Same Sex Marriage is NOT “Just as Good” for Children

June 21, 2012

A rigorous scientific study reveals that if you choose a valid study group not the small non-random populations that homosexual activists use then the outcomes for children are far worse than when the children have their mom and their dad as parents. Not always possible of course but that does not justify lying about the facts.

The study appears in the July issue of Social Science Research.

Thanks to Austin Nimocks for pointing this out in his article at Town Hall.

Embryonic Stem Cells Don’t Cure

February 2, 2010

Stem Cells derived from Embryoes – that are killed in the process – don’t provide cures. See this editorial at the Investors Business Daily.

California’s Proposition 71 Failure

Posted 01/12/2010 06:36 PM ET

Bioethics: Five years after a budget-busting $3 billion was allocated to embryonic stem cell research, there have been no cures, no therapies and little progress. So supporters are embracing research they once opposed.

California’s Proposition 71 was intended to create a $3 billion West Coast counterpart to the National Institutes of Health, empowered to go where the NIH could not — either because of federal policy or funding restraints on biomedical research centered on human embryonic stem cells.

Supporters of the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, passed in 2004, held out hopes of imminent medical miracles that were being held up only by President Bush’s policy of not allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) beyond existing stem cell lines and which involved the destruction of embryos created for that purpose.

Five years later, ESCR has failed to deliver and backers of Prop 71 are admitting failure. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the state agency created to, as some have put it, restore science to its rightful place, is diverting funds from ESCR to research that has produced actual therapies and treatments: adult stem cell research. It not only has treated real people with real results; it also does not come with the moral baggage ESCR does.

see the entire article at:

Embryo: a Defense of Human Life

November 25, 2009

The Culture of Life foundation is doing more good work.  As their email header says they “aim to affect public policy by promoting and making available to the public scientific and other factual information relevant to debates about human life and dignity.”

Their latest posting is a book review of Embryo: a Defense of Human Life by Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen

See Part I of the review at:

and Part II at:

Scientific Doubt

November 24, 2009

On the topic of “settled science” there was a recent (illegal) release of internal communications among the “humans have caused global warming” set.  The dialog appears to be more than just doubting and laughing at the “global warming doubters” set.  It appears to be a scheme amounting to a conspiracy to suppress science that they don’t agree with.

What does this have to do with Abortion?  I’m referring to the Abortion Breast Cancer link where one commenter here has declared “with a few exceptions, the big, well-designed, robust studies say no link, and the studies which report a link are small, design-flawed, and biased.” With the kind of suppression of science that the global warming types are doing that’s exactly what you’d see and get.  I’m no conspiracy theorist; however this revelation in the debate over Global Warming points out that people – scientists included – can see what they want to see and call their opponents names rather than seeking truth.


Settled Science?

Computer hackers reveal corruption behind the global-warming “consensus.”


“Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach,” the New York Times reports. “They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.” But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.

The files–which can be downloaded here–surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, “reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies”:

Read the entire article at:

referenced articles are at the New York Times

and the Washington Post


Here’s an Op Ed piece from the Wall Street Journal.  Same conclusion.

Dec 2nd update:  More science from a reasonably eminent scientist and a small bibliography of their works:

Abortion Causes Breast Cancer?

November 15, 2009

Study: Chinese women with abortions have statistically significant 17% increased breast cancer risk

MEDIA ADVISORY, November 12, 2009/Christian Newswire

Chinese researchers Peng Xing and his colleagues conducted a case-control study in Northeast China examining reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer. They found a statistically significant overall odds ratio of 1.17 (17% increased breast cancer risk for all subtypes combined) among women with induced abortions. [1]

Earlier this year, a Turkish study reported a statistically significant 66% increased risk for women with abortions. [2] Both studies show that, when honest research is conducted outside the control of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and other Western governmental agencies or organizations tethered to abortion ideology and politics, the truth emerges that abortion raises risk. Studies reporting no abortion- breast cancer (ABC) link were proven in medical journals to be stupendously flawed (fraudulent). [3-13]

“The Chinese and the Turkish studies are relevant considering the debate over government-funded abortion through healthcare reform,” said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. “Government-funded abortion means more dead American women from breast cancer.”

See entire article at

An abstract of the study is at:


Congressman Boehner Opposes New Stem Cell Regulations

July 9, 2009
Boehner Statement on Administration’s New Embryonic Stem Cell Regulations

Washington, Jul 6 – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement on the Obama Administration’s final regulations on taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research:

These final regulations represent a troubling development for those who believe that taxpayer funds should not be used to destroy human life.  The Administration’s decision to dramatically expand the number of stem cell lines derived from human embryos and create incentives for the destruction of human life is a provocative step beyond what the President proposed just months ago and yet another sign that he has quickly retreated from his promise to ‘be a President for all Americans.’  House Republicans support methods of stem cell research that have actually yielded results, and I urge the President to reconsider this decision and instead join Republicans in supporting bipartisan solutions such Rep. Randy Forbes’ Patients First Act, which would promote proven stem cell research that does not force taxpayers to aid in the destruction of human life.

“As Congress continues to consider the issue of health care reform, I urge the President not to adopt the same course that he used in the development of these disappointing stem cell regulations.  Health care reform should not be a vehicle to advance controversial pro-abortion policies.  Rather, it should be an opportunity to work in a bipartisan way to give Americans better access to affordable, high-quality health care.”


Print version of this document

Link to Patient First bill mentioned in press release

The abortion issue we’re ignoring

June 10, 2009
Barbara Kay: The abortion issue we’re ignoring
Posted: June 10, 2009, 8:50 AM by NP Editor

Last week’s murder of Dr. George Tiller, probably the world’s most committed abortion provider, evoked a storm of emotive rhetoric from familiar antagonists in the never-quite-dormant abortion debate over “rights.” Those advocating for an unborn child’s right to live once again faced off against those advocating for a woman’s right to terminate a life within her own body.

There’s a third side to the debate that gets short media shrift: emerging knowledge about medical risks surrounding induced abortion (IA). Throughout 40 years of highly publicized ideological squabbling, researchers in the field of human reproduction have been quietly beavering away on mounting epidemiological data around IA and its link to preterm birth (PTB) in a future pregnancy. Recent findings in their research remind us of a “right” generally observed in the breach: the right of women seeking safe abortions to informed consent.

Approximately 100,000 abortions are performed annually in Canada (30 per 100 live births), about a million in the U. S. and some 14 million worldwide, a significant percentage of them repeats (in the U. S. 46%). These are conservative figures: The U. S. National Survey of Family Growth estimates only six of 10 prior IAs are reported.

Click here to read more…