Church organizations must provide free contraception & abortifacients

Obamacare will force church-affiliated institutions to have insurance policies that will give employees free contraceptives (without even the usual co-pay!).  There will be no exemption for Roman Catholics who disapprove of birth control as a matter of doctrine:

Many church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for employees, the Obama administration announced Friday in an election-year move that outraged religious groups, fueling a national debate about the reach of government.

In a concession, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said nonprofit institutions such as church-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies will have one additional year to comply with the requirement, issued in regulations under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

“I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services,” Sebelius said in a statement.

Yet the concession was unlikely to stop a determined effort by opponents to block or overturn the rule. If they fail, some predicted that religious employers would simply drop coverage for their workers, opting instead to pay fines to the federal government under the health care law.

“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience,” said New York Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.”

via Birth control: Feds say many church-affiliated employers must cover but grant 1-year extension – The Washington Post.

Churches construed narrowly as houses of worship would be exempt, but not hospitals, schools, universities, and ministries.

Here is the kicker for Christians who may not oppose birth control but who do oppose abortion:  The government is classifying the Morning After pill, which prevents the fertilized egg from implanting thus killing the embryo, as a contraceptive! From the same article:

Workplace health plans will have to cover all forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, ranging from the pill to implantable devices to sterilization. Also covered is the morning-after pill, which can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex and is considered as tantamount to an abortion drug by some religious conservatives.

This means that Christian organizations that oppose abortion as a matter of  religious conviction will be required by law to pay for abortifacients and thus violate their religious convictions.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Lily

    Re: This means that Christian organizations that oppose abortion as a matter of religious conviction will be required by law to pay for abortifacients and thus violate their religious convictions.

    It’s not just organizations, but individuals whose consciences will be violated by this ham fisted law. Some of us are not only deeply grieved by the number of children being killed, but become almost physically sick by the numbers. What can an individual whose convictions and conscience are devastated by the mandate to participate in killing children do to opt-out? Why isn’t the science on how these products and the act of abortion are harmful to women’s health enough to end this madness of claiming it’s “good” for women’s health? Not to mention fatal to the child’s health… there are no words to express the horror.

  • Lily

    Re: This means that Christian organizations that oppose abortion as a matter of religious conviction will be required by law to pay for abortifacients and thus violate their religious convictions.

    It’s not just organizations, but individuals whose consciences will be violated by this ham fisted law. Some of us are not only deeply grieved by the number of children being killed, but become almost physically sick by the numbers. What can an individual whose convictions and conscience are devastated by the mandate to participate in killing children do to opt-out? Why isn’t the science on how these products and the act of abortion are harmful to women’s health enough to end this madness of claiming it’s “good” for women’s health? Not to mention fatal to the child’s health… there are no words to express the horror.

  • Michael B.

    “The government is classifying the Morning After pill, which prevents the fertilized egg from implanting thus killing the embryo, as a contraceptive”

    So does the ordinary birth control pill. Your local Target and Walmart pharmacy are involved in far more embryo deaths than Planned Parenthood.

  • Michael B.

    “The government is classifying the Morning After pill, which prevents the fertilized egg from implanting thus killing the embryo, as a contraceptive”

    So does the ordinary birth control pill. Your local Target and Walmart pharmacy are involved in far more embryo deaths than Planned Parenthood.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Isn’t this a violation of the first amendment in that it prohibits the free exercise of religion?

    I can’t see the Supreme Court allowing this to stand.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Isn’t this a violation of the first amendment in that it prohibits the free exercise of religion?

    I can’t see the Supreme Court allowing this to stand.

  • Booklover

    Where would our country be without the formation of Catholic hospitals?? And this is the way we repay them. . .

  • Booklover

    Where would our country be without the formation of Catholic hospitals?? And this is the way we repay them. . .

  • Tom Hering

    If the law can tell parents, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their children, why can’t it tell employers, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their employees? The free exercise of a religion – beyond the preaching and teaching of it – doesn’t seem to be an absolute.

  • Tom Hering

    If the law can tell parents, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their children, why can’t it tell employers, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their employees? The free exercise of a religion – beyond the preaching and teaching of it – doesn’t seem to be an absolute.

  • Rose

    “Important preventive services”–Sebelius
    What a corruption, deconstruction of words.
    Preventive services prevent disease, not life.
    The administration’s response to the March for Life.

  • Rose

    “Important preventive services”–Sebelius
    What a corruption, deconstruction of words.
    Preventive services prevent disease, not life.
    The administration’s response to the March for Life.

  • Christopher Gillespie

    The morning-after pill and contraception are not strange bedfellows. The ethical distinction between preventing and ending pregnancy is small. The motive of the contracepting and the aborting are one and the same—they don’t want a baby. The distinction is between destruction of the biomatter before fertilization and murder of the fertilized.

  • Christopher Gillespie

    The morning-after pill and contraception are not strange bedfellows. The ethical distinction between preventing and ending pregnancy is small. The motive of the contracepting and the aborting are one and the same—they don’t want a baby. The distinction is between destruction of the biomatter before fertilization and murder of the fertilized.

  • N.G.

    This is incredible. I can tell you the Catholics are hoppin’ mad. All day yesterday on Relevant Radio (Catholic talk radio) they were sounding off on it. One of the broadcasters called it Obama’s declaration of war on the Catholic church. One of the other main points that was made is that it is not their taxes that are paying for this, but the money that the faithful place in the offering plate!

    I haven’t heard any Lutherans on this yet except here, perhaps because speaking on birth control is taboo among us, but it is “okay” to oppose the morning-after pill, which is a much more obvious abortifacient than the birth control pill. As an LCMS Lutheran, I oppose the use of both. As a matter of conscience, my spouse and I practice NFP. If ony Lutherans weren’t so weak on this. . .

  • N.G.

    This is incredible. I can tell you the Catholics are hoppin’ mad. All day yesterday on Relevant Radio (Catholic talk radio) they were sounding off on it. One of the broadcasters called it Obama’s declaration of war on the Catholic church. One of the other main points that was made is that it is not their taxes that are paying for this, but the money that the faithful place in the offering plate!

    I haven’t heard any Lutherans on this yet except here, perhaps because speaking on birth control is taboo among us, but it is “okay” to oppose the morning-after pill, which is a much more obvious abortifacient than the birth control pill. As an LCMS Lutheran, I oppose the use of both. As a matter of conscience, my spouse and I practice NFP. If ony Lutherans weren’t so weak on this. . .

  • Gary

    @ Tom “If the law can tell parents, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their children, why can’t it tell employers, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their employees?” Agreed. I hadn’t thought of that.

    There is no violation of conscience involved here. No one is forced to use these contraceptives.

    @ N. G. “…practice NFP.” Good for you. I think you’re better off seeing that as a choice to offer and not a “cause” to rally around. “If only Lutherans weren’t so weak” My conscience sees nothing wrong with using contraceptives, and I think you’re exhibiting the “weaker conscience.”

  • Gary

    @ Tom “If the law can tell parents, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their children, why can’t it tell employers, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their employees?” Agreed. I hadn’t thought of that.

    There is no violation of conscience involved here. No one is forced to use these contraceptives.

    @ N. G. “…practice NFP.” Good for you. I think you’re better off seeing that as a choice to offer and not a “cause” to rally around. “If only Lutherans weren’t so weak” My conscience sees nothing wrong with using contraceptives, and I think you’re exhibiting the “weaker conscience.”

  • Joe

    N.G. – so for you it is about the life issue and not so much around the “be fruitful and multiple” issue? NFP is still a manipulation of the natural procreation process, right? It is still man attempting to control the process instead of trusting God to give us what we need.

    I don’t mean to be a jerk, this is an honest question and I apologize for my tone up front.

  • Joe

    N.G. – so for you it is about the life issue and not so much around the “be fruitful and multiple” issue? NFP is still a manipulation of the natural procreation process, right? It is still man attempting to control the process instead of trusting God to give us what we need.

    I don’t mean to be a jerk, this is an honest question and I apologize for my tone up front.

  • CRB

    This administaration is the most evil in my lifetime!!!!!!!

  • CRB

    This administaration is the most evil in my lifetime!!!!!!!

  • Lily

    Re: “If the law can tell parents, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their children…”

    There is a huge difference between the law you mention that prevents parents from refusing to give their children medical care and this new law that mandates everyone pay for those who want to use “medical care” to purposely kill children.

  • Lily

    Re: “If the law can tell parents, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their children…”

    There is a huge difference between the law you mention that prevents parents from refusing to give their children medical care and this new law that mandates everyone pay for those who want to use “medical care” to purposely kill children.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The ethical distinction between preventing and ending pregnancy is small.”

    No.

    There are plenty of entirely ethical ways of preventing pregnancy including abstinence.

    There are no ethical ways of ending a pregnancy in the general case.

    The specific orientation of wanting to enjoy sex while being guaranteed sterility is not ethical.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The ethical distinction between preventing and ending pregnancy is small.”

    No.

    There are plenty of entirely ethical ways of preventing pregnancy including abstinence.

    There are no ethical ways of ending a pregnancy in the general case.

    The specific orientation of wanting to enjoy sex while being guaranteed sterility is not ethical.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    ‘You’ve got to break a few eggs if you’re going to make an omelette.’

    Let’s not quibble over a few disgruntled ‘religious’ people when the path to utopia is at stake.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    ‘You’ve got to break a few eggs if you’re going to make an omelette.’

    Let’s not quibble over a few disgruntled ‘religious’ people when the path to utopia is at stake.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Let’s not quibble over a few disgruntled ‘religious’ people when the path to utopia is at stake.”

    It is like the old Soviet Union where they would tell the citizenry that they were the best country ever and that their life was so awesome, yada yada. Just keep telling us that the gov’t is doing a great job and everything is AWESOME! and that we should never believe our lying eyes.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Let’s not quibble over a few disgruntled ‘religious’ people when the path to utopia is at stake.”

    It is like the old Soviet Union where they would tell the citizenry that they were the best country ever and that their life was so awesome, yada yada. Just keep telling us that the gov’t is doing a great job and everything is AWESOME! and that we should never believe our lying eyes.

  • Joe

    This is really not the end of the world. All the hospitals have to do is stop providing health insurance and you don’t have the problem. Take the money the hospital normally pays as its portion of the premium and give it to employee as a raise and get out of the insurance business all together.

  • Joe

    This is really not the end of the world. All the hospitals have to do is stop providing health insurance and you don’t have the problem. Take the money the hospital normally pays as its portion of the premium and give it to employee as a raise and get out of the insurance business all together.

  • Steve Billingsley

    I don’t get even the politics of this. Again, the Washington Post editorial page (that noted hangout of right-wing extremists) took the Obama administration to task on this. This is an easy stick for Republicans to beat up the administration with. It polls horribly and is really unnecessary. There are plenty of insurance plans that offer this kind of coverage and to mandate it just doesn’t make sense. The administration just got its wrist slapped by the Supreme Court in the Hosanna-Tabor case and now it does this? Are they that ideologically committed to this? Combine this with the Keystone pipeline decision and it just seems that this administration is playing hard to its base and ignoring the center, which in an election year is kind of a head scratcher. The Republicans are offering Obama an easier path to re-election by offering up a lackluster group of candidates and yet he refuses to tack a bit to the center. This is like a game where neither side really wants to win and the team that screws up the most will gift wrap the election to the other side.

