How Safe Is This Elective Surgery?

You'd think it would make sense to keep a public record of abortion deaths and complications; but according to this article, such reporting is done on a voluntary basis only:

How Safe Is This Elective Surgery?

By Clarke Forsythe; Donna Harrison

June 14, 2011 4:07 P.M.

In Kansas earlier this year, legislators trying to look into the deaths of five women got quite a shock: They were told in a March 9 hearing that five women had died after the same elective procedure but, astonishingly, the Kansas Public Health Department could neither confirm nor deny the figures.

In fact, across the United States, public-health departments only haphazardly collect information about deaths and complications from this elective procedure, which touches the lives of at least one out of every ten people in the United States. The procedure is abortion.
Abortion advocates commonly claim that “abortion is safer than childbirth.” But is that true? Little published information exists in the United States on deaths and complications resulting from abortion.
In the U.S., there are two sources of data on abortion deaths and complications, both equally unreliable: the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Both rely on voluntary (not mandatory) reporting. Neither has any reliable mechanism for double-checking the accuracy of the submitted information.

Read the rest of the article: How Safe Is This Elective Surgery? - By Clarke Forsythe & Donna Harrison - The Corner - National Review Online


I linked to this article for two reasons:

(1) Deaths and complications related to abortions should be reported, so that women can make fully-informed decisions about their health care; right now the information is being denied them, covered up in favor of "protecting" the abortion industry; and

(2) In response to the comments I received from "Anonymous," who believes Planned Parenthood is a victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy, when all it really wants to do is help poor people. You're just not going to convince me, my friend. You're also not going to get posted, if you won't stand behind your "facts" and use your real name. It's nice to know you're reading the blog, though.

The race is on: Check out who is running for office

Here's who wants your vote in Whatcom County this year:

Whatcom County candidates

If more than one person is seeking an office, they'll have a primary election August 16 to determine the top two; the general election is November 8.

Have you ever used the "except in the case of rape" argument? Then read this!

Back in the day, when I was a liberal-feminist type, I remember thinking that I was open-minded and compassionate when I would claim "pro-choice" as my label.  


I was quick to say that I would of course never choose abortion for myself, but it needed to be safe and legal, especially for cases of rape or incest.


I was so wrong, on so many levels.


Instead of going into this issue myself, though, I'd like you to read the compelling story of a woman who was conceived in rape, and almost aborted: 

Rebecca Kiessling: Conceived in Rape, Targeted for Abortion

This article is not only inspiring, it is philosophical.  It is thought-provoking.  She has made careful, reasoned arguments beyond the obvious one of "I wouldn't be here if I'd been aborted."


If you've ever used the "except in the case of rape" statement, this article will challenge your viewpoint and I hope open your mind to a new way of looking at the issues.  Do you have the courage to take another look?

State Legislature benefits Planned Parenthood... again

Some of you may have seen a letter to the editor of The Bellingham Herald blasting State Rep. Jason Overstreet for speaking out against increasing funds for poor women's health services.  As usual with that particular letter writer, the facts were missing or obscured.  Instead of being "shocked" by Overstreet's speech before the Legislature, we ought to be thanking him.

Sadly, the bill expanding this program was passed by the House and Senate late last month.  All we can do now is make sure the record is straight on why it was a bad idea, and who saw through the "gee, let's help the poor" smoke screen put out by Planned Parenthood in its bid to keep its revenue stream high... yes in other words, set ourselves up for an "I told you so" moment.
Here is a letter I submitted to the Herald today:

When a state-subsidized program is supposed to save us money by spending money... well, let's just say I'm doubtful, and very skeptical, especially when Planned Parenthood is involved.

Planned Parenthood's latest money-making scheme: Convincing the legislature to expand the "Take Charge" program. At first, it sounds like a good idea: Give free birth control to more poor women, reducing pregnancies covered by State Medicaid.

