Tebow Super Bowl Ad Controversy Proves "Pro-abortion," not "Pro-choice"

Sarah Palin has written a note on her Facebook page on the move to oppose an ad that's scheduled to be run during the Super Bowl. The active opposition to the ad by the National Organization for Women (incorrectly named, btw) and other groups, shows just how pro-abortion, rather than pro-choice, they are.

The 30 second segment is sponsored by - and paid for by - Focus on the Family. It tells the story of Pam Tebow, mother of Heisman Trophy winner, Tim Tebow. Tebow's mother was encouraged to abort him due to medical problems.

Colorado Springs, Colo (Friday, Jan. 15, 2010) – Focus on the Family will broadcast the first Super Bowl ad in its history February 7 during CBS Sports' coverage of the game at Dolphin Stadium in South Florida.

The 30-second spot from the international family-help organization will feature college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. They will share a personal story centered on the theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life."

Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, said the chance to partner with the Tebows and lift up a meaningful message about family and life comes at the right moment in the culture, because "families need to be inspired."

"Tim and Pam share our respect for life and our passion for helping families thrive," Daly said. "They live what we see every day – that the desire for family closeness is written on the hearts of every generation. Focus on the Family is about nurturing that desire and strengthening families by empowering them with the tools they need to live lives rooted in morals and values."

Daly added that all the funds to air the ad came from a handful of "very generous and committed friends" who donated specifically to support the project. No money from the ministry's general fund was used.

The Tebows said they agreed to appear in the commercial because the issue of life is one they feel very strongly about.

The Washington Post reports that there has been opposition to the airing of the ad:

After learning of the ad late Monday, Women's Media Center (speaking on behalf of the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority Foundation and other organizations) asked CBS to pull the ad. It also questioned how and why the network, which used to forbid "advocacy" advertising, agreed to air Focus on the Family's spot, which is valued at $2.5 million to $3 million.

"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together," Jehmu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center, said in a statement.

The pressure on CBS proves my earlier assertion that as a society, we in the US have moved from the 1960's slogan "Our Bodies, Our Choice," to "Our Bodies, Our Choice, and You Don’t Have Choice."

?No self breast exams?

The recommendation *not* to teach exams throws the whole report into question for me. If we are changing the frequency of mammograms, should we also change the recommendation to do self exams? Won't the first change the effectiveness of the second?


In the news, the report by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. The "conventional wisdom" about breast cancer screening was turned on its head - or, at least tweaked, this week.

I think we might have been over doing the mammograms ("MMG"), but the old recommendation to do a "baseline" MMG between 35 and 40, with self exams each month and MMG each 2 years from 40 to 55 and then one a year or each 2 years according to risk, made sense to me.

What I absolutely don't get is the recommendation to stop teaching self exams. Teaching self breast exams received a "Grade D" recommendation - meaning there's no empirical evidence that the procedure is "effective." In other words, it has "moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits." The practice would be "discouraged" -- considered bad medicine, and actually put the doctor at risk for criticism. It most certainly won't be paid for.

There's a reason to find masses: it will change what we do, we have treatment that we can and should do for positive changes. Any mass that's fast growing and lasts over a month is highly suspicious and any mass we can feel should be biopsied. Even though the sensitivity may be low (compared to MMG), patients who do regular exams have been proven to be more likely to find masses earlier and smaller than the doc would at an annual exam, and it's non-invasive, cheap, and accessible. Teaching the self exam gives me something to talk about while I'm doing my own exam of the patient and is an opportunity to explain what I've written, above.

It looks like the fuss over the recommendation will be the first test of the realities of "Comparative Effectiveness Panels" which was funded by $1 Billion allocated in the 2009 "Stimulus Package."  Emotions and reactions are high, with Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius,  Medicare and most insurance companies already reporting that their policies (paying for annual MMG and recommending teaching at doctors' exams) won't change. The Mayo Clinic has absolutely renounced the recommendations.

For more information on the policies of other nations, see this article.

Intentionally Skewed Cancer Survival Rates

 From Ann Coulter's latest report on Health Care Reform Myths:

European women are only 55.8 percent likely to live five years after contracting any kind of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent for American women.
In five cancers -- breast, prostate, thyroid, testicular and skin melanoma -- American survival rates are higher than 90 percent. Europeans hit a 90 percent survival rate for only one of those -- testicular cancer.
Most disturbingly, many cancers in Europe are discovered only upon the victim's death -- twice as many as in the U.S. Consequently, the European study simply excluded cancers that were first noted on the death certificate, so as not to give the U.S. too great an advantage.

I didn't know about that last manipulation of the cancer survival rates. 

Politics bites science

For a clear outline as to why you shouldn't believe that 45,000 people die each year because they don't have insurance, read the blog entry by John Milloy, publisher of "Junk Science" on last week's report in the American Journal of Public Health.

Forget that the authors are blatantly biased members of the "Physicians for a National Health Plan."

