LifeSite Is Just Embarrassing Itself: Fetal Pain Redux

They really got nuthin'.

Look at this from yesterday's LieShite.

The Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA] is facing calls to retract a 2005 study that pro-lifers have labeled a “propaganda tool” for abortion activists.

In 2016, fetus freaks are attacking a study from 2005 still deployed to refute the BAD (biased, agenda-driven) science used to pass "fetal pain" laws, lowering abortion term limits and/or imposing idiotic protocols on providers, as recently in Utah.

What do the fetus freaks offer in support of their contention that fetuses do too feel pain?

Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into fetal pain. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for unborn pain.

He has testified before Congress in the past that an unborn child could feel pain at “eight-and-a-half weeks and possibly earlier” and that a baby before birth “under the right circumstances, is capable of crying.”

That seemed eerily familiar. Look what I found from 2010, also at LieShite.

Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into the concept of fetal pain and published the first reports in the 1980s to validate research show [sic] evidence for it.

He has testified before Congress that an unborn child could feel pain at "eight-and-a-half weeks and possibly earlier" and that a baby before birth "under the right circumstances, is capable of crying."

More bells started ringing in my old brain. Yes! I had trashed Dr. Zielinksi's rep here in 2012.

But, maybe the doc has been up to more recent stuff. After all, I can find no reference to him beyond 1986, thirty years ago.

I googled "Steven Zielinski Oregon fetal pain" and got this.

Amusingly, DJ!'s 2012 trashing is eighth on the first page in an otherwise exclusive club of fetus fetishist sites. All of which refer to him as "one of the leading researchers into fetal pain."

Let's consult some real scientists, shall we? Here's Live Science, on May 17, 2016, speaking with "a leading expert on fetal pain," Dr. Anne Davis, OB/GYN and associate professor at Columbia University Medical Center, who appears a tad more impressive than the elusive Dr. Zielinski.

She says the 2005 JAMA study, now under SHRIEEK attack from the freaks, is still valid. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has also recently reaffirmed the study, saying "no research has contradicted its findings."

No new research. Same old bullshit references. Almost identical wording. Their "leading researcher into fetal pain" still MIA after thirty years.

They got nuthin'. But as long as they keep trotting this crap out, I'll be watching.


Previous DJ! posts on "fetal pain" and BAD science.

Pity the Poor Canadian Anti-Choice Movement: Lost and Losing

I've been thinking about the Canadian fetus freak movement lately and how despondent they must be. I mean, they've had absolutely no wins here and some -- admittedly minor -- defeats (see New Brunswick, PEI, and Ontario).

Yes, they litter the landscape with their idiotic underground fetus flags and gory postcards, but really, what have they got to show for their relentless SHRIEEEKING?

As compared to the US, where fetus freaks have been having an orgy of misogyny for the past four or five years.

I watch this stuff and even I get waaaay behind. This recent one, from Wisconsin, takes a cake of some kind.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said this week that he would sign a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy that does not contain exceptions for rape and incest victims, if the bill reaches his desk. The measure also contains a less-discussed provision that would allow the father to sue the doctor for "emotional and psychological distress" if he disagrees with the abortion, regardless of his relationship with the woman having the procedure.

Got that? Some rando guy can sue a doctor for performing an abortion on some woman he may or may not have had sex with. Reports did not detail whether DNA tests would be required.

The USian anti-choice festival includes all kinds of legislation on extended waiting periods, mandated lying by doctors, bans on telemed abortions, bans on certain methods of abortion, vicious parental notification rules, hyped up "safety" requirements for clinics, totally bogus claims of "fetal pain," egregious funding cuts for healthcare orgs that might possibly, sometime, maybe discuss abortion with patients.

Et fucking cetera.

Here in Canada, they got bupkis.

So, the latest fundraising SHRIEEEK from LieSite titled "Don’t Be Silent!"struck me as funny. (There is randomly strewn bold in this that I'm too lazy to reproduce.)

We can no longer afford to deny the hard truth: the threats to the freedoms of Canadians like you and me who believe in the sanctity of life and the traditional family are growing every day. 

Right now the push to implement Wynne’s sex-ed curriculum is in high gear, the legalization of euthanasia country-wide is on our doorsteps, and abortion extremists have even taken away the rights of pro-life doctors in Ontario to refuse to refer for abortions!

