A que interessa o aborto no Brasil e a deslavada má fé de quem acompanha os fins espúrios de um governo que usa da ilegalidade há 10 anos – parte 1

 

No Brasil, a “legalização” do aborto ocorrerá por negligência, no mínimo, e não por falta de recursos jurídicos para impedi-la, pois estes recursos não estão sendo usados intencionalmente.

 

Pergunta: o que é mesmo que o ufanismo “leigo” (?!!) comemorativo da direção de “Brasil sem aborto” estava considerando “mérito” ver como “atrasado” no julgamento da ADPF 54?

 


A que interessa o aborto no Brasil e a deslavada má fé de quem acompanha os fins espúrios de um governo que usa da ilegalidade há 10 anos – parte 1

 

https://objetodignidade.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/no-brasil-a-legalizacao-do-aborto-ocorrera-por-negligencia-no-minimo-e-nao-por-falta-de-recursos-juridicos-para-impedi-la-pois-estes-recursos-nao-estao-sendo-usados-intencionalmente/

—– Original Message —–

 

From: Celso Galli Coimbra
To: nao_ao_aborto@yahoogrupos.com.br
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 2:51 AM
Subject: [aborto_não] Re: BRASIL SEM ABORTO PREPARA 3ª MARCHA PELA VIDA E PELA PAZ – 30/08/09

 

Escrevi esta mensagem antes do falecimento do Min. M. Direito, o que sabia-se estava para ocorrer devido ao seu estado de saúde. Aliás, Lula, qdo escolheu aquele Min., sabia que ele tinha pouco tempo de vida. Outro, Eros Grau vai ser aposentado pela idade.

 
Os mais cotados para preenchimento destas vagas são o ex-procurador-geral da República, Antonio Fernando de Souza, o presidente do Superior Tribunal de Justiça, Cesar Asfor Rocha, e o advogado-geral da União, José Antônio Dias Toffoli (referido por mim na mensagem e preferido de lula).

 

 

Já houve mais uma decisão judicial de primeira instância no MS autorizando aborto de anencéfalo entre o dia 29 e hoje.
Pergunta: o que é mesmo que o ufanismo “leigo” (?!!) comemorativo da direção de “Brasil sem aborto” estava considerando “mérito” ver como “atrasado” no julgamento da ADPF 54?

 
Para legalizar o aborto no Brasil, o mais importante continua sendo a conduta “pró-vida” midiática desta ONG, que ainda se “surpreende” quando o Governo Federal retira-lhe recursos à última hora, deixando claro que teria sido “induzido a erro”.

 

Esta retirada de recursos com viés desmoralizador bem sucedido não era uma possibilidade e sim uma certeza.
Por que a Lenise se surpreendeu?

 

Por terem cometido um erro? Por achar que a “legalização” do aborto está dentro de um contexto “democrático” deste governicho?

 
Vão pedir ajuda cientifíca no exterior com o meio que trabalha conosco há bem mais de uma década e acham que isto não seria objeto de conhecimento e avaliação?

 

Caiu muito mal neste meio a maneira como esta ajuda foi solicitada, porque não passou despercebido a pessoas com larga experiência o que ela representava de fato.
Há vida inteligente dentro de “Brasil Sem Aborto” ou sim outros interesses inteligentes voltados para interesses pessoais de alguns?

 

 

O terceiro ano de existência de BSA [Brasil sem aborto] deve ser comemorativo de uma cooperação impar de bastidores e por omissões com tudo aquilo que é decisivo para o objetivo dos abortistas.

 

Celso Galli Coimbra
OABRS 11352
Celso Galli Coimbra
OABRS 11352
http://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/
www.biodireito-medicina.com.br

 
—– Original Message —–

From: Celso Galli Coimbra
To: nao_ao_aborto@yahoogrupos.com.br
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 4:48 PM
Subject: [aborto_não] Re: BRASIL SEM ABORTO PREPARA 3ª MARCHA PELA VIDA E PELA PAZ – 30/08/09

 

Resposta à mensagem que festeja o terceiro ano de Brasil Sem Aborto.

O PL 1135/91 sempre foi uma manobra diversionista muito bem usada pelos abortistas e melhor ainda digerida por muitos dos que se consideram pró-vida.

 
Objetivo: desviar as atenções dos erros sistemáticos do meio pró-vida que continuam sendo cometidos na via onde o aborto será “legalizado” no Brasil – dentro do Poder Judiciário, no STF.

 
Não se comunique aqui que os Ministros do STF estão sendo suscetíveis a influências pró-vida porque isto não é verdade, pelo contrário, este “tempo ganho” está servindo é para que seja posta em prática uma estratégia no Judiciário de “consolidação de bases”, onde se verifica que as primeiras e segundas instâncias do Judiciário Nacional passam a dar suporte ao STF com cada vez mais decisões em suas respectivas esferas autorizando aborto de anencéfalos.

 
Neste cenário de “ganho de tempo” festejado o que ocorre é que as decisões de juízes de primeira instância contra o aborto de anencéfalos, quando ocorrem, passam a ser objeto de reforma em segunda instância, como é fato sabido no meio judicial e que tem como último precedente decisão de Desembargador do TJRS mandando juíza de primeira instância autorizar aborto de anencéfalo que ela tinha negado. Isto passa despercebido para leigos em seu significado, mas não se pode admitir que eu esteja me dirigindo a leigos por mais de três anos.

 

A situação, ao contrário do que a mensagem pretende comunicar, não melhorou. Ela piorou e muito para a defesa da vida desde a concepção. Esqueceram o parecer decisivo do Ministério Público Federal favorável ao aborto de anencéfalos na ADPF 54 apresentado ao STF? Está quase tudo bem?

 

Enquanto isso, a presidência de Brasil Sem Aborto está procurando “apoio científico” no exterior (com emails em espanhol redigidos por terceiros, e sequer no idioma de seus destinatários) e continua, tanto “esquecendo” que o apoio científico de mesmo nível está dentro do Brasil, quanto o fato de que sem defesa jurídica à altura da situação que é essencialmente jurídica, de nada adiantará este suporte científico, pois lhe faltara na melhor das hipóteses o manejo jurídico que se faz imperativo dentro de um processo jurídico, perante um órgão jurisdicional. Está quase tudo bem pensar que o STF é um “laboratório científico” ou meio “acadêmico científico”?

 

Está quase tudo bem dar tempo para que mais um Ministro do STF possa ser nomeado por Lula, possivelmente seu cargo de confiança ex-dirigente da AGU?

 

No âmbito das audiências públicas da ADPF 54, a partir de setembro de 2008, houve sabotagem de uma defesa jurídica em precioso espaço de 15 minutos amplamente utilizado por assessora de confiança da Secretaria Especial de Nilcéia Freire (que já tínhamos deixado sem argumentos em programa de TV do STF), que estava acertada que seria feita por mim, mesmo que para ser lida por terceiros, onde as questões jurídicas que vão decidir este assunto seriam apontadas de forma mais clara do que realmente deseja o Brasil Sem Aborto, como, por exemplo, deixar claro ao STF sem meias palavras que, nos assuntos que gravitam no âmbito da Convenção Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, ele, STF, ao contrário do que foi dito por Ayres Britto, não é o órgão jurisdicional que tem a última palavra, mas sim a Corte Internacional de Direitos Humanos.

 
O que aconteceu? Houve simples renúncia deste espaço de defesa em audiência pública no ano de 2008, sem meu conhecimento prévio, sob a falsa alegação perante o Ministro Marco Aurélio de que não havia quem o fizesse. Está quase tudo bem mesmo?

 

Este clima de “muito a comemorar”, especialmente depois do extraordinário fiasco jurídico no julgamento das células tronco embrionárias dentro do STF, que representou a definição da realidade do que está em andamento e não foi alterada pela sucessão dos acontecimentos; quando, então, sequer houve fundamentação tempestiva da defesa da vida na Convenção Americana de Direitos Humanos, não corresponde aos fatos que se apresentam e que levam à legalização do aborto no Brasil dentro via STF. Este clima de ufanismo deslocado somente pode aumentar a retirada de foco de um grave problema tal qual como ele realmente está definido. Promove a aparência fatal do “faz de conta que estamos fazendo” o que os fatos exigem que seja feito.

 

 

Não está quase tudo bem e certamente não haverá tempo para o “muito que tem por ser feito” a não ser que a referência seja sobre correr atrás do prejuízo, como ocorre em outros países, para tentar revogar a “legalização” do aborto neste país.

 
A quais interesses esta sistematização de conduta comemorativa e ufanista beneficia?

 

Não são os que se opõem com realismo ao desrespeito à defesa da vida desde a concepção tal qual ordenamento jurídico algum noutros países está hoje proporcionando ao Brasil.

 

No Brasil, a “legalização” do aborto ocorrerá por negligência, no mínimo, e não por falta de recursos jurídicos para impedi-la, pois estes recursos não estão sendo usados intencionalmente.

 

 

Celso Galli Coimbra
OABRS 11352
http://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/
www.biodireito-medicina.com.br

Neste grupo não é admitida a defesa da legalização do aborto no Brasil.
O início da vida humana individualizada, para a Ciência e para o Direito, começa na concepção. Subsídios sobre estas informações podem ser obtidos nos textos e artigos que são colocados nos Arquivos deste grupo.

Endereços de e-mail do grupo:

Enviar mensagem: nao_ao_aborto@yahoogrupos.com.br
Entrar no grupo: nao_ao_aborto-subscribe@yahoogrupos.com.br
Proprietários da lista: nao_ao_aborto-owner@yahoogrupos.com.br
Página Inicial do grupo:

http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/nao_ao_aborto/

—-

Brasil, de 2002 a 2012 passa pela fase totalitária: ilegalidade e ilegitimidade são tipicas na ditadura civil.

Estava teclando para Roberta minha prima, e não  consegui concuir uma frase sequer! O tema é atual e pertinente ‘a realidade politica do pais. Um artigo que comecei em 2009 e, como outros que ficaram, apresento-o sem revisao  na esperança de mostrar como é que ‘decidem’ nossas vidas no brasil… só agora iniciaram o julgamento do ‘mensalao’ no STF.

Cristiane Rozicki                   

3 de agosto de 2009

—————–

Brasil, de 2002 a 2012 passa pela fase totalitária: ilegalidade e ilegitimidade são tipicas na ditadura civil.

Implicações das políticas do presidente Lula para “legalizar” o aborto “livre”: inconstitucionalidades correspondem à maior caracteristica de um ambiente não-democrático, a herança de Dilma

Atualmente, e isso acontece já há varias décadas aqui no Brasil, o serviço publico de comunicação é utilizado para dissimular inverdades tanto cientificas como jurídicas. Toda a sociedade brasileira é cotidiana e sistematicamente colocada diante de uma realidade artificialmente criada pela Imprensa e que se contradiz, se contrapõe e corrobora com a política infame dos caminhos da ilegalidade. Para confirmar esta afirmação, basta um breve relato histórico.

Há de se notar, Liberdade de expressão não tem qualquer relação com a habilidade da desinformação, nem com falta de ética atrelada à condução das responsabilidades públicas, tampouco com o desprezo à ética e à Lei no relacionamento com as outras pessoas.

Procurar compreender as alamedas que permitiram o desenvolvimento da malha política do governo Lula, e, a partir disso, a admissão governamental ilegal e ilegítima de uma sequencia de desconsiderações à Constituiçao brasileira. Estes fatos obrigam a lembrança de muitos acontecimentos, desde as corrupções à consolidação do atual despotismo.

Hoje, brasileiros estão a viver a tirania de um governo que corrompeu todas as instituições públicas e todos os poderes da União. Não existe, agora, nessas condições de partidarismo político ou de interesses economicos patrimoniais individualizado a comandar as funções públicas do Estado brasileiro, sem a devida observação e respeito à Lei Maior, sequer uma democracia forjada. Estas condições da realidade do governo Lula confirmam a tirania. A realidade é a prova.

Como mercenários, fazem do comércio com a vida dos outros a sua “empresa”. Não trabalham para um seu país, apenas cumprem promessas e serviços a quem pagar mais. Com isso a administração dos interesses públicos está na mão de interesses privados. E assim o Brasil ganhou administração com a ‘cara’ de investidores internacionais sem pátria.

Inconstitucionalidades correspondem à maior caracteristica de um ambiente não-democrático

Um presidente manipular informações que são oferecidas à população através da propaganda, da mídia, da televisão e da imprensa, e usar das prerrogativas que obteve por outorga do povo – o presidente Lula é um funcionário publico e tem obrigações a responder -, para obter o descumprimento de ordem da Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil é golpe à Nação.

Na verdade, o ambiente atual trata-se de um novo modelo de ditadura. Há, agora, uma ditadura civil, neoliberalista – é o capitalismo ultra-moderno da globalização de mercadorias, o objetivo é tão-somente o lucro e a privatização dos serviços e das funções do Estado, uma pratica liderada por um ex-operário que se dizia comum trabalhador sempre a ser prejudicado por ações deliberadas dos governos anteriores.

Impende recordar que ações e omissões do funcionalismo público respondem às disposições constitucionais. A inobservância da Lei pode configurar crimes. Não obstante, os actos de improbidadeadministrativa e crimes de responsabilidade no Brasil têm perdão nos últimos anos.

A Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil determina:

Art. 37. A administração pública direta, indireta ou fundacional, de qualquer dos Poderes da União, dos Estados, do Distrito Federal e dos Municípios obedecerá aos princípios de legalidade, impessoalidade, moralidade, publicidade […].

Art. 50. A Câmara dos Deputados e o Senado Federal, ou qualquer de suas Comissões, poderão convocar Ministro de Estado ou quaisquer titulares de órgãos diretamente subordinados à Presidência da República para prestarem, pessoalmente, informações sobre assunto previamente determinado, importando em crime de responsabilidade a ausência sem justificação adequada. <alterado pela E.C.R. 2/94>

Deve-se assinalar que os partidos políticos também têm obrigação de respeitar a Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil em seus estatutos, actividades e projectos. A Lei Maior é clara:

Art. 17. É livre a criação, fusão, incorporação e extinção de partidos políticos, resguardados a soberania nacional, o regime democrático, o pluripartidarismo, os direitos fundamentais da pessoa humana e observados os seguintes preceitos:

I – caráter nacional;

II – proibição de recebimento de recursos financeiros de entidade ou governo estrangeiros ou de subordinação a estes;

III – prestação de contas à Justiça Eleitoral;

§ 3º – Os partidos políticos têm direito a recursos do fundo partidário e acesso gratuito ao rádio e à televisão, na forma da lei.

Observa-se que esta gratuidade de propaganda política, prevista no 3º parágrafo do artigo 12, só é possível com o uso dos recursos financeiros obtidos primariamente do recolhimento de impostos e “contribuições” dos cidadãos. Ou seja, os contribuintes sustentam a mídia política partidária no radio e na televisao querendo ou não.

E o artigo 17 exige dos partidos políticos absoluto respeito e resguardo à soberania nacional, ao regime democrático, ao pluripartidarismo, e aos direitos fundamentais da pessoa humana. O direito à vida é direito fundamental com segurança em clausula pétrea do art. 60 da Constituiçao da Republica.

Impende dizer ainda que inscritos na Lei Maior estão os princípios e valores básicos de um país, valores morais, sociais e legais que regram a conduta humana de todos. Assim sendo, o governo do Estado brasileiro, poder executivo, que desconsidera os valores da Naçao brasileira e a Constituiçao Federal, perde a legitimidade e a legalidade em suas açoes. E, para verificar esta legitimidade e a total legalidade de ações, no Estado Democrático de Direito brasileiro, existe a hierarquia das leis e daí decorre o controle de constitucionalidade.

Observa-se, Toda atividade legislativa tem suas maiores restrições no 4o parágrafo do art. 60 da Lei Suprema. A Forma Federativa De Estado; O Voto Direto, Secreto, Universal e periódico; A Separação De Poderes; e, Os Direitos e Garantias Fundamentais. Cabe dizer que a tentativa de eliminar Direitos Fundamentais, Direito Universal como é o Direito à vida no art. 5º da Carta Maior – e todos os incisos, como por exemplo, direito á privacidade, direito de ampla defesa e comunicação social – direito e direitos abrigados na Constituição da República.

Reitera-se novamente o que vem sendo dito desde 1988.  Analisando a profundidade dos princípios básicos e fundamentais do Estado democrático de direito brasileiro, resta confirmada a inconstitucionalidade de qualquer ato dos órgãos do Estado – executivo, legislativo e judiciario, ou de particulares, que venha a repudiar o exercício de direitos que perfazem os Direitos Fundamentais e são afirmados desde o Preâmbulo da Máxima Lei e do 1o artigo.

Recursos legislativos infraconstitucionais representam um bom exemplo de tentativa infrutífera de dar fim ao vigor de certos artigos da Lei Suprema. A Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil não admite  interpretações restritivas do direito à vida.

Não surpreende o Decreto Nº 7.037, DE 21 DE DEZEMBRO DE 2009, do Presidente Lula, decreto que recebeu o aval da Casa Civil durante o exercício de Dilma Hulssef. O decreto criou o PNDH3, o programa nacional de direitos humanos, a 11 meses do fim do segundo mandato de Lula. O decreto apresenta contribuições de 17 ministérios. Tais contribuições, no decreto n. 7.037 de dezembro de 2009, correspondem a propostas de governo. No entanto, tratam-se de propostas que repetem discursos de campanha eleitoral, iguais ás “diretrizes” do Partido dos Trabalhadores oferecidas como programa de governo na campanha de 2002, do candidato Lula, que, agora nas eleições de 2010, quer ressuscitar em Dilma.

O decreto 7.037 ajeita um discurso que pegou muito mal num aparente “trabalho cientifico”: palavras impróprias porque não têm conteúdo real e sem definição, oportunas ao ranço ideológico político-partidário, em terminologia inadequada para tratar de Direitos Humanos. Não há leitor ou ouvinte desatento que possa compreender significados de um texto desordenado de campanha num decreto.

Os resultados práticos, que se destacam com a leitura das cansativas 73 paginas do decreto, são o convite arbitrário ao despotismo “alternativista” ou o desmonte do Estado Democrático de Direito com o fim da consideração aos mandamentos constitucionais.

O PNDH/3 campanha de Lula surgiu como decreto por desrespeito á Constituição Federal, configurou o desenvolvimento de amplo e vasto arsenal burocrático com a criação de milhares de novas instancias autônomas e secretarias comunitárias, municipais, estaduais e federais, alem de deteriorar os Direitos Fundamentais com o evidente fim das garantias de efetivação dos Direitos Humanos Universais que estão na Constituição como por exemplo: um governo tripartite onde exista o Judiciario; o direito de acesso pleno ao Judiciario; direito de acesso á Justiça; direito aos recursos para alcançar a Justiça; direito á privacidade; direito de ampla defesa; direito á saúde preventiva; direito á igualdade política que é social e cultural – social  significa educação e saúde, e participação econômica.

O programa do PNDH3/2009 despreza e mergulha a universalidade dos Direitos Humanos na fantasia nada original de campanha eleitoral. Tal construção é semelhante aos piores exemplos de ditadura. Com a dispensa do critério da Constituição da Republica, o programa de Lula conforma a população ao arbítrio de um governo “alternativo” sem lei.

Seguiu a idéia pratica da MEDIAÇAO EXTRA-JUDICIAL cuja fonte primaria é o Direito Privado Internacional que é próprio do Direito Comercial. Porem, o autor do programa de 21 de dezembro de 2009 não observou que, sim é necessário trazer a JUSTIÇA para perto do cidadão mas, hoje, como está no PNDH/3 de Lula, chega ao cidadão a negociação de seus Direitos Humanos. Deveriam ser a JUSTIÇA E O ACESSO AO JUDICIARIO PARA MAIS PERTO DO CIDADAO colocados no programa de Direitos Humanos. Isto deve ser assim porque DIREITOS HUMANOS NÃO SÃO PASSIVEIS DE negociação. Diminuir a hierarquia valorativa destes Direitos é inconstitucional no Brasil, segundo o 4º parágrafo do art. 60 da Carta Maior. Ceder os direitos particulares de cada uma pessoa, seus direitos humanos fundamentais á negociação é um erro fatal. Este caminho acaba a deliberar por crimes, benefícios a alguns e seleção de grupos de pessoas, traz desigualdades, injustiças e renova discriminações. Tudo decorre da desconsideração das leis.

É preciso frisar este alerta, Os Direitos Humanos são Universais por sua natureza: são o marco de respeito á vida humana que todos os povos admitiram e reconheceram em suas cartas políticas. Daí que os Direitos Humanos são irrenunciáveis, irrevogáveis, não passiveis de negociação, e necessários em toda sua integridade para plena garantia e segurança da vida de cada pessoa e de todas as pessoas.

 

Ainda há de ser dito, no contexto de Direitos Humanos, Direito Publico Internacionalmente, SUJEITO DE DIREITOS É CADA SER HUMANO.Especificamente no Direito brasileiro, Sujeito de Direitos é todo ser humano do instante da concepção até a sua expiração natural com o finis vitaeVida é o maior bem jurídico que se pode ter. O bem jurídico é um valor. Em outras palavras, bem jurídico é todo valor da vida humana que tem proteção.

 

Assim, o Código Civil brasileiro assegura os direitos do nascituro no art. 2º sem discriminar suas condições e seu estado de vida, a lei nacional não faz diferenciações entre graus de saúde nem diferencia genero nem forma nem DNA para as pessoas, e segue assim a abrir modos para sua representação jurídica, para que todos possam obter a proteção de seus direitos únicos pois são seus direitos, esteja a pessoa acordada ou não, no ventre ou em tubo de ensaio, nascida ou crio-preservada, em coma na maca de hospital ou na sua cama a repousar, a lei brasileira em vigor não faz discriminações de tipo algum.

No Brasil, o direito à vida tem destaque. O art. 5º da Constituição da Republica cuida DOS DIREITOS E GARANTIAS FUNDAMENTAIS e determina que “Todos são iguais perante a lei, sem distinção de qualquer natureza, garantindo-se aos brasileiros e aos estrangeiros residentes no País a inviolabilidade do direito à vida, à liberdade, à igualdade, à segurança e à propriedade, nos termos” dos incisos e parágrafos e completa com a Convenção Americana Sobre Direitos Humanos, o Pacto de San José – Artigo 4º – sobre o Direito à vida: “1. Toda pessoa tem direito de que se respeite sua vida. Esse direito deve ser protegido pela lei e, em geral, desde o momento da concepção. Ninguém pode ser privado da vida arbitrariamente”.

 

A Convenção Americana sobre Direitos Humanos, Pacto de San José da Costa Rica, foi adotada e aberta à assinatura na Conferência Especializada Interamericana sobre Direitos Humanos, em San José de Costa Rica, em 22 de novembro de 1969. O Pacto reconheceu “que os direitos essenciais do homem não derivam do fato de ser ele nacional de determinado Estado, mas sim do fato de ter como fundamento os atributos da pessoa humana […]” preâmbulo. Ratificada pelo Brasil em 25 de setembro de 1992. O artigo 1º da Convenção Americana sobre Direitos Humanos dispõe que “2. Para os efeitos desta Convenção, pessoa é todo ser humano.”

 

O Artigo 33º da Carta Americana de Direitos Humanos faz “competentes para conhecer dos assuntos relacionados com o cumprimento dos compromissos assumidos pelos Estados Partes” a Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos e a Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. A Comissao tem a competência de receber as denuncias de violação de qualquer dos direitos da Convenção por um Estado-Parte. O Artigo 63º define as atividades da Corte quando decidir que houve violação de um direito ou liberdade protegido na Convençao.

 

O DIREITO BRASILEIRO acolheu e sub-escreveu Convenções Internacionais que INTEGRAM A PROTEÇÃO CONSTITUCIONAL AOS DIREITOS FUNDAMENTAIS DO SER HUMANO. Vale lembrar que o genocídio está previsto em lei.

 

O Brasil ratificou o Pacto Internacional dos Direitos Civis e Políticos, em 24 de janeiro de 1992. Esta convenção internacional prevê o genocídio no 6o artigo como o ato de arbitrariamente tirar a vida de uma pessoa. Esta lei internacional tem valor normativo interno no território brasileiro.

VIDA não pode ser depreciada, qualquer que seja o ambiente humano de comunicação social. Vida é Direito fundamental muito bem destacado no caput do 5o artigo constitucional, parágrafos e incisos, assim como nas Convenções internacionais sobre direitos humanos sub-escritas pelo Brasil. O 6o artigo do Pacto Internacional de Direitos Civis e Políticos dispõe que a privação arbitrária do direito à vida, segundo o tratado de 1966, denomina-se genocídio. Genocídio é a ofensa ao Direito de Viver.Artigo 6. O direito à vida é inerente à pessoa humana. Este direito deverá ser protegido pela lei. Ninguém poderá ser arbitrariamente privado da vida.

 

Segundo o referido Pacto, compreende-se que o indivíduo, por ter deveres para com seus semelhantes e para com a coletividade a que pertence, tem a obrigação de lutar pela promoção e pela observância dos direitos reconhecidos na Convenção. A inobservância deste princípio e dos deveres,  permitem que se identifique a discriminação, antes de outros crimes de maior gravidade.

O desrespeito arbitrário à vida é crime internacional denominado GENOCÍDIO, crime que fere a humanidade. Crime previsto também no Estatuto de Roma, que pretende prevenir o acontecimento de tais abusos contra a vida humana. O Estatuto de Roma da Corte Penal Internacional cuida, dentre os Crimes de competência do Tribunal, o crimedeGenocídio. O Tribunal Penal Internacional e sua integração ao Direito Brasileiro para a Prevenção e a Repressão do Crime de Genocídio são importantes.

A cláusula do § 2º, do art. 5º, da Carta da República dispõem que os direitos e garantias expressos na Constituição não excluem outros decorrentes do regime e dos princípios por ela adotados, ou dos tratados internacionais em que a República Federativa do Brasil seja parte.

 

Fato é que os Direitos Humanos fazem parte, integram a Constituição da Republica e esperam somente a sua efetivação. A efetivação dos Direitos Humanos é questão política e responsabilidade de cada governante em sua administração. Lula, em todo o seu segundo mandato, desconsiderou e excluiu grupos de pessoas do aceso a seus Direitos Humanos fundamentais com o desrespeito do Direito á vida.

Em 2008, por exemplo, não respeitou a vida dos embriões humanos crio-preservados e ofertou-os ao comercio da biottecnologia conhecido há décadas, no mundo inteiro, como técnica anti-ética, tanto que a Convenção de Genebra a proíbe, e é inconstitucional no Brasil infratora do Direito Humano á vida.

Vida é o maior bem que se pode ter, valor que não se pode medir. Com a vida dos outros não se joga, não se barganha, não se brinca. Sejam embriões, fetos, mero-anencéfalos ou não, estejam adultos ou não, em coma ou não, estão vivos, são todos humanos e têm vida. Vida não tem preço nem medida. Respeitar a vida de outra pessoa significa respeitar a sua própria vida. Este é o caminho das pedras para um mundo digno e honesto.

 

Sobre os embriões, em junho de 2003, o procurador geral da União, o Sr. Cláudio Fonteles nomeado pelo próprio Lula, autor da Açao Direta de Inconstitucionalidade contra o art. 5 da lei de Biossegurança – ação redigida para perder no Supremo Tribunal Federal -, foi julgada improcedente no dia 29 de maio de 2008, uma lei que Lula aprovou em 2005 e que permite o uso das pessoas humanas em estado de crescimento – embriões ou fetos.

Recordação, em 2006, precisamente o 2o semestre, a campanha do PT e Lula foi toda “dedicada” às mulheres como aparenta a de Dilma hoje em 2010. No entanto, a bandeira de campanha naquela data e ainda hoje é a liberação do aborto a qualquer mês da gestação. As plataformas de Beijing´95 e Cairo´94 no Brasil, em 1995, tiveram o objetivo de transformar um crime na falsa idéia de “direito da mulher’’ e na fraude ‘a humanidade chamar o aborto de um Direito Humano. Para realizar este trabalho no território nacional foi preciso firmar um lobby abortista, uma influencia político-ideologica para agir diretamente junto á população e manter presença no Congresso Nacional. Fundaram o CFEMEA,  que não só conta com o apoio de organizações  internacionais financiadoras da campanha do aborto, conta também com contribuições do governo federal – a Receita Federal deve saber explicar onde o poder executivo, a Presidencia da Republica e a Casa Civil fazem investimentos. Também financiam o CFEMEA – e vários outros grupos pró-aborto – a Fundação Ford, a Fundação Mac Arthur, o Fundo das Nações Unidas para a População (FNUAP) e o Fundo das Nações Unidas para a Mulher (UNIFEM).

Não foi feita a divulgação pelo PT nem por Lula, não avisaram á população que foi o governo do presidente Lula que apresentou ao Congresso Nacional, em 27 de setembro de 2005, um projeto de lei para garantir o aborto livre até o momento do parto. A expositora do projeto homicida foi a obstetra e deputada Jandira Feghali. A estratégia de campanha do PT do presidente Lula foi simples: manter sigilo. Isto significou que o projeto abortista e homicida da presidência da Republica não recebeu divulgação no ano de campanha eleitoral, 2006, por causa da obvia rejeição popular. A pesquisa do Ibope, realizada em março de 2005, confirmou que 97% dos brasileiros são contra o aborto – imensa maioria de brasileiros.

 

Observe-se, esta questão genocida do projeto de lei do aborto, que já estava no Congresso Nacional, passou a ser exposta publicamente apenas em 2007, após a reeleição de Lula, passados mais de um ano do 2º mandato presidencial de Lula – pelo PT -, e o PT já era então chamado de partido abortista. O projeto de lei que o PT apresentou em 27 de setembro de 2005 tramitou na Câmara de Deputados sob o nome de substitutivo do PL 1135/91, extinguiu todos os artigos do Código Penal brasileiro que definem o crime de aborto.

Pois bem, em 2006, ano de campanha eleitoral – o ano do silencio da presidência da republica de Lula e do PT, para manter em sigilo o substitutivo do PL 1135/91, que extinguiu todos os artigos do crime de aborto do Código Penal brasileiro – Jaime Ferreira Lopes parecia homem ativo em campanhas da organização – Brasil sem aborto -. Em 2006, quem administra a Central Executiva de “Brasil sem Aborto” em Brasília foi pessoa responsável jurídica e administrativamente pelas ações da organização “Brasil sem aborto”. E, por isso, é esta mesma pessoa a responsável pela entrega intempestiva da carta que interpelou sobre o aborto aos dois candidatos à presidência da república, Alckmin e Lula da Silva. O partido político e o candidato beneficiados por um atraso calculado na entrega da interpelação foi o atual governo federal, a presidência de Lula e o PT pró- aborto. Não precisaria dizer mais nada, mas não acabou o raciocínio.

Este assunto foi deixado em silencio. Durante o 2º mandatopresidencial de Lula, o sitio oficial do Partido dos Trabalhadores – PT, fundado pelo presidente Lula, e ao qual ele pertence como presidente de honra, expôs na internet brasileira a notícia de que o 13º Encontro Nacional do PT definiu os objetivos do partido e de Lula. Em abril de 2007 o “PARTIDO DO ABORTO” assim explicou na WWW: “Foi com essa compreensão, EXPRESSA EM DIVERSAS RESOLUÇÕES DE NOSSO PARTIDO, que temos trabalhado nas ultimas décadas na luta para a libertação das mulheres. UMA DAS MAIS IMPORTANTES BANDEIRAS É A DA DESCRIMINALIZAÇÃO DO ABORTO.” Estas são as Diretrizes do PT para a Elaboração de um Programa de Governo.

 

Confirmam esta afirmação do parágrafo anterior, as seguintes informações: – a noticia no jornal O Estadao de São Paulo do dia 15 de dezembro de 2008; – e, o Projeto de Lei da Bolsa Aborto, PL 4.725/2009 de autoria de Flávio Bezerra, projeto apresentado ao Congresso Nacional em junho de 2009.

Aqui, mais uma vez, um projeto de lei inconstitucional é recebido e tramita no Congresso Nacional. A inconstitucionalidade do PL de Flavio Bezerra é evidente por confrontar-se com a Lei Maior, a Constituiçao, que garante o Direito á Vida. O favorecimento financeiro da “Bolsa Aborto” á mulher que opta pelo crime previsto no Codigo Penal brasileiro, corresponde á afronta, também e inclusive, dos tratados ratificados pelo Brasil e que integram o constitucionalismo brasileiro como norma fundamental de Direitos Humanos, quais sejam: a Convençao Americana de Direitos Humanos de 1972, o Pacto Internacional de Direitos Civis e Politicos de 1966, e Declaração Universal dos Direitos do Homem, assinada em Paris no dia 10 de dezembro de 1948.

O PL de Bezerra, PT, diz:
“Dispõe sobre a assistência para a mulher vítima de estupro que vier a optar por realizar aborto legal.
Art. 1º. A mulher que engravida em decorrência de ter sido vítima de estupro e optar por realizar o aborto legal terá direito a uma bolsa auxílio por um período de três meses…”

Não existe aborto legal no Codigo Penal. Ocorre o aborto que não é punido nos casos de gestante vitima de estupro e quando há risco de vida para a mulher. Esses tipos penais estao regulados no art. 128 do Codigo Penal brasileiro como crime que não é punido, trata-se do Aborto necessário.

 Art. 128 – Não se pune o aborto praticado por médico:

         I – se não há outro meio de salvar a vida da gestante;

        Aborto no caso de gravidez resultante de estupro

        II – se a gravidez resulta de estupro e o aborto é precedido de consentimento da gestante ou, quando incapaz, de seu representante legal.”

 

O direito à vida é um direito humano fundamental na Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Da realidade constitucional ao art. 2º do Código Civil de 2002, a vida é resguardada desde a concepção. O direito à vida é um direito fundamental do homem. E é do direito à vida que decorrem os outros direitos. O direito à vida é o primeiro direito e próprio à condição de ser humano. A Constituição Federal no Brasil declara que o direito à vida é inviolável no caput do 5º art.

Qualquer pretensão legislativa que desconsidera a Constituição da República é Inconstitucional e, por conseguinte, estará frustrada. Direito à vida é constitucional, é fundamental, e é direito individualizado de cada pessoa, estando a pessoa no mundo exterior ao ventre materno ou, ao contrário, mantendo-se no ventre da mulher. Este direito permanece intacto e atinge obrigatoriamente todo e qualquer ato normativo, seja de origem estatal, seja particular, eivando a todos que não respeitarem a letra da Lei Maior de inconstitucionalidade. Posto que a República federativa do Brasil é um Estado de Direito e supõe-se que o Brasil não é uma ditadura onde cada cidadão precisa temer a navalha fria da ilegitimidade.

 

E a mulher que opta por seguir a gestação, apesar do estupro, não ganha assistência financeira com garantia em lei. A mulher que adota também não ganha assistência financeira. Não existe previsão legal de auxilio á mulher que aceita a maternidade.

E “Lula diz que aborto não pode ser tabu” na segunda-feira, dia 15 de dezembro de 2008, ao participar da 11ª Conferência Nacional de Direitos Humanos. O secretário de direitos humanos, Paulo Vannucchi “disse que era preciso tratar essas questões com competência e delicadeza”. O ministro da Justiça, Tarso Genro, disse que Lula falou “de maneira ampla” sobre direitos humanos. Genro referiu o ministro da Defesa Nelson Jobim.

 

A desconsideração á Constituiçao tornou-se a regra alicerce do governo Lula. Conseguir a “legalização” de um crime contra a vida humana como é o aborto, via Congresso Nacional, com ou sem a participação do mensalao para aprovar os PLs, não foi possível ate 2008. Afinal, o congresso respeitou a vontade dos 97 por cento da população brasileira. A banalização dos Direitos Humanos Universais que integram a Constituiçao cidadã de 1988, aconteceu no poder judiciário.

 

Tratados sobre Direitos Humanos ratificados pelo Brasil, que valem na ordem constitucional como direitos fundamentais da pessoa individual e coletiva, foram ignorados pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal em 31 de maio de 2008. As Convençoes não consideradas foram: – o Pacto Internacional dos Direitos Civis e Políticos, que o Brasil ratificou em 24 de janeiro de 1992, esta convenção internacional prevê o genocídio no 6o artigo como o ato de arbitrariamente tirar a vida de uma pessoa; – a Declaração Universal dos Direitos do Homem, assinada em Paris no dia 10 de dezembro de 1948 que o Brasil assinou na mesma data de sua adoção e proclamação por muitos Estados-parte; – a Convenção Americana sobre Direitos Humanos, o Pacto de San José da Costa Rica foi adotada e aberta à assinatura em 22 de novembro de 1969, ratificado pelo Brasil em 25 de setembro de 1992.

Os poderes não são independentes entre si no Brasil. A denuncia sobre o crime organizado do mensalao, contra José Dirceu e José Genoino, nao foi acolhida pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal em 2007. O STF fez que nao viu. Ellen Gracie foi a presidente do Supremo e só votaria em caso de empate. Os ministros do STF que participaram do processo do mensalao sao os mesmos que julgaram a constitucionalidade do art. 5º da Lei nº 11.105, de 24 de março de 2005, a lei de Biossegurança, o que permitiu o desprezo do Direito á Vida dos embrioes em 31 maio de 2008. Veja-se quem foram os ministros:

Ellen Gracie – nomeada em 14 de dezembro de 2000 pelo então presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso;

Cármen Lúcia – foi nomeada em junho de 2006 pelo presidente Lula como ministra do Superior Tribunal Federal;

Celso de Mello – foi nomeado para o cargo em 1989, pelo então presidente José Sarney;

Carlos Ayres Britto – ocupa o cargo desde 2003, quando foi indicado pelo presidente Lula;

Carlos Alberto Menezes Direito, nomeado por Lula presidente e empossado no STF dia 5 de setembro de 2007;

Joaquim Barbosa ocupa o cargo de Ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal, em 2003, depois de ser nomeado pelo presidente Lula;

Cezar Peluso – oriundo da Magistratura, assumiu o cargo em junho de 2003, nomeado por Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva;

Eros Grau – vindo da advocacia, foi nomeado pelo presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva em junho de 2004;

Gilmar Mendes – tomou posse em 20 de junho de 2002, sob nomeação de Fernando Henrique Cardoso;

Ricardo Lewandowski – assumiu em março de 2006, nomeado pelo presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

No julgamento de 2008, sobre a “constitucionalidade” do art. 5º da lei de Biossegurança que delibera sobre o uso de embrioes humanos, participou tambem Carlos Alberto Menezes Direito, nomeado por Lula em 2007. No julgamento de 2008, Ellen Gracie, a presidente na primeira sessão, dá seu voto imediatamente após a apresentação do voto do relator Carlos Ayres Britto, acompanhando-o antes de qualquer empate.

 

O relator Carlos Ayres Britto exibe uma analogia entre “morte encefalica” e o estado embrionário do ser humano para “justificar” a morte arbitraria de embriões. O min. Britto esqueceu que ele proprio viveu o estagio embrionário, ignorou os tratados internacionais ratificados pelo Brasil e que na Constituiçao representam direitos e garantias fundamentais – a Convençao Americana de Direitos Humanos, a Convençao Universal dos Direitos do Homem de 1948,Pacto Internacional dos Direitos Civis e Políticos de 1966 – e perdeu da memória o art. 2º do Codigo Civil brasileiro que garante ao nascituro acesso a seus direitos:

Art. 2 o A personalidade civil da pessoa começa do nascimento com vida; mas a lei põe a salvo, desde a concepção, os direitos do nascituro”.

 

Inadvertidamente, a comparação de uma tentativa de exposição cientifica feita por Ayres Britto cometeu falhas inomináveis conhecidas desde a invenção do microscópio quando o homem pode ver a união dos gametas humanos formarem a nova vida humana individualizada e diferente do corpo onde está alojado até completarem-se os 9 meses de gestação, quando finalmente nasce o bebe. (ANEXO 1).

 

Vale acrescentar, sobre “morte encefálica”, que foi na década do cérebro, com o desenvolvimento da tecnologia da ressonância magnética – a década de 90, que os cientistas perceberam que aqueles a quem chamavam injustamente de vegetais “mortos encefálicos” têm seu cérebro, seu encéfalo, em plena atividade (ANEXO 2).

Não obstante seus encéfalos estarem completamente preservados e provem que estas pessoas vivem, existe uma deficiência a ser corrigida para que retornem á vida normal através de terapia apropriada, já conhecida no mundo inteiro, a hipotermia, que é o leve resfriamento do corpo para evitar que o edema cause prejuízos irreversíveis no encéfalo (ANEXO 3).