All you need to know is:
# Among the many problems with the study, here are four of the most glaring; all of which will likely be missed by the media:

* The researchers assumed that study subjects lacking health insurance at the time of the interviews did not subsequently gain or regain insurance coverage. In fact, a study subject could have received health coverage the very next day after the interview and this would not have been considered by the researchers.
* The researchers essentially assume that lack of health insurance at the time of interview is the causal factor in the deaths that occurred. No data was gathered to back up this assumption.
* None of the data collected during the interviews, including insurance status, was validated by the researchers.
* The study result is statistically weak. Combined with the peculiar date-of-death cutoff (the year 2000 as opposed to any other year), it raises questions as to whether the study result was produced by “data dredging” – essentially cherry-picking data that provides the desired result.

Playing doctor with the White House

Who’s playing doctor with the White House: Another example of the lack of openness in the dealings of the Obama Administration

(Informed consent blurb: Organizing for America, etc., along with all the White House websites, are collecting data including email and other information from everyone who visits or contacts their sites. I got a couple of those emails from David Axelrod last month.

Don't worry - they already have my data. I used to email President Bill Clinton at least once a month and ask him to resign for the sake of our daughters – they are about the same age - because he'd set the women's movement back 50 years. He never answered. However, it occurs to me now that maybe that's why I was named to the Bush Administration's National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women.)

On Thursday, September 17, 2009, I was web-surfing and searching Google news hits on the September 12th March on Washington and health care reform when I found information about a conference call between "Doctors for America," the White House "Office of Public Engagement" and doctors like me who somehow found out about the conference call.

I called in, but wasn't called on to ask my questions, so I re-wrote them as an essay (see below) and emailed it to info@drsforamerica.org I'm also sending the essay to the White House OPE.

When I started writing up my notes from the call, it finally occurred to me that – even though there was no attempt at disclosure - there might be a connection between "Drs for America," "Organizing for America" (whose website address is still "http://www.barackobama.com/ ," the same url once used by - and the remains of - “Obama for America,” the Barack Obama campaign machine.

I was slow to catch on, but I was right: The leadership at Doctors for America is made up of nearly the same roster of men and women who, in 2008, were the leadership of “Doctors for Obama” in 2008. Common names are Vivek Murthy, MD MBA, Mandy Krauthamer, MD MPH, Nikhil Wagle, MD, Alex Blum, MD, and Jay Bhatt, DO MPH

And, I was wrong: there’s a disclaimer at the bottom of the “Doctors for Obama” leadership page that says “Not affiliated with Obama for America.” (Yeah, right.)

In fact, former Obama Administration transition chief John Podesta's “Center for American Progress” funds the group :

May 04, 2009
'Doctors for America' launches

This may not wind up being decisive in the health care fight, but the organizing gap between the two sides continues to widen.
Sen. Max Baucus and the Center for American Progress Action Fund are announcing a new group on a conference call later this morning: Doctors for America, which is a reincarnation of Doctors for Obama, an arm of the Obama campaign that boasted more than 10,000 members.
The question of patients' relationships with their doctors is always a flashpoint in debating changes to the health care system, so doctors are often particularly credible messengers.
Today they'll "release new reports detailing the depth and breadth of America's health care crisis and announce a new effort to amplify physicians' voices in support of health care reform," according to the advisory.
By Ben Smith 11:07 AM

Here's the bio on the President and Co-founder, Vivek Murthy, MD MBA, at the Center for American Progress website:

Vivek Murthy is an internal medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an Instructor at Harvard Medical School. He received his undergraduate degree in Biochemical Sciences from Harvard University, his MD from the Yale School of Medicine, and his MBA from the Yale School of Management. He completed his residency training in Internal Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Vivek is the co-founder of VISIONS and the Swasthya Project, international health non-profit organizations focused on HIV/AIDS education and women’s health, respectively. He is also the co-founder and chairman of Epernicus, LLC a web-based professional networking service for individual researchers and scientific institutions. Vivek’s past research has focused on the participation of women and minorities in cancer clinical trials; his current research interests include physician satisfaction and burnout. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Vivek served as a member of the Obama Health Policy Advisory Committee and the Obama New England Steering Committee.

Notes on the Conference Call

I couldn't catch all the names and I am not very good at telling who was speaking, but did try to take some notes from the opening statements. The quotations are the actual words of the speakers, the rest is my own interpretation and from memory.

The moderators talked about the "public option" as though it's a done deal and strongly pitched it as just a way to provide health care for people who have lost their insurance.

We were told that everyone will be required to have insurance, and that businesses will be asked to "chip in their part."

The White House has a plan to fix the SGR that has been pushed off over and over. In fact, there are plans for a “complete reform of the physician payment system.” without incentives for doing more procedures.

The President has given instructions to begin the medical liability demonstration projects to find a way to decrease defensive medicine while "mitigating risks to patients."

We were told that we are closer than we've ever been to health care reform this year.

The moderators were surprised by the second doctor who said he was from the former Soviet Union and that the public option would soon become the only option. They were adamant that the public option is not a pathway to single payer. (And besides, we all know that being paid by and regulated to the teeth by the government is not at all like working for the government.)

