, were well aware of this fact -- but they had pointedly failed to also pass out the word that Planned Parenthood referred for abortions on a sliding scale, and that private funds were available. It's almost as if the public-relations departments of Planned Parenthood and other abortion-advocacy groups had deliberately increased the odds of a tragedy like Rosie's death in order to provide the corpses needed in order to prop up a drive to restore tax monies to abortion facilities.
Frankfort was particularly disgusted with the response of public health officials, who likewise simply announced Rosie's death and began a call to restore abortion funding, but made no effort to close down the illegal abortion practice where Rosie had undergone her fatal abortion.
Frankfort took it upon herself to orchestrate a sting, with local law enforcement. She coordinated a dramatic raid that put the lay abortionist out of business.
And what of the hysteria? Had it been justified?
There was indeed a small spike in reported illegal abortion deaths after the Hyde Amendment (from 2 in 1976 to 4 in 1977 to 7 in 1978). But there was likewise a spike in reported legal abortion deaths as well -- a far larger spike, from 11 in 1976 to 17 in 1977. (I don't believe that the CDC's reported death numbers are accurate, but they're all we have to work with, and more to the point, abortion supporters place great faith in them.)
Lest prochoicers attribute this jump to women having later abortions because they need time to get funds, we'll note that reported legal abortion deaths fall to 9 in 1978, then leap to 22 in 1979. And although the Hyde Amendment remained in effect, reported illegal abortion deaths fell to 0 in 1979, and remained at 0, 1, or 2 per year. Since this is fewer than the 19 in 1973, 6 in 1974, and 4 in 1975, when federal funds were available for elective abortions, it's hard to say that the Hyde Amendment was causing more illegal abortion deaths.
The most likely explanation lies in Atlanta, not in Washington. When the Hyde Amendment was passed, the CDC launched a study designed to prove that cutting funds for elective abortions would hurt women. They intensified surveillance of hospital admissions for complications of all abortions -- legal, illegal, and spontaneous (miscarriages). Such intense, sudden increase in interest in abortion complications is likely to uncover abortion deaths that would otherwise go unreported.
While it likely triggered the reporting of more deaths than would have otherwise been reported, the study did not find a higher rate of abortion-related hospitalizations for Medicaid-eligible women. To the contrary, the study, "The Effect of Restricting Public Funds for Legal Abortion," found "no evidence of a statistically significant increase in the number of complications from illegal abortions." In fact, they found that while there was no change in the illegal abortion complications, there was a significant decrease in publicly funded hospitalizations for legal abortion complications in cities where funding was restricted, compared to cities in areas where state or local government picked up the tab for elective abortions.
In other words, cutting funds for elective abortions actually had a measurable positive impact on abortion complication rates for Medicaid-eligible women.
So was Rosie's death a fluke? Probably not. The heavy publicity put out by the prochoice movement about how poor women would be "forced" to resort to dangerous criminal abortions probably left Rosie, and some others like her, with the mistaken impression that criminal abortion (rather than birth or even sliding-scale legal abortion) was their only option.
So I'd place the blame for the death of Rosie Jiminez not on the Hyde Amendment, but on several factors:
Readily available public funds for abortion had taught her that she need not be careful about her sexual activity and/or birth control.
Public relations efforts by prochoice groups left women like Rosie with the belief that criminal abortion was their only option.
Rosie's doctor abandoned her, instead of referring her for appropriate counseling and care.
The McAllen midwife was willing to play Russian roulette with women's lives instead of referring them for either prenatal care or low-cost sanitary abortions.
Since she'd never had to pay for her own abortion before, Rosie was apparently unaware that a legal abortion was available for only a few dollars more than what the dirty local midwife was charging.
I agree with abortion advocates that the death of Rosie Jiminez was avoidable. But I disagree with them that lack of public funding was to blame. Prochoice organizations had ample opportunity to tout other resources. Prochoice people all around Rosie had opportunities to steer her toward a "safe and legal" abortion, had they chosen to do so. Not a one of them did. And the bigger problem was that nobody ever seemed to entertain the notion that abortion might not be the answer in the first place.
What's additionally puzzling about this whole turn of events is that the facility to which Planned Parenthood referred abortion patients charged only $130 for an abortion for poor women, just $10 more than Rosie paid for the amateur abortion that took her life. It's difficult to believe that a $10 price difference put the legal abortion out of Rosies's reach, especially since the day before her abortion she'd spent $8 on a cake for a friend's baby shower, and when she died she had a $800 scholarship check in her purse.
Rosie remains a poster child of the abortion lobby. Their own role in her death is never acknowledged. Henry Hyde is blamed instead -- in spite of his key role in passing a law that reduced abortion injuries among women like Rosie, and in reducing complications, surely also reduced abortion deaths -- in spite of the abortion lobby's best efforts.
For more abortion deaths, visit the Cemetery of Choice:
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
When the Hyde Amendment went into effect, abortion advocates ramped up the hysteria and waited for a death, any death, they could hang around Henry Hyde's neck.
On October 3, 1977, the abortion advocacy vultures got what they'd been waiting for: a dead woman they could use as leverage in the fight to once again force taxpayers to fund elective abortions.
On September 26, 1977, 27-year-old Rosie Jiminez had shown up at the emergency room of McAllen General Hospital in the Texas border town of McAllen, with septic shock. She was put in intensive care, but died on October 3 from renal and cardiac failure caused by disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (failure of the blood to clot properly) triggered by gas gangrene from a criminal abortion. She left behind one child.The initial response of the abortion lobby to news of Rosie's death was little short of euphoric. They had their trophy, their dead woman whose story they could leverage, they hoped, into the restoration of tax money flowing into abortion clinics.
One voice stood out from the crowd: Ellen Frankfort, author of Rosie: the investigation of a wrongful death. Frankfort was disgusted with the bulk of the prochoice movement, who seemed content to make note of the death and then milk it for political gain. She began an investigation into what had led Rosie to her death, and she found a lot that neither the Centers for Disease Control nor abortion advocacy organizations had been willing to look for, since all they'd wanted was political leverage. They weren't looking for the real culprit behind Rosie's death: they'd had a bogeyman in mind even before she'd died, in the form of Henry Hyde.
Off to McAllen Frankfort went, to learn all she could.
Rosie had already undergone two abortions at taxpayer expense. The first time, she had not been using contraception, and a private ob/gyn in McAllen aborted her 9-week fetus on July 15, 1975. She went on birth control pills after this abortion, but quit using them when a physician told her they might impair future fertility. She quickly became pregnant again and had a second tax-funded abortion, this one done at a facility Rosie had been referred to by a local Planned Parenthood, at 11 weeks of pregnancy.
The CDC's investigation after Rosie's death could not determine if she used any form of birth control after this second abortion. She became pregnant yet again. In September of 1977, she suspected that she was again pregnant, and consulted with a cousin and a friend, who told her that Medicaid would no longer pay for elective abortions.
Rosie had also gone to her family physician, Dr. Homer, in McAllen for treatment of pain in her sternum. She mentioned that she might be pregnant. The physician did not arrange for a pregnancy test or discuss her options with her in any way. He simply informed her that Medicaid would no longer pay for abortions, and let it rest at that.
It is interesting to note that in all the finger-pointing following Rosie's death, no prochoicer thought to place any blame on this physician. Evidently he knew about the two previous Medicaid abortions. Why did he consent himself with telling Rosie that there would be no more free abortions? A referral seemed to have been in order, either to a prolife center that would help her with the expenses of continuing the pregnancy, or to the local Planned Parenthood, that could arrange an abortion on a sliding scale and could possibly help her tap into private funds for elective abortions. Dr. Homer, in fact, was very much in favor of abortions and was aware the Dr. C performed them and that Planned Parenthood referred for them on a sliding scale.
Regardless, Rosie's physician just dropped the news -- no more tax-funded abortions -- and effectively abandoned his patient.
The week of September 19, Rosie went to Mexico for some sort of injection to cause an abortion. She had the shots at a pharmacy, at $5 each. The second injection made her ill, and she abandoned this means of attempting to get rid of the unwanted fetus.
On September 25, she consulted with her cousin, saying that she wanted to find a cheap abortionist quickly. Rosie's cousin brought her to a lay midwife in McAllen, who charged $120 to insert a catheter into Rosie's uterus. Fifteen minutes later, she sent Rosie home.
Rosie had pain and cramping upon returning home. Over the next 12 hours, she developed an increasing fever, and had nausea, vomiting, chills, dizziness, and increasing vaginal bleeding. The next afternoon, Rosie was unable to get out of bed. She asked a friend to take her to the hospital. She was admitted at 5 p.m., roughly 22 hours after the abortion.