Este tema é complexo e requer um estudo aprofundado que Carlos Ayres Britto não fez. Alem da hipotermia são necessárias avaliações em exames de sangue para verificar a hipo-vitaminose e identificar as carências metabólicas de cada paciente. Este assunto foi debatido em varias oportunidades no Brasil e no exterior, e existe extensa bibliografia sobre morte encefalica – o brain death, que não foi consultada. (ANEXO 4)

Aqui no Brasil, podem ser citados as seguintes apresentações publicas sobre morte encefálica:                                                      

  – o Seminario de Bioética: Morte Encefálica, Doação de Órgãos e Tecidos, Eutanásia, no dia 20 de maio de 2003, promovido pela Comissão Especial de Bioética da Assembléia Legislativa do Rio Grande do Sul (AL/RS), com a participaçao de muitos profissionais e inclusive com o representante do Conselho Federal de Medicina (CFM), Solimar Pinheiro da Silva, o neurologista Cícero Galli Coimbra e o advogado Celso Galli Coimbra;

– e CPI do Tráfico de Órgãos e tecidos humanos  dia 23 de maio de 2003, quando houve um forte debate com o membro do CFM e da Câmara Técnica Brasileira de Morte Encefálica, Dr. Alcides Manreza. Nesta oportunidade, formalizou-se a acusação publica na CPI do Tráfico de Órgãos: – a) homicídio culposo por parte de qualquer médico que utilizar o teste da apnéia em qualquer paciente traumatizado encefálico severo (já havia sido feito por protocolo dentro do Ministerio Publico Federal, em primeiro de março de 2004); – b) institucionalização do tráfico de órgãos dentro da medicina pelos atuais gestores do Conselho Federal de Medicina, desde que, dentro do Ministério
Público Federal, gestores do CFM levaram a termo uma defesa fraudulenta desse teste de apnea em dezemdo de 2003, como tal já demonstrada em primeiro de março de 2004, numa análise de mais de 100 páginas, juntada na CPI com declarações de outros médicos dizendo que a apnéia mata o paciente para fins de transplante de órgãos vitais únicos; – c) a omissão do Ministerio Publico Federal – MPF que reteve os questitos mencionados no item B por mais de três anos sem determinar ao CFM que demonstrasse que o teste da apnéia não mata o paciente e ainda, após março de 2004, abriu prazo de “tréplica” (que não existe no , a não ser no Júri) para esse órgão, sob o benefício de “ampla defesa” […].

—-

The Wholesalers of aborted babies

 

Os atacadistas de bebês abortados

 

A brochura, brilhante, convida para fazer aborto e “descobrir como você pode transformar a sua decisão de paciente em algo maravilhoso.” Está impresso por linhas de abertura, uma divisão da Consultivo e Patologia de diagnóstico, onde uma traficante de atacado em partes do bebê abortado a partir de clínicas americanas, oferece o retorno financeiro á mulher que aborta e entrega o bebê abortado ao comercio. Os tecidos e partes de fetos abortados têm alto valor como matéria-prima das industrias de cosméticos, plásticas e biotecnologia de fármacos e alimentos.

 

Neste texto, foi relatado que, fora de um escritório em West Frankfort, IL, diretor da empresa, Dr. Miles Jones, OS LUCROS de um COMÉRCIO, evidentemente, tremendamente vantajoso – a “Taxa de Serviços Schedule” atual oferece olhos e ouvidos por US $ 75 a US $ 999 por um cérebro.

Cristiane Rozicki

***

NOTA: As linhas de abertura está associada a “Ass. presents anatômica”, uma corporação sem fins lucrativos, que aceita doações de órgãos e tem escritórios em vários estados.

 

Linhas de abertura foi fundada em 1989, para “maximizar a utilização de tecido fetal fresco que nós processar.” Ele oferece aos investigadores “da mais alta qualidade, mais acessível, mais fresco e tecido preparado com suas especificações e entregues nas quantidades que você precisa quando você precisar dele.”

 

Venda de tecidos humanos, incluindo o tecido fetal, é contra a lei federal, mas as linhas de abertura aconselha os pacientes como “simples” é para contornar isso. Ele oferece a “alugar o espaço a partir de sua instalação para realizar a colheita, para compensar a sobrecarga a sua clínica.” Ele também oferece para treinar a equipe da clínica na colheita e, em seguida, “com base em volume, reembolsar parte ou a totalidade do salário do seu empregado, reduzindo suas despesas gerais. ”

 

Dr. Jones é, obviamente, hábil em contornar os regulamentos inconvenientes. “Nós não exigem uma cópia de sua aprovação IRB ou resumo de sua pesquisa”, aconselha clientela em potencial, “e você não é obrigado a linhas de abertura do site como fonte de tecido quando você publicar seu trabalho (acreditamos no boca a boca publicidade, se você gosta de nosso serviço que você vai dizer a seus colegas “).

 

Linhas de abertura é um dos dois traficantes no atacado, descoberto por Mark Crutcher na vida Dynamics Inc., uma pró-vida em Denton Texas. A outra é a Anatomic Presente Foundation (AGF). Fundada em 1994 por Jim e Bardsley Brenda, que inicialmente funcionava em um trailer de largura dupla no final de uma estrada de terra no Rio Satilla na Geórgia, onde o casal também administrou uma fazenda bagre. Desde então, mudou sua sede para Laurel, MD e possui operações em Phoenix, AZ e Aurora, CO

 

Fontes dinâmica da vida dentro de clínicas de aborto adquiridos “tabelas de preços” para ambas as organizações. Abertura de linhas ‘é a mais detalhada dos dois, enumerando preços para órgãos de fetos sob oito semanas de gestação e de novo. Um “tronco intacto (com / sem membros)” custa US $ 500, por exemplo, um fígado, US $ 150, (“30% de desconto se significativamente fragmentada”).

 

“Os preços em vigor até 31 de dezembro de 1999” pode parecer baixo, observa o Sr. Crutcher, mas somar todas as peças e bebê abortado único vale milhares. “Nosso volume de caso médio diário certificado exceder 1500 e servimos clínicas nos Estados Unidos”, diz o folheto linhas de abertura “.

 

Sr. Crutcher diz que Dr. Jones é um vendedor agressivo, ansioso para lhe oferecer taxas reduzidas para grandes encomendas.

 

Ele também disse em uma recente entrevista gravada que ele está buscando ativamente fontes de tecido fetal no México e no Canadá.

 

August 22, 1999

The Wholesalers of aborted babies

http://suewidemark.com/fetalparts.htm

by Celeste McGovern

 

A full-colour, glossy brochure invites abortionists to “find out how you can turn your patient’s decision into something wonderful.” It’s printed by Opening Lines, A Division of Consultative and Diagnostic Pathology, Inc., a wholesale trafficker in aborted baby parts from American clinics. Out of an office in West Frankfort, IL, the company’s director, Dr. Miles Jones, profits from an evidently tremendously lucrative trade – his current “Fee for Services Schedule” offers eyes and ears for $75 to $999 for a brain.

NOTE: Opening Lines is associated with “Anatomical Gifts Assn”, a non profit corporation which accepts organ donations and has offices in several states.

Opening Lines was founded in 1989 to “maximize the utilization of fresh fetal tissue we process.” It offer researchers “the highest quality, most affordable, and freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need when you need it.”

Sale of human tissue, including fetal tissue, is against federal law, but Opening Lines advises patients how “simple” it is to get around that. It offers to “lease space from your facility to perform the harvesting to offset your clinic’s overhead.” It also offers to train clinic staff in harvesting and then “based on volume, reimburse part or all of your employee’s salary, thereby reducing your overhead.”

Dr. Jones is obviously adept at getting around inconvenient regulations. “We DO NOT require a copy of your IRB approval or summary of your research,” he advises prospective clientele, “and you ARE NOT required to site Opening Lines as the source of tissue when you publish your work (we believe in word of mouth advertising; if you like our service you will tell your colleagues.”)

Opening Lines is one of two wholesale traffickers, uncovered by Mark Crutcher at Life Dynamics Inc. a pro-life in Denton Texas. The other is the Anatomic Gift Foundation (AGF). Founded in 1994 by Jim and Brenda Bardsley, it originally operated out of a double-wide trailer at the end of a dirt road on the Satilla River in Georgia where the couple also ran a catfish farm. It has since moved its headquarters to Laurel, MD and now has operations in Phoenix, AZ and Aurora, CO.

Life Dynamics’ sources inside abortion clinics acquired “fee schedules” for both organizations. Opening Lines’ is the more detailed of the two, listing prices for organs from fetuses under eight weeks gestation and over. An “intact trunk (with/without limbs)” costs $500, for example, a liver, $150, (“30% discount if significantly fragmented”).

The prices “in effect until December 31, 1999” may seem low, observes Mr. Crutcher, but add up all the parts and single aborted baby is worth thousands. “Our daily average case volume exceeds 1500 and we serve clinics across the United States,” says Opening Lines’ brochure.

Mr. Crutcher says that Dr. Jones is an aggressive salesman, eager to offer him reduced rates for bulk orders.

He also said in a recent taped interview that he is actively pursuing fetal tissue sources in Mexico and in Canada.

To subscribe to Alberta Report call 1-800661-5742

*****************************************************
LifeSite Daily News is a production of Interim Publishing
Contents may be freely reproduced provided source is noted. Comments or questions:
lsn@lifesite.net

LifeSite Daily News archived at LifeSite home page

Please help us to continue this service. Mail contributions to: Interim Publishing, attn LifeSite, Suite 306, 53 Dundas St. E., Toronto, ON M5B 1C6

return to http://abortion-not.org           HealthRead!

August 22, 1999

The Wholesalers of aborted babies

by Celeste McGovern

LifeSite Daily News archived at LifeSite home page

Please help us to continue this service. Mail contributions to: Interim Publishing, attn LifeSite, Suite 306, 53 Dundas St. E., Toronto, ON M5B 1C6

return to http://abortion-not.org           HealthRead!

El aborto genera en España un negocio de 100 millones€ en diez años

O aborto na España gera um negócio de 100 milhões de Euros em dez anos de milhões de mortes. A interrupção voluntaria da gravidez, o aborto, chega a 70 e 90 por cento das gestantes.

El aborto genera en España un negocio de 100 millones€ en diez años

En Andalucía, la tercera comunidad de España con mayor número de abortos, unos 20 mil cada año, crece más rápidamente que a nivel nacional.

REDACCIÓN HO / ABC.ES.-  Las estadísticas que hace públicas cada año el Servicio Andaluz de Salud (SAS) sobre el aborto son siempre conocidas. Las cifras apenas cambian y cada año se practican en la comunidad autónoma unos veinte mil abortos, una cantidad que apenas oscila. Ni las políticas de prevención de embarazos ni tampoco la píldora del día después -como señalaban los defensores de su liberalización, que además tratan de negar sus efectos abortivos-, han provocado una disminución de abortos quirúgicos.

Sin embargo hay otros datos menos conocidos, como los del negocio que se mueve alrededor de las mal llamadas Interrupciones Voluntarias del Embarazo (IVE). Según un informe realizado por un grupo de profesores católicos de la Universidad de Córdoba, del que informa el diario ABC, en el periodo comprendido entre 1999 y 2008 el aborto ha supuesto en Andalucía un negocio que ha facturado entre 82.294.104 y 102.832.832 euros. Además, los profesores consideran que, en términos absolutos, los ingresos estimados para el último año del que tienen datos, 2008, oscilaría entre 9.323.211 y 13.041.550 euros.

En el estudio, que ha tenido en cuenta los precios de licitación pública de estas intervenciones, la estimación de gastos asociados (desplazamientos y manutención de los pacientes y acompañantes) así como otros informes, los investigadores han fijado una horquilla de precios que oscila entre 350 y 450 euros. Concretamente, los investigadores sitúan el precio de un aborto de hasta 12 semanas de gestación en esas cantidades aunque aseguran que hay algunas comunidades donde es más caro y esta intervención puede costar hasta 600 euros.

Claro que los precios suben a medida que aumentan las semanas de gestación, dada la complejidad de la operación. En este sentido, cuando el embarazo pasa de las 12 semanas, el precio del aborto puede estar entre 1.500 y 2.500 euros. De igual manera, en otras comunidades españolas estas intervenciones pueden alcanzar los 3.000 euros.

En cualquier caso el aborto en Andalucía representa en torno al 18 por ciento del total nacional. La tasa anual acumulativa de crecimiento para España se sitúa en el 7,9 por ciento, por debajo de la tasa de crecimiento para Andalucía, estimada en el 9,18 por ciento. Eso supone que el aborto en Andalucía crece más rápidamente que a nivel nacional, consecuencia posiblemente de las facilidades otorgadas por la administración pública a las mujeres para que encuentren en el aborto la salida a su embarazo no deseado o en situación de dificultad.

En relación con otras comunidades autónomas, Andalucía se encuentra situada en el top del aborto en España. A nivel nacional se encuentra en el quinto lugar (con un 0,25 de abortos sobre la población total) por detrás de Murcia (0,38), Madrid (0,35), Cataluña (0,34) y Baleares (0,32). Considerando el peso relativo de los abortos perpetrados en cada comunidad sobre el total de abortos en todo el país, se extrae la conclusión de que Andalucía es la tercera de España en número de abortos.

Algo que lógicamente tiene sus consecuencias económicas, lo que lleva a los profesores a afirmar que «una parte significativa del negocio del aborto se concentra en Andalucía».

Los expertos también han valorado el hecho de que Andalucía es la única comunidad autónoma que reconoce la prestación del aborto dentro de su sistema sanitario y garantiza el acceso a la misma a través del concierto con las clínicas acreditadas ante la mayoritaria objeción de losprofesionales de la sanidad pública. Además, Andalucía es la tercera región española con mayor peso económico en el negocio del aborto en España.

 

Casi la mitad en Sevilla y Málaga

Las cifras también revelan que casi la mitad de los abortos en Andalucía en el periodo entre 1999 y 2008, el 45 por ciento y hasta el 48 por ciento en 2008, se realizaron a mujeres residentes en Sevilla y Málaga. Son las provincias que, junto a Granada y Almería, concentran más del 70 por ciento de las interrupciones voluntarias del embarazo.

Llama la atención la escasa incidencia en la provincia de Jaén, que escasamente alcanza el 4 por ciento el año 2008. Además también es digno de destacar que la mayoría de los abortos, el 91 por ciento, se produce antes de las doce primeras semanas de vida, mientras que el 9 por ciento aproximadamente corresponde a abortos practicados a partir de la primera semana. Este dato tiene repercusiones evidentes, dada la diferencia en el tipo de asistencia para cada caso. Entre los centros acreditados concertados son dos en Sevilla los que realizan estas intervenciones a mujeres de más de doce semanas.

http://www.hazteoir.org/noticia/45551-aborto-genera-en-espana-negocio-100-millones%E2%82%AC-en-diez-anos

Infanticídio feminino e mortalidade materna, assassinato em massa de mulheres e deficientes, um genocídio por responsabilidade do governo

 

“O fenômeno do infanticídio feminino é tão antigo em muitas culturas, e foi provavelmente responsável por milhões de mortes seletivas de gênero ao longo da história. Continua, hoje, a ser uma preocupação fundamental em um número de paises do “Terceiro Mundo”, nomeadamente os dois países mais populosos do planeta, China e Índia. Em todos os casos, especificamente o infanticídio feminino reflete o baixo estatuto concedido às mulheres em muitas partes do mundo, e é sem dúvida a manifestação mais brutal e destruidora do viés anti-feminino que permeia as sociedades “patriarcais”. Ela está intimamente ligada aos fenômenos de abortos seletivos, que visa fetos do sexo feminino quase exclusivamente, e negligência a saude de crianças do sexo feminino.” 

“O infanticídio feminino é a morte intencional de bebês do sexo feminino, devido à preferência por bebês do sexo masculino e do baixo valor da pessoa associada com o nascimento de fêmeas.” (Marina Porras, “o infanticídio feminino e o Feticide”.). O FETICIDIO deve ser visto como um subconjunto do fenômeno mais amplo do infanticídio, que também tem como alvo a morte de crianças física ou mentalmente DEFICIENTES, e os machos infantis (ao lado do sexo feminino infantil ou, ocasionalmente, em um gênero seletivo base). Tal como acontece com a MORTALIDADE MATERNA. Alguns contestam a atribuição de infanticídio ou o infanticídio feminino para a categoria de “genocídio” ou, como aqui, “generocídio”.

“No entanto, o argumento apresentado no estudo de caso sobre a categoria MORTALIDADE MATERNA se aplica neste  caso como a seguinte evidencia: governos e outros atores podem ser tão culpados e responsaveis pelo assassinato em massa por negligência, falta de assistencia ‘a saude ou  incentivo tácito ao aborto, como assassinato direto de  mulheres, gestantes, fetos e crianças nascidas.”

    

Aqui no Brasil estamos a ver o governo, de Lula explicitamente desde 2005, e Dilma desde ministra da Casa Civil, com divulgaçoes na midia, vendendo a ideia fraudulenta      de que a mulher brasileira é a favor do aborto.                              

                                                                                                                                                                               

O PNDH-3 PREVE A LIBERAÇÃO DE CRIMES, fim do Estado de Direito.

https://objetodignidade.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/o-pndh-3-preve-a-liberacao-de-crimes-fim-do-estado-de-direito/

Antes do segundo turno das eleições presidenciais de 2010, o governo lula na trama internacional do aborto, publicou em 04/10/2010, no Diário Oficial da União,  seção III, página 88, o Termo de Cooperação do Governo do Brasil com a Fundação Oswaldo Cruz para despenalizar (retirar a pena legal do crime) o aborto:

ESPÉCIE: PRIMEIRO TERMO ADITIVO AO TERMO DE COOPERAÇÃO Nº. 137/2009

http://www.in.gov.br/imprensa/visualiza/index.jsp?jornal=3&pagina=88&data=04/10/2010

 

 

Além disso, o DECRETO 7.037, DE 21 DE DEZEMBRO DE 2009, do Presidente Lula E da Casa Civil durante o exercício de Dilma Rousseff atualizado pelo Decreto nº 7.177, em 12 de maio de 2010, ainda durante o 1º turno das eleições de 2010, dispõe sobre matérias da Constituição de competência privativa da União para legislar. Sendo assim, não passa de um texto político de intenções, mas que esta sendo posto em pratica por PT e Dilma. Isso é ditadura civil.

                   

 – aborto, exclusão do direito à vida do ser humano concebido, como determina a diretriz 9, objetivo estratégico III, ação programática g): “apoiar a aprovação do projeto de lei que descriminaliza o aborto.

Diante desses programas, diretrizes e objetivos estratégicos, justiça sumaria, implementações, financiamentos e desqualificação de crimes contra a vida humana por causa da idade da vitima e/ou condição de saúde e deficiencia, o ato de questionar será considerado como transgressão infratora do INCONSTITUCIONAL PNDH-3, O DECRETO que é a VIOLAÇÃO dos Direitos Humanos. A pessoa que não aceitar o PNDH-3 será punida com desaprovações, privações de benefícios, e uma justiça ágil e eficiente para viabilizar execuções sumárias.

 

Feministas brasileiras representam interesses estrangeiros, não a mulher brasileira

http://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/feministas-brasileiras-representam-interesses-estrangeiros-nao-a-mulher-brasileira/

—-

Infanticídio feminino e mortalidade materna, assassinato em massa de mulheres e deficientes, um genocídio por responsabilidade do governo

 Case Study: Female Infanticide  

Focus:                                            
(1) India
(2) China

     Summary                            

The phenomenon of female infanticide is as old as many cultures, and has likely accounted for millions of gender-selective deaths throughout history. It remains a critical concern in a number of “Third World” countries today, notably the two most populous countries on earth, China and India. In all cases, specifically female infanticide reflects the low status accorded to women in most parts of the world; it is arguably the most brutal and destructive manifestation of the anti-female bias that pervades “patriarchal” societies. It is closely linked to the phenomena of sex-selective abortion, which targets female fetuses almost exclusively, and neglect of girl children.

The background

“Female infanticide is the intentional killing of baby girls due to the preference for male babies and from the low value associated with the birth of females.” (Marina Porras, “Female Infanticide and Foeticide”.) It should be seen as a subset of the broader phenomenon of infanticide, which has also targeted the physically or mentally handicapped, and infant males (alongside infant females or, occasionally, on a gender-selective basis). As with maternal mortality, some would dispute the assigning of infanticide or female infanticide to the category of “genocide” or, as here, “gendercide.” Nonetheless, the argument advanced in the maternal mortality case-study holds true in this case as well: governments and other actors can be just as guilty of mass killing by neglect or tacit encouragement, as by direct murder. R.J. Rummel buttresses this view, referring to infanticide as

another type of government killing whose victims may total millions … In many cultures, government permitted, if not encouraged, the killing of handicapped or female infants or otherwise unwanted children. In the Greece of 200 B.C., for example, the murder of female infants was so common that among 6,000 families living in Delphi no more than 1 percent had two daughters. Among 79 families, nearly as many had one child as two. Among all there were only 28 daughters to 118 sons. … But classical Greece was not unusual. In eighty-four societies spanning the Renaissance to our time, “defective” children have been killed in one-third of them. In India, for example, because of Hindu beliefs and the rigid caste system, young girls were murdered as a matter of course. When demographic statistics were first collected in the nineteenth century, it was discovered that in “some villages, no girl babies were found at all; in a total of thirty others, there were 343 boys to 54 girls. … [I]n Bombay, the number of girls alive in 1834 was 603.”

Rummel adds: “Instances of infanticide … are usually singular events; they do not happen en masse. But the accumulation of such officially sanctioned or demanded murders comprises, in effect, serial massacre. Since such practices were so pervasive in some cultures, I suspect that the death toll from infanticide must exceed that from mass sacrifice and perhaps even outright mass murder.” (Rummel, Death by Government, pp. 65-66.)

Focus (1): India

As John-Thor Dahlburg points out, “in rural India, the centuries-old practice of female infanticide can still be considered a wise course of action.” (Dahlburg, “Where killing baby girls ‘is no big sin’,” The Los Angeles Times [in The Toronto Star, February 28, 1994.]) According to census statistics, “From 972 females for every 1,000 males in 1901 … the gender imbalance has tilted to 929 females per 1,000 males. … In the nearly 300 poor hamlets of the Usilampatti area of Tamil Nadu [state], as many as 196 girls died under suspicious circumstances [in 1993] … Some were fed dry, unhulled rice that punctured their windpipes, or were made to swallow poisonous powdered fertilizer. Others were smothered with a wet towel, strangled or allowed to starve to death.” Dahlburg profiles one disturbing case from Tamil Nadu:

Lakshmi already had one daughter, so when she gave birth to a second girl, she killed her. For the three days of her second child’s short life, Lakshmi admits, she refused to nurse her. To silence the infant’s famished cries, the impoverished village woman squeezed the milky sap from an oleander shrub, mixed it with castor oil, and forced the poisonous potion down the newborn’s throat. The baby bled from the nose, then died soon afterward. Female neighbors buried her in a small hole near Lakshmi’s square thatched hut of sunbaked mud. They sympathized with Lakshmi, and in the same circumstances, some would probably have done what she did. For despite the risk of execution by hanging and about 16 months of a much-ballyhooed government scheme to assist families with daughters, in some hamlets of … Tamil Nadu, murdering girls is still sometimes believed to be a wiser course than raising them. “A daughter is always liabilities. How can I bring up a second?” Lakshmi, 28, answered firmly when asked by a visitor how she could have taken her own child’s life eight years ago. “Instead of her suffering the way I do, I thought it was better to get rid of her.” (All quotes from Dahlburg, “Where killing baby girls ‘is no big sin’.”)

A study of Tamil Nadu by the Community Service Guild of Madras similarly found that “female infanticide is rampant” in the state, though only among Hindu (rather than Moslem or Christian) families. “Of the 1,250 families covered by the study, 740 had only one girl child and 249 agreed directly that they had done away with the unwanted girl child. More than 213 of the families had more than one male child whereas half the respondents had only one daughter.” (Malavika Karlekar, “The girl child in India: does she have any rights?,” Canadian Woman Studies, March 1995.)

The bias against females in India is related to the fact that “Sons are called upon to provide the income; they are the ones who do most of the work in the fields. In this way sons are looked to as a type of insurance. With this perspective, it becomes clearer that the high value given to males decreases the value given to females.” (Marina Porras, “Female Infanticide and Foeticide”.) The problem is also intimately tied to the institution of dowry, in which the family of a prospective bride must pay enormous sums of money to the family in which the woman will live after marriage. Though formally outlawed, the institution is still pervasive. “The combination of dowry and wedding expenses usually add up to more than a million rupees ([US] $35,000). In India the average civil servant earns about 100,000 rupees ($3,500) a year. Given these figures combined with the low status of women, it seems not so illogical that the poorer Indian families would want only male children.” (Porras, “Female Infanticide and Foeticide”.) Murders of women whose families are deemed to have paid insufficient dowry have become increasingly common, and receive separate case-study treatment on this site.

India is also the heartland of sex-selective abortion. Amniocentesis was introduced in 1974 “to ascertain birth defects in a sample population,” but “was quickly appropriated by medical entrepreneurs. A spate of sex-selective abortions followed.” (Karlekar, “The girl child in India.”) Karlekar points out that “those women who undergo sex determination tests and abort on knowing that the foetus is female are actively taking a decision against equality and the right to life for girls. In many cases, of course, the women are not independent agents but merely victims of a dominant family ideology based on preference for male children.”

Dahlburg notes that “In Jaipur, capital of the western state of Rajasthan, prenatal sex determination tests result in an estimated 3,500 abortions of female fetuses annually,” according to a medical-college study. (Dahlburg, “Where killing baby girls ‘is no big sin’.”) Most strikingly, according to UNICEF, “A report from Bombay in 1984 on abortions after prenatal sex determination stated that 7,999 out of 8,000 of the aborted fetuses were females. Sex determination has become a lucrative business.” (Zeng Yi et al., “Causes and Implications of the Recent Increase in the Reported Sex Ratio at Birth in China,” Population and Development Review, 19: 2 [June 1993], p. 297.)

Deficits in nutrition and health-care also overwhelmingly target female children. Karlekar cites research

indicat[ing] a definite bias in feeding boys milk and milk products and eggs … In Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh [states], it is usual for girls and women to eat less than men and boys and to have their meal after the men and boys had finished eating. Greater mobility outside the home provides boys with the opportunity to eat sweets and fruit from saved-up pocket money or from money given to buy articles for food consumption. In case of illness, it is usually boys who have preference in health care. … More is spent on clothing for boys than for girls[,] which also affects morbidity. (Karlekar, “The girl child in India.”)

Sunita Kishor reports “another disturbing finding,” namely “that, despite the increased ability to command essential food and medical resources associated with development, female children [in India] do not improve their survival chances relative to male children with gains in development. Relatively high levels of agricultural development decrease the life chances of females while leaving males’ life chances unaffected; urbanization increases the life chances of males more than females. … Clearly, gender-based discrimination in the allocation of resources persists and even increases, even when availability of resources is not a constraint.” (Kishor, “‘May God Give Sons to All’: Gender and Child Mortality in India,” American Sociological Review, 58: 2 [April 1993], p. 262.)

Indian state governments have sometimes taken measures to diminish the slaughter of infant girls and abortions of female fetuses. “The leaders of Tamil Nadu are holding out a tempting carrot to couples in the state with one or two daughters and no sons: if one parent undergoes sterilization, the government will give the family [U.S.] \\$160 in aid per child. The money will be paid in instalments as the girl goes through school. She will also get a small gold ring and on her 20th birthday, a lump sum of $650 to serve as her dowry or defray the expenses of higher education. Four thousand families enrolled in the first year,” with 6,000 to 8,000 expected to join annually (as of 1994) (Dahlburg, “Where killing baby girls ‘is no big sin’.”) Such programs have, however, barely begun to address the scale of the catastrophe.

Focus (2): China

“A tradition of infanticide and abandonment, especially of females, existed in China before the foundation of the People’s Republic in 1949,” note Zeng et al.. (“Causes and Implications,” p. 294.) According to Ansley J. Coale and Judith Banister, “A missionary (and naturalist) observer in [China in] the late nineteenth century interviewed 40 women over age 50 who reported having borne 183 sons and 175 daughters, of whom 126 sons but only 53 daughters survived to age 10; by their account, the women had destroyed 78 of their daughters.” (Coale and Banister, “Five Decades of Missing Females in China,” Demography, 31: 3 [August 1994], p. 472.)

According to Zeng et al., “The practice was largely forsaken in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.” (Zeng et al., “Causes and Implications,” p. 294.) Coale and Banister likewise acknowledge a “decline of excess female mortality after the establishment of the People’s Republic … assisted by the action of a strong government, which tried to modify this custom as well as other traditional practices that it viewed as harmful.” (Coale and Banister, “Five Decades,” p. 472.) But the number of “missing” women showed a sharp upward trend in the 1980s, linked by almost all scholars to the “one-child policy” introduced by the Chinese government in 1979 to control spiralling population growth. Couples are penalized by wage-cuts and reduced access to social services when children are born “outside the plan.” Johansson and Nygren found that while “sex ratios [were] generally within or fairly near the expected range of 105 to 106 boys per 100 girls for live births within the plan … they are, in contrast, clearly far above normal for children born outside the plan, even as high as 115 to 118 for 1984-87. That the phenomenon of missing girls in China in the 1980s is related to the government’s population policy is thus conclusively shown.” (Sten Johansson and Ola Nygren, “The Missing Girls of China: A New Demographic Account,” Population and Development Review, 17: 1 [March 1991], pp. 40-41.)

The Chinese government appeared to recognize the linkage by allowing families in rural areas (where anti-female bias is stronger) a second child if the first was a girl. Nonetheless, in September 1997, the World Health Organization’s Regional Committee for the Western Pacific issued a report claiming that “more than 50 million women were estimated to be ‘missing’ in China because of the institutionalized killing and neglect of girls due to Beijing’s population control program that limits parents to one child.” (See Joseph Farah, “Cover-up of China’s gender-cide”, Western Journalism Center/FreeRepublic, September 29, 1997.) Farah referred to the gendercide as “the biggest single holocaust in human history.”

According to Peter Stockland, “Years of population engineering, including virtual extermination of ‘surplus’ baby girls, has created a nightmarish imbalance in China’s male and female populations.” (Stockland, “China’s baby-slaughter overlooked,” The Calgary Sun, June 11, 1997.) In 1999, Jonathan Manthorpe reported a study by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, claiming that “the imbalance between the sexes is now so distorted that there are 111 million men in China — more than three times the population of Canada — who will not be able to find a wife.” As a result, the kidnapping and slave-trading of women has increased: “Since 1990, say official Chinese figures, 64,000 women — 8,000 a year on average — have been rescued by authorities from forced ‘marriages’. The number who have not been saved can only be guessed at. … The thirst for women is so acute that the slave trader gangs are even reaching outside China to find merchandise. There are regular reports of women being abducted in such places as northern Vietnam to feed the demand in China.” (Jonathan Manthorpe, “China battles slave trading in women: Female infanticide fuels a brisk trade in wives,” The Vancouver Sun, January 11, 1999.)

Since the first allegations of widespread female infanticide in China connected to the government’s “one-child” policy, controversy has raged over the number of deaths that can be ascribed to infanticide as opposed to other causes. Zeng et al. argued in 1993 that “underreporting of female births, an increase in prenatal sex identification by ultrasound and other diagnostic methods for the illegal purpose of gender-specific birth control, and [only] very low-level incidence of female infanticide are the causes of the increase in the reported sex ratio at birth in China.” (Zeng et al., “Causes and Implications,” p. 285.) They add: “Underreporting of female births accounts for about 43 percent to 75 percent of the difference between the reported sex ratio at birth during the second half of the 1980s and the normal value of the true sex ratio at birth” (p. 289). The authors contended that “sex-differential underreporting of births and induced abortion after prenatal sex determination together explain almost all of the increase in the reported sex ratio at birth during the late 1980s,” and thus “the omission … of victims of female infanticide cannot be a significant factor.” Moreover, “Both the social and administrative structure and the close bond among neighbors in China make it difficult to conceal a serious crime such as infanticide,” while additionally “Infanticide is not a cost-effective method of sex selection. The psychological and moral costs are so high that people are unlikely to take such a step except under extreme circumstances” (p. 295). They stress, however, that “even small numbers of cases of female infanticide, abandonment, and neglect are a serious violation of the fundamental human rights of women and children” (p. 296). (2002 update: A recent article by John Gittings of the UK Guardian cites national census results released in May 2002 that show that “more than 116 male births were recorded for every 100 female births,” but claims the cause is overwhelmingly sex-selective abortion: “Female infanticide, notorious in China’s past as a primitive method of sex selection, is now thought to be infrequent.” See Gittings, “Growing Sex Imbalance Shocks China”, The Guardian, May 13, 2002.)

In a similar vein, in April 2000, The New York Times reported that “many ‘illegal’ children are born in secret, their births never officially registered.” And “as more women move around the country to work, it is increasingly hard to monitor pregnancies … Unannnounced spot checks by the State Statistics Bureau have discovered undercounts of up to 40 percent in some villages, Chinese demographers say.” (See Elisabeth Rosenthal, “China’s Widely Flouted One-Child Policy Undercuts Its Census”, The New York Times, April 14, 2000.)

Johansson and Nygren attracted considerable notice with a somewhat different claim: “that adoptions (which often go unreported) account for a large proportion of the missing girls. … If adopted children are added to the live births … the sex ratio at birth becomes much closer to normal for most years in the 1980s. … Adding the adopted children to live births reduces the number of missing girls by about half.” (Johansson and Nygren, “The Missing Girls of China,” pp. 43, 46.) They add (p. 50): “That female infanticide does occur on some scale is evidenced by reports in the Chinese press, but the available statistical evidence does not help us to determine whether it takes place on a large or a small scale.”

Even if millions of Chinese infant girls are unregistered rather than directly murdered, however, the pattern of discrimination is one that will severely reduce their opportunities in life. “If parents do hide the birth of a baby girl, she will go unregistered and therefore will not have any legal existence. The child may have difficulty receiving medical attention, going to school, and [accessing] other state services.” (Porras, “Female Infanticide and Foeticide”.)

Likewise, if a Chinese infant girl is turned over for adoption rather than being killed, she risks being placed in one of the notorious “Dying Rooms” unveiled in a British TV documentary. Chinese state orphanages have come in for heavy criticism as a result of the degrading and unsanitary conditions that usually pervade them. In one orphanage, documentary producer Brian Woods found that “every single baby … was a girl, and as we moved on this pattern was repeated. The only boys were mentally or physically disabled. 95% of the babies we saw were able-bodied girls. We also discovered that, although they are described as orphans, very few of them actually are; the overwhelming majority do have parents, but their parents have abandoned them, simply because they were born the wrong sex.” Woods estimated that “up to a million baby girls every year” were victims of this “mass desertion,” deriving from “the complex collision of [China’s] notorious One Child Policy and its traditional preference for sons.” (See Brian Woods, “The Dying Rooms Trust”.)

The phenomenon of neglect of girl children is also dramatically evident in China. According to the World Health Organization, “In many cases, mothers are more likely to bring their male children to health centers — particularly to private physicians — and they may be treated at an earlier stage of disease than girls.” (Cited in Farah, “Cover-up of China’s gender-cide”.)

The Chinese government has taken some energetic steps to combat the practice of female infanticide and sex-selective abortion of female fetuses. It “has employed the Marriage Law and Women’s Protection Law which both prohibit female infanticide. The Women’s Protection Law also prohibits discrimination against ‘women who give birth to female babies.’ … The Maternal Health Care Law of 1994 ‘strictly prohibits’ the use of technology to identify the gender of a fetus.” However, “although the government has outlawed the use of ultrasound machines, physicians continue to use them to determine the gender of fetuses, especially in rural areas.” (Porras, “Female Infanticide and Foeticide”.)

How many die?

Gendercide Watch is aware of no overall statistics on the numbers of girls who die annually from infanticide. Calculations are further clouded by the unreliability and ambiguity of much of the data. Nonetheless, a minimum estimate would place the casualties in the the hundreds of thousands, especially when one takes into consideration that the phenomenon is most prevalent in the world’s two most populous countries. Sex-selective abortions likely account for an even higher number of “missing” girls.

Who is responsible?

As already noted, female infanticide reflects the low status accorded to women in many societies around the world. The “burden” of taking a woman into the family accounts for the high dowry rates in India which, in turn, have led to an epidemic female infanticide. Typical also is China, where

culture dictates that when a girl marries she leaves her family and becomes part of her husband’s family. For this reason Chinese peasants have for many centuries wanted a son to ensure there is someone to look after them in their old age — having a boy child is the best pension a Chinese peasant can get. Baby girls are even called “maggots in the rice” … (“The Dying Rooms Trust”)

Infanticide is a crime overwhelmingly committed by women, both in the Third and First Worlds. (This contrasts markedly with “infanticide in nonhuman primates,” which “is carried out primarily by migrant males who are unrelated to the infant or its parents and is a manifestation of reproductive competition among males.” [Glenn Hausfater, “Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives,” Current Anthropology, 25: 4 (1984), p. 501.] It also serves as a reminder that gendercide may be implemented by those of the same gender.) In India, according to John-Thor Dahlburg, “many births take place in isolated villages, with only female friends and the midwife present. If a child dies, the women can always blame natural causes.” (Dahlburg, “Where killing baby girls ‘is no big sin’.”) In the United States, “every year hundreds of women commit neonaticide [the killing of newborns] … Prosecutors sometimes don’t prosecute; juries rarely convict; those found guilty almost never go to jail. Barbara Kirwin, a forensic psychologist, reports that in nearly 300 cases of women charged with neonaticide in the United States and Britain, no woman spent more than a night in jail.” Much of “the leniency shown to neonaticidal mothers” reflects the fact that they are standardly “young, poor, unmarried and socially isolated,” although it is notable that similar leniency is rarely extended to young, poor, and socially isolated male murderers. (Steven Pinker, “Why They Kill Their Newborns”, The New York Times, November 2, 1997.)

A number of strategies have been proposed and implemented to try to address the problem of female infanticide, along with the related phenomena of sex-selective abortion and abandonment and neglect of girl children. Zeng et al.‘s prescriptions for Chinese policymakers can easily be generalized to other countries where female infanticide is rife:

The principle of equality between men and women should be more widely promoted through the news media to change the attitude of son preference and improve the awareness of the general public on this issue; the principle should also be reflected in specific social and economic policies to protect the basic rights of women and children, especially female children. … Government regulations prohibiting the use of prenatal sex identification techniques for nonmedical purposes should be strictly enforced, and violators should be punished accordingly. The laws that punish people who commit infanticide, abandonment, and neglect of female children, and the laws and regulations on the protection of women and children[,] should be strictly enforced. The campaigns to protect women and children from being kidnapped or sold into servitude should be effectively strengthened. Family planning programs should focus on effective public education, good counseling and service delivery, and the fully voluntary participation of the community and individuals to increase contraceptive prevalence, reduce unplanned pregnancies, and minimize the need for an induced abortion. (Zeng, et al., p. 298.)

http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

All Girls Allowed – China Gendercide

Esta é a realidade do controle populacional na China. milhões de bebés mortos por ano, crianças meninas são abandonadas, mulheres grávidas são levadas ‘a força pela policia de aborto coercitivo, morrem as mães por falta de atendimento ‘a saúde inclusive após o aborto provocado pela policia. Hoje a população da China tem – 27 milhoes de homens a mais do que mulheres por causa do generocidio; –  abandono; – suicidio; – trafico de crianças, pois meninas são mortas; – meninas, vitimas do programa governamental do one-child policy .

Tráfico, assassinato e abandono dos bebés devem ser reconhecidos como violações dos direitos humanos. Em vez disso, as injustiças são comuns e ninguém se surpreende com a sua ocorrência regular. Os relógios do mundo andam sem examinar como a crise demográfica da China e dos direitos humanos, estao a piorar rapida e gravemente. Para entender melhor o problema, verifique as páginas cuidadosamente com as pesquisas estatísticas nos links abaixo. Todas as estatísticas dizem respeito especificamente à China, e são tomadas a partir de fontes altamente confiáveis, que são citadas.”

 

All Girls Allowed – China Gendercide

—–

All Girls Allowed

http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/

– 27 MILHOES de HOMENS a mais do que mulheres por causa do GENEROCIDIO; –  ABANDONO; – SUICIDIO; – TRAFICO DE CRIANÇAS, POIS MENINAS SÃO MORTAS; – MENINAS, VITIMAS DO PROGRAMA GOVERNAMENTAL DO ONE-CHILD POLICY

http://vimeo.com/20926431

Statistics About Gender Imbalance in China

http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/category/topics/gender-imbalance-china

All Girls Allowed

Killing, trafficking and abandonment of baby girls should be recognized as human rights atrocities. Instead,  the injustices are commonplace and no one is surprised by their regular occurrence.  The world watches as China’s demographic crisis and human rights record rapidly worsen.  To better understand the problem, check out the thoroughly researched statistics pages linked below.  All statistics pertain specifically to China and are taken from highly reliable sources, which are cited within.

http://vimeo.com/20926431http://vimeo.com/20926431http://vimeo.com/20926431http://vimeo.com/20926431
Read more: http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/about/statistics#ixzz3HonlnQo0

Statistics About Gender Imbalance in China

http://vimeo.com/27309018http://vimeo.com/27309018http://vimeo.com/27309018

Statistics About China’s One-Child Policy

http://vimeo.com/20926431http://vimeo.com/20926431

http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/category/topics/gender-imbalance-chinaParte superior do formulário

Parte inferior do formulário

Gender Imbalance in China

Gender Imbalance in China Statistics

Statistics About Gender Imbalance in China

(Click here to return to “Statistics About China’s One-Child Policy”)

Gender Imbalance Statistics

Sex ratios are presented as the number of boys per 100 girls.  The biologically natural sex ratio is 105, which means that 105 boys are born for every 100 girls.  That figure is also represented as 105:100.

