Debunking the Debunkers

What follows below is a letter from a doctor and/or scientist who talks about scientific observations, complete with links to reputable sources of data, concerning observations in humans and animals when stress is experienced by the subject.

Since the letter, with its references, is a bit long, I start with some excepts followed by the entire letter itself. I hope that you glean from this letter that those who have debunked Todd Akin for making a statement that  "legitimate" "forcible" rape can inhibit pregnancy is not fanciful.  Akin, having realized later that he should have used the word "forcible" instead of "legitimate", I have made that correction.
So that this letter is intended to debunk those who say there is no connection between rape and inhibition of pregnancy.

The thing to keep in mind here is, as the author suggests, that the statements made in his letter are factual in terms of scientific observations made, but the issue of inhibition of pregnancy "remains controversial because the exact mechanism has not been elucidated".  

Letter with Excerpts:

Dear Congressman Aiken, (sic)

It’s unfortunate that the fate of a nation my (sic)  hang on the use of a single word. But that appears to be the case in your recent use of the word ‘legitimate’ rather than the eminently defensible word ‘forcible’. More unfortunate is that your apology was ill conceived by totally renouncing the concept rather than clarifying the categorization of rape.

You are correct in making the distinction between forcible and non-forced rape. Studies have shown that then is an approximate 1% pregnancy rate in cases of forcible rape, in contradistinction to close to a 5% pregnancy rate in cases where the rape was not associated with physical force. 

When one examines the medical and veterinary literature, there is strong support for stress induced delay in pregnancy or suppression of conception. This remains controversial because the exact mechanism has not been elucidated.

More recently, studies have evaluated effects of cortisol and adrenaline by measuring salivary secretions in women. This study demonstrated a relationship between adrenaline (the ‘fight or flight’ hormone) but not cortisol. Again, suggesting that high levels of adrenaline – as would be expected in a forcible rape - might indeed decrease rates of conception. 

A German veterinary paper, Pferdeheilkunde 24 (2008) 1 (Januar/Februar) 99-102 found that even transporting mares was sufficient stress to temporarily effect fertility. So, it is certainly plausible that the severe stress of forcible rape could reduce fertility. 

While I wish that you had used the correct word – forcible, rather than legitimate – I wish even more that you had explained the medical basis for the statement, rather than abandoning your statement to appease those who desire nothing more than a political victory.

I wish you well in your future decisions but hope that you will not be so ready to abandon your beliefs, and medical facts, to attempt to please those who cannot be pleased.

Letter in Full:

An open Letter to all who have ears to hear

From: Philip H Moore

Re: Todd Akin Controversy

Contact: phenrymoore@yahoo.com

August 22, 2012

An open letter to all my friends, family members, Republicans, conservatives, and pro-lifers who have ears willing to hear, open minds to reason with,

My name is Philip Moore.  All my life I have been a Republican, a pro-lifer and a conservative. I am a retired teacher of math and physics for 44 years at a community college on Oahu in Hawaii. In 1980 I began what I shall call my political life, first in supporting Ronald Reagan for president and then taking the leadership of Hawaii Right to Life as its president in1984 until 2009 when I retired.  While I taught math and physics, I have always been interested in history and politics. 

  

There is something, regarding politics, of vital importance I must say. It‘s importance requires my reaching those ears who have a major say in what goes on in our politics nationally.  But I lack the stature to reach and be heard by those who have the stature to influence others through their political office or their shows on electronic media.  So I send this letter to everyone I can think of.  What I have to say is simply this:

TODD AKIN AND HIS GAFF IS NOT THE ISSUE!

UNFORTUNATELY HE IS BEING MADE THE ISSUE 

BY SEEMINGLY EVERY REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN

BY SEEMINGLY EVERY CONSERVATIVE TV AND RADIO TALK SHOW HOST

BY SEEMINGLY EVERY CONSERVATIVE OPINION WRITER AND GUEST ON TV AND RADIO 

           with one exception I found − Cal Thomas on Fox News

THE REAL ISSUE IS − RAPE CAN NEVER BE USED AS A REASON TO ABORT AN UNBORN CHILD.

Congressman Todd Akin fell into a trap.  Maybe he’s a guy prone to gaffs like Biden.  But he did no evil.  Whether he stays in the race or not is not as important as using the swirling controversy to establish and effectively communicate the real issue that rape is always a crime against women but any child resulting from a rape may not be killed.

Notice I did nothing to qualify rape; it is always a brutal crime against a woman and the rapist is the worst type of criminal.  But should the child be killed if the woman becomes pregnant?  Is the child guilty of a crime punishable by death?  What happens if an exception for rape is included in legislation so that an abortion is permissible if a women is raped, BUT a woman claims rape when it was really consensual intercourse? 