Rosie lied to the doctors when she was admitted, telling them that she was suffering from leg cramps and abdominal pain, saying that her period had just started and denying an abortion. She had a fever of 100.8, a rapid pulse of 108, respiration of 24, and a blood pressure of 110/80. These vital signs are an indication that something is wrong, but are not in and of themselves alarming.
The physical examination, however, revealed cause for concern. Her abdomen was tender and guarded -- meaning that she tensed up when touched. Her uterus was enlarged and tender, and her cervix was soft and dilated wide enough for doctors to pass a ring forceps inside. She had dark bloody vaginal discharge. These are all signs of a recent terminated pregnancy -- whether by miscarriage or by induced abortion -- with infection and possible retained tissue.
So despite Rosie's insistence that nobody had done anything to terminate her pregnancy, McAllen General's doctors accurately diagnosed a septic incomplete abortion. They did a blood culture and found clostridium perfringens bacteria -- gas gangrene.
The doctors immediately put Rosie on intravenous antibiotics and fluids. They also performed a D&C to remove retained tissue from Rosie's uterus. These tissues, also, showed clostridium perfringens infection. Doctors also found placental tissue, confirming their belief that Rosie had indeed been pregnant.
Despite the aggressive treatment, Rosie's condition deteriorated over the next twelve hours. She developed severe jaundice. Her pulse was a racing 160 beats per minute. She developed a rash over her torso and thighs. Her urine output fell, causing the doctors to suspect kidney failure.
More laboratory tests were performed, which led the doctors to believe Rosie was developing disseminated intravascular coagulopahty. They performed a hysterectomy to get rid of the source of the infection. After surgery, her blood pressure was a low 90/60, her pulse a still-rapid 120, and her respirations a panting 30 breaths per minute.
Within six hours of surgery, Rosie's heart failed. A consulting physician recommended intense measures to support Rosie's failing body. Over the next three days, her respiratory problems grew worse, and she was put on a ventilator. Doctors administered medications to correct the clotting failure, antibiotics to attack the infection, and intensive supportive therapy to support her failing organ systems, to no avail. Rosie died on October 3.
The doctors reported the death to the CDC, the CDC notified their allies in the abortion lobby, and Rosie's death was quickly trumpeted nationwide as proof that Henry Hyde was a murderer and taxpayers should immediately resume funding elective abortions to prevent another such death.
What is particularly telling in Rosie's death is that prochoice groups had been very successful in spreading the word that public funding for abortion had been cut -- Rosie's friend and cousin, as well as her physician, were well aware of this fact -- but they had pointedly failed to also pass out the word that Planned Parenthood referred for abortions on a sliding scale, and that private funds were available. It's almost as if the public-relations departments of Planned Parenthood and other abortion-advocacy groups had deliberately increased the odds of a tragedy like Rosie's death in order to provide the corpses needed in order to prop up a drive to restore tax monies to abortion facilities.
Frankfort was particularly disgusted with the response of public health officials, who likewise simply announced Rosie's death and began a call to restore abortion funding, but made no effort to close down the illegal abortion practice where Rosie had undergone her fatal abortion.
Frankfort took it upon herself to orchestrate a sting, with local law enforcement. She coordinated a dramatic raid that put the lay abortionist out of business.
And what of the hysteria? Had it been justified?
There was indeed a small spike in reported illegal abortion deaths after the Hyde Amendment (from 2 in 1976 to 4 in 1977 to 7 in 1978). But there was likewise a spike in reported legal abortion deaths as well -- a far larger spike, from 11 in 1976 to 17 in 1977. (I don't believe that the CDC's reported death numbers are accurate, but they're all we have to work with, and more to the point, abortion supporters place great faith in them.)
Lest prochoicers attribute this jump to women having later abortions because they need time to get funds, we'll note that reported legal abortion deaths fall to 9 in 1978, then leap to 22 in 1979. And although the Hyde Amendment remained in effect, reported illegal abortion deaths fell to 0 in 1979, and remained at 0, 1, or 2 per year. Since this is fewer than the 19 in 1973, 6 in 1974, and 4 in 1975, when federal funds were available for elective abortions, it's hard to say that the Hyde Amendment was causing more illegal abortion deaths.
The most likely explanation lies in Atlanta, not in Washington. When the Hyde Amendment was passed, the CDC launched a study designed to prove that cutting funds for elective abortions would hurt women. They intensified surveillance of hospital admissions for complications of all abortions -- legal, illegal, and spontaneous (miscarriages). Such intense, sudden increase in interest in abortion complications is likely to uncover abortion deaths that would otherwise go unreported.
While it likely triggered the reporting of more deaths than would have otherwise been reported, the study did not find a higher rate of abortion-related hospitalizations for Medicaid-eligible women. To the contrary, the study, "The Effect of Restricting Public Funds for Legal Abortion," found "no evidence of a statistically significant increase in the number of complications from illegal abortions." In fact, they found that while there was no change in the illegal abortion complications, there was a significant decrease in publicly funded hospitalizations for legal abortion complications in cities where funding was restricted, compared to cities in areas where state or local government picked up the tab for elective abortions.
In other words, cutting funds for elective abortions actually had a measurable positive impact on abortion complication rates for Medicaid-eligible women.
So was Rosie's death a fluke? Probably not. The heavy publicity put out by the prochoice movement about how poor women would be "forced" to resort to dangerous criminal abortions probably left Rosie, and some others like her, with the mistaken impression that criminal abortion (rather than birth or even sliding-scale legal abortion) was their only option.
So I'd place the blame for the death of Rosie Jiminez not on the Hyde Amendment, but on several factors:
I agree with abortion advocates that the death of Rosie Jiminez was avoidable. But I disagree with them that lack of public funding was to blame. Prochoice organizations had ample opportunity to tout other resources. Prochoice people all around Rosie had opportunities to steer her toward a "safe and legal" abortion, had they chosen to do so. Not a one of them did. And the bigger problem was that nobody ever seemed to entertain the notion that abortion might not be the answer in the first place.
What's additionally puzzling about this whole turn of events is that the facility to which Planned Parenthood referred abortion patients charged only $130 for an abortion for poor women, just $10 more than Rosie paid for the amateur abortion that took her life. It's difficult to believe that a $10 price difference put the legal abortion out of Rosies's reach, especially since the day before her abortion she'd spent $8 on a cake for a friend's baby shower, and when she died she had a $800 scholarship check in her purse.
Rosie remains a poster child of the abortion lobby. Their own role in her death is never acknowledged. Henry Hyde is blamed instead -- in spite of his key role in passing a law that reduced abortion injuries among women like Rosie, and in reducing complications, surely also reduced abortion deaths -- in spite of the abortion lobby's best efforts.
For more abortion deaths, visit the Cemetery of Choice:
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Paging Captain Obvious
Pro-Abortion Forces Air TV Ad That is Deliberately Misleading
I've yet to see them put out an ad -- or even a simple statement or press release or bumper sticker or t-shirt -- that wasn't deliberately misleading. Bringing out women or families whose situations wouldn't be impacted by a law is old hat. When the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act was being debated, abortion advocates went so far as to have a woman speak to the legislature about her personal tragedy, when her baby died in-utero during the third trimester. They had her claiming that the law would have prohibited her doctor from inducing labor to deliver the already-dead fetus. Since laws against abortion only ban the deliberate killing of live babies in the womb, the Act was no more relevant to that woman's situation than a homicide law is to the selection of funeral caskets.
Go read the article, since it's clear and straightforward and serves as yet another example of the old adage, "How do you know an abortion advocate is lying? His lips are moving."
For more on why the ad is deliberately misleading, see this.
For more about abortion-advocacy dishonesty, see Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
I've yet to see them put out an ad -- or even a simple statement or press release or bumper sticker or t-shirt -- that wasn't deliberately misleading. Bringing out women or families whose situations wouldn't be impacted by a law is old hat. When the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act was being debated, abortion advocates went so far as to have a woman speak to the legislature about her personal tragedy, when her baby died in-utero during the third trimester. They had her claiming that the law would have prohibited her doctor from inducing labor to deliver the already-dead fetus. Since laws against abortion only ban the deliberate killing of live babies in the womb, the Act was no more relevant to that woman's situation than a homicide law is to the selection of funeral caskets.
Go read the article, since it's clear and straightforward and serves as yet another example of the old adage, "How do you know an abortion advocate is lying? His lips are moving."
For more on why the ad is deliberately misleading, see this.
For more about abortion-advocacy dishonesty, see Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Three more reasons to vote for McCain
Three Facts About John McCain's Extreme Position on Choice
I'll re-post them, with comments:
That is the Republican platform. Though what McCain has specifically promised is to nominate Supreme Court justices who don't invent new "rights" -- like the "right" to abortion -- out of "emanations from a penumbra". If it ain't in the Constitution, it ain't in the Constitution, and either learn to adjust or change the Constitution.