Gendercide in China

The term “gendercide” was coined by American feminist Mary Anne Warren.[i]

While some researchers have suggested that Hepatitis is responsible for the high sex ratio, this is not supported by the evidence.  Looking at the 2000 census data, if a second child is a male it will arrive, on average, 4 months later than a second born female.  This delay in birth indicates that there is human intervention, abortions or infanticide, taking place before the birth of a male second child.[ii]

In 2005, there were 32 million more men than women under 20 in China.[iii]

In 2007, the national government estimated that China has 37 million more males than females.  By 2020, the Chinese government estimates that there will be at least 30 million men of marriageable age that may be unable to find a spouse.[iv]

In 2005, more than 1.1 million excess births of boys occurred.[v]

According to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, “the gender imbalance has been growing wider year after year.”[vi]

The most normal sex ratios are seen where the One-Child Policy is most permissive.[vii]

The One-Child Policy seems to be causally linked to the increased sex ratio in China. Mothers who face stricter restrictions and higher fines are more likely to have a son once they are facing possible punishment.  One example is the birth rates of women who have had a single daughter.  The sex ratio of children born after this first daughter changes based on the policy being enforced, with the mothers in the one child area being 3 percentage points more likely to have a son.[viii]

China alone stands to have as many unmarried young men—“bare branches”, as they are known—as the entire population of young men in America.  At present, there are 40 million American men under 20.  In 2020, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimates that there will be 40 million more Chinese men than women in that same age group.[ix]

Chinese men are already having trouble finding brides, with 88% of all single Chinese between 35 and 39 being male. In this same age group one finds that 99% of females are married.[x]

For reference, there are a total of 37.3 million people who live in California and 25.1 million who live in Texas.[xi]

Dudley Poston, a Professor of Sociology at Texas A&M University, estimates that if China’s sex ratio holds steady there will be a projected 55 million extra males by 2020.  Unfortunately, even if it improved to almost natural levels by 2020 there will still be an excess of 51 million males.[xii]

It’s been projected that in 2013 one in ten Chinese men will not have a female counterpart, and by the late 2020s one in five Chinese men will be without a female counterpart.[xiii]

The total U.S. population is just over 300 million.  There are over 100 million “missing” girls in the world, of which about half would have been born in China.[xiv]

In fact, some experts estimate that if the gender ratio in Asia had stayed at the natural level (105:100) for the past few decades the continent would have 163 million more women.[xv]

Sex selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males.[xvi]

An ultrasound, which can identify the gender of an unborn fetus, costs $12 in China.[xvii]

Avraham Ebenstein, an economist, found that when making decisions about sex selection, Chinese families viewed a first-born son to have a worth of about 1.85 years of income, while the first-born girl held a value of only about 0.43 years of income.[xviii]

In 2006, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee considered, but did not pass, a proposed amendment that would have criminalized sex-selective abortion by banning the use of ultrasound for gender identification.  Only five provinces have passed similar measures, and the government has yet to take any action at the national level.[xix]

In 2007 China Daily reported, “although sex selection is banned by the Population and Family Planning Law and the Law on Maternal and Infant Health, there are currently no provisions on the applicable punishment for such acts.”[xx]

Contrary to common thought, sex ratio at birth has a positive correlation with education, possibly because well-educated women choose (or are forced) to have less children, and therefore are will to have sex selective abortions earlier on than their rural counterparts.  Another possibility is that better educated mothers have more access to, and ability to pay for, sex determination (ultrasounds).[xxi]

In Suining city, people will pay ultrasound technicians up to $150 in bribes to determine the gender of their fetus, which is only one-tenth of the fine they would have to pay for having a child without a birth permit.[xxii]

Gendercide in China and other countries has far reaching consequences; the United Nations Development Programme is estimating that the global sex ratio at birth has risen from 105:100, in the period between 1975 and 1980, to 107:100 in the period between 2005 and 2010.[xxiii]

Sex Ratio vs. GDP per Capita: China, 1953-2005 (boys per 100 girls)[xxiv]

National Sex Ratios in China

Sex Ratios at birth over time in China:[xxv]

106:100 in 1979 (106 boys for every 100 girls)

111:100 in 1988

117:100 in 2001

120:100 in 2005

According to the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China, as of January, 2010, the average male-to-female sex ratio for the infant-to-four-year-old age group in China is 123.26 males for every 100 females (123.26:100).[xxvi]

Six provinces have sex ratios of over 130:100 in the 1-4 age group.[xxvii]

Two provinces, Jiangxi and Henan, have ratios of over 140:100 in the 1-4 age group.[xxviii]

Four provinces—Anhui, Guangdong, Hunan, and Hainan—have ratios of over 130:100 in the 1-4 age group.[xxix]

Seven provinces have ratios between 120:100 and 129:100 in the 1-4 age group.[xxx]

Sex ratios are highest in the age group of 1-4 years and in rural areas, which will likely increase social tensions as millions of men are unable to find brides.[xxxi]

Only two provinces, Tibet and Xinjiang, had sex ratios within normal limits across the age range.  These two provinces are largely inhabited by minority ethnic groups and have more lenient family planning laws.[xxxii]

Between 1986 and 2005 there was an increase in excess males at birth in all provinces except Xinjiang.[xxxiii]

The total sex ratio at birth is over 130:100 in three provinces (Shaanxi, Anhui, and Jiangxi) and over 120:100 in 14 provinces.[xxxiv]

As an example, in 2007, Lianyungang city had a gender ratio of 163:100 for children under 5.[xxxv]

Another city, Suining city, had a birth ratio of 152:100 in 2007.[xxxvi]

There is a gradient between urban (115:100), town (120:100), and rural (123:100) sex ratios at birth.[xxxvii]

Wealthier and more educated provinces, where traditional preference for sons is changing, produced medium sex ratios.  A study in 2001 showed that more than 50% of women of reproductive age in wealthier provinces express no preference for a son.[xxxviii]

The provinces with the highest sex ratios are clustered together in the central-southern region.[xxxix]

Recently, an economist suggested combating the unbalanced sex ratios by giving families with only daughters a subsidy worth one year of income.  He projected that doing so would decrease the number of missing girls by 67%. Another solution he put forward was to implement a three child policy, which he says would reduce the number of missing girls by 56%.[xl]

Sex Ratios for 2nd and 3rd Children in China

The sex ratio at birth for first children is slightly high in cities and towns but was within normal limits in rural areas; however, the ratio rose very steeply for second or more children in cities (138:100), towns (137:100), and rural areas (146:100).[xli]

There were very high sex ratios for second children in Anhui (190:100) and Jiangsu (192:100).[xlii]

For third births, the sex ratio rose to over 200:100 in four provinces.[xliii]

In Beijing, among third children, almost three baby boys are born for every baby girl (almost 300:100).[xliv]

The sex ratio increased steadily from 108:100 for those born between 1985 and 1989 to 124:100 for those born between 2000 and 2004.[xlv]

In rural areas, sex ratios rose steeply for second order births, where it reached 146:100. Nine provinces had ratios of over 160:100 for second order births.[xlvi]

In 2000, at least half of the female fetuses that would have been a second order, or higher, daughter were aborted.[xlvii]

Conservatively, between 1990 and 2000, 5.9 million girls went missing, with the increased first and second birth sex ratio responsible for 97% of those girls.[xlviii]

One particular variant of the one child policy, which allows a second child if the first is a girl, leads to the highest sex ratios.[xlix]

China’s Sex Ratios in the 1-4 age group by Province (# of boys born for every 100 girls)[l]

Male Crime Statistics in China

China’s crime rate has nearly doubled in the last 20 years.[li]

Incidents of social unrest have risen from about 40,000 in 2001 to over 90,000 in 2009.[lii]

It was found that sex ratios and crime rate were connected, with just a one percent increase in sex ratio leading to a five percent increase in crime rate.[liii]

These incidents of social unrest are becoming larger, more violent, more likely to cross provincial borders, and more diverse in terms of participants and grievances.[liv]

A study concluded that increased sex ratios are correlated with increased bride abduction, trafficking of women, rape and prostitution.[lv]

Unmarried men between the ages of 24 and 35 are also found to be three times more likely to murder than their married counterparts.[lvi]

High male sex ratios can lead to more authoritarian forms of government in an effort to crack down on crime.[lvii]

High male sex ratios also lead to a lower rate of female literacy and workforce participation.[lviii]

Unmarried men in China are almost always poor and uneducated, 74% don’t have a high school diploma.  This number increases in the rural areas of China to 97%, with 40% or rural bachelors also being illiterate.[lix]

The tensions associated with so many bachelors in China’s big cities might tempt its future leaders to mobilize this excess manpower and go pick a fight, or invade another country. China is already co-opting poor unmarried young men into the People’s Liberation Army and the paramilitary People’s Armed Police.[lx]

According to German scholar Gunnar Heinsohn, European imperial expansion after 1500 was the result of a male “youth bulge.”  Japan’s imperial expansion after 1914 was the result of a similar male youth bulge.  During the Cold War, it was male youth-bulge countries—Algeria, El Salvador, and Lebanon—that saw the worst civil wars and revolutions.  Heinsohn has also linked the recent rise of Islamist extremism in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan to an Islamic male youth bulge.[lxi]

Political scientists Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer warn that China and India could be the next countries that, as a result of a surplus of men, will see increased violence and extremism.[lxii]

Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard University, argues that the surplus of men in China will lead to domestic instability or militaristic expansionism, or even imperialism.  This is all the more likely with the shrill nationalism already in Asia.[lxiii]

Previous societies with large numbers of unattached men have turned to a more authoritarian political system.[lxiv]

China’s gender imbalance is a powerful, driving force behind trafficking in women and sexual slavery, not only in China, but all over Asia.  According to a statement by the United States Department of State, “Women and children are trafficked into [China] from North Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Mongolia and Thailand.”  These women are trafficked into China and forced into marriages, employment, and sexual exploitation.[lxv]

Many unattached men migrate from rural areas to urban destinations, patronizing prostitutes there. In doing so, these men could turn China’s HIV epidemic – now confined to certain high-risk populations – into a more generalized one by creating “bridging” populations from high- to low-risk individuals. Such male bridging populations have fueled HIV epidemics in Cambodia and sub-Saharan Africa.[lxvi]

Women currently make up approximately 80% of an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 North Korean refugees in China, and of these women, an estimated 90% become victims of trafficking.[lxvii]

Chinese families’ preference for sons, and the growing gender imbalance, increasing numbers of male children are trafficked for adoption, and women and girls are trafficked for forced marriages and commercial sexual exploitation.

Article 240 of China’s Criminal Law defines the trafficking of persons as ‘‘abducting, kidnapping, buying, trafficking in, fetching, sending, or transferring a woman or child, for the purpose of selling the victim.’’ This definition does not automatically prohibit forms of trafficking such as forced adult and child labor, commercial sex trade of minors over 14 years old, or trafficking of men, which are covered under Article 3 of the UN TIP Protocol.[lxviii]


[i]Gendercide: The Implications of Sex Selection, by Mary Anne Warren, Published 1985

[ii]Avraham Ebenstein, “The ‘Missing Girls’ of China and the Unintended Consequences of the One Child Policy,” Journal of Human Resources 45.1 (2010): 87-115. http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~ebenstein/Ebenstein_OneChildPolicy_2010.pdf

[iii]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[iv]U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Annual Report 2008, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_house_hearings&docid=f:45233.pdf

[v]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[vi]The Economist, The war on baby girls:  Gendercide:  Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising, March 4, 2010

[vii]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[viii]Avraham Ebenstein, “The ‘Missing Girls’ of China and the Unintended Consequences of the One Child Policy,” Journal of Human Resources 45.1 (2010): 87-115. http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~ebenstein/Ebenstein_OneChildPolicy_2010.pdf

[ix]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences & U.S. Census

[x]Tucker, Joseph Da, et al. “Surplus men, sex work, and the spread of HIV in China.” AIDS 19.6 (2005): 539-547. http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/fulltext/2005/04080/surplus_men,_sex_work,_and_the_spread_of_hiv_in.1.aspx

[xi]Dudley Poston, “Statement for Congressional Press Conference on the Issue of Gendercide and its Implications for Global Security,” All Girls Allowed, June 1, 2011. http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/statement-gendercide-and-implications-global-security

[xii]Dudley Poston, “Statement for Congressional Press Conference on the Issue of Gendercide and its Implications for Global Security,” All Girls Allowed, June 1, 2011. http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/statement-gendercide-and-implications-global-security

[xiii]Jiang Quanbao et al., “Son Preference and the Marriage Squeeze in China: An integrated Analysis of the First Marriage and the Remarriage Market,” in Watering the Neighbour’s Garden (Paris: CICRED, 2007).

[xiv]The Economist, The war on baby girls:  Gendercide:  Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising, March 4, 2010; U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Annual Report 2008, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_house_hearings&docid=f:45233.pdf

[xv]Christophe Z. Guilmoto, “Sex Ratio Imbalance in Asia: Trends, Consequences, and Policy Responses” (paper presented at Fourth Asia Pacific Conference on Reproductive and Sexual Health and Rights, 2007) http://tinyurl.com/4ldcpgd

[xvi]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xvii]The Economist, The war on baby girls:  Gendercide:  Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising, March 4, 2010

[xviii]Avraham Ebenstein, “Estimating a Dynamic Model of Sex Selection in China,” Demography, May 19, 2011. doi:10.1007/s13524-011-0030-7

[xix]U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Annual Report 2009, http://www.cecc.gov/pages/annualRpt/annualRpt09/CECCannRpt2009.pdf

[xx]U.S. State Department, U.S. Department of State 2010 Human Rights Report on China, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/eap/154382.htm

[xxi]Avraham Ebenstein, “Estimating a Dynamic Model of Sex Selection in China,” Demography, May 19, 2011. doi:10.1007/s13524-011-0030-7

[xxii]Hvistendahl, “Half the Sky.” Figures adjusted to 2011 currency rates.

[xxiii]Eberstadt, Nicholas. “A Global War Against Baby Girls: Sex-Selective Abortion Becomes a Worldwide Practice.”  American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, May 1, 2011. http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/global-war-against-baby-girls-sex-selective-abortion-becomes-worldwide-practice

[xxiv]Lavely, William. First Impressions of the 2000 Census of China; 2005 China One Percent Population Survey. Angus Maddison, “Per Capita GDP,” Historical Statistics for the World Economy:  1-2003 AD, table 3

[xxv]Kang C, Wang Y. Sex ratio at birth. In: Theses Collection of 2001 National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Survey. Beijing: China Population Publishing House, 2003:88-98. (referenced in NEJM)

[xxvi]U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Annual Report 2010

[xxvii]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xxviii]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xxix]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xxx]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xxxi]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xxxii]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xxxiii]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xxxiv]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xxxv]“China Warned on Gender Imbalance,” BBC, August 24, 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6962650.stm

[xxxvi]Mara Hvistendahl, Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men. New York: PublicAffairs, 2011.

[xxxvii]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xxxviii]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xxxix]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xl]Avraham Ebenstein, “Estimating a Dynamic Model of Sex Selection in China,” Demography, May 19, 2011. doi:10.1007/s13524-011-0030-7

[xli]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xlii]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xliii]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xliv]The Economist, The war on baby girls:  Gendercide:  Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising, March 4, 2010

[xlv]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xlvi]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[xlvii]Eberstadt, Nicholas. “A Global War Against Baby Girls: Sex-Selective Abortion Becomes a Worldwide Practice.”  American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, May 1, 2011. http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/global-war-against-baby-girls-sex-selective-abortion-becomes-worldwide-practice

[xlviii]Avraham Ebenstein, “The ‘Missing Girls’ of China and the Unintended Consequences of the One Child Policy,” Journal of Human Resources 45.1 (2010): 87-115. http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~ebenstein/Ebenstein_OneChildPolicy_2010.pdf

[xlix]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[l]British Medical Journal, BMJ 2009; 338:b1211, http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1211.full

[li]The Economist, The war on baby girls:  Gendercide:  Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising, March 4, 2010

[lii]Foreign Affairs, China’s Dilemma: Social Change and Political Reform, George J. Gilboy and Eric Heginbotham, October 14, 2010

[liii]Lena Edlund et al., More Men, More Crime: Evidence from China’s One-Child Policy, Institute for the Study of Labor Discussion Paper Series (Bonn, Germany: 2007). Referenced in Mara Hvistendahl, Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men. New York: PublicAffairs, 2011, page 222.

[liv]Foreign Affairs, China’s Dilemma: Social Change and Political Reform, George J. Gilboy and Eric Heginbotham, October 14, 2010

[lv]“Sex ratios and crime: evidence from China’s one-child policy”, by Lena Edlund, Hongbin Li, Junjian Yi and Junsen Zhang. Institute for the Study of Labour, Bonn. Discussion Paper 3214; The Economist, The war on baby girls:  Gendercide:  Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising, March 4, 2010

[lvi]Robert Wright, The Moral Animal (New York: Vintage, 1994), 100.

[lvii]“Bare Branches”, by Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer. MIT Press, 2004; The Economist, The war on baby girls:  Gendercide:  Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising, March 4, 2010

[lviii]Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer, Bare Branches: The Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005), 203.

[lix]Tucker, Joseph Da, et al. “Surplus men, sex work, and the spread of HIV in China.” AIDS 19.6 (2005): 539-547. http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/fulltext/2005/04080/surplus_men,_sex_work,_and_the_spread_of_hiv_in.1.aspx

[lx]New York Times, Dudley Poston & Peter Morrison, China: Bachelor Bomb, September 14, 2005

[lxi]Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard in Newsweek.  Men Without Women: The ominous rise of Asia’s bachelor generation. March 6, 2011.  http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/06/men-without-women.html

[lxii]Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard in Newsweek.  Men Without Women: The ominous rise of Asia’s bachelor generation. March 6, 2011.  http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/06/men-without-women.html

[lxiii]Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard in Newsweek.  Men Without Women: The ominous rise of Asia’s bachelor generation. March 6, 2011.  http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/06/men-without-women.html

[lxiv]New York Times, Dudley Poston & Peter Morrison, China: Bachelor Bomb, September 14, 2005

[lxv]Lagon, Mark P. “Trafficking in China.” Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in

Persons, United States Department of State, Congressional Human Rights Caucus Briefing,

Washington, D.C. October 31, 2007; United States Department of State 2008 Human Rights

Report: China (released February 25, 2009), p. 18

[lxvi]New York Times, Dudley Poston & Peter Morrison, China: Bachelor Bomb, September 14, 2005

[lxvii]U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Annual Report 2010, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_house_committee_prints&docid=f:61507.pdf

[lxviii]U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Annual Report 2010, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_house_committee_prints&docid=f:61507.pdf

Articles on Gender Imbalance in China

—————

Gendercide – The war on baby girls

 The war on baby girls

The war on baby girls: Gendercide | The Economist

http://www.economist.com/node/15606229

 

The war on baby girls

Gendercide

Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising

Mar 4th 2010 | from the print edition

 

 

IMAGINE you are one half of a young couple expecting your first child in a fast-growing, poor country. You are part of the new middle class; your income is rising; you want a small family. But traditional mores hold sway around you, most important in the preference for sons over daughters. Perhaps hard physical labour is still needed for the family to make its living. Perhaps only sons may inherit land. Perhaps a daughter is deemed to join another family on marriage and you want someone to care for you when you are old. Perhaps she needs a dowry.

 

Now imagine that you have had an ultrasound scan; it costs $12, but you can afford that. The scan says the unborn child is a girl. You yourself would prefer a boy; the rest of your family clamours for one. You would never dream of killing a baby daughter, as they do out in the villages. But an abortion seems different. What do you do?

 

For millions of couples, the answer is: abort the daughter, try for a son. In China and northern India more than 120 boys are being born for every 100 girls. Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys’ greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale.

In this section

  • »Gendercide

 

Related items

Mar 4th 2010


Related topics

 

For those who oppose abortion, this is mass murder. For those such as this newspaper, who think abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” (to use Bill Clinton’s phrase), a lot depends on the circumstances, but the cumulative consequence for societies of such individual actions is catastrophic. China alone stands to have as many unmarried young men—“bare branches”, as they are known—as the entire population of young men in America. In any country rootless young males spell trouble; in Asian societies, where marriage and children are the recognised routes into society, single men are almost like outlaws. Crime rates, bride trafficking, sexual violence, even female suicide rates are all rising and will rise further as the lopsided generations reach their maturity (see article).

It is no exaggeration to call this gendercide. Women are missing in their millions—aborted, killed, neglected to death. In 1990 an Indian economist, Amartya Sen, put the number at 100m; the toll is higher now. The crumb of comfort is that countries can mitigate the hurt, and that one, South Korea, has shown the worst can be avoided. Others need to learn from it if they are to stop the carnage.

 

The dearth and death of little sisters

 

Most people know China and northern India have unnaturally large numbers of boys. But few appreciate how bad the problem is, or that it is rising. In China the imbalance between the sexes was 108 boys to 100 girls for the generation born in the late 1980s; for the generation of the early 2000s, it was 124 to 100. In some Chinese provinces the ratio is an unprecedented 130 to 100. The destruction is worst in China but has spread far beyond. Other East Asian countries, including Taiwan and Singapore, former communist states in the western Balkans and the Caucasus, and even sections of America’s population (Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, for example): all these have distorted sex ratios. Gendercide exists on almost every continent. It affects rich and poor; educated and illiterate; Hindu, Muslim, Confucian and Christian alike.

 

Wealth does not stop it. Taiwan and Singapore have open, rich economies. Within China and India the areas with the worst sex ratios are the richest, best-educated ones. And China’s one-child policy can only be part of the problem, given that so many other countries are affected.

 

In fact the destruction of baby girls is a product of three forces: the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for smaller families; and ultrasound scanning and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus. In societies where four or six children were common, a boy would almost certainly come along eventually; son preference did not need to exist at the expense of daughters. But now couples want two children—or, as in China, are allowed only one—they will sacrifice unborn daughters to their pursuit of a son. That is why sex ratios are most distorted in the modern, open parts of China and India. It is also why ratios are more skewed after the first child: parents may accept a daughter first time round but will do anything to ensure their next—and probably last—child is a boy. The boy-girl ratio is above 200 for a third child in some places.

 

How to stop half the sky crashing down

Baby girls are thus victims of a malign combination of ancient prejudice and modern preferences for small families. Only one country has managed to change this pattern. In the 1990s South Korea had a sex ratio almost as skewed as China’s. Now, it is heading towards normality. It has achieved this not deliberately, but because the culture changed. Female education, anti-discrimination suits and equal-rights rulings made son preference seem old-fashioned and unnecessary. The forces of modernity first exacerbated prejudice—then overwhelmed it.

 

But this happened when South Korea was rich. If China or India—with incomes one-quarter and one-tenth Korea’s levels—wait until they are as wealthy, many generations will pass. To speed up change, they need to take actions that are in their own interests anyway. Most obviously China should scrap the one-child policy. The country’s leaders will resist this because they fear population growth; they also dismiss Western concerns about human rights. But the one-child limit is no longer needed to reduce fertility (if it ever was: other East Asian countries reduced the pressure on the population as much as China). And it massively distorts the country’s sex ratio, with devastating results. President Hu Jintao says that creating “a harmonious society” is his guiding principle; it cannot be achieved while a policy so profoundly perverts family life.

 

And all countries need to raise the value of girls. They should encourage female education; abolish laws and customs that prevent daughters inheriting property; make examples of hospitals and clinics with impossible sex ratios; get women engaged in public life—using everything from television newsreaders to women traffic police. Mao Zedong said “women hold up half the sky.” The world needs to do more to prevent a gendercide that will have the sky crashing down.

 —

 

A guerra contra meninas: generocídio | The Economist
www.economist.com/node/15606229

A guerra contra meninas
Generocídio
Assassinado abortada ou negligenciadas, pelo menos 100 milhões de meninas desapareceram, eo número está a aumentar
4 março, 2010 | a partir da edição impressa

Imagine que você é metade de um jovem casal espera seu primeiro filho em um rápido crescimento país pobre. Você faz parte da nova classe média; sua renda está aumentando, você quer uma família pequena. Mas os costumes tradicionais prevaleçam em torno de você, o mais importante na preferência por filhos homens sobre as filhas.

Talvez o trabalho físico duro ainda é necessária para a família para fazer a sua vida. Talvez apenas os filhos podem herdar a terra. Talvez uma filha é considerado como se juntar a outra família sobre o casamento e você quer alguém para cuidar de você quando você está velho. Talvez ela precisa de um dote.

Agora imagine que você tenha tido uma ecografia, que custa US $ 12, mas você pode pagar por isso. A digitalização diz que o feto é uma menina. Você se prefere um menino, o resto de sua família clama por um. Você nunca sonharia de matar uma filha, como fazem nas aldeias. Mas um aborto parece diferente. O que você faz?

Para milhões de casais, a resposta é: abortar a filha, para tentar um filho. Na China e no norte da Índia mais de 120 meninos nascem para cada 100 meninas. Natureza dita que os homens um pouco mais do que as fêmeas nascem para compensar a susceptibilidade dos meninos maior para a doença infantil. Mas nada nesta escala.

Nesta secção
• »generocídio
• Amigos como estes
• Quem paga a conta?
• Não lave as mãos dele
• Hora de mostrar a eles que você é feito de

Reprints
Itens relacionados
• generocídio: A guerra em todo o mundo, baby girlsMar 4 2010
________________________________________
Tópicos relacionados
• Coréia do Sul
• Sul da Ásia
• Índia
• Ásia
• China

Para aqueles que se opõem ao aborto, isto é assassinato em massa. Para aqueles que, como este jornal, que pensam que o aborto deve ser “seguro, legal e raro” (para usar a frase de Bill Clinton), muito depende das circunstâncias, mas a conseqüência cumulativa para as sociedades de tais ações individuais é catastrófico. Só a China está para ter tantos homens solteiros de jovens “ramos nus”, como são conhecidos, como toda a população de homens jovens na América. Em todo o país sem raízes jovens do sexo masculino significar problemas; nas sociedades asiáticas, onde o casamento e as crianças são as rotas reconhecidas na sociedade, os homens solteiros são quase como bandidos. Os índices de criminalidade, tráfico de noiva, a violência sexual, até mesmo as taxas de suicídio feminino estão todos subindo e vai subir à medida que as gerações torto chegar a sua maturidade (ver artigo).

Não é exagero chamar isso de generocídio. As mulheres estão perdendo aos milhões, abortado, morto, negligenciado até a morte. Em 1990, um economista indiano, Amartya Sen, colocam o número em 100 m; o número de vítimas é maior agora. A migalha de conforto é que os países podem atenuar a dor, e que um, Coreia do Sul, mostrou o pior pode ser evitado. Outros precisam de aprender com ele se quiserem parar a carnificina.


A escassez e a morte de irmãzinhas


A maioria das pessoas conhecer a China e norte da Índia têm um número anormalmente grande de meninos. Mas poucos apreciam o quão ruim é o problema, ou que está subindo. Na China, o desequilíbrio entre os sexos foi de 108 meninos para 100 meninas para a geração nascida na década de 1980, para a geração do início dos anos 2000, ela foi de 124 a 100. Em algumas províncias chinesas a proporção é de um 130 sem precedentes para 100. A destruição é pior na China, mas se espalhou muito além.

 

Outros países asiáticos, incluindo Taiwan e Cingapura, o ex-estados comunistas nos Balcãs Ocidentais e do Cáucaso, e até mesmo segmentos da população da América (chinês e japonês-americanos, por exemplo): todos estes têm distorcido relações sexuais. Generocídio existe em quase todos os continentes. Ela afeta ricos e pobres; educados e analfabetos; hindus, muçulmanos, confucionistas e cristãos.


Riqueza não pará-lo. Taiwan e Cingapura têm economias abertas e ricos. Na China e na Índia as áreas com os piores índices de sexo são mais ricos, mais instruídos queridos. E a política chinesa do filho único só pode ser parte do problema, dado que muitos outros países são afetados.

Na verdade, a destruição dos bebés é um produto de três forças: a preferência antiga para filhos; um desejo moderno para famílias menores, e ultra-sonografia e outras tecnologias que identificam o sexo de um feto. Nas sociedades em que quatro ou seis crianças eram comuns, um menino quase certamente vir, eventualmente, preferência filho não precisa existir em detrimento das filhas. Mas agora os casais querem dois filhos-ou, como na China, são permitidos apenas um eles vão sacrificar filhas nascituros de sua busca por um filho. É por isso que relações sexuais são mais distorcidas nos modernos e partes abertas da China e da Índia. É também por isso que relações são mais distorcida após o primeiro filho: os pais podem aceitar uma filha redonda primeira vez, mas fará de tudo para garantir a sua próxima e provavelmente última criança-é um menino. A relação de menino-menina está acima de 200 por um terceiro filho, em alguns lugares.

Como parar de metade do céu desabar


Meninas são assim vítimas de uma combinação maligna de preconceito antigo e preferências modernas para famílias pequenas. Apenas um país conseguiu mudar esse padrão. Na década de 1990 a Coréia do Sul teve uma relação sexual quase tão desequilibrada quanto da China. Agora, ele está caminhando para a normalidade. Alcançou isto não deliberadamente, mas porque a cultura mudou. Educação feminina, anti-discriminação ternos e igual dos direitos de decisões preferência filho parece antiquado e desnecessário. As forças da primeira modernidade exacerbada prejuízo, então sobrecarregado ele.

Mas isso aconteceu quando a Coréia do Sul era rico. Se a China ou a Índia, com rendimentos um quarto e um décimo da Coréia níveis, esperar até que eles são tão rico, de muitas gerações vai passar. Para acelerar a mudança, eles precisam tomar medidas que estão em seus próprios interesses de qualquer maneira. A maioria, obviamente, a China deve desfazer-se da política do filho único. Os líderes do país vai resistir a este, porque temem o crescimento da população, mas também descartar as preocupações do Ocidente sobre direitos humanos. Mas o limite de um filho não é mais necessário para reduzir a fertilidade (se ele nunca foi: em outros países do leste asiático reduziu a pressão sobre a população, tanto quanto China). E maciçamente distorce relação do país sexo, com resultados devastadores. Presidente Hu Jintao diz que a criação de uma “sociedade harmoniosa” é o seu princípio orientador, não pode ser alcançada, enquanto a política perverte tão profundamente a vida familiar.

E todos os países precisam aumentar o valor das meninas. Eles devem incentivar a educação feminina; abolir leis e costumes que impedem filhas herdando propriedade, fazer exemplos de hospitais e clínicas com relações sexuais impossíveis; obter as mulheres engajados na vida pública, usando de tudo, desde leitores de notícias de televisão para a polícia de trânsito mulheres. Mao Zedong disse que “as mulheres sustentam metade do céu.” O mundo precisa de fazer mais para evitar um generocídio que terá o céu desabar.

 

 

The world at seven billion

 

Este artigo apresenta um resumo do desenvolvimento histórico da pregação politico ideológica de controle populacional sobre os países pobres. Exatamente como vive esta influencia o Brasil, na aprovação de leis inconstitucionais, a contar do governo Lula de 1º/jan/     2003 a 31/dez/2010, e seu reflexo e continuidade no governo Dilma e seus ministros, incluindo as decisões contra-legis do Supremo Tribunal Federal e julgamento eivado de incompetência do relator Marco Aurelio de Mello, no caso da ADPF/54, onde o ministro dispõe no relatório a favor da morte de pessoas deficientes, os anencefalos, relativizando o direito ‘a vida e desconsidera a Constituiçao Federal, e tambem os Códigos Civil e Penal brasileiros.  As iniciativas das potencias econômicas traduziram-se em grandes somas em dinheiro e financiamentos de governos, ex-colonias dos EUA e de aliados na Europa – África e Índia, Japão, Coréias e China -, para aplicação da esterilização forçada de homens e mulheres pobres, construção de clínicas de abortamento, emprego de contraceptivos e instalação de industrias. O financiamento também envolve a adoção de leis para a liberação do aborto ate os 9 meses de gestação e a educação da população, alem da entrada e fixação nos países de fundações e organizações com aparentes fins filantrópicos – mas cujos objetivos se concluem na redução de populações. Para tanto, é preciso que a morte provocada de uma pessoa, o aborto, seja visto pelas mulheres como ‘direito’ e ‘saude’. O controle populacional teve suas consequencias extremas, dividiu mais as classes pobres, corrompeu governos, e tambem a ciência e a mídia. Hoje, países como a índia e a China, por causa do aborto, tém aumento da mortalidade de mulheres e a crise demográfica: a população é constituida na sua maioria por homens.          

————-

 

27 October 2011 Last updated at 23:08 GMT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

* Population control

 

As the world population reaches seven billion people, the BBC’s Mike Gallagher asks whether efforts to control population have been, as some critics claim, a form of authoritarian control over the world’s poorest citizens.

 

The temperature is some 30C. The humidity stifling, the noise unbearable. In a yard between two enormous tea-drying sheds, a number of dark-skinned women patiently sit, each accompanied by an unwieldy looking cloth sack. They are clad in colourful saris, but look tired and shabby. This is hardly surprising – they have spent most of the day in nearby plantation fields, picking tea that will net them around two cents a kilo – barely enough to feed their large families.

 

Vivek Baid thinks he knows how to help them. He runs the Mission for Population Control, a project in eastern India which aims to bring down high birth rates by encouraging local women to get sterilised after their second child.

 

As the world reaches an estimated seven billion people, people like Vivek say efforts to bring down the world’s population must continue if life on Earth is to be sustainable, and if poverty and even mass starvation are to be avoided.

 

There is no doubting their good intentions. Vivek, for instance, has spent his own money on the project, and is passionate about creating a brighter future for India.

 

But critics allege that campaigners like Vivek – a successful and wealthy male businessman – have tended to live very differentlives from those they seek to help, who are mainly poor women.

 

These critics argue that rich people have imposed population control on the poor for decades. And, they say, such coercive attempts to control the world’s population often backfired and were sometimes harmful.

 

Population scare

 

Most historians of modern population control trace its roots back to the Reverend Thomas Malthus, an English clergyman born in the 18th Century who believed that humans would always reproduce faster than Earth’s capacity to feed them.

 

Giving succour to the resulting desperate masses would only imperil everyone else, he said. So the brutal reality was that it was better to let them starve.

 

Continue reading the main story

‘Plenty is changed into scarcity’

 

From Thomas Malthus’ Essay on Population, 1803 edition:

 

A man who is born into a world already possessed – if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, and if the society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food.

 

At nature’s mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he does not work upon the compassion of some of her guests. If these guests get up and make room for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the same favour. The plenty that before reigned is changed into scarcity; and the happiness of the guests is destroyed by the spectacle of misery and dependence in every part of the hall.

 

Rapid agricultural advances in the 19th Century proved his main premise wrong, because food production generally more than kept pace with the growing population.

 

But the idea that the rich are threatened by the desperately poor has cast a long shadow into the 20th Century.

From the 1960s, the World Bank, the UN and a host of independent American philanthropic foundations, such as the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, began to focus on what they saw as the problem of burgeoning Third World numbers.

 

The believed that overpopulation was the primary cause of environmental degradation, economic underdevelopment and political instability.

 

Massive populations in the Third World were seen as presenting a threat to Western capitalism and access to resources, says Professor Betsy Hartmann of Hampshire College, Massachusetts, in the US.

 

“The view of the south is very much put in this Malthusian framework. It becomes just this powerful ideology,” she says.

In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson warned that the US might be overwhelmed by desperate masses, and he made US foreign aid dependent on countries adopting family planning programmes.

Other wealthy countries such as Japan, Sweden and the UK also began to devote large amounts of money to reducing Third World birth rates.

 

‘Unmet need’

 

What virtually everyone agreed was that there was a massive demand for birth control among the world’s poorest people, and that if they could get their hands on reliable contraceptives, runaway population growth might be stopped.

 

But with the benefit of hindsight, some argue that this so-called unmet need theory put disproportionate emphasis on birth control and ignored other serious needs.

 

“It was a top-down solution,” says Mohan Rao, a doctor and public health expert at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University.

 

“There was an unmet need for contraceptive services, of course. But there was also an unmet need for health services and all kinds of other services which did not get attention. The focus became contraception.”

 

Had the demographic experts worked at the grass-roots instead of imposing solutions from above, suggests Adrienne Germain, formerly of the Ford Foundation and then the International Women’s Health Coalition, they might have achieved a better picture of the dilemmas facing women in poor, rural communities.

 

“Not to have a full set of health services meant women were either unable to use family planning, or unwilling to – because they could still expect half their kids to die by the age of five,” she says.

 

Us and them

India’s sterilisation ‘madness’

 

Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay (above) presided over a mass sterilisation campaign. From the mid-1970s, Indian officials were set sterilisation quotas, and sought to ingratiate themselves with superiors by exceeding them. Stories abounded of men being accosted in the street and taken away for the operation. The head of the World Bank, Robert McNamara, congratulated the Indian government on “moving effectively” to deal with high birth rates. Funding was increased, and the sterilising went on.

 

In Delhi, some 700,000 slum dwellers were forcibly evicted, and given replacement housing plots far from the city centre, frequently on condition that they were either sterilisedor produced someone else for the operation. In poorer agricultural areas, whole villages were rounded up for sterilisation. When residents of one village protested, an official is said to have threatened air strikes in retaliation.

 

“There was a certain madness,” recalls Nina Puri of the Family Planning Association of India. “All rationality was lost.”

 

In 1968, the American biologist Paul Ehrlich caused a stir with his bestselling book, The Population Bomb, which suggested that it was already too late to save some countries from the dire effects of overpopulation, which would result in ecological disaster and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the 1970s.

 

Instead, governments should concentrate on drastically reducing population growth. He said financial assistance should be given only to those nations with a realistic chance of bringing birth rates down. Compulsory measures were not to be ruled out.

 

Western experts and local elites in the developing world soon imposed targets for reductions in family size, and used military analogies to drive home the urgency, says Matthew Connelly, a historian of population control at Columbia University in New York.

 

“They spoke of a war on population growth, fought with contraceptive weapons,” he says. “The war would entail sacrifices, and collateral damage.”

 

Such language betrayed a lack of empathy with their subjects, says Ms Germain: “People didn’t talk about people. They talked of acceptors and users of family planning.”

 

Emergency measures

 

Critics of population control had their say at the first ever UN population conference in 1974.

 

Karan Singh, India’s health minister at the time, declared that “development is the best contraceptive“.

 

But just a year later, Mr Singh’s government presided over one of the most notorious episodes in the history of population control.

In June 1975, the Indian premier, Indira Gandhi, declared a state of emergency after accusations of corruption threatened her government. Her son Sanjay used the measure to introduce radical population control measures targeted at the poor.

 

THE INDIAN EMERGENCY LASTED LESS THAN TWO YEARS, BUT IN 1975 ALONE, SOME EIGHT MILLION INDIANS – MAINLY POOR MEN – WERE STERILISED.

 

Yet, for all the OFFICIAL PROGRAMMES and COERCION, many POOR WOMEN kept on having babies.

 

Advertisement

 

The BBC’s Fergus Walsh finds out whether the numbers will rise or fall in the future

 

And where they did not, it arguably had less to do with coercive population control than with development, just as Karan Singh had argued in 1974, says historian Matt Connelly.

 

For example, in India, a disparity in birth rates could already be observed between the impoverished northern states and more developed southern regions like Kerala, where women were more likely to be literate and educated, and their offspring more likely to be healthy.

 

Women there realised that they could have fewer births and still expect to see their children survive into adulthood.

 

Total control

By NOW, this phenomenon could be observed in another country too – one that would nevertheless go on to IMPOSE THE MOST DRACONIAN POPULATION CONTROL OF ALL.

 

CHINA: ‘WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR BABY TO LIVE’

 

STEVEN MOSHER WAS A STANFORD UNIVERSITY ANTHROPOLOGIST WORKING IN RURAL CHINA WHO WITNESSED SOME OF THE EARLY, DISTURBING MOMENTS OF BEIJING’S ONE CHILD POLICY.

 

“I remember very well the evening of 8 March, 1980. The local Communist Party official in charge of my village came over waving a government document. He said: ‘The Party has DECIDED TO IMPOSE A CAP OF 1% ON POPULATION growth this year.’ He said: ‘We’re going to decide who’s going to be allowed to continue their pregnancy and who’s going to BE FORCED TO TERMINATE THEIR PREGNANCY.’ AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID.”

 

“These were WOMEN IN THE LATE SECOND AND THIRD TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY. THERE WERE SEVERAL WOMEN JUST DAYS AWAY FROM GIVING BIRTH. And in my hearing, a party official said: ‘Do not think that you can simply wait until you go into labour and give birth, because we will not allow your baby to live. You will go home alone’.”

 

The One Child Policy is credited with preventing some 400 million births in China, and remains in place to this day. IN 1983 ALONE, MORE THAN 16 MILLION WOMEN AND FOUR MILLION MEN WERE STERILISED, AND 14 MILLION WOMEN RECEIVED ABORTIONS.

 

Assessed by numbers alone, it is said to be by far the most successful population control initiative. Yet it remains deeply controversial, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE HUMAN SUFFERING IT HAS CAUSED.