  • Steve Billingsley

    I don’t get even the politics of this. Again, the Washington Post editorial page (that noted hangout of right-wing extremists) took the Obama administration to task on this. This is an easy stick for Republicans to beat up the administration with. It polls horribly and is really unnecessary. There are plenty of insurance plans that offer this kind of coverage and to mandate it just doesn’t make sense. The administration just got its wrist slapped by the Supreme Court in the Hosanna-Tabor case and now it does this? Are they that ideologically committed to this? Combine this with the Keystone pipeline decision and it just seems that this administration is playing hard to its base and ignoring the center, which in an election year is kind of a head scratcher. The Republicans are offering Obama an easier path to re-election by offering up a lackluster group of candidates and yet he refuses to tack a bit to the center. This is like a game where neither side really wants to win and the team that screws up the most will gift wrap the election to the other side.

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg #13

    There are no ethical ways of ending a pregnancy in the general case.

    Birth?

    The specific orientation of wanting to enjoy sex while being guaranteed sterility is not ethical.

    Are you trying to say contraception is unethical? Or am I misreading you?

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg #13

    There are no ethical ways of ending a pregnancy in the general case.

    Birth?

    The specific orientation of wanting to enjoy sex while being guaranteed sterility is not ethical.

    Are you trying to say contraception is unethical? Or am I misreading you?

  • http://quiacreeds.blogspot.com/ David Oberdieck

    This underscores the fact that liberals aren’t just “let’s get along and love one another.” Liberals love to impose their values on others even if that means making religious institutions be a party to murder (abortion).

  • http://quiacreeds.blogspot.com/ David Oberdieck

    This underscores the fact that liberals aren’t just “let’s get along and love one another.” Liberals love to impose their values on others even if that means making religious institutions be a party to murder (abortion).

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I think what we will see happen is a large number of church organizations re designating positions as ministry positions and thus circumventing the whole legislation. Supreme Court already ruled that the government cannot get involved in the affairs of a church and their ministers.

    More likely, this legislation will be held up in courts. A first amendment friendly judge will place an injunction on the enforcement of the law, and it will wind its way up to the Supreme Court and will be overturned.

    Also, last I heard this provision of Obamacare was thought to be one of the most likely provisions to be overturned.

    It is always the option for the churches to engage in civil disobedience – refuse to comply and force the government to take action, which they won’t because I suspect they are well aware the current Supreme Court Justices will rule in favor of the churches.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I think what we will see happen is a large number of church organizations re designating positions as ministry positions and thus circumventing the whole legislation. Supreme Court already ruled that the government cannot get involved in the affairs of a church and their ministers.

    More likely, this legislation will be held up in courts. A first amendment friendly judge will place an injunction on the enforcement of the law, and it will wind its way up to the Supreme Court and will be overturned.

    Also, last I heard this provision of Obamacare was thought to be one of the most likely provisions to be overturned.

    It is always the option for the churches to engage in civil disobedience – refuse to comply and force the government to take action, which they won’t because I suspect they are well aware the current Supreme Court Justices will rule in favor of the churches.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “There are no ethical ways of ending a pregnancy in the general case.

    Birth?”

    That is what is known as continuing, not ending. It requires no action. It happens on its own, like breathing.

    “Are you trying to say contraception is unethical? Or am I misreading you?”

    Most of the women I know have kids they didn’t plan. They were married and using contraception and got pregnant anyway. They didn’t abort or even consider it. They understood that sex causes people. Contrast that with the orientation that contraception is only the first assault on procreation. If the first assault fails, another will be launched.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “There are no ethical ways of ending a pregnancy in the general case.

    Birth?”

    That is what is known as continuing, not ending. It requires no action. It happens on its own, like breathing.

    “Are you trying to say contraception is unethical? Or am I misreading you?”

    Most of the women I know have kids they didn’t plan. They were married and using contraception and got pregnant anyway. They didn’t abort or even consider it. They understood that sex causes people. Contrast that with the orientation that contraception is only the first assault on procreation. If the first assault fails, another will be launched.

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg #21
    So, contraception isn’t unethical in and of itself but … abortion as a form of contraception is? Sorry to be so thick.

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg #21
    So, contraception isn’t unethical in and of itself but … abortion as a form of contraception is? Sorry to be so thick.

  • DonS

    I commented on this issue yesterday, in the context of making my case that one of the most compelling reasons to ensure that Obama does not serve another four years as president is because of his demonstrated disregard and disdain for the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. We saw it in the absurd arguments his administration made, on the record, in the Hosanna-Tabor case, and we are certainly seeing it in these draconian regulations. Dr. Luther @ 20 rests in the hope that the courts will overturn this clearly unconstitutional regulation, but if enough of Obama’s judges are appointed to the courts, there are no guarantees of this.

    Joe @ 16: Of course, it’s not the end of the world. It’s just one more shot of heat into the pot. Just relax and enjoy it, frogs, the warmth feels good.

    Tom @ 5:

    If the law can tell parents, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their children, why can’t it tell employers, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their employees?

    Really? You see those two situations as equivalents? I see them as opposites. In the one case, the government is intervening to require parents to take care of their children and to preserve their lives. In the other, the government is intervening to require religious institutions, against their consciences, to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees so that they can prevent or kill life. I think your comment reflects better than most what is wrong with our society today.

    And how about this?:

    The free exercise of a religion – beyond the preaching and teaching of it – doesn’t seem to be an absolute.

    Really? Preaching and teaching only? It’s OK for the government to force us to act against our very beliefs? Doing plays no role?

    Our forefathers sacrificed lives, families, and well being, and went through untold hardships, to found a land rooted in religious freedom. And we’re throwing it away in exchange for some free stuff. Pathetic.

  • DonS

    I commented on this issue yesterday, in the context of making my case that one of the most compelling reasons to ensure that Obama does not serve another four years as president is because of his demonstrated disregard and disdain for the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. We saw it in the absurd arguments his administration made, on the record, in the Hosanna-Tabor case, and we are certainly seeing it in these draconian regulations. Dr. Luther @ 20 rests in the hope that the courts will overturn this clearly unconstitutional regulation, but if enough of Obama’s judges are appointed to the courts, there are no guarantees of this.

    Joe @ 16: Of course, it’s not the end of the world. It’s just one more shot of heat into the pot. Just relax and enjoy it, frogs, the warmth feels good.

    Tom @ 5:

    If the law can tell parents, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their children, why can’t it tell employers, of a certain religion, they can’t refuse to provide medical help for their employees?

    Really? You see those two situations as equivalents? I see them as opposites. In the one case, the government is intervening to require parents to take care of their children and to preserve their lives. In the other, the government is intervening to require religious institutions, against their consciences, to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees so that they can prevent or kill life. I think your comment reflects better than most what is wrong with our society today.

    And how about this?:

    The free exercise of a religion – beyond the preaching and teaching of it – doesn’t seem to be an absolute.

    Really? Preaching and teaching only? It’s OK for the government to force us to act against our very beliefs? Doing plays no role?

    Our forefathers sacrificed lives, families, and well being, and went through untold hardships, to found a land rooted in religious freedom. And we’re throwing it away in exchange for some free stuff. Pathetic.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “abortion as a form of contraception is?”

    I never said that.

    Abortion is not a form of contraception. Duh.

    This is what I said:
    “The specific orientation of wanting to enjoy sex while being guaranteed sterility is not ethical.”

    Get it? The orientation is not ethical.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “abortion as a form of contraception is?”

    I never said that.

    Abortion is not a form of contraception. Duh.

    This is what I said:
    “The specific orientation of wanting to enjoy sex while being guaranteed sterility is not ethical.”

    Get it? The orientation is not ethical.

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg
    You wrote “Most of the women I know have kids they didn’t plan. They were married and using contraception and got pregnant anyway.” Are these women unethical? They seem to share that peculiar “orientation”.

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg
    You wrote “Most of the women I know have kids they didn’t plan. They were married and using contraception and got pregnant anyway.” Are these women unethical? They seem to share that peculiar “orientation”.

  • Christopher Gillespie

    SG:

    If I understand you correctly you distinguish between couples who contracepting (intentionally avoiding the conception of children) and yet are open to children with those who are contracepting and are willing to abort if a child is conceived. Correct?

    I’m struggling with your word orientation. Both examples are oriented towards intentional infertility. The first won’t resort to murder while the second will. The distinction doesn’t seem to be orientation but rather the lengths one will go to prohibit life from entering the world.

    To borrow an OT reference, Christian couples can “spill the seed” without ethical consequence as long as they are generally open to children and would not murder a child conceived accidentally. Is this a fair extension of your statements?

  • Christopher Gillespie

    SG:

    If I understand you correctly you distinguish between couples who contracepting (intentionally avoiding the conception of children) and yet are open to children with those who are contracepting and are willing to abort if a child is conceived. Correct?

    I’m struggling with your word orientation. Both examples are oriented towards intentional infertility. The first won’t resort to murder while the second will. The distinction doesn’t seem to be orientation but rather the lengths one will go to prohibit life from entering the world.

    To borrow an OT reference, Christian couples can “spill the seed” without ethical consequence as long as they are generally open to children and would not murder a child conceived accidentally. Is this a fair extension of your statements?

  • –helen

    Joe @ 16: Of course, it’s not the end of the world. It’s just one more shot of heat into the pot. Just relax and enjoy it, frogs, the warmth feels good. –DonS

    And to think I just wrote yesterday that only pastors were suckered into that “frog story”!

  • –helen

    Joe @ 16: Of course, it’s not the end of the world. It’s just one more shot of heat into the pot. Just relax and enjoy it, frogs, the warmth feels good. –DonS

    And to think I just wrote yesterday that only pastors were suckered into that “frog story”!

  • Jonathan

    Let’s assume everyone here who’s outraged doesn’t use artificial birth control and has made absolutely sure that their health insurance policies don’t cover its use.

  • Jonathan

    Let’s assume everyone here who’s outraged doesn’t use artificial birth control and has made absolutely sure that their health insurance policies don’t cover its use.

  • Steve Billingsley

    “Let’s assume everyone here who’s outraged doesn’t use artificial birth control and has made absolutely sure that their health insurance policies don’t cover its use.”

    Nice strawman, Jonathan

    There is a big difference between working for a secular company whose health plan has policies that cover things that one doesn’t like and the government mandating that churches, and religious organizations of all kinds must offer plans that cover these things. A company (or individual) who chooses such a plan is doing so of it’s own volition and there is no law that compels one to work for a particular company or purchase such an individual plan.

    The issue is conscience and coercion, not the fact that lots of health plans cover artificial birth control and abortion. That is a totally different issue.

    Try again.

  • Steve Billingsley

    “Let’s assume everyone here who’s outraged doesn’t use artificial birth control and has made absolutely sure that their health insurance policies don’t cover its use.”

    Nice strawman, Jonathan

    There is a big difference between working for a secular company whose health plan has policies that cover things that one doesn’t like and the government mandating that churches, and religious organizations of all kinds must offer plans that cover these things. A company (or individual) who chooses such a plan is doing so of it’s own volition and there is no law that compels one to work for a particular company or purchase such an individual plan.

    The issue is conscience and coercion, not the fact that lots of health plans cover artificial birth control and abortion. That is a totally different issue.

    Try again.

  • Richard

    Where’s tODD? Let’s get some spin from an Obama defender here.

  • Richard

    Where’s tODD? Let’s get some spin from an Obama defender here.

  • Jonathan

    Steve, thanks.
    Just wanted to make sure that we’re not bound by the same morality we impose on others….Whew!

  • Jonathan

    Steve, thanks.
    Just wanted to make sure that we’re not bound by the same morality we impose on others….Whew!

  • DonS

    Hmm. Jonathan @ 31, you do realize that it is the Obama administration that is doing the imposing here? Those of us whom you describe as “outraged” are arguing for the Constitutional principle of freedom of conscience. Just clarifying, since you seem somehow to have lost the entire thread of things here.

