Justice For Kids

McGill U. study links abortion to Cerebral Palsy


                                                                                                                                                           14 July 2015

3 McGill U. Doctors Link Abortions to Cerebral Palsy Risk

                    Brent Rooney ( MSc; <fullterm40@gmail.com> )


      To get a yawn out of a premature birth expert, tell him/

her that any prior medical treatment that raises premature

birth risk, raises future risk of a newborn baby having the

brain injury that is Cerebral Palsy (CP). That is VERY

OLD (over 50 years) news. In 2013 3 McGill University

doctors, led by Dr. Ghislain Hardy, linked induced

abortions (IAs) to significantly raised CP risk.[1, Hardy];

http://www.jogc.com/abstracts/full/201302_Obstetrics_5.pdf .

How? By finding that women in Quebec (Canada) with

prior IAs have 1.45 times the risk of very preterm deliveries

(under 32 weeks' gestation) and about double the risk of

extremely preterm births as Quebec women with zero

prior induced abortions. Dr. Hardy et al., simply by finding

significantly raised premature birth risk, CLEARLY

IMPLIED future elevated risk of CEREBRAL PALSY

was plausible. If (!!) a study finds that high stress increases

the risk that young men will start smoking cigarettes, that

by itself without any explicit 'link statement' by the

researchers, would demonstrate a plausible link between

high stress for young men and raised lung cancer risk (via

starting smoking). The face of Cerebral Palsy in pictures:

www.canstockphoto.com/images-photos/cerebral-palsy.html .

      Extremely preterm (under 28 weeks' gestation) newborn

babies have 129 times the CP risk as do full-term newborn

babies according to the 2008 'study of studies' by Evelyn

Himpens et al.[2, Himpens] Is the 2013 'Hardy' study the

only paper to report XPB (extremely preterm birth) risk due

to prior induced abortions? No, the 'Hardy' study is the

eleventh (11th) such study, with all 11 studies being listed at URL:


[3, Rooney] Opposed to these 11 statistically significant

studies are a grand total of zero significant studies finding

that prior IAs reduce extremely preterm birth risk. Preterm

babies come in 3 groups: extremely preterm (under 28

weeks' gestation), very preterm (between 28 & 32.0 weeks' gestation), & moderately preterm (between 32.0 & 36 6/7

weeks' gestation). For the full list of 147 significant studies

finding IAs boost premature delivery risk or LBW (Low-

Birth-Weight (under 2,500 grams (3 lbs. 8 ozs.))) risk visit:

URL: http://justiceforkids.webs.com/chapter4140studies.htm.


      The 2014 El-Tallawy study reported that Egyptian

women with prior abortions have 2.45 times the risk of

delivering newborn babies with CP as Egyptian women

with zero prior abortions.[4, Tallawy]. The 'El-Tallawy'

study included children of all gestation lengths (from

extremely preterm to full-term to post-term (after 42 weeks' gestation)). Since induced abortions increase maternal

INFECTION risk (a major CP risk factor), prior abortions

boost future Cerebral Palsy risk for all such babies,

regardless of how early or how late newborn babies enter

their 'new world'.

How many new U.S. ACP (Abortion-CP) cases yearly?

      The 2014 Egyptian study reported that prior IAs by

their mothers multiply future CP risk in newborns by 2.45.

[4, Tallawy] Using a more 'conservative' risk number (2.0)

for the U.S. means that for the U.S., with about 15% of

women delivering having prior IAs, about 1,700 newborn

U.S. babies yearly will have Cerebral Palsy due to their

mothers' prior induced abortions.