These questions were answered by pro-lifers long ago by excluding rape as an exception in any right to life law to be passed by congress.  (Our nominee for president , Mitt Romney, thinks otherwise and has said he wants a rape exception?  Mr. Romney, do you really believe an unborn baby resulting from rape should have its life terminated?) The only exception currently included in any right to life bill is a threat to the life of the mother.

Here’s a link to a man of courage who, being born after rape, sees the wrong in bashing Akin and wants him to stay in the race:  http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/22/as-someone-born-after-rape-i-say-todd-akin-shouldnt-step-aside

So, my appeal is: Don't focus on Akin and thereby give the Obama Left an issue that really is ours.  What would be a real disaster is to allow the Akin controversy to weaken the Pro-Life plank in the Platform to include a rape exception.  This would simply amount to Abortion on Demand.

THE REAL ISSUE IS: RAPE CAN NEVER BE USED AS A REASON TO KILL AN UNBORN CHILD.

Sincerely,  Phil Moore

OMG, What is Wrong with Republicans and Pro-Life Supporters?

The battle over abortion, killing a baby within a mother's womb, has on one side the so-called progressives (with their Commander in Chief, Obama), that is, the Left, giving support to the presumed legality of killing the unborn based upon the Supreme Court decision Roe vs Wade in 1973.  On the other side are the pro-lifers, those who take the position that aborting an infant from the womb with the intention of terminating the life of the child is always morally wrong.  This battle has been raging for 39 years.  At present the pro-life side, with its legal and political fighters is set on passing a Human Life Amendment that will make abortion illegal except under certain exceptions; at present there is only one exception - a threat to the life of the mother.

It has been my good fortune to have been president of Hawaii Right to Life from 1984 until 2009. During my tenure as president there were many battles that we had to fight with our Democrat legislature. We also had to make it clear to other pro-lifers, that in considering whether abortion could be said to be legitimate in certain cases, we were brought to the conclusion that in no case could abortion be morally acceptable; to directly kill a child in the womb is always wrong.

But many pro-lifers felt a need to consider rape and the life of the mother to be legitimate reasons for abortion. In the case of the life of the mother, so rarely does such a threat actually arise that some pro-lifers felt that a Human Life Amendment with the life of the mother as being the only exception was considered unnecessary.  However, since this situation would rarely arise it was considered better to avoid controversy and allow this one exception.  Such is the case with the Human Life Amendment embodied in the Republican Platform.

In the case of rape, however, it was quickly realized that any woman who wanted an abortion could claim rape; and proving whether rape actually occurred or not would be practically impossible (this is what Senator Akin was really trying to say - his words "legitimate rape" were really meant to mean a case where a woman was forcibly raped and no consent was given by her).  Since it would be difficult to prove "forcible rape with no consent" from a woman's consentual  intercourse claimed by her to be forcible rape, rape could not be used as an exception.

So this is the issue!  Rape cannot be used as an excuse for abortion in a human life amendment because of the possibility of fraud on the part of a woman wanting an abortion and fraudulently claiming rape. It is simply unfortunate that the way Congressman Akin got into the detail about whether the rape was "legitimate", i.e., "forcible rape with no consent" or "a woman's consentual  intercourse claimed by her to be forcible rape" or whether forcible rape seldom results in pregnancy or not are issues that were discussed and settled by pro-lifers long ago and resulted in rape as an exception to the legal construction of a human life amendment being determined unacceptable.

This matter should not have even been discussed and was complicated enough that Akin unknowingly fell into a trap which gave an opening to progressives to attack pro-lifers as being warriors against women.  So Congressman Akin did not say anything that was insulting to women in any way; his only wrongdoing was trying to explain an issue, complicated enough, that if not well explained would land him in hot water.

My anger over outright deceit, in dealing with this issue, falls on those Republican elites in the Republican Party leadership who scream for Akin's head because they are complicit with the progressives in using this issue to tamper with the Right to Life amendment in the Republican Party Platform at the cost of possibly helping re-elect Barrack Obama.

My anger must also fall upon our chosen leader Mitt Romney.  Mr. Romney, by asking Todd Akin to resign, you have opened up the question of us pro-life conservatives as to how much you really understand about the politics of conservatives.

My anger also falls upon those who should know better but perhaps can be excused because they have not been in the trenches fighting every pro-life battle in National Right to Life and its State affiliates like myself to know these pro-life issues inside out.  Seeing my favorites like Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity, just to name a couple, coming to the wrong decision about Akin has saddened me greatly.

Now, Mr Hannity, not everything is ruined.  We need to do the right thing and we can hang an albatross
around those progressive necks.

We simply have to explain this issue from the point of view of any rape exception to our Human Life plank being fraught with the possibility of fraud. Do not ask Akin to resign; instead back him up for trying and now that this SOCIAL ISSUE is out there being driven by the progressives, just change the rhetoric to bring out the reason why there can be no exception for rape in a human life amendment.  In other words it's always wrong to kill an unborn child who comes into this world from their mother's rape.  There are many well known people who but for the courage of their mothers would not have been among us.