Now, more than ever, the unique investigative reporting of LifeSite is needed to combat the manipulation of the mainstream media and the growing anti-life and anti-family sentiments across Canada.  

However, with only 10 days remaining in our summer fundraising campaign,we have only raised $8,000 towards our absolutely minimum goal of $200,000.

Summer fundraising campaign? They have one for each season? Meaning they need to raise $800,000 a year?

Wow. That's a lot of dough to raise when you've got absolutely nothing to show for it.

A couple of weeks ago, I was also amused by the Fetal Gore Gang's revisiting of their three-year old wet squib of a campaign to appropriate the historic Abortion Caravan.

That might have been better titled "How we tried to hijack a prochoice icon and then got lost in Ottawa somewhere and failed to show up for the grand finale to the great amusement of our critics."

But on further reflection, I realized that the fetus freaks have had a recent victory.

They singlehandedly elected weirdo Patrick Brown as leader of the Ontario Conservative Party. (I refuse to put the word "progressive" in there.)

If you're interested in Ontario politics and/or grassroots organizing, read that Interim article.

Ontario zygote zealots were stoked that they had TWO double-plus good fetus freak candidates, Brown and McNaughton, contesting all-but-annointed Christine Elliott.

Then the dirty tricks started.

The week before the vote, pro-lifers began receiving a flyer from Concerned Conservatives of Ontario, which claimed Brown was not pro-life or pro-family, going so far as to attack him for being a bachelor without kids who could not understand family issues. CLC’s [Campaign Life Coalition] Jeff Gunnarson told The Interim this was a dirty trick, probably carried out by the Elliott campaign or one of her supporters.

CLC contacted their supporters with mailings, email reminders, and a voice blast urging them to vote for Brown and ignore the bogus Concerned Conservatives letter.
…

CLC supporters came out in force. McNaughton told The Interim in April that pro-life and pro-family voters were the most motivated to vote in the leadership, and it appears he was correct. According to numerous sources within the Brown campaign, their voter identification efforts found that about three-quarters of CLC supporters who bought a membership voted in the leadership contest. That, as one put it, “is an astonishingly high number.”

YAY! Congratulations, anti-choice. For as long as Brown is leader, you've guaranteed a non-Conservative government in Ontario.

Image source.

Lying Costs! Send Money!

Regular readers of DJ! know that we are not keen on much to do with the Vatican Taliban here, with one exception, Raymond Gravel.

Seems he was a tad ticked at being called 'pro-abortion' by LifeShite, so he sued.

Today we learn that the case is going to trial.

A libel and defamation lawsuit against LifeSiteNews.com, filed by Canadian priest Father Raymond Gravel who describes himself as “pro-choice,” will go to trial.

Fr. Gravel claims that LifeSiteNews' depiction of him in the agency's news articles as “pro-abortion” is libelous, because he says he is “pro-choice” but does not support abortion per se.

In response to the advancement of the case, LifeSiteNews editor John-Henry Westen called the move “a grave danger to freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, not only in Canada, but in North America.”

Freedom is in grave danger! Send money!

Fr. Gravel claims that LifeSiteNews' reporting about him ruined his reputation as a politician and priest. He seeks damages of 500,000 Canadian dollars, or about $492,000, as well as costs.

On Jan. 11 a Quebec judge ruled that the lawsuit can advance to trial, dismissing the claims of LifeSiteNews that Fr. Gravel is merely intending to gag them.

The damages sought by Fr. Gravel are identical to a full year's budget for the site, according to its editors. It has already spent some $170,000 on the suit.

Waaah.

And its USian cousin better start raising some big bucks to defend against a potential? probable? suit by Dr LeRoy Carhart over this bit of libel.


ADDED: More details on the Gravel case. Also a wrinkle: defamation law is somewhat different in Quebec.

LifeShite Libels Dr Carhart

I am not a lawyer, but this isn't libel I'll eat my hat.

Dr Carhart should sue.

BREAKING! LifeShite Lies!

In addition to the scourges of breast cancer, infertility, and insanity, tireless fetus fetishists scientists spinners have discovered yet another tragic sequela of abortion!

Abortion causes violence against women.

