Women do not want pro-abortion President

The New York Times has weighed in on the secret to Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire: women voters.

I am convinced that Senator Clinton’s campaign is very aware of the importance of the women's vote. (I believe that the "crying" incident of January 6th was aimed at reminding women that Hillary is a woman, and that this is their chance to have a woman President. But that's just my opinion.)

Pro-life voters who do not want a pro-abortion President must begin to emphasize and educate one another about the voting record of the candidates. Our belief that every human life has value (not the personalities of the candidates, inevitabilities, and religious identification) is something that we have in common with members of both the major parties.

There is no question that Hillary and Obama fought the Partial Birth Abortion ban (Hillary as First Lady and then as NY Senator and Obama while still in the Illinois legislature). Polls like this one (comments here and the poll in .pdf, here) from the Susan B. Anthony List, from last August, show that even among women who want to vote for a woman to get a woman President, a large number will not vote for the advocates of Partial Birth Abortion. These are the voters we need to alert/inform.

The reality is that politics will play a part in our goal of protecting human rights in medicine and science policy in the US. The next President will, like this one, be in a position to name several Supreme Court Justices.

Abortion and risk to the health of later babies

New analysis of old data published in the January 2008 issue of the Journal of Epidemiological Community Health (free abstract) has confirmed the association between induced abortions and later premature birth and low birth weight babies. Babies born prematurely and/or weighing less that normal are much more likely to die in the first month or have severe health problems like lung disease or brain damage.

However, the focus of the original research is based on self-reported information from over 45,500 moms who gave birth from 1959 to 1966 and the records don't tell us whether the mothers had spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and induced intentional abortions. The authors do find that increased numbers of miscarriages or abortions increase the risk of low birth weight at full term and of premature birth:

Compared with women with no history of abortion, women who had one, two and three or more previous abortions were 2.8 (95% CI 2.48 to 3.07), 4.6 (95% CI 3.94 to 5.46) and 9.5 (95% CI 7.72 to 11.67)times more likely to have LBW, respectively. The risk for PB was also 1.7 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.83), 2.0 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.37) and 3.0 (95% CI 2.47 to 3.70) times higher for women with a history of one, two and three or more
previous abortions, respectively.

The new information from the JECH is nearly 50 years old and can't distinguish between miscarriages and induced abortions, so it doesn't really tell us much about the risk from today's elective abortions or give proof that induced abortion is risker than miscarriage. I'm afraid that that is the emphasis of media reports like those in Time and Medical News Today. (Although they don't note the surprising result that the study found no association between smoking and premature birth, although there was a significant association between smoking and low birth weight.)

However, the authors review results from other studies which do make distinctions between the mothers who had previous induced abortions and those who had miscarriages. Those studies do show an association between induced intentional abortions and low birth weight, term low birth weight, and premature birth. Instead of the 300 to 900% risk over full term live birth, most found at least a small 1.1 to 1.4 (10% to 40%) increased risk after one intentional induced abortion and up to 3 times the risk after 2. While there is also a risk after miscarriage, miscarriage can't be helped. The variables which can be changed - not those that can't be - are matters for public health policy.

And fewer of our children will have to die for it.

Court upholds Texas Prenatal Protection Act

In 2003, the Texas Legislature passed a Prenatal Protection Act, which named the unborn children of Texas individuals from fertilization to natural death. Texas law also calls the "individual" a "person." With the world the way it is after Roe versus Wade, and because most of us have compassion for a woman who believes she doesn't have a real choice, we had to make exceptions for the decisions of the mother, including abortion and - even when the child is not in her womb - for those she empowers, such as doctors and techs at in vitro fertilization clinics.

However, the law in Texas protects a woman and her child against some one else taking the life of her child against her wishes. We will also punish the murderer when we can't protect them.

Today, the Sixth Texas Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of a man for killing his pregnant girlfriend under our Prenatal Protection Act.

The man was dating two women when one became pregnant. He told the other woman that he would "take care of it," and then shot the mother of his child 3 times with a shotgun, once in the face.The jury determined that he knew the woman was pregnant and that he intended to kill them both. He was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Court decision plainly states:
"By expressly defining capital murder such that one of the victims may be any unborn child from fertilization throughout all stages of gestation, the statute leaves no ambiguity as to what conduct is proscribed. In particular, the plain language of the statute prohibits the intentional or knowing killing of any unborn human, regardless of age. No ordinary person reading the statute would have any doubt as to whether it encompasses victims at all stages of gestation."

