Genealogy for fun and profit

The blogs are buzzing over new home tests to access your gene profile.
Biology in a Digital World and the Women's Bioethics Blog are talking about the $999 test.

However, the genealogy lists are doing testing for family lines (the tests are sold by the website) instead of the old way of talking and searching church records. See the groups of families who are following the heredity of the men by surname and markers on their Y chromosomes (passed only from men to their sons, since girls don't have a Y chromosome) and both men and women by their mitochondrial DNA (passed from mother to all her children in the oocyte cytoplasm) at Ancestry.com DNA, where you can buy your own test and join your free family group list serve or message board at RootsWeb.

I do wonder about the consequences of some of the tests, that are bound to reveal that some one fell off the family tree.

And I worry more about all the false positives for genetic abnormalities that will show up. The last I heard (in a conference, so no link), there were lots of "abnormalities" that we find on our tests - but we don't know the significance of most of them. In other words there are variations in genes that we have not tied to diseases.

But I did see one great post, a man who said that he would never test his children - they are his children, no matter what the DNA. I wish I could find it again, because the man's my hero.

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.

Jesus, embryos, research, and IVF protesters

Newsday printed an op ed by Michael D. Kerlin, "Where faith and stem cells meet: Jesus might have us use embryos - otherwise destined to be discarded - to aid the sick and dying." (That's pretty much it, except to testify to his Christianity, his alma mater, and to lay the fate of all sick and dying at the feet of President George Bush.)

As I commented at the site, Jesus taught that "self" belongs in front of "sacrifice."

The other posters and Mr. Kerlin do not seem aware of the facts about the numbers of embryos that would actually be available for research.

And a couple of the posters are horrified that I set the responsibility for ensuring the safety of the embryonic humans on the parents and the labs who created humans in harm's way. They ask whether I would forbid in vitro fertilization (IVF) and tell men and women who are unable to have children by natural intercourse, "tough luck." One poster doubts my sincerity, since there are so few picketers and protesters outside of IVF facilities. He questions whether the protests are only hypocritical abuse and harassment of poor single women, rather than rich couples seeking IVF.

There was a RAND study on the numbers of embryos available for research (Hoffman DI, Zellman GL, Fair CC, Mayer JF, Zeitz, JG, Gibbons WE, and Turner TG. May 2003. "Cryopreserved Embryos in the United States and Their Availability for Research." Fertility and Sterility 79 (5): 1063–1069.)and Art Caplan published one a few years ago, and he was surprised at how few parents would even consider research and how reluctant they and the clinics were to simply destroy the "excess" embryos. In addition, for those currently frozen, it's unlikely that the proper informed consent.

Yes, there are few protesters at IVF clinics, because most people have empathy for the parents who want children so much that they would go through all that IVF requires. Also, most people simply aren't aware of how many embryos are discarded.

However two wrongs don't make a right. Again, "self" should always precede "sacrifice."

It was our empathy that created the current situation, where the brothers and sisters of those babies who are now in the arms of the parents who wanted them so much died during the IVF process and more are frozen and at risk. We must steel ourselves to resist the temptation to help "the sick and dying," everyone from celebrities to tiny children who beg us and our legislators to sacrifice human embryos for their sake.

Who is to decide that some humans may be destroyed and dissected for research or so many spare parts for the benefit of someone else?

Because we know that embryonic stem cell research leads to a slippery slope. We know because some men and women have already fallen down that slope.


I'm sure that most of us have read about the women paid to become pregnant and have abortions for research and profit in the Ukraine and about all the full term healthy babies who mysteriously die in some of that country's hospitals. At one of these hospitals, graves of infants who had had brains and other organs have been found.(More here and here. Warning - graphic descriptions)

Med Associations Announce Position Statements on HPV Vaccine

Washington State is planning to offer the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine free to girls. New Hampshire has made the vaccine available on an "opt in" basis. Florida's Legislators are considering following Texas Governor Rick Perry in making the vaccine mandatory, with an "opt out" option, similar to the way that Hepatitis B and other mandated vaccines are regulated. (The vaccine would also have been mandatory under the bills that had been introduced in the Texas Legislature before the Governor's Executive Order.)

