Justice For Kids

Chapter 3: Dr. David Grimes debunked

                                                                           1 November 2015

Chapter 3: Debunking Abortion-Preemie Denial by

                  Grimes et al.

 

How is Abortion-Preemie Denial Possible?

 

     On 16 January 2006 (10:15 A.M.) the Editor-in-Chief of

the British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Dr. Philip

Steer, conceded that the evidence supporting the raised risk

of preterm labour due to prior abortions ('TOPs'

(Terminations Of Pregnancies)) is, his own word,

overwhelming”. [A copy of Dr. Steer's email admission

to me at <whatsup@vcn.bc.ca> on 16 Jan. 2006 is an

attachment to a Brent Rooney affidavit sworn on 28 May

2007] Dr. Steer's admission was 3 years before the first 2

ever systematic reviews of the abortion-preemie risk were

published in 2009, both 'study of studies' validating this

very serious risk.[A1, Shah; A2, Swingle] So, as of October

2009 the abortion-preemie risk rose a step or 2 above

overwhelming” to become SETTLED SCIENCE. Systematic

reviews, according to Harvard University professors Dr.

Robert Fletcher and Dr. Suzanne Fletcher provide the highest

confidence, pro or con, about a purported risk factor.[A3,

Fletcher] The 'Shah' & 'Swingle' 'study of studies' confirmed

the 2007 Institute of Medicine (IoM) finding that one of 14

Immutable Medical Risk Factors Associated with Preterm

Birth” is “Prior first trimester induced abortion”; URL:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625

[A4, Behrman]

 

     The June 2015 Huffington Post article by David A. Grimes

warmed over his main argument against any abortion-preemie

risk: women with prior induced abortions (IAs) are more likely

to have other 'preemie' risks than women without prior IAs.

[A5, Grimes] Grimes implies that premature birth researchers

are not smart enough to adjust for these other 'preemie' risks

purportedly more common among women with previous IAs.

Consider the 1992 Margaret T. Mandelson et al. study of

Low-Birth-Weight (under 2,500 grams), a surrogate risk of

preterm delivery. 'Mandelson' adjusted for higher smoking

risk for women with prior IAs. Despite this and other

adjustments, 'Mandelson' found that women with one or more

IAs before a first delivery increased their babies' LBW risk by

20% to 60%” (ie. roughly 40% higher risk of Low-Birth-

Weight on average).[A6, Mandelson]

     In his June 2015 Huffington Post article David Grimes

never even suggests the possibility that abortion-preemie

studies are OVER adjusted, meaning that they make

unjustified adjustments, thus producing risk numbers lower

than they should be. On average, women with prior IAs (&

especially multiple prior IAs) have higher maternal ages at

delivery than women with zero prior IAs. So, in abortion-

preemie studies there should absolutely NOT be any

adjustment of risk numbers for women with IAs having higher

maternal age. But 'Mandelson' et al., while they acknowledged

that women with previous abortions had higher average

maternal age, still went ahead and made the clearly

unscientific adjustment for higher maternal age for women

with prior induced abortions.[A6, Mandelson]

One more point about the 'Mandelson' 1992 study.

Margaret Mandelson & colleagues never considered in their

study that induced abortions could be a risk factor to make

women more likely to start smoking or to increase the

number of cigarettes smoked daily. Substance abuse is

a risk factor for premature delivery and Cerebral Palsy.

 

The study David A. Grimes most fears to mention

 

     What is 'Incompetent CErvix ('ICE') and why is it

important? The cervix is the neck-like lower portion of the

womb. If the cervix has been mechanically damaged, it is

very likely to open up too early in a woman's pregnancy,

thus leading to a preterm delivery. In a 2010 study in medical

journal Human Reproduction [A7, Anum] it was revealed that

the more prior IAs a woman has, the higher her 'ICE' risk:

IAs               1                  2                    3                   4+

O.R.            2.49           4.66              8.07            12.36

95% CI (2.23-2.77)  (4.07-5.33)   (6.77-9.61)       (10.19-15.00)

 

These risk numbers, starting at nearly 2 1/2 times the 'ICE' risk

for one prior IA to over 12 times the 'ICE' risk for more than

3 prior IAs can not be explained away by David A Grimes

or anyone else. So, they will NOT be addressed by Grimes and

his ilk.

 

'Pro-Choice' Judith Lumley (PhD) smashes David Grimes'

Denial

 

     Judith Lumley (PhD) is a top level premature birth expert

with her studies published in well regarded medical journals

and she often spouted 'pro-choice' rhetoric when interviewed

by newspapers. Contrast Judith Lumley (PhD) with Dr. David

Grimes who has zero premature birth studies published in

peer-reviewed medical journals. In a 1993 published study

Lumley addressed the 'other factors' issue (medical jargon for

this is termed “confounding”) relative to the abortion-preemie

risk. Although extremely preterm newborns (under 28 weeks'

gestation) represent only about 6 out of every U.S. 1,000

births, this group is important, since they have 129 times the

CP (Cerebral Palsy) risk as full-term newborns. According to

Judith Lumley (PhD), when a woman has 2, 3, or more prior

IAs, her risk of a later extremely preterm delivery is so high

that “the [preterm birth] association is most unlikely to be

explained by confounding factors of a sociodemographic

kind.”[A8, Lumley] [* see the note below for the FULL

Lumley quote] Thus, 'pro-choice' Judith Lumley trumps

David A. Grimes who has no numbers to support his rants.

Still waiting for Grimes to publish a 'preemie' study in a

peer-reviewed medical journal.

 

The BURDEN of PROOF is on David A. Grimes

 

     No published study in a peer-reviewed medical journal

has ever demonstrated beyond doubt the prior induced

abortions do not raise future risk of premature deliveries. It

is very unlikely that Grimes can present very strong evidence

that previous abortion do not raise 'preemie' risk. Grimes has

not even demonstrated that he should be considered an expert

in the premature birth risk field. A real 'preemie' expert

convinced that there is no abortion-preemie risk needs to

explain away an astounding risk revealed by Judith Lumley

(PhD) in a 1998 study.[A9, Lumley] Australian Lumley found

that Australian women with more than 3 prior IAs have NINE

9 times the risk of an extremely preterm delivery as Australian

women with zero previous IAs.[A9, Lumley] Ie. more than

3 prior IAs boost relative risk of a future delivery under 28

weeks' gestation by 800%. This extremely challenging

number from 'pro-choice' Judith Lumley (PhD) will not be

addressed by APB deniers any time soon.

 

67 Million to One

     If you tossed an 'honest' coin (heads on one side & tails

on the reverse side) 26 times in a row, what are the odds that

each & every toss of 26 results in heads? Answer: 67 million

to one against this unbelievable sequence. So what? For

just a minute or 2 assume that prior IAs neither significantly

increase nor significantly decrease a woman's risk of a later

very preterm birth (between 28.0 & 32.0 weeks' gestation).

However, just by an unlucky data sample a study can still

find that a 'non-risk-factor' appears to be a significant risk

factor (this is NOT a rare occurrence in medical studies) or a

significant risk reducer. For the abortion-VERY-preterm-birth

risk there are 26 studies that achieved statistical significance.

Is there an approximate even division of the 26, with 13

reporting higher VPB risk and 13 finding lower VPB risk?

