7 Comments - Pat Collins - Tuesday, Apr 19, 05 @ 10:34 am: One interesting aspect of the ultrasound bill is this: There is NO scientific data showing it causes harm. Contrast that with the abortion/breast cancer link where the scientific data is, at best mixed, with some peer review data showing a link. Now, you can argue the various merit of studies on both sides of that. Yet, at least there is something on each side. Contrast that with ultrasounds on infants. What is out there is overwhelmingly on the “it’s safe” side. And yet it must be banned because there “might” be a risk. Can Planned Parenthood really be that worried about their P&L? Because there is surely no other reason, except the huge success pregnancy centers are having in stopping abortion via ultrasound. Politics? Well, if some clever politician used this as an example of hypocracy, it just might get him elected. - Pat Collins - Tuesday, Apr 19, 05 @ 10:43 am: Specifically, this could cause problems for Sen. Althoff. I’m surprised that Jack “I take no chances” Franks voted for it. I also guess it will earn PR Linder yet another primary challenge. - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Apr 19, 05 @ 2:37 pm: ==Contrast that with the abortion/breast cancer link where the scientific data is, at best mixed, with some peer review data showing a link. This is simply false. People not familiar with how science is actually done and reported find one old study and declare there are mixed results. The problem is that the best research that solves the methodological problems don’t show a link. To suggest then that results are mixed misrepresents the most recent and best research and contributes to scientific ignorance. There may be ’something’ on both sides, that doesn’t mean that those somethings are even close to being equal. - Vasyl - Tuesday, Apr 19, 05 @ 3:18 pm: I’m going to back up Archpundit on this. The studies are actually remarkably consistent about breast cancer: if you carry a pregnancy to term when you are younger, you are at a lower risk for breast cancer. So, it doesn’t matter if a woman miscarries, has an abortion, or simply does not get pregnant. What matters is whether a woman bears a child. The folks claiming a link between abortion and breast cancer are misusing science and statistics. - FightforJustice - Tuesday, Apr 19, 05 @ 7:29 pm: Let’s see if I understand this ultrasound bill: The abortion lobby argues that ultrasound might possibly harm the fetus when the pro-life agencies use it to show mom what her product of conception looks like. Yet the abortion crowd does more than possible harm to the fetus. Speaking of hypocrisy, is Mulligan’s concern for the unborn real? - Pat Collins - Tuesday, Apr 19, 05 @ 9:03 pm: Arch & Vasyl miss my point: you can argue where the studies showing a link have reporting bias or not. What you can’t argue is that there are real MD’s who have done real research that show “something” might be there. And even the FDA’s website points ONLY to “keepsake” specifically talking about higher energies for better videos. I also note that the FDA considered the evidence mixed until the mid 90’s. One might wonder why we had to use Denmark as a study place. I guess US clinics need not report stats like the Danes do. The only bad things it mentions about ultrasound are delayed speech, and lefthanded-ness. Bottom line STILL is that there is a rush to legislate with no proof of harm (especially in the crisis clinic application) other than to the profit margin of abortion clinics. One might think regulating power levels, etc are appropriate for a place with no known bad issues. I also found several law firms that are publishing articles that abortion clinics have an ethical duty to inform their patients, and suggesting tort as a real option. I’m not sure which is more ironic: PP being concerned about fetal health, or the vision of the two main Dem. special interest groups going at it. - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Apr 20, 05 @ 4:00 pm: ===MD’s who have done real research that show “something” might be there. But you miss our point. The research has been superceded. You don’t use inferior and older studies to argue with newer studies and better methodology. I don’t have a strong reason to stop people from using ultrasounds, but I know little about them. That said, in discussing it, there is a big difference pointing to a completely separate area in which there is scientific consensus and trying to compare it. But even then, in doing elective procedures, the standard isn’t whether there is proof (not a scientific standard, a mathematical one), but whether the procedure has evidence of safety. Ultrasounds generally do, but the emphasis is on the wrong issue. ===I also found several law firms that are publishing articles that abortion clinics have an ethical duty to inform their patients, and suggesting tort as a real option. Talk about an excuse for tort reform–if the scientific evidence is consistent then there isn’t a reason to inform–in fact, doctors have a duty to report that there isn’t evidence suggesting a link. A doctor who told a patient that would be performing malpractice. == I’m not sure which is more ironic: PP being concerned about fetal health, or the vision of the two main Dem. special interest groups going at it. Planned Parenthood is an essential provider of prenatal care in many cities. Something that most ‘crisis centers’ can’t provide in any significant capacity. Planned Parenthood strives for medically accurate answers and quality services to men and women’s health care needs–not putting an agenda on individuals who seek medical care. It would be nice if others were so concerned with providing health care to expecting mothers and not simply convincing a pregnant woman of a particular outcome. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.