The Doctor's Corner: The Right to Bear Harms - The War on Thinking Women
Are we seeing here an unchallenged tyranny of consensus?
In crafting our own "women's rights and well-being" argument, we ought first to note that the pro-abortion ideology, commonly known as "reproductive rights and health," is very - I mean extremely - threatened by the newer research showing that abortion, despite being touted as a woman's right (we normally think of a "right" as something of benefit to the person exercising it), is something uniquely harmful and traumatic to women.
PrintEDMOND, OKLAHOMA (Catholic Online) - Seemingly few commentators have noticed the deeper or more fundamental conflict at stake in the phony and much politicized recent "war on women."
Remember that phony charge? It targeted conservatives and others who oppose President Obama's HHS mandate, even though they for the most part framed their opposition strictly in terms of the defense of religious freedom, strictly avoiding the question of what benefits and harms women.
By framing the issue within these narrow confines, thus far conservatives have avoided a substantive answer to the charge that they are jeopardizing the real interests and rights of women. I say "so far", because while up to this point it may have been, for a number of reasons, tactically and strategically prudent to have proceeded in this way, the day is certainly coming when conservatives' own argument in favor of women's well-being will be articulately and intelligently made, and in that day, they can win back the ground they have inadvertently ceded -- simply by having not shown up to defend it -- to liberals.
In crafting our own "women's rights and well-being" argument, we ought first to note that the pro-abortion ideology, commonly known as "reproductive rights and health," is very - I mean extremely - threatened by the newer research showing that abortion, despite being touted as a woman's right (we normally think of a "right" as something of benefit to the person exercising it), is something uniquely harmful and traumatic to women.
I think here of the frantic, screaming, hyperbolic responses of numerous supposedly objective scientists in response to the groundbreaking, scientifically unassailable, paper by Priscilla Coleman published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2011, showing that induced abortion is associated with excesses of suicides and other mental health difficulties.
Objections seemed to fly in from every conceivable direction, and reading them offered the very unseemly impression that the objectors were under severe emotional pressure to find every available nearby stick with which to beat Coleman, all the while trying to appear objective. Coleman seems to be saying "let the science speak for itself," while her science-by-popular-acclaim interlocutors seem to be saying "we'll let the science speak when it suits our cause - then, and only then!"
And what about the ongoing battles over the very well-documented finding that across numerous diverse countries, populations, and researchers, abortion seems to be associated with a substantial increase in breast cancer rates?
The irony of this hit me pretty strongly when Romney was recently being accused of being the reason that a woman died of cancer, when the very policies pursued by his opponents very likely lead, worldwide, to thousands and possibly even millions of cancers and suicides combined, with the evidence suggesting all of it potentially attributable to the promotion of this very strange "right".
All of this alone is damning and indicts the reproductive rights crowd of falsely seducing the average woman into thinking it is the authentic guardian of women.
But there's more.
What about contraception itself?
When was the last time you heard any politician, commentator, or author of any kind feel as though he owed his audience a reason for promoting contraception as being necessary for women's well-being?
Who had a chance to rebut the infamous "scientific report" offered by the Institute of Medicine, which supposedly gave sanction to the HHS mandate on scientific grounds of benefit to women, but was created by an unaccountable group of ideologically driven appointees, as was even pointed out by one of its members?
Should this all just be accepted uncritically?
Are we seeing here an unchallenged tyranny of consensus?
Well, to borrow from a recent and popular statement: "we want this debate; we will have this debate; and we will win this debate!"
For too long women have been offered approaches which at the very best force them to choose only those rights the dominant culture will allow them to exercise, and at worst, lie to them about the true meaning of womanhood and the way to true well-being, health, and happiness.
Well, that is beginning to change.
Just as with the finding that abortion is uniquely harmful and traumatic to women, so to more recent research shows consistently that women are harmed in a variety of ways by choosing the contraceptive path to birth prevention.
This is especially alarming when there are highly effective non-contraceptive methods of birth prevention available, none of which - I mean none! - come close to doing any harm to women.
These, however, offer no huge profits nor secondary kickbacks for scientists and doctors, and solely focus on the well-being of women. How long will we put up with that? How long will women put up with that?
So what are the liberals who oppose the truth afraid of?
Do they want to shut down any discussion of what is truly in the best interest of women? Are they even willing to have that discussion?
Let's have that debate, and let the thinking women of our country decide.
-----
Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh, is the President of The Edith Stein Foundation, Social Science Researcher, Interventional Cardiologist
Remember that phony charge? It targeted conservatives and others who oppose President Obama's HHS mandate, even though they for the most part framed their opposition strictly in terms of the defense of religious freedom, strictly avoiding the question of what benefits and harms women.
By framing the issue within these narrow confines, thus far conservatives have avoided a substantive answer to the charge that they are jeopardizing the real interests and rights of women. I say "so far", because while up to this point it may have been, for a number of reasons, tactically and strategically prudent to have proceeded in this way, the day is certainly coming when conservatives' own argument in favor of women's well-being will be articulately and intelligently made, and in that day, they can win back the ground they have inadvertently ceded -- simply by having not shown up to defend it -- to liberals.