Later, one of the docs who called in asked specifically about the news stories that the public option was finished and the White House representative reminded us that the legislation is not written, yet. He was adamant that we shouldn't rule the public option out and that we should advocate with our patients and fellow doctors for that option.

One doctor asked about the effect on doctors with concierge or boutique practices and the other doctors who "opted out." The answer from one of the men was that these practices were just a reaction to cash pay patients who couldn't afford insurance.

There was a lot of excitement about one doctor's suggestion that doctors be required to give two years to a sort of National Healthcare Workforce. And huffy about the shortage of doctors that a Massachusetts doc reminded them that they'd have if all the uninsured were suddenly looking for primary care.

The woman naturopath was reassured that naturopathic primary care doctors would be evaluated by the same evidence based medicine that the traditional docs were judged by.

My letter to Doctors for America and the White House Office for Public Engagement

I’m Beverly B Nuckols, MD, the National chair of the Family Medicine Section of the Christian Medical Association as well as a member of the AMA, the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians. I'm not officially representing the above, but I believe that my opinions are shared by a large number of doctors.

Many of my colleagues and I see the Patient Centered Medical Home plans, the protocols at Mayo and other medical centers that have been praised are attempts to model a bureaucratic form of practice for large practices so that they can do what the family doctor does every day.

My experience is that government bureaucracy is not only more restrictive and punitive than private insurers, the clout of the Federal government results in undesired UNINTENDED consequences all across the board. Doctors used to be the good guys, but now we feel as though we are assumed to be guilty of abuse of the system, largely due to Federal legislation and regulation.

These result in time and money spent on our futile attempt to keep up with Medicare regulations in order to avoid charges of fraud, abuse and waste. For instance: HIPPA, National Provider Identification numbers, bullet points and check boxes, E & M’s, procedure and diagnosis codes and qualifiers that change each year, and a whole alphabet soup of regulators.

In addition, government cost control attempts in the '90's actually limited the numbers of graduate medical slots, while encouraging sub specialty growth in relation to numbers of primary care doctors.

Making it all worse is the fact that under current Medicare payment schemes, Family Doctors who provide the same services as sub-specialists are paid less by Medicare.

Like the laws and regulations in the past, this year's “reform bills” and proposals are overly complicated and try to guarantee too much: school based clinics, nutrition data on menus and buffet lines, an overhaul of the federal income tax code, new lists of “enhanced penalties,” taxes, fines and the mixing of all of the above abuses with an overhaul of the Federal Income Tax.

Today’s announcement about the study of liability makes me worry that our Texas laws concerning tort reform will be over come by Federal inertia and interference.

1. Why not just look at Texas’ experience with tort reform rather than wasting time and money on new studies?

2. Is it possible to make the legislation smaller in scope so that it is focused on providing help for those patients and families who cannot afford or access medical care?

3. What plans are there to ensure training and sufficient payment for family physicians and other primary care doctors who are in the best position to coordinate care for our patients in the "Medical Home?"

Edit: added this 4th question that I believe I sent to Doctors for America:

4. Could the fines and mandates be replaced with tax incentives, removal of restrictions on Health Savings accounts, return of the major medical plans and the removal of the barriers preventing patients from owning their own health care insurance?

Page 425 (end of life counseling)

I received several emails over the last few days concerning page 425 of the House Bill on Health Reform, HR 3200, which outlines mandatory end of life "options" counseling.

Technically, it appears on the surface to allow doctors (and other "providers") to charge for the counseling. But, yes, it's mandated counseling and in the wrong hands, it might encourage withholding of care more than some of us would like -- and certainly more that others might like.

Can you imagine a more personal and private subject? The subject should be broached by your family doctor. But it appears that every doctor who sees Medicare patients will be responsible. I can imagine the emotional undertones of different doctors as they recite the standardized language and present the forms to be signed! And then, the counseling will be reported to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, with the appropriate modifying code.

I object to the mandated repeat counseling when someone gets sick, the inclusion in the "Medicare and Me" handbook with language to be formalized by the Secretary and forms for the counseling. I've mentioned before how "hot" an issue this could be, even with my limited exposure to the debate.

I hope that someone with sensitivity is in the Secretary's office, assisting with decisions on the literature and forms.

ABC explains the Obama Administration

ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper has written an article, "When Academic Words Become Political Ammunition," that gives an anonymous "White House official's" rebuttal to the many concerns expressed about President Obama's choices for advisers and "czars" who will affect the shape of health care policies. He attempts to debunk criticisms of the philosophies of Ezekial Emanuel, MD (a bioethicist who is heading the push for control of health care finance and delivery in order to provide universal insurance) and John Holdren, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The problem is that with Medicare and Medicaid, about half of medical care in this country is already paid for using tax dollars, and we are currently considering expanding tax dollar payment for nearly all health care in the Nation. I disagree with Ezekial Emanuel's position, referenced in the Hastings journal article, "Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet," which is linked (in pdf) at Tapper's essay:

Americans fear that if society guarantees certain services as "basic," the range of services guaranteed will expand to include all - or almost all - available services (except for cosmetic surgery and therapies not yet proven effective or proven ineffective). So rather than risk the bankruptcy of having nearly every medical service socially guaranteed to all citizens, Americans have been willing to tolerate a system in which the well insured receive a wide range of medical services with some apparently basic services un- covered; Medicare beneficiaries receive fewer services with some discretionary services covered and some services that intuitively seem basic uncovered; Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured persons receive far fewer services.