We know that violence often begins when a woman is pregnant and that 25% to 30% of deaths during pregnancy are due to homicide, usually at the hands of the father of the child.

I hope that this Court opinion and the original law will save lives. I wish for a day when no one is in danger of being intentionally killed by someone else, much less a loved one. And I hope that the publicity about this law will cause everyone - the person about to get behind the wheel after drinking as well as the abusive husband or boyfriend, to consider the risk of harming a mother too dangerous to even think about.

I believe we are much more likely to overturn Roe now than we have been at any time since 1973, while still ending up with restrictions in at least as many States as we had then. And I believe that the reason why this is so is because more than half of our citizens are unhappy with elective intentional abortion on demand as it is practiced in too many States today.

I also believe that a pro-life Congress could restrict the Courts from interfering with the States' legislative actions on abortion tomorrow, on the grounds that it's obvious that the unborn are persons.

For one thing, we have 4-D ultrasounds now and babies born as young as 20 weeks go home healthy.
In addition, many minds were changed - are still being changed - by the debate over partial birth abortion.


However, the reality is that there is zero chance of getting a Human Life Amendment through the Senate, much less getting 2/3 of the States to ratify it if the States themselves are not already doing it. (Please read up on how the 13th and 14th were ratified: the Legislators from the Southern States were not allowed to participate.)

Far too many men and women think of abortion as insurance against their bad decisions, rather than one more (awful) bad decision.

There are still too many people who think rape and incest are appropriate reasons in themselves for an abortion. They haven't heard how many women decide to carry their children to term after rape or considered the very real humanity of the unborn child, who shouldn't be punished for his father's crime.

But we do have a chance at returning the choice to the States where the majority would restrict abortion except to save the life of the mother. And each person that we teach to think of the unborn child as a person, the closer we get to ending elective intentional abortion.

First babies from "Lab Grown Eggs"

Well, the news out of Great Britain that apparently healthy twins were born from a new technique involving maturation of human oocytes - "eggs" - outside of the body will probably be hailed as the solution to the problem of where to get the eggs for embryonic stem cell and cloning research. It won't solve the problem that I asked earlier today as to whether and why it's important or ethical.

It's interesting that the article emphasizes the danger of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome:

In mild and moderate cases, affecting up to 20% of women undergoing ovary stimulation, this leads to symptoms such as swelling and breathlessness that resolves.

However, in about 1% the symptoms can become so severe that they are deadly. Among women with PCOS [Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome], the rate is nearer 5-10%.

Thanks to Wired Science blog for the tip.

Virtual science vs. actual experimentation (Emergency Contraception)

There's still no evidence that Plan B interferes with implantation, and lots of evidence that it doesn't.

There have been reports that Drs. Mikolajczyk and Stanford ("Levonorgestrel emergency contraception: a joint analysis of effectiveness and mechanism of action." Fertility and Sterility R. Mikolajczyk, J. Stanford, access to free abstract available, here) have proven that there is an abortifacient effect from the morning after pill ("Emergency Contraception," EC, or the levonorgestrel-only pill protocol, LNG EC).

In fact, they do not "prove" anything. Mikolajczyk and Stanford derived an equation from actual results from observing oocyte follicle development and ovulation in women. They then used statistical, "virtual" models,to estimate they effects of LNG:

We simulated random samples of 10,000 women presenting for EC for a single cycle each, and we calculated the number of ‘‘expected’’ pregnancies for each simulated cohort of women using both sets of the daily fecundity data. We assumed that women ‘‘presented’’ for EC treatment with equal probability on days –10 to +5 around the day of ovulation
(day 0).

For each of the women within the fecundity window, we used the follicular growth equation to estimate a follicular diameter, which in turn was used to estimate the disruption of ovulation by LNG EC based on the data from the Croxatto study (Table 1). We assumed that effects observed for 12–14 mm, 15–17 mm, and R18 mm groups reported by Croxatto et al. (15) apply to follicles of size up 11.51–14.5 mm, 14.51–17.5 mm, and R17.51 mm, respectively. When LNG EC was administered on a day when follicular size was below 11.5 mm, we assumed that there was zero probability of pregnancy. These conservative assumptions maximized the possible effects of LNG EC to disrupt ovulation and prevent fertilization.With this information, we estimated the ‘‘observed’’ pregnancies within the simulated cohorts.