In crafting our own "women's rights and well-being" argument, we ought first to note that the pro-abortion ideology, commonly known as "reproductive rights and health," is very - I mean extremely - threatened by the newer research showing that abortion, despite being touted as a woman's right (we normally think of a "right" as something of benefit to the person exercising it), is something uniquely harmful and traumatic to women.
I think here of the frantic, screaming, hyperbolic responses of numerous supposedly objective scientists in response to the groundbreaking, scientifically unassailable, paper by Priscilla Coleman published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2011, showing that induced abortion is associated with excesses of suicides and other mental health difficulties.
Objections seemed to fly in from every conceivable direction, and reading them offered the very unseemly impression that the objectors were under severe emotional pressure to find every available nearby stick with which to beat Coleman, all the while trying to appear objective. Coleman seems to be saying "let the science speak for itself," while her science-by-popular-acclaim interlocutors seem to be saying "we'll let the science speak when it suits our cause - then, and only then!"
And what about the ongoing battles over the very well-documented finding that across numerous diverse countries, populations, and researchers, abortion seems to be associated with a substantial increase in breast cancer rates?
The irony of this hit me pretty strongly when Romney was recently being accused of being the reason that a woman died of cancer, when the very policies pursued by his opponents very likely lead, worldwide, to thousands and possibly even millions of cancers and suicides combined, with the evidence suggesting all of it potentially attributable to the promotion of this very strange "right".
All of this alone is damning and indicts the reproductive rights crowd of falsely seducing the average woman into thinking it is the authentic guardian of women.
But there's more.
What about contraception itself?
When was the last time you heard any politician, commentator, or author of any kind feel as though he owed his audience a reason for promoting contraception as being necessary for women's well-being?
Who had a chance to rebut the infamous "scientific report" offered by the Institute of Medicine, which supposedly gave sanction to the HHS mandate on scientific grounds of benefit to women, but was created by an unaccountable group of ideologically driven appointees, as was even pointed out by one of its members?
Should this all just be accepted uncritically?
Are we seeing here an unchallenged tyranny of consensus?
Well, to borrow from a recent and popular statement: "we want this debate; we will have this debate; and we will win this debate!"
For too long women have been offered approaches which at the very best force them to choose only those rights the dominant culture will allow them to exercise, and at worst, lie to them about the true meaning of womanhood and the way to true well-being, health, and happiness.
Well, that is beginning to change.
Just as with the finding that abortion is uniquely harmful and traumatic to women, so to more recent research shows consistently that women are harmed in a variety of ways by choosing the contraceptive path to birth prevention.
This is especially alarming when there are highly effective non-contraceptive methods of birth prevention available, none of which - I mean none! - come close to doing any harm to women.
These, however, offer no huge profits nor secondary kickbacks for scientists and doctors, and solely focus on the well-being of women. How long will we put up with that? How long will women put up with that?
So what are the liberals who oppose the truth afraid of?
Do they want to shut down any discussion of what is truly in the best interest of women? Are they even willing to have that discussion?
Let's have that debate, and let the thinking women of our country decide.
-----
Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh, is the President of The Edith Stein Foundation, Social Science Researcher, Interventional Cardiologist
- - -
Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.
Keywords: family life, marriage, women, abortion, contraception, dominic pedulla, war on women, reproductive health
NEWSLETTERS »
Rate This Article
1 - 10 of 12 Comments
Leave a Comment
More Marriage & Family News
- Our Contraceptive Chickens Have Come Home to Roost
- Small comfort: Two friends die in each other's arms at destroyed Oklahoma school
- Teenage birth rates drop dramatically among Hispanic women, girls
- Combating the Secularist Elitist Attack on Motherhood: Learning from Jesus and Mary
- Freeing Ourselves from the Hideous Strength of Contraception and Abortion
- Two Opposing Visions of Women, Part One
- Two Opposing Visions of Women, Part Two
- Answering the Question: The Right to Marriage and Infertile Couples
- 'Sexually aggressive behavior' in males traced to print advertisements
Featured News
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?
Most Popular
Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too! Read More
There's the problem! Americans are out of touch with scientific consensus on climate change Read More
Culture of Corruption: Why Obama's misuse of Marines is wrong Read More
Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Disclose Fight with the IRS, Demonstrate Courage Read More
Receiving the Eucharist: I Have Decided to Kneel For Jesus Read More
Daily Readings
Reading 1, Sirach 6:5-17
A kindly turn of speech attracts new friends, a courteous ... Read More
Psalm, Psalms 119:12, 16, 18, 27, 34, 35
Blessed are you, Yahweh, teach me your will! Read More
Gospel, Mark 10:1-12
After leaving there, he came into the territory of Judaea and ... Read More
Saint of the Day
St. David I of Scotland
May 24: David, the youngest son of Scotland’s virtuous queen, (Saint) ... Read More
Latest Videos
May 24 - Homily: Care For The Soul First, Then The Body View Video
May 24 - Homily: Pope Francis' Basilica View Video
May 12 - Homily: The Direction of Your Life View Video
Eucharistic Hearts - 2 Pillars #35 View Video
Pope Francis speaks of Christian originality View Video
Marketplace
Seton Home Study School: Discover the Seton Experience Read More
Faith Hope Love. Catholic Keychain. Corinthians. Custom Read More
Spiritus Gladius, you would be much better off learning to communicate rather than ranting like that. You make some good points, but there is no respect for the other in what you write. Learn some respect!
c you are badly misinformed. Email me if you'd like to discuss.