Do this and we'll all be free of Obama and his progressives.

Newsweek cover to Obama "Hit the road Barack"

Peter Bella gives an excellent review of the new Newsweek Cover and the article within by Newsweek columnist and Harvard professor, Niall Ferguson who has written a candid and unflattering view of who this Barack Obama really is.
Peter's article describes the possible reasons why Newsweek has ventured into this new area of taking a conservative or right wing position rather than the single-minded position of THE MEDIA, with the exception of Fox News, on the Left and only on the Left with no attempt at giving both sides of a story and letting readers decide.

It is refreshing to see an accurate expose' of what the MEDIA is and what it is not but should be.  Journalism and Journalists should be about delving into a story to get at the truth, even if the truth can only be seen by giving an audience of readers or watchers of video, movie and film as much detail as possible, and not deal out propaganda by not disclosing vital facts.

What we conservatives know and Mr. Bella describes effectively is the current situation in which the MEDIA expounds only the propaganda of the Left with its tendency to bolster its lies with the horrible tactic of personal destruction of the lives of those who oppose the Left.

Peter Bella Hopes, as we all hope that this issue of Newsweek will not be just an isolated incident.  Our country is in a perilous position and cannot tolerate another four years of this president who utterly disdains the greatness of America and wants to bring it down to a godless state in which love of God, liberty and country as envisioned by our founding fathers will be long forgotten.


Peter V. Bella is a retired Chicago Police Officer, freelance journalist and photojournalist, cook, and raconteur. 

Click on the following link:
Newsweek cover to Obama "Hit the road Barack"

How Important the Election of 2012 in America is

How Important the Election of 2012 in America is

Having just now arrived home from the theater in which I saw the film 2016, I can better understand the kind of president we have in Barack Obama.  It was not clear to me, before seeing this film, what the driving motivation of this man is.  I knew from many things he has done that the “change” he promised, when he took office, does not involve change that is good for America. He has spent money we did not have and has increased our debt to such an extent that many say in the near future we will be in a total financial collapse. He has weakened our military. He has done foolish things that make our allies question whether they can put their trust in America.

Many people are out of work.  Many cities contain areas of desolation with businesses closed, with people disillusioned and without hope. Who is this man we call our president? Where did he come from? Why is he doing the things that he is doing which seem to bring destruction rather than progress. He labels himself a progressive as many of his fellow supporters in Congress label themselves. Is he a socialist? Is he a Marxist? Is he a communist? What is he really trying to do with America? What are his beliefs that motivate him?

This movie, 2016, has revealed to me what his inner motives are that are hidden from all of us who are concerned about the direction he is taking us. The single most important fact that one can draw from this movie is that he sees the world, the Western world, as having been derived from the oppression of colonial empires.  As Obama sees it, colonial empires, especially the British Empire, have subjugated peoples, taken their wealth and used it for their own profit, leaving the people, after they have left, destitute. Whether this is true or not, and if true, to what extent it is true does not matter to Obama and others, like him, who see the development of the world in this way.

Though America has never been a colonial power (the Philippine Islands were never a colony of ours), our president still sees, especially in the Middle East, our involvement there as our desire to keep in power those who would ensure a flow of oil to America. Thus he sees America as he sees the British − a colonial power. He believes that colonialism, and especially those powers who have been engaged in it, must be destroyed and replaced with the state, no longer based on Western thought, which no longer believes in Christianity.

The way, Obama believes, to destroy these Western powers of colonialism is to bring them to financial ruin. The way President Obama thinks about America is that it must be brought to financial ruin and replaced by a godless state that will be able to join with other nations who likewise will or already have been brought to financial ruin and which are controlled by a godless state far from Christianity and Western thought. Israel, while not itself a Christian nation but is the forerunner of Christianity, is seen by the anti-colonialists as the power that has brought about oppression to the Middle East and hence must be destroyed.

Islam, in the eyes of the president, is seen as a power that wants to see the middle east countries brought out of the control of Western colonial powers. He does not see them as a terror threat. The world he envisions for America is not the America of our founding fathers, of our Constitution, of our Declaration of Independence.

Should he be reelected president of the United States in 2012 we will see the real Barack Obama, the hater of America as founded upon the Constitution and our Founding Fathers.  Those who will have voted for him will be subject to the “real change” he has been talking about.  America will become a godless state controlled by those who are in unison with his ideas of the world, many of them communists, freethinkers, godless and those who have never thought of America as the bastion of freedom in the world.

Be sure and see this film 2016 and draw your own conclusions.  Below is a trailer for the movie "2016 Obama's America" narrated and produced by Dinesh D'Souza.  Click on this link to read about Barack Obama and how he cares for his brother in Kenya.

.