Except. Well. No. They've got it exactly bass-ackwards. (emphasis mine)

Because of this basic disregard for women’s well-being, I worried that anti-choicers would immediately start angling to find a way to use this study to try to bully abused women out of getting abortions those women deem necessary.  And sure enough, that’s exactly what happened. Life News deliberately lied about the research to make it seem that the abortion came before the abuse for these women, implying that the women brought violence onto themselves by choosing abortion.  In reality, of course, the abuse predated the abortion in all of these cases, which were taking the histories of women getting abortions.  By implying that the violence came after the abortion, Life News joins forces with wife beaters everywhere by using the threat of violence to control women’s bodies.

And this is why anti-choice claims to be “pro-woman” are so laughable.  You cannot be pro-woman while using the threat of domestic violence to control women’s reproductive choices.  You cannot be pro-woman while telling women lies about domestic violence and pregnancy in hopes they make choices that will usually end up putting them in more danger.  You cannot be pro-woman when you distort the realities of abortion and domestic violence in ways that will, if you’re successful, lead perhaps to fewer abortions but certainly towards more beaten and even murdered women.

The LifeShite article also lied about the participation of Planned Parenthood; it was part of the study. Its chief operating officer was an author, for cripes' sake.

LifeShite also said that PP doesn't screen for these situations or for 'coerced abortions'.

From a credible link:

Studies such as this can help portray abused women in a more positive and empowered light, said Penny Dickey, a study author and Planned Parenthood’s chief operating officer.

She said Planned Parenthood has done brief general screenings of its patients for about the last 10 years, and it will continue to “in an effort to figure out how to provide help for patients who are suffering, so that they know where to go and from whom to seek help.”

I have a feeling this is going to grow legs among the hypocritical 'pro-woman/pro-life' gang. Mrozek will be on it any second.

(Yeesh. Do NOT google images for 'wife beater'.)

h/t for RH Reality Check link to JJ

Shocking New Poll: Canadians Fine with Status Quo on Abortion!

So, LifeShite is SHRIEEKING about its latest poll under this headline: Canada: Poll Shows 72% Want Pro-Life Protections for Unborn.

(One wonders, in passing, what 'pro-life' protections are. As opposed to what other kinds of protections? Helmets? Identity theft?)

As usual, there is some flummery in how they get that number. Basically they throw out the protection 'at birth' and the 'don't give a shit' numbers, add the rest together and get 72%!!!!!11!!!

Here's how the numbers break down.

Human life should be protected:
at conception: 28%
from 2 months on: 17%
from 3 months on: 17%
from 6 months on: 10%
at birth: 20%
don't give a shit: 9%

Of course, the wording of the question is always interesting. There's a link at LifeShite to the PDF where I found this.

Q.5 This question concerns the development of human life before birth. According to medical research, a fetal heart begins to beat about three weeks after conception. Brain waves can be detected within two months after conception. By two months all organs and body parts are in place. In your opinion, at what point should the law protect human life?

Throw some misleading 'medical research' at people and ask them to pick a point in time. Say nothing about fetal viability, which is the stage that some sane people think is worth considering. But it's tricky.

There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable. According to data years 2003-2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500g (17.6 ounces) to survive.

I wonder how the answers would have gone if the question had been something like this: 'Medical research shows that very premature babies cost the medical system boatloads of money, and even then, premies have poor survival rates and high risk of lifelong health problems. In your opinion, at what point should the healthcare system be on the hook for bazillions of dollars?'

Who came up with that bullshit question? Oh. Look. From Environics' PDF:

QUESTION DESIGN
The questions were designed by senior Environics researchers in conjunction with representatives from LifeCanada. The questions were pre-tested as part of the overall survey, prior to being finalized.

Translation: We put our top people on this 'fleecing the fetus fetishists' gambit.

Fetus fetishists were probably less happy with the legality question. A whopping 68% think abortion is fine in the first three months, which, not surprisingly, is within the timeframe of over 90% of abortions.

In other words, a solid majority of Canadians are A-OK with the status quo.

As we said back in April 2010, despite the Manning Centre's and abortion criminalizers' wishful thinking, Canada remains pro-choice and socially liberal. A fact that has remained virtually unchanged for the past decade.