  • DonS

    Hmm. Jonathan @ 31, you do realize that it is the Obama administration that is doing the imposing here? Those of us whom you describe as “outraged” are arguing for the Constitutional principle of freedom of conscience. Just clarifying, since you seem somehow to have lost the entire thread of things here.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Jonathan @ 31
    Uh….OK
    That was complete nonsense.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Jonathan @ 31
    Uh….OK
    That was complete nonsense.

  • mendicus

    Tom’s point @5 is just the sort of argument that counsel for the government will make. And although the two cases are distinguishable, there’s no guarantee at all that the Supremes would agree.

    Control over health care means control over the populace in nearly every respect. It’s the ticket to tyranny.

  • mendicus

    Tom’s point @5 is just the sort of argument that counsel for the government will make. And although the two cases are distinguishable, there’s no guarantee at all that the Supremes would agree.

    Control over health care means control over the populace in nearly every respect. It’s the ticket to tyranny.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Far too many people are getting sidetracked into the issue of abortion and contraception. As Steve notes (@29), that is not the issue here.

    The issue here is the free exercise of religion. Sebelius said:

    I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.

    But, you know, one of those two things appears in the Constitution, while the other does not. As such, any “balance” to be found will be pretty hard to the side of “respecting religious freedom”.

    Which isn’t to say that religious freedom is absolute. Somewhat ironically, our government currently believes that protection of (some kinds of) life trumps religious freedom — at least in several cases involving “faith healers”. Still, I think we all would agree that, should a religion involving the sacrifice of adults come into vogue, its activities would be rightly curtailed by the government.

    But in this case, the government is placing the funding of murder over religious freedom. And that is a bit baffling.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Far too many people are getting sidetracked into the issue of abortion and contraception. As Steve notes (@29), that is not the issue here.

    The issue here is the free exercise of religion. Sebelius said:

    I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.

    But, you know, one of those two things appears in the Constitution, while the other does not. As such, any “balance” to be found will be pretty hard to the side of “respecting religious freedom”.

    Which isn’t to say that religious freedom is absolute. Somewhat ironically, our government currently believes that protection of (some kinds of) life trumps religious freedom — at least in several cases involving “faith healers”. Still, I think we all would agree that, should a religion involving the sacrifice of adults come into vogue, its activities would be rightly curtailed by the government.

    But in this case, the government is placing the funding of murder over religious freedom. And that is a bit baffling.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    That said, wading into the discussion about contraception…

    Christopher Gillespie said (@7):

    The ethical distinction between preventing and ending pregnancy is small. The motive of the contracepting and the aborting are one and the same—they don’t want a baby.

    Of course. And the motive of avoiding a person and murdering him are one and the same: you don’t want to have to talk to him. Which is why I’d like you to support my bill that declares hermits to be murderers. Because either way, that’s not showing love.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    That said, wading into the discussion about contraception…

    Christopher Gillespie said (@7):

    The ethical distinction between preventing and ending pregnancy is small. The motive of the contracepting and the aborting are one and the same—they don’t want a baby.

    Of course. And the motive of avoiding a person and murdering him are one and the same: you don’t want to have to talk to him. Which is why I’d like you to support my bill that declares hermits to be murderers. Because either way, that’s not showing love.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Gary had said (@9):

    There is no violation of conscience involved here. No one is forced to use these contraceptives.

    I see. So a law that required you to give money to the LDS church would also not violate conscience, as long as it didn’t force you to actually attend that church or become a member? Is that it?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Gary had said (@9):

    There is no violation of conscience involved here. No one is forced to use these contraceptives.

    I see. So a law that required you to give money to the LDS church would also not violate conscience, as long as it didn’t force you to actually attend that church or become a member? Is that it?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @36 Ok, that is funny.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @36 Ok, that is funny.

  • Lily

    Would it be good to reconsider whether this is truly an attack upon the church? And if so, is there anything that can be done?

    Article excerpt:

    So who will protect the American Church from the latest threat, this one from the hatchet-faced secretary of Health and Human Services (and why does such a department even exist?), Kathleen Sebelius, and her boss President Obama? As I wrote in my New York Post column yesterday:

    Friday’s ruling by the Department of Health and Human Services proved yet again that ObamaCare’s critics are right. It’s a breathtaking attack not only on the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, but also on the separation of church and state.

    Kathleen Sebelius, the nominally Catholic HHS chief, bluntly informed religious medical institutions that offer services to the general public that she will indeed compel them to offer free birth control, sterilization and “morning after” pills as part of their employees’ health-care plans. They have exactly one year to get with the program or suffer the consequences.

    That’s all their vehement objections to her August “guidelines” got them: “This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule,” read a department statement defending HHS’ insistence on what it euphemistically calls “preventive services.”

    In other words, they have a year to figure out how to violate their religious beliefs and contravene church teaching. And if they choose to cancel their health-care plans rather than submit, they’ll incur a hefty annual fine under the tender mercies of ObamaCare.

    “Separation of church and state,” of course, is nowhere to be found in the Constitution (the phrase comes from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists), but it’s a concept much beloved of the Left, for one very obvious reason: anything that can attack traditional morality and non-governmental institutions is a twofer for them, even as they merrily take to the pulpits in black churches and preach the gospel of governmental secularism, dependency, envy, and general wretchedness.

    So now here comes the Left, busily breaching their beloved wall in order to interfere with religious doctrine — especially the religion they most despise, Roman Catholicism. By any means necessary, indeed…

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289136/what-would-dagger-john-do-michael-walsh

  • Lily

    Would it be good to reconsider whether this is truly an attack upon the church? And if so, is there anything that can be done?

    Article excerpt:

    So who will protect the American Church from the latest threat, this one from the hatchet-faced secretary of Health and Human Services (and why does such a department even exist?), Kathleen Sebelius, and her boss President Obama? As I wrote in my New York Post column yesterday:

    Friday’s ruling by the Department of Health and Human Services proved yet again that ObamaCare’s critics are right. It’s a breathtaking attack not only on the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, but also on the separation of church and state.

    Kathleen Sebelius, the nominally Catholic HHS chief, bluntly informed religious medical institutions that offer services to the general public that she will indeed compel them to offer free birth control, sterilization and “morning after” pills as part of their employees’ health-care plans. They have exactly one year to get with the program or suffer the consequences.

    That’s all their vehement objections to her August “guidelines” got them: “This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule,” read a department statement defending HHS’ insistence on what it euphemistically calls “preventive services.”

    In other words, they have a year to figure out how to violate their religious beliefs and contravene church teaching. And if they choose to cancel their health-care plans rather than submit, they’ll incur a hefty annual fine under the tender mercies of ObamaCare.

    “Separation of church and state,” of course, is nowhere to be found in the Constitution (the phrase comes from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists), but it’s a concept much beloved of the Left, for one very obvious reason: anything that can attack traditional morality and non-governmental institutions is a twofer for them, even as they merrily take to the pulpits in black churches and preach the gospel of governmental secularism, dependency, envy, and general wretchedness.

    So now here comes the Left, busily breaching their beloved wall in order to interfere with religious doctrine — especially the religion they most despise, Roman Catholicism. By any means necessary, indeed…

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289136/what-would-dagger-john-do-michael-walsh

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’m struggling with your word orientation.”

    Fine, you pick a word; intention, mindset, feeling, motive, idea.

    anyway, I prefer tODD’s take, as usual.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’m struggling with your word orientation.”

    Fine, you pick a word; intention, mindset, feeling, motive, idea.

    anyway, I prefer tODD’s take, as usual.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “To borrow an OT reference, Christian couples can “spill the seed” without ethical consequence as long as they are generally open to children and would not murder a child conceived accidentally.”

    Who said anything about Christian?

    The reference was to the general case, ie., anyone. Anyone who is unwilling to kill an innocent baby is more ethical than someone who is willing to kill an innocent baby even if both are willing to use contraception. It is not like doctors really inform patients very well when it comes to contraception.

    Consider these contrasting health risks.

    21 year old woman had first baby when she was 19. Never used oral contraceptives. Her lifetime risk of breast cancer is ~ 7.9%

    31 year old woman had first baby at 30. Used oral contraceptives since she was a teen. Lifetime risk of breast cancer ~22.5%

    Source: http://www.halls.md/breast/risk.htm

    How many teens really know this?

    How many “sex ed” teachers teach and emphasize the enormous risks of what they are promoting?

    If you know someone like the 31 year old who waited so long and then died of breast cancer, more likely than not it is because of contraceptives and she had no idea how insanely brutal the consequences of “consequence free” sex would be. Literally no one told her.

    As for helping the poor by getting them to use contraception, abortion, etc., well it appears those who claim to think this helps women also believe that killing the poor equates to helping the poor, women and children alike.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “To borrow an OT reference, Christian couples can “spill the seed” without ethical consequence as long as they are generally open to children and would not murder a child conceived accidentally.”

    Who said anything about Christian?

    The reference was to the general case, ie., anyone. Anyone who is unwilling to kill an innocent baby is more ethical than someone who is willing to kill an innocent baby even if both are willing to use contraception. It is not like doctors really inform patients very well when it comes to contraception.

    Consider these contrasting health risks.

    21 year old woman had first baby when she was 19. Never used oral contraceptives. Her lifetime risk of breast cancer is ~ 7.9%

    31 year old woman had first baby at 30. Used oral contraceptives since she was a teen. Lifetime risk of breast cancer ~22.5%

    Source: http://www.halls.md/breast/risk.htm

    How many teens really know this?

    How many “sex ed” teachers teach and emphasize the enormous risks of what they are promoting?

    If you know someone like the 31 year old who waited so long and then died of breast cancer, more likely than not it is because of contraceptives and she had no idea how insanely brutal the consequences of “consequence free” sex would be. Literally no one told her.

    As for helping the poor by getting them to use contraception, abortion, etc., well it appears those who claim to think this helps women also believe that killing the poor equates to helping the poor, women and children alike.

  • Tom Hering

    “As for helping the poor by getting them to use contraception …”

    Some of the poor think it helps them:

  • Tom Hering

    “As for helping the poor by getting them to use contraception …”

    Some of the poor think it helps them:

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @42
    I watched the whole thing.

    Those who want smaller families could get similar results with NFP and not face the sky high cancer risk. Of course in poor countries those women who get cancer are also more likely to die from it.

    Is that irrelevant?

    I noticed there was no mention of the deadly cancer risk from oral contraceptives.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @42
    I watched the whole thing.

    Those who want smaller families could get similar results with NFP and not face the sky high cancer risk. Of course in poor countries those women who get cancer are also more likely to die from it.

    Is that irrelevant?

    I noticed there was no mention of the deadly cancer risk from oral contraceptives.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Population control enthusiasts see no problem violating the religious liberty of the people nor any qualms about not disclosing the deadly risks of the products used to control the population.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Population control enthusiasts see no problem violating the religious liberty of the people nor any qualms about not disclosing the deadly risks of the products used to control the population.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Thanks for posting this; I was unclear on whether it was an unconstitutional law or an unconstitutional executive order that did this. OK, so it’s an unconstitutional executive order based on an unconstitutional law–now if it’s just an unconstitutional President (say his birth certificate is a fraud), that’s a hat trick, isn’t it?

    Sorry, couldn’t resist, but I am thankful for the link, really.

    My favorite part of it–besides the clarification of what unconstitutional authority was being used–is where the NARAL spokesman said something about women not needing to ask their boss for permission to get birth control. Comments that dumb are, of course, a sign of a woman who has never held a real job, or, for that matter, needed to consider the Pill, if you catch my drift.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Thanks for posting this; I was unclear on whether it was an unconstitutional law or an unconstitutional executive order that did this. OK, so it’s an unconstitutional executive order based on an unconstitutional law–now if it’s just an unconstitutional President (say his birth certificate is a fraud), that’s a hat trick, isn’t it?