No!! 100% of these 26 statistically significant studies

reported higher VPB risk or higher VLBW risk. If IAs are

NOT a VPB (Very-Preterm-Birth) risk, or its surrogate,

Very-Low-Birth-Weight (under 1,500 grams) risk, the odds

of 100% of 26 significant studies finding higher risk is 67

million to one against it. So the temporary assumption that

prior IAs have no affect on future VPB risk or future VLBW

risk must be tossed into the 'assumption trash can'.

 

Please do not mention: Informed Medical Consent

 

     In the June 2015 Grimes' H.P. article the topic of Informed

Medical Consent is never raised. Within the ranks of the

[British] Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists

are many abortion doctors. Despite this in 2011 the Royal

College admitted that women should be informed about

abortion-preemie risk:

 

     “Women should be informed that induced abortion is

    associated with a small increase in the risk of subsequent

    preterm birth, which increases with the number of abortions.

    However, there is insufficient evidence to imply causality.”

    [A10, Royal College]

 

Nowhere in Grimes' H.P. article does he write that women

should be informed of any risk association. Additionally, since

prior abortions have never been demonstrated NOT to boost

future preterm birth risk, the Burden of Proof remains on abortion

providers to show that prior IAs do NOT raise future preterm

delivery risk.

 

It ain't bragging, if you've done it”

 

     James Dines uses the expression “a cat in gloves catches no

mice”. So I'll 'put on my gloves' and say that in contrast to

Dr. David A. Grimes, with zero medical journal premature birth

studies to his credit, Brent Rooney (MSc) has the following

credits in the premature birth risk field:

 

- Lead author of two (2) premature birth studies.[A11, A12]

   The 2008 study (A11) was the first ever to show that

   100% of 'suction' abortions violate principle 3 of the 1947

   Nuremberg Code and was also the first ever to demonstrate

   that a major cause of the very high Black-American

   preterm birth rate was an induced abortion rate more

   than 4 times that of non-Black women.

- Co-author of a third premature birth study.[A13]

- A world's first: in the 2nd quarter of 2001 via a 'letter to

  the editor' B.R. demonstrated that prior induced abortions

  were a credible risk for a woman to have a future premature

  baby with Cerebral Palsy.[A14]

 

........................................................................................................

 

  • Quote from the 1993 Judith Lumley (PhD) study:

The associations are different in the three gestation

categories (20-27, 28-31, and 32-36 weeks), being particularly

striking for births before 28 weeks. In this category, there is

also evidence for the does-response relationship between number

of prior lost pregnancies and the prevalence of preterm birth:

relative risks of 1.66 and 1.55 for one spontaneous or induced

abortion, of 2.94 and 2.46 for two, and of 5.89 and 5.58 for three

or more. These last four relative risks are substantially greater

than those associated with maternal age, marital status, parity or

socio-economic status: that is, the association is most unlikely

to be explained by confounding factors of a sociodemographic

kind.” [A8, Lumley]

 

References:

 

A1 Shah PS, Zao J. Induced termination of pregnancy and low

birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-

analysis. BJOG 2009;116:1425-1442. [URL:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02278.x/pdf ]

 

A2 Swingle HM, Colaizy TT, Zimmerman MB, et al Abortion

and the risk of subsequent preterm birth: a systematic review

and meta-analysis. J Reproductive Med 2009;54:95-108.

[ URL: http://johnrodgerssmith.com/MedicalObservations/Swingle/JRM%20Swingle%20paper%202009.pdf ]

 

A3 [Book:] Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Clinical Epidemiology

The Essentials [Fourth Edition]. Lippincott Williams &

Wilkens, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2005

 

A4 Behrman RS, Butler AS, Alexandar GR. Preterm Birth:

Causes, Consequences, and Prevention. National Academy

Press, Washington DC (2007)

[URL: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625 ]

 

A5 David A Grimes: Abortion and Prematurity: A False Alarm.

Huffington Post 10 June 2016 [URL:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-grimes/abortion-and-prematurity-a-false-alarm_b_7511084.html ]

 

A6 June 2015 article by David Grimes in the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-grimes/abortion-and-prematurity-a-false-alarm_b_7511084.html


A6 Mandelson MT, Maden CP, Daling JR. Low Birth Weight
in Relation Multiple Induced Abortions. American J Public
Health 1992;82;391-394 [URL:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1694356/pdf/amjph00540-0065.pdf ]

A7 Emmanuel A. Anum, Haywood L. Brown, & Jerome F.
Strauss III. Health Disparities in risk for cervical insufficiency.

Human Reproduction Advance Access [Abstract URL:

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/deq177v1 ]

A8 Lumley J. The epidemiology of preterm birth. Bailliere's

Clinical Obstetrics Gynecology 1993;7(3):477-498

 

A9 Lumley J. The association between prior spontaneous abortion,

prior induced abortion and preterm birth in first singleton births.

Prenatal Neonatal Medicine 1998;3:21-24.

 

A10 Royal College of Obstitricians & Gynaecologists' abortion

guidelines URL:

https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/abortion-guideline_web_1.pdf


A11 Rooney B, Calhoun BC, Roche L. Does induced

abortion account for racial disparity in preterm births,

and violate the Nuremberg Code? J Am Phys Surg 2008;

13:102-104. [ URL:

http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf ]

 

A12 Rooney B, Calhoun BC. Induced Abortion and Risk of

Later Premature Birth. Journal American Physicians Surgeons

2003;8(2):46-49 [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf ]

 

A13 Calhoun BC, Shadigian E, Rooney B. Cost consequences

of induced abortion as an attributable risk for preterm birth

and informed consent. J Reprod Med 2007;52:929-939.

[Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=calhoun%20shadigian%20rooney]

 

A14 Rooney B. Elective surgery boosts cerebral palsy risk.

European Journal Obstetrics Gynecology Reproductive

Biology 2001;96(2):239-240


.................................................................................................................................................................................

[ End of Dr. Grimes debunked article]

 
 
 
 
Chapter 3 Justice For Kids Now 15 June 2009                           
Statements of Claim for ABD (Abortion Brain Damage) Law Suits
Brent Rooney (MSc)

If a person sues an abortion doctor for medical negligence resulting in brain damage,
he/she will file a 'Statement of Claim' which will list allegations against the doctor (and/
or associated clinic). Brent Rooney is NOT a lawyer, so it is necessary prudence for any-
one using information in this document to have a competent and trusted lawyer to verify
facts used from this document.) In a medical negligence law suit (as in any legal trial)
the plaintiff bears the BURDEN of PROOF INITIALLY, not the defendant. However, if
the plaintiff can establish certain facts to the satisfaction of the court, the BURDEN of
PROOF (BoP) can be switched from the plaintiff onto the defendant. In general, a plain-
tiff suing for medical negligence in the U.S. or Canada has less than a 30% chance of
winning the law suit, unless the plaintiff can switch the BoP onto the defendant doctor.

What are possible ways to switch the BoP onto the defendant? Here are two (2):
1. Convince the court that the IA (Induced Abortion) procedure was so strongly
contraindicated that the IA should not have been performed at all. AND/OR
2. Convince the court that a much safer alternative for the patient's health to the
IA procedure was not explained by the doctor to the plaintiff before the IA.