 

A FEW YEARS AFTER ITS INCEPTION, PARENTS THE POLICY WAS RELAXED SLIGHTLY TO ALLOW RURAL COUPLES TWO CHILDREN IF THEIR FIRST WAS NOT A BOY. BOY CHILDREN ARE PRIZED, ESPECIALLY IN THE COUNTRYSIDE WHERE THEY PROVIDE LABOUR AND CARE FOR IN OLD AGE.

 

BUT MODERN TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS PARENTS TO DISCOVER THE SEX OF THE FOETUS, AND MANY CHOOSE TO ABORT IF THEY ARE CARRYING A GIRL. IN SOME REGIONS, THERE IS NOW A SERIOUS IMBALANCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN.

 

Moreover, since Chinese fertility was already in decline at the time the policy was implemented, some argue that it bears less responsibility for China’s falling birth rate than its supporters claim.

 

“I don’t think they needed to bring it down further,” says Indian demographer AR Nanda. “It would have happened at its own slow pace in another 10 years.”

Backlash

 

IN THE EARLY 1980S, OBJECTIONS TO THE POPULATION CONTROL MOVEMENT BEGAN TO GROW, ESPECIALLY IN THE UNITED STATES.

 

 

In Washington, the new Reagan administration removed financial support for any programmes that involved abortion or sterilisation.

 

 

 “Start Quote”

“if you give women the tools they need – education, employment, contraception, safe abortion – then they will make the choices that benefit society”

 

End Quote Adrienne Germain

 

 

The broad alliance to stem birth rates was beginning to dissolve and the debate become more polarised along political lines.

 

WHILE SOME ON THE POLITICAL RIGHT HAD MORAL OBJECTIONS TO POPULATION CONTROL, SOME ON THE LEFT SAW IT AS NEO-COLONIALISM.

 

Faith groups condemned it as a Western attack on religious values, but women’s groups feared changes would mean poor women would be even less well-served.

 

BY THE TIME OF A MAJOR UN CONFERENCE ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN CAIRO IN 1994, WOMEN’S GROUPS WERE READY TO STRIKE A BLOW FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS, AND THEY WON.

 

The conference adopted a 20-year plan of action, known as the Cairo consensus, which called on countries to recognise that ordinary women’s needs – rather than demographers’ plans – should be at the heart of population strategies.

 

After Cairo    

 

Today’s record-breaking global population hides a marked long-term trend towards lower birth rates, as urbanisation, better health care, education and access to family planning all affect women’s choices.

 

With the exception of sub-Saharan Africa and some of the poorest parts of India, we are now having fewer children than we once did – in some cases, failing even to replace ourselves in the next generation. And although total numbers are set to rise still further, the peak is now in sight.

 

CHINA PROMOTED BIRTH CONTROL BEFORE IMPLEMENTING ITS ONE-CHILD POLICY

 

Assuming that this trend continues, total numbers will one day level off, and even fall. As a result, some believe the sense of urgency that once surrounded population control has subsided.

 

The term population control itself has fallen out of fashion, as it was deemed to have authoritarian connotations. Post-Cairo, the talk is of women’s rights and reproductive rights, meaning the right to a free choice over whether or not to have children.

ACCORDING TO ADRIENNE GERMAIN, THAT IS THE MAIN LESSON WE SHOULD LEARN FROM THE PAST 50 YEARS.

 

“I have a profound conviction that if you give women the tools they need – education, employment, contraception, safe abortion – then they will make the choices that benefit society,” she says.


“If you don’t, then you’ll just be in an endless cycle of trying to exert control over fertility – to bring it up, to bring it down, to keep it stable. And it never comes out well. Never.”

 

NEVERTHELESS, THERE REMAIN TO THIS DAY SCHEMES TO STERILISE THE LESS WELL-OFF, OFTEN IN RETURN FOR FINANCIAL INCENTIVES. IN EFFECT, SAY CRITICS, THIS AMOUNTS TO COERCION, SINCE THE VERY POOR FIND IT HARD TO REJECT CASH.

 

“The people proposing this argue ‘Don’t worry, everything’ s fine now we have voluntary programmes on the Cairo model’,” says Betsy Hartmann.

 

“But what they don’t understand is the profound difference in power between rich and poor. The people who provide many services in poor areas are already prejudiced against the people they serve.”

 

 Work in progress

For Mohan Rao, it is an example of how even the Cairo consensus fails to take account of the developing world.

 

“Cairo had some good things,” he says. “However Cairo was driven largely by First World feminist agendas. Reproductive rights are all very well, but [there needs to be] a whole lot of other kinds of enabling rights before women can access reproductive rights. You need rights to food, employment, water, justice and fair wages. Without all these YOU CANNOT HAVE reproductive RIGHTS.”

 

Perhaps, then, the humanitarian ideals of Cairo are still a work in progress.

 

Meanwhile, Paul Ehrlich has also amended his view of the issue.

 

If he were to write his book today, “I wouldn’t focus on the poverty-stricken masses”, he told the BBC.

 

“I would focus on there being too many rich people. It’s crystal clear that we can’t support seven billion people in the style of the wealthier Americans.”

 

Mike Gallager is the producer of the radio programme Controlling People on BBC World Service

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15449959

—-

Experimentação médica em humanos nos Estados Unidos: A história chocante da verdade da medicina moderna e psiquiatria (1833-1965 a parte de 1965-2005). Os riscos e perigos ‘a saúde de quem utiliza drogas psiquiatricas. Vale lembrar que as mulheres que abortam comumente tém, entre as sequelas fisico-psiquicas e o cancer, doenças psiquiatricas alem da perda da fecundidade.

Experimentação médica em humanos nos Estados Unidos: A história chocante da verdade da medicina moderna e psiquiatria (de 1833-1965 a parte de 1965-2005). Os riscos e perigos ‘a saúde de quem utiliza drogas psiquiatricas. Vale lembrar que as mulheres que abortam comumente tém, entre as sequelas fisico-psiquicas e o cancer, doenças psiquiatricas alem da perda da fecundidade.

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1833-1965)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1965-2005)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html

Monday, March 06, 2006 by: Dani Veracity

http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html

Introduction by the Health Ranger: The United States claims to be the world leader in medicine. But there’s a dark side to western medicine that few want to acknowledge: The horrifying medical experiments performed on impoverished people and their children all in the name of scientific progress. Many of these medical experiments were conducted on people without their knowledge, and most were conducted as part of an effort to seek profits from newly approved drugs or medical technologies.

This is part two of a two-part series on human medical experimentation. Click here to read part one and the introduction.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html#ixzz3Ho2D5cgV

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1833-1965)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html

AND

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1965-2005)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html

Monday, March 06, 2006 by: Dani Veracity

Today, the medical experiments  continue on the U.S. population  and its children. From the mass drugging of children  diagnosed with fictitious behavioral disorders invented by psychiatry  to the FDA’s approval of mass-marketed drugs  that have undergone no legitimate clinical trials, our population is right now being subjected to medical experiments  on a staggering scale. Today, nearly 50% of Americans are on a least one prescription drug , and nearly 20% of schoolchildren are on mind-altering amphetamines like Ritalin or antidepressants like Prozac. This mass medication  of our nation is, in every way, a grand medical experiment taking place right now.

But to truly understand how this mass experimentation on modern Americans came into being, you have to take a close look at the horrifying history  of conventional medicine’s exploitation of people for cruel medical experiments.

WARNING: What you are about to read is truly shocking. You have never been told this information  by the American Medical Association, nor drug companies , nor the evening news. You were never taught the truth about conventional medicine  in public school, or even at any university. This is the dark secret of the U.S. system of medicine, and once you read the true accounts reported here, you may never trust drug companies again. These images are deeply disturbing. We print them here not as a form of entertainment, but as a stern warning against what might happen to us and our children if we do not rein in the horrifying, inhumane actions of Big Pharma and modern-day psychiatry.

Now, I introduce this shocking timeline, researched and authored by Dani Veracity, one of our many talented staff writers here at Truth Publishing.

Read at your own risk . – The Health Ranger

The true U.S. history of human medical experimentation

Human experimentation — that is, subjecting live human beings to science  experiments that are sometimes cruel, sometimes painful, sometimes deadly and always a risk — is a major part of U.S. history that you won’t find in most history or science books. The United States  is undoubtedly responsible for some of the most amazing scientific breakthroughs. These advancements, especially in the field of medicine, have changed the lives of billions of people around the world — sometimes for the better, as in the case of finding a cure  for malaria and other epidemic diseases, and sometimes for the worse (consider modern “psychiatry” and the drugging of schoolchildren)

.

However, these breakthroughs come with a hefty price tag: The human beings used in the experiments that made these advancements possible. Over the last two centuries, some of these test subjects have been compensated for the damage done to their emotional and physical health , but most have not. Many have lost their lives because of the experiments they often unwillingly and sometimes even unwittingly participated in, and they of course can never be compensated for losing their most precious possession of all: Their health.

As you read through these science experiments, you’ll learn the stories of newborns  injected with radioactive substances, mentally ill people placed in giant refrigerators, military  personnel exposed to chemical weapons by the very government  they served and mentally challenged children being purposely infected with hepatitis . These stories are facts, not fiction: Each account, no matter how horrifying, is backed up with a link or citation to a reputable source.

These stories must be heard because human experimentation  is still going on today. The reasons behind the experiments may be different, but the usual human guinea pigs  are still the same — members of minority groups, the poor and the disadvantaged. These are the lives that were put on the line in the name of “scientific” medicine.

(1833)

Dr. William Beaumont, an army surgeon physician, pioneers gastric medicine with his study of a patient with a permanently open gunshot wound to the abdomen and writes a human medical experimentation  code that asserts the importance of experimental treatments, but also lists requirements stipulating that human subjects must give voluntary, informed consent and be able to end the experiment when they want. Beaumont’s Code lists verbal, rather than just written, consent as permissible (Berdon ).

(1845)

(1845 – 1849) J. Marion Sims, later hailed as the “father of gynecology,” performs medical experiments on enslaved African women without anesthesia . These women would usually die of infection  soon after surgery. Based on his belief that the movement of newborns’ skull bones  during protracted births causes  trismus, he also uses a shoemaker’s awl, a pointed tool shoemakers use to make holes in leather, to practice moving the skull bones of babies  born to enslaved mothers (Brinker ).

(1895)

New York pediatrician Henry Heiman infects a 4-year-old boy whom he calls “an idiot with chronic epilepsy” with gonorrhea as part of a medical experiment (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After” ).

(1896)

Dr. Arthur Wentworth turns 29 children at Boston’s Children’s Hospital into human guinea pigs when he performs spinal taps on them, just to test whether the procedure is harmful (Sharav ).

(1900)

U.S Army doctors working in the Philippines  infect five Filipino prisoners  with plague and withhold proper nutrition  to create Beriberi in 29 prisoners; four test subjects die (Merritte, et al. ; Cockburn and St. Clair, eds. ).

Under commission from the U.S. surgeon general, Dr. Walter Reed goes to Cuba and uses 22 Spanish immigrant workers to prove that yellow fever  is contracted through mosquito bites. Doing so, he introduces the practice of using healthy  test subjects, and also the concept of a written contract to confirm informed consent of these subjects. While doing this study, Dr. Reed clearly tells the subjects that, though he will do everything he can to help them, they may die as a result of the experiment. He pays them $100 in gold for their participation, plus $100 extra if they contract yellow fever (Berdon , Sharav ).

(1906)

Harvard professor Dr. Richard Strong infects prisoners in the Philippines with cholera to study the disease ; 13 of them die. He compensates survivors with cigars and cigarettes. During the Nuremberg Trials, Nazi doctors  cite this study to justify their own medical experiments (Greger , Sharav ).

(1911)

Dr. Hideyo Noguchi of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research publishes data on injecting an inactive syphilis preparation into the skin of 146 hospital patients  and normal children in an attempt to develop a skin  test for syphilis. Later, in 1913, several of these children’s parents  sue Dr. Noguchi for allegedly infecting their children with syphilis (“Reviews and Notes: History of Medicine: Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War” ).

(1913)

Medical experimenters “test” 15 children at the children’s home  St. Vincent’s House in Philadelphia with tuberculin, resulting in permanent blindness in some of the children. Though the Pennsylvania House of Representatives records the incident, the researchers are not punished for the experiments (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After” ).

(1915)

Dr. Joseph Goldberger, under order of the U.S. Public Health Office, produces Pellagra, a debilitating disease that affects the central nervous system , in 12 Mississippi inmates to try to find a cure for the disease. One test subject later says that he had been through “a thousand hells.” In 1935, after millions die from the disease, the director of the U.S Public Health Office would finally admit that officials had known that it was caused by a niacin deficiency for some time, but did nothing about it because it mostly affected poor African-Americans. During the Nuremberg Trials, Nazi  doctors used this study to try to justify their medical experiments on concentration camp inmates (Greger ; Cockburn and St. Clair, eds. ).

 (1918)

In response to the Germans’ use of chemical weapons  during World War I, President Wilson creates the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) as a branch of the U.S. Army. Twenty-four years later, in 1942, the CWS would begin performing mustard  gas and lewisite experiments on over 4,000 members of the armed forces (Global Security , Goliszek).

(1919)

(1919 – 1922) Researchers perform testicular transplant experiments on inmates at San Quentin State Prison in California , inserting the testicles of recently executed inmates and goats into the abdomens and scrotums of living prisoners (Greger ).

(1931)

Cornelius Rhoads, a pathologist from the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, purposely infects human test subjects in Puerto Rico with cancer cells ; 13 of them die. Though a Puerto Rican doctor  later discovers that Rhoads purposely covered up some of details of his experiment and Rhoads himself gives a written testimony stating he believes that all Puerto Ricans should be killed, he later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland , Utah and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, where he begins a series of radiation  exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients (Sharav ; Cockburn and St. Clair, eds. ).

(1931 – 1933) Mental patients  at Elgin State Hospital in Illinois  are injected with radium-266 as an experimental therapy  for mental illness (Goliszek).

(1932)

(1932-1972) The U.S. Public Health Service in Tuskegee, Ala. diagnoses 400 poor, black sharecroppers with syphilis but never tells them of their illness  nor treats them; instead researchers use the men as human guinea pigs to follow the symptoms  and progression of the disease. They all eventually die from syphilis and their families are never told that they could have been treated (Goliszek, University of Virginia Health System Health Sciences Library ).

(1937)

Scientists at Cornell University Medical School publish an angina drug study that uses both placebo  and blind assessment techniques on human test subjects. They discover that the subjects given the placebo experienced more of an improvement in symptoms than those who were given the actual drug. This is first account of the placebo effect  published in the United States (“Placebo Effect” ).

(1939)

In order to test his theory on the roots of stuttering, prominent speech pathologist Dr. Wendell Johnson performs his famous “Monster Experiment” on 22 children at the Iowa  Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home in Davenport. Dr. Johnson and his graduate students  put the children under intense psychological pressure, causing them to switch from speaking normally to stuttering heavily. At the time, some of the students reportedly warn Dr. Johnson that, “in the aftermath of World War II, observers might draw comparisons to Nazi experiments on human subjects, which could destroy his career” (Alliance for Human Research Protection ).

 (1941)

Dr. William C. Black infects a 12-month-old baby with herpes as part of a medical experiment. At the time, the editor of the Journal of Experimental Medicine, Francis Payton Rous, calls it “an abuse of power, an infringement of the rights of an individual, and not excusable because the illness which followed had implications for science” (Sharav ).

An article in a 1941 issue of Archives of Pediatrics describes medical studies  of the severe gum disease Vincent’s angina in which doctors transmit the disease from sick children to healthy children with oral swabs (Goliszek).

Drs. Francis and Salk and other researchers at the University of Michigan spray large amounts of wild influenza  virus directly into the nasal passages of “volunteers” from mental institutions in Michigan. The test subjects develop influenza within a very short period of time (Meiklejohn ).

Researchers give 800 poverty-stricken pregnant women  at a Vanderbilt University prenatal clinic “cocktails” including radioactive iron  in order to determine the iron requirements of pregnant women (Pacchioli ).

 (1942)

The United States creates Fort Detrick, a 92-acre facility, employing nearly 500 scientists  working to create biological weapons and develop defensive measures against them. Fort Detrick’s main objectives include investigating whether diseases are transmitted by inhalation, digestion or through skin absorption ; of course, these biological warfare  experiments heavily relied on the use of human subjects (Goliszek).

U.S. Army and Navy doctors infect 400 prison inmates in Chicago with malaria to study the disease and hopefully develop a treatment  for it. The prisoners are told that they are helping the war effort, but not that they are going to be infected with malaria. During Nuremberg Trials, Nazi doctors later cite this American study to defend their own medical experiments in concentration camps like Auschwitz (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds. ).

The Chemical Warfare Service begins mustard gas and lewisite experiments on 4,000 members of the U.S. military. Some test subjects don’t realize they are volunteering  for chemical exposure experiments, like 17-year-old Nathan Schnurman, who in 1944 thinks he is only volunteering to test “U.S. Navy summer clothes” (Goliszek).

In an experiment sponsored by the U.S. Navy, Harvard biochemist Edward Cohn injects 64 inmates of Massachusetts state prisons with cow’s blood (Sharav ).

Merck Pharmaceuticals President George Merck  is named director of the War Research Service (WRS), an agency designed to oversee the establishment of a biological warfare program (Goliszek).

 

(1943)

In order to “study the effect of frigid temperature on mental disorders ,” researchers at University of Cincinnati Hospital keep 16 mentally disabled patients in refrigerated cabinets for 120 hours at 30 degrees Fahrenheit (Sharav ).

(1944)

As part of the Manhattan Project that would eventually create the atomic bomb, researchers inject 4.7 micrograms of plutonium into soldiers at the Oak Ridge facility, 20 miles west of Knoxville, Tenn. (“Manhattan Project: Oak Ridge” ).

 

Captain A. W. Frisch, an experienced microbiologist, begins experiments on four volunteers from the state prison at Dearborn, Mich., inoculating prisoners with hepatitis-infected specimens obtained in North Africa . One prisoner dies; two others develop hepatitis but live; the fourth develops symptoms but does not actually develop the disease (Meiklejohn ).

Laboratory workers at the University of Minnesota and University of Chicago inject human test subjects with phosphorus-32 to learn the metabolism of hemoglobin (Goliszek).

(1944 – 1946) In order to quickly develop a cure for malaria — a disease hindering Allied success in World War II — University of Chicago Medical School professor Dr. Alf Alving infects psychotic patients at Illinois State Hospital with the disease through blood  transfusions and then experiments malaria cures on them (Sharav ).

A captain in the medical corps addresses an April 1944 memo to Col. Stanford Warren, head of the Manhattan Project’s Medical Section, expressing his concerns about atom bomb component fluoride’s central nervous system (CNS) effects and asking for animal research  to be done to determine the extent of these effects: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect … It seems most likely that the F

component rather than the T

is the causative factor … Since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur after exposure .” The following year, the Manhattan Project would begin human-based studies on fluoride’s effects (Griffiths and Bryson ).

The Manhattan Project medical team, led by the now infamous University of Rochester radiologist Col. Safford Warren, injects plutonium into patients at the University’s teaching hospital , Strong Memorial (Burton Report ).

(1945)

Continuing the Manhattan Project, researchers inject plutonium into three patients at the University of Chicago’s Billings Hospital (Sharav ).

The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence  and the CIA begin Operation Paperclip, offering Nazi scientists immunity  and secret identities in exchange for work on top-secret government projects on aerodynamics and chemical warfare medicine in the United States (“Project Paperclip” ).

Researchers infect 800 prisoners in Atlanta with malaria to study the disease (Sharav ).

(1945 – 1955) In Newburgh, N.Y., researchers linked to the Manhattan Project begin the most extensive American study ever done on the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water (Griffiths and Bryson ).

(1946)

Gen. Douglas MacArthur strikes a secret deal with Japanese physician Dr. Shiro Ishii to turn over 10,000 pages of information gathered from human experimentation in exchange for granting Ishii immunity from prosecution for the horrific experiments he performed on Chinese , Russian and American war prisoners, including performing vivisections on live human beings (Goliszek, Sharav ).

Male and female test subjects at Chicago’s Argonne National Laboratories are given intravenous injections of arsenic-76 so that researchers can study how the human body  absorbs, distributes and excretes arsenic  (Goliszek).

Continuing the Newburg study of 1945, the Manhattan Project commissions the University of Rochester to study fluoride’s effects on animals  and humans in a project  codenamed “Program F.” With the help of the New York  State Health Department, Program F researchers secretly collect and analyze blood and tissue samples from Newburg residents. The studies are sponsored by the Atomic Energy Commission and take place at the University of Rochester Medical Center’s Strong Memorial Hospital (Griffiths and Bryson ).

(1946 – 1947) University of Rochester researchers inject four male and two female human test subjects with uranium-234 and uranium-235 in dosages ranging from 6.4 to 70.7 micrograms per one kilogram of body  weight in order to study how much uranium they could tolerate before their kidneys become damaged (Goliszek).

Six male employees  of a Chicago metallurgical laboratory are given water  contaminated with plutonium-239 to drink so that researchers can learn how plutonium is absorbed into the digestive tract (Goliszek).

Researchers begin using patients in VA hospitals as test subjects for human medical experiments , cleverly worded as “investigations” or “observations” in medical study reports to avoid negative connotations and bad publicity (Sharav ).

The American public finally learns of the biowarfare experiments being done at Fort Detrick from a report released by the War Department (Goliszek).

(1946 – 1953)

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission sponsors studies in which researchers from Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital and the Boston  University School of Medicine feed mentally disabled students at Fernald State School Quaker Oats breakfast cereal spiked with radioactive tracers every morning so that nutritionists can study how preservatives move through the human body and if they block the absorption of vitamins and minerals. Later, MIT  researchers conduct the same study at Wrentham State School (Sharav , Goliszek).

Human test subjects are given one to four injections of arsenic-76 at the University of Chicago Department of Medicine. Researchers take tissue biopsies from the subjects before and after the injections (Goliszek).

(1947)

Col. E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issues a top-secret document (707075) dated Jan. 8. In it, he writes that “certain radioactive substances are being prepared for intravenous administration to human subjects as a part of the work of the contract” (Goliszek).

A secret AEC document dated April 17 reads, “It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans that might have an adverse reaction on public opinion or result in legal suits,” revealing that the U.S. government was aware of the health risks its nuclear tests  posed to military personnel conducting the tests or nearby civilians (Goliszek).

The CIA  begins studying LSD’s potential as a weapon by using military and civilian test subjects for experiments without their consent or even knowledge. Eventually, these LSD studies will evolve into the MKULTRA program in 1953 (Sharav ).

(1947 – 1953) The U.S. Navy begins Project Chatter to identify and test so-called “truth serums,” such as those used by the Soviet Union to interrogate spies. Mescaline and the central nervous system depressant scopolamine are among the many drugs tested on human subjects (Goliszek).

(1948)

Based on the secret studies performed on Newburgh, N.Y. residents beginning in 1945, Project F researchers publish a report in the August 1948 edition of the Journal of the American Dental Association, detailing fluoride’s health dangers. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) quickly censors it for “national security” reasons (Griffiths and Bryson ).

(1950)

(1950 – 1953) The CIA and later the Office of Scientific Intelligence begin Project Bluebird (renamed Project Artichoke in 1951) in order to find ways to “extract” information from CIA agents, control individuals “through special interrogation techniques,” “enhance memory ” and use “unconventional techniques, including hypnosis  and drugs” for offensive measures (Goliszek).

(1950)

(1950 – 1953) The CIA and later the Office of Scientific Intelligence begin Project Bluebird (renamed Project Artichoke in 1951) in order to find ways to “extract” information from CIA agents, control individuals “through special interrogation techniques,” “enhance memory ” and use “unconventional techniques, including hypnosis  and drugs” for offensive measures (Goliszek).

(1950 – 1953) The U.S. Army releases chemical clouds over six American and Canadian cities . Residents in Winnipeg, Canada, where a highly toxic  chemical called cadmium is dropped, subsequently experience high rates of respiratory illnesses (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds. ).

In order to determine how susceptible an American city could be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of Bacillus globigii bacteria  from ships over the San Francisco  shoreline. According to monitoring devices situated throughout the city to test the extent of infection, the eight thousand residents of San Francisco inhale five thousand or more bacteria particles, many becoming sick with pneumonia-like symptoms (Goliszek).

Dr. Joseph Strokes of the University of Pennsylvania infects 200 female prisoners with viral hepatitis to study the disease (Sharav ).

Doctors at the Cleveland City Hospital study changes in cerebral blood flow  by injecting test subjects with spinal anesthesia, inserting needles in their jugular veins and brachial arteries , tilting their heads down and, after massive blood loss causes paralysis and fainting, measuring their blood pressure . They often perform this experiment multiple times on the same subject (Goliszek).

Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, later of MKULTRA infamy due to his 1957 to1964 experiments on Canadians , publishes an article in the British Journal of Physical Medicine, in which he describes experiments that entail forcing schizophrenic patients at Manitoba’s Brandon Mental Hospital to lie naked under 15- to 200-watt red lamps for up to eight hours per day. His other experiments include placing mental patients in an electric cage that overheats their internal body temperatures to 103 degrees Fahrenheit, and inducing comas by giving patients large injections of insulin  (Goliszek).

(1951)

The U.S. Navy’s Project Bluebird is renamed Project Artichoke and begins human medical experiments that test the effectiveness of LSD, sodium pentothal and hypnosis for the interrogative purposes described in Project Bluebird’s objectives (1950) (Goliszek).

The U.S. Army secretly contaminates the Norfolk Naval Supply Center in Virginia and Washington , D.C.’s National Airport with a strain of bacteria chosen because African-Americans were believed to be more susceptible to it than Caucasians. The experiment causes food poisoning , respiratory problems and blood poisoning (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds. ).

(1951 – 1952) Researchers withhold insulin from diabetic patients for up to two days in order to observe the effects of diabetes; some test subjects go into diabetic comas (Goliszek).

(1951 – 1956) Under contract with the Air Force’s School of Aviation Medicine (SAM), the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston begins studying the effects of radiation on cancer  patients — many of them members of minority groups or indigents, according to sources — in order to determine both radiation’s ability to treat cancer and the possible long-term radiation effects of pilots  flying nuclear-powered planes. The study lasts until 1956, involving 263 cancer patients. Beginning in 1953, the subjects are required to sign a waiver form, but it still does not meet the informed consent guidelines established by the Wilson memo released that year. The TBI studies themselves would continue at four different institutions — Baylor University College of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda and the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine — until 1971 (U.S. Department of Energy , Goliszek).

American, Canadian and British military and intelligence officials gather a small group of eminent psychologists to a secret meeting at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Montreal about Communist “thought-control techniques.” They proposed a top-secret research program on behavior  modification — involving testing drugs, hypnosis, electroshock and lobotomies on humans (Barker ).

(1952)

Military scientists use the Dugway Proving Ground — which is located 87 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, Utah — in a series of experiments to determine how Brucella suis and Brucella melitensis spread in human populations. Today, over a half-century later, some experts  claim that we are all infected with these agents as a result of these experiments (Goliszek).

In a U.S. Department of Denfense-sponsored experiment, Henry Blauer dies after he is injected with mescaline at Columbia University’s New York State Psychiatric Institute (Sharav ).

At the famous Sloan-Kettering Institute, Chester M. Southam injects live cancer cells into prisoners at the Ohio State Prison to study the progression of the disease. Half of the prisoners in this National Institutes of Health-sponsored (NIH) study are black, awakening racial suspicions stemming from Tuskegee, which was also an NIH-sponsored study (Merritte, et al. ).

(1953)

(1953 – 1970) The CIA begins project MKNAOMI to “stockpile incapacitating and lethal materials, to develop gadgetry for the disseminations of these materials, and to test the effects of certain drugs on animals and humans.” As part of MKNAOMI, the CIA and the Special Operations Division of the Army Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick try to develop two suicide  pill alternatives to the standard cyanide suicide pill given to CIA agents and U-2 pilots. CIA agents and U-2 pilots are meant to take these pills when they find themselves in situations in which they (and all the information they hold in their brains ) are in enemy hands. They also develop a “microbioinoculator” — a device that agents can use to fire small darts coated with biological agents that can remain potent for weeks or even months. These darts can be fired through clothing  and, most significantly, are undetectable during autopsy. Eventually, by the late 1960s, MKNAOMI enables the CIA to have a stockpile of biological toxins  — infectious viruses, paralytic shellfish toxin, lethal botulism toxin, snake venom and the severe skin disease-producing agent Mircosporum gypseum. Of course, the development of all of this “gadgetry” requires human experimentation (Goliszek).

(1953 – 1974) CIA Director Allen Dulles authorizes the MKULTRA program to produce and test drugs and biological agents that the CIA could use for mind control  and behavior modification. MKULTRA later becomes well known for its pioneering studies on LSD, which are often performed on prisoners or patrons of brothels set up and run by the CIA. The brothel experiments, known as “Operation Midnight Climax,” feature two-way mirrors set up in the brothels so that CIA agents can observe LSD’s effects on sexual behavior. Ironically, governmental figures sometimes slip LSD into each other’s drinks as part of the program, resulting in the LSD psychosis-induced suicide of Dr. Frank Olson indirectly at the hands of MKULTRA’s

MKULTRA’s infamous key player Dr. Sidney Gottlieb. Of all the hundreds of human test subjects used during MKULTRA, only 14 are ever notified of the involvement and only one is ever compensated ($15,000). Most of the MKULTRA files are eventually destroyed in 1973 (Elliston ; Merritte, et al. ; Barker ).

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) sponsors iodine studies at the University of Iowa. In the first study, researchers give pregnant women 100 to 200 microcuries of iodine-131 and then study the women’s aborted embryos in order to learn at what stage and to what extent radioactive iodine crosses the placental barrier. In the second study, researchers give 12 male and 13 female newborns under 36 hours old and weighing between 5.5 and 8.5 pounds iodine-131 either orally or via intramuscular injection, later measuring the concentration of iodine in the newborns’ thyroid glands (Goliszek).

Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson issues the Wilson memo, a top-secret document establishing the Nuremberg Code as Department of Defense policy on human experimentation. The Wilson memo requires voluntary, written consent from a human medical research subject after he or she has been informed of “the nature , duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.” It also insists that doctors only use experimental treatments when other methods have failed (Berdon ).

As part of an AEC study, researchers feed 28 healthy infants at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine iodine-131 through a gastric tube and then test concentration of iodine in the infants’ thyroid glands 24 hours later (Goliszek).

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1965-2005)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html

Monday, March 06, 2006 by: Dani Veracity

This is part two of a two-part series on human medical experimentation. Click here to read part one and the introduction.

(1966)

The CIA continues a limited number of MKULTRA plans by beginning Project MKSEARCH to develop and test ways of using biological, chemical and radioactive materials in intelligence operations, and also to develop and test drugs that are able to produce predictable changes in human behavior and physiology (Goliszek).

Dr. Henry Beecher writes, “The well-being, the health, even the actual or potential life of all human beings, born or unborn, depend upon the continuing experimentation in man. Proceed it must; proceed it will. ‘The proper study of mankind is man,'” in his “exposé” on human medical experimentation Research and the Individual (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After”).

U.S. Army scientists drop light bulbs filled with Bacillus subtilis through ventilation gates and into the New York City subway system, exposing more than one million civilians to the bacteria (Goliszek).

The National Commission for the Protection of Research Subjects issues its Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects, which eventually creates what we now know as institutional review boards (IRBs) (Sharav).

(1967)

Continuing on his Dow Chemical Company-sponsored dioxin study without the company’s knowledge or consent, University of Pennsylvania Professor Albert Kligman increases the dosage of dioxin he applies to 10 prisoners’ skin to 7,500 micrograms, 468 times the dosage Dow official Gerald K. Rowe had authorized him to administer. As a result, the prisoners experience acne lesions that develop into inflammatory pustules and papules (Kaye).

The CIA places a chemical in the drinking water supply of the FDA headquarters in Washington, D.C. to see whether it is possible to spike drinking water with LSD and other substances (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, researchers inject pregnant women with radioactive cortisol to see if the radioactive material will cross the placentas and affect the fetuses (Goliszek).

The U.S. Army pays Professor Kligman to apply skin-blistering chemicals to Holmesburg Prison inmates’ faces and backs, so as to, in Professor Kligman’s words, “learn how the skin protects itself against chronic assault from toxic chemicals, the so-called hardening process,” information which would have both offensive and defensive applications for the U.S. military (Kaye).

The CIA and Edgewood Arsenal Research Laboratories begin an extensive program for developing drugs that can influence human behavior. This program includes Project OFTEN — which studies the toxicology, transmission and behavioral effects of drugs in animal and human subjects — and Project CHICKWIT, which gathers European and Asian drug development information (Goliszek).

Professor Kligman develops Retin-A as an acne cream (and eventually a wrinkle cream), turning him into a multi-millionaire (Kaye).

Researchers paralyze 64 prison inmates in California with a neuromuscular compound called succinylcholine, which produces suppressed breathing that feels similar to drowning. When five prisoners refuse to participate in the medical experiment, the prison’s special treatment board gives researchers permission to inject the prisoners with the drug against their will (Greger).

(1968)

Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas and the Southwest Foundation for Research and Education begin an oral contraceptive study on 70 poverty-stricken Mexican-American women, giving only half the oral contraceptives they think they are receiving and the other half a placebo. When the results of this study are released a few years later, it stirs tremendous controversy among Mexican-Americans (Sharav, Sauter).

(1969)

President Nixon ends the United States’ offensive biowarfare program, including human experimentation done at Fort Detrick. By this time, tens of thousands of civilians and members of the U.S. armed forces have wittingly and unwittingly acted as participants in experiments involving exposure to dangerous biological agents (Goliszek).

The U.S. military conducts DTC Test 69-12, which is an open-air test of VX and sarin nerve agents at the Army’s Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, likely exposing military personnel (Goliszek, Martin).

Experimental drugs are tested on mentally disabled children in Milledgeville, Ga., without any institutional approval whatsoever (Sharav).

Dr. Donald MacArthur, the U.S. Department of Defense’s Deputy Director for Research and Technology, requests $10 million from Congress to develop a synthetic biological agent that would be resistant “to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease” (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

Judge Sam Steinfield’s dissent in Strunk v. Strunk, 445 S.W.2d 145 marks the first time a judge has ever suggested that the Nuremberg Code be applied in American court cases (Sharav).

(1970)

A year after his request, under H.R. 15090, Dr. MacArthur receives funding to begin CIA-supervised mycoplasma research with Fort Detrick’s Special Operations Division and hopefully create a synthetic immunosuppressive agent. Some experts believe that this research may have inadvertently created HIV, the virus that causes AIDS (Goliszek).

Under order from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which also sponsored the Tuskegee Experiment, the free childcare program at Johns Hopkins University collects blood samples from 7,000 African-American youth, telling their parents that they are checking for anemia but actually checking for an extra Y chromosome (XYY), believed to be a biological predisposition to crime. The program director, Digamber Borganokar, does this experiment without Johns Hopkins University’s permission (Greger, Merritte, et al.).

(1971)

President Nixon converts Fort Detrick from an offensive biowarfare lab to the Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, now known as the National Cancer Institute at Frederick. In addition to cancer research, scientists study virology, immunology and retrovirology (including HIV) there. Additionally, the site is home to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute, which researches drugs, vaccines and countermeasures for biological warfare, so the former Fort Detrick does not move far away from its biowarfare past (Goliszek).

Stanford University conducts the Stanford Prison Experiment on a group of college students in order to learn the psychology of prison life. Some students are given the role as prison guards, while the others are given the role of prisoners. After only six days, the proposed two-week study has to end because of its psychological effects on the participants. The “guards” had begun to act sadistic, while the “prisoners” started to show signs of depression and severe psychological stress (University of New Hampshire).

An article entitled “Viral Infections in Man Associated with Acquired Immunological Deficiency States” appears in Federation Proceedings. Dr. MacArthur and Fort Detrick’s Special Operations Division have, at this point, been conducting mycoplasma research to create a synthetic immunosuppressive agent for about one year, again suggesting that this research may have produced HIV (Goliszek).

(1972)

In studies sponsored by the U.S. Air Force, Dr. Amedeo Marrazzi gives LSD to mental patients at the University of Missouri Institute of Psychiatry and the University of Minnesota Hospital to study “ego strength” (Barker).

(1973)

An Ad Hoc Advisory Panel issues its Final Report on the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, writing, “Society can no longer afford to leave the balancing of individual rights against scientific progress to the scientific community” (Sharav).

(1974)

Congress enacts the National Research Act, creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and finally setting standards for human experimentation on children (Breslow).

(1975)

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare gives the National Institutes of Health’s Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects (1966) regulatory status. Title 45, known as “The Common Rule,” officially creates institutional review boards (IRBs) (Sharav).

(1977)

The Kennedy Hearing initiates the process toward Executive Order 12333, prohibiting intelligence agencies from experimenting on humans without informed consent (Merritte, et al.).

The U.S. government issues an official apology and $400,000 to Jeanne Connell, the sole survivor from Col. Warren’s now-infamous plutonium injections at Strong Memorial Hospital, and the families of the other human test subjects (Burton Report).

The National Urban League holds its National Conference on Human Experimentation, stating, “We don’t want to kill science but we don’t want science to kill, mangle and abuse us” (Sharav).

(1978)

The CDC begins experimental hepatitis B vaccine trials in New York. Its ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men. Professor Wolf Szmuness of the Columbia University School of Public Health had made the vaccine’s infective serum from the pooled blood serum of hepatitis-infected homosexuals and then developed it in chimpanzees, the only animal susceptible to hepatitis B, leading to the theory that HIV originated in chimpanzees before being transferred over to humans via this vaccine. A few months after 1,083 homosexual men receive the vaccine, New York physicians begin noticing cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma, Mycoplasma penetrans and a new strain of herpes virus among New York’s homosexual community — diseases not usually seen among young, American men, but that would later be known as common opportunistic diseases associated with AIDS (Goliszek).

(1979)

The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research releases the Belmont Report, which establishes the foundations for research experimentation on humans. The Belmont Report mandates that researchers follow three basic principles: 1. Respect the subjects as autonomous persons and protect those with limited ability for independence (such as children), 2. Do no harm, 3. Choose test subjects justly — being sure not to target certain groups because of they are easily accessible or easily manipulated, rather than for reasons directly related to the tests (Berdon).

(1980)

A study reveals a high incidence of leukemia among the 18,000 military personnel who participated in 1957’s Operation Plumbbob (a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob”>”Operation Plumbob”).

According to blood samples tested years later for HIV, 20 percent of all New York homosexual men who participated in the 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point (Goliszek).

American doctors give experimental hormone shots to hundreds of Haitian men confined to detention camps in Miami and Puerto Rico, causing the men to develop a condition known as gynecomastia, in which men develop full-sized breasts (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

The CDC continues its 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Louis and Denver, recruiting over 7,000 homosexual men in San Francisco alone (Goliszek).

The FDA prohibits the use of prison inmates in pharmaceutical drug trials, leading to the advent of the experimental drug testing centers industry (Sharav).

The first AIDS case appears in San Francisco (Goliszek).

(1981)

(1981 – 1993) The Seattle-based Genetic Systems Corporation begins an ongoing medical experiment called Protocol No. 126, in which cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle are given bone marrow transplants that contain eight experimental proteins made by Genetic Systems, rather than standard bone marrow transplants; 19 human subjects die from complications directly related to the experimental treatment (Goliszek).

A deep diving experiment at Duke University causes test subject Leonard Whitlock to suffer permanent brain damage (Sharav).

The CDC acknowledges that a disease known as AIDS exists and confirms 26 cases of the disease — all in previously healthy homosexuals living in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles — again supporting the speculation that AIDS originated from the hepatitis B experiments from 1978 and 1980 (Goliszek).

(1982)

Thirty percent of the test subjects used in the CDC’s hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point (Goliszek).

(1984)

SFBC Phase I research clinic founded in Miami, Fla. By 2005, it would become the largest experimental drug testing center in North America with centers in Miami and Montreal, running Phase I to Phase IV clinical trials (Drug Development-Technology.com).

(1985)

A former U.S. Army sergeant tries to sue the Army for using drugs on him in without his consent or even his knowledge in United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669. Justice Antonin Scalia writes the decision, clearing the U.S. military from any liability in past, present or future medical experiments without informed consent (Merritte, et al..

(1987)

Philadelphia resident Doris Jackson discovers that researchers have removed her son’s brain post mortem for medical study. She later learns that the state of Pennsylvania has a doctrine of “implied consent,” meaning that unless a patient signs a document stating otherwise, consent for organ removal is automatically implied (Merritte, et al.).

(1988)

The U.S. Justice Department pays nine Canadian survivors of the CIA and Dr. Cameron’s “psychic driving” experiments (1957 – 1964) $750,000 in out-of-court settlements, to avoid any further investigations into MKULTRA (Goliszek).

(1988 – 2001) The New York City Administration for Children’s Services begins allowing foster care children living in about two dozen children’s homes to be used in National Institutes of Health-sponsored (NIH) experimental AIDS drug trials. These children — totaling 465 by the program’s end — experience serious side effects, including inability to walk, diarrhea, vomiting, swollen joints and cramps. Children’s home employees are unaware that they are giving the HIV-infected children experimental drugs, rather than standard AIDS treatments (New York City ACS, Doran).