What does this mean for fans of abortion? That it'd go back to the states. Would this mean scores of coathanger-impaled women littering the emergency rooms of America? Hardly.
This is the same scare tactic the abortion lobby brings up every four years. Yawn.
McCain has, not my knowledge, never voted to criminalize doctors.
What they're implying here is that McCain would make it a crime for doctors to do certain things. Which he no doubt would like to do. But it's already illegal for doctors to do certain things, like have sex with underage patients, commit fraud, etc. None of these laws "criminalize doctors". So enough with the overblown rhetoric already.
And enough with calling abortion "support[ing] women in their reproductive choices". Abortion is a choice made after the woman has already reproduced. (Get out your old biology textbooks if they're still laying around the house. Gamete meets gamete, make zygote. Reproduction has taken place.) They need to be honest and say that what they're talking about is prohibiting doctors from helping women impose death on their own offspring. That's not the same as interfering with any reproductive choice. Reproductive choices would include having sex, abstaining from sex, using an artificial contraceptive, not using an artificial contraceptive, using fertility awareness methods to increase or decrease the odds of conception, getting your tubes tied, having infertility treatments, choosing c-section or vaginal childbirth, choosing home birth or hospital birth, etc. A plethora of reproductive choices all untouched by any laws regarding the one choice abortion advocates focus on.
Then let's touch the specter of the woman's health being at risk. In what way would restricting abortion prevent doctors from doing what's in women's best health interests? Another cheap ploy. Having abortion readily available is nice for lazy doctors -- they don't have to help women with health problems during pregnancy. They can just refer them for an abortion and not be bothered. I'm not clear on how this helps women with health problems during pregnancy. Abortion isn't medical care for sick women. It's a way to avoid providing health care.
Translated into English: Since 1983, John McCain has voted 125 times against the abortion lobby's wishes.
This is only bad news if you're in the abortion business. But very few of us either work in abortion facilities or for organizations that rely on the abortion agenda.
So, thank you, JohnMcCainRecord.com, for giving people who care about women and children three more reasons to vote McCain, and three more reasons to not trust you any further than we could spit a rat.
I'll re-post them, with comments:
1. John McCain is running on the Republican platform, which would ban all abortions - even in cases of rape and incest.
That is the Republican platform. Though what McCain has specifically promised is to nominate Supreme Court justices who don't invent new "rights" -- like the "right" to abortion -- out of "emanations from a penumbra". If it ain't in the Constitution, it ain't in the Constitution, and either learn to adjust or change the Constitution.
What does this mean for fans of abortion? That it'd go back to the states. Would this mean scores of coathanger-impaled women littering the emergency rooms of America? Hardly.
This is the same scare tactic the abortion lobby brings up every four years. Yawn.
2. John McCain voted to criminalize doctors who support women in their reproductive choices, even when a woman's health is at risk.
McCain has, not my knowledge, never voted to criminalize doctors.
What they're implying here is that McCain would make it a crime for doctors to do certain things. Which he no doubt would like to do. But it's already illegal for doctors to do certain things, like have sex with underage patients, commit fraud, etc. None of these laws "criminalize doctors". So enough with the overblown rhetoric already.
And enough with calling abortion "support[ing] women in their reproductive choices". Abortion is a choice made after the woman has already reproduced. (Get out your old biology textbooks if they're still laying around the house. Gamete meets gamete, make zygote. Reproduction has taken place.) They need to be honest and say that what they're talking about is prohibiting doctors from helping women impose death on their own offspring. That's not the same as interfering with any reproductive choice. Reproductive choices would include having sex, abstaining from sex, using an artificial contraceptive, not using an artificial contraceptive, using fertility awareness methods to increase or decrease the odds of conception, getting your tubes tied, having infertility treatments, choosing c-section or vaginal childbirth, choosing home birth or hospital birth, etc. A plethora of reproductive choices all untouched by any laws regarding the one choice abortion advocates focus on.
Then let's touch the specter of the woman's health being at risk. In what way would restricting abortion prevent doctors from doing what's in women's best health interests? Another cheap ploy. Having abortion readily available is nice for lazy doctors -- they don't have to help women with health problems during pregnancy. They can just refer them for an abortion and not be bothered. I'm not clear on how this helps women with health problems during pregnancy. Abortion isn't medical care for sick women. It's a way to avoid providing health care.
3. Since 1983, John McCain has voted 125 times against women's reproductive health choices.
Translated into English: Since 1983, John McCain has voted 125 times against the abortion lobby's wishes.
This is only bad news if you're in the abortion business. But very few of us either work in abortion facilities or for organizations that rely on the abortion agenda.
So, thank you, JohnMcCainRecord.com, for giving people who care about women and children three more reasons to vote McCain, and three more reasons to not trust you any further than we could spit a rat.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Scaring women to death
False fears spreading about inaccessible abortion in South Dakota notes the alarmism already brewing, and provides an example -- Last of the Old Guard: Abortion providers retire in the West, leaving their posts empty. This article laments the lack of "access" and paints self-induced abortion (their example being a woman who poisoned herself with whiskey) as the only option for a pregnant woman facing challenges.
At no point does the article mention prolife pregnancy centers, churches, or other organizations or programs to help pregnant and parenting women. It's pure gloom, doom, and despair.
There is also no focus on the fact that states like Wyoming and its neighbors are clearly doing very well with abortion prevention, as shown in the most recent Abortion Surveillance Summary (emphasis mine):
Table 3 shows South Dakota women undergoing a total of 942 legal abortions (including women who traveled out of state), a rate of 6 per 1000 women of childbearing age, and a ratio of 83 abortions for every 1,000 live births. But instead of asking what states like Idaho and South Dakota are doing right, abortion cheerleaders are lamenting "lack of access".
Let's face it, we have a very real-life research project happening naturally. It seems as if people who cry, "Join us in prevention efforts!" are unwilling to look at what these states are doing to achieve low abortion rates and ratios. Instead of asking what more these states could do, asking how low an abortion rate and ratio is actually attainable, abortion enthusiasts instead focus on bringing in more "providers" -- when clearly a low number of abortionists is associated with low abortion ratios and rates. Why screw up a good thing? What's the real agenda?
Why not point out the resources that the women of South Dakota, Idaho, and Wyoming have been using to avoid abortions? Why not look at which women are falling through the cracks, seeking ways to reach them? Why just go on and on about how women will be driven to acts of despair and desperation, unless the goal is to isolate the women as much as possible and magnify their fears until those fears block out all hope?
And it all hearkens back to the sackcloth-and-ashes routine the abortion lobby put on when the Hyde Amendment was coming down the pike. Abortion advocates shouted from the housetops that women would have no options but seedy illegal abortionists or dangerous home abortions. Actual help -- or even private abortion funds and sliding-scale abortions -- were not mentioned as being available. And abortion fanatics got what they wanted -- a corpse to drag through the streets.
The goal here isn't to help pregnant women; it's to literally scare at least one of them to death, to provide another Rosie Jimenez that the abortion lobby can make into a poster child.
There's nothing the prolife movement can do to prevent the abortion cheerleaders from pursuing this goal. But there are things that reasonable citizens on both sides can do to prevent them from achieving it:
1. Highlight -- with pride -- how the vast majority of women of these states are smart, responsible, and resourceful enough to avoid abortions.
2. Tell their stories. Focus on all the ways they avoid abortions, from avoiding ill-timed pregnancies in the first place to coping effectively and successfully with challenging pregnancies when they do occur.
3. Publicize resources available to women who want to emulate their abortion-avoiding sisters.
4. Locate and address areas of concern.
5. Set goals. Each state should be trying to achieve the same abortion rate and ratio that the next most-successful state achieved the last reported year. State the goal, publicize the goal, and challenge citizens to work together toward achieving that goal. And for Idaho, which is already the most successful state, aim toward cutting the abortion ratio and rate in half.
I'd suggest a two-pronged PR campaign, with one prong highlighting success, and the other addressing the opposition -- "Don't let them scare you to death!"
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
At no point does the article mention prolife pregnancy centers, churches, or other organizations or programs to help pregnant and parenting women. It's pure gloom, doom, and despair.
There is also no focus on the fact that states like Wyoming and its neighbors are clearly doing very well with abortion prevention, as shown in the most recent Abortion Surveillance Summary (emphasis mine):
In 2004, the highest number of reported legal induced abortions occurred in Florida (91,710), NYC (91,673), and Texas (74,801); the fewest occurred in Wyoming (12), South Dakota (814), and Idaho (963). The abortion ratios by state or area of occurrence ranged from [a low of] 43 per 1,000 live births in Idaho to 770 per 1,000 in NYC. Among women aged 15--44 years, rates by occurrence ranged from [a low of] three per 1,000 women in Idaho to 30 per 1,000 in New York.