3 'strikes' & U R out (baseball jargon)

      According to Harvard U. researchers Dr. Robert

Fletcher and Dr. Suzanne Fletcher, the best evidence

whether a purported risk factor is an actual risk factor

is provided by a [competent] SRMA (Systematic Review

& Meta-Analysis) type study.[5, Fletcher] SRMAs

combine data from many previous studies and compute

risk numbers. There have been three (3) SRMAs for the

abortion-preemie risk.[6, Ankum; 7, Shah; 8, Swingle]

Are the results 'mixed' with one SRMA finding higher risk,

one SRMA finding lower 'preemie' risk, & one finding no

increase or decrease in risk? NO! All 3 SRMA studies are unanimous in finding that prior induced abortions

significantly raise premature delivery risk. For the abortion-

preemie deniers this is 3 Strikes & U R Out!!!. Both the

Ankum SRMA and the Swingle SRMA very importantly

found that prior IAs multiply VERY preterm birth (under

32 weeks') risk by over 1.6 times (over 60% boost in VPB

risk).[6, Ankum; 8, Swingle] [Dr. Shah did not compute a

VPB risk number]. The 3 SRMAs validate the 2007

Institute of Medicine finding that “Prior first trimester

induced abortion” is an “Immutable Medical Risk Factor

Associated with Preterm Birth”.[9, Behrman; URL:

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

Final Note

      High profile abortion 'safety' defender, Dr. David A.

Grimes (University of North Carolina), has been unable

to cite even one 21st century systematic review (with

meta-analysis) to clear prior induced abortions of 

raising premature delivery risk.

Brent Rooney (MSc)

Research Director, Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition

3456 Dunbar St. (Suite 146)

Vancouver, Canada V6S 2C2

email: fullterm40@gmail.com

web: http://www.justiceforkids.webs.com

Appendix: Best question to ask the McGill U. research M.D.s

In their 2013 introduction section the 3 McGill U. M.D.s

reminded their readers:

    “Preterm delivery is also associated with long-term health

    consequences for the newborn, including

    neurodevelopment disability such as cerebral palsy and

    chronic medical conditions such as bronchopulmonary


Nowhere in their 2013 study did the 3 M.D.s EXPLICITY

write that induced abortions are linked to raised CP risk,

only IMPLICITLY. Thus, if asked if they linked prior

induced abortions to CP, they can deny any [EXPLICIT]

link. The smart question to ask any one of the M.D.s is:

Can a link between prior induced abortions and increased

risk of Cerebral Palsy be ruled out? And if the answer is

'yes', by what logic can the abortion-CP link be ruled out?”

By U.S. law patients must be warned of not only serious

adverse risks that are well known, but also about adverse

risks for which there is 'merely' credible evidence.


1 Ghislain Hardy, Alice Benjamin, Haim A. Abenhaim.

Effects of Induced Abortions on Early Preterm Births

and Adverse Perinatal Outcomes. Journal Obstetrics

Gynaecology Canada 2013;35(2):138-143 [ URL:

http://www.jogc.com/abstracts/full/201302_Obstetrics_5.pdf ]

2 Himpens E, Van Den Broeck C, Oostra A, Claders P,

Vanhaesebrouck P. Prevalence, type, and distribution and severity

of cerebral palsy in relation to gestational age: a meta-analytic

review. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008;50:334-340.[ URL:



3 Rooney: URL:


Accessed 4 July 2015

4 El-Tallawy HN, Farghaly WMA, Shehata GA, Rageh TA,

Metwally NA. Cerebral Palsy in Al-Quseir City, Egypt: prevalence,

subtypes, and risk factors. Neuropsychiatric Disease Treatment

2014;10:1267-1272 [URL:


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

The Essentials [Fourth Edition]. Lippincott Williams & Wilkens,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2005

6 Ankum WM, Lemmers M, Vershoor MAC, Hooker AB,

Opmeer BC. Does dilation and curettage (D & C) increase

the risk of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies? A

systematic review and meta-analysis. [ URL:

http://eshre2015.congressplanner.eu/showabstract.php?congress=ESHRE2015&id=262 ]

7 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 ]

8 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 ]

9 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 ]


 [End of McGill CP item]



Black American Women 'Guinea Pigs' for UnProven Surgery??