    Sorry, couldn’t resist, but I am thankful for the link, really.

    My favorite part of it–besides the clarification of what unconstitutional authority was being used–is where the NARAL spokesman said something about women not needing to ask their boss for permission to get birth control. Comments that dumb are, of course, a sign of a woman who has never held a real job, or, for that matter, needed to consider the Pill, if you catch my drift.

  • Gary

    @tODD (37) I can tell you’re a smart guy, so it totally escapes me how you can make such a dumb comparison. How is the absurd idea of being “required to give money to the LDS” (required by whom?) in any way similar to an employer being required to offer health insurance plans with a prescription component that in principle _would_ cover oral contraceptives?

    Suppose the Jehovah’s Witnesses were required that any comprehensive health insurance plan they offered _could_, in principle, cover the cost of a blood transfusion–would that be violating their 1st Amendment rights?! How would it be so? No JW actually has to pay for _anybody’s_ blood transfusion, even under the new requirements.

  • Gary

    @tODD (37) I can tell you’re a smart guy, so it totally escapes me how you can make such a dumb comparison. How is the absurd idea of being “required to give money to the LDS” (required by whom?) in any way similar to an employer being required to offer health insurance plans with a prescription component that in principle _would_ cover oral contraceptives?

    Suppose the Jehovah’s Witnesses were required that any comprehensive health insurance plan they offered _could_, in principle, cover the cost of a blood transfusion–would that be violating their 1st Amendment rights?! How would it be so? No JW actually has to pay for _anybody’s_ blood transfusion, even under the new requirements.

  • Michael B.

    @sg@41

    You are greatly exaggerating the risk of cancer by women delaying having kids. The National Cancer Society calls the risk “slightly higher” if women have kids later or use oral contraception. (http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-risk-factors)

    Nevertheless, I completely agree with you that teens have a right to know these facts. I would just also ask that these facts are also presented: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy reports that teen mothers are more than twice as likely to drop out of high school. Teen brides are 10 times more likely to plunge into poverty. In 2005 University of Rochester economist Gordon Dahl found that “a woman who marries young is 28 percentage points more likely to live in poverty when she is older.” A 1993 study by the Annie E. Casey Foundation determined that only 8 percent of women who finished high school, married before having a child, and married after age 20 became poor. Seventy-nine percent of women who didn’t do these things wound up poor. When teenage girls become pregnant, eight out of 10 of the fathers never marry them. A 2002 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicates that 59 percent of couples who marry before age 18 split up within 15 years. But waiting a few years markedly increases a marriage’s odds: 64 percent of couples who get hitched after age 20 are still married 15 years later.

  • Michael B.

    @sg@41

    You are greatly exaggerating the risk of cancer by women delaying having kids. The National Cancer Society calls the risk “slightly higher” if women have kids later or use oral contraception. (http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-risk-factors)

    Nevertheless, I completely agree with you that teens have a right to know these facts. I would just also ask that these facts are also presented: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy reports that teen mothers are more than twice as likely to drop out of high school. Teen brides are 10 times more likely to plunge into poverty. In 2005 University of Rochester economist Gordon Dahl found that “a woman who marries young is 28 percentage points more likely to live in poverty when she is older.” A 1993 study by the Annie E. Casey Foundation determined that only 8 percent of women who finished high school, married before having a child, and married after age 20 became poor. Seventy-nine percent of women who didn’t do these things wound up poor. When teenage girls become pregnant, eight out of 10 of the fathers never marry them. A 2002 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicates that 59 percent of couples who marry before age 18 split up within 15 years. But waiting a few years markedly increases a marriage’s odds: 64 percent of couples who get hitched after age 20 are still married 15 years later.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You are greatly exaggerating the risk of cancer by women delaying having kids. The National Cancer Society calls the risk “slightly higher” if women have kids later or use oral contraception.”

    The numbers don’t lie.

    If you think that a 22.5% risk is only “slightly higher” than 7.9% risk, then we must disagree on the definition of “slightly” higher.

    22.5% is 2 out of 9 !!!

    Heck, 7.9% is very high to start with. Anything that would increase the risk of something as dangerous as breast cancer is, by definition, very dangerous.

    Does 2 0ut of 9 sound like a good risk of losing your parts, not to mention your life as well possibly? Have 22.5% of your friends had theirs cut off? Go ask them how they feel about it.

    Personally, I would like to keep mine.

    The problem is there is virtually no disclosure of the risk. Everyone talks about breast cancer, but no one talks about the lifestyle that increases risks or how much it increases risks. The omission is egregious.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You are greatly exaggerating the risk of cancer by women delaying having kids. The National Cancer Society calls the risk “slightly higher” if women have kids later or use oral contraception.”

    The numbers don’t lie.

    If you think that a 22.5% risk is only “slightly higher” than 7.9% risk, then we must disagree on the definition of “slightly” higher.

    22.5% is 2 out of 9 !!!

    Heck, 7.9% is very high to start with. Anything that would increase the risk of something as dangerous as breast cancer is, by definition, very dangerous.

    Does 2 0ut of 9 sound like a good risk of losing your parts, not to mention your life as well possibly? Have 22.5% of your friends had theirs cut off? Go ask them how they feel about it.

    Personally, I would like to keep mine.

    The problem is there is virtually no disclosure of the risk. Everyone talks about breast cancer, but no one talks about the lifestyle that increases risks or how much it increases risks. The omission is egregious.

  • NG

    Gary #9: Paul uses “weaker conscience” as a way to be sensitive to and love the brother or sister in Christ, and not in such a way as to offend, demean or bite them.

    I shall explain my position: If you consider a “weaker conscience” as one in which the person values life so highly that they are not willing to risk killing it, then so be it. One of the functions of the birth control pill is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. Because of this, I consider the birth control pill an abortifacient, or at the very least a drug that has the potential to cause an abortion. I cannot, in good conscience, allow myself to take a drug that could potentially kill my unborn child (and that of my husband’s), since I believe life begins at conception, when sperm meets egg, and therefore before implantation. I don’t want to have to answer for that. Because of this fact, I cannot support a church body being forced to pay for such a drug, nor see my tithes support a mandate that pays for them. Most women, let alone men, are not aware of this fact, and this, I believe is something worth “rallying around”.

    I am not opposed to all contraception at this point, as barrier methods (such as condoms) do not prevent implantation. The Catholics are, however, opposed to them, and I am trying to better understand this position.

    Joe #10: I am most concerned about “affirming life”, and the pill does not do this, nor does the morning after-pill. They seek to end life (see above). I do not think “be fruitful and multiply” means you shouldn’t try to be wise in the size of your family and seek God’s will and wisdom with respect to your family planning.

    NFP teaches how to both avoid pregnancy and get pregnant. Why artifically manipulate a woman’s body when God designed it in such a way that she can know when she is fertile and when she is not in a way that is free, financially speaking? I guess it means we Americans couldn’t have sex whenever we want because a woman might get pregnant. . . then we’d actually have to be responsible about sex, married and unmarried alike. Hmm. Sounds inconvenient. It’s so unAmerican and definately not 21st century thinking. But wait – I thought Christians aren’t supposed to conform to this world!

    To recent comments about health consequences of the pill – blood clots are also another health risk.

  • NG

    Gary #9: Paul uses “weaker conscience” as a way to be sensitive to and love the brother or sister in Christ, and not in such a way as to offend, demean or bite them.

    I shall explain my position: If you consider a “weaker conscience” as one in which the person values life so highly that they are not willing to risk killing it, then so be it. One of the functions of the birth control pill is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. Because of this, I consider the birth control pill an abortifacient, or at the very least a drug that has the potential to cause an abortion. I cannot, in good conscience, allow myself to take a drug that could potentially kill my unborn child (and that of my husband’s), since I believe life begins at conception, when sperm meets egg, and therefore before implantation. I don’t want to have to answer for that. Because of this fact, I cannot support a church body being forced to pay for such a drug, nor see my tithes support a mandate that pays for them. Most women, let alone men, are not aware of this fact, and this, I believe is something worth “rallying around”.

    I am not opposed to all contraception at this point, as barrier methods (such as condoms) do not prevent implantation. The Catholics are, however, opposed to them, and I am trying to better understand this position.

    Joe #10: I am most concerned about “affirming life”, and the pill does not do this, nor does the morning after-pill. They seek to end life (see above). I do not think “be fruitful and multiply” means you shouldn’t try to be wise in the size of your family and seek God’s will and wisdom with respect to your family planning.

    NFP teaches how to both avoid pregnancy and get pregnant. Why artifically manipulate a woman’s body when God designed it in such a way that she can know when she is fertile and when she is not in a way that is free, financially speaking? I guess it means we Americans couldn’t have sex whenever we want because a woman might get pregnant. . . then we’d actually have to be responsible about sex, married and unmarried alike. Hmm. Sounds inconvenient. It’s so unAmerican and definately not 21st century thinking. But wait – I thought Christians aren’t supposed to conform to this world!

    To recent comments about health consequences of the pill – blood clots are also another health risk.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy reports that teen mothers are more than twice as likely to drop out of high school. Teen brides are 10 times more likely to plunge into poverty. In 2005 University of Rochester economist Gordon Dahl found that “a woman who marries young is 28 percentage points more likely to live in poverty when she is older.”

    Correlation is not causation.

    When things correlate strongly, one may cause the other(s) or they may have a common cause.

    In the case of teen pregnancy, so many other factors are also known and we have mountains of historical data to compare with. Therefore, most honest folks can see that all have a common cause. Basically, these girls aren’t the brightest bulbs in the box. Back when pretty much any good looking teen girl would get married regardless of social class, there wasn’t any correlation to teen pregnancy and all these crappy outcomes. Plenty of US Presidents married teens. The highest year for teen pregnancy was 1957 and 90% of those women were married. Now, half as many teens have babies but 90% of them aren’t married. Not exactly progress.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy reports that teen mothers are more than twice as likely to drop out of high school. Teen brides are 10 times more likely to plunge into poverty. In 2005 University of Rochester economist Gordon Dahl found that “a woman who marries young is 28 percentage points more likely to live in poverty when she is older.”

    Correlation is not causation.

    When things correlate strongly, one may cause the other(s) or they may have a common cause.

    In the case of teen pregnancy, so many other factors are also known and we have mountains of historical data to compare with. Therefore, most honest folks can see that all have a common cause. Basically, these girls aren’t the brightest bulbs in the box. Back when pretty much any good looking teen girl would get married regardless of social class, there wasn’t any correlation to teen pregnancy and all these crappy outcomes. Plenty of US Presidents married teens. The highest year for teen pregnancy was 1957 and 90% of those women were married. Now, half as many teens have babies but 90% of them aren’t married. Not exactly progress.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “To recent comments about health consequences of the pill – blood clots are also another health risk.”

    Yes. I personally know two women over 40 who had strokes due to the pill. One died a week later. The other, mercifully, has recovered.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “To recent comments about health consequences of the pill – blood clots are also another health risk.”

    Yes. I personally know two women over 40 who had strokes due to the pill. One died a week later. The other, mercifully, has recovered.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Gary (@46), you said:

    it totally escapes me how you can make such a dumb comparison.

    Well, it was really more of a reductio ad absurdum than dumb. Let’s keep in mind your original claim here (@9):

    There is no violation of conscience involved here. No one is forced to use these contraceptives.

    This misses the point that the violation is in people being forced to fund things they consider abhorrent. That is the violation of conscience. As such, it is akin to (please note: akin to; this is hypothetical) a situation in which you are forced to fund a group you (presumably, as a commenter on this blog) find abhorrent, even if no one is forced to actually be a member of that group.