Two letters (via email) concerning the HPV arrived since yesterday, one from the Christian Medical and Dental Association and the other from the American Academy of Family Physicians. There is also a newspaper article that covers the Statement of the Texas Medical Association. (I'm a member of each.) Another group forwarded the statement from the Catholic Medical Association.

All encourage the voluntary use of the HPV, because of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and the ethical practice of preventing disease. And all discourage making the vaccine mandatory.

The Catholic Medical Association (CMA) statement is available online, but in "Macromedia FlashPaper" form, which I've never seen before. The statement is well thought out, with excellent ethics and medical basis. The short statement explained by the 5 page document is:

Does the CMA Support Use of the HPV Vaccine?
The CMA supports widespread use of Gardasil for girls and women in the age range for which the vaccine has been recommended by the ACIP, because it is effective, safe and ethical to use, provided certain conditions are met.

Those conditions include continued teaching concerning abstinence outside of marriage and allowing parents to give informed consent.


The Christian Medical and Dental Association gives the following analogies:

The condom, safe-sex message is like telling your teen not to speed and then giving them a radar detector. HPV vaccination is like telling your teen not to speed, while reminding them to wear their seat belt. You want them to have protection from harm if they are in an accident – whether their fault or not.

and for the Christian philosophical basis for the vaccine:

As Jesus taught us in the story of the woman caught in adultery, Scripture teaches that we can/should show compassion by protecting others from the consequences of sin (while not endorsing sin or promoting continued sin). Facing death by stoning, Jesus protected her and offered forgiveness before calling her to a path of righteousness. He showed grace and compassion, not requiring her to commit to some standard prior to offering protection.

The American Academy of Family Physicians' (AAFP) email contained concerns about the ability to fund the vaccine and to obtain enough vaccine to administer it to all the eligible girls. The AAFP already had a provisional statement, but the move in several states, including Texas, to make the vaccine mandatory prompted the following:

"The AAFP feels it is premature to consider school entry mandates for HPV vaccine until such time as the long term safety with widespread use, stability of supply, and economic issues have been clarified."

Recently, there has been increasing state level action considering mandating HPV vaccination with proof of vaccination required for school attendance among other mandates. Upon review of the situation, the Commission on Science felt that this usage does not fit the classic public health model for infectious diseases such as measles. Several issues arise when considering a mandated school entry requirement. These include:



HPV does not adhere to the public health model for control of infectious disease in a school setting. (e.g. measles, chicken pox)

Universal school entry requirement would come at a cost of approximately $900 million per year to provide coverage for the female birth cohort (2 million girls: $120 per dose plus $25 administration fee; 3 doses). This would be a significant burden on state public health budgets.

There would have to be an assurance of supply of 6 million HPV doses per year to meet the school entry cohort. Given the recent experience with shortages of new vaccines such as the MCV4 for meningitis and Thimerosal-free influenza vaccine for three year olds, it is not clear that this new vaccine could be produced in adequate amounts to meet such demand at this time.

As with the costs for public health departments, there is concern that physician practices may not be able to afford such a large scale requirement at this time.

The Texas Medical Association leaders gave interviews to reporters concerning their reaction to the Governor's Executive order.

"We support physicians being able to provide the vaccine, but we don't support a state mandate at this time," said Dr. Bill Hinchey, a San Antonio pathologist and president-elect of the TMA, which represents 41,000 physicians. "There are issues, such as liability and cost, that need to be vetted first."

Other reasons cited by doctors in Texas and across the country include the vaccine's newness; supply and distribution considerations; the possibility opposition could snowball and lead to a reduction in other immunizations; the possibility it could lull women into not going for still-necessary cervical cancer screenings; gender-equity issues; and the tradition of vaccines starting as voluntary and becoming mandatory after a need is demonstrated.

Hinchey said that TMA leadership expressed their concerns to Perry on Tuesday. He said the TMA arrived at its position after debating the issue in committees in recent days.