In fact, while we are concerned about the amount of taxes that will be imposed, the Tapper essay points out that we are very much afraid that government interference in health care will result in more limitations, so that none of us will be allowed, much less "guaranteed," to seek medical care that will prolong our lives and make us feel better, unless we are seen as members of a group that is more valuable than others. The examples that Dr. Emanuel gives and our observation of the government pre-paid medical care schemes around the world lead us to believe that, the more health care is financed by tax dollars, the more expensive and rationed it becomes.

Academic mind experiments that do not draw a line between what is acceptable and what is condemned by the authors understandably will be interpreted by others as at best, neutral, at worst, in support of condemnable acts.

HPV Vaccine works for males

Good news from the Family Practice News:

ATLANTA — The human papillomavirus vaccine was efficacious in preventing persistent infections and genital warts caused by HPV strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 in a Merck-sponsored study of 4,065 males aged 16-26 years.

The findings were presented by Dr. Richard M. Haupt at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Merck had previously reported immunogenicity and safety data for its HPV vaccine (Gardasil) in younger males aged 9-15 years, but these are the first data on efficacy in males and the first findings in older adolescent and adult males.

The rationale for use of Gardasil in males is twofold. There is intrinsic benefit to males themselves since HPV strain 18 causes penile, anal, and oropharyngeal cancer and HPV 6 and 11 are associated with genital warts. There is also a public health benefit to vaccinating males against HPV since coverage among girls is likely to be incomplete, transition of HPV occurs efficiently between sexual partners, and “gender-neutral” vaccination would be expected to reduce overall viral transmission in the entire population, noted Dr. Haupt of Merck Research Laboratories, Whitehouse Station, N.J.

ACIP is expected to recommend the vaccine for use in males aged 11-12 at the adolescent visit, just as it is now given to girls. This should simplify implementation, Dr. Doug Campos-Outcalt of the University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview.

Since, besides cervical cancer and those mentioned above, the Human Papilloma Virus is also implicated as the cause of half of lung cancers in non-smokers, many oral and throat cancers, and some prostate cancers, the universal vaccination of boys and girls will most likely save lives and prevent millions of people from disfiguring disease.

I've never seen a case of bacterial meningitis since I left med school, thanks to the vaccine against Hemophilis influenza or Hib. Perhaps the future doctors will never see cervical cancer and will be surprised when and if they see lung cancers.

Goodbye Medicare, hello County Clinic

Where is the outrage over the destruction of (what is left of) Medicare and the debt we owe to veterans? I'm afraid that we're not talking about "Medicare for all," or even "Medicaid for all." We're talking about County Clinic for all.

For a look at the proposed cuts in cost for Medicare, take a look a this table.

Consider that "reduce costs for re-admissions" and the "bundling" of hospital and outpatient costs after a hospitalization.

That means that Medicare will only pay a flat fee to the hospital for any hospitalization and follow up care after the hospitalization and will not pay if the patient has to be readmitted for complications or a new illness within a certain period of time. Patients would not be able to return to their family doctor for follow up care, unless the doctor works for the hospital. And there would be a lot of pressure to keep patients out of the hospital.

People who "cost" Medicare the most money would be encouraged to forgo care. I predict a huge push for hospice care for anyone with complicated, chronic diseases. (Or, possibly, a back-alley, underground medical care system for cash and barter. Wonder how long that will be legal?)

The AMANews reports that coordination of care doesn't lower costs to Medicare, only 2 out of 15 of the model centers cut patients' days in the hospital, and that the coordination is burdensome for small and solo practices. For every 100 patients, we interact with 99 other doctors in other practices. (I knew it was a lot.) (I don't think any of these links require subscription, let me know if there's a problem.)

This is my favorite part from that article:

"It doesn't matter if you back up a truck to their offices and drop off bundles of money," Dr. Norman said. "They don't have the time, resources or expertise right now to put this all in place."

Speaking of "bundles of money," the stimulus has a chunk to support Community Health Centers, as reported by Reuters' Maggie Fox. Will these centers really be open longer hours, as advertised, and will they continue to mandate the hiring of mid-levels (Nurse Practitioners or Physician Assistants), rather than allowing the hiring of physicians with the grants, as currently the case for other Federally funded clinics?