The vast majority of IAs performed in advanced countries are elective ( i.e. not
medically necessary ). An honest and properly briefed court must concede that an
ELECTIVE procedure that increases a woman's relative lifetime risk of breast cancer
by 20%-50% is strongly contraindicated; in slang language, such a medical treatment
would be termed quackery. Do IAs boost a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer?
For a full expose of the 'ABC' (Abortion Breast Cancer) riskS (there are at least two (2)
independent risks), visit the Breast Cancer Protection Institute website:
http://www.bcpinstitute.org .
In January 2005 a 'Miss F.B.' won a law suit in Portland, Oregon in which one of her
claims was (in paraphrase) 'put at increased risk of breast cancer without informed con-
sent'; her winning lawyer: Jonathan Clark (email: jonathan@jaclawoffice.com). More
about this case later in Chapter 5. Abortion supporters fiercely deny that there is any
ABC risk.What is not debatable among breast cancer researchers is that each one year
a young reproductive aged woman delays her first full-term delivery of a baby elevates
her relative breast cancer risk. How much? According to Harvard U. researchers,
including the towering research giant Dr. Brian MacMahon, the answer is a 3.5%
increase (compounded) boost in relative breast cancer for each 1 year delay in a First
Full-Term Pregnancy (FFTP).[Trichopoulos, 1] Thus:
__________________________________
Years Delay   Increase in Relative
in FFTP          Breast Cancer Risk
5                      19%
10                    41%
15                    68%
20                    99% (i.e. almost double the breast cancer risk)
_________________________________
Thus, IF the plaintiff's mother was a CHILDLESS woman (medical jargon: nulliparous) 
at the time of her IA, her lifetime breast cancer risk was elevated, since the IA assured
that she will be an older 'rookie mom' when she does deliver a baby. The world's top
ABC expert is Joel Brind (PhD); Brind provided expert advice to the winning lawyer in
the 2005 Portland, Oregon law suit. Joel Brind may be contacted through the BCPI web-
site: http://www.bcpinstitute.org .

'Pro-Choice' Expert Witness Concedes ABC Risk in 1999 Court Testimony -

In a 1999 U.S. court case (N.FL. Women v. St. of FL) in the state of Florida expert
witness Lynne Rosenberg (ScD) was cross-examined by a lawyer representing the state
of Florida. Here is part of Rosenberg's testimony:

Q. And a woman who had her first pregnancy, say at age 15 but aborted it, but then
had her first child at age 35, would have a risk of breast cancer no lower, all
other things being equal, than a woman whose first pregnancy carried to term
was at age 35?
A. Yes
Q. So in other words, a woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a
higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy than if she
carries the pregnancy to term, correct?
A. Probably, yes.
Q. Looking at that another way, let's compare two women. Let's say both get preg-
nant at age 15 – one terminates her pregnancy, but the other carries the preg-
nancy to term. And both women go on to get married and have two children,
say at age 30 and age 35. Is the risk of breast cancer higher for the woman who
had an abortion at age 15 or the women who had a baby at 15, all other things
things being equal?
A. It's probably higher for the one who had an abortion at age 15.....”
[end of excerpt from the 1999 Florida court case of N.FL. Women v. St. of FL]

Lynne Rosenberg is an epidemiologist and was acting as an expert witness for a group
that strongly supports induced abortion. Yet, Lynne Rosenberg (ScD) confirmed that
induced abortions of young childless women increases their lifetime breast cancer risk.


The following are sample (but ABBREVIATED) hypothetical 'Statements of Claim'
for ABD (Abortion Brain Damage) law suits; ( an actual Statement of Claim must be
composed by a competent lawyer (Brent Rooney is a medical researcher NOT a lawyer)):

A. Beth Arnold v Dr. Dan Doe [an ACP (Abortion Cerebral Palsy) law suit]:
Abbreviated hypothetical Statement of Claim 'filed' on 8 January 2009

1. On 10 January 2007 Dr. Dan Doe performed an elective 2nd trimester D & E
abortion procedure on my mother Ann Arnold, a 16 year old childless woman.
3
2. Before the D & E procedure Ann Arnold informed Dr. Dan Doe via his clinic's
standard intake form that she had a family history of breast cancer.

3. Neither Dr. Dan Doe nor any member of the Dan-Doe Clinic staff informed Ann
Arnold that an induced abortion performed on a woman with a family history
of breast cancer markedly increases a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer.

4. On 3 July 2008 I, Beth Arnold, was born to Ms. Ann Arnold at a gestation of
twenty-seven (27) weeks; (birth under 28 weeks' gestation is termed an extremely
premature birth). My apgar score was 3 and I was treated in the NICU (Neonatal
Intensive Care Unit) for 7 weeks; my mom, Ann Arnold, then took me home.

5. Within 48 hours after my delivery my mother, Ann Arnold, was diagnosed as
having an intraamniotic infection.

6. Because my posture and movement during my first 3 years of life did not appear
proper and healthy to my mother, she had me examined by Dr. Elroy Emmett on
2 August 2011. Dr. Emmett's diagnosis on 2 August 2011 was Cerebral Palsy (CP).

7. To confirm Dr. Emmett's diagnoses, my mother ( Ann Arnold ) had me examined
by Dr. Fred Fowler on 5 September 2011. Dr. Fowler diagnosed my condition as
CP, thus confirming Dr. Emmett's 2 August 2011 CP diagnosis.

8. Preterm birth is an accepted risk factor for CP. Extremely preterm birth carries a
very risk of Cerebral Palsy.

9. A 2008 'meta-analysis' (i.e. a study of studies) by Dr. Eveline Himpens et al. pub-
lished in a peer-reviewed medical journal reported that newborns under 28 weeks'
gestation have a 14.6% absolute risk of being later diagnosed with CP. 14.6% is
129 times the CP risk of a full-term newborn according to Himpens et al.

10. Ann Arnold signed a consent form provided by Dr. Doe the morning of 10 Jan-
uary 2004, the same day that Dr. Doe performed a D & E abortion on Ann Arnold.

11. The consent form listed risk of infection and lacerated cervix. The consent form
did not have the word “cancer” anywhere on it, nor did it mention any future
elevated risk of a premature delivery.

12. The 10 January 2007 induced abortion surgery performed by Dr. Dan Doe on
Ann Arnold was very contraindicated, since the best evidence is that an induced
abortion on a woman under age 18 who has a family history of breast cancer
very markedly increases her lifetime risk of breast cancer.

13. Dr. Dan Doe should not have performed the induced abortion on Ann Arnold on
10 January 2007, since a medical doctor is ethically and legally required not to
perform a medical treatment that he/she knows, or ought to know, is strongly con- 
traindicated.

14. Neither Dr. Dan Doe nor any of his staff members informed Ann Arnold before
before her 10 January 2007 induced abortion that, in general, a woman has a
higher risk of dying in the 12 months after the IA (Induced Abortion) than if she
had carried the pregnancy to term.

15. Dr. Dan Doe put Ann Arnold at increased risk of a future premature delivery via
the D & E (Dilation & Extraction) procedure Dr. Doe performed on Ann Arnold
on 10 January 2007.

16. Preterm newborn (those delivered before 37.0 weeks' gestation) have elevated risk
of mental retardation, epilepsy, Cerebral Palsy (CP), autism, blindness, deafness,
respiratory distress, gastrointestinal injury, serious infections, and other risks.

  1. None of the risks listed in point “16” above were listed on the consent from signed
by Ann Arnold on 10 January 2007, although D & E procedures elevate the future
risk of a subsequent preterm delivery.

18. Some young children diagnosed with CP, may be later diagnosed as not having
CP. As of the filing of this Statement of Claim I am still afflicted with Cerebral
Palsy.