(1990)

The United States sends 1.7 million members of the armed forces, 22 percent of whom are African-American, to the Persian Gulf for the Gulf War (“Desert Storm”). More than 400,000 of these soldiers are ordered to take an experimental nerve agent medication called pyridostigmine, which is later believed to be the cause of Gulf War Syndrome — symptoms ranging from skin disorders, neurological disorders, incontinence, uncontrollable drooling and vision problems — affecting Gulf War veterans (Goliszek; Merritte, et al.).

The CDC and Kaiser Pharmaceuticals of Southern California inject 1,500 six-month-old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles with an “experimental” measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. Adding to the risk, children less than a year old may not have an adequate amount of myelin around their nerves, possibly resulting in impaired neural development because of the vaccine. The CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected into their children was experimental (Goliszek).

The FDA allows the U.S. Department of Defense to waive the Nuremberg Code and use unapproved drugs and vaccines in Operation Desert Shield (Sharav).

(1991)

In the May 27 issue of the Los Angeles Times, former U.S. Navy radio operator Richard Jenkins writes that he suffers from leukemia, chronic fatigue and kidney and liver disease as a result of the radiation exposure he received in 1958’s Operation Hardtack (Goliszek).

While participating in a UCLA study that withdraws schizophrenics off of their medications, Tony LaMadrid commits suicide (Sharav).

(1992)

Columbia University’s New York State Psychiatric Institute and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine give 100 males — mostly African-American and Hispanic, all between the ages of six and 10 and all the younger brothers of juvenile delinquents — 10 milligrams of fenfluramine (fen-fen) per kilogram of body weight in order to test the theory that low serotonin levels are linked to violent or aggressive behavior. Parents of the participants received $125 each, including a $25 Toys ‘R’ Us gift certificate (Goliszek).

(1993)

Researchers at the West Haven VA in Connecticut give 27 schizophrenics — 12 inpatients and 15 functioning volunteers — a chemical called MCPP that significantly increases their psychotic symptoms and, as researchers note, negatively affects the test subjects on a long-term basis (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

(1994)

In a double-blind experiment at New York VA Hospital, researchers take 23 schizophrenic inpatients off of their medications for a median of 30 days. They then give 17 of them 0.5 mg/kg amphetamine and six a placebo as a control, following up with PET scans at Brookhaven Laboratories. According to the researchers, the purpose of the experiment was “to specifically evaluate metabolic effects in subjects with varying degrees of amphetamine-induced psychotic exacerbation” (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

Albuquerque Tribune reporter Eileen Welsome receives a Pulitzer Prize for her investigative reporting into Col. Warren’s plutonium experiments on patients at Strong Memorial Hospital in 1945 (Burton Report).

In a federally funded experiment at New York VA Medical Center, researchers give schizophrenic veterans amphetamine, even though central nervous system stimulants worsen psychotic symptoms in 40 percent of schizophrenics (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

Researchers at Bronx VA Medical Center recruit 28 schizophrenic veterans who are functioning in society and give them L-dopa in order to deliberately induce psychotic relapse (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

President Clinton appoints the Advisory Commission on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), which finally reveals the horrific experiments conducted during the Cold War era in its ACHRE Report.

(1995)

A 19-year-old University of Rochester student named Nicole Wan dies from participating in an MIT-sponsored experiment that tests airborne pollutant chemicals on humans. The experiment pays $150 to human test subjects (Sharav).

In the Mar. 15 President’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), former human subjects, including those who were used in experiments as children, give sworn testimonies stating that they were subjected to radiation experiments and/or brainwashed, hypnotized, drugged, psychologically tortured, threatened and even raped during CIA experiments. These sworn statements include:

• Christina DeNicola’s statement that, in Tucson, Ariz., from 1966 to 1976, “Dr. B” performed mind control experiments using drugs, post-hypnotic injection and drama, and irradiation experiments on her neck, throat, chest and uterus. She was only four years old when the experiments started.

• Claudia Mullen’s testimony that Dr. Sidney Gottlieb (of MKULTRA fame) used chemicals, radiation, hypnosis, drugs, isolation in tubs of water, sleep deprivation, electric shock, brainwashing and emotional, sexual and verbal abuse as part of mind control experiments that had the ultimate objective of turning her, who was only a child at the time, into the “perfect spy.” She tells the advisory committee that researchers justified this abuse by telling her that she was serving her country “in their bold effort to fight Communism.”

• Suzanne Starr’s statement that “a physician, who was retired from the military, got children from the mountains of Colorado for experiments.” She says she was one of those children and that she was the victim of experiments involving environmental deprivation to the point of forced psychosis, spin programming, injections, rape and frequent electroshock and mind control sessions. “I have fought self-destructive programmed messages to kill myself, and I know what a programmed message is, and I don’t act on them,” she tells the advisory committee of the experiments’ long-lasting effects, even in her adulthood (Goliszek).

President Clinton publicly apologizes to the thousands of people who were victims of MKULTRA and other mind-control experimental programs (Sharav).

In Dr. Daniel P. van Kammen’s study, “Behavioral vs. Biochemical Prediction of Clinical Stability Following Haloperidol Withdrawal in Schizophrenia,” researchers recruit 88 veterans who are stabilized by their medications enough to make them functional in society, and hospitalize them for eight to 10 weeks. During this time, the researchers stop giving the veterans the medications that are enabling them to live in society, placing them back on a two- to four-week regimen of the standard dose of Haldol. Then, the veterans are “washed-out,” given lumbar punctures and put under six-week observation to see who would relapse and suffer symptomatic schizophrenia once again; 50 percent do (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

President Clinton appoints the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (Sharav).

Justice Edward Greenfield of the New York State Supreme Court rules that parents do not have the right to volunteer their mentally incapacitated children for non-therapeutic medical research studies and that no mentally incapacitated person whatsoever can be used in a medical experiment without informed consent (Sharav).

(1996)

Professor Adil E. Shamoo of the University of Maryland and the organization Citizens for Responsible Care and Research sends a written testimony on the unethical use of veterans in medical research to the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Governmental Affairs, stating: “This type of research is on-going nationwide in medical centers and VA hospitals supported by tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers money. These experiments are high risk and are abusive, causing not only physical and psychic harm to the most vulnerable groups but also degrading our society’s system of basic human values. Probably tens of thousands of patients are being subjected to such experiments” (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

The Department of Defense admits that Gulf War soldiers were exposed to chemical agents; however, 33 percent of all military personnel afflicted with Gulf War Syndrome never left the United States during the war, discrediting the popular mainstream belief that these symptoms are a result of exposure to Iraqi chemical weapons (Merritte, et al.).

In a federally funded experiment at West Haven VA in Connecticut, Yale University researchers give schizophrenic veterans amphetamine, even though central nervous system stimulants worsen psychotic symptoms in 40 percent of schizophrenics (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

President Clinton issues a formal apology to the subjects of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and their families (Sharav).

(1997)

In order to expose unethical medical experiments that provoke psychotic relapse in schizophrenic patients, the Boston Globe publishes a four-part series entitled “Doing Harm: Research on the Mentally Ill” (Sharav).

Researchers give 26 veterans at a VA hospital a chemical called Yohimbine to purposely induce post-traumatic stress disorder (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

In order to create a “psychosis model,” University of Cincinnati researchers give 16 schizophrenic patients at Cincinnati VA amphetamine in order to provoke repeats bouts of psychosis and eventually produce “behavioral sensitization” (Sharav).

National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) researchers give schizophrenic veterans amphetamine, even though central nervous system stimulants worsen psychotic symptoms in 40 percent of schizophrenics (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

In an experiment sponsored by the U.S. government, researchers withhold medical treatment from HIV-positive African-American pregnant women, giving them a placebo rather than AIDS medication (Sharav).

Researchers give amphetamine to 13 schizophrenic patients in a repetition of the 1994 “amphetamine challenge” at New York VA Hospital. As a result, the patients experience psychosis, delusions and hallucinations. The researchers claim to have informed consent (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

On Sept. 18, victims of unethical medical experiments at major U.S. research centers, including the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) testify before the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (Sharav).

(1999)

Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D. testifies on “The Unethical Use of Human Beings in High-Risk Research Experiments” before the U.S. House of Representatives’ House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, alerting the House on the use of American veterans in VA Hospitals as human guinea pigs and calling for national reforms (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

Doctors at the University of Pennsylvania inject 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger with an experimental gene therapy as part of an FDA-approved clinical trial. He dies four days later and his father suspects that he was not fully informed of the experiment’s risk (Goliszek)

During a clinical trial investigating the effectiveness of Propulsid for infant acid reflux, nine-month-old Gage Stevens dies at Children’s Hospital in Pittsburgh (Sharav).

(2000)

The Department of Defense begins declassifying the records of Project 112, including SHAD, and locating and assisting the veterans who were exposed to live toxins and chemical agents as part of Project 112. Many of them have already died (Goliszek).

President Clinton authorizes the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act, which compensates the Department of Energy workers who sacrificed their health to build the United States’ nuclear defenses (Sharav).

The U.S. Air Force and rocket maker Lockheed Martin sponsor a Loma Linda University study that pays 100 Californians $1,000 to eat a dose of perchlorate — a toxic component of rocket fuel that causes cancer, damages the thyroid gland and hinders normal development in children and fetuses — every day for six months. The dose eaten by the test subjects is 83 times the safe dose of perchlorate set by the State of California, which has perchlorate in some of its drinking water. This Loma Linda study is the first large-scale study to use human subjects to test the harmful effects of a water pollutant and is “inherently unethical,” according to Environmental Working Group research director Richard Wiles (Goliszek, Envirnomental Working Group).

(2001)

Healthy 27-year-old Ellen Roche dies in a challenge study at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland (Sharav).

On its website, the FDA admits that its policy to include healthy children in human experiments “has led to an increasing number of proposals for studies of safety and pharmacokinetics, including those in children who do not have the condition for which the drug is intended” (Goliszek).

During a tobacco industry-financed Alzheimer’s experiment at Case Western University in Cleveland, Elaine Holden-Able dies after she drinks a glass of orange juice containing a dissolved dietary supplement (Sharav).

Radiologist Scott Scheer of Pennsylvania dies from kidney failure, severe anemia and possibly lupus — all caused by blood pressure drugs he was taking as part of a five-year clinical trial. After his death, his family sues the Institutional Review Board of Main Line Hospitals, the hospital that oversaw the study, and two doctors. Investigators from the federal Office for Human Research Protections, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, later conclude in a Dec. 20, 2002 letter to Scheer’s oldest daughter: “Your father apparently was not told about the risk of hydralazine-induced lupus … OHRP found that certain unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others were not promptly reported to appropriate institutional officials” (Willen and Evans, “Doctor Who Died in Drug Test Was Betrayed by System He Trusted.”)

In Higgins and Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute The Maryland Court of Appeals makes a landmark decision regarding the use of children as test subjects, prohibiting non-therapeutic experimentation on children on the basis of “best interest of the individual child” (Sharav).

(2002)

President George W. Bush signs the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA), offering pharmaceutical companies six-month exclusivity in exchange for running clinical drug trials on children. This will of course increase the number of children used as human test subjects (Hammer Breslow).

(2003)

Two-year-old Michael Daddio of Delaware dies of congestive heart failure. After his death, his parents learn that doctors had performed an experimental surgery on him when he was five months old, rather than using the established surgical method of repairing his congenital heart defect that the parents had been told would be performed. The established procedure has a 90- to 95-percent success rate, whereas the inventor of the procedure performed on baby Daddio would later be fired from his hospital in 2004 (Willen and Evans, “Parents of Babies Who Died in Delaware Tests Weren’t Warned”).

(2004)

In his BBC documentary “Guinea Pig Kids” and BBC News article of the same name, reporter Jamie Doran reveals that children involved in the New York City foster care system were unwitting human subjects in experimental AIDS drug trials from 1988 to, in his belief, present times (Doran).

(2005)

In response to the BBC documentary and article “Guinea Pig Kids”, the New York City Administration of Children’s Services (ACS) sends out an Apr. 22 press release admitting that foster care children were used in experimental AIDS drug trials, but says that the last trial took place in 2001 and thus the trials are not continuing, as BBC reporter Jamie Doran claims. The ACS gives the extent and statistics of the experimental drug trials, based on its own records, and contracts the Vera Institute of Justice to conduct “an independent review of ACS policy and practice regarding the enrollment of HIV-positive children in foster care in clinical drug trials during the late 1980s and 1990s” (New York City ACS).

In exchange for receiving $2 million from the American Chemical Society, the EPA proposes the Children’s Health Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS) to learn how children ranging from infancy to three years old ingest, inhale and absorb chemicals by exposing children from a poor, predominantly black area of Duval County, Fla., to these toxins. Due to pressure from activist groups, negative media coverage and two Democratic senators, the EPA eventually decides to drop the study on Apr. 8, 2005 (Organic Consumers Association).

Bloomberg releases a series of reports suggesting that SFBC, the largest experimental drug testing center of its time, exploits immigrant and other low-income test subjects and runs tests with limited credibility due to violations of both the FDA’s and SFBC’s own testing guidelines (Bloomberg).

Works cited:

Alliance for Human Research Protection. “‘Monster Experiment’ Taught Orphans to Stutter.”. June 11, 2001.

Barker, Allen. “The Cold War Experiments.” Mind Control.

Berdon, Victoria. “Codes of Medical and Human Experimentation Ethics.” The Least of My Brothers.

Brinker, Wendy. “James Marion Sims: Father Butcher.” Seed Show.

Burton Report. “Human Experimentation, Plutonium and Col. Stafford Warren.”

Cockburn, Alexander and Jeffrey St. Clair, eds. “Germ War: The U.S. Record.” Counter Punch.

“Donald Ewan [sic] Cameron.” Wikipedia.

Doran, Jamie. “Guinea Pig Kids.” BBC News. 30 Nov. 2004.

Drug Development-Technology.com. “SFBC.”

Elliston, Jon. “MKULTRA: CIA Mind Control.” Dossier: Paranormal Government.

Environmental Working Group. “U.S.: Lockheed Martin’s Tests on Humans.” CorpWatch.

Global Security. Chemical Corps. 2005.

Goliszek, Andrew. In the Name of Science. New York: St. Martin’s, 2003.

Greger, Michael, M.D. Heart Failure: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student.

Griffiths, Joel and Chris Bryson. “Toxic Secrets: Fluoride and the Atom Bomb.” Nexus Magazine 5:3. Apr. – May 1998.

Hammer Breslow, Lauren. “The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2002: The Rise of the Voluntary Incentive Structure and Congressional Refusal to Require Pediatric Testing.” Harvard Journal of Legislation Vol. 40.

“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After.” Micah Books.

Kaye, Jonathan. “Retin-A’s Wrinkled Past.” Mind Control. Orig. pub. Penn History Review Spring 1997.

“Manhattan Project: Oak Ridge.” World Socialist Web Site. Oct. 18, 2002.

Meiklejohn, Gordon N., M.D. “Commission on Influenza.” Histories of the Commissions. Ed. Theodore E. Woodward, M.D. The Armed Forced Epidemiological Board. 1994.

Merritte, LaTasha, et al.. “The Banality of Evil: Human Medical Experimentation in the United States.” The Public Law Online Journal. Spring 1999.

Milgram, Stanley. “Milgram Experiment.” Wikipedia. 2006.

New York City Administration of Children’s Services. Press release. 22 Apr. 2005.

“Operation Plumbbob.” Wikipedia. 2005.

“Operation Whitecoat.” Religion and Ethics (Episode no. 708). Oct. 24, 2003.

Organic Consumers Association. “EPA and Chemical Industry to Study the Effects of Known Toxic Chemicals on Children”. 12 Apr. 2005.

Pacchioli, David. Subjected to Science. Mar. 1996.

“Placebo Effect.” Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine. 2006.

“Project Paperclip.” Wikipedia. 2005.

“Reviews and Notes: History of Medicine: Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War.” Annals of Internal Medicine 123:2. July 15, 1995.

Sharav, Vera Hassner. “Human Experiments: A Chronology of Human Rsearch.” Alliance for Human Research Protection.

Sauter, Daniel. Guide to MS 83 [Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas Records, 1931 – 1999]. University of Texas Library. Apr. 2001.

“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.” News from the Joint Hearing on Suspension of Medical Research at West Los Angeles and Sepulveda VA Medical Facilities and Informed Consent and Patient Safety in VA Medical Research. 21 Apr. 1999.

University of New Hampshire. “Chronology of Cases Involving Unethical Treatment of Human Subjects.” Responsible Conduct of Research.

University of Virginia Health System Health Sciences Library. “Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study.” 2004.

U.S. Department of Energy. “Chapter 8: Postwar TBI-Effects Experimentation: Continued Reliance on Sick Patients in Place of Healthy “Normals.” Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) Final Report.

Veterans Health Administration. Project 112/Project SHAD. May 26, 2005.

Willen, Liz and David Evans. “Doctor Who Died in Drug Test Was Betrayed by System He Trusted.” Bloomberg. Nov. 2, 2005.

—. “Parents of Babies Who Died in Delaware Tests Weren’t Warned.” Bloomberg. Nov. 2, 2005.

Articles Related to This Article:

• Vaccines and Medical Experiments on Children, Minorities, Woman and Inmates (1845 – 2007)

• Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1833-1965)

• Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck (opinion)

• Guatemalan STD medical experiments were just one crime in a long history of medical-government collusion to use humans as guinea pigs

• CDC vaccine scientist who downplayed links to autism indicted by DOJ in alleged fraud scheme

• Fraud in medical research: A frightening, all-too-common trend on the rise

Have comments on this article? Post them here:

This is part two of a two-part series on human medical experimentation. Click here to read part one and the introduction.

(1966)

The CIA continues a limited number of MKULTRA plans by beginning Project MKSEARCH to develop and test ways of using biological, chemical and radioactive materials in intelligence operations, and also to develop and test drugs that are able to produce predictable changes in human behavior and physiology (Goliszek).

Dr. Henry Beecher writes, “The well-being, the health, even the actual or potential life of all human beings, born or unborn, depend upon the continuing experimentation in man. Proceed it must; proceed it will. ‘The proper study of mankind is man,'” in his “exposé” on human medical experimentation Research and the Individual (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After”).

U.S. Army scientists drop light bulbs filled with Bacillus subtilis through ventilation gates and into the New York City subway system, exposing more than one million civilians to the bacteria (Goliszek).

The National Commission for the Protection of Research Subjects issues its Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects, which eventually creates what we now know as institutional review boards (IRBs) (Sharav).

 (1967)

Continuing on his Dow Chemical Company-sponsored dioxin study without the company’s knowledge or consent, University of Pennsylvania Professor Albert Kligman increases the dosage of dioxin he applies to 10 prisoners’ skin to 7,500 micrograms, 468 times the dosage Dow official Gerald K. Rowe had authorized him to administer. As a result, the prisoners experience acne lesions that develop into inflammatory pustules and papules (Kaye).

The CIA places a chemical in the drinking water supply of the FDA headquarters in Washington, D.C. to see whether it is possible to spike drinking water with LSD and other substances (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, researchers inject pregnant women with radioactive cortisol to see if the radioactive material will cross the placentas and affect the fetuses (Goliszek).

The U.S. Army pays Professor Kligman to apply skin-blistering chemicals to Holmesburg Prison inmates’ faces and backs, so as to, in Professor Kligman’s words, “learn how the skin protects itself against chronic assault from toxic chemicals, the so-called hardening process,” information which would have both offensive and defensive applications for the U.S. military (Kaye).

The CIA and Edgewood Arsenal Research Laboratories begin an extensive program for developing drugs that can influence human behavior. This program includes Project OFTEN — which studies the toxicology, transmission and behavioral effects of drugs in animal and human subjects — and Project CHICKWIT, which gathers European and Asian drug development information (Goliszek).

Professor Kligman develops Retin-A as an acne cream (and eventually a wrinkle cream), turning him into a multi-millionaire (Kaye).

Researchers paralyze 64 prison inmates in California with a neuromuscular compound called succinylcholine, which produces suppressed breathing that feels similar to drowning. When five prisoners refuse to participate in the medical experiment, the prison’s special treatment board gives researchers permission to inject the prisoners with the drug against their will (Greger).

(1968)

Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas and the Southwest Foundation for Research and Education begin an oral contraceptive study on 70 poverty-stricken Mexican-American women, giving only half the oral contraceptives they think they are receiving and the other half a placebo. When the results of this study are released a few years later, it stirs tremendous controversy among Mexican-Americans (Sharav, Sauter).

(1969)

President Nixon ends the United States’ offensive biowarfare program, including human experimentation done at Fort Detrick. By this time, tens of thousands of civilians and members of the U.S. armed forces have wittingly and unwittingly acted as participants in experiments involving exposure to dangerous biological agents (Goliszek).

The U.S. military conducts DTC Test 69-12, which is an open-air test of VX and sarin nerve agents at the Army’s Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, likely exposing military personnel (Goliszek, Martin).

Experimental drugs are tested on mentally disabled children in Milledgeville, Ga., without any institutional approval whatsoever (Sharav).

Dr. Donald MacArthur, the U.S. Department of Defense’s Deputy Director for Research and Technology, requests $10 million from Congress to develop a synthetic biological agent that would be resistant “to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease” (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

Judge Sam Steinfield’s dissent in Strunk v. Strunk, 445 S.W.2d 145 marks the first time a judge has ever suggested that the Nuremberg Code be applied in American court cases (Sharav).

(1970)

A year after his request, under H.R. 15090, Dr. MacArthur receives funding to begin CIA-supervised mycoplasma research with Fort Detrick’s Special Operations Division and hopefully create a synthetic immunosuppressive agent. Some experts believe that this research may have inadvertently created HIV, the virus that causes AIDS (Goliszek).

Under order from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which also sponsored the Tuskegee Experiment, the free childcare program at Johns Hopkins University collects blood samples from 7,000 African-American youth, telling their parents that they are checking for anemia but actually checking for an extra Y chromosome (XYY), believed to be a biological predisposition to crime. The program director, Digamber Borganokar, does this experiment without Johns Hopkins University’s permission (Greger, Merritte, et al.).

(1971)

President Nixon converts Fort Detrick from an offensive biowarfare lab to the Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, now known as the National Cancer Institute at Frederick. In addition to cancer research, scientists study virology, immunology and retrovirology (including HIV) there. Additionally, the site is home to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute, which researches drugs, vaccines and countermeasures for biological warfare, so the former Fort Detrick does not move far away from its biowarfare past (Goliszek).

Stanford University conducts the Stanford Prison Experiment on a group of college students in order to learn the psychology of prison life. Some students are given the role as prison guards, while the others are given the role of prisoners. After only six days, the proposed two-week study has to end because of its psychological effects on the participants. The “guards” had begun to act sadistic, while the “prisoners” started to show signs of depression and severe psychological stress (University of New Hampshire).

An article entitled “Viral Infections in Man Associated with Acquired Immunological Deficiency States” appears in Federation Proceedings. Dr. MacArthur and Fort Detrick’s Special Operations Division have, at this point, been conducting mycoplasma research to create a synthetic immunosuppressive agent for about one year, again suggesting that this research may have produced HIV (Goliszek).

(1972)

In studies sponsored by the U.S. Air Force, Dr. Amedeo Marrazzi gives LSD to mental patients at the University of Missouri Institute of Psychiatry and the University of Minnesota Hospital to study “ego strength” (Barker).

(1973)

An Ad Hoc Advisory Panel issues its Final Report on the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, writing, “Society can no longer afford to leave the balancing of individual rights against scientific progress to the scientific community” (Sharav).

 (1974)

Congress enacts the National Research Act, creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and finally setting standards for human experimentation on children (Breslow).

(1975)

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare gives the National Institutes of Health’s Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects (1966) regulatory status. Title 45, known as “The Common Rule,” officially creates institutional review boards (IRBs) (Sharav).

(1977)

The Kennedy Hearing initiates the process toward Executive Order 12333, prohibiting intelligence agencies from experimenting on humans without informed consent (Merritte, et al.).

The U.S. government issues an official apology and $400,000 to Jeanne Connell, the sole survivor from Col. Warren’s now-infamous plutonium injections at Strong Memorial Hospital, and the families of the other human test subjects (Burton Report).

The National Urban League holds its National Conference on Human Experimentation, stating, “We don’t want to kill science but we don’t want science to kill, mangle and abuse us” (Sharav).

(1978)

The CDC begins experimental hepatitis B vaccine trials in New York. Its ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men. Professor Wolf Szmuness of the Columbia University School of Public Health had made the vaccine’s infective serum from the pooled blood serum of hepatitis-infected homosexuals and then developed it in chimpanzees, the only animal susceptible to hepatitis B, leading to the theory that HIV originated in chimpanzees before being transferred over to humans via this vaccine. A few months after 1,083 homosexual men receive the vaccine, New York physicians begin noticing cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma, Mycoplasma penetrans and a new strain of herpes virus among New York’s homosexual community — diseases not usually seen among young, American men, but that would later be known as common opportunistic diseases associated with AIDS (Goliszek).

(1979)

The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research releases the Belmont Report, which establishes the foundations for research experimentation on humans. The Belmont Report mandates that researchers follow three basic principles: 1. Respect the subjects as autonomous persons and protect those with limited ability for independence (such as children), 2. Do no harm, 3. Choose test subjects justly — being sure not to target certain groups because of they are easily accessible or easily manipulated, rather than for reasons directly related to the tests (Berdon).

 

 (1980)

A study reveals a high incidence of leukemia among the 18,000 military personnel who participated in 1957’s Operation Plumbbob (a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob”>”Operation Plumbob”).

According to blood samples tested years later for HIV, 20 percent of all New York homosexual men who participated in the 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point (Goliszek).

American doctors give experimental hormone shots to hundreds of Haitian men confined to detention camps in Miami and Puerto Rico, causing the men to develop a condition known as gynecomastia, in which men develop full-sized breasts (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

The CDC continues its 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Louis and Denver, recruiting over 7,000 homosexual men in San Francisco alone (Goliszek).

The FDA prohibits the use of prison inmates in pharmaceutical drug trials, leading to the advent of the experimental drug testing centers industry (Sharav).

The first AIDS case appears in San Francisco (Goliszek).

(1981)

(1981 – 1993) The Seattle-based Genetic Systems Corporation begins an ongoing medical experiment called Protocol No. 126, in which cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle are given bone marrow transplants that contain eight experimental proteins made by Genetic Systems, rather than standard bone marrow transplants; 19 human subjects die from complications directly related to the experimental treatment (Goliszek).

A deep diving experiment at Duke University causes test subject Leonard Whitlock to suffer permanent brain damage (Sharav).

The CDC acknowledges that a disease known as AIDS exists and confirms 26 cases of the disease — all in previously healthy homosexuals living in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles — again supporting the speculation that AIDS originated from the hepatitis B experiments from 1978 and 1980 (Goliszek).

 (1982)

Thirty percent of the test subjects used in the CDC’s hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point (Goliszek).

(1984)

SFBC Phase I research clinic founded in Miami, Fla. By 2005, it would become the largest experimental drug testing center in North America with centers in Miami and Montreal, running Phase I to Phase IV clinical trials (Drug Development-Technology.com).

(1985)

A former U.S. Army sergeant tries to sue the Army for using drugs on him in without his consent or even his knowledge in United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669. Justice Antonin Scalia writes the decision, clearing the U.S. military from any liability in past, presen

Introduction by the Health Ranger: The United States claims to be the world leader in medicine. But there’s a dark side to western medicine that few want to acknowledge: The horrifying medical experiments performed on impoverished people and their children all in the name of scientific progress. Many of these medical experiments were conducted on people without their knowledge, and most were conducted as part of an effort to seek profits from newly approved drugs or medical technologies.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html#ixzz3Ho2D5cgV

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1833-1965)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html

AND

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1965-2005)

http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html

 

Monday, March 06, 2006 by: Dani Veracity

This is part two of a two-part series on human medical experimentation. Click here to read part one and the introduction.

(1966)

The CIA continues a limited number of MKULTRA plans by beginning Project MKSEARCH to develop and test ways of using biological, chemical and radioactive materials in intelligence operations, and also to develop and test drugs that are able to produce predictable changes in human behavior and physiology (Goliszek).

Dr. Henry Beecher writes, “The well-being, the health, even the actual or potential life of all human beings, born or unborn, depend upon the continuing experimentation in man. Proceed it must; proceed it will. ‘The proper study of mankind is man,'” in his “exposé” on human medical experimentation Research and the Individual (“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After”).

U.S. Army scientists drop light bulbs filled with Bacillus subtilis through ventilation gates and into the New York City subway system, exposing more than one million civilians to the bacteria (Goliszek).

The National Commission for the Protection of Research Subjects issues its Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects, which eventually creates what we now know as institutional review boards (IRBs) (Sharav).

(1967)

Continuing on his Dow Chemical Company-sponsored dioxin study without the company’s knowledge or consent, University of Pennsylvania Professor Albert Kligman increases the dosage of dioxin he applies to 10 prisoners’ skin to 7,500 micrograms, 468 times the dosage Dow official Gerald K. Rowe had authorized him to administer. As a result, the prisoners experience acne lesions that develop into inflammatory pustules and papules (Kaye).

The CIA places a chemical in the drinking water supply of the FDA headquarters in Washington, D.C. to see whether it is possible to spike drinking water with LSD and other substances (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, researchers inject pregnant women with radioactive cortisol to see if the radioactive material will cross the placentas and affect the fetuses (Goliszek).

The U.S. Army pays Professor Kligman to apply skin-blistering chemicals to Holmesburg Prison inmates’ faces and backs, so as to, in Professor Kligman’s words, “learn how the skin protects itself against chronic assault from toxic chemicals, the so-called hardening process,” information which would have both offensive and defensive applications for the U.S. military (Kaye).

The CIA and Edgewood Arsenal Research Laboratories begin an extensive program for developing drugs that can influence human behavior. This program includes Project OFTEN — which studies the toxicology, transmission and behavioral effects of drugs in animal and human subjects — and Project CHICKWIT, which gathers European and Asian drug development information (Goliszek).

Professor Kligman develops Retin-A as an acne cream (and eventually a wrinkle cream), turning him into a multi-millionaire (Kaye).

Researchers paralyze 64 prison inmates in California with a neuromuscular compound called succinylcholine, which produces suppressed breathing that feels similar to drowning. When five prisoners refuse to participate in the medical experiment, the prison’s special treatment board gives researchers permission to inject the prisoners with the drug against their will (Greger).

(1968)

Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas and the Southwest Foundation for Research and Education begin an oral contraceptive study on 70 poverty-stricken Mexican-American women, giving only half the oral contraceptives they think they are receiving and the other half a placebo. When the results of this study are released a few years later, it stirs tremendous controversy among Mexican-Americans (Sharav, Sauter).

(1969)

President Nixon ends the United States’ offensive biowarfare program, including human experimentation done at Fort Detrick. By this time, tens of thousands of civilians and members of the U.S. armed forces have wittingly and unwittingly acted as participants in experiments involving exposure to dangerous biological agents (Goliszek).

The U.S. military conducts DTC Test 69-12, which is an open-air test of VX and sarin nerve agents at the Army’s Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, likely exposing military personnel (Goliszek, Martin).

Experimental drugs are tested on mentally disabled children in Milledgeville, Ga., without any institutional approval whatsoever (Sharav).

Dr. Donald MacArthur, the U.S. Department of Defense’s Deputy Director for Research and Technology, requests $10 million from Congress to develop a synthetic biological agent that would be resistant “to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease” (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

Judge Sam Steinfield’s dissent in Strunk v. Strunk, 445 S.W.2d 145 marks the first time a judge has ever suggested that the Nuremberg Code be applied in American court cases (Sharav).

(1970)

A year after his request, under H.R. 15090, Dr. MacArthur receives funding to begin CIA-supervised mycoplasma research with Fort Detrick’s Special Operations Division and hopefully create a synthetic immunosuppressive agent. Some experts believe that this research may have inadvertently created HIV, the virus that causes AIDS (Goliszek).

Under order from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which also sponsored the Tuskegee Experiment, the free childcare program at Johns Hopkins University collects blood samples from 7,000 African-American youth, telling their parents that they are checking for anemia but actually checking for an extra Y chromosome (XYY), believed to be a biological predisposition to crime. The program director, Digamber Borganokar, does this experiment without Johns Hopkins University’s permission (Greger, Merritte, et al.).

(1971)

President Nixon converts Fort Detrick from an offensive biowarfare lab to the Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, now known as the National Cancer Institute at Frederick. In addition to cancer research, scientists study virology, immunology and retrovirology (including HIV) there. Additionally, the site is home to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute, which researches drugs, vaccines and countermeasures for biological warfare, so the former Fort Detrick does not move far away from its biowarfare past (Goliszek).

Stanford University conducts the Stanford Prison Experiment on a group of college students in order to learn the psychology of prison life. Some students are given the role as prison guards, while the others are given the role of prisoners. After only six days, the proposed two-week study has to end because of its psychological effects on the participants. The “guards” had begun to act sadistic, while the “prisoners” started to show signs of depression and severe psychological stress (University of New Hampshire).

An article entitled “Viral Infections in Man Associated with Acquired Immunological Deficiency States” appears in Federation Proceedings. Dr. MacArthur and Fort Detrick’s Special Operations Division have, at this point, been conducting mycoplasma research to create a synthetic immunosuppressive agent for about one year, again suggesting that this research may have produced HIV (Goliszek).

(1972)

In studies sponsored by the U.S. Air Force, Dr. Amedeo Marrazzi gives LSD to mental patients at the University of Missouri Institute of Psychiatry and the University of Minnesota Hospital to study “ego strength” (Barker).

(1973)

An Ad Hoc Advisory Panel issues its Final Report on the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, writing, “Society can no longer afford to leave the balancing of individual rights against scientific progress to the scientific community” (Sharav).

(1974)

Congress enacts the National Research Act, creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and finally setting standards for human experimentation on children (Breslow).

(1975)

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare gives the National Institutes of Health’s Policies for the Protection of Human Subjects (1966) regulatory status. Title 45, known as “The Common Rule,” officially creates institutional review boards (IRBs) (Sharav).

(1977)

The Kennedy Hearing initiates the process toward Executive Order 12333, prohibiting intelligence agencies from experimenting on humans without informed consent (Merritte, et al.).

The U.S. government issues an official apology and $400,000 to Jeanne Connell, the sole survivor from Col. Warren’s now-infamous plutonium injections at Strong Memorial Hospital, and the families of the other human test subjects (Burton Report).

The National Urban League holds its National Conference on Human Experimentation, stating, “We don’t want to kill science but we don’t want science to kill, mangle and abuse us” (Sharav).

(1978)

The CDC begins experimental hepatitis B vaccine trials in New York. Its ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men. Professor Wolf Szmuness of the Columbia University School of Public Health had made the vaccine’s infective serum from the pooled blood serum of hepatitis-infected homosexuals and then developed it in chimpanzees, the only animal susceptible to hepatitis B, leading to the theory that HIV originated in chimpanzees before being transferred over to humans via this vaccine. A few months after 1,083 homosexual men receive the vaccine, New York physicians begin noticing cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma, Mycoplasma penetrans and a new strain of herpes virus among New York’s homosexual community — diseases not usually seen among young, American men, but that would later be known as common opportunistic diseases associated with AIDS (Goliszek).

(1979)

The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research releases the Belmont Report, which establishes the foundations for research experimentation on humans. The Belmont Report mandates that researchers follow three basic principles: 1. Respect the subjects as autonomous persons and protect those with limited ability for independence (such as children), 2. Do no harm, 3. Choose test subjects justly — being sure not to target certain groups because of they are easily accessible or easily manipulated, rather than for reasons directly related to the tests (Berdon).

(1980)

A study reveals a high incidence of leukemia among the 18,000 military personnel who participated in 1957’s Operation Plumbbob (a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob”>”Operation Plumbob”).

According to blood samples tested years later for HIV, 20 percent of all New York homosexual men who participated in the 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point (Goliszek).

American doctors give experimental hormone shots to hundreds of Haitian men confined to detention camps in Miami and Puerto Rico, causing the men to develop a condition known as gynecomastia, in which men develop full-sized breasts (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

The CDC continues its 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Louis and Denver, recruiting over 7,000 homosexual men in San Francisco alone (Goliszek).

The FDA prohibits the use of prison inmates in pharmaceutical drug trials, leading to the advent of the experimental drug testing centers industry (Sharav).

The first AIDS case appears in San Francisco (Goliszek).

(1981)

(1981 – 1993) The Seattle-based Genetic Systems Corporation begins an ongoing medical experiment called Protocol No. 126, in which cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle are given bone marrow transplants that contain eight experimental proteins made by Genetic Systems, rather than standard bone marrow transplants; 19 human subjects die from complications directly related to the experimental treatment (Goliszek).

A deep diving experiment at Duke University causes test subject Leonard Whitlock to suffer permanent brain damage (Sharav).

The CDC acknowledges that a disease known as AIDS exists and confirms 26 cases of the disease — all in previously healthy homosexuals living in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles — again supporting the speculation that AIDS originated from the hepatitis B experiments from 1978 and 1980 (Goliszek).

(1982)

Thirty percent of the test subjects used in the CDC’s hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point (Goliszek).

(1984)

SFBC Phase I research clinic founded in Miami, Fla. By 2005, it would become the largest experimental drug testing center in North America with centers in Miami and Montreal, running Phase I to Phase IV clinical trials (Drug Development-Technology.com).

(1985)

A former U.S. Army sergeant tries to sue the Army for using drugs on him in without his consent or even his knowledge in United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669. Justice Antonin Scalia writes the decision, clearing the U.S. military from any liability in past, present or future medical experiments without informed consent (Merritte, et al..

(1987)

Philadelphia resident Doris Jackson discovers that researchers have removed her son’s brain post mortem for medical study. She later learns that the state of Pennsylvania has a doctrine of “implied consent,” meaning that unless a patient signs a document stating otherwise, consent for organ removal is automatically implied (Merritte, et al.).

(1988)

The U.S. Justice Department pays nine Canadian survivors of the CIA and Dr. Cameron’s “psychic driving” experiments (1957 – 1964) $750,000 in out-of-court settlements, to avoid any further investigations into MKULTRA (Goliszek).

(1988 – 2001) The New York City Administration for Children’s Services begins allowing foster care children living in about two dozen children’s homes to be used in National Institutes of Health-sponsored (NIH) experimental AIDS drug trials. These children — totaling 465 by the program’s end — experience serious side effects, including inability to walk, diarrhea, vomiting, swollen joints and cramps. Children’s home employees are unaware that they are giving the HIV-infected children experimental drugs, rather than standard AIDS treatments (New York City ACS, Doran).

(1990)

The United States sends 1.7 million members of the armed forces, 22 percent of whom are African-American, to the Persian Gulf for the Gulf War (“Desert Storm”). More than 400,000 of these soldiers are ordered to take an experimental nerve agent medication called pyridostigmine, which is later believed to be the cause of Gulf War Syndrome — symptoms ranging from skin disorders, neurological disorders, incontinence, uncontrollable drooling and vision problems — affecting Gulf War veterans (Goliszek; Merritte, et al.).

The CDC and Kaiser Pharmaceuticals of Southern California inject 1,500 six-month-old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles with an “experimental” measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. Adding to the risk, children less than a year old may not have an adequate amount of myelin around their nerves, possibly resulting in impaired neural development because of the vaccine. The CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected into their children was experimental (Goliszek).

The FDA allows the U.S. Department of Defense to waive the Nuremberg Code and use unapproved drugs and vaccines in Operation Desert Shield (Sharav).

(1991)

In the May 27 issue of the Los Angeles Times, former U.S. Navy radio operator Richard Jenkins writes that he suffers from leukemia, chronic fatigue and kidney and liver disease as a result of the radiation exposure he received in 1958’s Operation Hardtack (Goliszek).

While participating in a UCLA study that withdraws schizophrenics off of their medications, Tony LaMadrid commits suicide (Sharav).

(1992)

Columbia University’s New York State Psychiatric Institute and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine give 100 males — mostly African-American and Hispanic, all between the ages of six and 10 and all the younger brothers of juvenile delinquents — 10 milligrams of fenfluramine (fen-fen) per kilogram of body weight in order to test the theory that low serotonin levels are linked to violent or aggressive behavior. Parents of the participants received $125 each, including a $25 Toys ‘R’ Us gift certificate (Goliszek).

(1993)

Researchers at the West Haven VA in Connecticut give 27 schizophrenics — 12 inpatients and 15 functioning volunteers — a chemical called MCPP that significantly increases their psychotic symptoms and, as researchers note, negatively affects the test subjects on a long-term basis (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

(1994)

In a double-blind experiment at New York VA Hospital, researchers take 23 schizophrenic inpatients off of their medications for a median of 30 days. They then give 17 of them 0.5 mg/kg amphetamine and six a placebo as a control, following up with PET scans at Brookhaven Laboratories. According to the researchers, the purpose of the experiment was “to specifically evaluate metabolic effects in subjects with varying degrees of amphetamine-induced psychotic exacerbation” (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

Albuquerque Tribune reporter Eileen Welsome receives a Pulitzer Prize for her investigative reporting into Col. Warren’s plutonium experiments on patients at Strong Memorial Hospital in 1945 (Burton Report).

