Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Ignorance or hidden agenda?

YWCA Misinforms Raped Inmate About Adoption, Pays for Coerced Abortion

A raped prison inmate wanted to arrange for her baby to be adopted, but the YWCA's Battered Women Task Force falsely told her that her parental rights would be terminated just because she was in prison. The woman was not informed of the possibility of open adoption (or, evidently, foster care), nor was she informed that a woman had learned of the inmate's plight and had offered to adopt the baby.

Now, let's wait for the outrage among prochoice groups about this vulnerable woman, who was raped while in prison, being denied a right to make a free choice about her pregnancy, about her being given false information, about her being coerced into a choice she didn't want.

*cue crickets chirping*


army_wife said...

How lovely... talk about kicking her when she was down.

SHAME on the YWCA for telling such blatant lies and giving such misinformation.

Tonal Bliss said...

I can see why Christina loves you so much, OC. lol!

Oh yea, forgot to mention something...

So, will you answer me? You love to change subjects! However, your main topic was that CPCs get a whole butt load of money from the government. I proved the contrary but you have made no comment regarding this fact.

Good times. :)

Ladybug said...

OC, most of what Christina posts is verbatim from medical reports, court rulings, and news reports. So OC, those women didn't die as result of their abortions (legal or illegal) and the coroners, physicians, medical boards, courts, and newspapers are all lying. If you don't take issue with these facts, then what?

Ladybug said...

*There was supposed to be a question mark after "lying" not a period.

OperationCounterstrike said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kathy said...

Remember, in those less-free times, childbirth killed the mother in one out of five cases.

Care to cite a source for that?

The worst -- absolute worst -- maternal mortality statistics I've seen cited were those for 1918-1919, in which maternal mortality went from the 600s/100,000 (which is what it was from the time statistics were kept, starting around 1915, up through the late 20s or early 30s) to the 900s/100,000 -- the huge spike was probably due to influenza which killed millions worldwide that year. Maternal mortality rose as birth moved from midwives at home to doctors in the hospital, and did not began to drop until the reduction of unnecessary medical procedures (which introduced risk of infection, without the benefit of antibiotics to fight it), the introduction of antibiotics (sulfa at first, then penicillin), the improvement of things like clean water and pure food, etc. Maternal mortality dropped like a rock, even with abortion a criminal or "less-free" event. The legalization of abortion made no change in maternal mortality.

Tonal Bliss said...

OC, that's only answering part of my point. The point I was making was that CPCs would be less damaged if their federal funding was cut than would PP. This is true, you have STILL made no comment regarding this fact.

To address your concerns? Well, PP can certainly give non-medical advice in the same way that a CPC can without any legal intervention. PP is a private organization. PP and CPC follow the same laws; thus PP can do the same things as a CPC can. Since CPCs do not employ medical doctors (although they do employ ultrasound technicians and nurses) they cannot give out actual medical advice. They can, however, give out information that is medically accurate (there is a difference between advice and informaiton) which a person can then verify on his/her own time. PP does this too (seperate from medical advice) in form of flyers and counselors giving out information regarding what an abortion procedure is and the afteraffects of it.

Anyways, thanks for atleast addressing a very small portion of my request.

Kathy said...

Y'know, OC, if the subject weren't so serious, your response would be laughable! Truly. Yes, indeed, I do want a source for "what every historian knows" since I think your memory is false -- you've imbibed a bit too much pro-abortion rhetoric in the name of fact. [My husband said you need some Preparation-H for your mouth... because you're talking out of your @$$. He's less polite than I. :-)]

The actual C-section rate is 31.7% as of the most recent statistics, with the current (2008 or 2009) rates being even higher than that. That's 1/3 births, not 1/4 nor even 1/5. The last time we saw those rates was probably a decade ago, if not more. The WHO says that no region can justify a greater than 10-15% C-section rate; and that above that rate, more women are harmed than benefited. [We actually see that happening, with rising maternal mortality rates, now officially at 13/100,000.]