The budget includes plans to pay for the 667 Billion dollar health care for all by cutting payments to “providers” (including doctors and hospitals, pharmacists and wheel chair companies), according to the Wall Street Journal. We're already scheduled to have that automatic “Sustainable Growth Rate” 20% cut in Medicare payments to doctors, next year. Want to bet that the cut won't go through and/or won't be considered part of the "savings"? (And mesh with the President’s plans to cut the deficit.)

That WSJ and the LATimes articles also mention a “public” health care plan, and possible new taxes (on the employer’s portion of insurance payments or a new income tax).

Speaking of which, the Massachusetts mandatory health insurance trial isn’t working - even to make sure that people have insurance or are able to see their doctor in a timely manner - according to the Boston Globe The solution? That old United States National Health Insurance Act, paid for by "a modest progressive tax."

Senate defeats Republican SCHIP pro-life measure

Senator Martinez from Florida introduced an amendment to the Senate Bill concerning the children's health insurance bill that would have prohibited tex money going to non-government organizations in other countries and used to promote abortion, lobbying foreign governments to change their laws to accept abortion, and which would give those organizations more money to perform abortions.

This amendment would have placed into law the "Mexico City Policy" that President Obama overturned on Friday, January 23, 2009.

The vote went pretty much along party lines, with the exceptions of Republican Senators Collins and Snowe of Maine, Senator Spectre of Pennsylvania and Senator Mulkowski of Alaska. One Democrat, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, voted in favor of the prolife amendment. (Thanks to LifeNews for reporting the votes.)

The Senate version will allow families that exceed 400 times the Federal poverty limit t0 $88,000 and, in some cases, with incomes over $100,000, per year.

For more on the SCHIP Bill, see the Associated Press' "GOP fails to limit children's health program."

Democrats want to more than double spending on SCHIP. President Barack Obama has urged Congress to quickly send him a children's health bill that he can sign into law. The House has already passed a bill comparable to the one before the Senate.

Republicans offered an alternative approach through an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. McConnell argued that his amendment focused more on helping low-income families and did not rely on tax increases to pay for the additional health spending. His amendment also would not allow federal funding to extend health coverage to children of newly arrived legal immigrants, as the Democratic bill allows.

Elections have consequences (abortion, contraceptives, committees)

ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolis ran an interview with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on Sunday, January 25, 2009. The transcript is here.

Stephanopolis allowed the Speaker to gloss over her policy that does not allow debate or amendments from the House floor, or that no Republicans were allowed to see or vote in Committee on last week's SCHIP Bill ("H.R. 2 is rushed legislation by the Democrat Majority that did not hold a single committee hearing or allow amendments to be offered on the bill."), and were only given a summary at 5:30 AM on the day of the vote.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The president has made it pretty clear he wants this to be a real bipartisan effort. Yet House Republicans have said they have been shut out of this process. There were no Republican votes in the appropriations Committee, no Republican votes in the Ways and Means Committee.
PELOSI: Well, because the Republicans don't vote for it doesn't mean they didn't have an opportunity to.

While I believe that true contraception, as in prevention of the union of sperm and oocyte, is ethical, I had planned to move strait to the Speaker's comments about Family Planning funds. However, it appears that the President was listening to the voters, even if the Speaker hadn't.

Posted: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:41 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: White House, Congress

From NBC’s Mike Viqueira
The provision within the stimulus that would allocate money for contraceptive programs through Medicaid will be pulled out of the package.

NBC News confirms that the president called Henry Waxman, the chairman of the committee that inserted the contraception provision into the stimulus during the mark up last week, to ask him to remove the measure from the bill, according to a Democratic leadership source.

In short, the idea has simply become too controversial. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's defense of the program over the weekend, where she indicated that it would be a money saver, was not well received.

So that provision is out.

Complicating matters, both Minority Leader John Boehner and No. 2 Eric Cantor have told House Republicans that "all Republicans should vote against the stimulus" if it remains "in its current form," according to a GOP leadership aide.

They spoke inside their weekly conference meeting, behind closed doors. Afterward, both men came to the on camera stake out. The House will begin debate on the stimulus package late today, with no votes expected until tomorrow. Debate is expected to begin somewhere close to 5 p.m. ET.

The way your U.S. House works is that anyone who wants to offer an amendment to be considered on the floor has to go to a committee, the Rules Committee, beforehand.

The Rules Committee is a complete and utter tool of the majority leadership. (Emphasis mine, BBN.) It decides which amendments will be allowed on the floor for consideration. The minority is habitually unhappy with the result, as their measures, especially the ones that have a chance of passage or contain some political mischief or "poison pill" language, are barred. The Rules committee meets this afternoon to make its decisions.

So, besides politics, what's all the fuss about?

Part of the problem is the $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, ACORN, $200 million for sod for Washington, DC parks, $20 Billion for electronic medical records, and the emphasis on global warming research (with its increased costs for housing, transportation, food production and all aspects of our daily life).