19. I am mentally retarded with an IQ of 50. Many children with CP are also mentally
retarded.

20. It was estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in
2004 that the total additional lifetime cost for a person with CP was $1 million
(U.S.) compared to a person without CP.

21. The principle 3 of the 1947 Nuremberg Code insists that a new medical treatment
safety validated on animals before human trials commence.

22. Dr. Dan Doe has never provided evidence to me of published animals studies of
D & E procedure. Specifically, Dr. Dan Doe has not cited to me any published
studies showing that non-human primates with prior D & E abortions do not have
higher higher risks of:
a. mammary cancer
b. future preterm births
c. future newborn with neurological damage
...............................................................................................................................................
[end of a hypothetical 'statement of claim' A]

Comments about hypothetical 'statement of claim A':

A1. On 24 January 2005 one Miss F.B. was awarded a legal and monetary victory by 
judge Dale R. Koch in her law suit the against All Women's Health Services in
Portland, Oregon. One of F.B.'s claims was 'being put at increased risk of breast
cancer without informed consent'. F.B. had informed the clinic of her family history
of breast cancer before her second trimester induced abortion was performed. A 1994
published study by Dr. Daling et al. in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute
reported a high breast cancer risk for women with induced abortions before age 18
and a family history of breast cancer.[Daling, 2] In the 'Daling' study there were 12
women with an IA before age 18 and a family history of breast cancer. If IAs are not
a breast cancer risk, one would expect about ½ of the twelve women to be cases (i.e.
have breast cancer) and ½ would be controls (i.e. not have breast cancer). So, there
should have been 6 of the 12 women with breast cancer and 6 without breast cancer.
Instead of this balance of 'half & half', all twelve (12) women had breast cancer, and
despite the small number involved (12), this increased breast cancer risk was statis-
tically significant.[Daling, 2] To get the full 'statement of claim' for this Portland,
contact F.B.'s winning lawyer, Jonathan Clark ( Jonathan@jaclawoffice.com ). For a
copy of judge Dale Koch's verdict, send an email request to Brent Rooney (email:
fullterm40@gmail.com ) or send that request directly to judge Dale R. Koch.

A2. If F.B. had not had a family history of breast cancer, she could still have made a
very strong case that an induced abortion on a childless women under 18 increased
her breast cancer risk. The 1994 'Daling' study found that in general, a woman under
age 18 at the time of her IA multiplied breast cancer risk by 2.5 compared to women
with no IAs. 'Daling' explicitly excluded the breast cancer risk imparted on childless
women by induced abortion.[Daling, 2] So, on top of the 150% increase Daling
attributed to prior IAs has to be added the breast cancer risk imparted onto childless
(jargon: “nulliparous”) women by an IA. The breast expert witness that Jonathan
Clark, the winning lawyer, would have employed on the witness stand is Joel Brind
(PhD), whose website is: http://www.bcpinstitute.org . There was no actual trial,
since the defendant made an “offer of judgment” (i.e. they did not contest the claims
made by plaintiff Miss F.B.)

A3. Roughly what percent of U.S. women under 18 will have a family history of breast
cancer? That would be an excellent question to direct to the top ABC (Abortion-
Breast-Cancer) expert, Joel Brind (PhD; web: http://www.bcpinstitute.org). If forced
to estimate, I would put that number between 20% and 30%. The current estimated
percent of U.S. women who will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime
is about 12%. Family history means a mother, sister, aunt?????? or grandmother.

A4. Discovery process of a law suit: 'Discovery' occurs before a trial and allows both
the plaintiff's lawyers and defendant's lawyers to ask the other side of the law suit
what the nature of their evidence is; remember, I am NOT a lawyer (so, only accept
legal concepts I may write about with which your trusted lawyer agrees ). One
specific question your lawyer might pose to the defendant's side during discovery:

Can your client cite specific published animal studies of D & E and the risks of later
premature birth? To my knowledge, there are no such studies as of 15 June 2009.

Thus, if this same question is posed during the actual trial, the defendant can not
claim that the question is new to him/her. There are no such published animal D & E
studies, which means all women who are subjected to D & E abortion procedures are
'guinea pigs' for an experimental and unproven medical procedure.

A5. ACP (CP in a newborn due a mother's prior IA) is a new issue to U.S. courts, so are
there any legal precedents anywhere for such a law suit.? Yes, in 2004 but it was in
Australia, not in the U.S.; the ACP risk was used by the defendant, Dr. Alan Kaye, not
by the plaintiff, Kristy Bruce (born 1989). The full transcript of the suit:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/supreme_ct/2004/277.html . Kristy Bruce was
NOT born preterm nor was Bruce born full term; she was born POSTTERM ( after
42.0 weeks' gestation). Bruce sued obstetrician Dr. Alan Kaye for medical negligence
causing her Cerebral Palsy. Dr. Kaye asserted that prior IAs performed on Kristy
Bruce's mom, Sharon Chevelle, were the likely cause of Bruce's CP. On 8 April 2004
judge Michael Grove, in effect, 'bought' Kaye's theory of causality and found Dr.
Alan Kaye not guilty. In effect, judge Micheal Grove was signaling to plaintiff Kristy
Bruce (and her mom Sharon Chevelle), 'a better legal remedy would have been to have
sued the doctors who performed abortions on mom Sharon Chevelle'.

A6. Other risks that could be listed on the 'statement of claim': There are over forty (40)
risks associated with surgical abortions. The most important are well documented
in the book Women's Health after Abortion.[Cassidy/Gentles, 3] This book [WHaA] is
also online at: http://deveber.org/text/whaa-chapters.html .
So, for example, the above 'statement of claim' could be expanded to assert 'put at
increase risk of suicide, substance abuse, infertility, depression, serious infections'
etc. Clearly, it is more serious if one actually suffers depression, substance abuse,
etc. than 'being put at increased risk' of the same and the court awarded damages, will
be, on average, higher.
.................................................................................................................................................
[End of comments about hypothetical 'Statement of claim' A]

B. Helen Galson v Dr. Ivers Statement of Claim [March 2012; CP risk from “suction” IAs]

1. Dr. Irwin Ivers performed two elective vacuum aspiration (aka “suction”) abor-
tions on my mother, Greta Galson. The first “suction” abortion was performed on
2 March 2004 and the second one was performed on 7 April 2007. At the time of
the 2 March 2004 induced abortion Greta Galson was 17 years old.

2. On 9 May 2008 I was born to Greta Galson with a gestational length of 26 weeks
which is termed extremely preterm. I was treated in the NICU (Neonatal Intensive
Care Unit) of a hospital for 3 months. My apgar score at birth was four.

3. Since I was not walking at all by age 18 months Greta Galson had me examined 
by Dr. Ken Kline. Dr. Kline diagnosed my condition as Cerebral Palsy.

4. After my delivery Greta Galson was diagnosed by her obstetrician Dr. Lawrence
Laver on 11 July 2007 as having an incompetent cervix.

5. Before my birth my mother Greta Galson had had exactly two induced abortions,
both performed by Dr. Irwin Ivers. Greta Galson signed a consent form for each of
these two induced abortions.

6. Neither of the first trimester “suction” abortion consent forms Miss Galson signed
for the 2 March 2004 & 7 April 2007 surgeries mentioned elevated risk of a future
preterm delivery, higher breast cancer risk for the mother, or serious birth risks in
subsequent deliveries.

7. Dr. Irwin Ivers did not inform Greta Galson that a safer alternative, with lower
total mortality risk, than an induced abortion was a full-term delivery.