You forget that obstetricians view the fetus as a patient, too, and are unwilling to risk his or her life [not to mention, risk being sued] should they fail to perform a timely C-section. The VBAC (vaginal birth after Cesarean) rate has plummeted to almost historic lows, which means that a sizable percentage of the 1/3 C-sections are not due to saving a mother's or baby's life or health, but are due to doctors' refusal to attend VBACs. The C-section rate during the 70s was about 5%, and maternal mortality was lower in the 70s than it was in the 90s, and the rate has increased even more in this decade.

So, "not all of those are truly life-saving" is the understatement of the year! A few C-sections are truly elective (meaning, there is no medical reason for the C-section, but the mother asked for it); many are coerced ("your baby will be hurt, or even die if we don't do a C-section"); many are due to policies not based on evidence-based care (forced "elective" C-section for breech baby, forced "elective" C-section due to prior C-section, failed induction, flimsy excuse of "failure to progress" [which may also overlap with "doc's profit"] rush to judgment over diagnosis of fetal distress, provider prejudice against fat women and/or diabetic women, etc.), with some C-sections being perhaps beneficial -- a gray area, if you will -- "better safe than sorry"; and a very few truly life-saving or health-saving for mother and/or child.

So, I have CDC data (p. 7, if you're interested, for a chart; tables with more detailed data start on p. 13) as evidence for what I say, so you'll need to come up with one historian to bolster your claim that "childbirth killed the mother in one out of five cases." That's a 20% mortality rate. Maternal mortality is measured in deaths per 100,000 live births; infant mortality is measured in deaths per 1,000 live births, because it is so much more common. Surely, if women were dying at a rate of 1/5 (20,000/100,000), they would have used a smaller denominator, like they do in infant mortality, just so it would be easier, smaller, and handier.

Tonal Bliss said...

Still ignoring to answer me, OC?

I believe I already told you that I would prefer that both PP and CPCs not have any federal funding.

However, there is something strange about PP having over $350 million a year versus CPCs having around $12 million a year. That means that PP gets 2083% more from the federal government than CPCs do.

Regarding the RH Reality Check link... This blog/organization is extremely pro-choice in slant (just like Christina is pro-life). It is obvious that this article is persuaded purely by political viewpoints:

"Volunteers who visited these centers were told falsehoods like abortion increases your risk of breast cancer, that natural family planning is as effective as the pill, and that condoms do not protect against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)."

Just one little quote that I (and anyone, really) can dismantle very easily.

1. Abortion increases your risk of breast cancer: This is a highly contested issue. There is no consensus although mainstream sources claim that there is. The National Physicians Center for Family Resources, Catholic Medical Association, American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYNs (an official interest group of ACOG), Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, The Polycarp Research Institute, Ethics and Medics, and MaterCare International all medical organizations that believe that there could be a link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Considering the number of abortions and the alarming rate of breast cancer in the country, it is certainly a possibility.

2. Natural family planning (NFP) is as effective as the pill: This is certainly true. Perfect use of NFP is 3% effective (Contraceptive Technology, 2007) and 12% effective with typical use (Gynecological Endocrinology 1997). Compare this with the Pill with perfect use is 0.3% effective and 8% effective with typical use (Contraceptive Technology, 2007). Thus, many studies shows a very comparable effectiveness when comparing NFP and the pill. Thus, if this information is properly shown it is certainly proven to visitors to CPCs. This is hardly the lie that RH Reality Check wants readers to believe.

3. Condoms do not protect against sexually transmitted diseases: With each individual sexual encounter, condoms help to prevent transmission of HIV, chlamydia, and most other STDs. However, when the condom are not always used 100% properly (also called "typical use") the chances of spreading disease increases dramatically. The words from a lefty liberal Edward Green for the Washington Post in March, 2009: "...when people think they're made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex." This has been true with many people in the United States. There is a reason why when promiscuity goes up so do the STD rates.

Falsehoods? Maybe some of these things can be debated quite a lot. However, they are NOT flat out falsehoods and can actually be intelligently defended. At least I hope I have intelligently defended these things. :)

Christina Dunigan said...