Table 3 shows South Dakota women undergoing a total of 942 legal abortions (including women who traveled out of state), a rate of 6 per 1000 women of childbearing age, and a ratio of 83 abortions for every 1,000 live births. But instead of asking what states like Idaho and South Dakota are doing right, abortion cheerleaders are lamenting "lack of access".
Let's face it, we have a very real-life research project happening naturally. It seems as if people who cry, "Join us in prevention efforts!" are unwilling to look at what these states are doing to achieve low abortion rates and ratios. Instead of asking what more these states could do, asking how low an abortion rate and ratio is actually attainable, abortion enthusiasts instead focus on bringing in more "providers" -- when clearly a low number of abortionists is associated with low abortion ratios and rates. Why screw up a good thing? What's the real agenda?
Why not point out the resources that the women of South Dakota, Idaho, and Wyoming have been using to avoid abortions? Why not look at which women are falling through the cracks, seeking ways to reach them? Why just go on and on about how women will be driven to acts of despair and desperation, unless the goal is to isolate the women as much as possible and magnify their fears until those fears block out all hope?
And it all hearkens back to the sackcloth-and-ashes routine the abortion lobby put on when the Hyde Amendment was coming down the pike. Abortion advocates shouted from the housetops that women would have no options but seedy illegal abortionists or dangerous home abortions. Actual help -- or even private abortion funds and sliding-scale abortions -- were not mentioned as being available. And abortion fanatics got what they wanted -- a corpse to drag through the streets.
The goal here isn't to help pregnant women; it's to literally scare at least one of them to death, to provide another Rosie Jimenez that the abortion lobby can make into a poster child.
There's nothing the prolife movement can do to prevent the abortion cheerleaders from pursuing this goal. But there are things that reasonable citizens on both sides can do to prevent them from achieving it:
1. Highlight -- with pride -- how the vast majority of women of these states are smart, responsible, and resourceful enough to avoid abortions.
2. Tell their stories. Focus on all the ways they avoid abortions, from avoiding ill-timed pregnancies in the first place to coping effectively and successfully with challenging pregnancies when they do occur.
3. Publicize resources available to women who want to emulate their abortion-avoiding sisters.
4. Locate and address areas of concern.
5. Set goals. Each state should be trying to achieve the same abortion rate and ratio that the next most-successful state achieved the last reported year. State the goal, publicize the goal, and challenge citizens to work together toward achieving that goal. And for Idaho, which is already the most successful state, aim toward cutting the abortion ratio and rate in half.
I'd suggest a two-pronged PR campaign, with one prong highlighting success, and the other addressing the opposition -- "Don't let them scare you to death!"
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Abortion advocates: Put up or shut up
I'm still a bit angry. I got a snotty comment from an abortion advocate sneering that I'm not lamenting childbirth deaths. After all, they are deaths from a "reproductive choice".
You know, I have yet to encounter an abortion advocate who fails at some point to dredge up childbirth mortality, usually with some smug, snide remark about how much more dangerous childbirth is than abortion.
Earth to abortion apologists: Even if your claim was true (which is unlikely and certainly unproven) -- it's irrelevant.
Could you imagine the public outcry if, in the wake of an airline crash, the FAA and the airline industry insisted that there was no need for an investigation and no need to take corrective measures on the grounds that, "Well, flying is still safer than driving!" We'd never stand for it. No matter how much safer airline travel is than driving, we still hold airlines to strict safety standards. No matter how much safer airline travel is than driving, we still investigate crashes. No matter how much safer airline travel is than driving, we still remain ever alert for ways to reduce risks and make it safer.
The comparative safety of an alternative method of transportation simply isn't relevant. We ask the question, "What caused this tragedy? What can we do to prevent this from happening again?" The question of how many of those airline passengers might have died had they driven instead is never asked, because it's not relevant.
But let a woman die from a legal abortion, and abortion apologists come out of the woodwork simpering, "Well, women die in childbirth all the time! Why not worry about them!" To which I say -- Then do so!
By all means, yes, let's address childbirth mortality. And let's start by acknowledging that legalizing abortion had nothing to do with the dramatic reduction of childbirth mortality in the 20th Century. The biggest heroes in the fight against needless maternal and chid mortality are sewer workers and the guys who keep clean water running to your kitchen and bathroom taps, followed cloesly by the chain of workers, from farmer to grocer, that bring fresh milk, meat, and produce from farm to you. The idea that abortion advocacy had anything to do with it is galling, and belittles the people whose thankless drudge work makes our lives clean and healthy.
That said: Let's go ahead and address the remaining childbirth mortality factors. Let's make better prenatal care available. Let's educate women about the importance of good nutrition before and during pregnancy. Let's develop protocols for referring high-risk women to specialists. Let's improve all aspects of obstetric care, for the better health and safety of mothers and babies. But let's not for a minute forget that none of this will change a thing about abortion practice.
The fact remains that there is no amount of addressing childbirth safety that will change how abortions are performed. No matter what we do about how prenatal care is provided, or what equipment is available in delivery rooms, and so forth, none of this will change what goes on in abortion clinics, just as putting airbags in cars doesn't make airline travel safer.
If abortion apologists are serious about their often chanted mantra of "safe and legal," they'd do something to address "safe" other than obsessing with "legal." They'd investigate abortion mishaps the way the FAA investigates air travel mishaps. They'd make recommendations about preventing further mishaps. They would, in short, take abortion safety as seriously as they take abortion legality.
And if they really cared about childbirth mortality, they'd address it instead of simply sneering about it.
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
You know, I have yet to encounter an abortion advocate who fails at some point to dredge up childbirth mortality, usually with some smug, snide remark about how much more dangerous childbirth is than abortion.
Earth to abortion apologists: Even if your claim was true (which is unlikely and certainly unproven) -- it's irrelevant.
Could you imagine the public outcry if, in the wake of an airline crash, the FAA and the airline industry insisted that there was no need for an investigation and no need to take corrective measures on the grounds that, "Well, flying is still safer than driving!" We'd never stand for it. No matter how much safer airline travel is than driving, we still hold airlines to strict safety standards. No matter how much safer airline travel is than driving, we still investigate crashes. No matter how much safer airline travel is than driving, we still remain ever alert for ways to reduce risks and make it safer.
The comparative safety of an alternative method of transportation simply isn't relevant. We ask the question, "What caused this tragedy? What can we do to prevent this from happening again?" The question of how many of those airline passengers might have died had they driven instead is never asked, because it's not relevant.
But let a woman die from a legal abortion, and abortion apologists come out of the woodwork simpering, "Well, women die in childbirth all the time! Why not worry about them!" To which I say -- Then do so!
By all means, yes, let's address childbirth mortality. And let's start by acknowledging that legalizing abortion had nothing to do with the dramatic reduction of childbirth mortality in the 20th Century. The biggest heroes in the fight against needless maternal and chid mortality are sewer workers and the guys who keep clean water running to your kitchen and bathroom taps, followed cloesly by the chain of workers, from farmer to grocer, that bring fresh milk, meat, and produce from farm to you. The idea that abortion advocacy had anything to do with it is galling, and belittles the people whose thankless drudge work makes our lives clean and healthy.
That said: Let's go ahead and address the remaining childbirth mortality factors. Let's make better prenatal care available. Let's educate women about the importance of good nutrition before and during pregnancy. Let's develop protocols for referring high-risk women to specialists. Let's improve all aspects of obstetric care, for the better health and safety of mothers and babies. But let's not for a minute forget that none of this will change a thing about abortion practice.
The fact remains that there is no amount of addressing childbirth safety that will change how abortions are performed. No matter what we do about how prenatal care is provided, or what equipment is available in delivery rooms, and so forth, none of this will change what goes on in abortion clinics, just as putting airbags in cars doesn't make airline travel safer.
If abortion apologists are serious about their often chanted mantra of "safe and legal," they'd do something to address "safe" other than obsessing with "legal." They'd investigate abortion mishaps the way the FAA investigates air travel mishaps. They'd make recommendations about preventing further mishaps. They would, in short, take abortion safety as seriously as they take abortion legality.
And if they really cared about childbirth mortality, they'd address it instead of simply sneering about it.
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Meet the woman who is not a woman
The abortion lobby supposedly is there to support women, regardless of whether they choose life or death for their unborn babies. But they're perfectly willing to throw this woman, and others like her, under the bus, to tell them that they're flat out WRONG for loving their unborn children, and grieving when those children are taken from them in brutal attacks.
Tracy:
As I've said before, opposition to Unborn Victims of Violence laws isn't a matter of taking sides in a turf war between women and unborn babies. It's a matter of taking sides in a turf war between women who love their unborn babies, and women who see them as medical waste to be disposed of.