                            $$20,100$$ Contest      27 February 2014

 (Sponsored by: Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition ;  fullterm40@yahoo.com )

If APPLE's Siri software program gives you an exact citation of
a published ANIMAL study of 'suction' abortion, you can win $20,100,
if you are the first one to submit that CORRECT citation to us.

 Americans, including radio & TV personality Toure Neblett and

Planned Parenthood, would be outraged if a very common abortion

surgery, 'suction' (i.e. vacuum aspiration) abortion, was never proven safe

via published animal studies; it would also violate principle three of

the 1947 Nuremberg Code ('gold standard' for medical experimentation).
All young women & especially minority women (including Black-American
& Hispanic-American women) must have complete confidence in the safety
of the most common abortion surgery, “suction” abortion.   Thus, it is
it is very important to demonstrate that there is at least one (1) published
animal study to validate “suction” abortion safety. Apparently,there is
no such animal study; http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf .

$$20,100$$ Prize:
The first person to cite a published non-human primate study (in English)
that reports that the risk of premature birth for non-human primates with one
or more prior “suction” (vacuum aspiration ) abortions wins; the study must
show no increase in premature birth risk for non-human primates with prior
suction” abortions compared to non-human primates with no prior induced
abortions. Said study must have been published between 22 January 1967 and
22 January 2012 and the medical journal in which the study appears must be
a peer-reviewed medical journal that was still publishing articles as of 22
March 2012. Monkeys, baboons, chimpanzees, and gorillas are examples of
non-human primates. There is a bonus of THREE (3) gold MAPLE LEAF

coins (one ounce each) to the $20,100 winner, if he/she is a MEDICAL



Second Prize: $$510$$

The first person to cite a published [non-human] animal study (in English)
that reports the risk of premature birth or mammary tumors in [non-human]
animals with one or more prior “suction” ( aka vacuum aspiration )
abortions wins $510; the study must show no increase in premature
birth risk or no increase in mammary tumor risk to animals with
prior “suction” abortions compared to animals with no prior induced
abortions. (The study must have been published between 22 January
1967 and 22 January 2012 and the medical journal must be a peer-
reviewed medical journal that was still publishing as of 22 March 2012.)
Unlike the $20,100 contest, any non-human animal can be the subject of
the published study and thus, one is not limited to non-human primates.

How to submit your claimed citation

Send a HARD COPY of your claimed study (in English) before 22 January 2016
to: Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition
3456 Dunbar St. (Suite 146)
Vancouver, Canada V6S 2C2

Your letter MUST supply your name, mailing address & at least one email address

1. Every letter that we receive that claims to have supplied a copy of a qualifying
study will be notified by EMAIL that their claim has been received. Unless
you get a confirmation that you have won, then you have not yet won. Only
the first one to CORRECTLY cite a study meeting the criteria above will win.
[Some will note that if the 1st of the two prizes above is won, that person
also wins the other ($510) prize; the director of this contest thinks that
the odds are so extremely low that such a study exists to win the first prize of
$20,100, that two prizes are offered. As a note of interest, non-human primates
(e.g.s. monkeys, chimpanzees, baboons) have the most relevance to human re-
production of all non-human animals.]

2. We have to consider the possibility that someone will submit a counterfeit
document that was never actually published. Thus, we will:

a. First see if any of the following search engines can find the claimed study:
Pubmed (the U.S. Government medical search engine)

If none of these search engines can find the claimed study, we discard
the claim, but we will note in a log book why the claim was discarded.

b. If the claimed study was found by one of the 3 search engines mentioned
above, we will make all attempts to get a hard copy, since the actual text of
the study may or may not be the same as that in the submission sent to us.

c. Assuming that one of the search engines above has found the article and
that we can obtain a hard copy from a reliable source, then if the text of the
'reliable source' shows that the winning criteria have been met, we will con-
tact the winner and send him or her a certified check for the prize.

3. All decisions by those judging this contest are final.



Add your main content here - text, photos, videos, addons, whatever you want!