8. Dr. Irwin Ivers' 2 March 2004 elective induced abortion performed on childless
Greta Galson, age 17 years, increased Greta Galson's life time risk of breast cancer.

9. The 2 March 2004 elective induced abortion on Greta Galson was a severely contra-
indicated procedure if for no other reason than the elevated risk of breast cancer
inflicted upon Greta Galson.

10. Both of Dr. Irwin Ivers' induced abortions were much contraindicated because they
raised Galson's future risk of suicide and all-cause mortality.

11. Neither of the two consent forms that Galson signed listed increased future risk of
preterm birth.

12. Multiple prior induced abortions carry higher risk of preterm birth and very preterm
birth than does a single prior induced abortion. Neither of the consent forms signed
by Galson listed any risk associated with multiple induced abortions.

13. Maternal infection is a risk factor for preterm birth and for Cerebral Palsy in the
woman's newborn. Dr. Ivers' consent forms listed risk of maternal infection but
failed to list the associated risk of a future newborn born prematurely and/or with
CP.

14. As a child who was born extremely preterm (under 28.0 weeks' gestation) my CP
risk is 129 times that of a full-term newborn according to the 2008 Dr. Eveline
Himpens et al. published meta-analysis of CP risk of extremely preterm and very
preterm newborn (under 32.0 weeks' gestation).

15. Mothers of premature newborn have elevated risk of cardiovascular disease and
cardiovascular death. Neither of the two consent forms that Galson signed listed
these risks.[see references 4,5,6]

16. A doctor has a legal duty of continuing care, including informing patients of
risks of past surgeries that the doctor learns about after surgeries on patients. Des-
pite published studies about APB (Abortion Preterm Birth) risk after 2 March 2004,
Dr. Ivers never informed Greta Galson of any of these credible studies about higher
preterm birth risk for women with prior surgical abortions (including “suction”
abortions). Dr. Ivers never reported any “suction” abortion risks, except those listed
on Dr. Ivers' consent forms to Greta Galson before or after her two abortions per-
formed by Dr. Ivers.

17. Both of the “suction” abortions Dr. Ivers performed on Greta Galson were experi-
mental and unproven surgical procedures, since “suction” abortion has zero peer-
reviewed published animal studies validating its safety. This violates principle 3 of
the 1947 Nuremberg Code that new medical treatments not be performed on human
beings before the safety of the new treatment has been safety validated on animals;
URL: http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf .

18. In addition to Cerebral Palsy I also have epilepsy, a condition made more likely by
a preterm delivery (under 37 weeks' gestation). Neither of Dr. Ivers' consent forms
signed by Greta Galson listed higher epilepsy risk in a future delivery as a possible
side-effect of a the VAA (Vacuum Aspiration Abortion) procedure.

19. At age 3 years and 10 months I, Helen Galson, am still unable to walk at all.
..................................................................................................................................................
[End of hypothetical statement of claim B. by 'Helen Galson']

Comments about theoretical statement of claim B (main claim: Cerebral Palsy injury).

B1. As in case 'A' before the plaintiff (Helen Galson) claims a CP injury due to abortion.
Unlike the Beth Arnold case, Helen Galson's mother had two prior “suction” abortions
(not a single D & E procedure). The number of prior “suction” abortions is important,
since the more prior “suction” abortions the higher the risk of a future premature deliv-
ery. In 1998 a prestigious European medical journal published the 'Martius' study of
106,346 singleton births.[Martius, 3] The 'Martius' results for very preterm birth:

 

No. Prior IAs Odds of a VPB (i.e. delivery under 32.0 weeks' gestation)

1 2.5 (relative odds boosted by 150%)

2 5.2 (relative odds increased by 420%)

3 or more 8.0 (relative odds elevated by 700%)

 

Notice that 1, 2, or more prior IAs all exceed the doubling risk threshold and there is

what medical researchers term 'dose-response' (i.e. the more prior IAs the higher the

risk). As explained in Chapter 2 of this briefing paper some judges have bought into

the 'cult of 2.0'; i.e. unless a 'stressor' at least doubles a risk, it should be considered 

such a doubtful 'stressor' (risk factor) that it should be totally discounted. For such

'doubting Thomases', multiple prior IAs may be required to convince a specific

court of a preterm and CP risk. Most APB ( Abortion Preterm Birth) studies lack

enough subjects to justify computing the PTB risk of multiple prior IAs. However,

a clear majority of the APB studies with enough subjects and that do report PTB

risk for 2 or more IAs, do report dose-response (i.e. the more prior IAs, the higher the

PTB risk).

 

B2. As in case A, plaintiff Helen Galson attempts to shift the BoP (Burden of Proof)

onto defendant Dr. Irwin Ivers by showing that the IAs performed on her mother

Greta Galson, who was under 17 when her first “suction” abortion was performed,

put Greta Galson at increased breast cancer risk via an elective medical procedure.

 

B3. Going into the trial it is a must for Helen Galson's lawyer to have a copy of the con-

sent forms that mom Greta Galson signed on two occasions. If adverse risk 'xyz'

is not listed on a consent form, that means either 'Dr. Ivers' claims that the surgical

procedure does not boost the odds of 'xyz', or the risk is so extremely remote as to

be unworthy of listing. For an ELECTIVE procedure, some courts may consider

a risk of a serious side-effect as low as 1 chance in 10,000 requires that the patient

be warned of the possible side-effect before the procedure is performed; some may

insist on a threshold of 1 in 40,000 or 1 in 100,000 for an elective procedure. Re-

gardless, the consent forms that Galson signed failed to list maternal risk of breast

cancer and higher future odds of a preterm and handicapped newborn.

 

B5. Defense lawyers have a very wide assortments of arguments that can counter the

statement of claim by 'Greta Galson'. Chapter 2 of this document lists many possi-

ble arguments why there may not be any such thing as APB (Abortion Preterm Birth

) risk. Defense lawyers may claim that Galson's claim was filed too late. If the court

accepts that APB risk does exist, it can be claimed that Galson's lifestyle (e.g.s. drug

abuse, over weight, smoker, single mom, over stressed) was the real cause of her

preterm delivery of Helen Galson. Professor Barbara Luke's 1995 book lists sixty

PTB risks. A good defense lawyer can pose many dozens of reason why his client is

innocent. If mom 'Greta Galson' had waited many years after her first abortion to

deliver daughter 'Helen Galson', a court may well believe that other risk factors over

those many years could have caused Helen's premature delivery.

 

B6. If the law suit actually goes to trial, it is to the advantage of Helen Galson to have

expert medical witnesses who can convince the court that “suction” abortions ele-

vate premature birth risk and that preterm birth raises the risk of a newborn having

CP. Defense witnesses, for example, may claim that a 'cerebral palsy condition'

causes preterm births (not the other way around). It can like wise be argued that a

genetic predisposition to lung cancer also causes those individuals to start cigarette

smoking.

..............................................................................................................................................

[end of Case B; do not accept any specific fact or specific concept in this document 

unless your competent and trusted lawyer agrees with it]

 

C. Jane Jacs v Dr. Lawrence Lugar [main claim: mental retardation and autism injury]:

Theoretical Statement of Claim filed on 9 August 2012

 

1. Dr. Lawrence Lugar performed an elective D & C abortion on childless Kathy

Jacs on 7 July 2006. At the time of the Dilation & Curettage abortion Kathy Jacs

was age 16 years old.