A spokeswoman for Perry reiterated Tuesday that the governor stands by the order. She said he is listening to the discussion but thinks the vaccine is safe and effective.

Majority of Doctors Oppose Abortion

In that NEJM article that I blogged on earlier, there are numbers about the "Intrinsic religiosity" of physicians, based on the answers of the 1000 or so docs who answered the questionaire.

The authors seem to have no feeling for the history of bioethics as an outcome of the Holocaust or Tuskegee. Instead, the fuss and bother is over docs refusing to follow through on legal killing. (Okay, I will admit that the authors might be trying to avoid in their analysis what they seem to see as a problem: "for the doctor to describe that objection to the patient." Heaven forbid -oops- that anyone name "wrong," wrong!)

27% of responders measured moderate and 36% were high on the "Intrinsic Religiosity" scale:

"We also assessed physicians' intrinsic religiosity and religious affiliations. Intrinsic religiosity — the extent to which a person embraces his or her religion as the "master motive" that guides and gives meaning to his or her life (12) — was measured on the basis of agreement or disagreement with two statements: "I try hard to carry my religious beliefs over into all my other dealings in life" and "My whole approach to life is based on my religion." Both statements are derived from Hoge's Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale13 and have been validated extensively in previous research.(13,14,15) Intrinsic religiosity was categorized as being low if physicians disagreed with both statements, moderate if they agreed with one but not the other, and high if they agreed with both."

10% of the docs said they had no religious affiliation, while 18% identified as Protestant, 22% as Catholic, 16% as Jewish, and 14% as "other." The surveyors defined other as "a category that included Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, Muslim, Eastern Orthodox, and other."

52% of the docs object to abortion for failed contraception, by the way and 46% object to providing contraception to children 14 - 16 years old when their parents object.

Oddly, the authors cite a lack of consensus about these matters of conscience, and don't seem to question the moral rightness of any of the practices, only to the fact that a some few docs might actually follow through on their beliefs.

And watch out, docs! The authors suggest a need to actually observe your reaction when patients ask for abortions.

Bad, Bad Doctors (Religious, with Consciences)

The NEJM has a free on line article evaluating the results of a survey of doctors, "Religion, Conscience and Controversial Clinical Practices," which is a perfect example that far too much of the effort of "medical ethics" or "bioethics," goes into deciding who can be killed.

"In recent years, several states have passed laws that shield physicians and other health care providers from adverse consequences for refusing to participate in medical services that would violate their consciences. For example, the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act protects a health care provider from all liability or discrimination that might result as a consequence of "his or her refusal to perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any particular form of health care service which is contrary to the conscience of such physician or health care personnel." In the wake of recent controversies over emergency contraception, editorials in leading clinical journals have criticized these "conscience clauses" and challenged the idea that physicians may deny legally and medically permitted medical interventions, particularly if their objections are personal and religious. Charo, for example, suggests that the conflict about conscience clauses "represents the latest struggle with regard to religion in America," and she criticizes those medical professionals who would claim "an unfettered right to personal autonomy while holding monopolistic control over a public good." Savulescu takes a stronger stance, arguing that "a doctor's conscience has little place in the delivery of modern medical care" and that "if people are not prepared to offer legally permitted, efficient, and beneficial care to a patient because it conflicts with their values, they should not be doctors.""

"If physicians' ideas translate into their practices, then 14% of patients — more than 40 million Americans — may be cared for by physicians who do not believe they are obligated to disclose information about medically available treatments they consider objectionable. In addition, 29% of patients — or nearly 100 million Americans — may be cared for by physicians who do not believe they have an obligation to refer the patient to another provider for such treatments. The proportion of physicians who object to certain treatments is substantial. For example, 52% of the physicians in this study reported objections to abortion for failed contraception, and 42% reported objections to contraception for adolescents without parental consent."