But it's a foolish time to expand any program, especially based on a dubious notion that it "could" save money; and it's really a revenue booster for Planned Parenthood. Rep. Jason Overstreet saw through this legislation and spoke out boldly. Rep. Vincent Buys and Sen. Doug Ericksen also voted against it.

But now, more people getting this new "free" benefit won't want to let it go. When dreamed-of State savings don't occur, we'll be stuck with it. Pills are cheaper than pregnancies, but the program also covers emergency contraception and sterilization. And there's the abortion factor.

The legislation doesn't fund abortions; but even the National Abortion Federation says half of all women getting abortions report they used contraceptives when they got pregnant.

Sounds like Planned Parenthood did alright for itself. Too bad it's at our expense.

Here are links to my sources.  Maybe you'll find some inspiration for writing your own letter about this issue:

Info on the bill from the Legislature's website


Info on the bill from Washington Votes


National Abortion Federation report

Link to State Senate's fiscal report on the bill

The letter making shocked noises about Overstreet's actions:  http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/06/02/2042659/opposes-overstreet-on-state-family.html

Here's information from other bloggers and sources about this bill, including statements that the program being expanded was actually losing numbers of people -- in other words, we're increasing a program that wasn't even meeting its capacity in the first place:

DSHS report (undated) saying they had not yet seen the expected decrease in Medicaid expense that they'd hoped for from the "Take Charge" program.

Blog shows Medicaid expenses have increased since "Take Charge" was implemented in 2001.

Bellingham Herald article on April 27, 2011, which stated: "the total amount the state spends on Medicaid-eligible deliveries every year has gone up by about $128 million since the program (referring to "Take Charge") began."

Abortion in Washington says this bill just increases interference in women's lives.

Planned Parenthood: More Funding, More Abortion (by Human Life of Washington)

Rep. Buys gets kudos for not missing votes!

Good reporting from the Bellingham Herald:  Rep. Buys Doesn't Miss a Single Vote

Not only does it give much-deserved recognition to Rep. Vincent Buys, it also shows specifically what others missed; you can follow up for yourself to see if any of them matter to you.

Obama Admin's Big Fat Carbon Footprint

Once again, we see that President Obama and his administration only give lip-service to the idea of energy savings and reducing our carbon footprints.

Fox News reported May 31, 2011: "A new report from a watchdog group shows that the number of limousines owned by the federal government rose by 73 percent during the first two years of President Obama's administration. The State Department was the recipient of most the new luxury vehicles."  Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/31/limousine-liberals-report-shows-government-limo-fleet-swelling/#ixzz1O93Hep4R

I understand that the big guy needs big cars and planes to travel around spreading his message of hope and change and all that jazz.  And yet, all of the travel-- and the means of travel-- hurts the Obama Administration's credibility when it comes to pushing energy savings rules.

The Obama's Administration is all about regulations to reduce carbon emissions, even though these regulations can hurt small business and our competitiveness in the world because these things cost money.  If it's really worth the sacrifice, you'd think Obama would lead by example.

Yeah, right.

Based on the following articles and statements, the large increase in limo purchases is another in a LONG LINE of "do as I say, not as I do" actions on the part of the Obama Administration:

From the Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2008:  Obama's Carbon Ultimatum: The Coming Offer You Won't Be Able to Refuse

From U.S. News and World Report, January 15, 2009:  The Obama Inauguration's Carbon Footprint

From The Chicago Tribune, February 27, 2009:  Obama sets strict rules on carbon emissions: Plan to combat global warming proposes limits to be tightened yearly

From the White House website, January 29, 2010:  President Obama Sets Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target for Federal Operations

From the Christian Science Monitor, June 29, 2010:  Obama wants price on carbon emissions: Republicans see tax

From The National Review, July 30, 2010:  Clean Vehicle Tour? The Carbon Footprint of Obama's Detroit Visit

 From The Daily Caller, November 2010:  Obamas Trip to India has a Carbon Footprint Bigger than Many U.S. Cities

 I couldn't find reports on the cost of his recent European tour.  But you get the idea.