One day after the 36th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade and as the number of electively aborted children in the United States alone (non-medically necessary, not associated with "rape, incest, or the life of the mother") approaches 50 Million, President Obama overturned the so-called "Mexico City Policy" or "global gag rule." US tax dollars will once again be allocated to organizations that advocate abortion as birth control, and even those that lobby to change the laws of other nations to allow abortion where it is not currently legal. Every news article I've seen conflates the gag rule with limiting non-abortifacient contraception. However, the only restriction is that on abortion.

Another Bill now in the House and Senate, would wipe out abstinence-based sex ed and mandate emergency contraception according to the Rochester, NY newspaper:

* House member Louise Slaughter submitted the Prevention First Act of 2009 (H.R. 463/S.21). In the Senate it was introduced by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The legislation focuses on reproductive and sexual health issues, and in some cases reverses Bush administration policies. It provides funding for comprehensive sex education programs, and none for abstinence-only sex ed. Other provisions include mandatory access to emergency contraception for rape survivors, and a requirement that hospital staff provide factual, science-based information on EC, including instructions that it doesn't cause abortions.

The bill would also force health insurers to offer equitable coverage for prescription contraceptives.

And then, finally (from the first link above), Speaker Pelosi on Federally funded contraception for the poor:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

Texas teens form pro-life club

And, it seems that the kids in Coppell, Texas (near Dallas) are only "anti-abortion" because of the undue influence of their families and churches. From the Dallas Morning News:

Abortion rights advocates say it's even harder for them to organize high school students because of the focus on abstinence.

"We're up against a movement that has federal dollars going into public schools," said Kierra Johnson, director of Choice USA. "You compound that with what they could be learning in church, and it sets us back in terms of outreach to young people under 18."

Of course, the Dallas Morning News calls the club "anti-abortion," not "pro-life." In spite of the fact that the kids call themselves "The Pro-Life Club." The author calls for tolerance on the part of the "anti-abortion crowd but can't even bring herself to use the term the teens would prefer.

I guess the DMN doesn't keep up with the latest research. Otherwise, they'd know that the study on abstinence that was in the news earlier this month informed us that teens - whether they sign a pledge or not - who come from religious, conservative backgrounds are more likely to delay their first intercourse for about 3 years longer than their peers. I nominate the author of the article,Katherine Leal Unruth, her editor, and Ms. Johnson for Twits of the Year and definitely award them my own Yellow Brick Road award. ("Do Not Look Behind the Curtain, Ignore That Little Man." Or small woman.)

Bravo Coppell teens, their parents, and their churches!

Teen Pregnancy Rates Increase at Same Rate as Others

It seems that everyone decided to have more babies in 2006, including teen girls from age 15 through 19.

The summary of the CDC report is available as a news release, here. A 100-page report is available pdf containing more numbers and breakdown of the data is at this link.

I don't believe that the information will answer any of the big political debates. The unmarried mother rate is too high, teens have too many babies too young, too few women begin prenatal care in the first 3 months, and too many had early births - both planned (scheduled C-sections) and unplanned.

We definitely need to discuss some of these numbers, however. 39% of children of white mothers, 50% of children of Hispanic mothers (who have half of all babies) and 70% of children of black mothers are born outside of marriage. The numbers of babies born to mothers under 15 years old should be a scandal (especially in the Black and Mexican and other Hispanic populations) and the focus of both public health and law enforcement. See pages 39 through 45) Note that the numbers of pregnancies under 15 have fallen precipitously since the 1980's, but the Hispanic community still

The biggest surprise to me? 494 women had babies after 50!

By the way, 2006 was the first year in quite a while that the US birth rate has reached replacement level.

Virginity pledges: the rest of the story

The "kids" aren't "kids" and they aren't "teens." And they wait 3 years longer than their peers and no one knows if they even had a sex ed course in school.

Fox News reports on their interview with the author of a report on teens who take virginity pledges. She told them that religious teens wait 3 years longer than non-religious teens and (as reported here, last week), the background of those who take virginity pledges is more important than the pledge itself.

Click here to read the study in Pediatrics.

Note that there is no way to know whether any of the students took any type of abstinence-based sexuality education course, that the ages of the "pledgers" and "non-pledgers" evaluated and matched in the study were at least 15 in the first "wave," 22 or so at the end, and the average age of first intercourse for the group is 21 years old, three years older than the national average.

Rosenbaum, the author of the "new" study also removed all of the married participants in the study:

Her study also only looked at teens who were unmarried five years after taking virginity pledges, now ages 20 to 23. "The married are out of the picture, so they're not as interesting," she said.

Edited 1/3/09 at 6 AM.

New study on virginity pledges and behavior

The article in question can be downloaded from Pediatrics, here.


The final "wave 3" data came from the group that the author calls "adolescents" -- who were 22 years old. Data from those who had married was treated as "missing."

We don't know anything about the actual sex ed courses that the students took, who paid for the course, or whether they actually took a course or just made a pledge.

From the article: “Virginity pledges are also now used to measure AOSE program effectiveness, which the US government considers successful if they produce many virginity pledgers, irrespective of participants’ sexual behavior.”