Doc G, not necessarily, not when writing per this style and genre. This is not scientific writing. But here's at least 2, then for the British Journal of psychiatry report 2011 here: (email me to discuss)
Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009.
Coleman PK.
Br J Psychiatry. 2011 Sep;199(3):180-6. Review.
PMID: 21881096 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article
Related citations
Reproductive history patterns and long-term mortality rates: a Danish, population-based record linkage study.
Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Calhoun BC.
Eur J Public Health. 2012 Sep 5. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 22954474 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Related citations
2.
Short and long term mortality rates associated with first pregnancy outcome: Population register based study for Denmark 1980-2004.
Reardon DC, Coleman PK.
Med Sci Monit. 2012 Aug 30;18(9):PH71-76.
PMID: 22936199 [PubMed - in process]
Related citations
Gail start here; peer reviewed, no baloney.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Oct;81(10):1290-302.
Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: a meta-analysis.
Kahlenborn C, Modugno F, Potter DM, Severs WB.
Source
Department of Internal Medicine, Altoona Hospital, Altoona, PA, USA. drchris@polycarp.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To perform a meta-analysis of case-control studies that addressed whether prior oral contraceptive (OC) use is associated with premenopausal breast cancer.
METHODS:
We searched the MEDLINE and PubMed databases and bibliography reviews to identify case-control studies of OCs and premenopausal breast cancer published in or after 1980. Search terms used included breast neoplasms, oral contraceptives, contraceptive agents, and case-control studies. Studies reported in all languages were included. Thirty-four studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. Two reviewers extracted data from original research articles or additional data provided by study authors. We used the DerSimonian-Laird method to compute pooled odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs) and the Mantel-Haenszel test to assess association between OC use and cancer.
RESULTS:
Use of OCs was associated with an increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer in general (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29) and across various patterns of OC use. Among studies that provided data on nulliparous and parous women separately, OC use was associated with breast cancer risk in both parous (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.20-1.40) and nulliparous (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.92-1.67) women. Longer duration of use did not substantially alter risk in nulliparous women (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.85-1.96). Among parous women, the association was stronger when OCs were used before first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.28-1.62) than after FFTP (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26). The association between OC use and breast cancer risk was greatest for parous women who used OCs 4 or more years before FFTP (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.26-1.82).
CONCLUSION:
Use of OCs is associated with an increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer, especially with use before FFTP in parous women.
I would like some good, non-biased research about hormonal contraceptives and breast cancer. Most of what I have seen -- either way -- seems biased or ideological. There seems to me to be a pretty clear link between abortion and MUCH higher risks of breast cancer, but as a non-medical person I can't tell about hormones, and I just don't trust things that are obviously coming from people with a particular axe to grind, even if I am also grinding the same axe. I want facts.
The First Right from which other rights flow, is the Right To Life. As DR. Weinstein said, If we lose the right for any part of life, time will come when we lose respect for All Life.
@c: References, c, references. It's customary, c, to reference sources when citing scientific studies.
Women this, women that. Hahaha. How funny it is, that we are getting to this point - where we cannot talk about women without being emphatically and falsely charitable - almost to the point of hyperbole! We cannot talk about women without belittling men! Disgusting! Lord God, Heavenly King, send down your Angels, and destroy the foundation that these lies are built upon! Disband the feminist movement. Destroy the appalling, senseless, evil, wicked, twisted, and disordered pride in which our culture is partaking. Restore the family, in which men lead, and women follow. Make men strong, help us to prevail against evil. Open the eyes of women to recognize that by following men, they are in fact being served by men, not serving men. For it was your son, Jesus Christ, who was the greatest leader, yet the most humble servant. As the Christ leads the Church, so to is man to lead woman. As the Church submits to Christ, so to is woman to submit to man. You've made this abundantly clear in over a dozen passages in the bible, yet even your Holy Church ignores the sacred scriptures in favor of a political correctness that is destroying the family at its core. Let us recognize Lord, that the traditional role of man and woman is not something to be questioned, disputed, or thrown away, but is designed and subject to your awesome authority. It was you, God of Adam, who designed the family, and created this tradition. Have mercy on us Lord, for these transgressions against you and against over 4000 years of history surely offend You beyond our imagination. Lord have mercy on all of us. Wake us up, help us to change our ways, and to reject the self, and to serve You and the order which you established!
The same media and elites that ignore this data also ignore the grave threat that oral contraceptives pose to our drinking water and the alarming ecological changes in the animal life in our lakes and streams that have already occurred because of the hormones peed out that end up there. No, of course they are the ones that are "green". b.s. on everything that proceeds from their mouths....you can count on the opposite being true.
Priscilla Coleman's studies have been criticized as unreproducible by other scientists using the same data sets. She's even issued a correction on some of her work but still containing other factual errors.