 

2. Dr. Lugar's consent form listed various potential side-effects for the D & C pro-

cedure including the risk of infection. The consent form did not list the associated

infection risk of higher odds of a future preterm delivery. The consent form did

not list the risk of uterine adhesions (i.e. scar tissue). The consent form also did

not inform Kathy Jacs that a D & C procedure increases the risk of cervical

insufficiency which elevates the risk of premature delivery in a later pregnancy.

 

3. Dr. Lugar's consent form did not list increased risk of breast cancer for women

under 18 undergoing an induced abortion procedure.

 

4. Dr. Lugar performed a vacuum aspiration abortion on 17 year old Kathy Jacs on

September 5, 2007. This was the second abortion for Kathy Jacs performed by

Dr. Lawrence Lugar.

 

5. Dr. Lugar's consent form for the 5 September 2007 abortion did not list higher

future risk of preterm delivery or breast cancer.

 

6. Kathy Jacs delivered Jane Jacs on 9 October 2008 with a gestation length of 25

weeks and a birth weight of 975 grams.

 

7. Jane Jacs within minutes after delivery was taken to the NICU where she was

treated for 8 weeks and was taken home by mom Kathy Jacs.

 

8. On 10 November 2011 Jane Jacs was diagnosed as mentally retarded & as having

autism by Dr. Manfred Miller.

 

9. Dr. Lugar's D & C consent form did not mention that there are zero published

animal studies of D & C and subsequent risk of premature delivery.

 

10. Dr. Lugar violated RICO (Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization Act)

via fraudulently presenting D & C and “suction” abortions as relatively safe pro-

cedures, when neither procedure had been safety validated via animal studies.

 

11. Dr. Lugar's vacuum aspiration abortion consent form did not mention that there

are zero published animals studies of VAA and subsequent preterm birth risk.

 

12. Neither of Dr. Lugar's consent forms mentioned that induced abortions raise 

maternal risk of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular mortality.

 

13. At no time either verbally or in writing did Dr. Lugar inform Kathy Jacs that a

a full-term delivery carried a lower 'all-cause mortality' risk in the year following

the end of pregnancy than did an induced abortion.

 

14. On 1 August 2012 Dr. Manfred Miller measured Jane Jacs' I.Q. as 65. Jane Jacs

has been treated for autism since 17 November 2011.

 

15. At no time did Dr. Lugar inform Kathy Jacs that prior surgical abortions elevate

her future risk of miscarriage, suicide, and drug abuse, all risks that are raised by

surgical abortions.

 

16. Each elective abortion performed by Dr. Lugar on Kathy Jacs was a severely con-

traindicated procedure because of elevated risks of breast cancer, suicide, and

miscarriage. Thus, Dr. Lugar should have withheld both abortions from Kathy

Jacs.

........................................................................................................................................................

[End of theoretical statement of claim by Jane Jacs, Case C]

Comments about theoretical statement of claim by Jane Jacs, Case C

 

C1. Jane Jacs' first IA was a D & C (Dilation and Curettage). Very well regarded repro-

ductive health expert Prof. Barbara Luke asserted in her 1995 book that D & Cs

inflict a higher future premature birth risk than first trimester abortions (which are

usually “suction” abortions).( Book: Every Pregnant Woman's Guide to Preventing

Premature Birth) There is much support for D & C as a preterm birth risk in medi-

cal journal articles.

 

C2. It may be critically important for a court decide in an ABD law suit that a first tri-

mester ELECTIVE induced abortion is very much contraindicated for a childless

young woman because of the increased risk of breast cancer. It is beyond question

that each one year a young childless woman delays her first full-term delivery raises

her breast cancer risk.[ Tricholopoulos, 1 ] Harvard researchers led by Dr. Dimitrios

Tricholopoulos and the truly great Dr. Brian MacMahon reported that each one year

delay in a woman's first full-term delivery elevated relative breast cancer risk by

3.5% (COMPOUNDED);i.e. a five year delay yields a 19% increased relative breast

cancer risk and a 10 year delay yields a 41% risk boost.[Trichopoulos, 1] A COLOR

GRAPH showing the risk in breast cancer risk for each one year delay in FFTP (

First Full-Term Pregnancy) may be effective (the area from age 18 to 25 is GREEN

under the curve, YELLOW from age 25 to 30, and RED from age 30 to 40).

 

C3. There is a second INDEPENDENT ABC (Abortion Breast Cancer) risk that applies

to both childless & parous (i.e. have had at least one delivery of a newborn) women.

A 1996 meta-analysis (i.e. a study that combines data from many prior studies) by

Joel Brind et al. reported that this 2nd independent ABC risk increases a woman's 

BC odds by 30%; the researchers were at least 95% confident of increased breast

risk for women with prior IAs; i.e. Brind's study achieved statistical significance.

[Brind, 7] No one in a peer-reviewed article has been able to identify a serious flaw

in the 'Brind' meta-analysis. Bottom Line: induced abortion inflicts 2 independent

breast cancer risks on childless young women (i.e. the two risks are added). How-

ever the 'Postponed FFTP' breast cancer is MUCH easier to defend that the second

ABC (Abortion Breast Cancer) risk exposed by Brind et al.

 

C4. Pointing out the obvious can have benefits in a court room. When challenging the

defendant to produce citations of published animal studies showing that prior D &

Cs and prior “suction” abortion do not raise the risk of preterm delivery, the plain-

tiff's lawyer can identify surgeries and drugs developed in the 1950s that were tested

on animals. Virtually all drugs were animal tested and all MAJOR new surgeries

& MAJOR changes to existing surgeries should be animal tested to comply with the

third principle of the 1947 Nuremberg Code. The public strongly dislikes making

women 'Guinea pigs' for surgeries (and drugs) not safety validated via published

animal studies. On 12 February 2008 the research arm of the Canadian Parliament,

the Library of Parliament, informed Member of Parliament (MP) Maurice Vellacott

(email: Vellacott.M@parl.gc.ca ) that there were apparently no studies for “suction”

abortion. The BURDEN of PROOF is on the DEFENTDANT to show such animal

studies exist and thus, the BoP is NOT on the PLAINTIFF to show that there are no

such animal studies.

 

C5. 'Jane Jacs' claimed that Dr. Lugar has violated RICO statutes. For over 36 years

U.S. abortion doctors have told women that induced abortions carry less health risk

to them than a term delivery. The plaintiff's lawyer can ask the defendant to cite just

one study published in a peer-reviewed medical journal showing that women who

have an induced abortion have a lower TOTAL (medical jargon: all-cause mortality)

death risk than women who carry to term in the 12 months (or more) after 'the end

of pregnancy'. The defense may cite a study (e.g. the 1982 Dr. David Grimes article

in JAMA) that appears to show women with abortions have a much lower death risk

than women who deliver. However, closer examination will show that women who

delivered were not followed for 12 months after 'pregnancy end', but for a mere six

weeks after 'pregnancy end'. Clearly, abortion providers have conspired to keep

women in the dark about serious induced abortion risks. In 1997 Dr. Mika Gissler et

al. in the top medical journal in the obstetrics and gynecology field in Scandinavia

reported that Finnish women with induced abortions had 3.5 times the total death

risk as women who delivered in the 12 months 'after the end of pregnancy'.[Gissler,

8] Finland has a national induced abortion registry & this allows a study such as the

1997 'Gissler' study to accurately determine a woman's prior induced abortion history.