(Is it true that the pledge is considered a marker for the success of abstinence-only sex ed? I know that I’ve read several articles showing short term increase in the intention to remain abstinent, so that would not surprise me. However, I haven’t seen this “marker.”)

As far as I can tell, it appears that the author took data from a series of national questionnaires , matched kids for background and family, and found that they have similar outcomes after 5 years.

Oddly, a huge number - 80% - of the pledgers denied having pledged in follow up. The other number that seems to stick out is that the non-pledgers did pay for sex and/or get paid for sex more often.

Nevertheless, the only study that I’ve seen that measured pregnancy rates after a course that included teaching proper condom use did not show prevention of pregnancy, either. I posted a review of the pay-for-view article in the British Medical Journal.

Health care reform conversation

There's a comment from a proponent of single payor health care payments on one of my November posts. A few points need to be clarified:

The numbers about infant mortality are skewed in the US because we count more infants as "live births" than other countries.

We use Medicaid money to finance special education and Medicare to finance medical education -- are those included in those numbers?

Also, that $7000 is an average - that includes all the expensive care for very ill patients. It would be more interesting to note per-capita bone marrow or other organ transplant.

I would like to see how much of our medical spending is actually elective - Botox and plastic surgery as well as contraceptives and abortions.

The majority of Family Physicians are against or conflicted about about single payer. We don't have a great history of changing policy to the benefit of our practices. Medicare, medicaid, and Workman's Comp pays better for procedures like surgery and invasive tests than they do for cognitive and preventive skills.The Family Doctor could do more if we weren't under pressure to see 4 to 5 patients per hour.

Health care outcomes are strengthened where primary care is strongest, according to research.


What I want to see is a public policy that allows patients to own their own health insurance and for doctors to work for the patient. Medicare still won't pay for tetanus shots when a covered patient needs one.

I just worry that what we have is not working because of regulations and laws. I don't want more of those.

Causal link between abortion mental illness claimed

Fergusson of Australia has published more data on his birth cohort from ChristChurch, New Zealand. This time, he's claiming causal relationship between abortion and later mental illness. A 3 invited comments in the same journal seem to accept that his conclusion is true: Abortion responsible for depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, at least do some degree.

The articles are in the British Journal of Psychiatry.for pay, but here's the discussion:

(a) For both models there was consistent evidence that even after extensive covariate adjustment, exposure to abortion was associated with a modest but detectable increase in rates of mental disorder. The concurrent data suggested that after adjustment for confounding those exposed to abortion had
rates of mental health problems that were 1.37 (95% CI 1.16–1.62) times higher than for those who had not become pregnant (P50.001). The lagged model produced a slightly lower estimate of 1.32 (95% CI 1.05–1.67, P50.05).
(b) Pregnancy loss was associated with a modest increase in the rate of problems using the concurrent measures of pregnancy outcome, with those who experienced a pregnancy loss having a rate of mental health problems that was 1.25 (95% CI 1.01–1.53) times the rate for those who were never pregnant (P50.05). However, under the lagged model, pregnancy loss was not associated with later outcomes, with an adjusted RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.79–1.43, P40.70).
(c) For both models, having a live birth, whether with or without
an unwanted/adverse reaction, was not associated with significant
increases in the overall rate of mental health problems when due allowance was made for confounding variables

Insurers, you go first

You did know that due to the Social Security Act and the Patriot Act your medical records can be viewed and copied by anyone who claims to be an agent of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, didn't you? Or that those same agents write their own subpoenas? (The best reference is this ACLU webpage, although most of the regulations were there in a weaker form before the Patriot Act.)

Health insurers - the American Health Insurance Plan group and Blue Cross/Blue Shield - said that they would begin covering everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions if the government will mandate the purchase of their products and subsidize Medicaid and SCHIP. And so grows the government ownership of health care.

From what I've seen of mandatory auto insurance, prices don't go down when the government forces everyone to buy a certain product. I don't believe in government mandates as a rule and haven't been favorably impressed with the way government interference in health care, with the creation of HMO's, ERISSA, and the invasion that has resulted in our current draconian Medicare rules and regulations.

Not to mention $2 Billion dollar stock option bonuses and $125 Million dollar salaries, such as those given to William McGuire by United Health Care in the past and the $13 million to $15 million salary of his successor in 2006 and 2007. (For a look at the compensation of the big companies, click on the names of companies at this page.)

I do believe that insurers abuse their ability to refuse or limit coverage and increase fees due to prior conditions. The industry should be able to evaluate the effect of removal of pre-existing conditions by looking at the history of the insured in States like Texas, which do not allow such limitations for most people covered by employers' health insurance. Let us see those numbers and facts and demonstrate your trustworthiness before we even consider using government laws to increase your customer base.

From the press release of the American Health Insurance Plan group:

Health plans today proposed guaranteed coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions in conjunction with an enforceable individual coverage mandate.

Under the new proposal, health plans participating in the individual health insurance market would be required to offer coverage to all applicants as part of a universal participation plan in which all individuals were required to maintain health insurance.