In a federally funded experiment at New York VA Medical Center, researchers give schizophrenic veterans amphetamine, even though central nervous system stimulants worsen psychotic symptoms in 40 percent of schizophrenics (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

Researchers at Bronx VA Medical Center recruit 28 schizophrenic veterans who are functioning in society and give them L-dopa in order to deliberately induce psychotic relapse (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

President Clinton appoints the Advisory Commission on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), which finally reveals the horrific experiments conducted during the Cold War era in its ACHRE Report.

(1995)

A 19-year-old University of Rochester student named Nicole Wan dies from participating in an MIT-sponsored experiment that tests airborne pollutant chemicals on humans. The experiment pays $150 to human test subjects (Sharav).

In the Mar. 15 President’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), former human subjects, including those who were used in experiments as children, give sworn testimonies stating that they were subjected to radiation experiments and/or brainwashed, hypnotized, drugged, psychologically tortured, threatened and even raped during CIA experiments. These sworn statements include:

• Christina DeNicola’s statement that, in Tucson, Ariz., from 1966 to 1976, “Dr. B” performed mind control experiments using drugs, post-hypnotic injection and drama, and irradiation experiments on her neck, throat, chest and uterus. She was only four years old when the experiments started.

• Claudia Mullen’s testimony that Dr. Sidney Gottlieb (of MKULTRA fame) used chemicals, radiation, hypnosis, drugs, isolation in tubs of water, sleep deprivation, electric shock, brainwashing and emotional, sexual and verbal abuse as part of mind control experiments that had the ultimate objective of turning her, who was only a child at the time, into the “perfect spy.” She tells the advisory committee that researchers justified this abuse by telling her that she was serving her country “in their bold effort to fight Communism.”

• Suzanne Starr’s statement that “a physician, who was retired from the military, got children from the mountains of Colorado for experiments.” She says she was one of those children and that she was the victim of experiments involving environmental deprivation to the point of forced psychosis, spin programming, injections, rape and frequent electroshock and mind control sessions. “I have fought self-destructive programmed messages to kill myself, and I know what a programmed message is, and I don’t act on them,” she tells the advisory committee of the experiments’ long-lasting effects, even in her adulthood (Goliszek).

President Clinton publicly apologizes to the thousands of people who were victims of MKULTRA and other mind-control experimental programs (Sharav).

In Dr. Daniel P. van Kammen’s study, “Behavioral vs. Biochemical Prediction of Clinical Stability Following Haloperidol Withdrawal in Schizophrenia,” researchers recruit 88 veterans who are stabilized by their medications enough to make them functional in society, and hospitalize them for eight to 10 weeks. During this time, the researchers stop giving the veterans the medications that are enabling them to live in society, placing them back on a two- to four-week regimen of the standard dose of Haldol. Then, the veterans are “washed-out,” given lumbar punctures and put under six-week observation to see who would relapse and suffer symptomatic schizophrenia once again; 50 percent do (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

President Clinton appoints the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (Sharav).

Justice Edward Greenfield of the New York State Supreme Court rules that parents do not have the right to volunteer their mentally incapacitated children for non-therapeutic medical research studies and that no mentally incapacitated person whatsoever can be used in a medical experiment without informed consent (Sharav).

(1996)

Professor Adil E. Shamoo of the University of Maryland and the organization Citizens for Responsible Care and Research sends a written testimony on the unethical use of veterans in medical research to the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Governmental Affairs, stating: “This type of research is on-going nationwide in medical centers and VA hospitals supported by tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers money. These experiments are high risk and are abusive, causing not only physical and psychic harm to the most vulnerable groups but also degrading our society’s system of basic human values. Probably tens of thousands of patients are being subjected to such experiments” (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

The Department of Defense admits that Gulf War soldiers were exposed to chemical agents; however, 33 percent of all military personnel afflicted with Gulf War Syndrome never left the United States during the war, discrediting the popular mainstream belief that these symptoms are a result of exposure to Iraqi chemical weapons (Merritte, et al.).

In a federally funded experiment at West Haven VA in Connecticut, Yale University researchers give schizophrenic veterans amphetamine, even though central nervous system stimulants worsen psychotic symptoms in 40 percent of schizophrenics (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

President Clinton issues a formal apology to the subjects of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and their families (Sharav).

(1997)

In order to expose unethical medical experiments that provoke psychotic relapse in schizophrenic patients, the Boston Globe publishes a four-part series entitled “Doing Harm: Research on the Mentally Ill” (Sharav).

Researchers give 26 veterans at a VA hospital a chemical called Yohimbine to purposely induce post-traumatic stress disorder (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

In order to create a “psychosis model,” University of Cincinnati researchers give 16 schizophrenic patients at Cincinnati VA amphetamine in order to provoke repeats bouts of psychosis and eventually produce “behavioral sensitization” (Sharav).

National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) researchers give schizophrenic veterans amphetamine, even though central nervous system stimulants worsen psychotic symptoms in 40 percent of schizophrenics (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

In an experiment sponsored by the U.S. government, researchers withhold medical treatment from HIV-positive African-American pregnant women, giving them a placebo rather than AIDS medication (Sharav).

Researchers give amphetamine to 13 schizophrenic patients in a repetition of the 1994 “amphetamine challenge” at New York VA Hospital. As a result, the patients experience psychosis, delusions and hallucinations. The researchers claim to have informed consent (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

On Sept. 18, victims of unethical medical experiments at major U.S. research centers, including the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) testify before the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (Sharav).

(1999)

Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D. testifies on “The Unethical Use of Human Beings in High-Risk Research Experiments” before the U.S. House of Representatives’ House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, alerting the House on the use of American veterans in VA Hospitals as human guinea pigs and calling for national reforms (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

Doctors at the University of Pennsylvania inject 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger with an experimental gene therapy as part of an FDA-approved clinical trial. He dies four days later and his father suspects that he was not fully informed of the experiment’s risk (Goliszek)

During a clinical trial investigating the effectiveness of Propulsid for infant acid reflux, nine-month-old Gage Stevens dies at Children’s Hospital in Pittsburgh (Sharav).

(2000)

The Department of Defense begins declassifying the records of Project 112, including SHAD, and locating and assisting the veterans who were exposed to live toxins and chemical agents as part of Project 112. Many of them have already died (Goliszek).

President Clinton authorizes the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act, which compensates the Department of Energy workers who sacrificed their health to build the United States’ nuclear defenses (Sharav).

The U.S. Air Force and rocket maker Lockheed Martin sponsor a Loma Linda University study that pays 100 Californians $1,000 to eat a dose of perchlorate — a toxic component of rocket fuel that causes cancer, damages the thyroid gland and hinders normal development in children and fetuses — every day for six months. The dose eaten by the test subjects is 83 times the safe dose of perchlorate set by the State of California, which has perchlorate in some of its drinking water. This Loma Linda study is the first large-scale study to use human subjects to test the harmful effects of a water pollutant and is “inherently unethical,” according to Environmental Working Group research director Richard Wiles (Goliszek, Envirnomental Working Group).

(2001)

Healthy 27-year-old Ellen Roche dies in a challenge study at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland (Sharav).

On its website, the FDA admits that its policy to include healthy children in human experiments “has led to an increasing number of proposals for studies of safety and pharmacokinetics, including those in children who do not have the condition for which the drug is intended” (Goliszek).

During a tobacco industry-financed Alzheimer’s experiment at Case Western University in Cleveland, Elaine Holden-Able dies after she drinks a glass of orange juice containing a dissolved dietary supplement (Sharav).

Radiologist Scott Scheer of Pennsylvania dies from kidney failure, severe anemia and possibly lupus — all caused by blood pressure drugs he was taking as part of a five-year clinical trial. After his death, his family sues the Institutional Review Board of Main Line Hospitals, the hospital that oversaw the study, and two doctors. Investigators from the federal Office for Human Research Protections, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, later conclude in a Dec. 20, 2002 letter to Scheer’s oldest daughter: “Your father apparently was not told about the risk of hydralazine-induced lupus … OHRP found that certain unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others were not promptly reported to appropriate institutional officials” (Willen and Evans, “Doctor Who Died in Drug Test Was Betrayed by System He Trusted.”)

In Higgins and Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute The Maryland Court of Appeals makes a landmark decision regarding the use of children as test subjects, prohibiting non-therapeutic experimentation on children on the basis of “best interest of the individual child” (Sharav).

(2002)

President George W. Bush signs the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA), offering pharmaceutical companies six-month exclusivity in exchange for running clinical drug trials on children. This will of course increase the number of children used as human test subjects (Hammer Breslow).

(2003)

Two-year-old Michael Daddio of Delaware dies of congestive heart failure. After his death, his parents learn that doctors had performed an experimental surgery on him when he was five months old, rather than using the established surgical method of repairing his congenital heart defect that the parents had been told would be performed. The established procedure has a 90- to 95-percent success rate, whereas the inventor of the procedure performed on baby Daddio would later be fired from his hospital in 2004 (Willen and Evans, “Parents of Babies Who Died in Delaware Tests Weren’t Warned”).

(2004)

In his BBC documentary “Guinea Pig Kids” and BBC News article of the same name, reporter Jamie Doran reveals that children involved in the New York City foster care system were unwitting human subjects in experimental AIDS drug trials from 1988 to, in his belief, present times (Doran).

(2005)

In response to the BBC documentary and article “Guinea Pig Kids”, the New York City Administration of Children’s Services (ACS) sends out an Apr. 22 press release admitting that foster care children were used in experimental AIDS drug trials, but says that the last trial took place in 2001 and thus the trials are not continuing, as BBC reporter Jamie Doran claims. The ACS gives the extent and statistics of the experimental drug trials, based on its own records, and contracts the Vera Institute of Justice to conduct “an independent review of ACS policy and practice regarding the enrollment of HIV-positive children in foster care in clinical drug trials during the late 1980s and 1990s” (New York City ACS).

In exchange for receiving $2 million from the American Chemical Society, the EPA proposes the Children’s Health Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS) to learn how children ranging from infancy to three years old ingest, inhale and absorb chemicals by exposing children from a poor, predominantly black area of Duval County, Fla., to these toxins. Due to pressure from activist groups, negative media coverage and two Democratic senators, the EPA eventually decides to drop the study on Apr. 8, 2005 (Organic Consumers Association).

Bloomberg releases a series of reports suggesting that SFBC, the largest experimental drug testing center of its time, exploits immigrant and other low-income test subjects and runs tests with limited credibility due to violations of both the FDA’s and SFBC’s own testing guidelines (Bloomberg).

Works cited:

Alliance for Human Research Protection. “‘Monster Experiment’ Taught Orphans to Stutter.”. June 11, 2001.

Barker, Allen. “The Cold War Experiments.” Mind Control.

Berdon, Victoria. “Codes of Medical and Human Experimentation Ethics.” The Least of My Brothers.

Brinker, Wendy. “James Marion Sims: Father Butcher.” Seed Show.

Burton Report. “Human Experimentation, Plutonium and Col. Stafford Warren.”

Cockburn, Alexander and Jeffrey St. Clair, eds. “Germ War: The U.S. Record.” Counter Punch.

“Donald Ewan [sic] Cameron.” Wikipedia.

Doran, Jamie. “Guinea Pig Kids.” BBC News. 30 Nov. 2004.

Drug Development-Technology.com. “SFBC.”

Elliston, Jon. “MKULTRA: CIA Mind Control.” Dossier: Paranormal Government.

Environmental Working Group. “U.S.: Lockheed Martin’s Tests on Humans.” CorpWatch.

Global Security. Chemical Corps. 2005.

Goliszek, Andrew. In the Name of Science. New York: St. Martin’s, 2003.

Greger, Michael, M.D. Heart Failure: Diary of a Third Year Medical Student.

Griffiths, Joel and Chris Bryson. “Toxic Secrets: Fluoride and the Atom Bomb.” Nexus Magazine 5:3. Apr. – May 1998.

Hammer Breslow, Lauren. “The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2002: The Rise of the Voluntary Incentive Structure and Congressional Refusal to Require Pediatric Testing.” Harvard Journal of Legislation Vol. 40.

“Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After.” Micah Books.

Kaye, Jonathan. “Retin-A’s Wrinkled Past.” Mind Control. Orig. pub. Penn History Review Spring 1997.

“Manhattan Project: Oak Ridge.” World Socialist Web Site. Oct. 18, 2002.

Meiklejohn, Gordon N., M.D. “Commission on Influenza.” Histories of the Commissions. Ed. Theodore E. Woodward, M.D. The Armed Forced Epidemiological Board. 1994.

Merritte, LaTasha, et al.. “The Banality of Evil: Human Medical Experimentation in the United States.” The Public Law Online Journal. Spring 1999.

Milgram, Stanley. “Milgram Experiment.” Wikipedia. 2006.

New York City Administration of Children’s Services. Press release. 22 Apr. 2005.

“Operation Plumbbob.” Wikipedia. 2005.

“Operation Whitecoat.” Religion and Ethics (Episode no. 708). Oct. 24, 2003.

Organic Consumers Association. “EPA and Chemical Industry to Study the Effects of Known Toxic Chemicals on Children”. 12 Apr. 2005.

Pacchioli, David. Subjected to Science. Mar. 1996.

“Placebo Effect.” Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine. 2006.

“Project Paperclip.” Wikipedia. 2005.

“Reviews and Notes: History of Medicine: Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War.” Annals of Internal Medicine 123:2. July 15, 1995.

Sharav, Vera Hassner. “Human Experiments: A Chronology of Human Rsearch.” Alliance for Human Research Protection.

Sauter, Daniel. Guide to MS 83 [Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas Records, 1931 – 1999]. University of Texas Library. Apr. 2001.

“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.” News from the Joint Hearing on Suspension of Medical Research at West Los Angeles and Sepulveda VA Medical Facilities and Informed Consent and Patient Safety in VA Medical Research. 21 Apr. 1999.

University of New Hampshire. “Chronology of Cases Involving Unethical Treatment of Human Subjects.” Responsible Conduct of Research.

University of Virginia Health System Health Sciences Library. “Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study.” 2004.

U.S. Department of Energy. “Chapter 8: Postwar TBI-Effects Experimentation: Continued Reliance on Sick Patients in Place of Healthy “Normals.” Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) Final Report.

Veterans Health Administration. Project 112/Project SHAD. May 26, 2005.

Willen, Liz and David Evans. “Doctor Who Died in Drug Test Was Betrayed by System He Trusted.” Bloomberg. Nov. 2, 2005.

—. “Parents of Babies Who Died in Delaware Tests Weren’t Warned.” Bloomberg. Nov. 2, 2005.

Articles Related to This Article:

• Vaccines and Medical Experiments on Children, Minorities, Woman and Inmates (1845 – 2007)

• Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1833-1965)

• Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck (opinion)

• Guatemalan STD medical experiments were just one crime in a long history of medical-government collusion to use humans as guinea pigs

• CDC vaccine scientist who downplayed links to autism indicted by DOJ in alleged fraud scheme

• Fraud in medical research: A frightening, all-too-common trend on the rise

Have comments on this article? Post them here:

—————

Bancos, comercio macabro: investimentos no tráfico de recursos, orgaos e tecidos humanos

Bancos, comercio macabro: investimentos no tráfico de recursos, orgaos e tecidos humanos

26/06/2011 — Celso Galli Coimbra

 

http://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/bancos-comercio-macabro-investimentos-no-trafico-de-recursos-e-de-tecidos-humanos/

Assista: vídeo no endereço:

http://www.youtube.com/user/biodireitobioetica#p/u/12/4mKdOo7Vhy0

A reportagem do Programa “60 minutes” mostra a decisiva participação de bancos nos financiamentos e investimentos no tráfico de recursos e tecidos humanos, incluso no terceiro crime organizado mais lucrativo do mundo, o tráfico de órgãos humanos.

Apenas um corpo humano pode somar um lucro de 200 mil dólares. Esta indústria já movimentava meio bilhão de dólares por ano, em 2003, e começou a se desenvolver em meados da década de 90 com o desenvolvimento da Engenharia de Tecidos.

Os tecidos e outras partes do corpo humano são destinados ao comércio cosmético também e para cirurgias estéticas diversas, como de aumento de pênis, e não destinados a um centro de atendimento a vítimas de queimaduras, como endereçados pelos parentes doadores.

A mesma lógica de financiamento do tráfico de tecidos humanos, originalmente doados para atendimento de vítimas de queimaduras, também está presente no tráfico de órgãos humanos.

Celso Galli Coimbra
OABRS 11352
http://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/

cgcoimbra@gmail.com

***

http://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/bancos-comercio-macabro-investimentos-no-trafico-de-recursos-e-de-tecidos-humanos/ 

 

Bancos, comércio macabro: investimentos no tráfico de recursos e de tecidos humanos

26/06/2011 — Celso Galli Coimbra

 

http://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/bancos-comercio-macabro-investimentos-no-trafico-de-recursos-e-de-tecidos-humanos/

Assista: vídeo no endereço:

http://www.youtube.com/user/biodireitobioetica#p/u/12/4mKdOo7Vhy0

A decisiva reportagem do Programa “60 minutes” mostra a participação de bancos nos financiamentos e investimentos no tráfico de recursos e tecidos humanos, incluso no terceiro crime organizado mais lucrativo do mundo, o tráfico de órgãos humanos.

Apenas um corpo humano pode somar um lucro de 200 mil dólares. Esta indústria já movimentava meio bilhão de dólares por ano, em 2003.

Celso Galli Coimbra
OABRS 11352
http://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/

cgcoimbra@gmail.com

***

 

Baby Parts for Sale. Recent Articles on Fetal Harvesting

August 22, 1999

The Wholesalers 

A Division of Consultative and Diagnostic Pathology, Inc., a wholesale trafficker in aborted baby parts from American clinics.

Out of an office in West Frankfort, IL, the company’s director, Dr. Miles Jones, profits from an evidently tremendously lucrative trade – his current “Fee for Services Schedule” offers eyes and ears for $75 to $999 for a brain. 

Opening Lines was founded in 1989 to “maximize the utilization of fresh fetal tissue we process.” It offer researchers “the highest quality, most affordable, and freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need when you need it.” 

Sale of human tissue, including fetal tissue, is against federal law, but Opening Lines advises patients how “simple” it is to get around that. It offers to “lease space from your facility to perform the harvesting to offset your clinic’s overhead.” It also offers to train clinic staff in harvesting and then “based on volume, reimburse part or all of your employee’s salary, thereby reducing your overhead.”  

Dr. Jones is obviously adept at getting around inconvenient regulations. “We DO NOT require a copy of your IRB approval or summary of your research,” he advises prospective clientele, “and you ARE NOT required to site Opening Lines as the source of tissue when you publish your work (we believe in word of mouth advertising; if you like our service you will tell your colleagues.”) 

Opening Lines is one of two wholesale traffickers, uncovered by Mark Crutcher at Life Dynamics Inc. a pro-life in Denton Texas. The other is the Anatomic Gift Foundation (AGF). Founded in 1994 by Jim and Brenda Bardsley, it originally operated out of a double-wide trailer at the end of a dirt road on the Satilla River in Georgia where the couple also ran a catfish farm. It has since moved its headquarters to Laurel, MD and now has operations in Phoenix, AZ and Aurora, CO. 

Life Dynamics’ sources inside abortion clinics acquired “fee schedules” for both organizations. Opening Lines’ is the more detailed of the two, listing prices for organs from fetuses under eight weeks gestation and over. An “intact trunk (with/without limbs)” costs $500, for example, a liver, $150, (“30% discount if significantly fragmented”). 

The prices “in effect until December 31, 1999” may seem low, observes Mr. Crutcher, but add up all the parts and single aborted baby is worth thousands. “Our daily average case volume exceeds 1500 and we serve clinics across the United States,” says Opening Lines’ brochure. 

Mr. Crutcher says that Dr. Jones is an aggressive salesman, eager to offer him reduced rates for bulk orders.

He also said in a recent taped interview that he is actively pursuing fetal tissue sources in Mexico and in Canada. 

-C.M. 

***************************************************
The material contained in this file is made
available courtesy contributors and editors of

 

 

Você já se perguntou o que as clínicas de aborto fazem  dos bebês abortados? Você já se perguntou como essas clínicas ganham  dinheiro extra? Você já se perguntou por que pró-abortistas insistem em manter o procedimento de aborto de nascimento parcial legal?

 

 

Ever wonder what abortion clinics do with aborted babies?  Ever wonder how the clinics make extra money?  Ever wonder why pro-abortionists insist on keeping the Partial-birth abortion procedure legal? 

Fetal Harvesting

 

Você já se perguntou o que fazer com as clínicas de aborto bebês abortados? Você já se perguntou como as clínicas de ganhar dinheiro extra? Você já se perguntou por que pró-abortistas insistem em manter o procedimento de aborto de nascimento parcial legal?


Colheita Fetal

Pela primeira vez, ouvir um informante revela como os bebês (às vezes ao vivo) são colhidas a partir de clínicas de aborto para revenda. Cortesia da dinâmica da vida.

Parte # 1 Um informante (disfarçado), descreve como ela (e outros na empresa trabalhou para) reuniram-se tecido fetal em clínicas de aborto para revenda posterior às empresas farmacêuticas.

Parte # 2 Descreve como ela foi apresentada com muitos fetos vivos, incluindo um par de gêmeos, falta de ar. O médico exclamou “Apanhei-te alguns bons exemplares – gêmeos” O médico então afogou-los. Outras vezes, os médicos deveriam quebrar o pescoço ou bater o feto até a morte com um par de pinças.

Part # 3 descreve como uma mulher sofrendo “de dois dias” abortos iria entrar em trabalho de parto e parto do bebê ao vivo – e o aborto deixaria os bebês sem assistência médica para morrer lentamente. Descreve como os abortistas consistentemente desencorajaram as mulheres a tentativa de manter seus filhos (se eles mudaram de idéia), forçando-os a ter um aborto após a administração de mais sedação. Também informa quantas abortistas faça avanços sexuais a pacientes.

Artigos recentes sobre colheita Fetal
Julho 1999

Peças do bebê à venda
Um lote de olhos pela UPS – 30 fígados por FedEx

Por J. C. Willke, MD

Depois de lutar contra o aborto há 30 anos eu pensei que tinha visto e ouvido tudo, mas não é assim. Aqui é um novo desenvolvimento, um funcionamento coordenado à indústria de alta tecnologia para a finalidade específica de obtenção e venda de alta qualidade órgãos fetais para a pesquisa.

Partial-Birth abortos parecia ser tão horrível que a maioria de nós se perguntou como tais procedimentos poderiam ser defendidos. Muitos de nós chalked-lo para o fato de que os defensores pró-aborto e da indústria do aborto não quis dar um centímetro por medo de que sua casa inteira de cartões irá dobrar. Eu, entre outros, sentiu que a sua resistência ao proibir este procedimento horrível era o medo de um efeito dominó. Se parássemos um presente, então parava o próximo eo próximo eo próximo e não quer que ele inicie. Mas agora temos evidência de uma razão muito clara adicional por que eles querem esses abortos tardios para continuar. A razão é que este é o método que lhes dá uma intactas corpos fetais a partir da qual eles podem obter órgãos para investigação.

O outro método de tarde-termo aborto, D & E (dilatação e evacuação), envolve chegando até o útero e desmembrar o bebê vivo. Isto proporciona pedaços de órgãos macerados que são geralmente inadequadas para pesquisa fetal, transplante etc Esta pode ser a principal razão para a sua defesa veemente da prática do aborto de nascimento parcial.

A história foi quebrado recentemente pela dinâmica da vida sob a orientação de seu diretor, Mark Crutcher. Uma senhora veio a ele com uma história, que ele tenha verificado. O nome do informante não pode ser revelado, como ela ainda está envolvido no trabalho que ela expôs. Sua história é dramaticamente gravado em um vídeo recém-lançado pela dinâmica da vida. Nela, esta mulher sob o pseudônimo de Kelly, conta sua história. Sua volta é para a câmera e sua voz é eletronicamente alterado para evitar sua identificação. Ela trabalhou para “uma fonte externa, contratada com uma equipe para ir em [a final clínicas de aborto prazo] para dissecar e adquirir tecido fetal de alta qualidade de vendas.” Leia sobre como Kelly descreve sua profissão macabra. “O que fizemos foi ter um contrato com uma clínica de aborto que nos permitiria
lá em determinados dias. Gostaríamos de obter uma lista gerada a cada dia para nos dizer o que os pesquisadores de tecido, as empresas farmacêuticas e universidades estavam procurando. Então poderíamos examinar os prontuários dos pacientes. Gostaríamos de filtrar os que não querem.

Nós não utilizar espécimes que tiveram DSTs [doenças sexualmente transmissíveis] ou anormalidades fetais. Só queria que os espécimes mais perfeitos que nós poderíamos dar aos pesquisadores. “E a idade destes bebês? As vítimas foram até e mais de 30 semanas de gestação.” Nós estávamos procurando olhos, fígado, cérebro, timo [tecido linfóide ], cardíaco
sangue, sangue do cordão de sangue, a partir do fígado, mesmo sangue dos membros. ”

Somente um 2% estimado dos bebês abortados tardios tinham anormalidades. “O resto foi muito saudável. De 95% do tempo, ela estava ali apenas para se livrar do bebê.” Como muitos dos tardios – os cerca de 30 semanas – que você veria? “Provavelmente 30 ou 40 bebês por semana.”

Kelly afirmou: “Gostaríamos de vender o tecido a empreiteiros privados. Eles, por sua vez iria vender para outras universidades e pesquisadores. Houve uma grande demanda a cada semana para comprar esses tecidos fetais. Foi enviado por UPS, FedEx, Airborne e às vezes por especial correios. Às vezes, nós levaria a amostra em uma caixa para o aeroporto e colocá-lo em como carga regular, para ser pego no destino. ” E que essas empresas de navegação sabe que eles estavam transportando peças de bebê? “Não. Tudo o que sabiam era que era apenas células humanas. Mas poderia ser um feto completamente intacto. Pode ser um lote de olhos, ou 30 ou 40 fígados de sair naquele dia, ou timo

E as peças remanescentes? “Nós normalmente seria colocar isso no triturador juntamente com a placenta e sangue o material restante. Se ele era muito grande para ir pelo ralo, eles tiveram um freezer especial e quando acumulado 60 ou 70 fetos em uma caixa, que seria ser pego para incineração. ”

E então a pergunta óbvia. Kelly ainda está trabalhando para essa empresa, então por que ela veio e contar esta história para um grupo pró-vida? Um dia, quando ela estava trabalhando, “Um par de gêmeos com 24 semanas de gestação foi trazido para nós em uma panela. Eles estavam vivos. O médico voltou e disse: ‘Apanhei-te alguns bons exemplares, gêmeos. Olhei para ele e disse:
`Há algo errado aqui. Eles estão se movendo. Eu não faço isso. Isso não está no meu contrato. ” Eu lhe disse que não seria parte de tirar suas vidas. Então ele pegou uma garrafa de água estéril e derramou-o na panela até que o líquido veio acima sobre suas bocas e narizes, deixando-se afogar. Saí do quarto porque eu não conseguia ver isso. “Mas ela voltar e dissecá-los depois que eles foram mortos. Ela disse:” Foi quando eu decidi que era errado. Eu não quero estar lá quando isso aconteceu. “E então aconteceu uma e outra vez.” Às 16 semanas, todo o caminho até às vezes até 30 semanas, e tivemos nascidos vivos voltam para nós. “E então?” Em seguida, o médico quer quebrar o pescoço ou levar um par de pinças e bata até que o feto estava morto. ”

Será que o aborto nunca altera os procedimentos para obter o tipo de amostras que você precisava naquele dia? Sua resposta foi “Sim, antes dos procedimentos que eles gostariam de ver a lista do que queria obter. O [aborto] não nos levaria a dos mais completos, os dentes intactos que podia. Eles seriam entregues a nós completamente intacto. Às vezes o feto parecia estar morto, mas quando abriu a cavidade torácica, o coração ainda estava batendo. ” Ela foi perguntado se o tipo de procedimento de aborto foi intencionalmente alterados para lhe entregar um exemplar intacto, mesmo que isso significasse dar-lhe um bebê vivo? Sua resposta foi: “Sim, foi assim que nós poderíamos vender melhor o tecido, para que a nossa empresa iria ganhar mais dinheiro. No final do ano, eles dariam a clínica de volta mais dinheiro, porque temos bons exemplares.”

O procedimento de aborto de nascimento parcial envolve laminaria algas inserir no colo. Isso incha, dilatação do colo uterino. Em 24 horas, de novo Laminaria são inseridos. Isso produz mais inchaço e dilatação de modo que no terceiro dia, o bebê pode ser extraído. Durante o procedimento de dilatação, ela é enviada para um motel nas proximidades. Às vezes, o laminaria cairia para fora e ela iria entrar em trabalho de parto e entregar o bebê. E depois? “Eles chamam a enfermeira ea enfermeira iria chamar o médico que iria para o quarto de motel e pegar a mulher eo feto. Foi quando eles nos chamam e dizem: ‘Ok, nós temos um par de espécimes aqui ‘, ou’ Nós temos um espécime. ” Gostaríamos de ir [à clínica] e da amostra [o bebê] seria em um balde, às vezes vivo. Quando abrimos a caixa torácica o coração ainda estaria batendo. Às vezes a gente podia ver o movimento no balde. Estes bebês tiveram que sair vivo. Não há nenhuma maneira para eles vir a falecer. Eles estavam todos vivos. Como eles mataram ninguém sabe. Meu palpite é que eles tiveram que matá-los no balde ou colocá-los em um canto e deixá-los morrer lentamente. ” E isso foi porque o aborto tinha visto o quão forte você reagiu a vê-los mortos na frente de você? “Isso é correto. E ele não queria repetir esses casos, mas eles continuaram acontecendo de qualquer maneira, e é assim que eu vim chamar vocês [Life Dynamics].”

Finalmente, Kelly relatou como às vezes uma mulher, no meio do procedimento de dilatação, mudaria sua mente e diz que ela não queria o aborto. Nesse caso, eles iriam dizer a ela que agora é tarde demais. “Você vai fazer o aborto.” Kelly disse: “Todos os funcionários se reuniam em torno pressionando-a a fazer o aborto. No segundo dia, lhes é dada uma sedação IV, que tipo de coloca-los no que eu chamo de um cochilo Nyquil. Eles são, basicamente, sonolento , não pensar por si mesmo e isso é basicamente como eles são coagidos a continuar o procedimento. ”

Finalmente, na entrevista, ela observa que muitos dos funcionários das clínicas eram lésbicas. Quando a mãe estava inconsciente dessas mulheres seria discutir a sua genitália com comentários degradantes e por vezes até mesmo levar o número de telefone fora do seu gráfico. Então eles “chamam as semanas na estrada e pedir-lhe para sair. Não era incomum para mulheres ou homens na clínica para bater sobre essas mulheres para as datas.”

Agora sabemos por que

Agora sabemos que uma das principais razões pelas quais a indústria do aborto está lutando tão intensamente para evitar a proibição de aborto de nascimento parcial de ser promulgada. É mais do que não dar qualquer fundamento sobre o aborto por qualquer motivo. É também porque a venda de peças fetais é uma parte muito lucrativa do negócio do aborto. Essas mães pagar grandes somas de dinheiro para abortos tardios e os abortistas, por sua vez recebem muito dinheiro para esses órgãos intactos. Os espécimes modelo tem que ser: o maior – o melhor, o mais velho – o melhor, o mais vivo – o melhor.

O diálogo acima é de um vídeo que foi produzido pela dinâmica da vida. Se algum dos nossos leitores gostaria de uma cópia gratuita desta entrevista, enquanto as quantidades passado, não hesite em contactar-nos e nós lhe enviaremos uma cópia. Envie seu pedido para: questões da vida do Instituto, 1721 W. Galbraith Rd, Cincinnati, OH 45239. Telefone (513) 729-3600. Fax (513) 729-3636. E-mail lifeissues@aol.com
22 de agosto de 1999

Os atacadistas

A full-color brochura, brilhante convida aborto para “descobrir como você pode transformar a sua decisão do paciente em algo maravilhoso.” Está impresso por linhas de abertura, uma Divisão de Patologia e Diagnóstico Consultivo, Inc., uma traficante de atacado em partes do bebê abortado de clínicas americanas. Fora de um escritório em West Frankfort, IL, diretor da empresa, Dr. Miles Jones, os lucros de um comércio, evidentemente, tremendamente lucrativa – o seu “Taxa de Serviços Schedule” atual oferece olhos e ouvidos para US $ 75 a US $ 999 por um cérebro.

Linhas de abertura foi fundada em 1989, para “maximizar a utilização de tecido fetal fresco que nós processar.” Ele oferece aos investigadores “da mais alta qualidade, mais acessível, mais fresco e tecido preparado com suas especificações e entregues nas quantidades que você precisa quando você precisar dele.”

Venda de tecidos humanos, incluindo o tecido fetal, é contra a lei federal, mas as linhas de abertura aconselha os pacientes como “simples” é para contornar isso. Ele oferece a “alugar o espaço a partir de sua instalação para realizar a colheita, para compensar a sobrecarga a sua clínica.” Também oferece para treinar a equipe da clínica na colheita e, em seguida, “com base em volume, reembolsar parte ou a totalidade do salário do seu empregado, reduzindo suas despesas gerais.”

Dr. Jones é, obviamente, hábeis em contornar os regulamentos inconvenientes. “Nós não exigem uma cópia de sua aprovação IRB ou resumo de sua pesquisa”, aconselha clientela em potencial, “e você não é obrigado a linhas de abertura do site como fonte de tecido quando você publicar seu trabalho (acreditamos no boca a boca publicidade, se você gosta de nosso serviço que você vai dizer a seus colegas “).

Linhas de abertura é um dos dois traficantes no atacado, descoberto por Mark Crutcher na vida Dynamics Inc., uma pró-vida em Denton Texas. A outra é a Anatomic Presente Foundation (AGF). Fundada em 1994 por Jim e Bardsley Brenda, que inicialmente funcionava em um trailer de largura dupla no final de uma estrada de terra no Rio Satilla na Geórgia, onde o casal também administrou uma fazenda bagre. Desde então, mudou sua sede para Laurel, MD e possui operações em Phoenix, AZ e Aurora, CO

Fontes dinâmica da vida dentro de clínicas de aborto adquiridos “tabelas de preços” para ambas as organizações. Abertura de linhas ‘é a mais detalhada dos dois, enumerando preços para órgãos de fetos sob oito semanas de gestação e de novo. Um “tronco intacto (com / sem membros)” custa US $ 500, por exemplo, um fígado, US $ 150, (“30% de desconto se significativamente fragmentada”).

“Os preços em vigor até 31 de dezembro de 1999” pode parecer baixo, observa o Sr. Crutcher, mas somar todas as peças e bebê abortado único vale milhares. “Nosso volume de caso médio diário certificado exceder 1500 e servimos clínicas nos Estados Unidos”, diz o folheto linhas de abertura “.

Sr. Crutcher diz que Dr. Jones é um vendedor agressivo, ansioso para lhe oferecer taxas reduzidas para grandes encomendas. Ele também disse em uma recente entrevista gravada que ele está buscando ativamente fontes de tecido fetal no México e no Canadá.

-C.M.

************************************************** *
O material contido neste arquivo é feita
disponíveis colaboradores e editores de cortesia


***************************************************
The material contained in this file is made
available courtesy contributors and editors of
Pro-Life E-News.

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/BabyPartsForSale.htm

 

Ever wonder what abortion clinics do with aborted babies?  Ever wonder how the clinics make extra money?  Ever wonder why pro-abortionists insist on keeping the Partial-birth abortion procedure legal? 

Fetal Harvesting

 

For the first time, hear an informant reveal how babies (sometimes live) are harvested from abortion clinics for resale. Courtesy of Life Dynamics.

 

 

Part #1 An informant (in disguise), describes how she (and others at the company she worked for) gathered fetal tissue at abortion clinics for later resale to pharmaceutical companies.

 

Part #2 Describes how she’s been presented with many live fetuses including a set of twins, gasping for air. The doctor exclaimed “Got you some good specimens – twins!”  The doctor then drowned them. Other times, doctors would break the neck or beat the fetus to death with a pair of tongs.

 

Part #3 Describes how some woman undergoing “two-day” abortions would go into labor and deliver a live baby – and the abortionist would leave the babies without medical care to die slowly.  Describes how abortionists consistently discouraged women from trying to keep their babies (if they changed their minds) by forcing them into having an abortion after administering more sedation. Also tells how many abortionists make sexual advances to patients.

 

 

Recent Articles on Fetal Harvesting

July 1999

 

Baby Parts for Sale

A batch of eyes by UPS – 30 livers by FedEx

 

By J. C. Willke, MD

 

After fighting abortion for 30 years I thought I had seen and heard it all, but not so. Here is a new development, a coordinated high-tech industry functioning for the specific purpose of obtaining and selling high-quality fetal organs for research.

 

Partial-Birth abortions seemed to be so horrible that most of us wondered how such procedures could be defended. Many of us chalked it up to the fact that the pro-abortion advocates and the abortion industry didn’t want to give one inch for fear that their whole house of cards will fold. I, among others, felt that their resistance to forbidding this gruesome procedure was a fear of a domino effect. If we stopped this one, then we’d stop the next and the next and the next and they didn’t want it to start. But now we have evidence of a very clear additional reason why they want these late-term abortions to continue. The reason is that this is the one method that gives them intact fetal bodies from which they can obtain organs for research.

 

The other method of late-term abortion, D&E (Dilatation and Evacuation), involves reaching up into the uterus and dismembering the live baby. This delivers pieces of macerated organs that are usually unsuitable for fetal research, transplantation etc. This may be the main reason for their vehement defense of the practice of Partial-Birth abortion.

 

The story was broken recently by Life Dynamics under the guidance of its director, Mark Crutcher. A lady came to him with a story, which he has verified. The name of the informant cannot be revealed, as she is still involved in the work that she has exposed. Her story is dramatically recorded in a video just released by Life Dynamics. In it, this woman under the pseudonym, Kelly, tells her story. Her back is to the camera and her voice is electronically altered to prevent her identification. She worked for “an outside source, hired with a team to go in [to late term abortion clinics] to dissect and procure fetal tissue for high-quality sales.” Read on as Kelly describes her macabre profession. “What we did was to have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to

go there on certain days. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceutical companies and universities were looking for. Then we would examine the patient charts. We would screen out the ones we didn’t want.

 

We did not use specimens that had STDs [sexually transmitted diseases] or fetal abnormalities.  We only wanted the most perfect specimens that we could give to the researchers.” And the age of these babies? The victims were up to and over 30-weeks gestation. “We were looking for eyes, livers, brains, thymuses [lymphoid tissue], cardiac

blood, cord blood, blood from the liver, even blood from the limbs.”

 

Only an estimated 2% of the late-term aborted babies had abnormalities. “The rest were very healthy. 95% of the time, she was just there to get rid of the baby.” How many of the late-term – the ones around 30 weeks – would you see? “Probably 30 or 40 babies a week.”

 

Kelly stated, “We would sell the tissue to private contractors. They in turn would sell to other universities and researchers. There was a high demand every week to buy such fetal tissues. It was shipped by UPS, FedEx, Airborne and sometimes by special couriers. Sometimes we would take the specimen in a box to the airport and put it on as regular cargo, to be picked up at the destination.” And did these shipping companies know they were transporting baby parts? “No. All they knew was that it was just human cells. But it could be a completely intact fetus. It might be a batch of eyes, or 30 or 40 livers going out that day, or thymuses

 

And the leftover parts? “We would usually put this down the garbage disposal along with the placenta and the leftover blood material. If it was too large to go down the drain, they had a special freezer and when they accumulated 60 or 70 fetuses in one box, it would be picked up for incineration.”

 

And then the obvious question. Kelly is still working for this company, so why did she come and tell this story to a pro-life group? One day when she was working, “A set of twins at 24 weeks gestation was brought to us in a pan. They were both alive. The doctor came back and said, `Got you some good specimens, twins.’ I looked at him and said,

`There’s something wrong here. They are moving. I don’t do this. This is not in my contract.’  I told him I would not be part of taking their lives. So he took a bottle of sterile water and poured it in the pan until the fluid came up over their mouths and noses, letting them drown.  I left the room because I could not watch this.” But she did go back and dissect them after they were dead. She said, “That’s when I decided it was wrong. I did not want to be there when that happened.” And then it happened again and again. “At 16 weeks, all the way up to sometimes even 30 weeks, and we had live births come back to us.” And then?  “Then the doctor would either break the neck or take a pair of tongs and beat the fetus until it was dead.”

 

Did the abortionist ever alter the procedures to get you the type of specimens you needed that day? Her answer was “Yes, before the procedures they would want to see the list of what we wanted to procure. The [abortionist] would get us the most complete, intact specimens that he could. They would be delivered to us completely intact. Sometimes the fetus appeared to be dead, but when we opened up the chest cavity, the heart was still beating.” She was asked if the type of abortion procedure was intentionally altered to deliver to you an intact specimen, even if that meant giving you a live baby? Her answer was, “Yes, that was so we could sell better tissue, so that our company would make more money. At the end of the year, they would give the clinic back more money because we got good specimens.”