Not surprisingly, these "controversial" "legal" practices are abortion "for failed contraception," giving "birth control to teenagers between the age of 14 and 16 if their parents do not approve," and "sedation to unconsciousness in dying patients." For some reason, the authors do not give results or even discuss the other "Controversial Issues in Medicine": Physician assisted suicide, withdrawal of artificial life support or abortion for congenital anomalies.



First, "elective" abortion is neither mandatory nor beneficial.

Second, I guess that the first discussion must be whether or not "legal" implies that a practice is necessarily "beneficial," moral, or required.

Third, the legality of providing contraceptives to minors under the age of consent, against their parents' wishes, is questionable, except in Federally funded clinics, where it is mandated under Title X funding for Family Planning clinics.

Fourth, it is illegal in most states to participate in "Physician Assisted Suicide."

And fifth, the "monopolistic control" is distraction. Are all professionals who are licensed by the government required to do whatever is demanded of them by whomever can use their services? Let's see: architects, engineers, all those media types?

If so, I'd like to ask Alta Charo - who, after all is a licensed lawyer, working for a State University that receives Federal funds - to give me some good, solid quotes that do not advocate the taking of human life or the defamation of those of us who act on our convictions.





Take a look at the survey and the article. Take the survey.

Do you agree with the "bioethicists" quoted in the introduction?

Texas Governor pulls a fast one (HPV shot)

In all the excitement about Texas becoming the first State to mandate the vaccination against a Sexually Transmitted Disesase, no one seems to have noticed that Governor Rick Perry ordered the Health Department to make it easier on parents who wish to opt out on vaccinations for their children.

Parents' Rights. The Department of State Health Services will, in order to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children's health care, modify the current process in order to allow parents to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form via the Internet while maintaining privacy safeguards under current law.

The current relevant law is all over the website containing Texas Statutes. I'm not at all sure that I tracked it all down, but most of it is in The Education Code, especially Chapter 38 and some is in the Health and Safety Code. The "opt out" provision is in 38.001, which was passed in 2003. I believe that this law was the first time in Texas that there was a formal way for parents to object for philosophical reasons, without having to claim health risks.


However, the law concerning the paperwork is in 161.0041 of the Health and Safety Code, and has higher requirements than the parental consent for abortion rulings!

Sec.A161.0041. IMMUNIZATION EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT FORM.
a) A person claiming an exemption from a required immunization based on reasons of conscience, including a religious belief, under Section 161.004 of this code, Section 38.001 or 51.933, Education Code, or Section 42.043, Human Resources Code, must complete an affidavit on a form provided by the department stating the reason for the exemption.
(b)The affidavit must be signed by the person claiming the exemption or, if the person is a minor, the person ’s parent, managing conservator, or guardian, and the affidavit must be notarized.
(c)A person claiming an exemption from a required immunization under this section may only obtain the affidavit form by submitting a written request for the affidavit form to the department.
(d)The department shall develop a blank affidavit form that contains a seal or other security device to prevent reproduction of
the form. The affidavit form shall contain a statement indicating that the person or, if a minor, the person ’s parent, managing conservator, or guardian understands the benefits and risks of immunizations and the benefits and risks of not being immunized.
(e)The department shall maintain a record of the total number of affidavit forms sent out each year and shall report that information to the legislature each year. The department may not maintain a record of the names of individuals who request an affidavit under this section.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 198, Sec. 2.163, eff. Sept. 1,
2003.

In order to opt-out, the parent has to send a "written request" for the paperwork to the Department. The law actually states that the legal affadavit has to have "a seal or other security device" to prevent copying. Can this be done online?

Texas, Adult Stem Cells, Multiple Sclerosis

Opexa is a division of Pharmafronteirs (or it's the other way around, I'm not sure) which is based at the Woodlands, near Houston, Texas.

The company specializes in cell therapies, based on adult stem cells and the controlled manipulation and replication of adult cells.

Multiple sclerosis (MS)is a disease that causes the loss of the myelin around nerves. Think of myelin as insulation that speeds the transmission of nerve signals. When myelin is lost, nerve signals can't go where they're needed, as fast as they are needed. People end up weak, with tremors, and the lack of balance, loss of coordination and the loss of the ability for the muscles that enable us to breathe and cough to function.