If OC is being his usually troll self, ignore him, because I'm just going to come by and nuke his rantings. I only leave his posts up if he's being honest and civil, which is very rare.

Tonal Bliss said...

Christina, this is your blog and you are free to do what you wish. Thanks for providing us with a great blog that I enjoy!

Anyways, speaking of birth control... I watched a few episodes of "I Didn't Know I was Pregnant!" and a common story has been "...but, but I was on birth control!!!" lol! :)

OperationCounterstrike said...

Well, SegaMon, maybe you can clear up for me something which I cannot figger out. Actually I have two questions and I will ask them, what was the phrase, honestly and civilly.

I understand that when the AMA, and the American Cancer Society, and ACOG, and WHO, and Surgeon Generals under DEMOCRAT Presidents say there is no link between abortion and subsequent breast cancer, they're all lying. That makes sense; they're all evil pro-abort organizations.

BUT, why why why have the Surgeon Generals under PRO-LIFE, REPUBLICAN Presidents not said anything about the abortion-breast-cancer link? Not Reagan's, not GHWBush's, and in particular, GWBush's Surgeon General never corrected the statement issued earlier by Clinton's pro-abort Surgeon General and by the AMA, who falsely claimed that abortion does NOT cause breast cancer. The pro-life successor should at very least have corrected the misinfo, and issued a clear statement that the question is controvercial.

So why didn't the Surgeon General do that? It's the SG's job to warn the public about these things. Was GWBush's Surgeon General in on the pro-abort conspiracy to conceal the link? GWBush, the most pro-life President in USA history?

I would honestly and civilly be very interested to read your explanation of this peculiar paradox. I've been puzzling about it for several years and I have no hypothesis, no possible explanation.

Thanks, OC.

OperationCounterstrike said...

Oops, only one question.

Kathy said...

OC, I've demonstrated that the official MMR ranged from 600-900/100,000 from 1915 until about 1930-1935 when it finally broke into the 500s. That's 0.6-0.9% MMR, which is quite a bit off from 1/4-5, or even 1/8. You're wanting me to believe that record-keeping was so shoddy at the beginning of the 1900s that they somehow missed not just half of the deaths, but half of the deaths times ten -- the the "real" MMR was 12%, even though the official MMR was only 0.6%. I agree that the record-keeping may be inaccurate, but not THAT inaccurate. The CDC does not pretend it catches all maternal deaths now, but for them to be off by that much? Not a chance.

I trust you will remember this knowledge and no longer spread such falsehoods about maternal mortality in the bad ol' days before Roe.

Lilliput said...


The G-dly work at the centers you love so much.

Ladybug said...

Lilliput, I went and took a look at the article you recommended. The Nation is hardly unbiased or objective journalism. They are re-hashing old charges using data from the 1960's & 70's and feature a quote from pro-choice organization "The National Abortion Federation" (who has political motivation against CPCs) and a single undocumented personal ancedote, hardly strong evidence against CPCs.

Ladybug said...

Pro-choice and liberal organizations and news outlets are really reaching into the bottom of the barrel to find charges and evidence against CPCs, wow, they must be really desperate! ;) :D

Kathy said...

Hi, Lilliput! Long time, no see. I was wondering if you were still around. How are things going?

A couple of observations about that article: 1) as Rachael said, it's one anecdote about one CPC. Even assuming that it is completely accurate and true, it's not fair to say that all CPCs are like that, or even the majority. 2) In reading the article, I didn't see where the pregnant woman was held hostage or forced to remain in the home with the family. I don't know why she didn't leave. Did it sound coercive? Yes. But so does abortion clinics telling women that "it's not a baby... it's just tissue... most women are relieved when it's over... it's just a simple procedure, and then you know for sure what has happened -- if you gave your baby up for adoption, you'd never know... your baby could be abused or neglected if you gave/sold him/her to a stranger... at least this way you have finality, you have closure... you can't be a good mother... you're not ready to have a baby... you're not ready to be a mother... your boyfriend will leave you, and then you'll be all alone with a baby you can't afford..." -- Oh, yeah, no pressure at all from the good-hearted, kind abortion staff.