 

The Partial-Birth abortion procedure involves inserting seaweed laminaria into the cervix. This swells up, dilating the cervix.  In 24 hours, new laminaria are inserted. This produces more swelling and dilatation so that by the third day the baby can be extracted. During the dilatation procedure she is sent to a nearby motel. Sometimes the laminaria would fall out and she would go into labor and deliver the baby. And then? “They would call the nurse, and the nurse would call the doctor who would go to the motel room and pick up the woman and the fetus.  That’s when they would call us and say, `Okay, we’ve got a couple of specimens here,’ or `We’ve got one specimen.’ We would go [to the clinic] and the specimen [the baby] would be in a bucket, sometimes alive. When we opened the chest cavity the heart would still be beating.  Sometimes we could see movement in the bucket. These babies had to come out alive. There’s no way for them to be coming out dead. They were all alive. How they killed them is anyone’s guess. My guess is that they had to kill them in the bucket or put them in a corner and let them die slowly.” And that was because the abortionist had seen how strongly you reacted to seeing them killed in front of you? “That’s correct. And he did not want to repeat those instances but they kept happening anyway, and that’s how I came to call you guys [Life Dynamics].”

 

Finally, Kelly related how sometimes a woman, halfway through the dilatation procedure, would change her mind and say she did not want the abortion. In such a case they would tell her that it’s too late now. “You’re going to have the abortion.” Kelly said, “All of the staff would gather around pressuring her to have the abortion. On the second day, they’re given an IV sedation, which kind of puts them into what I call a Nyquil nap. They’re just basically drowsy, not thinking for themselves and that’s basically how they are coerced into continuing the procedure.”

 

Finally, in the interview, she notes that many of the employees of the clinics were lesbians. When the mother was unconscious these women would discuss her genitalia with degrading remarks and on occasion even take the phone number off of her chart. Then they would “call her weeks down the road and ask her out for a date. It was not uncommon for women or men at the clinic to hit on these women for dates.”

 

Now We Know Why

 

Now we know one of the major reasons why the abortion industry is fighting so intensely to prevent a ban on Partial-Birth abortion from being enacted. It’s more than not giving any ground on abortion for any reason. It’s also because selling fetal parts is a very lucrative part of the abortion business. These mothers pay large sums of money for late-term abortions and the abortionists in turn are given big money for these intact organs. The model specimens have to be: the bigger – the better; the older – the better; the more alive – the better.

 

The above dialogue is from a video that has been produced by Life Dynamics. If any of our readers would like a free copy of this interview, while quantities last, feel free to contact us and we will send you a copy. Send your request to: Life Issues Institute, 1721 W. Galbraith Rd, Cincinnati, OH 45239. Phone (513) 729-3600. Fax (513) 729-3636. E-mail lifeissues@aol.com 

August 22, 1999

 

The Wholesalers 

 

A full-color, glossy brochure invites abortionists to “find out how you can turn your patient’s decision into something wonderful.” It’s printed by Opening Lines, A Division of Consultative and Diagnostic Pathology, Inc., a wholesale trafficker in aborted baby parts from American clinics. Out of an office in West Frankfort, IL, the company’s director, Dr. Miles Jones, profits from an evidently tremendously lucrative trade – his current “Fee for Services Schedule” offers eyes and ears for $75 to $999 for a brain. 

 

Opening Lines was founded in 1989 to “maximize the utilization of fresh fetal tissue we process.” It offer researchers “the highest quality, most affordable, and freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need when you need it.” 

 

Sale of human tissue, including fetal tissue, is against federal law, but Opening Lines advises patients how “simple” it is to get around that. It offers to “lease space from your facility to perform the harvesting to offset your clinic’s overhead.” It also offers to train clinic staff in harvesting and then “based on volume, reimburse part or all of your employee’s salary, thereby reducing your overhead.”  

 

Dr. Jones is obviously adept at getting around inconvenient regulations. “We DO NOT require a copy of your IRB approval or summary of your research,” he advises prospective clientele, “and you ARE NOT required to site Opening Lines as the source of tissue when you publish your work (we believe in word of mouth advertising; if you like our service you will tell your colleagues.”) 

 

Opening Lines is one of two wholesale traffickers, uncovered by Mark Crutcher at Life Dynamics Inc. a pro-life in Denton Texas. The other is the Anatomic Gift Foundation (AGF). Founded in 1994 by Jim and Brenda Bardsley, it originally operated out of a double-wide trailer at the end of a dirt road on the Satilla River in Georgia where the couple also ran a catfish farm. It has since moved its headquarters to Laurel, MD and now has operations in Phoenix, AZ and Aurora, CO. 

 

Life Dynamics’ sources inside abortion clinics acquired “fee schedules” for both organizations. Opening Lines’ is the more detailed of the two, listing prices for organs from fetuses under eight weeks gestation and over. An “intact trunk (with/without limbs)” costs $500, for example, a liver, $150, (“30% discount if significantly fragmented”). 

 

The prices “in effect until December 31, 1999” may seem low, observes Mr. Crutcher, but add up all the parts and single aborted baby is worth thousands. “Our daily average case volume exceeds 1500 and we serve clinics across the United States,” says Opening Lines’ brochure. 

 

Mr. Crutcher says that Dr. Jones is an aggressive salesman, eager to offer him reduced rates for bulk orders. He also said in a recent taped interview that he is actively pursuing fetal tissue sources in Mexico and in Canada. 

 

-C.M. 

 

***************************************************

The material contained in this file is made

available courtesy contributors and editors of

 http://suewidemark.com/fetalparts.htm

 

 

 

Prostituição Reprodutiva. Barrigas de aluguel fazem da criança objeto de comercio

Prostituição Reprodutiva

A legislação holandesa sobre barriga de aluguel pode ser revista em breve. Hoje, a Holanda, já é possível usar uma mãe de aluguel para várias condições: a mulher que iria levar a criança deve ser a família, ter tido filhos e se não deseja mais . Este gesto deve ser como “absolutamente livre”.

De acordo com Fred Teeven, holandês Secretário de Estado da Justiça, “mais e mais mulheres que buscam mães de aluguel e estão dispostos a pagar por isso.” Ele disse, portanto, querer mudar a lei para que os filhos daqueles que pagam mães substitutas estrangeiras são reconhecidos na Holanda. Na verdade, um verdadeiro comércio, totalizando 1,7 mil milhões de euros é estabelecida com a Índia através de clínicas especializadas, onde as mulheres pobres estão vendendo seus “serviços” para os casais ocidentais.

Rene Hoksbergen, professor emérito da especialista em adoção, é “ridículo” que “as leis são adequadas” e acredita que não é sem razão que essa prática é proibida. Primeiro, ele estabelece que os interesses e felicidade da criança não são tidos em conta. Esta breve estar pensando: “Eu venho de um útero ea mulher indiana indiano que era pobre, recebeu 1.000 dólares (760 euros).” Esta realidade vai chegar a sua visão de si mesmo: “Eu sou apenas um artigo de comércio”.

Por outro lado, o professor Hoksbergen explica que “ser um substituto para razões comerciais é simplesmente a reprodução da prostituição”. Ela contradiz os argumentos de alguns, como Nayna Patel, médico indiano para que ambas as partes beneficiar do mercado: os pais têm um filho, o substituto pode usar o dinheiro para fazer coisas que ela não poderia ter feito sem esse dinheiro. Para René Hoksbergen, use “funções corporais de outra para oferecer para o [seu] próprias necessidades” é a “prostituição”.

 

’’Prostitution de procréation

La Synthèse de presse bioéthique du lundi 20 février 2012

 http://www.genethique.org/revues/revues/2012/Fevrier/20120220.1.asp

La législation néerlandaise sur les mères porteuses pourrait bien être remaniée prochainement. Aujourd’hui aux Pays-Bas, il est déjà possible d’avoir recours à une mère porteuse à plusieurs conditions : la femme qui portera l’enfant doit être de la famille, avoir déjà eu elle-même des enfants et ne plus en souhaiter. Ce geste doit être aussi “absolument gratuit“.

Selon  Fred Teeven, secrétaire d’Etat néerlandais chargé de la Justice, “de plus en plus de femmes cherchent des mères porteuses et sont prêtes à payer ce service“. Il dit donc vouloir modifier la loi pour que les enfants de ceux qui payent des mères porteuses étrangères soient reconnus aux Pays-Bas. En effet, un véritable commerce s’élevant à 1,7 milliard d’euros s’instaure avec l’Inde via des cliniques spécialisées, où des femmes pauvres vendent leurs “services” à des couples occidentaux.

René Hoksbergen, professeur émérite spécialiste de l’adoption, trouve “ridicule” que “les lois soient adaptées” et estime que ce n’est pas sans raison si cette pratique est interdite. D’une part, il constate que l’intérêt et le bonheur de l’enfant ne sont pas pris en compte. Celui-ci pourra bientôt penser : “Je proviens d’un utérus indien et cette femme indienne qui était pauvre, a reçu 1 000 dollars (760 euros)” . Cette réalité atteindra la vision qu’il a de lui-même :  “je suis tout simplement un objet de commerce“.

D’autre part, le Pr Hoksbergen explique qu’ “être mère porteuse pour des raisons commerciales relève tout simplement de la prostitution de procréation”. Il contredit les arguments de certains, comme Nayna Patel, médecin indienne pour laquelle les deux parties profitent du marché : les parents ont un enfant, la mère porteuse peut utiliser l’argent pour faire des choses qu’elle n’aurait pas pu faire sans cet argent. Pour René Hoksbergen, utiliser “les fonctions corporelles d’une autre pour pourvoir à [ses] propres besoins“, c’est de “la prostitution“.

Bioedge (Michael Cook) 18/02/12 – rnw.nl 17/02/12

Prostituição Reprodutiva

A legislação holandesa sobre barriga de aluguel pode ser revista em breve. Hoje, a Holanda, já é possível usar uma mãe de aluguel para várias condições: a mulher que iria levar a criança deve ser a família, ter tido filhos e se não deseja mais . Este gesto deve ser como “absolutamente livre”.

De acordo com Fred Teeven, holandês Secretário de Estado da Justiça, “mais e mais mulheres que buscam mães de aluguel e estão dispostos a pagar por isso.” Ele disse, portanto, querer mudar a lei para que os filhos daqueles que pagam mães substitutas estrangeiras são reconhecidos na Holanda. Na verdade, um verdadeiro comércio, totalizando 1,7 mil milhões de euros é estabelecida com a Índia através de clínicas especializadas, onde as mulheres pobres estão vendendo seus “serviços” para os casais ocidentais.

Rene Hoksbergen, professor emérito da especialista em adoção, é “ridículo” que “as leis são adequadas” e acredita que não é sem razão que essa prática é proibida. Primeiro, ele estabelece que os interesses e felicidade da criança não são tidos em conta. Esta breve estar pensando: “Eu venho de um útero ea mulher indiana indiano que era pobre, recebeu 1.000 dólares (760 euros).” Esta realidade vai chegar a sua visão de si mesmo: “Eu sou apenas um artigo de comércio”.

Por outro lado, o professor Hoksbergen explica que “ser um substituto para razões comerciais é simplesmente a reprodução da prostituição”. Ela contradiz os argumentos de alguns, como Nayna Patel, médico indiano para que ambas as partes beneficiar do mercado: os pais têm um filho, o substituto pode usar o dinheiro para fazer coisas que ela não poderia ter feito sem esse dinheiro. Para René Hoksbergen, use “funções corporais de outra para oferecer para o [seu] próprias necessidades” é a “prostituição”.

Pode o juiz autorizar um aborto? – Por Pe. Luiz Carlos Lodi da Cruz

Pode o juiz autorizar um aborto?

(nenhum juiz está acima da lei)

Por Pe. Luiz Carlos Lodi da Cruz
Presidente do Pró-Vida de Anápolis

Se o aborto é ilegal, a autorização judicial é inútil; se o aborto fosse legal, ela seria desnecessária. Em qualquer hipótese, não faz sentido pedir a um juiz que “autorize” um aborto. No entanto, generalizou-se a crença de que um juiz pode autorizar, ou até mesmo ordenar (!) a prática de tal crime. Diante de um alvará para matar[1], há médicos que se sentem intimidados, como se fossem “obrigados” a executar a sentença de morte decretada pelo magistrado.

O papel da imprensa tem sido importante em difundir a desinformação. Por exemplo: em 17/04/2011, domingo, a primeira página do jornal Diário da Manhã trazia a manchete: “Aborto dentro da lei: Justiça goiana autoriza mais de 20 interrupções de gravidez de fetos com má formação severa”. Segundo a matéria, “mais de 20 autorizações judiciais permitindo aborto de fetos com má-formação severa foram concedidas em Goiânia na última década”[2]. As crianças abortadas “judicialmente” não foram somente as portadoras de anencefalia. Vários outros bebês, com doenças menos sérias, como a síndrome de body-stalk, síndrome de Potter, encefalocele occipital e síndrome de Edwards foram condenados ao extermínio. A futilidade do motivo chegou ao auge quando em 23/03/2011 um juiz “autorizou” o abortamento de uma criança normal (!), sob a alegação de que ela poderia sofrer algum dano futuro (!) em virtude do tratamento de câncer a que seria submetida sua mãe[3].

Tentemos esclarecer a questão.

1. No Brasil o aborto é crime?

Sim. Um crime contra a pessoa e contra a vida, tipificado nos artigos124 a 128 do Código Penal.

2. Há algum caso em que o aborto não seja crime?

Não. No direito brasileiro, todo aborto diretamente provocado é crime.

3. E se não houver outro meio, a não ser o aborto, para salvar a vida da gestante?

Nesse caso, que aliás não ocorre, o aborto continua sendo crime.

4. E se a gravidez resultar de estupro e a gestante consentir no aborto?

Nesse caso, o aborto continua sendo crime.

5. Mas eu ouvi dizer que nos casos acima o aborto era legal…

De maneira alguma! Nessas duas hipóteses (art. 128, CP), o criminoso “não se pune”. Mas o aborto continua sendo crime.

6. Pode haver casos em que um criminoso fique sem punição?

Sim. A lei pode, após o fato consumado, deixar de aplicar a pena por razões de política criminal. Em Direito, isso recebe o nome de escusa absolutória. As escusas determinam a não punição do criminoso. Mas o crime permanece.

7. Dê alguns exemplos de escusa absolutória.

Se um filho furta de seu pai, comete crime de furto, mas fica isento de pena (art. 181, CP). Se a mãe esconde seu filho delinquente da polícia, comete crime de favorecimento pessoal, mas fica isenta de pena (art. 348,§2º, CP). Não se pode, porém, falar de “furto legal” ou de “favorecimento pessoal legal”.

8. O Estado pode favorecer essas condutas em que a pena não se aplica?

Claro que não. Imagine o absurdo que seria as escolas públicas ensinarem às crianças a maneira mais segura e eficiente de surrupiar as coisas do papai e da mamãe, a pretexto de que tal furto seria “legal”. Ou então pense no disparate que seria uma penitenciária reunir as mães dos detentos e explicar-lhes como escondê-los da polícia, a pretexto de que tal favorecimento pessoal seria “legal”.

9. O Estado pode financiar a prática do aborto nos casos em que a pena não se aplica?

De modo algum. O Sistema Único de Saúde não pode usar o dinheiro público para a prática de crime, haja ou não pena aplicada ao criminoso.

10. Cite juristas que sustentam a doutrina de que não há aborto legal no Brasil.

Além do grande Walter Moraes (já falecido), temos Ricardo Henry Marques Dip, Jaques de Camargo Penteado, Vicente de Abreu Amadei, José Geraldo Barreto Fonseca, Paulo de Tarso Machado Brandão, Maria Helena Diniz e Ives Gandra da Silva Martins.

11. Existe escusa absolutória em caso de má-formação fetal?

Não. O médico que pratica um aborto em razão de uma deficiência da criança por nascer (aborto eugênico) incorre nas penas dos artigos125 a127 do Código Penal.

12. Que valor tem uma autorização judicial para um aborto?

Nenhum valor. O aborto continua sendo crime, haja ou não a cumplicidade de um juiz.

13. Se o aborto for praticado, o juiz pode ser punido?

Pode e deve. “O resultado, de que depende a existência do crime, somente é imputável a quem lhe deu causa. Considera-se causa a ação ou omissão sem a qual o resultado não teria ocorrido” (art. 13, CP). Ora, se sem a “autorização” o aborto não teria sido praticado, ela, embora inválida, foi causa do crime. Por meio dela, o juiz concorreu para o crime. E “quem, de qualquer modo, concorre para o crime incide nas penas a este cominadas, na medida de sua culpabilidade” (art. 29, CP).

14. Quem é competente para julgar um juiz de direito que participa de um crime de aborto?

O Tribunal de Justiça do seu Estado (art. 96, III, CF).

15. Houve algum juiz punido por ter autorizado um aborto?

Não. Embora muitas vezes os tribunais tenham concedido ordem de habeas corpus em favor do nascituro, por considerarem ilegal a “autorização” para o aborto, em nenhum caso o juiz foi punido. Nem sequer foi denunciado.

16. A quem cabe denunciar um juiz por crime perante o Tribunal de Justiça?

Cabe ao Ministério Público, por meio do Procurador Geral de Justiça, oferecer a denúncia, ou seja, iniciar a ação penal contra o juiz (art. 29, V, Lei 8625/93).

17. O que se pode fazer para pôr fim a essa impunidade?

Solicitar a um parlamentar que represente criminalmente contra tais juízes.

Anápolis, 8 de fevereiro de 2012

Pe. Luiz Carlos Lodi da Cruz
Presidente do Pró-Vida de Anápolis
www.providaanapolis.org.br


Þ      Envie sua mensagem à Frente Parlamentar em Defesa da Vida

Excelentíssimo presidente da Frente Parlamentar em Defesa da Vida

Deputado Federal Salvador Zimbaldi (SP)

Solicito que Vossa Excelência protocole uma representação junto ao Procurador Geral de Justiça do Estado de Goiás solicitando oferta de denúncia contra os juízes de direito que vêm autorizando ilegalmente a prática do aborto de crianças deficientes.

Como enviar sua mensagem?

Þ      Por meio de carta:

Excelentíssimo Deputado Salvador Zimbaldi

Câmara dos Deputados – Edifício Anexo 4

Gabinete n. 804

70160-900 – Brasília – DF

Þ      Por meio de telefone (61) 3215-5804 ou fax (61) 3215-2804

Þ      Por meio do Disque Câmara 0800 619 619 (ligação gratuita)

Þ      Por correio eletrônico: dep.salvadorzimbaldi@camara.gov.br

Assine uma petição on-line


[1] A expressão é de Ricardo Dip, Desembargador do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo.

[2] Cristiane LIMA, Justiça concede direito de aborto. Goiânia, Diário da Manhã, 17 abr. 2011, p. 2.

[3] Processo n.º 201100707390, 1ª vara criminal da Comarca de Goiânia (GO).

–Pe. Luiz Carlos Lodi da Cruz

Presidente do Pró-Vida de Anápolis Telefax: 55+62+3321-0900Caixa Postal 45675024-970 Anápolis GO http://www.providaanapolis.org.br

A inconstitucionalidade da tramitação de legislação legalizadora do aborto no Brasil por Celso Galli Coimbra

A inconstitucionalidade da tramitação de legislação legalizadora do aborto no Brasil

22/11/2008 — Celso Galli Coimbra

Dr. Celso Galli Coimbra
Advogado OABRS 11352

disponível em:

http://biodireitomedicina.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/a-inconstitucionalidade-da-tramitacao-de-legislacao-legalizadora-do-aborto-no-brasil/

Aborto: debate na TV Justiça, no STF, em junho de 2007

Proibida a reprodução total ou parcial
sem referência às fontes.

Endereço neste site:

Sumário

1. Introdução
2. O princípio da dignidade e o direito ao próprio corpo
3. Direitos do nascituro assegurados na Lei brasileira
4. A Convenção sobre os Direitos do Homem e da Biomedicina do Conselho da Europa
5. Res. 23/81 da Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, Caso 2141 contra os EUA
6. Conferências do Cairo e Pequim
7. Comitê de Direitos Humanos da ONU e o Caso KL contra o Governo do Peru, 2005
8. A posição da Comunidade Européia sobre o aborto, de 14 de dez. de 2005
9. O STF e a exegese da incorporação de direitos humanos na Constituição Federal
10. A incorporação do art. 4, I, do Pacto de San José aos Direitos e Garantias Individuais
11. Bibliografia

1. Introdução

Muitos juristas brasileiros vêm alertando para o fato de que a legislação abortista é inconstitucional e mais, que ela sequer poderia tramitar por estar incorporado aos direitos e garantias individuais o princípio da inviolabilidade da vida desde a concepção, a partir de 1992, de forma expressa, em vista do compromissamento do Brasil com o Pacto de San José da Costa Rica (art. 4o., I). Mesmo antes de 1992, de forma necessária, este direito e garantia fundamental já existia no Brasil, pois o artigo 5º da Constituição Federal é um dispositivo que outorga direitos fundamentais e sobretudo estabelece garantias à vida, que não teriam como ser direitos e garantias fundamentais se não se reportassem ao seu início, na concepção.

Insere-se na proteção constitucional o conteúdo do art. 2o., do Novo Código Civil, vigente desde 10 de jan. de 2002, que determina serem todos os direitos do nascituro protegidos desde a concepção. Enfatize-se que são todos os direitos do nascituro que estão garantidos, porque o referido artigo não fez restrições ou ressalvas a direito algum assegurado ao nascituro. O mais importante direito do nascituro é o direito à vida, pois todos os demais direitos inexistirão sem garantia da preservação de sua vida. Esse artigo do atual Código Civil tem o mesmo teor do art. 4o., do Código Civil anterior de 1916, o que representa a consolidação do reconhecimento do direito à vida do nascituro, desde a concepção, diante da Constituição de 1988, que erigiu como princípio mestre do Direito, a dignidade da pessoa humana.

Uma forçada discutibilidade quanto à questão nuclear do início da vida, no Direito brasileiro, estaria superada pela clareza do art. 2o., do Código Civil, quando protege os direitos do nascituro desde a concepção, onde fica indiscutível que para o legislador brasileiro a vida começa com a concepção. Nascer com vida, necessariamente, supõe existência de vida antes do nascimento e, no Brasil, desde a concepção.

Em sintonia sobre a relevante questão para o Direito da individualização da vida humana desde a concepção, o conhecimento científico tem entendimento pacífico em “(…) todos os textos de Embriologia Humana consultados, nas suas últimas edições, afirma-rem que o desenvolvimento humano se inicia quando o ovócito é fertilizado pelo es-permatozóide. Todos afirmam que o desenvolvimento humano é a expressão do fluxo irreversível de eventos biológicos ao longo do tempo, que só pára com a morte” [15, 16].

Já é de conhecimento comprovado da Embriologia que o nascituro não é apenas o apontado pelos movimentos abortistas como “portio mulieris vel viscerum”, ou seja, porção ou vísceras da mulher da qual uma minoria no Brasil se pretende proprietária para dispor da vida a pretexto de ser “dona de seu corpo” e por uma inexistente questão de dignidade, enquanto “direito absoluto” apenas da mulher diante da vida concebida. O nascituro é uma vida à parte e é vida humana desde a concepção que a gestante não tem como não respeitar porque é vida humana.

A médica e Professora Livre Docente da UNIFESP, Dra. Alice Teixeira Ferreira [15], informa que, em 2002, “(…) na revista Nature, Helen Pearson relata os experimentos de R. Gardener e Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, onde demonstram que o nosso destino está determinado no primeiro dia, no momento da concepção. Mais recentemente, também na Nature (2005), Y. Sasai descreve os fatores/proteínas que controlam o desenvolvimento do embrião a partir da concepção, descobertos por Dupont e colaboradores. O embriologista Lewis Wolpert chega a afirmar que o momento em que o ovo começa a se dividir é o momento mais importante de nossa vida, mais que o nascimento, casamento ou morte. Tenta-se atualmente, através de uma retórica ideológica, justificar a morte de embriões e fetos com argumentos despidos de fundamentos científicos, tais como: ‘Não sabemos quando começa a vida do ser humano’. Pelo visto acima, não é verdade. ‘O embrião humano é um montinho de células’. Se fossem células comuns, certos pesquisadores não estariam tão interessados nelas [15]. São tão extraordinárias que dão origem a um indivíduo completo. ‘O embrião humano não tem cérebro e é comparável à morte cerebral’. Comparação absurda, pois a morte cerebral é uma situação irreversível – não há maneira de recuperar os neurônios mortos – e o embrião dis-põe das células pluripotentes, que vão originar o cérebro” [15].

A Dra. Alice Ferreira prossegue: em 1839, “(…) Schleiden e Schwan, ao formularem a Teoria Celular, foram responsáveis por grandes avanços da Embriologia. Conforme tal conceito, o corpo é composto por células, o que leva à compreensão de que o embrião se forma a partir de uma ÚNICA célula, o zigoto, que por muitas divisões celulares for-ma os tecidos e órgãos de todo ser vivo, em particular o humano” [15] (grifos nossos).

Suas conclusões são objetivas: “(…) o ser humano, desde o ovo até o adulto, passa por diversas fases do desenvolvimento (ontogenia), mas em todas elas trata-se do mesmo indivíduo que, continuamente, se auto-constrói e se auto-organiza. Por ser o ciclo do desenvolvimento humano relativamente longo, podemos perder a visão do todo, fixando-nos em suas partes. Daí o surgimento de estatutos que regulam fases da vida humana: o das crianças e adolescentes e o dos idosos” [15].

Face à autoridade dessas informações da literatura médica, está definido que desde a concepção existe uma vida individualizada, diferenciada das demais, o que é da maior relevância para o Direito, e para a questão do abortamento versus direito à vida. Pelos princípios da Constituição de 1988, a legislação infraconstitucional já ultrapassou a época em que a proteção à vida desde a concepção era vista predominantemente sob a ótica privativista e patrimonial civilista.

A professora de Direito Constitucional Dra. Maria Garcia avança em um sentido evidente dessa realidade, quando examina o tema do nascituro, ao dizer que a este “também não lhe podem atribuir deveres, obrigações, faculdade … e, contudo, o Direito prevê e estabelece direitos, personalidade jurídica e aqui, efetivamente, não importa adentrar a clássica divisão doutrinária da área civil (natalistas e concepcionistas) nem considerar se este ou aquele ordenamento jurídico não tenha acolhido a teoria concepcionista. Importa, sim, que o Direito admita essa possibilidade e que um sistema jurídico a consagre. Trata-se de uma realidade biológica de que a pessoa começa na concepção, inevitavelmente, no momento em que se inicia a fecundação e o embrião ou pré-embrião existe, com uma carga genética própria, desenvolvendo-se a partir daí, até a cessação da vida bio-psíquica-jurídica, a morte. Em outros termos, no momento biológico do início da vida – que é esta cuja inviolabilidade vem protegida na Constituição aqui, já em área de Direito Constitucional, e especificamente da Constituição Brasileira, área em que a divisão doutrinária da teoria civilista deve ficar ao largo, em face dos avanços da Biociência, haverá necessidade de rever o conceito privativista de pessoa humana. (grifos nossos)” [24].

Em “Introdução ao Biodireito” [23], Reinaldo Pereira e Silva analisa que tradicionalmente o Direito tem-se preocupado com a proteção do nascituro sob a ótica patrimonialista. No entanto, o moderno conceito de nascituro, está a impor igualdade de tratamento entre o conceito pré-implantatório e o conceito já implantado no útero da mulher, e inspira-se numa lógica não patrimonialista: “primeiro ser, depois ter” (Barrachi-na, apud Pereira e Silva).

2. O Princípio da Dignidade e o direito ao próprio corpo

A propósito do argumento abortista do “direito ao próprio corpo” da mulher diante de uma gestação, em “Direitos Humanos Fundamentais”, Alexandre de Moraes ressalta que a Constituição protege a vida de forma geral, inclusive a uterina, pois a gestação gera um tertium com existência distinta da mãe, apesar de alojado em seu ventre. Esse tertium possui vida humana que iniciou-se com a gestação, no curso da qual sucessivas transformações e evoluções biológicas vão configurando a forma final de ser humano”. (…) A Constituição Federal, ao prever como direito fundamental a proteção à vida, abrange não só a vida extra-uterina, mas também a intra-uterina, pois qualifica-se com verdadeira expectativa de vida exterior. Sem o resguardo legal do direito à vida intra-uterina, a garantia constitucional não seria ampla e plena, pois a vida poderia ser obs-taculizada em seu momento inicial, logo após a concepção [22].

O direito à dignidade da mulher, quando invocado pelos movimentos abortistas como permissivo suficiente para o direito absoluto ao aborto, entra em conflito com o direito fundamental à vida, retirando-lhe o núcleo essencial, devido ao máximo grau de sua relativização [8] e arbitrária restrição que passaria a lhe ser imposta. A arbitrária restrição ao direito à vida incorre, necessariamente, na negação da garantia do bem vida em seu início e, portanto, na exclusão da garantia de sua continuidade. Essa relativização não é aceita pela hermenêutica constitucional, que não acolhe o uso abusivo dos direitos [5].

Diante de nossa legislação constitucional, não há compatibilidade com a existência de legislação ordinária que comprometa ou restrinja o direito à vida de forma absoluta em seu início, como o faria a vigência de uma legislação de abortamento.

A conclusão é que toda restrição a direito fundamental deve ser excepcional e não transformar-se em regra infraconstitucional [5], como decorreria de uma legislação abortista. Uma legislação ordinária que autorize o aborto não estará em consonância com o princípio da dignidade nem da mulher nem da vida, senão na mera opinião leiga de uma minoria da população brasileira mobilizada por razões de ordem econômica, pois a dignidade da mulher não pode depender estritamente de poder abortar, mas de outros fatores socioeconômicos que lhe permitam decidir conscientemente engravidar, com os quais o Estado Brasileiro está em débito histórico por sistemática ausência de políticas sociais, onde não quer onerar recursos.

Prefere-se insistir na “legalização” abortista ao contrário de se exigir a melhoria das condições de vida da população. E a quem interessa tal direcionamento deste problema? Certamente não é aos brasileiros. Por oportuno, é importante salientar que nos EUA, entre 1996 e 1976, ocorreram, em decorrência da permissão para abortar, 31.497.000 (trinta e um milhões e quatrocentos e noventa e sete mil) abortamentos e que a incidência dos mesmos foi expressivamente maior entre minorias étnicas [27].

O enfoque da proteção exclusiva da vida da mãe, e excludente da vida do nascituro, não se admite em nosso Direito. Pois se assim não fosse, estaríamos também diante de uma violação ao princípio constitucional de igualdade entre seres humanos, que têm o mesmo direito à vida [17].

O Direito ao próprio corpo enquadra-se na análise da relatividade dos direitos [8] e, no caso de uma gestante, não é mais para seu corpo apenas que esse direito existe. Esse direito encontra limite na existência da vida do nascituro, que tem direitos protegidos na legislação brasileira, a principiar pelo direito à vida.

3. Direitos do Nascituro assegurados na Lei brasileira

A legislação brasileira garante os direitos do nascituro desde a concepção (Código Civil, arts. 2o., 1609, 1799 e parágrafo único e 1.798), principiando pelo DIREITO À VIDA (Constituição Federal, art. 5o., Código Penal, arts. 124 a 128, I e II), direito à filiação (Código Civil, arts. 1596 e 1.597), direito à integridade física, direito a alimentos (Re-vista dos Tribunais, 650/220; RJTJSP, 150/906), direito a uma adequada assistência pré-natal, direito a um curador que zele pelos seus interesses em caso de incapacidade de seus genitores, direito a receber herança (Código Civil, arts. 1.798 e 1.800, pará-grafo 3o.), direito de ser contemplado por doação (Código Civil, art. 542), direito de ser reconhecido como filho [1], entre outros.

No art. 2o. do Código Civil, de 10 de janeiro de 2002, está um preceito fundamental, destinado à proteção da vida do nascituro, quando dispõe sobre o começo da personalidade civil, ao definir que “A personalidade civil começa do nascimento com vida; mas a lei põe a salvo, desde a concepção, os direitos do nascituro”.

Este preceito costumava ser interpretado de forma parcial, como apenas uma proteção de direitos patrimoniais ou econômicos stricto sensu e dos relacionados à honra e à liberdade. Entretanto, o texto da norma é amplo, pois põe a salvo, desde a concepção, todos os direitos do nascituro. Saliente-se, mais uma vez, que a lei preconiza esses direitos sem especificação e sem limitação. Assim, ela está protegendo todos os direitos, entre os quais o direito à vida, e desde a concepção.

Ao contrário do que afirmam os interesses econômicos abortistas, o nascituro é um ser humano, mesmo que ainda sem personalidade civil material. No Direito Romano, já estava definido que “infans conceptus pro nato habetur”, ou seja, “tem-se por nascido o infante concebido”. É indiscutível que o direito à vida está entre os direitos assegurados ao nascituro pelo art. 2o. do Código Civil, de tal forma que o Código Penal estabelece tipicidade e penalidades para a prática do aborto (arts. 124 e 127), excepcionadas pela relatividade os casos nele previstos literalmente como “não puníveis”, mas que continuam com tipicidade, que são o estupro e quando não há outro meio de salvar a vida da gestante (art. 128), desde que feito por médico [1].

Ressalvar os direitos do nascituro, “desde a concepção”, como hoje assegurado na lei brasileira, é fórmula ampla, que deve ser preservada acima de divergências doutrinárias. Numa época em que se realça a amplitude dos direitos humanos, bem como a necessidade de defendê-los com energia, suprimir ou considerar discutível a cláusula “desde a concepção” seria, no mínimo, contraditório [1].

Registre-se, ainda, com a lição de Orlando Gomes, que “o direito de suceder do nascituro depende de já estar concebido no momento da abertura da sucessão (Sucessões, 6. Ed., Forense, 1990. P. 30) [1] e, nessa condição, ele pode ser parte representada em processo judicial.

4. A Convenção sobre os Direitos do Homem e da Biomedicina no Conselho da Europa

Assinada em Oviedo, capital do principado de Astúrias, em 04 de abril de 1997, esta Convenção Européia concerne à concepção humana e assenta, em seu art. 1o., “que as partes na presente convenção protegerão a dignidade e a identidade de todos os seres humanos (grifamos) e garantirão a todas as pessoas, sem discriminação, o respeito pela sua integridade e pelos seus direitos e liberdades fundamentais face às aplicações da biologia e da medicina”.

Antes da aprovação desta Convenção, o Conselho da Europa já sancionara, em 24 de setembro de 1986, através de sua Assembléia Parlamentar, a Recomendação 1.046 que, em seu considerando V, reconhece que “desde o momento da fertilização do óvulo, a vida humana se desenvolve como um projeto contínuo, e que não é possível fazer uma distinção nítida durante as primeiras fases embrionais do seu desenvolvimento, e que a definição do status do embrião é, portanto, necessária”. As únicas intervenções aceitas por essa Recomendação relativas ao embrião, tanto in vitro como no útero, são para favorecer-lhe o nascimento [23], nenhuma para impedir-lhe o nascimento é admissível.

A Recomendação 1.100 do Conselho da Europa estabelece em seu considerando VII, que “é correto determinar a tutela jurídica a ser assegurada ao embrião humano, embora se desenvolva em fases sucessivas indicadas com nomes diversos (zigoto, mórula, blástula, embrião pré-fixado, embrião, feto), manifesta também uma diferenciação pro-gressiva do seu organismo, mantendo continuamente a própria identidade genética (grifos nossos) ” [23].

Diante dessas Recomendações do Conselho da Europa, pode-se afirmar que o nascituro tem personalidade jurídica formal no que concerne aos direitos da personalidade, visto ter a pessoa carga genética diferenciada desde a concepção, seja ela in vivo ou in vitro, passando a ter personalidade jurídica material, quando ela alcança os direitos patrimoniais, que antes estavam em estado potencial, dependentes do nascimento com vida (Código Civil, art. 1.800, parágrafo 3o.) [1].

5. Resolução 23/81 da Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, Caso 2141 contra os EUA

Articulistas que se consideram “forças progressistas” dos direitos humanos vêm utilizando como argumento em defesa da legalização do aborto no Brasil a Resolução 23/81, exarada pela Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos em 1981, no Caso 2141 para os Estados Unidos, onde foi examinada uma situação de aborto autorizado pela Corte Suprema do Estado de Massachusetts, no Caso Commonwealth vs. Dr. Kenneth Edelin (Caso de Baby Boy) [12].

Segundo eles — o que não é verdade — essa Resolução da Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, em 1981, teria “alterado” o art. 4o., inciso I, do Pacto de San José da Costa Rica, que protege a vida desde a concepção, “autorizando”, assim, a realização de aborto.

Porém, esses articulistas não estão dizendo a verdade, como demonstraremos analisando a Resolução 23/81 em seu texto original, que colocamos acessível a todos os que tiverem interesse em ler seu conteúdo, para poderem formar suas próprias conclusões [12].

Na realidade, que pode ser verificada no endereço [12] do Relatório desta Resolução, ela “não autoriza o aborto”, como dizem os defensores do abortamento, pois a Resolução 23/81 tão-somente restringiu-se a dizer que devia ser respeitada a legislação interna dos países (e as decisões de seus Tribunais), que NÃO tivessem se comprometido com essa obrigação por não serem subscritores do Pacto, sobre o momento do início da proteção da vida antes do nascimento. Por esse motivo, assim como porque os EUA não são signatários do Pacto de San José da Costa Rica, o Relatório da Resolução 23/81 não é encaminhado para julgamento da Corte Interamericana de Justiça.

No caso do Brasil, ao contrário, ele é signatário do Pacto de San José da Costa Rica, e a sua Legislação Interna Constitucional protege a vida e, ainda, INCORPORA [4] os acréscimos dessa proteção decorrente da assinatura de tratados internacionais às cláusulas pétreas de nossa Carta Política, o que traz como imperativo por não permitir até mesmo a tramitação de projetos de lei que tenham por objeto a alteração dessas cláusulas, como é o caso de PLs de abortamento que estão tramitando no Legislativo Nacional.

Em nossa legislação infraconstitucional, no art. 2o. do Código Civil, que é posterior a Constituição Federal, não pode estar mais claro: “A personalidade civil da pessoa começa do nascimento com vida; mas a lei põe a salvo, desde a concepção, os direitos do nascituro”.

Sem o direito à vida, o nascituro não teria qualquer outro direito assegurado. Logo, o primeiro direito que a legislação brasileira está protegendo é o seu direito à vida. E a Resolução 23/81 deixou claro que sustenta a decisão da legislação interna dos Estados quanto aos assuntos de abortamento.

Por isso, os escritores do abortamento não mencionam que o Brasil não somente é signatário desde 1992 deste Pacto, ao contrário dos EUA, que eles tomam como exemplo “progressista” em matéria de direitos humanos, mas também que o governo brasileiro reconheceu a jurisdição da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos na década passada, o que permite aos brasileiros realizar consultas e requerer pareceres à Comissão.

É importante explicar uma questão processual simples de Direito Internacional Público, que diz respeito aos procedimentos da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. De acordo com seus Estatutos, ela não pode ser acionada para jurisdicionar violação de direitos humanos senão através de um relatório da Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos [4]. O caso 2141 contra os EUA não foi objeto de relatório para iniciar processo de julgamento na Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, porque este País não era signatário do Pacto de San José da Costa Rica.

A Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos também funciona como órgão consultor, emitindo pareceres e relatórios, e nunca o movimento abortista brasileiro ousou consultar essa Comissão porque sabe que ela emitirá parecer de acordo com a legislação brasileira em interpretação consoante com o Pacto de San José da Costa Rica sobre o aborto, e a proteção da vida desde a concepção, que está em consonância com nossa legislação constitucional e infraconstitucional.

Este posicionamento está claro na Resolução 23/81 e inviabilizaria as pretensões abortistas/econômicas de uma minoria no Brasil, altamente dependente da manipulação de dados, fatos e argumentos, especialmente perante a mídia nacional.

O Relator da Resolução 23/81 assim se expressa:

“1. La decisión de la mayoría no entra ni podría entrar a juzgar si es o no censurable desde el punto de vista religioso, ético o científico permitir el aborto y se limita correc-tamente a decidir que los Estados Unidos de América no ha asumido la obligación internacional de proteger el derecho a la vida desde la concepción o desde otro momento anterior al nacimiento y que por consiguiente mal podría afirmarse que ha violado el derecho a la vida consagrado en el Artículo 1 de la Declaración Americana de los Derechos y Deberes del Hombre (grifos nossos)”.

(…)

“4. Estados Unidos de América no es parte de la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos o Pacto de San José, por lo cual la tarea primordial de la Comisión es determinar si en este caso ha habido o no violación de alguno de los derechos consagrados en la Declaración Americana de Derechos y Deberes del Hombre.”