Health plans also said that premium support for moderate-income individuals and broad spreading of risk was necessary to promote affordability and maintain premium stability in the individual health insurance market.

To ensure that all Americans can access coverage, health plans also reiterated their long-standing support for making eligible for Medicaid every uninsured American living in poverty and strengthening the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

In the interest of showing good will, let the sellers go first.

I'd rather see a law allowing various levels of coverage, including support for Health Savings Accounts (rather than the ridiculous limits on numbers that we currently have) and encouraging more major medical and high deductible plans.

"The motivation is abortion"

“The motivation is abortion,” says R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. “If the Supreme Court allows states to declare embryos as personhood, you would be in a position to say immediately that all abortions have to stop.”

LifeEthics covered this story a few days ago, but this quote deserves a second look - and repeating for the record.

The comment by (Robin) Alta Charo in the LA Times explains the opposition of "Resolve," the National Infertility Association, to Colorado's proposed State Constitutional Amendment 48. That Amendment reads,

“The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include any human from the time of fertilization.”

Here's an article on a rally in Colorado opposing the Amendment, led by Resolve.

The "foes" of the amendment are claiming that it would criminalize "several forms of contraception" and in vitro fertilization. However, I believe that IVF could be carried out in a manner that respects each individual begun that way, if each is treated as a human being deserving of life.

I'm quoted in Texas Monthly

Over the weekend, at the annual convention of the Texas Medical Association, a friend said that she'd read my quote in "Texas Monthly." I assumed she meant an old article in Texas Medicine, the journal of the Texas Medical Association. I was wrong. (And, maybe now I know why I can't get appointed to any of the TMA Councils or Committees!)

In an article titled, "Faith, Hope and Chastity," in the very liberal Texas Monthly the author (without contacting me at all, by the way) used a statement that I made at a 2004 Texas School Board hearing on the content of high school textbooks on sex education.

The board met to consider these textbooks in July and September of 2004. More than one hundred people testified or submitted written testimony. Those who testified in person were given three minutes each to make their case. According to Gordon Crofoot, a specialist in HIV and STD treatment and research, many of the board members appeared totally uninterested in his testimony. Crofoot cares for about one thousand patients in his practice in Houston and is currently seeing more young patients with HIV than he has in his 31 years of practice.

“These textbooks do not meet the criteria and are factually and scientifically incorrect in what they say,” he told the board, “but their major fault is in what they don’t say and the resulting consequences. . . . If we do nothing [about STDs], the direct cost over the next ten years would be $10.6 billion. Comprehensive sex education programs might reduce this cost by fifty percent. Can Texas afford this cost?”

Crofoot was cut off when his three minutes were up. He offered to answer any questions. The board had none. Later in the day, he watched as Beverly Nuckols, a family doctor in New Braunfels opposed to comprehensive sex ed, was asked about the implications of human papillomavirus for men. She answered that HPV affected women differently than men before stating her position that condom instruction, in her experience as a family doctor, would do little good. “Yesterday I saw a boy who had had three partners in the last month,” she said. “He’s had twenty-two partners. He’s eighteen. He uses condoms every time. Unfortunately, a lot of the times he’s drunk and so they break or they don’t work. I mean, condoms are not a solution for teenagers outside of monogamous relationships. They don’t use them right even if we teach them.”

I'm not quite sure why I was chosen as the representative of those who "opposed comprehensive sex ed." I can't quite remember telling the story, but I probably did -- however, I don't think I would say, "I mean . . ." In order to read it in the journal, you'd have to turn to the "continued on page 200-something." However, I believe that the story was to refute testimony that high school boys and girls should be taught that condoms are the answer to all risk from the consequences of sex. My more common story is to note that condoms are more likely to be used correctly by couples in a monogamous relationship, that couples get better as time goes on, and that if a hundred couples use condoms to prevent pregnancy, 11 of them will get pregnant within a year.

The part that I remember addressing was a comment from a nurse practitioner who stated that there was no risk of contracting the Human Papilloma Virus for a girl, if the male wore a condom. The concern, according to her, is the infection of the girl's cervix. This was about the time that the public was becoming aware that cervical cancer is caused by HPV 99% of the time. According to the nurse, the tip of the penis when covered by the condom wouldn't actually touch the cervix. I felt compelled to delicately explain that the most common human sexual activity involves ins and outs, and that there is much more contact and potential for spread of the virus to all of the male and female genitalia -- except for the parts actually covered by the condom.

Let me correct one thing: I'm not against comprehensive sex education. I disagree with some people about the definition of "comprehensive," and believe that anything beyond the basics of very boring biology - the medical and legal responsibilities of human sexual activity - ought to be vetted by the parents in the local school districts. The school is not the place to teach methods and techniques and condoms are not the panacea they're far too often made out to be.

I do believe that the State (schools) should encourage sex within monogamous marriage, since that is the healthiest for individuals, families and their children, and for the taxpayer. While some people do very well in different arrangements, it takes a lot more work and the risks are far greater.