    Suppose the Jehovah’s Witnesses were required that any comprehensive health insurance plan they offered _could_, in principle, cover the cost of a blood transfusion–would that be violating their 1st Amendment rights?! How would it be so? No JW actually has to pay for _anybody’s_ blood transfusion, even under the new requirements.

    Would that be violating their right to exercise of religion? Well, yeah. That’s pretty much the exact same point I made with the LDS hypothetical.

    And how in the world can you claim that, under your hypothetical, “No JW actually has to pay for _anybody’s_ blood transfusion”? Heck, let’s just make this about the actual topic: Catholics will be funding abortions and/or contraceptives, under this new rule. Even though that violates their consciences. How could you claim otherwise? I really don’t understand.

    For your argument to hold, you would have to know with absolute certainty (which you cannot) that no person covered by health insurance paid for by a Catholic organization would take advantage of it to fund their contraceptives, etc. But it’s patently obvious that Catholics will be funding, if in part, such health insurance. Catholics pay for health insurance. Health insurance covers contraceptives. It’s not that difficult.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Gary (@46), you said:

    it totally escapes me how you can make such a dumb comparison.

    Well, it was really more of a reductio ad absurdum than dumb. Let’s keep in mind your original claim here (@9):

    There is no violation of conscience involved here. No one is forced to use these contraceptives.

    This misses the point that the violation is in people being forced to fund things they consider abhorrent. That is the violation of conscience. As such, it is akin to (please note: akin to; this is hypothetical) a situation in which you are forced to fund a group you (presumably, as a commenter on this blog) find abhorrent, even if no one is forced to actually be a member of that group.

    Suppose the Jehovah’s Witnesses were required that any comprehensive health insurance plan they offered _could_, in principle, cover the cost of a blood transfusion–would that be violating their 1st Amendment rights?! How would it be so? No JW actually has to pay for _anybody’s_ blood transfusion, even under the new requirements.

    Would that be violating their right to exercise of religion? Well, yeah. That’s pretty much the exact same point I made with the LDS hypothetical.

    And how in the world can you claim that, under your hypothetical, “No JW actually has to pay for _anybody’s_ blood transfusion”? Heck, let’s just make this about the actual topic: Catholics will be funding abortions and/or contraceptives, under this new rule. Even though that violates their consciences. How could you claim otherwise? I really don’t understand.

    For your argument to hold, you would have to know with absolute certainty (which you cannot) that no person covered by health insurance paid for by a Catholic organization would take advantage of it to fund their contraceptives, etc. But it’s patently obvious that Catholics will be funding, if in part, such health insurance. Catholics pay for health insurance. Health insurance covers contraceptives. It’s not that difficult.

  • Michael B.

    @sg@50

    It’s true that correlation is not equal to causation. Perhaps you are right, and the reason the outlook for teenage mother’s future’s is so bleak is because as you say, they aren’t that bright. The smart girl gets her abortion, moves on with her life, and then gets right with Jesus and pro-life when the cost is a lot lower. Nevertheless, there are a lot of good reasons for thinking that you may be wrong about they’re being a direct cause. Any girl who has a kid to take care of won’t be thinking about school as much.

    Also, your stats on the pill are bogus. I didn’t want to be insulting, but that site you posted is for entertainment purposes — my kid has one in school that tells him what day he will die based upon other such factors, and even he realizes it’s for fun. I would just challenge you to find a legitimate web site that says the risk of birth control pills or delaying children has anything more than a “slightly” elevated risk of breast cancer.

  • Michael B.

    @sg@50

    It’s true that correlation is not equal to causation. Perhaps you are right, and the reason the outlook for teenage mother’s future’s is so bleak is because as you say, they aren’t that bright. The smart girl gets her abortion, moves on with her life, and then gets right with Jesus and pro-life when the cost is a lot lower. Nevertheless, there are a lot of good reasons for thinking that you may be wrong about they’re being a direct cause. Any girl who has a kid to take care of won’t be thinking about school as much.

    Also, your stats on the pill are bogus. I didn’t want to be insulting, but that site you posted is for entertainment purposes — my kid has one in school that tells him what day he will die based upon other such factors, and even he realizes it’s for fun. I would just challenge you to find a legitimate web site that says the risk of birth control pills or delaying children has anything more than a “slightly” elevated risk of breast cancer.

  • Gary

    @tODD (52) I appreciate the realistic scenario much more than either of our hypothetical ones. At the risk of being a hypocrite, indulge me in a bit of my own reductio ad absurdum argument:

    How do Catholic institutions not have their collective consciences violated when they know people on their payrolls might use their compensation to pay for contraceptives? Or how do Baptist institutions cut payroll checks without having to worry whether a check won’t be cashed and in part fund a trip to the liquor store?

    Clearly the answer is, they don’t know, they can only make certain assumptions about the people they’ve hired and the values they hold, and beyond that it’s not their business. They don’t worry. The wages earned are paid.

    Now my comparison is more than a little absurd too, so don’t jump all over it. More realistically, if a person’s religious convictions led him to be a conscientious objector, could that person also justify (based on his religion) not paying taxes, since our taxes fund a military? The government uses part of the tax revenues to buy bullets and guns and pay soldiers to be ready to shoot people; there are people who also find this abhorrent.

    One more hypothetical, and you be the judge how absurd or not this one is: Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate. Assuming they have some kind of insurance (and I don’t know for a fact they do), would drugs for ED, like Viagra, be covered? Interesting question, especially since drugs like Viagra are capable (I believe) of being prescribed for certain non-ED heart conditions. Should such prescription drugs be covered, regardless of whether in fact they currently are?

  • Gary

    @tODD (52) I appreciate the realistic scenario much more than either of our hypothetical ones. At the risk of being a hypocrite, indulge me in a bit of my own reductio ad absurdum argument:

    How do Catholic institutions not have their collective consciences violated when they know people on their payrolls might use their compensation to pay for contraceptives? Or how do Baptist institutions cut payroll checks without having to worry whether a check won’t be cashed and in part fund a trip to the liquor store?

    Clearly the answer is, they don’t know, they can only make certain assumptions about the people they’ve hired and the values they hold, and beyond that it’s not their business. They don’t worry. The wages earned are paid.

    Now my comparison is more than a little absurd too, so don’t jump all over it. More realistically, if a person’s religious convictions led him to be a conscientious objector, could that person also justify (based on his religion) not paying taxes, since our taxes fund a military? The government uses part of the tax revenues to buy bullets and guns and pay soldiers to be ready to shoot people; there are people who also find this abhorrent.

    One more hypothetical, and you be the judge how absurd or not this one is: Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate. Assuming they have some kind of insurance (and I don’t know for a fact they do), would drugs for ED, like Viagra, be covered? Interesting question, especially since drugs like Viagra are capable (I believe) of being prescribed for certain non-ED heart conditions. Should such prescription drugs be covered, regardless of whether in fact they currently are?

  • Marian

    The Manhattan Declaration (http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx) anticipated this problem, and many religious individuals (including heads of colleges, etc.) have already promised civil disobedience:

    “Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”

  • Marian

    The Manhattan Declaration (http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx) anticipated this problem, and many religious individuals (including heads of colleges, etc.) have already promised civil disobedience:

    “Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The smart girl gets her abortion, moves on with her life, and then gets right with Jesus and pro-life when the cost is a lot lower.”

    More like the smart girl doesn’t get pregnant in the first place. She has higher self esteem because she has better grades, so is less likely to have sex due to being pressured by a guy. She uses contraception and uses it correctly because she better understands it and is more conscientious. Note, the teens with the lowest abortion rate are teens who are confirmed atheists. Atheism and intelligence correlate very strongly. The smartest girls have the latest initiation of sexual activity on average. I am not saying your characterization of a smart girl having an abortion never happens. It does, but the pregnancy rate and sexual activity rate among smarter girls is also much lower.

    Also, your stats on the pill are bogus. I didn’t want to be insulting, but that site you posted is for entertainment purposes — my kid has one in school that tells him what day he will die based upon other such factors, and even he realizes it’s for fun. I would just challenge you to find a legitimate web site that says the risk of birth control pills or delaying children has anything more than a “slightly” elevated risk of breast cancer.

    Don’t be naive. Oral contraceptives are a multibillion dollar industry, there is every incentive to obfuscate. The point I made was that delayed childbearing is what primarily increases the risk. Women use the pills to delay childbearing. Delayed child bearing is the primary cause of the increased risk. When they design the study, they compare women who bore their first child at the same ages. From there they note that those who used oral contraceptives have a higher risk than those who didn’t. The point is that the pills are the cause of both the primary and the secondary causes of increased risk.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The smart girl gets her abortion, moves on with her life, and then gets right with Jesus and pro-life when the cost is a lot lower.”

    More like the smart girl doesn’t get pregnant in the first place. She has higher self esteem because she has better grades, so is less likely to have sex due to being pressured by a guy. She uses contraception and uses it correctly because she better understands it and is more conscientious. Note, the teens with the lowest abortion rate are teens who are confirmed atheists. Atheism and intelligence correlate very strongly. The smartest girls have the latest initiation of sexual activity on average. I am not saying your characterization of a smart girl having an abortion never happens. It does, but the pregnancy rate and sexual activity rate among smarter girls is also much lower.

    Also, your stats on the pill are bogus. I didn’t want to be insulting, but that site you posted is for entertainment purposes — my kid has one in school that tells him what day he will die based upon other such factors, and even he realizes it’s for fun. I would just challenge you to find a legitimate web site that says the risk of birth control pills or delaying children has anything more than a “slightly” elevated risk of breast cancer.

    Don’t be naive. Oral contraceptives are a multibillion dollar industry, there is every incentive to obfuscate. The point I made was that delayed childbearing is what primarily increases the risk. Women use the pills to delay childbearing. Delayed child bearing is the primary cause of the increased risk. When they design the study, they compare women who bore their first child at the same ages. From there they note that those who used oral contraceptives have a higher risk than those who didn’t. The point is that the pills are the cause of both the primary and the secondary causes of increased risk.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Article from New England Journal of Medicine on rising rates of breast cancer tracking with delayed childbearing.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708307

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Article from New England Journal of Medicine on rising rates of breast cancer tracking with delayed childbearing.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708307

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Any girl who has a kid to take care of won’t be thinking about school as much.”

    Basically the arrow of causation points in the opposite direction.
    Any girl who can’t pass her classes has little incentive to stay in school and not have her baby. Actually that was the basis for one of my girl friend’s doctoral dissertation in Public Health administration.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Any girl who has a kid to take care of won’t be thinking about school as much.”

    Basically the arrow of causation points in the opposite direction.
    Any girl who can’t pass her classes has little incentive to stay in school and not have her baby. Actually that was the basis for one of my girl friend’s doctoral dissertation in Public Health administration.

  • Michael B.

    @sg@55/56

    Did you read the article you posted? Delaying child birth was one of many different risk factors associated with breast cancer, and hardly the main point of the article. And even if it did, doesn’t abstinence also delay child birth? My morning run in the sun without sunscreen will elevate my risk of skin cancer. I just don’t think it’s a major risk factor.

    You seem really excited about the idea of girls having children early. But science just doesn’t support it as healthy. True, the Book of Timothy in the Bible says that women shall be saved by childbearing. And there are all sorts of reproductive conspiracy theories. Is that why women aren’t hearing more about these true risks? A conspiracy among doctors?

  • Michael B.

    @sg@55/56

    Did you read the article you posted? Delaying child birth was one of many different risk factors associated with breast cancer, and hardly the main point of the article. And even if it did, doesn’t abstinence also delay child birth? My morning run in the sun without sunscreen will elevate my risk of skin cancer. I just don’t think it’s a major risk factor.