Mothers and babies are not, as the abortion lobby would have us believe, natural enemies. It's the rare mother who really, in her heart of hearts, wants her baby dead. But it's those mothers, and those mothers alone, whose interests the abortion lobby fights to preserve.
Their callous disregard for the pain of women like Tracy more than proves that.
The abortion lobby says that Tracy is flat out WRONG to see that child in her arms as a baby -- that she's sadly deluded for seeing a dead baby deserving of a funeral. That what she has in her arms is just tissue, suited only for sending to the pathology lab with no more ceremony or emotion than would accompany your tonsils.
If you can look at this picture wonder why that woman is cradling a pathology specimen, by all means march in lockstep with the abortion lobby. Believe everything they say about their agenda and women's uniform and unbridled enthusiasm for that agenda.
If you see a grieving mother holding her murdered baby, start asking questions. And never take anything the abortion lobby says at face value again.
Oh yeah, they're fighting for women, all right. Just not women like Tracy.
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Tracy:
I carried Zachariah in my womb for almost nine full months. He was killed in my womb, only five days from his delivery date. The first time I ever held him in my arms, he was already dead. ....
There is no way that I can really tell you about the pain I feel when I visit my son’s grave site in Milwaukee, and at other times, thinking of all that we missed together. But that pain was greater because the man who killed Zachariah got away with murder.
....
I know that some lawmakers and some groups insist that there is no such thing as an unborn victim, and that crimes like this only have a single victim – but that is callous and it is wrong. Please don’t tell me that my son was not a real victim of a real crime.
As I've said before, opposition to Unborn Victims of Violence laws isn't a matter of taking sides in a turf war between women and unborn babies. It's a matter of taking sides in a turf war between women who love their unborn babies, and women who see them as medical waste to be disposed of.
Mothers and babies are not, as the abortion lobby would have us believe, natural enemies. It's the rare mother who really, in her heart of hearts, wants her baby dead. But it's those mothers, and those mothers alone, whose interests the abortion lobby fights to preserve.
Their callous disregard for the pain of women like Tracy more than proves that.
The abortion lobby says that Tracy is flat out WRONG to see that child in her arms as a baby -- that she's sadly deluded for seeing a dead baby deserving of a funeral. That what she has in her arms is just tissue, suited only for sending to the pathology lab with no more ceremony or emotion than would accompany your tonsils.
If you can look at this picture wonder why that woman is cradling a pathology specimen, by all means march in lockstep with the abortion lobby. Believe everything they say about their agenda and women's uniform and unbridled enthusiasm for that agenda.
If you see a grieving mother holding her murdered baby, start asking questions. And never take anything the abortion lobby says at face value again.
Oh yeah, they're fighting for women, all right. Just not women like Tracy.
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Anniversary: A big yawn for the abortion lobby
On April 4, 1984, Mary Bradley, a 41-year-old mother of four, died from lingering complications of an a 20-week abortion performed Dr. Wayne Patterson in March. Because of severe bleeding, she had been admitted to a hospital and had a total hysterectomy on March 28. Mary developed blood clotting and respiratory difficulties which ultimately killed her.
According to official documents, another Alabama woman, Janyth Caldwell, died after an abortion performed by a doctor identified as George Wayne Patterson. The Alabama medical board lists no Dr. Wayne Patterson, only Dr. George Wayne Patterson, deceased, which leads me to believe that the same Dr. Patterson responsible for Mary's death had also caused the death of Janyth Caldwell the following year. If anybody can confirm or disprove this theory, please let me know.
Dr. George Wayne Patterson himself also suffered an early death at somebody else's hands. He was gunned down outside a pornography theater in an apparent gangland slaying. (The Feminist Majority Foundation, and Revolutionary Worker refer to the slain doctor as "Wayne Patterson", which is further evidence that he is the same doctor responsible for Mary Bradley's death. The fact that these organizations lament the gangland shooting of an abortionist who had entangled himself in criminal activity, while ignoring the fact that he himself had evidently killed two women, underscores where their priorities are.)
For more abortion deaths, visit the Cemetery of Choice:
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
According to official documents, another Alabama woman, Janyth Caldwell, died after an abortion performed by a doctor identified as George Wayne Patterson. The Alabama medical board lists no Dr. Wayne Patterson, only Dr. George Wayne Patterson, deceased, which leads me to believe that the same Dr. Patterson responsible for Mary's death had also caused the death of Janyth Caldwell the following year. If anybody can confirm or disprove this theory, please let me know.
Dr. George Wayne Patterson himself also suffered an early death at somebody else's hands. He was gunned down outside a pornography theater in an apparent gangland slaying. (The Feminist Majority Foundation, and Revolutionary Worker refer to the slain doctor as "Wayne Patterson", which is further evidence that he is the same doctor responsible for Mary Bradley's death. The fact that these organizations lament the gangland shooting of an abortionist who had entangled himself in criminal activity, while ignoring the fact that he himself had evidently killed two women, underscores where their priorities are.)
For more abortion deaths, visit the Cemetery of Choice:
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Baldness gene identified: Should we screen and abort?
Gene discovery may lead to new baldness drugs
Why is it that when they can spot a "bald gene", the talk is about developing a cure, but when they can spot Down syndrome, it's all a search-and-destroy mission?
Surely this premature hair loss is a social and psychological burden for those afflicted. "It's treatable," you may scoff. "Why, you can just wear a wig, if nothing else!"
Yeah, and cleft lip is treatable. It's still used as a justification for abortion. As is polydactyly (having extra fingers or toes). Anything that allows somebody to point at an unborn child and say, "Ew! This one is DIFFERENT!" is grounds for getting out the forceps. Why not a bald gene?
If doctors were pushing for prenatal screening so that the "condition" can be "caught early" and a "termination" scheduled, would we recognize the bigotry? If some university professor told his students that all mothers at risk of having a baby with the baldness gene should be tested as soon as possible, and the affected fetus promptly done away with, would we recognize the bigotry?
Is there any flaw too trivial to be worthy of a search-and-destroy mission to eliminate those who have it?
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Researchers have identified a gene linked to hair loss that could lead to new drugs to treat baldness.
The gene is responsible for a rare hereditary form of hair loss known as Hypotrichosis simplex, a condition affecting 1 in 200,000 people, in which people begin going bald in childhood, the researchers reported in the journal Nature Genetics.
Why is it that when they can spot a "bald gene", the talk is about developing a cure, but when they can spot Down syndrome, it's all a search-and-destroy mission?
Surely this premature hair loss is a social and psychological burden for those afflicted. "It's treatable," you may scoff. "Why, you can just wear a wig, if nothing else!"
Yeah, and cleft lip is treatable. It's still used as a justification for abortion. As is polydactyly (having extra fingers or toes). Anything that allows somebody to point at an unborn child and say, "Ew! This one is DIFFERENT!" is grounds for getting out the forceps. Why not a bald gene?
If doctors were pushing for prenatal screening so that the "condition" can be "caught early" and a "termination" scheduled, would we recognize the bigotry? If some university professor told his students that all mothers at risk of having a baby with the baldness gene should be tested as soon as possible, and the affected fetus promptly done away with, would we recognize the bigotry?
Is there any flaw too trivial to be worthy of a search-and-destroy mission to eliminate those who have it?
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Condescending?
Abortion debate heats up
A Kansas bill proposes requiring that abortionists offer women the opportunity to view an ultrasound and hear the fetal heartbeat before proceeding with killing the fetus in question.
Let's try that attitude on in other circumstances. How about a bill requiring that before buying a used car, the customer be offered a chance to review the vehicle's repair history:
How about a law requiring that prior to signing a contract for cable TV, a consumer be offered an opportunity to review what his actual bills will be during the contract period, after the expiration of the elaborately-worded Special Offer:
Or maybe a bill that would require weight-loss clinics to offer customers the chance to review data on actual weight lost by other clients during the previous year:
If you took such a "Don't worry your pretty little head, just sign here" in any other consumer situation, you'd be recognized right away as having some agenda other than protecting the consumer. And unlike most other consumer choices, an abortion can't be returned if the customer is unhappy. This is buyer's remorse that can last a lifetime -- or even kill.
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
A Kansas bill proposes requiring that abortionists offer women the opportunity to view an ultrasound and hear the fetal heartbeat before proceeding with killing the fetus in question.
Julie Burkhart, chief executive officer of the abortion-rights group ProKanDo, said the current law is sufficient.
"This bill shows just one thing," she said. "A lack of trust in women to be able to make the best possible decision for themselves and their families."
Let's try that attitude on in other circumstances. How about a bill requiring that before buying a used car, the customer be offered a chance to review the vehicle's repair history:
Bob Lemon, chief executive officer of the used-car salesman group NoKanGo, said the current law is sufficient.