Durand and Croxatto's teams studied how LNG EC actually worked in the bodies of real, live women, using biopsies, exams, assays of hormones and serial ultrasounds, as well as animal studies. Mikolajczyk and Stanford actually refer to the Durand study on human women, "On the mechanisms of action of short-term levonorgestrel administration in emergency contraception," (available free on line, here), but say the evidence from biopsies are "mixed."

On the contrary, Durand reported on actual labs, ultrasounds and even biopsy samples from actual observations:

The results were highly consistent with the chronological date of sampling because differences longer than 3 days between the histologic diagnosis and the day of the cycle were not observed. A total of 24 out of 33 biopsies from treated cycles with ovulatory features were studied. The rest were excluded because of insufficient tissue sample (one from Group B and D) or because sampling did not correlate with the cycle day (three from Group A and four from Group D). Table 3 summarizes the morphological findings in Groups B, C, and D. No significant changes were observed between treated and control specimens in any of the studied parameters. No significant differences among groups were observed. Of particular importance was the finding that the predecidual changes as evaluated by the
presence of prominent spiral arteries, which are considered
crucial for implantation [24], were not altered by LNG.

The post ovulatory mechanism is most likely explained by the finding in many studies, including Durands', which have demonstrated a strong effect on mucus thickness and sperm motility from the Levonorgestrel protocol (LNG EC). Practitioners of Natural Family Planning are familiar with this (natural) effect of (natural) post ovulatory rise in progesterone: when the progesterone levels rise after ovulation, the cervical mucus becomes thick and fertility goes down because the sperm can't get to the egg for fertilization. The movement of the oocyte down the fallopian tube is slowed also, because the cilia in the tube are affected. The combination of these two phenomenon explains the increased rate of ectopic pregnancy in women who do become pregnant using levonorgestrel only EC and daily pills.

There are definitely problems with EC. It only works when it works for 4 or 5 days before ovulation and, possibly on the day of ovulation. (The oocyte only lives about 24 hours.) This is the first time that contraceptive pills have been made available to men as well as women. For some reason, women don't use the pill correctly, even when they have them at home. And we have tons of evidence that neither the pregnancy rate nor the abortion rate are affected by making the pill available over the counter. And there's the increased risk of ectopic pregnancy described above.

However, this "study" appears to be statistics used to argue against observations derived from real life medical experiments in order to prove a pre-conceived position.

Vaginal approach to gallbladder removal

Or removal of the appendix through the mouth?


I finished my residency training in 1993, and was privileged to witness some of the first "laparoscopic" gallbladder removals on one of my rotations with some private surgeons. After 5 years or so of observing and assisting with the old technique that required a 7 to 10 inch incision at the right upper abdomen and months of recovery, I was used to patients lying very still and needing encouragement to breathe after the surgery. I nearly fell apart myself when, just an hour after we removed her gallbladder, one of my patients sat up in bed. I've never moved faster than I did that time, trying to catch her before she tore her wound or fell out of bed when the pain hit!

My first reaction to this story was one of alarm about possible harm due to trying a new, risky maneuver, just because it's surgically possible.

I wasn't sure how much of my distaste was a woman's reaction to invasion through the vagina. After I read the description of the appendectomy through the mouth, I decided that it's a true caution about the risk of such a route.


The biggest problem with recovery from surgery is the trauma to the tissues surrounding the surgical site, especially the muscles that are cut and sewn.

I finished my residency training in 1993, and was privileged to witness some of the first "laparoscopic" gallbladder removals on one of my rotations with some private surgeons. After 5 years or so of observing and assisting with the old technique that required a 7 to 10 inch incision at the right upper abdomen and months of recovery, I was used to patients lying very still and needing encouragement to breathe after the surgery. I nearly fell apart myself when, just an hour after we removed her gallbladder, one of my patients sat up in bed. I've never moved faster than I did that time, trying to catch her before she tore her wound!

