Thursday, May 24, 2007

Selective reduction lies

The Washington Post is at it again – this time pushing the Editor’s political views by addressing a relatively unknown procedure called “Selective Reduction”. This is a procedure where one or more babies from a multiple pregnancy (usually triplets or more) are “Reduced” by selective injection of potassium chloride directly into the baby during the pregnancy, killing it instantly. If all goes well and the mother is lucky, then the remaining babies will continue to grow and develop. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. The misconceptions around this issue revolve around the statistical information that is or is not readily available, and these are not discussed by the Post reporter. Most reductions are not reported, so the CDC does not keep accurate statistics, and therefore the stats that are available are across the board – depending on who you are talking to, a triplet pregnancy can either mean that you have a high likelihood of losing an entire pregnancy, or a minimal chance, not any greater than a twin pregnancy. The fact is that reducing triplets to twins does not statistically improve the outcome of the pregnancy due to the increased chance of losing the entire pregnancy.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest groups advancing the SR issue is the fertility clinics themselves that are often responsible for multiple pregnancies. These groups are required to report their success rates to the CDC, and in these circles anything more than one baby is considered a statistical failure due to the higher risks associated with multiple births. Of course, there are doctors and clinics that make a living by performing SR procedures. Dr. Evans is a pioneer in this procedure. According to a representative of the Triplet Connection, the leading organization for families of triplets and higher order multiples, “he has been on the forefront of the selective reduction bandwagon since 1986. We have gone head to head with him since then with verifiable stats showing the pregnancies with the best outcome are those who are managed with proper prenatal care and monitoring. The selective reduction advocates have coerced the Department of Health and Human Resources to alter their recording data to not reflect a true outcome of lost pregnancies 1 week after the procedure. When the overall outcome is viewed from beginning to end the final result is quite shocking.”

It is unfortunate that families facing a multiple pregnancy often do not know where to turn, and therefore take advice from doctors who may not have the most accurate data, or in fact may have other motives. And these decisions can leave lasting scars on a family. “The long-term psychological consequences of reduction are still little understood. According to Isaac Blickstein, one of the world's experts on multifetal pregnancies, the studies that have been done suggest that the aftereffects of selective reduction are different from those of abortion”, “psychoanalytic interviews with women who underwent [selective reduction] describe severe bereavement reactions including ambivalence, guilt, and a sense of narcissistic injury, all of which increased the complexity of their attachment to the remaining babies."

The answer to this problem lies in education, and removing the politics from the issue. Until we get the “Pro-Choicers” out of this issue, the correct statistics and facts will always be masked from public view – and babies will continue to die because their parents are told that they must kill them.

Friday, May 11, 2007

A Return to the 1940's?

Socialists? Barely tolerable.

Communists? A threat to society.

Muslims? A just tolerable religion, and one in which I find few areas of agreement.

Muslim extremists? A threat to society (as demonstrated especially be these recent events).

What to do about it?

Well, we could return to a posture similar to one we held in the 1940's.  Liberals won't like it because they will see it as a threat to individual rights and liberties, but the process contributed to protecting us from espionage and attacks by communists inside the US.  We should campaign to infiltrate cells of these Islamic factions in the same way agents of the FBI infiltrated and exposed communist cells.  Often resulting in arrests and deportations.

We could expose them where they are hiding out, what their plans are.  And we can jail them as we did the communists for crimes against a free society and for plotting to overthrow of the United States merely by being a member of such factions - because of their purposes and beliefs.  These beliefs are as nihilistic as communism's,

It will bring about an awful period (in a similar way as that period of fervent anti-communism) but it may work.  It eventually did against the communists of hat era.  Those familiar with the works of Whitaker Chambers know very vividly what it was like.  Not pleasant for freedom loving people.  And it was because we were victims of a scourge, very much like we are today.

We should give consideration to trusting Islamo-fascists to be Islamo-fascists, in the same way Schwartz said we could "trust the communists to be communist," and to hunt them down and jail them.

Saturday, May 05, 2007

The First Republican Debate

I wasn't able to see the Republican debate this week, but I was able to pick up bits in pieces on radio, TV news, and a bit in the WSJ.  I have to say that although a lot of pundits are yawning, I found two candidates rather compelling: John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

Now I have been a pro-lifer since Roe v. Wade in 1973.  Avid pro-lifer.  Radical in fact.  But I am not turned off by Giuliani's position for a couple of reasons:

(1) He favors strict constructionist judges.  If he follows through with that, and at the moment I find him convincing on that subject, then those judges are apt to do the right thing regarding that Dred Scott like decision.

(2) The fact that he said he would abide by whatever the court would decide, whether pro or con Roe, he would enforce.  It tells me that it is not high on his agenda, which is good.  Presidents can be bully pulpits for passionate issues, and I don't see him as radical pro-abortion.  He's been acquiescing in the left leaning pro-abort view, but that's it.  He's not an advocate.  Lincoln Chafee was an advocate for abortion.  Giuliani isn't.

I also like Giuliani's realistic position on the war and on terrorism.  He's credible on this subject because he was present, in NY on 9/11 and he lost friends who were innocently cut down by the monstrous Islamo-fascists.  He will be true to us on this issue.

Regarding McCain: I don't think his campaign will last, but I liked his remark about Bin Laden.  He will hunt him to the ends of the earth as long as he lives.  Way to go!  All the Republicans should express such zeal.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]