"This bill shows just one thing," he said. "A lack of trust in drivers to be able to make the best possible decision for themselves and their families."
How about a law requiring that prior to signing a contract for cable TV, a consumer be offered an opportunity to review what his actual bills will be during the contract period, after the expiration of the elaborately-worded Special Offer:
Bill Higherlater, chief executive officer of the cable sales group NoKanSho, said the current law is sufficient.
"This bill shows just one thing," he said. "A lack of trust in viewers to be able to make the best possible decision for themselves and their families."
Or maybe a bill that would require weight-loss clinics to offer customers the chance to review data on actual weight lost by other clients during the previous year:
Lucy Pounds, chief executive officer of the diet-aid sales group LoKanGo, said the current law is sufficient.
"This bill shows just one thing," she said. "A lack of trust in dieters to be able to make the best possible decision for themselves and their families."
If you took such a "Don't worry your pretty little head, just sign here" in any other consumer situation, you'd be recognized right away as having some agenda other than protecting the consumer. And unlike most other consumer choices, an abortion can't be returned if the customer is unhappy. This is buyer's remorse that can last a lifetime -- or even kill.
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Baby-loving moms get moral support in France
Court ruling sets stage for abortion row in France
The French Supreme Court ruled that parents who loved their unborn baby can register the child's name legally if he or she is miscarried.
This, of course, has the women who consider these babies medical waste up in arms.
There's a parallel battle in the United States. I have in my hands "Proof of Life", an article in the December 11, 2006 issue of People. Grieving parents want certificates of stillbirth. Nothing more. But anti-choice activists hiding under the mantle of "prochoice" are against the idea. Anything that acknowedges these mothers' grief might undermine public support for abortion. So these women are to be dismissed, their anguish belittled, in the interests of those women for whom the loss of a child before or during birth is something to be chosen and celebrated, rather than lamented and mourned.
Go for it. Fight it. Show the public that the abortion lobby isn't about supporting whatever the woman in question chooses. It's only about supporting the rights of those who want their unborn babies to die unremarked, unmourned, and tossed into the incinerator like so many used bandages.
This ruling isn't nearly as great a threat to "choice" as the hissy-fit abortion supporters are throwing will be. Show your true colors. Go to town.
The French Supreme Court ruled that parents who loved their unborn baby can register the child's name legally if he or she is miscarried.
This, of course, has the women who consider these babies medical waste up in arms.
There's a parallel battle in the United States. I have in my hands "Proof of Life", an article in the December 11, 2006 issue of People. Grieving parents want certificates of stillbirth. Nothing more. But anti-choice activists hiding under the mantle of "prochoice" are against the idea. Anything that acknowedges these mothers' grief might undermine public support for abortion. So these women are to be dismissed, their anguish belittled, in the interests of those women for whom the loss of a child before or during birth is something to be chosen and celebrated, rather than lamented and mourned.
Go for it. Fight it. Show the public that the abortion lobby isn't about supporting whatever the woman in question chooses. It's only about supporting the rights of those who want their unborn babies to die unremarked, unmourned, and tossed into the incinerator like so many used bandages.
This ruling isn't nearly as great a threat to "choice" as the hissy-fit abortion supporters are throwing will be. Show your true colors. Go to town.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Another fan of Planned Parenthood
Somebody came to my site searching for Erin Bendle. Ms. Bendle was one of the people who signed a Planned Parenthood petition using a fraudulent story to try to drum up opposition to prolife pregnancy centers. Ms. Bendle added her own comment: "Women deserve truth and respect when making choices about their bodies and health... not deceit."
When I look at comments from supporters of PP's petition, I get the feeling that if these people ever find out about the way PP actually operates, there's gonna be such a backlash that there won't be a PP left standing anywhere in America, because angry people are gonna tear them down brick by brick.
I think that the majority of the people signing that petition wouldn't want to be supporting an organization that sent a young mother home to bleed to death from a treatable injury. I don't think they'd knowingly get behind an organization that allowed a nurse-practitioner to insert laminaria into a woman's body in spite of obvious signs of infection, resulting in her death. I don't think they'd back an organization that referred a teenage rape victim to a facility that lacked proper resuscitation equipment and left her permanently incapacitated. I don't think they'd think highly of a place that routinely referred women to a seedy abortion mill that had at least four women die under their dubious care, or to a string of abortion mills with at least a dozen patient deaths to their discredit.
But I could be wrong. It could be that Ms. Bendle and other Planned Parenthood supporters would consider these women and girls just so much grist for the mill.
When I look at comments from supporters of PP's petition, I get the feeling that if these people ever find out about the way PP actually operates, there's gonna be such a backlash that there won't be a PP left standing anywhere in America, because angry people are gonna tear them down brick by brick.
I think that the majority of the people signing that petition wouldn't want to be supporting an organization that sent a young mother home to bleed to death from a treatable injury. I don't think they'd knowingly get behind an organization that allowed a nurse-practitioner to insert laminaria into a woman's body in spite of obvious signs of infection, resulting in her death. I don't think they'd back an organization that referred a teenage rape victim to a facility that lacked proper resuscitation equipment and left her permanently incapacitated. I don't think they'd think highly of a place that routinely referred women to a seedy abortion mill that had at least four women die under their dubious care, or to a string of abortion mills with at least a dozen patient deaths to their discredit.
But I could be wrong. It could be that Ms. Bendle and other Planned Parenthood supporters would consider these women and girls just so much grist for the mill.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Enough with the coathangers already
Legalization let the "back alley butchers" hang up their shingles on Main Street. To what end?
Cui bono?
For more abortion deaths, visit the Cemetery of Choice:
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Cui bono?
For more abortion deaths, visit the Cemetery of Choice:
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Cincinnati City Beat still beating the Becky Bell drum
Abortion Advocates Still Peddle Misleading Story on Becky Bell's Death
Here's the email I sent:
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Here's the email I sent:
Dear Mr. Fox:
I am highly disappointed to see that people are still believing the lies that the abortion lobby has generated about Becky Bell.
I have abstracted thousands of abortion malpractice cases and over a hundred autopsy reports on women and girls who have died from abortion complications. Becky Bell's autopsy report, which I have also read, clearly shows no signs whatsoever of post-abortion infection. What it shows is pneumonia, the same strain that killed Muppets creator Jim Henson.
Even Becky's parents admitted that she was still pregnant when they brought her to the hospital: the doctor told them he wasn't sure the baby would survive. Becky's best friend told a Reuter's reporter that Becky was still considering running away to a home for unwed mothers in California shortly before her death. Becky had brochures for that home in her purse when she died.
Becky's grief-stricken parents latched onto the word "abortion" on her autopsy report, evidently not realizing that this is the medical term for a miscarriage. Their confusion is understandable. That the abortion lobby decided to capitalize on their confusion is deplorable. That the news media never question the abortion lobby is inexcusable.
Meanwhile you continue to ignore teens who died of secret abortions. Dawn Ravenelle was 13 years old when her mother got a call to come to St. Luke's hospital, where Dawn was "fighting for her life". Erica Richardson's aunt arranged a secret abortion that left the girl dead from an embolism. Jammie Garcia probably would have survived the complications of her abortion had she not kept it a secret, thus delaying medical care until it was too late. Sandra Kaiser went into a terrible depression after her clandestine abortion and ended up committing suicide by throwing herself off an overpass into traffic. Tamiia Russell was brought for a secret abortion by the sister of the 24-year-old man who had been sexually abusing her. Why are these girls' deaths not newsworthy?
Becky Bell, who Planned Parenthood still drags out periodically, died in 1988 from an abortion that only took place in the heads of abortion profiteers. That same year, 17-year-old Teresa Causey died of an actual abortion that really did take place -- legally. Denise Montoya, age 15, met the same fate. As did Katrina Poole, age 16. And since then, safe and legal abortion has claimed the lives of other underage girls, including these that I know of:
1989: Glenna Jean Fox, age 17; Erica Richardson, age 16
1990: Sophie McCoy, age 17
1991: Latachie Veal, age 17
1992: Deanna Bell, age 13
1994: Jammie Garcia, age 15; Sara Niebel, age 15
1997: Maureen Espinoza, age 16
2004: Tamiia Russell, age 15
Why is it totally unacceptable for an underage girl to die from an illegal abortion that never happened, but a big fat yawn when girls die from abortions that they'd been told were perfectly safe?
Why the double standard?
I can understand why the abortion lobby has the attitude that Teresa, Denise, Katrina, Glenna, and the other girls are just so much grist for the abortion mill. But what excuse does City Beat have?
Christina Dunigan
To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Interesting anniversary
On this day in 1989, then Surgeon-General C. Everett Koop told his staff to drop the research on abortion's health impact on women he'd had them initiate in order to go though the motions he thought would satisfy President Reagan. Reagan had instructed Koop to perpare a report on the effects of abortion on women, a task Koop felt was morally problematic because it shifted the focus off the fact that abortion kills babies.