The new technique allowed for us to remove the gallbladder - and later, the appendix (and other stuff) - by making 3 or 4 cuts, all less than an inch and using instruments and a camera that allowed remote or video-guided surgery. Without all that cut skin and all those layers of muscle, patients got better, faster.

It's almost routine to perform hysterectomies through the vagina these days. But let's face it, in this case, everything's right there. The surgeon just has to watch for the blood vessels, the bladder and the rectum, and virtually no muscles have to be cut, at all.

Either of these operations would require muscles and "surface" tissues to be cut, and each require that the surgeons' instruments pass other organs. There's also the problem of making the surgical field sterile and maintaining infection control.

With removal of the gallbladder, there is also the risk to the liver, and especially, the common bile duct from the liver to the intestines. For that matter, an oral approach to the appendix would require reaching past the lungs, the diaphragm, the liver and the intestines, unless the instruments can be passed through the esophagus and stomach. (How would you intubate this patient, protect her lungs, or handle the leaks of acid from the stomach into the abdominal cavity?

The surgeons quoted in the New York Times article are proponents of "no scar" surgery.

I'm a little concerned about the way they "read":

Dr. Bessler said his patient agreed to the procedure (two others had declined) because he told her he thought it would have advantages for her, and she accepted his judgment. She was the first in a study that is to include 100 women who need gallbladder surgery, appendectomies or biopsies taken from inside the abdomen. All the procedures will be done through the vagina.

Dr. Dennis Fowler, another surgeon who participated in the operation, said the team began experimenting on women because “incisions in the vagina have been used for a variety of procedures for decades, and proved safe with no long-term consequences.”
. . .
The operation took about three hours, twice as long as the usual laparoscopic surgery, but it was the team’s first operation on a human, and the time should decrease with practice, Dr. Bessler said. Also because it was the first time, to be on the safe side, the doctors did make three small openings in the abdomen for surgical tools. But their ultimate goal is to perform the operation entirely through the vagina.

Enough: ultrasounds, abortion, women and blood

While calling us "anti-choice," some "pro-choice" men and women are beginning to look at the true nature of what is being chosen. They're noticing that we who oppose abortion are more likely to accept the woman with an unwanted pregnancy and championing the laws that make adoption and parenting a true choice. They're noticing that we have valid reasons, too.

The Family Research Council blog has a beautiful post quoting the words of one of the many "pro-choice" women that are being convicted about the humanity of the unborn child.

In the May, 2007 Atlantic, Caitlin Flanagan recounts a heart wrenching review of two books, The Choices We Made, and The Girls Who Went Away, of abortion, maternity homes and the girls and women who are and have been impacted by it.

Along the way, she tells us,

But my sympathy for the beliefs of people who oppose abortion is enormous, and it grows almost by the day. An ultrasound image taken surprisingly early in pregnancy can stop me in my tracks. In it is much more than I want to know about the tiny creature whose destruction we have legalized: a beating heart, a human face, functioning kidneys, two waving hands that seem not too far away from being able to grasp and shake a rattle. One of the newest types of prenatal imaging, the three-dimensional sonogram—which is so fully realized that happily pregnant women spend a hundred dollars to have their babies’ first “photograph” taken—is frankly terrifying when examined in the context of the abortion debate. The demands pro-life advocates make of pregnant women are modest: All they want is a little bit of time. All they are asking, in a societal climate in which out-of-wedlock pregnancy is without stigma, is that pregnant women give the tiny bodies growing inside of them a few months, until the little creatures are large enough to be on their way, to loving homes.

These sonogram images lay claim to the most powerful emotion I have ever known: maternal instinct. Mothers are charged with protecting the vulnerable and the weak among us, and most of all, taking care of babies—the tiniest and neediest—first. My very nature as a woman, then, pulls me in two directions.

Abortion hurts us all. As Ms. Flanagan says, abortion has left a trail of blood. It doesn't matter whether the abortion is legal or illegal, the blood flows from the cuts made by the culture that makes so many women throughout history and all around the world believe that they have no choice other than to choose this child or their lives, this child or their future, or (Lord help us) this child or his father.

It's past time to look at abortion and say, "Enough."

The Nonsense of the Market for Eggs -

The New England Journal of Medicine has a free text and audio interview on the subject of women who donate/sell/give their oocytes or eggs for other women to become pregnant through in vitro fertilization (IVF) or for scientific research.