We know that MS is a sort of autoimmune disease in most cases. The cells that are supposed to fight infection and keep abnormal or injured cells that can cause cancer actually decide that the myelin needs to be destroyed.

For over 4 years, Pharmafrontiers or Opexa has been running a series of experiments using T cells - the specialized white blood cells that mature in the Thymus and which are supposed to kill foreign cells, like bacteria or cancer cells.

The company has a technique for isolating the patient's specific T cells that attack their myelin, growing them in the lab until they have millions, and then treating them so they can't multiply. The treated cells are then injected under the skin of the patient, and the body really notices the cells, and uses all the immune system to attack them - and all or most of the T cells in the body that act like them. So the myelin is not destroyed anymore - or at least not as fast.


Opexa are now in Phase IIb - meaning that they know it's safe to use in people (Phase I tests) and are finding out more about how much is needed and who can be helped.

There's a great first-person story about someone who is being treated as part of the experiment at "I Have MS."

For a couple of very pretty videos that explain all this much better than I ever could - and the press release by the company about the Phase IIb trial -- take a look at the Opexa site, at this page.

Added:

Opexa is selling the treatment as "Tovaxin™" - a vaccine.

That's how vaccinations work, by the way. Our bodies are convinced to make antibodies and specialized white blood cells to kill or destroy the foreign bacteria, virus -- and someday, cancer and all sorts of cells that inappropriately make those antibodies and attacks against our own normal cells, treating them as though they are damaged or foreign. As long as our bone marrow is healthy, we seem to be able to make a nearly unlimited number of those white blood cells (there's also some "depots" or reserves out in the lymph nodes and in the liver, spleen and the gut lining where the cells lurk and wait for their chance to multiply and fight disease, evidently). And I think this is how "allergy shots" work.

Trading eggs for fertility treatment

Women who are desperatly trying to get pregnant, but who cannot afford to pay $5,000 - $6,000 for in vitro fertilization may be offered lower IVF fees in exchange for donation of some of their oocytes for research in the UK. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority approved the trades for one lab last July, but are now seeking public comment, according to an Associated Press article.

The limiting factor for embryonic stem cell research has never been the restrictions placed on US Federal funding. The problem is obtaining eggs from women.

So far, the track record for altruistic donations is mixed. On one hand, hundreds of women volunteered to donate eggs in South Korea for research by the now-disgraced scientist Hwang Woo-suk, who fraudulently claimed success in therapeutic cloning.

But Dr. Robert Lanza, vice president of research and scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology Inc. of Alameda, Calif., said he has given up trying to get donations without compensation. After more than a year of pursuing that strategy and about 100 advertisements, ACT was able to get only one woman to donate eggs, he said in an e-mail.

And Kevin Eggan of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, who's been seeking eggs since May in return for reimbursing out-of-pocket expenses, said recently that the effort had generated some calls but no donors yet. The approach must be given more time to work, he said.

Murdoch, who also directs a fertility treatment center in Newcastle upon Tyne, said that when her lab asked fertility-clinic patients to donate eggs, it received only 66 over seven months. That's just not enough, she said.

In contrast, if her new plan attracts two women a week — chosen because they appear likely to produce lots of eggs — it would provide 20 eggs each week. That's still not a lot, but the supply should be steady, she said.

Her "egg-sharing" plan resembles an arrangement that's used occasionally at fertility clinics. In that plan, a woman shares her eggs and treatment costs with another woman who wants a baby.

Murdoch's group has permission from Britain's Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority to set up the arrangement for stem cell research. Now it's a question of raising money to finance it. Murdoch said she hopes to start offering the deal to British women in a few months, and that she has already heard from dozens of women eager to participate.

Though the HFEA approved Murdoch's plans in July, it has since started gathering public and expert opinions on whether egg sharing should be permitted. "If the consensus is that this is not a good idea, we can change the policy, and rescind the license," said John Paul Maytum, an HFEA spokesman.