Ladybug said...

Also, Bethany Christian Services can't be represented as a CPC, as they aren't one, they're primarily an adoption agency. Also, most CPCs don't have an affiliation with or formal agreement with an adoption agency, beyond informal referrals made to community assistance organizations.

Lilliput said...

I'm well thanks Kathy, just been busy writing my child mental health essay andnow trying to find work with children to support my degree.

This is one article that I linked but I have been reading a lot of blogs and forumns by upset birth mothers who have been coerced into adoption. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a huge baby selling business going on in America and because demand far outstrips supply, there are bound to be dubious practices. The closed adoption records and lack of information about egg and sperm donors means that we have a generation of people who don't know who they are - and that I find very troubling. I am against adoption unless it is the only alternative ie parents or family members are not alive or unable due to physical or mental health issues to look after their children.

You are right though that both sides are coercive but if the pregnant women is in a state which she is able to be coerced either way, its not a suitable time for her to have the baby and for me abortion then would be the more humane way to go- both for the mother and her baby.

Kathy said...

That there are some birth mothers and adopted children who have regrets about their adoptions, I do not doubt. That these children wish themselves dead, or that these mothers wish their children dead, rather than adopted, I strongly doubt.

Genetics can be important, but I think it too strong a statement to say that people "don't know who they are" because they are not raised in their genetic family. Genetics is one factor in who a person is, but (nature vs. nurture argument) the family environment and what happens to a person after birth is at least as strong as, if not stronger than, genetics.

There may be some dubious practices in adoption -- there are bad apples in every barrel -- I'm sure you could find people who do wrong in every area of life. But you're blaming the "lack of supply" of adoptable babies... while still promoting abortion which kills babies who could be adopted!

I know many adoptive families (including an aunt and uncle, who adopted two of my cousins), so I know the love that can happen in adoptive families -- and, indeed, would think it typical of adoptive families, so all the fear-mongering (such as what was in that article, which I've also read in other anti-adoption things) about the "what-ifs" of adoption are magnifying a tiny chance of something bad happening to the baby after birth, conflating it into something not just remote and unlikely, but making it sound like it's almost a norm.

Certainly, the best thing to happen is for the baby to be taken care of and raised by his parents. But murdering the child is not second-best, nor more humane; adoption is.

I wish that all people who wanted children could have their own; I wish that all people who didn't want children couldn't get pregnant; I wish that there were no unfit parents; I wish that there were no reason for adoption or abortion. But until we live in Utopia, we have to deal with these things. And murdering the unborn to keep loving couples who wish to adopt, to keep from getting these children is not humane.

Lilliput said...

Kathy, I don't see much humanity in forcing a women to have her baby just so that a childless couple can adopt. I think adoption has become all about a solution to infertility rather then about giving homes to millions of children who can't be looked after by their birth parents. If these adoptive parents thought about the child's needs rather then their own then there wouldn't be a huge baby selling business going on in the US while thousand of older children stay in care homes.

Kathy the evidence of adoptive children wanting to know their "genetic" component is overwhelming - and why the States insists on keeping the adoption files closed is beyond me. Adopted children have a higher rate of mental health problems, crime, etc etc

You are right that we don't live in Utopia and we constantly have to choose the lesser of two evils. Infanticide has always been present in the human population and I think we are getting more and more humane about it. Forcing women to have babies just so other people can raise them is for me a step backwards - especially when there are more then enough available children for them to adopt.

Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, nobody's advocating forcing women to have babies just so somebody else can adopt them. We're just asking women who have already created babies to refrain from snuffing them, since there are loving families that would care for them. There's a huge difference. You make it sound like prolifers are waylaying women on the streets and inseminating them with turkey basters then locking them in the cellar until they give birth. These women got pregnant through their own life choices; it's wrong to kill somebody else because you made a life choice that brought them into existence at a time when you don't feel prepared to deal with their existence.