    You seem really excited about the idea of girls having children early. But science just doesn’t support it as healthy. True, the Book of Timothy in the Bible says that women shall be saved by childbearing. And there are all sorts of reproductive conspiracy theories. Is that why women aren’t hearing more about these true risks? A conspiracy among doctors?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Michael, anywhere you care to look for data, you get numbers like I showed you.

    Here is an actuarial analysis:

    http://papriresearch.org/ESW/Files/Irelands_Gain.pdf

    The fact is delaying childbearing is a very significant health risk for women. The longer the delay, the bigger the risks.

    You can’t find any data in any medical journal that shows that there is only a slight difference in the risks between women who have many kids starting early and women who have few starting late. I have showed you several. I have explained it. You don’t like the numbers, so you say they are exaggerated. The researchers don’t like them either, and sadly some downplay the seriousness of the situation. Now matter how bad stuff is, it is better to face it.

    Notice in the NEJM article that in many places breast cancer was so rare, it wasn’t even on their radar. Here it’s the second deadliest cancer and the most common after skin cancer. The only huge difference between women now and 100 years ago is the pattern of childbearing. We think nothing of women taking these steroids that are classified as known carcinogens, because we are used to it. Just like obesity, it is unhealthy. The fact that it is common, doesn’t make it a good thing.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Michael, anywhere you care to look for data, you get numbers like I showed you.

    Here is an actuarial analysis:

    http://papriresearch.org/ESW/Files/Irelands_Gain.pdf

    The fact is delaying childbearing is a very significant health risk for women. The longer the delay, the bigger the risks.

    You can’t find any data in any medical journal that shows that there is only a slight difference in the risks between women who have many kids starting early and women who have few starting late. I have showed you several. I have explained it. You don’t like the numbers, so you say they are exaggerated. The researchers don’t like them either, and sadly some downplay the seriousness of the situation. Now matter how bad stuff is, it is better to face it.

    Notice in the NEJM article that in many places breast cancer was so rare, it wasn’t even on their radar. Here it’s the second deadliest cancer and the most common after skin cancer. The only huge difference between women now and 100 years ago is the pattern of childbearing. We think nothing of women taking these steroids that are classified as known carcinogens, because we are used to it. Just like obesity, it is unhealthy. The fact that it is common, doesn’t make it a good thing.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You seem really excited about the idea of girls having children early.”

    It is called normal and healthy.

    I understand that it is lots of fun for lots of men that lots of young attractive girls take birth control and have lots of partners (and no kids or commitments!!) I understand that is pretty exciting. I just don’t think it is healthy.

    A healthy sexual relationship with an 18 year old woman includes marriage and children. An unhealthy one doesn’t.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You seem really excited about the idea of girls having children early.”

    It is called normal and healthy.

    I understand that it is lots of fun for lots of men that lots of young attractive girls take birth control and have lots of partners (and no kids or commitments!!) I understand that is pretty exciting. I just don’t think it is healthy.

    A healthy sexual relationship with an 18 year old woman includes marriage and children. An unhealthy one doesn’t.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Did you read the article you posted?”

    Yes.

    “Delaying child birth was one of many different risk factors associated with breast cancer, and hardly the main point of the article.”

    It is the main point of the article. Read it again. Japan’s breast cancer rate tripled over the last 40 years.

    “And even if it did, doesn’t abstinence also delay child birth?”

    Yes, but in actual practice with real human beings, young folks with normal drives don’t abstain on average.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Did you read the article you posted?”

    Yes.

    “Delaying child birth was one of many different risk factors associated with breast cancer, and hardly the main point of the article.”

    It is the main point of the article. Read it again. Japan’s breast cancer rate tripled over the last 40 years.

    “And even if it did, doesn’t abstinence also delay child birth?”

    Yes, but in actual practice with real human beings, young folks with normal drives don’t abstain on average.

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    Seriously? Pension and Population Research Institute in Northern Ireland? It’s basically an anti-abortion web site with 5 or so different “publications”. I asked for something from a serious medical journal, and this is the best you could come up with to support your claim of why teenagers should be having babies?

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    Seriously? Pension and Population Research Institute in Northern Ireland? It’s basically an anti-abortion web site with 5 or so different “publications”. I asked for something from a serious medical journal, and this is the best you could come up with to support your claim of why teenagers should be having babies?

  • Joe

    for what its worth, I’ve seen more credible studies linking Japan’s breast cancer rate increase the introduction of processed cow’s milk.

  • Joe

    for what its worth, I’ve seen more credible studies linking Japan’s breast cancer rate increase the introduction of processed cow’s milk.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’ve seen more credible studies linking Japan’s breast cancer rate increase the introduction of processed cow’s milk.”

    got a link for that?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’ve seen more credible studies linking Japan’s breast cancer rate increase the introduction of processed cow’s milk.”

    got a link for that?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I asked for something from a serious medical journal, and this is the best you could come up with to support your claim of why teenagers should be having babies?”

    Just to be clear. Are you only opposed to teen women getting married and having babies, but think sex and contraception are fine?

    I don’t want to misunderstand.

    As for numbers, is Guttmacher the only authority you would trust?

    As for conspiracies, why would Dr. Halls exaggerate breast cancer risk? Do you think he is a fanatic?

    More about the risk estimator.
    http://www.openclinical.org/app_hallsmdBRCArisk.html

    Dr. Halls also created a BMI calculator etc. Is that suspect, too?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I asked for something from a serious medical journal, and this is the best you could come up with to support your claim of why teenagers should be having babies?”

    Just to be clear. Are you only opposed to teen women getting married and having babies, but think sex and contraception are fine?

    I don’t want to misunderstand.

    As for numbers, is Guttmacher the only authority you would trust?

    As for conspiracies, why would Dr. Halls exaggerate breast cancer risk? Do you think he is a fanatic?

    More about the risk estimator.
    http://www.openclinical.org/app_hallsmdBRCArisk.html

    Dr. Halls also created a BMI calculator etc. Is that suspect, too?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Is google too challenging?

    try

    breast cancer delayed childbearing journal

    and voilà

    Early periods and late childbearing increase risk of breast cancer, study confirms
    Lynn Eaton

    Women’s risk of getting breast cancer increases if they have few children, start to have children late, or if their periods start early, a large scale French study has confirmed.
    The study, published this week on the website of the British Journal of Cancer (http://www.bjcancer.comwww.bjcancer.com), followed nearly 100 000 French women over a 10 year period. They were aged 40-65 at the start of the study. All were with a national health insurance scheme and were mainly teachers. The women were sent follow up questionnaires every two years about their lifestyle, including reproductive factors, body build, smoking, medical history, and any family history of cancer.
    The study also distinguishes between the effect on premenopausal and postmenopausal women.
    Of the 91 000 women in the study, 1718 were diagnosed with breast cancer over the time period; at the end of the follow up 39 148 women were premenopausal and 50 996 were postmenopausal.
    The research showed that women who had had their first child in their 30s were 63% more likely to develop breast cancer before the menopause than those who had given birth before the age of 22.
    The risk difference was lower, however, for developing breast cancer after the menopause: women who had had their first child in their 30s were 35% more likely to develop breast cancer after the menopause than those who had given birth before the age of 22.
    It also showed that each full term pregnancy reduced the risk of breast cancer by 8%.
    Early onset of periods also increased a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. Women who had started their periods at 15 were at only two thirds the risk of premenopausal breast cancer compared with women whose periods had started at 11. The risk decreased by 7% for every year that periods were delayed.
    Dr Françoise Clavel-Chapelon, who undertook the study, said the information would help them understand the mechanisms which allowed breast cancer to develop.
    “It’s especially interesting that the influences on a woman’s risk of breast cancer can be so different before and after she reaches menopause,” she said.
    The study also found that there was no evidence that a history of miscarriage put women at higher risk of developing breast cancer either premenopausally or postmenopausally.
    Professor Gordon McVie, joint director general of Cancer Research UK, welcomed this large scale research: “The link between reproductive factors, fluctuation in hormones, and women’s breast cancer risk is extremely complex, and previous small scale studies have often produced confusing and conflicting results,” he said.
    The study is ongoing and will be looking at the effect of diet and hormone replacement therapy in the future.
    Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of
    BMJ Publishing Group

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172033/

    but wait, they were British and many were school teachers. Those must be the real causes!!!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Is google too challenging?

    try

    breast cancer delayed childbearing journal

    and voilà

    Early periods and late childbearing increase risk of breast cancer, study confirms
    Lynn Eaton

    Women’s risk of getting breast cancer increases if they have few children, start to have children late, or if their periods start early, a large scale French study has confirmed.
    The study, published this week on the website of the British Journal of Cancer (http://www.bjcancer.comwww.bjcancer.com), followed nearly 100 000 French women over a 10 year period. They were aged 40-65 at the start of the study. All were with a national health insurance scheme and were mainly teachers. The women were sent follow up questionnaires every two years about their lifestyle, including reproductive factors, body build, smoking, medical history, and any family history of cancer.
    The study also distinguishes between the effect on premenopausal and postmenopausal women.
    Of the 91 000 women in the study, 1718 were diagnosed with breast cancer over the time period; at the end of the follow up 39 148 women were premenopausal and 50 996 were postmenopausal.
    The research showed that women who had had their first child in their 30s were 63% more likely to develop breast cancer before the menopause than those who had given birth before the age of 22.
    The risk difference was lower, however, for developing breast cancer after the menopause: women who had had their first child in their 30s were 35% more likely to develop breast cancer after the menopause than those who had given birth before the age of 22.
    It also showed that each full term pregnancy reduced the risk of breast cancer by 8%.
    Early onset of periods also increased a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. Women who had started their periods at 15 were at only two thirds the risk of premenopausal breast cancer compared with women whose periods had started at 11. The risk decreased by 7% for every year that periods were delayed.
    Dr Françoise Clavel-Chapelon, who undertook the study, said the information would help them understand the mechanisms which allowed breast cancer to develop.
    “It’s especially interesting that the influences on a woman’s risk of breast cancer can be so different before and after she reaches menopause,” she said.
    The study also found that there was no evidence that a history of miscarriage put women at higher risk of developing breast cancer either premenopausally or postmenopausally.
    Professor Gordon McVie, joint director general of Cancer Research UK, welcomed this large scale research: “The link between reproductive factors, fluctuation in hormones, and women’s breast cancer risk is extremely complex, and previous small scale studies have often produced confusing and conflicting results,” he said.
    The study is ongoing and will be looking at the effect of diet and hormone replacement therapy in the future.
    Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of
    BMJ Publishing Group

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172033/

    but wait, they were British and many were school teachers. Those must be the real causes!!!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The journal was British. The subjects were French. And since there is some bad history between the two nations, it must be biased and therefore can’t be trusted.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The journal was British. The subjects were French. And since there is some bad history between the two nations, it must be biased and therefore can’t be trusted.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The risk decreased by 7% for every year that periods were delayed.”

    Gee, would that be because estrogen is carcinogenic? And a woman who reached menarche at 11 but doesn’t have a baby till 25 was exposed to the effects of estrogen for 14 years without the protection of a full term pregnancy. While a woman who didn’t reach menarche until 14 and had her first baby at 18, would only be exposed for 4 years.

    Estrogen

    “Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011)
    Estrogens, Steroidal
    Known to be human carcinogens First listed in the Tenth Report on Carcinogens (2002)”

    In subsequent reviews, IARC concluded that there was sufficient evidence of the carcinogenicity of combination oral contraceptives in humans based on increased risks of breast, cervical, and liver cancer (IARC 2007) and sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of combined estro- gen-progestogen menopausal therapy in humans based on increased risk of breast cancer (Grosse et al. 2009). The results of studies pub- lished since the 2007 review were consistent with the conclusions of the IARC review, finding increased risk of breast cancer associated with both oral contraceptive use (Rosenberg et al. 2009) and estro- gen-progestogen menopausal therapy

    National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services

    http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/EstrogensSteroidal.pdf

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The risk decreased by 7% for every year that periods were delayed.”