"Forcing" women to talk to their doctors

This pro-abortion rant from the San Antonio Current is really reaching:

Frank Corte is a pro-life legislator who wants to control Texas’s women and health professionals. With HB 21, he wants to deny women the ability to review abortion warnings privately on video, and instead force them to hear it directly from the doctor; with HB 23, he’d force pharmacists who handle emergency contraception to post “If you believe that life begins at fertilization ...” warnings.

The SA Current is spinning their commentary on the 80th Legislature as though it's a review of TV shows during sweeps week. The Current is a free/throwaway rag, found in lobbies and vestibules of businesses all over town. They advertise themselves as

The Current strives to capture the times in which San Antonians live. We attempt to challenge our readers, by being provocative, irreverent, skeptical, funny, vibrant, and imaginative. We earn our readers' trust by being devoted to fact and dedicated to artful storytelling.

Make that an emphasis on "provocative, irreverent and skeptical."

Texas has a great "Woman's Right to Know Law," designed to fully inform the older - usually surviving - victims of abortion of the nature and consequences of abortion. There's a companion document that lists resources that provide help to pregnant women and young families, which is intended to enable women to chose not to kill their children.

The abortionists hate this booklet and the information that they are required by State law to give the woman, as well as the informed consent process that the State mandates. They've worked out all sorts of ways to avoid the booklet and having the doctor provide the consent, from showing the girls and women the book and telling them they have the option of reading it (or not), to placing stickers on front that state that the information is inacurate. The main tactic is to set up "informed consent" procedures so that the doctor (herself or himself) does not actually have to tell a girl or a woman what he or she is going to do and what will happen.

However, since this "choice" is "between the woman and her doctor," shouldn't the consent process be between the "woman and her doctor?" (Forget for a moment that in real life, the great majority of abortionists never meet their patients before the day of the procedure, unless they do follow the letter of the Texas Womans Right To Know law.)

The irreverence continues in the Current's discription of the legislators who would introduce bills to make the punishment for sexual abuse of children more severe. I hate the death penalty and extremely strict, mandatory prison terms, but recognize that they are sometimes appropriate. (A few years ago, we had a prison break, and the 7 escapees ended up killing a policeman before they were caught.) Child sexual predators are known to be prone to recidivism. This article tells us that these men usually molest 80 to 120 children before they are caught, and tells the stories of Jacob,Jessica, Megan, and Ashley.)

Here's how that Current article views these stories:

Having campaigned successfully for reelection on a kill-all-repeat-child-rapists platform, Dewhurst is now Senate President and determined to pass Jessica’s Law, a Bill O’Reilly-endorsed, sex-offender-punishment proposal that includes a mandatory 25-year sentence for repeat child molesters. Dewhurst can’t introduce legislation on his own, but he’s got a team of senators under his command. They include: “2005 Crimefighter of the Year” Bob Deuell, who’s sponsoring SB 68 to make a second child-rape charge a capital offense; hard-nosed Democrat Rodney Ellis, whose SB 97 would remove the statute of limitations for certain sex offenses; and Florence Shapiro, who ushered through a series of “Ashley’s Law” sex-offender bills in previous sessions.

Review: Plan B, How It Works and Doesn't Work

I'm convinced that Plan B does not block implantation. Because I keep getting emails, hearing radio personalities and reading posts on various forums claiming that Plan B is an abortifacient, here's a review of information on the medical effects of the pills and on the other effects and lack of effects.

The overwhelming evidence - from several different groups of researchers - is that Plan B, the single ingredient protocol containing a synthetic progesterone called levonorgestrel, only works - when it works - the 5 days or so before and just after ovulation. Furthermore, since few women really know when they ovulate, and only slightly more women will even use the protocol when they have the pills in their medicine cabinet, easy access doesn't change anything.

The best and most ethical research evidence, "On the Mechanisms of short term levonorgestrel administration as emergency contraception" is available online free of charge at this site.