'Gissler' reported that women with induced abortions had 6.5 times the risk of suicide

& 14 times the risk of being a homicide victim in the 12 months 'after' as women

who delivered. And here is the stunner: a third group of women, those who were not

pregnant had a lower 'all-cause' mortality risk than women with abortions, but had

double the 'all-cause' mortality risk as women who delivered.[Gissler, 8] The best 

evidence is that induced abortion does not decrease a woman's total short term (one

year) death risk but actually increases it. A least a decade after the 'Gissler' study many

abortion clinics were still informing women that induced abortion was safer than

delivery of a baby. A RICO claim by a woman claiming medical negligence by an

abortion doctor will be novel and thus, the plaintiff should not put too much reliance

on winning a RICO claim.

............................................................................................................................................................

[End of THEORETICAL Case C. ('Jane Jacs' v Dr. Lawrence Lugar)]

 

D. Paula Polsen v. Dr. Samuel Striker (CP law suit by a woman born POSTTERM)

 

Statement of Claim filed on 13 November 2011

 

1. On 5 December 2006 Dr. Samuel Striker performed an elective first trimester

induced abortion (i.e. vacuum aspiration abortion) on my mother Sarah Q. Polsen,

who was 19 years old on that date. This was Sarah Q. Polsen's first pregnancy.

 

2. Very near the end of the abortion Sarah fell considerable pain and complained to Dr.

Striker who quickly completed the abortion.

 

3. After the “suction” abortion Dr. Striker ordered no post-abortion tests on Sarah to be

performed.

 

4. Dr. Samuel Striker never informed Sarah Q. Polsen (hereafter referred to as Sarah)

that her uterine wall (i.e. the myometrium) had been scarred & weakened as a result

of Sarah's 5 Dec. 2006 abortion.

 

5. At home before Paula's delivery at the hospital Sarah suffered sharp and deep pain in

her abdominal area.

 

6. Sarah was brought quickly to the hospital and Paula was delivered via Cesarean

section. Paula was born post term (43 weeks and 1 day gestation) on 6 January 2005.

This was Sarah's second pregnancy.

 

7. Sarah's obstetrician, Dr. Alan Able, informed Sarah that upon opening her uterus

he noted that her uterus had previously been punctured and this, in all probability,

was the source of her pain that prompted her transport to the hospital.

 

8. At birth Paula's apgar score was 4 and she was in the NICU (Neonatal Intensive

Care Unit) for seven (7) weeks before Sarah took Paula home.

 

9. Paula has never walked and was diagnosed by Dr. Tom Truman on 16 January

2011 as having Cerebral Palsy.

 

10. Sarah has always maintained good health habits, including:

i - never: smoked, drank more than 2 beers per week, consumed hard drugs 

ii - from age 15 to now Sarah (5' 5” tall) has maintained a body weight between 110

and 120 pounds

iii - swims at least 25 laps (25 meters/lap) 4-6 times per week since age 15

iv - drinks purified water, avoids junk food, gets 7 ½ – 9 hours sleep daily

v - since age 15 daily consumed a good multivitamin tablet and a multimineral

tablet

 

11. Dr. Tom Truman has expressed in writing that Sarah's perforated uterus is the most

likely reason Paula was born with Cerebral Palsy.

 

12. The following increased risks of a first trimester induced abortion were not listed on

the consent form signed by Sarah (3 December 2006) before her 5 December 2006

induced abortion:

i Breast Cancer

ii Substance Abuse

iii Suicide

iv Later Preterm Delivery

v Uterine Adhesions (i.e. scar tissue)

vi Incompetent Cervix (aka Cervical Insufficiency)

vii Depression

viii Infertility

 

 

13. A doctor has legal duty of continuing care. At no time after Sarah's 5 December

2006 abortion did Dr. Samuel Striker inform Sarah of any of the risks listed in

'point 12' directly above.

 

14. Since the increased risk of breast cancer, by itself, made the 5 December 2003

abortion a very contraindicated surgery, Dr. Samuel Striker should have withheld

the vacuum aspiration procedure. Dr. Striker did not so withhold the procedure.

 

15. At no time before the 5 Dec. 2006 abortion did Dr. Samuel Striker inform Sarah

that the surgery he would perform (vacuum aspiration abortion) has zero animal

studies to validate its safety.

 

16. At no time did Dr. Samuel Striker inform Sarah that the following potential side-

effects of a “suction” abortion elevated Sarah's future risk of a premature delivery:

(a.) Infection (b.) Uterine Adhesions (scar tissue) (c.) Incompetent Cervix

 

17. At no time did Dr. Samuel Striker inform Sarah that if the side-effects of her

suction” abortion led to a future delivery under 32.0 weeks' gestation, that would

double Sarah's lifetime risk of breast cancer and elevate Sarah's risk of dying from

cardiovascular disease.[Melbye, 10; Innes, 11]

 

18. At no time did Dr. Samuel Striker inform Sarah that a term delivery was much safer

for Sarah's health than an elective first trimester “suction” abortion. 

.......................................................................................................................................................

[End of hypothetical statement of claims in the 'Paula Polsen v. Dr. Samuel Striker' case]

 

Comments about theoretical case of 'Paula Polsen v. Dr. Striker' statement of claim

 

D1. Has there ever been a legal case even slightly resembling this theoretical one? In a

word, YES! The case was tried in 'kangaroo land' (i.e. Australia); 'Bruce v Kaye':

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/supreme_ct/2004/277.html . Kristy Bruce

was born POST-TERM in 1989, has CP, is bound to a wheelchair and is unable to

walk or talk. Kristy Bruce did NOT sue the doctors who had performed abortions

on her mother, Sharon Chevelle. Kristy sued the obstetrician who delivered her,

Dr. Alan Kaye, claiming medical negligence on his part. Dr. Alan Kaye's lawyer

and expert witnesses argued that prior induced abortion(s) so weakened Sharon

Chevelle's womb wall (i.e. myometrium) that it broke during Sarah's pregnancy

carrying Kristy Bruce. Sarah's punctured uterus was the cause of Kristy Bruce's

Cerebral Palsy. On 8 April 2008 NSW, Australia judge Michael Grove rendered

his verdict that Dr. Alan Kaye was not guilty of medical negligence causing

Kristy Bruce's CP. There were one hundred 'points' in judge Grove's decision. An

extract from 'point' 91:

 

As a matter of hindsight, considerable suspicion must be directed to the very

recent termination which Ms. Chevelle [K. Bruce's mother] underwent just prior

to becoming pregnant with the plaintiff [Kristy Bruce].” Following are the final 2

'points' in judge Michael Grove's decision:

 

99 No one could fail to be moved by Kristy's plight nor fail to acknowledge the

devotion of her mother and family to her care. But Kristy's plight was not a conse-

quence of breach of duty of care by the defendant. In short, he took reasonable care

in the relevant management of Ms. Chevelle's pregnancy in all the circumstances,

and in treating her he exercised the care and skill to be expected of a competent

obstetrician.

100 I conclude that there must be judgment for the defendant [Dr. Alan Kaye].”

 

In effect, judge Grove implied to plaintiff Kristy Bruce and her family that, 'instead

of suing obstetrician Dr. Alan Kay, you should have considered suing the abortion

doctors that likely caused Kristy Bruce's Cerebral Palsy'.

