"Facts of Life" Email: May 30, 2003

Facts of Life

May 30, 2003

“Los Angeles Times” Editor John Carroll sent a memo to “Section Eds” on May 22, 2003-- “Subject:  Credibility/Abortion.”  This is a stunning recognition by an insider in the newspaper industry that the abortion issue—and frankly other issues, as well—do not get even-handed treatment in the supposed “news” sections of one of our most prominent daily newspapers.   http://www.laobserved.com/carrollmemo.html  In the wake of a series of scandals regarding inaccurate news and editorial columns in the “New York Times,” it seems that a positive self-examination of American print media may be taking place.  The article referenced in the John Carroll memo concerned the abortion-breast cancer connection, and was published on May 22^nd.  http://www.latimes.com/la-na-abort22may22,1,2359921.story

The North Dakota Supreme Court will take up the question of the link between abortion and breast cancer next month. The appeal will be argued June 18.  A sidewalk counselor, Amy Jo (Mattson) Kjolsrud, contends that the Red River Women’s Clinic abortion facility misled women considering abortions because its brochure said that having an abortion does not increase the likelihood of getting breast cancer later in life.  Kjolsrud wants the abortion clinic to change the information in the brochure to reflect the numerous studies that show there is a link.  The lower court ruled that the abortion business did not deceive or mislead patients and ordered Kjolsrud to pay $34,000 of the abortion clinic’s fees for defending itself.  Joel Brind, a professor of human biology and endocrinology at the City University of New York, testified during the original trial regarding his “meta-analysis” of the worldwide medical literature on the abortion-breast cancer link. It was published by the British Medical Association and revealed that most studies confirmed the link. (From Pro-Life Infonet)

Both houses of the US Congress voted on May 22^nd against allowing abortions to be performed on military bases—preserving current law, which has been in effect since 1996.  The U.S. Senate voted 48 for to 51 against the pro-abortion proposal offered by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA).  Such a rejection had not occurred since 1998. The House of Representatives voted 201 for to 227 against the pro-abortion proposal, as it had in each of the last seven years.  It was once again offered by California Representative Loretta Sanchez (D- CD47).  Pro-Life lawmakers gained a 12 vote larger margin than they had to defeat it the last time it was proposed. [Information courtesy of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus]  To see how your Senators voted, go to http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00192   To see how your Representative voted, go to http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=215

Wesley Smith, writing for the National Review ( May 20, 2003), notes that the latest polling data no longer indicates what once seemed an inevitability-that legal euthanasia and physician assisted suicide was just a matter of time. “The latest Gallup poll, which measured Americans’ views on ‘morally acceptable’ and ‘morally wrong’ conduct, indicates that support for assisted suicide is ebbing. According to a report in the Chicago Sun-Times, ‘Doctor assisted suicide is losing moral support—from moral to immoral,’ with 49 percent of those polled now viewing PAS as ‘wrong’ and only 45 percent considering it ‘acceptable.’”  It once was the case that public-opinion polls measured strong support for assisted suicide, “generally in the high 60-percent range.”  Smith credits the broadening of the coalition against PAS, particularly the involvement of the disability community, and the probability that HMO’s would benefit most from such laws as helping to turn the tide.  He notes the rejection of legalization in Michigan in 1998 by a 71-29 vote, and in Maine (with demographics much like Oregon) in 2000 by 51-49.  But Smith wisely warns that “[o]f course, none of this means that the assisted-suicide threat has passed.” http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/comment-smith052003.asp

A baby has been born in South Africa after developing in her mother’s liver instead of in the womb.  According to a report by the BBC on May 23^rd, the “new-born girl called Nhlahla, whose name means “luck” in the Zulu language, is reported to be only the fourth baby ever to survive such a pregnancy [of 14 documented cases]. Doctors report that both mother and baby are doing well. This type of extra-uterine (outside the womb) pregnancy is similar to, though much rarer, than standard ectopic pregnancies, in which the newly-conceived embryo implants in the fallopian tube instead of in the endometrium (the lining of the womb).”  Apparently about 1 in 100,000 pregnancies occur in which the baby implants in areas outside the womb.  Most die within a few weeks.  In Nhlahla’s case the fact that she was attached to her mother’s liver was not discovered until she was a week from her expected due date.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2932608.stm

Although college students are generally regarded as more pro-abortion than the general population, a recent Harvard University survey does not bear that out.   Some 26 percent believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances, 53 percent in some circumstances, and 20 percent believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.  The most recent January 2003 Gallup Poll reports that 23 percent of the general population think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, 57 percent in some circumstances, and 19 percent illegal in all circumstances. Note that this means that 73 percent of the college students favor making abortion illegal in all or some circumstances, while 76 percent of the general population take that perspective.
A September 2002 U.C. Berkeley survey reported a significantly stronger pro-life bias among the young.  Forty-four percent of young Americans aged 15 to 22 supported government restrictions, compared to 34 percent of adults aged 27 to 59. 
The Harvard report also showed a plurality of support for President Bush over his pro-abortion Democratic rivals.  The entire poll can be found at http://www.iop.harvard.edu/2003survey.pdf

California ProLife Council (CPLC) (www.californiaprolife.org.) is the largest statewide organization in California solely dedicated to pro-life issues. CPLC is a non-sectarian, non-partisan, non-profit grassroots organization of pro-life groups and individuals in California dedicated to protecting and fostering the most basic value of our society-respect for LIFE itself.  We seek to educate our community in regard to abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide, to identify and organize the pro-life population of the state into an effective team, and to restore respect for human life to public policy.  California ProLife Council is the California affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee, Inc. (www.nrlc.org).