"Perspective: The Egg Trade — Making Sense of the Market for Human Oocytes" by Debora Spar (Free Full Text)

Audio interview with Debora Spar and Emily Galpern


Listening to the debate, the controversy - or the effort to discover and maintain a controversy - seems a bit strained. Elitist white women who are "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion of embryonic and fetal humans, and who say they do not object to embryonic stem cell research, itself - who wouldn't mind how many embryonic humans die as long as no adult woman is exploited - speaking of poor black women's right or risk in egg donation reminds me of a bioethics afternoon TV talk show.

If the right not to be created and killed is dependent on "choice," then so is the right not to be exploited or even enslaved. If compassion for already born children and adults is really important, then why not use fetal stem cells (as has been proposed in nerve regeneration studies, the 8 week "embryos" were actually fetuses that had been aborted), paying women to abort or telling women that their babies died at birth in order to harvest the baby's embryonic stem cells (as has been done in the Ukraine), or harvesting the organs of prisoners, whether on death row or not (China and, possibly in South Carolina).

What is not mentioned in this article is the other hazard in the "sharing" of oocytes with other women or with researchers in return for a discount on her own in vitro fertilization costs. In the body, the oocyte only lives about a day after ovulation.

The fact is that the best chance for fertilization and in the limited success that has come with making human embryos with SCNT (those few that begin to divide at all) comes when the egg is used only an hour after it's removed from the body.

Therefore, any woman who "shares" her eggs with researchers will not have a chance to know whether or not any of the oocytes she did not "share" - the ones the technicians kept for fertilization for her - were actually fertilized, much less whether she was able to get pregnant herself.

Relapsing breast cancer

The Cheerful Oncologist has a post about the recurrence of Elizabeth (Mrs. John) Edwards' breast cancer. The comments from readers are wrenching -- with repeated remarks that, now, the survivors are afraid that their own cancer will return.

Having just gone through my mother's cancer and death - not due to the cancer, but from the effects of "para-neoplastic syndromes," due to the antibodies her body made against the cancer - I strongly urge the the Edwards family focus on their lives together.

Good for South Carolina

The South Carolina House of Representatives has passed a bill requiring the abortion clinic to offer to show the ultrasound of the unborn child - the fetus - to the mother before the abortion. The ultrasound is already being done and paid for by the mother, why shouldn't she be offered the opportunity to see what she's paying for?

Of course the pro-abortion delegates to the SC House and in the media and blogosphere object.

From Forbes.com on line:

Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democrat, said the new requirement is emotional blackmail for a woman who has already made an agonizing decision.

"You love them in the womb but once they get here, it's a different story," said Cobb-Hunter, a social worker. "You're sitting here passing judgment? Who gave you the right?"

Star Jones writes in her World Net Daily column on one pro-abortion advocate's comments:

According to NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan, "The women of South Carolina are fully capable of asking their doctor for information they need to make private, personal medical decisions. Politicians don't belong in the examining room."

Then, there are these from Blog.bioethics.net:

South Carolina law already requires the ultrasound, as well as doctor counseling of the age and development of the fetus, as well as alternatives to abortion. This is nothing more than a bald-faced attempt at intimidation and emotional manipulation of someone who is already in a vulnerable position.

The thing that baffles me the most is, what? You're going to suddenly see an ultrasound image and decide that no, all the reasons you have for an abortion have flown out the window, and really it's a great time to be a mother, hooray? Are we suddenly going to see social services increase in funding? Are we going to have outstanding health care, job retraining, free and good state-sponsored child-sitting services? Is South Carolina going to suddenly take away every single obstacle that exists to bearing and caring for a child, so that the only barrier remaining is whether or not a woman thinks this is the right time for her, without consideration to financial/economic concerns?

And from a comment on that last:

Isn't this really a case of the state trying to persuade based on images. Images are often misleading--they often fail to portray facts because humans associate the images with particular notions, accurate or not. In the case of abortion, the image of a partially developed fetus may resemble the outline of a newborn child. But that fact alone does not mean that it is a newborn child. Yet for many, including many under-educated, images may conjure notions that do not portray fact.