Koop's staffer, George Walter, drafted and relased a report anyway, hence the abortion lobby's claims that there is a "Koop report" that touts how safe abortion is.
Koop's staffer, George Walter, drafted and relased a report anyway, hence the abortion lobby's claims that there is a "Koop report" that touts how safe abortion is.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Selective Outrage
Campaign for free, safe, legal abortion visited my Cemetery of Choice and hand-picked illegal abortion deaths:
But this compassionate poster was not moved by the legal abortion deaths. So much grist for the mills? What is it, O Campaign for Free, Safe, Legal Abortion, that renders these women beneath your notice?
I posted a response. (I have since started formatting it as an ordered list and putting in the links, by popular request):
Twenty bucks says my comment will get nuked within the week, if not within 24 hours.
Mary Kirkpatrick, New Jersey, US 1859
Maggie Gibbons, St Louis, US 1877
Sylvia Sawdy (21), Michigan, US 1885
Mary Keegan, Chicago, US 1890
Hughretta Binkley, Illinois, US 1898
Cora Burke, Illinois, US 1899
Sarah Messinger, Chicago, US 1899
Antoine Vacicek, Chicago, US 1899
Alice Koester, Chicago, US 1900
Harriet Larocque, New York, US 1902
Irene Wengel, Florida, US 1902
Margaret McCarthy, Chicago, US 1904
Anna Gosch, Nebraska, US 1906
Anna Anderson (25), Oregon, US 1915
Anna Johnson, Chicago, US 1915
Viola Parr, Georgia, US 1919
Margaret Marts, Missouri, US 1920
Iva Triplett, Ohio, US 1921
Mildred Bleschke (24), Chicago,US 1924
“Patsy” Roe, Massachusetts, US 1924
Gertrude Wynants(17), New York, US 1925
Loretta Enders (19), Chicago, US 1928
Arretta Hardesty, New York, US 1928
Violet Diancalana (25), Chicago, US 1929
Clara Bell Duvall, Pittsburgh, US 1929. Tried to self-abort with a knitting needle on discovering she was pregnant for a sixth time. The family were living with her parents at the time, due to severe financial difficulties.
Ruth Irene Friedl (28), Denver, US 1929. Even though Ruth’s pregnancy had been diagnosed as life-threatening, she was refused an abortion. She drank ergot apiol, a plant poison, in an effort to self-abort, and died later on that day as a result.
Dorothy Schultz (19), Wisconsin, US 1929
Edna Vargo (22), Chicago, US 1929
Virginia Clark, Georgia, US 1930
Nina Roe (22), Washington, US 1933
Annette Camorato (19), US 1934
Katherine DiDonato (26), New York, US 1936
Asunta La Rosa, New York, US 1938
Alice Corbet, New York, US 1939
Barbara Hanson, New York, US 1939
Jane Roe, California, US 1939
Pauline Roberson Shirley(20), Arizona, US 1940. Died after suffering a massive haemorrhage after an illegal abortion.
Helen Clark, New York, US 1941
Madeline McGeehan, New York, US 1942
Cleo Moor(19), New York, US 1942
Florence Schnoor (24), New York, US 1942
Beatrice Fisher (36), Seattle, US 1945
Ilene Eagan, Minnesota, US 1947
Jane Ward(22), New York, US 1947
Kerneda Bennett, Virginia, US ?1949
Dorothy Martin, Georgia, US 1949
Joy Joy, Kansas, US 1950
“Helen” Roe, Kansas, US ?1951
Vivian Campbell(25), US 1950
Isabell Cuda, Illinois, US 1952
Betty Ladel, Texas, US 1954
Gertrude Pinsk (35), New York, US 1954
Joyce Johnson, California, US 1955
Jacqueline Smith (20), Pennsylvania, US 1955
Alice Kimberley, Kansas, US 1957
Barbara Covington (35), Florida, US 1962
But this compassionate poster was not moved by the legal abortion deaths. So much grist for the mills? What is it, O Campaign for Free, Safe, Legal Abortion, that renders these women beneath your notice?
I posted a response. (I have since started formatting it as an ordered list and putting in the links, by popular request):
Gosh, you went carefully through the Cemetery of Choice, and exercised choice, did you not? Would you care to explain to your readers why you considered the following women's deaths to be not worth mentioning?
- Diane Adams, 28, died 1992
- Eurice Agbagaa, 26, died 1989
- Leigh Ann Alford, 34, died 2003
- Demitrice Andews, 22, died 1988
- Mickey Apodaca, 28, died 1984
- Gloria Aponte, 20, died 1986
- Charisse Ards, 20, died 1989
- Barbara Auerbach, 38, died 1981
- KB, age 19, died 1988
- Jacqueline Bailey, 29, died 1977
- Brenda Banks, 35, died 1989
- Myrta Baptiste, 26, died 1989
- Lisa Bardsley, 26, died 1995
- Junette Barnes, 27, died 1988
- Deanna Bell, 13, died 1992
- Brenda Benton, 35, died 1987
- Rosario Bermeo, 30, died 1983
- Janet Blaum, 37, died 1974
- Cassandra Bleavins, 20, died 1971
- Linda Boom, 35, died 1995
- Diane Boyd, 19, died 1981
- Mary Bradley, 41, died 1985
- Dorothy Brown, 37, died 1974
- Chanelle Bryant, 22, died 2004
- Dorothy Bryant, 22, died 1986
- Belinda Byrd, 37, died 1987
- Janeth Caldwell, 36, died 1987
- Geneva Calton, 21, died 1979
- Joan Camp, 22, died 1985
- Marla Cardamone (pictured), 18, died 1989
- Teresa Causey, 17, died 1988
- Claudia Caventou, 33, died 1988
- Patricia Chacon, 16, died 1984
- Colleen Chambers, 34, died 1984
- Sandra Chmiel, 35, died 1975
- Gwendolyn Cliett, 29, died 1980
- Margaret Clodfelter, 19, died 1980
- Pamela Colson, 31, died 1994
- Geneva Colton, 21, died 1979
- Andrea Corey, 31, died 1993
- Liliana Cortez, 22, died 1986
- Edith Cote, 38, died 1991
- Sheryl Cottone, 23, died 1981
- Twila Coulter, 21, died 1972
- Carol Cunningham, 21, died 1986
- Betty Damato, 26, died 1980
- Mary Ann Dancy, 32, died 1990
- Angel Dardie, 22, died 1982
- Barbaralee Davis, 18, died 1977
- Glenda Davis, 31, died 1989
- Kathy Davis, 26, died 1987
- Margaret Davis, 33, died 1971
- Sharon Davis, 17, died 1983
- Marina DeChapel, 34, died 1978
- Arlin dela Cruz, age 19, died 1992
- Synthia Dennard, 24, died 1989
- Alerte Desanges, 36, died 1994
- Barbara Dillon, 22, died 1981
- Jane Doe of Newark, 20, died 1993
- Laniece Dorsey, 17, died 1986
- Tamika Dowdy, 22, died 1998
- Gwendolyn Drummer, 15, died 1972
- Duarte, Anjelica, 21, died 1991
- Evelyn Dudley, 38, died 1973
- Sherry Emry, 26, died 1978
- Georgianna English, 32, died 1980
- Maureen Espinoza, 16, died 1997
- Gladyss Estanlisao, 28, died 1989
- Erna Fisher, 18, died 1988
- Bonnie Fix, 38, died 1974
- Sharon Floyd, 18, died 1975
- Linda Fondren, 21, died 1974
- Janet Forster, 18, died 1971
- Cristella Forte, 16, died 1986
- Glenna Jean Fox, 17, died 1989
- Jammie Garcia, 14, died 1994
- Josefina Garcia, died 1985
- Marie Gibson, 34, died 1980
- Christen Gilbert (pictured), 19, died 2005
- Kathleen Gilbert, 29, died 1985
- Christina Goesswein, 19, died 1990
- Gaylene Golden, 21, died 1985
- Maria Gomez, 39, died 1976
- Edrica Goode (pictured), 21, died 2007
- Shary Graham, 34, died 1982