    Gee, would that be because estrogen is carcinogenic? And a woman who reached menarche at 11 but doesn’t have a baby till 25 was exposed to the effects of estrogen for 14 years without the protection of a full term pregnancy. While a woman who didn’t reach menarche until 14 and had her first baby at 18, would only be exposed for 4 years.

    Estrogen

    “Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011)
    Estrogens, Steroidal
    Known to be human carcinogens First listed in the Tenth Report on Carcinogens (2002)”

    In subsequent reviews, IARC concluded that there was sufficient evidence of the carcinogenicity of combination oral contraceptives in humans based on increased risks of breast, cervical, and liver cancer (IARC 2007) and sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of combined estro- gen-progestogen menopausal therapy in humans based on increased risk of breast cancer (Grosse et al. 2009). The results of studies pub- lished since the 2007 review were consistent with the conclusions of the IARC review, finding increased risk of breast cancer associated with both oral contraceptive use (Rosenberg et al. 2009) and estro- gen-progestogen menopausal therapy

    National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services

    http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/EstrogensSteroidal.pdf

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    But don’t trust that report. The Dept. of Health and Human Services is rumored to have only invented its toxicology program as a platform for polemics targeting the substances in the pill so as to undermine women’s reproductive freedom and send them barefoot back to the kitchen!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    But don’t trust that report. The Dept. of Health and Human Services is rumored to have only invented its toxicology program as a platform for polemics targeting the substances in the pill so as to undermine women’s reproductive freedom and send them barefoot back to the kitchen!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Are some guys who are so down with the empowered (aka sexually available) feminist ideals really just going along for the free(sex)ride and could give a rat’s rear about women’s well being?

    Just askin’

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Are some guys who are so down with the empowered (aka sexually available) feminist ideals really just going along for the free(sex)ride and could give a rat’s rear about women’s well being?

    Just askin’

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Seriously? Pension and Population Research Institute in Northern Ireland? It’s basically an anti-abortion web site with 5 or so different “publications”.”

    Seriously, did you read where they got their data?

    Is “anti-abortion” a synonym for “liar” in your vocabulary?

    What about NIH? Guttmacher? BMJ? HHS? Are they all liars if they don’t agree with you?

    Cue another ad hominem.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Seriously? Pension and Population Research Institute in Northern Ireland? It’s basically an anti-abortion web site with 5 or so different “publications”.”

    Seriously, did you read where they got their data?

    Is “anti-abortion” a synonym for “liar” in your vocabulary?

    What about NIH? Guttmacher? BMJ? HHS? Are they all liars if they don’t agree with you?

    Cue another ad hominem.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@48), I’m not sure entirely what’s motivating your rather numerous comments here, but some of your claims don’t quite make sense.

    I’ll start back with comment #41, where you appear to have intentionally chosen two widely disparate situations in an attempt to highlight the risk of breast cancer. Fair enough — assuming you trust the calculator on that page, even though it admits to not being peer-reviewed and calls its own results merely “estimates”. But you then go on (@48) to complain about the NCS calling the risk “slightly” higher if women have kids later or use oral contraception. Here’s the thing, though: considered independently, the risk of breast cancer is only slightly higher for women having kids later in life. I mean, I put in answers for my wife on the Halls.md site, with the only variable being the age at which the first child was born (20-24 years in one case, and 30+ years in the other), and I only came up with a difference of 5 percentage points. Statistically significant? Perhaps.

    But you appear to be arguing that such a relatively small change in breast cancer risk should override everything else that a woman factors into her life. That probably speaks more to your approach to statistics than it does to how most people deal with life. I mean, I engage in all sorts of theoretically risky behaviors (I drink one or two alcoholic beverages a day, I don’t eat as many vegetables as I could, I sometimes cross the street when there’s a “don’t walk” sign, etc.). Because I find life a little nicer or more convenient lived that way. Could I reduce my risk of this or that if I was a slave to all the statistics? Sure, but that would reduce my quality of life. So I don’t do it. I imagine the same is true for many women. Five percentage points of increased risk hardly negates the drastic differences in lifestyle between having a kid at 20 and having one at 32. Not that I begrudge someone for taking that into account, but you act as if life were a deterministic thing, ordered by risk statistics. Who lives like that?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@48), I’m not sure entirely what’s motivating your rather numerous comments here, but some of your claims don’t quite make sense.

    I’ll start back with comment #41, where you appear to have intentionally chosen two widely disparate situations in an attempt to highlight the risk of breast cancer. Fair enough — assuming you trust the calculator on that page, even though it admits to not being peer-reviewed and calls its own results merely “estimates”. But you then go on (@48) to complain about the NCS calling the risk “slightly” higher if women have kids later or use oral contraception. Here’s the thing, though: considered independently, the risk of breast cancer is only slightly higher for women having kids later in life. I mean, I put in answers for my wife on the Halls.md site, with the only variable being the age at which the first child was born (20-24 years in one case, and 30+ years in the other), and I only came up with a difference of 5 percentage points. Statistically significant? Perhaps.

    But you appear to be arguing that such a relatively small change in breast cancer risk should override everything else that a woman factors into her life. That probably speaks more to your approach to statistics than it does to how most people deal with life. I mean, I engage in all sorts of theoretically risky behaviors (I drink one or two alcoholic beverages a day, I don’t eat as many vegetables as I could, I sometimes cross the street when there’s a “don’t walk” sign, etc.). Because I find life a little nicer or more convenient lived that way. Could I reduce my risk of this or that if I was a slave to all the statistics? Sure, but that would reduce my quality of life. So I don’t do it. I imagine the same is true for many women. Five percentage points of increased risk hardly negates the drastic differences in lifestyle between having a kid at 20 and having one at 32. Not that I begrudge someone for taking that into account, but you act as if life were a deterministic thing, ordered by risk statistics. Who lives like that?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Another problem, SG, is your claim that (@48):

    there is virtually no disclosure of the risk. Everyone talks about breast cancer, but no one talks about the lifestyle that increases risks or how much it increases risks.

    Except that you then go on to cite data from the NEJM (@57), PapriResearch.org (@60, whatever that is), the British Journal of Cancer (@67), the National Toxicology Program (@69), and, as you said (@72), “NIH? Guttmacher? BMJ? HHS?” In fact, you even said (@60), “anywhere you care to look for data, you get numbers like I showed you.”

    So, you know, which is it? Is this data everywhere you look, or is it all hidden as part of a grand conspiracy by Big Pharma, as you also suggested (@56)?

    Seems to me that the data has been extensively disclosed, but you’re just upset that it hasn’t entered more into everyday conversation. Which betrays a somewhat naive conception of how your average person interacts with medical studies and risk factors, frankly. I mean, I get you’re really into statistics, but surely you understand that you’re not the average person in that regard.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Another problem, SG, is your claim that (@48):

    there is virtually no disclosure of the risk. Everyone talks about breast cancer, but no one talks about the lifestyle that increases risks or how much it increases risks.

    Except that you then go on to cite data from the NEJM (@57), PapriResearch.org (@60, whatever that is), the British Journal of Cancer (@67), the National Toxicology Program (@69), and, as you said (@72), “NIH? Guttmacher? BMJ? HHS?” In fact, you even said (@60), “anywhere you care to look for data, you get numbers like I showed you.”

    So, you know, which is it? Is this data everywhere you look, or is it all hidden as part of a grand conspiracy by Big Pharma, as you also suggested (@56)?

    Seems to me that the data has been extensively disclosed, but you’re just upset that it hasn’t entered more into everyday conversation. Which betrays a somewhat naive conception of how your average person interacts with medical studies and risk factors, frankly. I mean, I get you’re really into statistics, but surely you understand that you’re not the average person in that regard.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Finally, SG, I found it a bit odd that you defended yourself (@50) against another commenter by noting that “Correlation is not causation.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but that would also apply to the assertions you’re making here. You point us to several sources that note a correlation, but the causation (if there is any) appears to be pure speculation from you, not those sources.

    Then there was this claim of yours (@60):

    The only huge difference between women now and 100 years ago is the pattern of childbearing.

    Um, yeah. Seriously? That’s … that’s just ridiculous. You don’t think there were any notable changes in diet or exercise over the past 100 years? No changes in exposure to various environmental conditions? You think women are exactly the same as they were 100 years ago, save for childbearing patterns? That’s a bit much, don’t you think?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Finally, SG, I found it a bit odd that you defended yourself (@50) against another commenter by noting that “Correlation is not causation.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but that would also apply to the assertions you’re making here. You point us to several sources that note a correlation, but the causation (if there is any) appears to be pure speculation from you, not those sources.

    Then there was this claim of yours (@60):

    The only huge difference between women now and 100 years ago is the pattern of childbearing.

    Um, yeah. Seriously? That’s … that’s just ridiculous. You don’t think there were any notable changes in diet or exercise over the past 100 years? No changes in exposure to various environmental conditions? You think women are exactly the same as they were 100 years ago, save for childbearing patterns? That’s a bit much, don’t you think?

  • 911truther

    SG, don’t stop looking for the truth. When George Bush ordered the 911 attacks and then tried to cover it up, he couldn’t do it without the NCI, Komen, and the pharmaceutical industry…Keep searching for the truth SG…people won’t like what you find, but search anyway…you’re very close… Don’t let the NCI get away with it…you must tell everyone…I can’t say any more.

  • 911truther

    SG, don’t stop looking for the truth. When George Bush ordered the 911 attacks and then tried to cover it up, he couldn’t do it without the NCI, Komen, and the pharmaceutical industry…Keep searching for the truth SG…people won’t like what you find, but search anyway…you’re very close… Don’t let the NCI get away with it…you must tell everyone…I can’t say any more.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Todd – good comments. Sg has had a long history with statistics here, and her misuse of it is quite legendary. I depend on a lot of statistics for my bread and butter, and one must be so careful when handling the stuff – taking statistics out of context is a really stupid thing to do.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Todd – good comments. Sg has had a long history with statistics here, and her misuse of it is quite legendary. I depend on a lot of statistics for my bread and butter, and one must be so careful when handling the stuff – taking statistics out of context is a really stupid thing to do.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “So, you know, which is it? Is this data everywhere you look, or is it all hidden as part of a grand conspiracy by Big Pharma, as you also suggested (@56)?”

    There is a difference between data, and a statement that characterizes it, which is why I noted that one person’s slight, is another person’s huge. But when doctors and drug companies only willingly give you their characterizations, and not the actual numbers then they are in effect deciding for you and you are not making an informed decision. Take your point about a woman waiting a few years means only x% more risk according to the calculator you don’t believe when it gives you a high number but do believe when it gives you a low one. The thing is people extrapolate and don’t ever look at the real numbers. My point is that people aren’t informed and the risks are very high considering we aren’t talking about the risk of getting a cold. We are talking about a very common, very serious illness that is very often fatal. Anything that increases risks in a case like that needs to be thoroughly explained to patients, but it isn’t. I have watched these women die. I have listened to their children cry. It was all fun for those guys in college and those years out partying with Miss Liberated while she was eating those pills. It wasn’t so much fun for her in hospice with her daughters aged 17 and 12 watching her die. If women had been truly informed, maybe they wouldn’t have changed a thing, but maybe they would have, and they at least deserved to know.