If, as I believe, the pills only work in preventing fertilization, they are only medically justified/necessary 5 days before or one or 2 days just after ovulation, the window of fertility. The other 20 days or so of the menstrual cycle, the pills are useless and un-necessary.

The best evidence is that Plan B works to prevent ovulation or to prevent the oocyte (the "egg") from being released from the ovary and passing to the fallopian tube. This is why the pill is best (and only?) functional before ovulation. In nature, the egg only lives about 24 hours and sperm can live from 2 to 5 days. If the egg is not released, is over 24 hours old, if the sperm cannot get to the egg or if they are dead or incapacitated, there can be no fertilization.

The only post-ovulation effect that has been proven that could prevent pregnancy also prevents fertilization. Levonorgestrel causes the mucus in the cervix to be thick (so sperm have a hard time getting to the uterus and then the fallopian tube where the egg is) and by making the sperm unable to penetrate the zona pellucida, the covering and nurturing cells around the oocyte or egg.

Biopsies of the uterus of women who have ovulated in spite of taking Plan B do not show any changes that would prevent implantation of the embryo. The blood flow and lining of the uterus is normal. Support for this lack of abortifacient effect in the uterine lining is the natural increase of progesterone in women after ovulation and the treatment of some infertile women with progesterone around ovulation or around transfer of the embryo in an in vitro fertilization cycle. Levonorgestrel and the other forms of progesterone actually seem to encourage implantation.

The reason I am still wary is the evidence that the "luteal" phase of the cycle - the time from ovulation to the time the woman starts shedding her uterine lining - is shortened in some women. If the lining is shed early, I can't be sure that there could not be a loss of an embryo which is beginning to implant. (late note, October 3, 2007 - the evidence indicates that if the pill is taken before ovulation, the luteal phase is shorter, but the closer to ovulation -and the greater the chance of ovulation - the less effect on the luteal phase. So that I don't worry, any more, about losing an embryo that way.)

Women continue to get pregnant - and have abortions - at about the same rates in England and other countries where Emergency Contraception is available without prescription. Part of the reason is that even when women have the medicine in their homes and have received education, they take the pills only about 20% of the time when they have unprotected sex. This month's Contraception reports that only 11% of 706 women (ages 18 to 44 years old, who knew they were part of a study and who were at risk because they did not want to be pregnant but were using other contraceptives incorrectly) used the pills, even though the medicine is available without a prescription in that country.(H. Goulard et al./Contraception 74(2006)208-213)

And while studies have shown that women and girls don't increase risky behavior, the same studies show that there is no decrease in such behavior, either.

I do wonder whether over the counter use in the US will lead to at least a short-term burst of promiscuity and abuse of women and girls, since the studies on access have all included only women and girls who went to clinics and at least received some education (and, as I said, even those women and girls didn't change their risks).

The medicine has never before been available to men in the US. At least there has been some effort to provide education to women and girls receiving the medicine in Washington, where pharmacists could dispense the meds under certain conditions.

Anecdotal information from pharmacists and doctors in the UK, Jamaica and the Far East indicates that men buy EC at least as often as women and that that it appears that some women and girls are using EC more than once a month.



Here's some links in this blog and other pro-life writers who have come to the same conclusion.

Progesterone, infertility and early pregnancy

Plan B not Abortifacient, But Doesn't Change Much


More on British Experience with OTC EC

Plan B Doesn't Change Much (Actual article reproduced - New information on the study that is often quoted to prove that promiscuity doesn't increase - in fact, there's no change at all - But that's even after going to the clinic, etc.)

Jamaica Experience with Plan B, Jamaican Teens Opt for Abortion over EC


Good (Not Prolife) Review of Emergency Contraception

Another physician's Blog and thorough review, at "LTI":
There are at least 6 articles reviewing the facts and the scientific literature. These are the first and the sixth in the series.

A non physician who does a lot of research, "Ales Rarus"
Mangling, Mishandling, and Misrepresentation of Science in the Plan B Debate (Part II)


Another unquestionably pro-life blog, "Jivin'Jehosaphat"

Note: Edited some typos 02/15/07 BBN