 

D2. In all the hypothetical cases presented in Chapter 3 the abortions were performed

on childless women. A elective abortion performed on a childless woman increases

her breast cancer risk by assuring that the woman will be an older 'rookie' mom

when she does have her first full-term delivery.[Trichopoulos, 1] To raise a woman's

lifetime risk of breast cancer via an ELECTIVE surgery is severly contraindicated

& thus, a surgeon is ethically and legally required to withhold such surgery. A smart

and honest court should accept this logic. If a specific court does accept this logic

and the rest of the plaintiff's case is sound and well presented, the odds of a plain- 15

tiff win are improved. But can one be really confident that increasing a woman's age

at FFTP ( First Full-Term Pregnancy ) elevates her lifetime breast cancer risk? If

true, the converse would be 'the earlier a woman's FFTP, the lower her breast cancer

risk'. Medical researcher Nancy Krieger wrote, “Conversely, early age at FFTP con-

sistently has emerged as the strongest [breast cancer] protective factor.”[Krieger,

12] As of February 2009 Nancy Krieger is a Harvard University Professor and one

would be objective in portraying her position as 'pro-choice' (i.e. comfortable with

induced abortion). In making that statement above Nancy Krieger cited eight (8)

references to support her position, but she could have, if desired, cited dozens more.

 

D3. Can “suction” abortions risk damaging the uterine wall (myometrium)? Dr. Steven

Kaali was a practicing abortion doctor and was the lead author of a 1989 published

study.[Kaali, 9] There was no 'guess work' in this study about whether a woman

who had very recently undergone an abortion had a perforated uterus or not. Dr.

Kaali et al. used a laparscope to clearly see whether a woman subject's uterus was

punctured or not.[Kaali, 9] In the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Dr. Steven Kaali et al. reported that an average of 1 woman in 50 who had a first

trimester induced abortion had a perforated womb.[Kaali, 9] A perforated uterus

is surely a more serious condition that a weakened uterine wall (myometrium);

if the curette tip is strong enough to perforate the myometrium, it can also weaken

without perforating the myometrium. An expert witness would need to confirm

this. 'Sarah' had a weakened myometrium that punctured during per pregnancy.

 

D4. The active surgical element in a “suction” abortion is termed a “suction curette”; it

is a tube (cannula) with a sharp tip (curette) at the end. After the gestating baby has

been 'terminated' (i.e. killed) and vacuumed out of the womb & the woman's body,

loose tissue in the womb must be removed to sharply reduce the woman's risk of a

uterine infection. The abortion doctor in a 'blind' fashion (i.e. he/she can not see

what his suction curette is doing) scrapes the “womb wall” (endometrium) and

vacuums out the loose tissue. As pointed out in point D3 there is about one chance

in 50 that the abortion surgeon will perforate the womb. Even if a perforation does

not occur, the surgeon may WEAKEN the womb's wall (myometrium) at several

points. Thus, in a future pregnancy, if a enough pressure is applied to one of these

these weakened points, the womb will be perforated. If the abortion doctor uses

sonographic equipment, he/she is not operating 'blind' and the risk of a perforation

or uterine adhesions (i.e. scar tissue) is less than if he/she is not using sonographic

equiment.

 

D5. Paula has claimed a 2nd mechanism increasing breast cancer risk for mother Sarah,

a delivery under 32.0 weeks' gestation. Two statistically significant studies report a

doubling of breast cancer risk for women who deliver a newborn under 32 weeks'

gestation.[Melbye, 10; Innes, 11] Yes, there are only two such studies, but opposing

those 2 significant studies are zero significant studies reporting the reverse (lower

breast cancer risk for women who deliver under 32 weeks' gestation).

16

.............................................................................................................................................

[End of comments about the case of 'Paula Polsen v. Dr. Samuel Striker']

 

Remember that I, Brent Rooney, am NOT a lawyer, so it is necessary prudence for
anyone using information in this document to have a competent and trusted lawyer to

verify facts used from this document. Law suits, especially medical negligence law

suits, can be very expensive in dollar terms AND emotional terms. Thus, it is very reason-

able that one should not launch a medical negligence law suit suit without a top quality

lawyer, the facts and the law on one's side, and in a judicial venue known for integrity.

 

Brent Rooney (MSc, Preterm Birth Researcher)
RPRC (Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition)
3456 Dunbar St. (Suite 146) Vancouver, Canada V6S 2C2
web: http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf
http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/ronney.pdf
email: fullterm40@gmail.com stopcancer@yahoo.com whatsup@vcn.bc.ca

 

References

1 Trichopoulos D, Hsieh CC, MacMahon B, Lin TM, Lowe CR et al. Age at
any birth and breast cancer risk. Intl J Cancer 1983;31(6):701-704 [ URL:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6862681 ]

2 Daling JR, Malone KE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young
Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion. J National Cancer Institute 1994;86:1584-1592
[ URL: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/21/1584 ]

3 Ring-Cassidy E, Gentles I. Women's Health after Abortion. Toronto Deveber Institute 2003
[ URL: http://deveber.org/text/whaa-chapters.html ]

4 Martius JA, Steck T, Oehler MK, et al. Risk factors associated with preterm (<37+0

weeks) and early preterm (<32+0 weeks): Univariate and multivariate analysis of 106,

345 singleton births from 1994 statewide perinatal survey of Bavaria. European J Ob-

stetrics Gynecology Reproductive Biology 1998;80:183-189 [URL:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T69-3W0G380-13&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ec842e78a513f55f5e802dec7a05275e ]

 

4 Smith GCS, Pell JB, Walsh D. Pregnancy complications and maternal risk of ischaemic heart

disease; a retrospective cohort study of 129 290 births. Lancet 2001;357;2002-2006 [ URL:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-43BXR44-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4ad8376bd2c34e1a024ad62f819c55c7 ]

 

 

5 Smith GD, Whitley E, Gissler M, Hemminki E. Birth dimensions of offspring, premature 17

birth, and mortality of mothers. Lancet 2000;356:2066-2067 [ URL:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-421TKX1-H&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8185bb393a00b542b7dd7e77a74dff0a ]

 

6 Catov JM, Newman AB, Roberts JM, Kelsey SF, Sutton-Tyrrell K, et al. Preterm Delivery

and Later Maternal Cardiovascular Disease Risk. Annals Epidemiology 2007;18(6):733-739

[ URL:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T44-4KCXJFB-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8598e8bde848c39a1424763ee6d38731 ]

 

7 Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J. Induced abortion as an

independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-

analysis. J Epidemiology Community Health 1996;50(10):481-496 [ URL:

http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/50/5/481 ]

 

8 Gissler M, Kaufpila R, Merilainen J, Taukomaa H, Hemminki E. Pregnancy-associated deaths

in Finland 1987-1994 – definition problems and benefits of record linkage. Acta Obstet

Gynecol Scand 1997;76:651-767 [ abstract URL:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a791454723~db=all ]

 

9 Kaali SE, Szigetuari IA, Bartfan GS. The frequency and management of uterine perforations

during first-trimester abortions. American J Obstetrics and Gynecology 1989;161(2):406-

408 [Abstract URL: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=6584960]

 

10 Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-MN, Westergaard T, Andersen PK. Preterm Delivery

and risk of breast cancer. Brit J Cancer 1999;80(3/4):609-613

 

11 Innes KE, Byers TE. First pregnancy characteristics and subsequent breast cancer risk among

young women. Intl J Cancer 2004;112(2):306-311

 

12 Krieger N. Exposure, susceptibility, and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Treatment

1989;13:205-223