- Doris Grant, 32, died 1971
- Debra Gray, 34, died 1989
- Laura Grunas, 30, died 2006
- Carolina Gutierrez (pictured), 21, died 1996
- Angela Hall, 27, died 1991
- Sharon Hamplton (pictured), 27, died 1996
- Arneta Hardaway, 18, died 1985
- Gracalynn "Tammy" Harris, 19, died 1997
- Wilma Harris, 17, died 1974
- L'Echelle Head, 21, died 2000
- Sheila Hebert, 27, died 1984
- Donna Heim, 20, died 1986
- Lou Ann Herron, 33, died 1998
- Moris Helen Herron, 26, died 1983
- Rhonda Hess, 20, died 1982
- Betty Hines, 21, died 1971
- Shirley Hollis, 30, died 1991
- Denise Holmes, 24, died 1970
- Barbara Hoppert, 16, died 1983
- Mary Ives, 28, died 1983
- Karretu Jabbie, 24, died 1989
- Louchrisser Jackson, 23, died 1977
- Sandra Kaiser, 14, died 1984
- Patricia King, 24, died 1987
- Giselene Lafontant, 25, died 1993
- Minnie Lathan, 41, died 1978
- Barbara Lerner, 30, died 1981
- Susan Levy, 30, died 1992
- Cora Lewis, 23, died 1992
- Sara Lint, 22, died 1970
- Maria Lira, 19, ded 1974
- Suzanne Logan, 34, died 1992
- Diana Lopez, 25, died 2002
- Linda Lovelace, 21, died 1980
- Elva Lozada, died 1964
- Deborah Lozinski, 17, died 1985
- Dawn Mack, 21, died 1991
- Michelle Madden, 18, died 1986
- Sharon Margrove, 25, died 1970
- Haley Mason, 22, died 2001
- Gail Mazo, 27, died 1979
- Sophie McCoy, 17, died 1990
- Rita McDowell, 16, died 1975
- Myria McFadden, 28, died 1987
- Evangeline McKenna, 38, died 1974
- Kathy McKnight, 36, died 1993
- Kendra McLeod, 22, died 1998
- Lynn McNair, 24, died 1979
- Dawn Mendoza, 28, died 1988
- Yvonne Mesteth, 18, died 1985
- Natalie Meyers, 16, died 1972
- Sandra Milton, 23, died 1990
- Mitsue Mohar, 31, died 1975
- Ruth Montero, 23, died 1979
- Denise Montoya, 15, died 1988
- Beverly Moore, 15, died 1975
- Sylvia Moore, 18, died 1986
- Christine Mora, 18, died 1994
- Maura Morales, 25, died 1981
- Shelby Moran, 60, died 1999
- Katherine Morse, 20, died 1970
- Kelly Morse, 32, died 1992
- Loretta Morton, 16, died 1984
- Kathy Murphy, 17, died 1973
- Dorothy Muzorewa, 25, died 1974
- Guadalupe Negron, 33, died 1993
- Kimberly Neil, died 2000
- Germaine Newman, 14, died 1984
- Sara Niebel, 15, died 1994
- Maria Ortega, 23, died 1970
- Joyce Ortenzio, 32, died 1988
- Venus Ortiz, 29, died 1998
- Linda Padfield, 28, died 1973
- Mary Ann Page, 36, died 1977
- Mary Paredez, 26, died 1977
- Holly Patterson (pictured), 18, died 2003
- Shirley Payne, 33, died 1983
- Mary Pena, 43, died 1984
- DaNette Pergusson, 19, died 1992
- Erika Peterson, 28, died 1961
- Katherine Pierce, 27, died 1989
- Katrina Poole, 16, died 1988
- Yvette Poteat, 26, died 1985
- Vanessa Preston, 22, died 1980
- Dawn Ravenell, 13, died 1985
- Jacqueline Reynolds, 22, died 1986
- Erica Richardson, 16, died 1989
- Luz Rodriguez, 40, died 1986
- Magdalena Rodriguez, 23, died 1994
- Rosael Rodriguez, 21, died 1986
- Adelle Roe, age 26, died 2002
- Amanda Roe, 19, died 1970
- Alice Roe, 31, died 1970
- Amy Roe, 35, died 1971
- Annie Roe, 29, died 1971
- Andrea Roe, 26, died 1971
- Anita Roe, 23, died 1971
- April Roe, 17, died 1971
- Audrey Roe, 44, died 1971
- Barbara Roe, 35, died 1971
- Becky Roe, 18, died 1971
- Beth Roe, 35, died 1971
- Betty Roe, 29, died 1974
- Beverly Roe, 21, died 1978
- Brenda Roe, 31, died 1974
- Cherish Roe, died 2005
- Christi Roe, 29, died 1972
- Cindy Roe, 25, died 1972
- Colleen Roe, 31, died 1972
- Connie Roe, 31, died 1972
- Danielle Roe, 18, died 1972
- Dawn Roe, 29, died 1972
- Denise Roe, 27, died 1977
- Donna Roe, 18, died 1973
- Dorothy Roe, 44, died 1973
- Eleanor Roe, 20, died 1973
- Ellen Roe #1, 22, died 1974
- Ellen Roe #2, 18, died 1983
- Erica Roe, 20, died 1974
- Faith Roe, 21, died 1974
- Faye Roe, 18, died 1979
- Gail Roe, 23, died 1975
- Gloria Roe, 35, died 1976
- Isabel Roe, died 1981
- Judy Roe, 42, died 1970
- Julie Roe, 14, died 1972
- Kimberly Roe, 25, died 1970
- Lori Roe, 17, died 1970
- Malorie Roe, 35, died 1974
- Mary Roe, 19, died 1971
- Melissa Roe, 27, died 1992
- Molly Roe, 21, died 1975
- Monica Roe, 31, died 1971
- Nadine Roe, 32, died 1978
- Nancy Roe, 16, died 1972
- Pamela Roe, 38, died 1974
- Patricia Roe, 16, died 1975
- Robin Roe, 21, died 1972
- Roseanne Roe, 37, died 1971
- Roxanne Roe, 17, died 1972
- Sandra Roe, 18, died 1971
- Sara Roe, 22, died 1972
- Serena Roe, 22, died 1980
- Sherri Roe, 20, died 1975
- Sheryl Roe, 23, died 1970
- Susan Roe, 21, died 1992
- Tammy Roe, 33, died 1971
- Tara Roe, died 2005
- Teresa Roe, 19, died 1974
- Terri Roe, 43, died 1991
- Vanessa Roe, 35, died 1973
- Vicki Roe, 23, died 1971
- Wanda Roe, died 2006
- Wendy Roe, 23, died 1972
- Yvonne Roe, 19, died 1999
- Julia Rogers, 20, died 1973
- Rhonda Rollinson, 32, died 1992
- Allegra Roseberry, 41, died 1988
- Sharonda Rowe, 17, died 1981
- Rhonda Ruggiero, 29, died 1982
- Stacy Ruckman, 23, died 1988
- LaSandra Russ, 20, died 1971
- Tamia Russell (pictured), 15, doed 2004
- F.S., 16, died 1970
- Stella Saenz, 42, died 1968
- Angela Sanchez, 27, died 1993
- Angela Satterfield, 23, died 1990
- Carole Schaner, 37, died 1971
- Angela Scott, 19, died 1979
- Oriene Shevin, 34, died 2005
- Gloria Small, 43, died 1978
- Deloris Smith, 15, died 1979
- Diane Smith, 23, died 1976
- Laura Hope Smith (pictured), 22, died 2007
- Margaret Smith, 24, died 1971
- Teresa Smith, 31, died 1988
- Laura Sorrels, 30, died 1988
- Kathryn Strong, 26, died 1972
- Jennifer Suddeth, 17, died 1982
- Tami Suematsu, 19, died 1988
- Yvonne Tanner, 22, died 1984
- Michelle Thames, 18, died 1987
- Ingrid Thomas, 28, died 1994
- Magnolia Thomas, 36, died 1986
- Hoa Thuy "Vivian" Tran, 22, died 2003
- Elizabeth Tsuji, 21, died 1978
- Cheryl Tubbs, 29, died 1975
- Iris Valazquez, 20, died 1987
- Cycloria Vangates, 32, died 1976
- Veal, Latachie, 17, died 1991
- Brenda Vise, 38, died 2002
- Cheryl Vosseler, 17, died 1969
- Gail Vroman, 20, died 1979
- Pamela Wainwright, 37, died 1987
- Lynette Wallace, 22, died 1975
- Debra Walton, 35, died 1989
- Nicey Washington, 26, died 2000
- Sheila Watley, 31, died 1987
- Diane Watson, 27, died 1987
- Ingar Weber, 28, died 1991
- Robin Wells, 27, died 1981
- Chivon Williams, died 1996
- Ellen Williams, 38, died 1985
- Nichole Williams, 22, died 1997
- Sandra Williams, 30, died 1984
- Shirley Williams, 30, died 1980
- Tanya Williamson, 28, died 1996
- Carole Wingo, 22, died 1974
- Virginia Wolfe, 33, died 1998
- Darlene Wood, 23, died 1982
- Gail Wright, 29, died 1986
- Stacy Zallie (pictured), 20, died 2002
Twenty bucks says my comment will get nuked within the week, if not within 24 hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)