Isn't it great to hear/read the same old "love them in the whom, but once they get here . . ." and "What gave you the right?" Not to mention that abortion is justified as long as there are any poor or "under-educated."

Ms. Jones answers the NARAL argument:

An increasing number of crisis-pregnancy centers now have ultrasound equipment that allows clients to see the child developing within them. Their experience shows that there is little question that this materially impacts the decision that women make. Centers report that anywhere from 62 percent up to 95 percent of women who had intended to abort changed their minds after seeing the images.

Assuming that these statistics are accurate, the question remains whether these young women changed their minds because their perceptions of the reality with which they were dealing changed, or because they were intimidated or emotionally blackmailed.

Intimidation or blackmail implies some kind of threat. What exactly might that threat be?

You might say that a young woman with a pregnancy she did not intend is emotionally vulnerable. I would agree with that.

It's exactly why statements from the NARAL universe that portray these young women ("fully capable of asking their doctor for information they need") as cool, sober and rational, calculating the equivalent of whether or not to have a wart removed or to get a Botox injection, are so ludicrous.

As any woman can tell you, instincts and intuition are powerful. These women are stressed because they know that suddenly the decision they have to make is not casual, that it is deeply meaningful and gravely important. Chances are, if they had the tools at their disposal to make a proper decision, they would not be in the situation they are in to begin with.

In South Carolina, as in the nation as a whole, about half the abortions that are performed are on women under 24. Around 17 percent are on women under age 19.

What kind of sense can it possibly make to suggest that a young woman, who we don't think is old enough to vote or go into a liquor store and buy beer, has the resources on her own to understand the implications of aborting a child? Is there some absence of proportion here?

A woman in her 40s may not remember who taught her math in high school, but she'll never forget the abortion she had. Why?

Knowledge comes to us through different paths. We hear and read words. But visual images are something else. Why, when we realize something we had been indifferent to or unaware of, do we say our "eyes were opened"?

More eyes are opening in our country today and realizing that freedom is not tantamount to meaninglessness.

When these young women see fingers, toes and a beating heart, they understand the emerging life within them. This is a profound moment of personal growth. It's what causes their change and opens the door to their own rebirth and a life with new possibilities.

I agree. What, exactly, do all those pro-abortion women mean when they say that women and girls about to undergo abortion are "vulnerable"?

It's not enough to say that seeing the fetus will cause emotional stress or trauma. She's bound to see an ultrasound ("US") of a fetus someday - either in a movie, a TV show or as part of her own or someone else's prenatal care for a future pregnancy - and she is just as likely to compare that US to the aborted fetus. If the US leads to emotional damage before the abortion, it's likely to cause emotional trauma after the abortion.

The US and the counseling are already necessary for medical reasons of improved staging and positioning which improve the care for the woman, herself. Why not use the US for the counseling while you're at it?

It's true that the pregnancy assistance centers ("anti-abortion" groups who counsel women against abortion and provide various resources related to pregnancy and motherhood) report that the women who see their fetus by US are more likely to decide against abortion. But these are women and girls who are already contemplating not aborting.

The same may or may not be true of the general population.

But if it is, then it seems to me an argument in favor of, not against, showing her the US, unless you find abortion inherently preferable to continuing the pregnancy.

The economic and social consequences are very real concerns, but should be a separate issue from the benefits of informed consent for the procedure of abortion.

Follow-up: HPV Testing, Men, and Prevalence

I did a little research on testing for HPV, especially in men.

The CDC site on HPV is here and it's up to date. http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

Digene, http://www.digene.com/labs/labs_hpv_01.html is a swab test for women. Negatives are true negatives for current risk of cancerous changes at the cervix. If negative, then 99.5% accurate - no HPV present at that time. (Can not rule out past infection, but only 1 in 1000 chance of cancerous changes without active infection.)

There is no approved test for males. A few urologists will test with the Digene test - but it's not very sensitive and can miss a lot of disease.

There is a blood test for some of the strains of HPV. However, one article (free online) states that less than 60% of the women who had HPV never become "seropositive."

The new article in the Journal of the American Medical Association from March on the numbers of infection in women is free at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/813
Table 1 is very good - and look at the married women: infection rate is 17%. However, for those who said they'd never had sex, the infection rate is 5% and for those with only one partner, 11%.