    Using utility theory, some may figure that women’s utility men in society as sex objects more than offsets the increase in their mortality and morbidity due to cancer. I mean her pain, his gain. It’s all good.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “So, you know, which is it? Is this data everywhere you look, or is it all hidden as part of a grand conspiracy by Big Pharma, as you also suggested (@56)?”

    There is a difference between data, and a statement that characterizes it, which is why I noted that one person’s slight, is another person’s huge. But when doctors and drug companies only willingly give you their characterizations, and not the actual numbers then they are in effect deciding for you and you are not making an informed decision. Take your point about a woman waiting a few years means only x% more risk according to the calculator you don’t believe when it gives you a high number but do believe when it gives you a low one. The thing is people extrapolate and don’t ever look at the real numbers. My point is that people aren’t informed and the risks are very high considering we aren’t talking about the risk of getting a cold. We are talking about a very common, very serious illness that is very often fatal. Anything that increases risks in a case like that needs to be thoroughly explained to patients, but it isn’t. I have watched these women die. I have listened to their children cry. It was all fun for those guys in college and those years out partying with Miss Liberated while she was eating those pills. It wasn’t so much fun for her in hospice with her daughters aged 17 and 12 watching her die. If women had been truly informed, maybe they wouldn’t have changed a thing, but maybe they would have, and they at least deserved to know.

    Using utility theory, some may figure that women’s utility men in society as sex objects more than offsets the increase in their mortality and morbidity due to cancer. I mean her pain, his gain. It’s all good.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Sg has had a long history with statistics here, and her misuse of it is quite legendary.”

    Such as?

    What is the misuse?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Sg has had a long history with statistics here, and her misuse of it is quite legendary.”

    Such as?

    What is the misuse?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Um, yeah. Seriously? That’s … that’s just ridiculous. You don’t think there were any notable changes in diet or exercise over the past 100 years? No changes in exposure to various environmental conditions? You think women are exactly the same as they were 100 years ago, save for childbearing patterns? That’s a bit much, don’t you think?

    Maybe I just give people too much credit for being reasonable. Yes, I am sure there are lots of differences between now and 100 years ago, but to assume that having cars or eating junk food is somehow the underlying cause, is not plausible and nothing really supports the idea that those kinds of changes are what is causing the dramatic rise in breast cancer. Note, Japan tripled in 40 years. I would suppose someone would or should investigate nuclear fallout as a possible environmental cause, but not how many more pairs of shoes Japanese women have now than then.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Um, yeah. Seriously? That’s … that’s just ridiculous. You don’t think there were any notable changes in diet or exercise over the past 100 years? No changes in exposure to various environmental conditions? You think women are exactly the same as they were 100 years ago, save for childbearing patterns? That’s a bit much, don’t you think?

    Maybe I just give people too much credit for being reasonable. Yes, I am sure there are lots of differences between now and 100 years ago, but to assume that having cars or eating junk food is somehow the underlying cause, is not plausible and nothing really supports the idea that those kinds of changes are what is causing the dramatic rise in breast cancer. Note, Japan tripled in 40 years. I would suppose someone would or should investigate nuclear fallout as a possible environmental cause, but not how many more pairs of shoes Japanese women have now than then.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Cue the adhominem:

    “Sg has had a long history with statistics here, and her misuse of it is quite legendary.”

    sg posted a link to the HHS, and quoted directly from it, but since it was her finger that typed it, it is tainted.

    Bottom line.

    Estrogens are carcinogens regardless of source.

    Childbearing and breastfeeding starting early and continuing often mitigate the effects.

    Women deserve to know that.

    Most don’t, or don’t know the extent of it.

    Would it matter to them? I don’t know, plenty of people know drugs are harmful and do it anyway. But they at least know.

    Those selling these products should have to inform patients with information that is more complete than vague characterizations like “slightly increases” risk. What does that mean?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Cue the adhominem:

    “Sg has had a long history with statistics here, and her misuse of it is quite legendary.”

    sg posted a link to the HHS, and quoted directly from it, but since it was her finger that typed it, it is tainted.

    Bottom line.

    Estrogens are carcinogens regardless of source.

    Childbearing and breastfeeding starting early and continuing often mitigate the effects.

    Women deserve to know that.

    Most don’t, or don’t know the extent of it.

    Would it matter to them? I don’t know, plenty of people know drugs are harmful and do it anyway. But they at least know.

    Those selling these products should have to inform patients with information that is more complete than vague characterizations like “slightly increases” risk. What does that mean?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Here’s the thing, though: considered independently, the risk of breast cancer is only slightly higher for women having kids later in life.”

    Yes, but isn’t independent in the general case. That is the whole reason it is deceptive to list delayed childbearing and oral contraceptive use independently when about 85% of American women use oral contraceptives to delay childbearing. Sure there are 30 year old virgins who never used oral contraceptives for any reason. And there are women who have their first baby at 16 and then use oral contraceptives after that, but those are outliers. We all know the general case is to use oral contraceptives prior to the first baby for the express purpose of delaying the birth of the first child. It’s a free country, women can do that if they want to, but they need to know how much risk it actually is. If they look at the numbers and think, okay fine, I will do it, then they made an informed decision. If they never see any numbers and never hear that there are any risks, then those selling the products are derelict in their responsibility to inform patients.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Here’s the thing, though: considered independently, the risk of breast cancer is only slightly higher for women having kids later in life.”

    Yes, but isn’t independent in the general case. That is the whole reason it is deceptive to list delayed childbearing and oral contraceptive use independently when about 85% of American women use oral contraceptives to delay childbearing. Sure there are 30 year old virgins who never used oral contraceptives for any reason. And there are women who have their first baby at 16 and then use oral contraceptives after that, but those are outliers. We all know the general case is to use oral contraceptives prior to the first baby for the express purpose of delaying the birth of the first child. It’s a free country, women can do that if they want to, but they need to know how much risk it actually is. If they look at the numbers and think, okay fine, I will do it, then they made an informed decision. If they never see any numbers and never hear that there are any risks, then those selling the products are derelict in their responsibility to inform patients.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Finally, SG, I found it a bit odd that you defended yourself (@50) against another commenter by noting that “Correlation is not causation.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but that would also apply to the assertions you’re making here. You point us to several sources that note a correlation, but the causation (if there is any) appears to be pure speculation from you, not those sources.

    That’s right correlation is not causation. But that doesn’t mean that no one has any idea what is going on.

    Do you consider the classification of estrogen as a carcinogen to be based on speculation? Do you think they don’t really investigate this stuff before they label it a known carcinogen? Seriously?

    I’m not sure entirely what’s motivating your rather numerous comments here

    I think women need to know the real risks of estrogen exposure and delaying childbearing. They need to see real numbers not just hear characterizations like “slightly higher” risk. Sadly, most never hear anything.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Finally, SG, I found it a bit odd that you defended yourself (@50) against another commenter by noting that “Correlation is not causation.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but that would also apply to the assertions you’re making here. You point us to several sources that note a correlation, but the causation (if there is any) appears to be pure speculation from you, not those sources.

    That’s right correlation is not causation. But that doesn’t mean that no one has any idea what is going on.

    Do you consider the classification of estrogen as a carcinogen to be based on speculation? Do you think they don’t really investigate this stuff before they label it a known carcinogen? Seriously?

    I’m not sure entirely what’s motivating your rather numerous comments here

    I think women need to know the real risks of estrogen exposure and delaying childbearing. They need to see real numbers not just hear characterizations like “slightly higher” risk. Sadly, most never hear anything.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @77 KK are you trying to become legendary for the use of ad hominem? If you think I am in error, please point out the error. That way both I and any other readers could benefit from the exposition.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @77 KK are you trying to become legendary for the use of ad hominem? If you think I am in error, please point out the error. That way both I and any other readers could benefit from the exposition.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    ” with the only variable being the age at which the first child was born (20-24 years in one case, and 30+ years in the other), and I only came up with a difference of 5 percentage points.”

    Only 5%? Only!!! That is not a 5% risk of getting a cold!!

    I think a 5% increase in the risk of getting cancer is huge!!!

    The risk of getting most cancers is x in 10,000, breast cancer is x in 100. Any increase is very significant. Going from 1 in 10,000 to 2 in 10,000 is small. Going from 1 in 20 to 1 in 10 is huge, but it’s “only” 5 percentage points higher. I must be misusing statistics again.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    ” with the only variable being the age at which the first child was born (20-24 years in one case, and 30+ years in the other), and I only came up with a difference of 5 percentage points.”

    Only 5%? Only!!! That is not a 5% risk of getting a cold!!

    I think a 5% increase in the risk of getting cancer is huge!!!

    The risk of getting most cancers is x in 10,000, breast cancer is x in 100. Any increase is very significant. Going from 1 in 10,000 to 2 in 10,000 is small. Going from 1 in 20 to 1 in 10 is huge, but it’s “only” 5 percentage points higher. I must be misusing statistics again.

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    You should go to the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure and share this theory. Get the word out.

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    You should go to the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure and share this theory. Get the word out.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Michael,

    Susan G. Komen is despised by the left and the right as just a hustle for dollars. They spend far to much of the money they get promoting themselves. From the beginning, various groups from PeTA to the Catholic Bishops have been complaining about how poorly they also use what money doesn’t go to advertising.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Michael,

    Susan G. Komen is despised by the left and the right as just a hustle for dollars. They spend far to much of the money they get promoting themselves. From the beginning, various groups from PeTA to the Catholic Bishops have been complaining about how poorly they also use what money doesn’t go to advertising.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@87), you’re doing a pretty good job of convincing me you have ulterior motives here.

    Susan G. Komen is despised by the left and the right as just a hustle for dollars.

    Really? [Citation needed] First I’ve heard of it.

    They spend far to much of the money they get promoting themselves.

    Charity Navigator gives them four out of four stars. The BBB says SGK meets their “20 Standards for Charity Accountability”. Both sites mention that 80+% of SGK’s funds go to program expenses. In Charity Navigator’s case, it appears to be one of the highest-rated breast-cancer charities.

    In short, you have quite a bit of explaining and citing to do to back up those claims.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@87), you’re doing a pretty good job of convincing me you have ulterior motives here.

    Susan G. Komen is despised by the left and the right as just a hustle for dollars.

    Really? [Citation needed] First I’ve heard of it.

    They spend far to much of the money they get promoting themselves.

    Charity Navigator gives them four out of four stars. The BBB says SGK meets their “20 Standards for Charity Accountability”. Both sites mention that 80+% of SGK’s funds go to program expenses. In Charity Navigator’s case, it appears to be one of the highest-rated breast-cancer charities.

    In short, you have quite a bit of explaining and citing to do to back up those claims.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Program expenses includes education, which is really just promoting themselves.

    What is the deal with the “motives”? Goofy.

    Is that just the generic ad hominem?

    You have bad motives if we disagree? LOL

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Program expenses includes education, which is really just promoting themselves.

    What is the deal with the “motives”? Goofy.

    Is that just the generic ad hominem?

    You have bad motives if we disagree? LOL

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@89), you’re the one lobbing repeated, unsubstantiated claims here. I keep asking you to back up your assertions with actual facts, but you apparently refuse to do so. So I’m left wondering what, exactly, your deal is. It apparently isn’t something one can back up with facts, that much I’ve deduced.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@89), you’re the one lobbing repeated, unsubstantiated claims here. I keep asking you to back up your assertions with actual facts, but you apparently refuse to do so. So I’m left wondering what, exactly, your deal is. It apparently isn’t something one can back up with facts, that much I’ve deduced.

  • Booklover

    Susan G. Komen foundation has given millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, a fact which makes it hard for many to donate to the Komen foundation.

  • Booklover

    Susan G. Komen foundation has given millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, a fact which makes it hard for many to donate to the Komen foundation.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X