Lilliput said...

Yes Christina, I understand that but in my mind it would be better if we motivated these loving homes to adopt from the available pool of children rather then encouraging women to have their children only for adoption.

I want to just ask Kathy why, if she understands that there are a few bad aplles when it comes to adoption agencies there can't be that same understanding of abortion facilities where there are a few bad apples but the rest are ok?

Kathy said...

Because abortion facilities, by their very being and nature, kill babies. That some of them are worse than others, and are so shoddy to kill some of the mothers as well, and/or to coerce mothers into unwanted abortions is extraneous.

Tonal Bliss said...

OC, how can I answer your question when it relates to the actions of people that I do not know? Your question will just have to remain unanswered until you can ask those people personally. Sorry.

About the abortion-breast cancer link. Deductive reasoning has lead me to believe that there is a great likely-hood that this link is true. Whenever I think of the link, I automatically think of what an induced abortion is: unnatural. An induced abortion is a forced action, insult, and injury to a normally functioning body. Thus, there are bound to be side effects. Many surgeries (no doubt) even have side effects that are not very clear. The abortion breast cancer link, I believe, is one of those "not very clear" side effects. Some reasons why it is not very clear is that 1) abortion is a highly political issue, 2) breast cancer develops much later than the abortion procedures committed on these womens (it's a gradual process), and 3) many women who have not had induced abortions also have breast cancer. These are only some of the reasons.

However, there have been studies on mice that show significant changes in breast tissue following induced abortions. Further, the rate of abortion has gone up at an alarming rate in the last 30-40 years and so has the rate of breast cancer. There are also many studies that show this link (that are oftentimes ignored due to the political aspect of abortion). Furthermore, there are still many respected medical organizations that believe in the possibility of this link.

OC, this issue is not a certain "yes" or "no."

I believe in allowing the human body to operate as naturally as possible and to withhold invasive procedures until truly necessary. This is something that those in healthcare can agree on. Think about it, OC. What is more natural to the human body, sucking out and killing an unborn human being or going through pregnancy and natural childbirth?

Unnatural interventions ALWAYS come with adverse affects, OC.

Lilliput said...

Kathy, that's obviously the difference between us. I am not against killing a baby unless I'm almost certain he/she will have the opportunity to grow up to be a human being and sometimes it is better never to have been.

Segamon, you don't really want to go into the whole natural way of being - especially with infanticide. I suggest the seminal book called Mother Nature by Susan Hrdy which goes into detail of the natural ways mothers used to kill their infants for the survival of themselves and the rest of their families. Abortion is the more humane method of this very natural phenomenon.

Secondly I would like to bring you into the 21st Century when it comes to science and breast cancer especially. I am sure you have heard of the concept of DNA - its a series of proteins that carry the code to make us what we are. We have discovered one of the genes involved in breast cancer and ladies around the world are being tested if their mothers, aunts and sisters have had it so they can take the necessary precautions - some so extrem as a double mastectomy. We may not know the exact triggers but lease tell me the difference between the effect of an abortion vs the natural miscarriage of at least 1 in 5 pregnancies - or maybe 1 in 3?

Natural is not the way to think about this issue Segamon, trust me, because Natural has as many ADVERSE affects!

Kathy said...


You're right, that is a major difference between us. I consider a baby to ALREADY BE a human being, not BECOMING one at some unspecified point in the future. A "never been" is when the copulating couple have measures in place to prevent conception. Once conception has taken place, a new human exists, and abortion kills a human being.

On a side note, re: breast cancer -- I read recently that your fingerprints can indicate your risk of developing breast cancer -- that 6 or more whorls is a good indication that you are at a higher risk. I *think* I read that this is as good an indication of risk as genetic testing, but I don't have that book right in front of me, so can't verify it. Here is one link that talks about dermatoglyphics and breast cancer.

Lilliput said...

To me its a possability of a human being and that either itself (miscarriage) or its mother (abortion) can choose wether or not to take the opportunity up.

Kathy said...

And there we must "agree to disagree."