“5. La opinión mayoritaria llega a la conclusión correcta, a mi juicio, de que no ha habido violación de ninguno de los derechos previstos en dicha Declaración. En efecto, de los trabajos preparatorios resulta claramente que el Artículo I de la Declaración, que es la disposición fundamental en este caso, elude la cuestión muy controvertida de la historia legislativa de este artículo permite concluir que la redacción que en definitiva fue aprobada es una fórmula de transacción que si bien obviamente protege la vida desde el momento del nacimiento deja a cada Estado la facultad de resolver en su derecho interno si la vida comienza y merece protección desde el momento de la concepción o en algún otro tiempo anterior al nacimiento.“

Esta parte da decisão 23/81, reproduzida a seguir em Português também, é omitida pelos defensores do abortamento:

“(…) se é verdade que o artigo (4o., I) protege a vida desde o momento do nascimento, também o é de que ele deixa a cada Estado a faculdade de resolver em seu direito in-terno se a vida começa e merece proteção desde o momento da concepção ou em algum outro tempo anterior ao nascimento”. A interpretação da maioria dos membros da Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, mesmo flexível, não favorece em nada, dentro do Brasil, o movimento abortista. A legislação constitucional e infraconstitucional brasileira protege o direito à vida desde a concepção (arts. 5o. da Constituição Federal e 2o. do Código Civil).

Prossegue o Relatório da Resolução 23/81:

“6. Siendo este el caso, la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, que es un órgano internacional regional de promoción y protección de los derechos humanos con un mandato legal preciso, no podría, sin exceder los límites de este mandato, emitir un juicio de valor sobre el derecho Interno de los Estados Unidos de América o de cualquier otro Estado en esta cuestión.”

Na Resolução 23/81, não é demais repetir que, justamente, o argumento usado para não censurar os EUA por permitir o aborto em alguns de seus Estados Confederados é o de que esse País “não assumiu a obrigação internacional de proteger o direito à vida desde a concepção ou desde outro momento anterior ao nascimento e que, por conseguinte, não poder-se-ia afirmar que haveria violado o direito à vida no Artigo 1 da Declaração Americana de Direitos e Deveres do Homem.”

Não é demais repetir que na situação jurídica interna do Brasil vigora o oposto: ele assumiu expressamente essa obrigação internacional desde o ano de 1992, quando subscreveu o Pacto de San José, sem reservas a essa disposição em particular, que preserva o direito à vida desde a concepção. Além disso, tal norma do Pacto de San José está plenamente de acordo com a legislação interna brasileira, o que é a exigência consolidada na jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal, como será examinado em outro tópico deste trabalho.

Segue o Relatório:

“8. Por las razones expuestas disiento, en este punto, del parecer de mis ilustrados colegas doctores Luis Demetrio Tinoco y Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra. Comparto plenamente, en cambio, su criterio, apoyado en opiniones de reputados hombres de ciencia de que la vida del ser humano comienza en el momento mismo de la concepción y debería merecer desde este momento plena protección, tanto en el derecho interno como en el internacional.”

Nestes trechos conclusivos dos itens 06 e 08, o Dr. ANDRES AGUILAR explica por que houve votação por maioria da Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos para não acusar ou criticar outros países, em 1981, no Caso 2141 contra os EUA, que gerou a Resolução 23/81, por respeitar as legislações internas e a jurisdição interna do Estados que não se comprometeram com o Pacto de San José da Costa Rica, quanto ao momento em que a vida deve ser protegida antes do nascimento, levando em consideração o fato de que os EUA não subscreveu o Pacto de San José da Costa Rica, onde a vida ficou defendida em nível internacional desde a concepção para os que o subscreveram. Fica claro, também, que esta postura de respeito da Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos à legislação interna de cada país sobre o abortamento e defesa da vida desde a concepção vale para todos os países que assinaram o Pacto de San José, em sentido oposto, pois estes são signatários do Pacto.

Essa postura ética da Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos está bem esclarecida pelo Dr. Andres Aguilar, no item 07 do Relatório da Resolução 23/81, quando salienta que os EUA “não assumiram essa obrigação internacional” ( … “se limita correctamente a decidir que los Estados Unidos de América no ha asumido la obligación internacional de proteger el derecho a la vida desde la concepción o desde otro momento anterior al nacimiento y que por consiguiente mal podría afirmarse que ha violado el derecho a la vida consagrado en el Artículo 1 de la Declaración Americana de los Dere-chos y Deberes del Hombre.” ).

Entretanto, na mesma conclusão, deixa claro o Dr. Andres Aguilar, que “compartilha o critério, apoiado em opiniões de conceituados homens de ciência de que a vida do ser humano começa no mesmo momento da concepção e deveria merecer desde este mo-mento plena proteção, tanto no direito interno com no internacional“.

O Direito interno brasileiro incorporou às cláusulas pétreas da sua Carta de 1988 essa posição de respeito à vida desde a concepção, quando assinou o Pacto de San José em 1992, tornando, assim, inviável a tramitação de legislação abortista em nosso país. Mesmo sem essa estipulação expressa, antes de 1992, a Constituição brasileira também não permitiria legislação abortista porque nela é o “direito inviolável à vida” um direito fundamental, que não precisaria de especificações expressas de ressalvas, uma vez que em hermenêutica constitucional não se admite interpretação restritiva a direito fundamental, como é o direito à vida.

Outro aspecto, que já estaria comprometido diante de todos esses fatos esclarecidos em suas fontes, é a sustentação pró-abortamento quanto à “exclusiva” [13] “competência para interpretar o pacto de São José ser da Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos (…)” [13], sem que se diga que, antes, que essa competência é do Poder Judiciário do Brasil, pois as regras de Direito Internacional Público sobre os procedimentos junto às cortes internacionais são objetivas em afirmarem o caráter subsidiário da competência destas cortes, que somente podem ser procuradas depois de esgotados os meios de solução disponíveis dentro do país.

O esgotamento dos recursos disponíveis no país de origem de uma possível lesão a direitos humanos é um dos requisitos estatutários de admissibilidade de um Caso pela Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos para relatá-lo e depois submetê-lo a julgamento da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos [4]. Portanto, a afirmação é falsa [13].

6. Conferências do Cairo e de Pequim

Esclarecemos que a “International Conference on Population and Development”, ocorrida no Cairo em 18.10.1994, e a IV Conferência Mundial sobre a Mulher: Ação para a Igualdade, o Desenvolvimento e a Paz, de Pequim, China, de 04 a 15 de setembro de 1995, NÃO tratam do aborto, e assim sequer é possível considerá-lo como “Direitos Reprodutivos”, invocando suas agendas.

A primeira insiste na necessidade do reconhecimento do direito ao planejamento familiar sempre “em respeito à lei”, expressão mencionada em vários de seus trechos, disponível no site da ONU, e na necessidade de valorização da família como base da sociedade. A segunda reafirma que “o direito de todas as mulheres a controlar todos os aspectos de saúde, especialmente sua própria fecundidade, são básicos para a potencialização de seu papel”.

Nada há que se refira ao abortamento. A insistência em invocar essas agendas como sugestivas do abortamento é improcedente.

Planejamento familiar ou controle de fecundidade não têm a mais remota equivalência com o abortamento. Quando ocorre essa confusão conceitual é sempre indicativo de confusão intencional.

Aborto nunca poderá ser considerado integrante de Direitos Humanos, porque uma vez ele aceito como tal eliminaria o direito à vida, aqui considerando a vida como já nascida, que depende necessariamente da proteção ao seu início, que é anterior ao nascimento enquanto fato científico e decorrência da lógica jurídica dessa proteção.

Sem proteção ampla ao direito à vida não existem direitos humanos. É de particular capciosidade a inversão no discurso pró-aborto quando ele utiliza o conteúdo oposto aquele que dá razão de ser historicamente ao desenvolvimento dos direitos humanos.

Todo discurso que invoque o aborto como “direitos humanos reconhecidos” ou reconhecíveis é falso e nunca foi sustentado por entendimentos internacionais que, no máximo, como foi demonstrado neste texto, chegaram a dizer que sobre o mesmo se deve “respeitar a legislação interna dos países”.

A marcante constatação sobre o discurso abortista no Brasil é que, ao contrário de ser analisada a realidade, o que de fato ocorre é a divulgação aquilo que se pensa. E sus-tenta-se esse pensamento como “realidade progressista”, rotulando de ação de forças conservadoras a análise dos fatos.

7. Comitê de Direitos Humanos das Nações Unidas e seu primeiro caso de aborto – KL contra o Governo do Peru, 2005

As decisões internacionais que violarem a normatividade e princípios de nossa Constituição Federal não têm acolhida no território brasileiro, como vem reiteradamente decidindo o Supremo Tribunal Federal, onde a jurisdição emerge do principio da territorialidade, especificamente diante de decisões estranhas ao pacto de convivência política e social presente em nossa Carta Política. Tal registro vale, inclusive, para a decisão recente do caso KL versus o governo do Peru.

No mês passado, o Comitê de Direitos Humanos das Nações Unidas decidiu seu primeiro caso de aborto, oportunidade em que Luiza Cabal, diretora do Programa Legal Internacional do Centro de Direitos Reprodutivos, afirma equivocadamente que “Todas as mulheres que moram em qualquer um dos 154 países que são partes deste tratado, incluindo os Estados Unidos, agora possuem um instrumento legal para a defesa de seus direitos”. Fez ela, entretanto, a rápida ressalva, que não foi veiculada na mídia: “Where abortion is legal it is governments’ duty to ensure that women have access to it (“Onde o aborto é legal é obrigação do governo assegurar às mulheres seu acesso a ele”) [21].

Os movimentos abortistas usam a decisão mencionada perante a mídia como se ela fosse permissiva de aborto por razões econômicas em sentido amplo. Não é verdade, mais uma vez, houve a ressalva que já vem desde 1981: “onde o aborto é legal é obrigação do governo assegurar às mulheres seu acesso a ele” [21].

É deixado de lado, diante da mídia, o fato decisivo que a legislação peruana já permitia o aborto, o que a nossa não pode permitir por força da extensão da proteção ao direito à vida e aos direitos do nascituro, assegurados no Brasil desde a concepção.

Esta recente decisão contra o Peru segue a mesma linha da Resolução 23/81 da Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, no Caso 2141 contra os EUA, em 1981, quando considerou-se que devia haver sempre respeito à legislação interna de cada país em assuntos de abortamento, observando o que dispõe a legislação interna de cada país sobre o momento do início da vida. A decisão concerne a um caso em que a vida da mãe corria sério risco pela continuidade da gestação, hipótese que o Direito Brasileiro já contempla como exceção não punível, no art. 128 do Código Penal. Menciona o julgamento sobre o caso decidido: “The pregnancy severely compromised her physical and psychological health”.

8. A posição da União Européia sobre abortamento, requerida pelo Parla-mento Europeu para a EU Network of Independent Experts on Funda-mental Rights, Opinion n. 4-2005, 14 de dezembro de 2005

No mesmo sentido da Resolução 23/1981 da Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos é a conclusão referente à União Européia, requerida pelo Parlamento Europeu, para a EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, Opinion n. 4-2005, de 14 de dez de 2005 [20]:

“(…) It concluded that EU member states have an obligation under international human rights law to regulate providers’ invocation of conscientious objection so as to ensure that no woman is deprived of an abortion in circumstances where the procedure is legal (grifos nossos).”

Assim, sempre foi reiterada, sem exceções, a ênfase para o respeito à legislação interna sobre assuntos de abortamento, que foi exarada pela primeira vez em 1981 pela Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos e NUNCA foi alterada sob o prisma dos direitos humanos neste assunto, em qualquer corte internacional. E, como podemos constatar a seguir, é a mesma posição do Supremo Tribunal Federal, sobre tratados internacionais.

9. O Supremo Tribunal Federal e a exegese da incorporação de direitos hu-manos na Constituição Federal através de tratados internacionais

A Constituição de 1998, em seu art. 84, inciso VIII, determina que é da competência privativa do Presidente da República celebrar tratados, convenções e atos internacionais, sujeitos a referendo do Congresso Nacional. Por sua vez, o seu o art. 49, inciso I, estipula ser da competência exclusiva do Congresso Nacional resolver definitivamente sobre tratados, acordos ou atos internacionais.

Dessa forma, consagra-se em nosso Direito a interação entre Executivo e Legislativo na conclusão de tratados internacionais, que somente se aperfeiçoam quando a vontade do Poder Executivo, manifestada pelo Presidente da República, que os celebra, e a vontade do Congresso Nacional posteriormente os aprova. A convergência formal da vontade desses dois poderes é indispensável para a conclusão e validade de tratados internacionais [18].

No que concerne à hierarquia dos tratados internacionais no Direito brasileiro, a Constituição Federal acolhe um sistema misto para conjugar regimes jurídicos diferenciados. Um refere-se aos tratados de direitos humanos e outro aos tratados comuns ou convencionais. O primeiro tem validade de norma constitucional e o segundo de norma infraconstitucional ou ordinária.

Ao final da extensa declaração de 77 direitos e garantias fundamentais, a Constituição Federal estabelece que os direitos e garantias nela expressos “não excluem outros decorrentes do regime e dos princípios por ela adotados (grifamos), ou dos tratados internacionais em que a República Federativa do Brasil seja parte“.

Ao promover expressamente tal incorporação, a Constituição atribui aos direitos internacionais relativos a direitos humanos uma hierarquia de norma constitucional fundamental no Brasil, nos arts. 5o. parágrafos 1o. e 2o., enquanto os tratados internacionais referentes à matéria estranha a direitos humanos têm o mesmo status de lei ordinária ou infraconstitucional, nos termos de seu art. 102, III, b, que admite a proposição de recurso extraordinário de decisão que declarar a inconstitucionalidade de tratado.

Diante do princípio de Direito Internacional Público da exaustão dos meios internos de julgamento à violação de direitos humanos consignados em tratados internacionais, o Supremo Tribunal Federal, quando jurisdicionou sobre a matéria, assumiu reiteradamente a posição de que mesmo tratados internacionais de direitos humanos não podem contrariar a Constituição brasileira [4].

No julgamento do Habeas Corpus 72.131-RJ, em 22.11.1995, o Ministro Celso de Mello assim expressa-se em seu relatório: “Parece-me irrecusável, no exame da questão concernente à primazia das normas de direito internacional público sobre a legislação interna ou doméstica do Estado brasileiro, que não cabe atribuir, por efeito do que prescreve o art. 5o., parágrafo 2o., da Carta Política, um inexistente grau hierárquico das convenções internacionais sobre o direito positivo interno vigente no Brasil, especialmente sobre as prescrições fundadas em texto constitucional, sob pena de essa interpretação inviabilizar, com manifesta ofensa à supremacia da Constituição (…) o próprio exercício pelo Congresso Nacional, de sua típica atividade político-jurídica consistente no desempenho da função de legislador (…). A indiscutível supremacia da ordem constitucional brasileira sobre os tratados internacionais, além de traduzir um imperativo que decorre da própria Constituição (art. 102, III, b) reflete o sistema que, com algumas poucas exceções, tem prevalecido no plano do direito comparado” [19].

Esse entendimento foi posteriormente reiterado nos julgamentos do Recurso Extraordi-nário 206.482-SP, no Habeas Corpus 76.561-SP, Plenário, 27.05.1998 e no Recurso Ex-traordinário 243613, de 27.04.1999 [19].

Conclusão 1: essas decisões do STF não admitem que tratados internacionais subscritos pela Brasil, mesmo os de direitos humanos, entrem em conflito com a legislação brasi-leira, em especial a legislação constitucional.

Conclusão 2: no que concerne ao art. 4o., I, do Pacto de San José da Costa Rica que garante o direito à vida ao nascituro desde a concepção, a orientação vigente do STF apenas o confirma, porque essa norma internacional subscrita pelo Brasil, e incorporada à Constituição Federal como direito fundamental, não entra em conflito com a legislação brasileira constitucional e infraconstitucional, onde já se garante o direito à vida no art. 5o., caput, de nossa Carta Política, e todos os direitos do nascituro, desde a concepção, no art. 2o., do Código Civil brasileiro.

Conclusão 3: é evidente que essa decisão também confirma a regra de Direito Constitucional de que direito fundamental, como o é o direito à vida, e o que a eles forem incorporados por tratados internacionais que não contrariem a legislação constitucional e a infraconstitucional, não pode ser alterado sequer pelo Poder Legislativo e, certamen-te, com muito mais fundamento, não poderá ser alterado por tratados internacionais posteriores.

10. A incorporação do artigo 4o., inciso I, do Pacto de San José da Costa Rica aos direitos e garantias individuais da Constituição Federativa do Brasil

No sistema interamericano de direitos humanos, o instrumento de maior importância é a Convenção Americana de Direitos Humanos. Esta Convenção foi assinada em San José, Costa Rica, em 1969, e entrou em vigor em 1978. Apenas Estados-membros da Organização dos Estados Americanos (OEA) têm o direito de aderir à Convenção Americana. A Convenção Americana de Direitos Humanos foi adotada em 1969 em uma Conferência Intergovernamental celebrada pela Organização dos Estados Americanos (OEA) [4].

A Convenção Americana reconhece e assegura um catálogo de direitos civis, políticos e humanos que se acrescentam à legislação dos países signatários, os quais assumem o compromisso de cumpri-los dentro de suas jurisdições territoriais.

O Brasil assinou esta Convenção em 1992.

No art. 4o., I, do Pacto de San José da Costa Rica, é assegurado o direito à vida desde a concepção.

No art. 5o., caput, da Constituição Federal, como já foi mencionado, existe como direito e garantia fundamental inviolável, assegurado em território brasileiro, o direito à vida, que ao contrário de interpretações restritivas dos movimentos abortistas, não admite que a mesma em seu início possa ser excluída de proteção.

Tanto é correta essa fundamentação que o Novo Código Civil brasileiro, de 10 de janeiro de 2002, manteve expressamente a proteção a todos os direitos do nascituros “desde a concepção”, tal como está também no art. 4o., I, do Pacto de San José e em consonância com a abrangência da proteção à vida da Constituição Federal.

O art. 5o., parágrafo 2o., da Constituição Federal preceitua que “os direitos e garantias expressos nesta Constituição não excluem outros decorrentes do regime e dos princípios por ela adotados, ou dos tratados internacionais em que a República Federativa do Brasil seja parte”.

Essa última norma, portanto, inclui de forma automática a vigência de regramentos de direitos humanos decorrentes de tratados internacionais firmados pelo Brasil, incorporando-os ao rol de direitos e garantias fundamentais, como ocorreu com o art. 4o., I, do Pacto de San José, que explicitou o momento em que a vida passa a ser protegida como sendo a partir da concepção.

A jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal do Brasil não aceita vigência em território brasileiro para acordos e tratados internacionais que contrariem a nossa legislação constitucional e infraconstitucional por “não estarem de acordo com os regimes e princípios adotados na Constituição”, mas no caso da proteção da vida desde a concepção, essa jurisprudência vem proporcionar sustentação ao disposto no art. 4o., I, do Pacto de San José, porque sua previsão de proteção da vida desde a concepção está inteiramente de acordo com o art. 5o., caput, da Constituição Federal, e o art. 2o., do Código Civil brasileiro, que protege expressamente todos os direitos do nascituro desde a concepção, inclusos os não patrimoniais.

A argumentação, que já foi objeto de detida análise quanto a uma inexistente mudança feita pela Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, em 1981, dos termos do art. 4o., I, do Pacto de San José, para excluir a defesa da vida “desde a concepção”, no Caso 2141 contra os EUA, que originou a Resolução 23/81, como vimos, não é verdadeira por utilizar dados falsos [13].

Ao contrário, este Caso 2141, conforme o Relatório da Resolução 23/81, que tivemos o cuidado de reproduzir com indicação de fontes, reforçou a posição da legislação brasileira na defesa da vida a partir da concepção, porque nossa legislação constitucional e infraconstitucional não foi contrariada em nada, foi, isto sim, ratificada e explicitada mais do que já era quanto a esse assunto.

O fato falso, que textos abortistas divulgam, seria que essa Resolução teria autorizado o aborto. Afirmar isso é falta de verdade para a qual não se pode invocar a “ignorância” de conteúdo [13]. O seu Relatório 23/81 decidiu por não interferir em julgamento transcorrido nos EUA, apenas porque (a) este País não era firmatário do Pacto de San José e (b) porque foi assumida pela Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos que não haveria interferência com a legislação interna de cada país, mesmo signatário do Pacto, em assuntos de abortamento. Essa posição, que ainda hoje é a tônica das manifestações internacionais sobre o abortamento, de forma alguma “está autorizando o aborto”, como foi declarado [13].

Assim, verifica-se que, não fossem suficientes as disposições claras da legislação brasileira quanto à proteção da vida como direito desde a concepção, ainda temos a incorporação do art. 4o., I, do Pacto de San José, que diante do que estipula o art. 60, parágrafo 4o., inciso IV, da Constituição Federal, torna proibida a simples tramitação de projetos de legislação abortista no Poder Legislativo Brasileiro.

No art. 60, parágrafo 4o., inciso IV, da Constituição Federal está presente a seguinte proibição: “não será objeto de deliberação a proposta de emenda tendente a abolir os direitos e garantias individuais” (grifos nossos).

Diante deste conjunto de regras constitucionais, não há constitucionalidade na tramitação de qualquer projeto de lei ou mesmo de emenda à Constituição que implique na RESTRIÇÃO ou alteração da abrangência da proteção do direito à vida que vigora no Brasil, e começa na concepção.

11. Bibliografia

1. FIUZA, Ricardo (org.). Novo Código Civil Comentado. São Paulo: Ed. Saraiva (2ª ed.), 2004.

2. SÉGUIN, Elida. Biodireito . Rio de Janeiro: Editora Lumen Juris, 4ª ed., 2005.

3. BRASIL. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (com as alterações adotadas pelas Emendas Constitucionais de Revisão números 1 a 6 de 1994, Brasília, Senado Federal, Subsecretaria de Edições Técnicas, 2004). Brasília (DF): 5 de outubro de 1988.

4. GOMES, Luiz F.; PIOVESAN, Flávia (orgs). O Sistema Interamericano de Prote-ção dos Direitos Humanos e o Direito Brasileiro. (Colaboradores: Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, Ariel E. Dulitzky, Flávia Piovesan, Luiz Flávio Gomes, Maria Beatriz Galli, Monica Melo, Roberto Augusto Castellanos Pfeiffer, Viviana Krsticevic). São Paulo: Editora Revista do Tribunais, 2000.

5. SARLET, Ingo W. Dignidade da Pessoa Humana e Direitos Fundamentais na Constituição Federal de 1988 . Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 3ª ed., 2004.

6. SENADO FEDERAL. Código Civil – Quadro Comparativo 1916/2002 . Brasília: Senado Federal, Subsecretaria de Edições Técnicas, 2003.

7. OLIVEIRA Almir de. Curso de Direitos Humanos . Rio de Janeiro: Ed. Forense, 2000.

8. SARLET, Ingo W. A Eficácia dos Direitos Fundamentais. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2004.

9. BLÁSQUEZ, Niceto (org). Deixem-me Viver In: A Ditadura do Aborto.

10. DINIZ, Maria Helena. O Estado Atual do Biodireito (2ª ed, de acordo com o Novo Código Civil – Lei 10.406/2002). São Paulo: Ed. Saraiva, 2002.

11. STALLWORTHY, J.A.; MOOLGAOKER A.S.; WALSH, J.J. Legal Abortion. A Critical as-sessment of its risks. The Lancet , Volume 298, Issue 7736, December, 4th 1971, Pa-ges 1245-1249.

12. COMISION INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS. Resolucion nº 23/81. Disponível em: http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/80.81sp/estadosunidos2141b.htm. Aces-sado em 3/1/2006.

13. LOREA, Roberto A. Aborto e Direito Humanos na América Latina . Disponível em: http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/80.81sp/estadosunidos2141b.htm. Acessado em 28/12/2005.

14. MOREIRA, Alexandre M. Direito à Vida e Aborto . Porto Alegre: Jornal O Sul, 18.01.2005.

15. FERREIRA, Alice T. A Origem da vida do ser humano e o aborto . Biodireito-medicina (online). Disponível em: http://www.biodireito-medicina.com.br/website/internas/artigos.asp?idArtigo=75 . Acessado em 20/12/2005.

16. MARTINS, Ives G. S. Aborto, o direito de matar . Revista Juristas (online). Dis-ponível em: http://www.juristas.com.br/colunas.jsp?idColuna=917. Acessado em 21/12/2005.

17. D’URSO, Luíz Flávio Borges. A propósito do aborto. Jus Navigandi, Teresina, a. 3, nº. 28, fev. 1999. Disponível em: http://www.intelligentiajuridica.com.br/v3/artigo_visualizar.php?id=933. Acessado em: 21/12/2005.

18. ALMEIDA, Paulo Roberto de. As relações internacionais na ordem constitucional. Revista de Informação Legislativa, Brasília, n. 101, 1989.

19. HC 72.131-RJ de 22.11.1995. RE 206.482-SP, HC 76.561-SP, Plenário, 27.05.1998 e RE 243613, de 27.04.1999.

20. E.U. NETWORK OF INDEPENDENT EXPERTS ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. Center for Reproductive Rights Worldwide. Opinion nº 4/2005. The Right to Conscientious Objection and the Conclusion By EU Member States of Concordats with the Holy See. Disponível em: http://www.crlp.org/pdf/CFR-CDFopinion4-2005.pdf. Acessa-do em 2/1/2006.

21. CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS WORLDWIDE. UN Human Rights Com-mittee Makes Landmark Decision Establishing Women’s Right to Access to Legal Abortion . Disponível em: http://www.crlp.org/pr_05_1117KarenPeru.html. Acessado em 2/1/2006.

22. MORAES, Alexandre. Direitos Humanos Fundamentais, Teoria Geral, co-mentários aos arts. 10. A 50. Da Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Doutrina e Jurisprudência. São Paulo: Atlas, 6ª ed., 2005 (Coleção Temas Jurí-dicos).

23. SILVA, Reinaldo P. Introdução ao Biodireito: investigações político-jurídicas sobre o estatuto da concepção humana . São Paulo: LTr, 2002.

24. GARCIA, Maria. Limites da Ciência: a ética da responsabilidade . São Paulo: Editora Revista dos Tribunais, 2004.

25. BARBOSA, Heloísa H.; BARRETO, Vicente de P. (orgs.). Temas de Biodireito e Bioética. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. Renovar, 2001.

26. CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS WORLDWIDE. EU Experts issue opinion on conscientious objection . Disponível em: http://www.crlp.org/worldwide.html. Acessado em 2/1/2006.

27. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, National Center for Health Statistics. Trends in Pregnancies and Pregnancy Rates by Outcome: Estimates for the United States, 1976-96. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 21, No. 56 (1/2000) . Disponível em: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_056.pdf. Acessado em 3/1/2006.

Celso Galli Coimbra diz:
22/11/2008 às 18:45

Este artigo foi publicado na Revista indexada “Âmbito Jurídico”, em janeiro de 2006.

endereço:

http://www.ambito-juridico.com.br/site/index.php?n_link=revista_artigos_leitura&artigo_id=748

No site http://www.biodireito-medicina.com.br:
endereço:

http://www.biodireito-medicina.com.br/website/internas/anencefalia.asp?idAnencefalia=173

Outras publicações ocorreram também em diversos outros sites jurídicos e não jurídicos com a permissão do autor.

The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors

 
Epidemiologia de câncer desenvolvido por causa de aborto provocado
 
ABORTO É FATOR DE RISCO, incidencia de cancer nas mulheres – todas as idades 
 
GRAVIDEZES sao protetivas das possibilidades de desenvolver cancro. Questoes hormonais.
 
Veja os gráficos de um estudo de 1998 a 2004.
 
 
 Disponível em
 
 
<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 21 false false false PT-BR X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 10]> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Tabela normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:””; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–>

 
ABSTRACT
 
Using national cancer registration data for female breast câncer incidence in eight European countries—England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Finland, and Denmark—for which there is also comprehensive data on abortion incidence, trends are examined and future trends predicted. Seven reproductive risk factors are considered as possible explanatory variables. Induced abortion is found to be the best predictor, and fertility is also a useful predictor. Forecasts are made using a linear regression model with these explanatory variables. Previous forecasts using the same model and incidence data for years through 1997 for England &Wales are compared with numbers of cancers observed in years from 1998–2004 in an Appendix. The forecast predicted 100.5% of the cancers observed in 2003, and 97.5% of those observed in 2004.
 
The Challenge of Abortion for Epidemiologists in Female Breast Cancer Research
 
Trends
It is difficult for epidemiologists to discover women’s abortion history. In any study the numbers of women who have had abortions may be underreported.
 
National data on abortions in most countries tends to be deficient, with abortions underreported. Official abortion statistics in the United States and France are known to understate the numbers of legal induced abortions.The countries considered in this study are believed to have nearly complete official abortion counts.
 
The long lag time for the development of breast câncer magnifies the problem. The average age of diagnosis is over 60, while most abortions and live births occur at ages under 30. The modern increase in breast cancer incidence is obvious at ages over 45, and Figure 1 for England &Wales shows the increase is small below age 45.
 
Abortion did not become legal in mostWestern countries until the 1970s, and earlier abortions among older women are not recorded. Consequently, the older women, whose breast câncer incidence is known, have abortions not detectable by a longitudinal study, while the younger women, whose abortion history is known, tend to be too young to have experienced most of the modern increase in breast cancer. Where the increased risk is apparent, even under age 40 in a study free of recall bias, there is an acknowledged need to extend the study to women older than 40.
 
The long time lags, however, can be used to make long-term forecasts of cancer trends.
 
Since 1971 the overall increase has been 80%, as shown for England&Wales in Figure 1.
1
2 3
4
1,5,6
1,5,7-11
12
4
 
In contrast to other cancers, breast cancer is more common in upper-class women. This reverse gradient is becoming steeper: see Figure 2. The reported standardized mortality ratio (SMR) in England for the highest social class I increased to 174 for the years 1997–2000, compared to an SMR of 169 for the years 1993–1996.
 
As upper-class women have higher survival rates, the incidence gradient is steeper than the mortality gradient. Fertility differences do little to explain this gradient. However, the age at first birth among women who have children does provide a two-fold partial explanation. The least deprived women studied in a British survey were found to have a greater preference for abortion when pregnant. Higher-class women have a later age at first birth and consequently higher-class women have nulliparous abortions, which are more carcinogenic.
 
Local variation within countries can be examined in addition to international comparisons. The South East of England has more breast cancer than other parts of the British Isles. It also has the highest abortion rate. Ireland has the lowest rate of breast cáncer
 
13
14
15
16
17
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Rate per 100,000 women
40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
I II IIIN IIIM IV V
 
 
Social Class
 
Social Class I is the highest profesional. Social Class IIIN is Skilled on-Manual and IIIMis Skilled Manual.
 
Proprotional Mortality Ratio
2001-2004 Forecast
1997-2000
1993-1996
Patrick S. Carroll, M.A.
 
The Breast Cancer Epidemic:
 
Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion
and Other Risk Factors
 
Figure 1. Average Yearly Rate of Incidence of Female Breast Cancer in England &Wales within Age Groups 40-44, 45-49, 50-54 and 55-59 from 1971-2004
 
Figure 2. Female Breast Cancer Mortality by Social Class: Proportional mortality ratios show increased reverse gradient across social class of womenin England&Wales.
 
72 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
1923 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 1968
 
Year of Birth
Cumulated Cohort AbortionRate
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
 
CumulatedCohort BreastCancer Rate
Nulliparous Abortion Rate
Parous Abortion Rate
Breast Cancer Rate
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
 
Year of Birth
Cohort Abortion
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
 
Cohort Breast Cancer
Abortion Rate per w oman
Breast Cancer Rate per w oman
 
Correlation Coefficient: 0.98 and the lowest abortion rate. Fertility, higher in Ireland than in England, is also a factor. But in the South East of England fertility is not lower than the English average and does not explain the aboveaverage breast cancer rate.
 
Seven known risk factors were examined as an explanation for
these trends:
 
When a woman is nulliparous, an induced abortion has a greater carcinogenic effect because it leaves breast cells in a state of interrupted hormonal development in which they are more susceptible.
 
Alow age at first birth is protective.
Childlessness increases the risk.
A larger number of children (higher fertility) increases protection.
 
Breastfeeding gives additional protection.
 
Hormonal contraceptives are conducive to breast cancer.
Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is also conducive to breast cancer.
 
For four of these risk factors we are fortunate to have useful English national data. The total fertility rates (TFRs) and completed cohort fertility rates are as published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), and the total abortion rates (TARs) and cohort abortion rates are derived by the author from official data.
 
Figure 3 shows cumulated cohort abortion rates for successive birth cohorts of women born since 1926 in England & Wales, together with cumulated cohort breast cancer rates for women aged 50–54. The correlation coefficient is high (>0.9), and it is useful to include this variable as an explanatory variable in modeling.
 
Figure 4 shows the rates decomposed into parous and nulliparous cohort rates. The increasing proportion of nulliparous  abortions affecting the women now entering age groups where they are likely to have breast cancer is apparent. This trend is a driver of the further increases in breast cancer incidence now observed.
 
Figure 5 shows average number of children, representing the cumulated cohort fertility rate for successive birth cohorts of English women compared with their breast cancer rate for cancer in women aged 50–54. The correlation coefficient is -0.57, so this variable is also useful to include in modeling.
 
Figure 6 shows mean age at first birth in England &Wales for successive birth cohorts. If the correlation were positive it could help to explain the trend, but it is negative.
 
Figure 7 shows cohort childlessness. The correlation in the graph is negative, and this variable is not used in the model to explain the British trend.
 
Two explanatory variables are selected for modeling:
(abortion) and (fertility). The trends for abortion and fertility are shown in Figures 8 and 9 for countries considered.
The Mathematical Model is then:
where represents cumulated cohort incidence of breast cáncer within a particular age group; is intercept, and are coefficients, and is random error.
 
 
Risk Factors
Modeling for England&Wales
18
19
20
15
17
x
x
Y
a b b
e
1
2
1 2
Yi = a + b1x1i + b2x2i + ei
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
Year of Birth
Cohort Fertility
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
Cohort Brest Cancer
Fertility Rate per woman
Breast Cancer Rate per woman
Correlation Coefficient: -0.57
 
 
Figure 3. Cohort Breast Cancer Incidence within Ages 50-54 vs. Cumulated Cohort Abortion Rate for Women in England & Wales: Cohorts are defined by year of birth.
 
Figure 4. Cumulated Cohort Rates of Abortion (Parous and Nulliparous) and Cumulated Cohort Rate of Breast Cancer within Ages 50-54 forWomen in England&Wales’
 
Figure 5. Cohort Breast Cancer Incidence within Ages 50-54 vs. Cumulated Cohort Fertility for Women in England & Wales: Cohorts are defined by year of birth.
22.5
23.0
23.5
24.0
24.5
25.0
1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954
Year of Birth
Mean Age at First Birth
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.010
Cohort Breast Cancer Rate
Mean Age at First Birth
Breast Cancer Cohort
Correlation Coefficient: -0.56
 
Figure 6. Cohort Mean Age at First Birth vs Cumulated Breast Cancer within Age Group 45-49 for Cohort Women in England&Wales
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007 73
 
This model has desirable mathematical properties such as dimensional homogeneity, linearity, additivity, and parsimonious parameterization.
 
The model makes sense in terms of the factors not explicitly included. Higher fertility is associated with a lower age at first birth and less childlessness. Breastfeeding is strongly linked to fertility.
 
Likewise lower fertility is associated with more use of hormonal contraceptives. Abortion can lead to prescription of hormonal contraceptives, and the mental health sequelae of abortion may lead to use of hormone replacement therapy.
 
Themodelwas fitted to English female cohorts born in the years up to 1950 for cancer in women aged 50–54. The multiple was 0.951. The estimated coefficient of abortion ( ) is 0.0166 (95% CI, .0065-.0396), and the coefficient of fertility ( ) is −0.0047 (95% CI, −.0135-.0041). The coefficient of fertility is rather small, with the 95% confidence interval straddling zero. Some improvement in breastfeeding may be offsetting fertility decline. These results are summarized in Table 1.
 
Forecasts are made using the model with the latest TFRs and TARs to estimate cumulated cohort rates of fertility and abortion for 25 years in the future. Here the recent rates for England&Wales in 2006 of TFR1.86 and TAR0.55 are used. Fitting this model gives an overall increase in the rate of cancer of 50.9%, which corresponds to a yearly compound increase of 1.7%.
 
Assuming the breast cancer incidence rates for ages below 45 are constant, for ages 45–49 follow the trend as modeled for this age group, and for ages over 50 follow the trend as modeled for ages 50–54, we can estimate future breast cancer incidence rates for 25 future years with 2004 as base year for prediction. The numbers of new cancers to be expected in these years is then estimated using the Government Actuary’s population projections by applying the forecast incidence rates to the expected numbers of women in the relevant age groups in each year.
 
The numbers of newly diagnosed cancers forecast by this model are expected to increase to 65,252 in 2025, compared to the reported number 39,229 in 2004 (a 66.3% increase). These are shown with forecasts for intermediate years in Table 2.
 
The 1997-based forecasts using this model published in 2002 have anticipated quite well the reported increases in female breast cancer in England&Wales in 1998 to 2004 [Appendix A].
 
Cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which also requires treatment, are registered separately and are also forecast. DCIS is shown on mammography, and the number of cases has increased in the age groups targeted by screening. In 2004 there were 39,229 breast cancers and 3,827 cases of DCIS registered in England & Wales. The number of future cases is forecast by assuming that the ratio of cancers to DCIS stays constant in the main age groups affected. The increased numbers forecast are shown in Table 2.
 
These forecast numbers can be used to plan treatment facilities for women diagnosed with cancer. In Scotland the incidence gradient (Figure 10) is less than the gradient in England (Figure 2), and the mortality gradient is almost  R
b
b
1
2
Forecasting for England&Wales
ModelingApplied to the Social Gradient
21
4
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
TotalAbortion Rate
England & Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Republic of Ireland Sw eden Czech Republic Finland Denmark 0.5 Level 0.25 Level
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954
Year of Birth
Cohort Childlessness %
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.010
Cohort Breast Cancer Rate
Cohort Childlessness
Cohort Breast Cancer Rate
Correlation Coefficient: -0.01
Country
No of
Years
Used
Goodness of Fit
Multiple R
Intercept (a)
Coefficient of
Abortion (b1)
(95% CI)
Coefficient of
Fertility (b2)
(95% CI)
Increase
Forecast
England &Wales 15 0.951 .0202
.0166
(.0065, .0396)
–.0047
(–.0135, .0041)
50.9%
Scotland * 28 0.603 .0093
.0040
(–.0047, .0127)
–.00053
(–.0029, .0018)
17.2%
Northern Ireland * 8 0.998 .0082
.0107
(.0074, .0140)
–.00020
(–.0006, .0002)
9.3%
Irish Republic * 8 0.997 .0083
.0099
(.0018, .0182)
–.00029
(–.0013, –0007)
8.3%
Sweden 6 0.998 .0097
.0128
(.0059, .0197)
–.00023
(–.0027, .0022)
31.3%
Czech Republic 9 0.859 .021
.0083
(.0014, .0151)
–.0094
(–.0423, .0236)
53%
Finland 16 0.630 .0058
.0298
(–.0092, .0687)
–.0014
(–.0101, .0072)
–6.8%
Denmark 8 0.991 .0065
.0155
(.00046, 0.0305)
–.00024
(–.003, 0.0026)
–4.1%
 
Table 1. Model Fitting by Country: Regression Intercept and Coefficients, and Increase in Breast Cancer Incidence Forecast to Occur in 25Years†
 
Table 2. Summary: Forecast Cases of Breast Cancer and DCIS
England &Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
Republic of Ireland
Sweden
Czech Republic
Finland
Denmark
39229
3917
1117
2336
7293
5449
3794
3952
40018
3963
1137
2336
7777
5596
3824
4043
45529
4482
1256
2560
8519
6200
3931
4175
51849
5058
1382
2883
9288
6804
4005
4325
58567
5639
1508
3222
10096
7561
4024
4452
65252
6177
1626
3601
10895
8412
4045
4533
3827
333
87
163
950
248
3848
345
87
163
981
258
4373
392
99
178
1077
278
5074
450
111
200
1177
300
5765
502
119
223
1281
334
6319
537
122
248
1384
372
Base Year 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Base Year 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Cancers In Situ Cancers
* 45-49 modeling used
 
25 years after latest year for which breast cancer incidence is available (2005 for Republic of Ireland; 2004 for England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Sweden; 2003 for Czech Republic and Finland; 2001 for Denmark).
 
Linear Regression. Response variable: cumulated cohort breast cancer incidence for women aged 50–54 or 45–49. Explanatory variables: cumulated cohort abortion rates and cumulated cohort fertility rates.
 
Figure 7. Cumulated Cohort Breast Cancer Rates within Ages 45-49 vs.
Cohort Childlessness Percentage for England&Wales
 
Figure 8. Total Abortion Rates: TARs in England & Wales, Scotland,
Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Finland, and Denmark; 1968-2006
74 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007 flat. These differences could result in part from the fact that the abortion rate has been lower in Scotland than in England since 1968
 
(Figure 8). Currently, the abortion rate is about 50% higher in England than in Scotland. However, over the same period, there has been a greater decline in fertility in Scotland (Figure 9).
 
Five social classes for Scotland are distinguished according to deprivation, whereas in England there are six social classes distinguished by occupation. The Scottish ratios of mortality to incidence for the social classes were used to derive an approximate gradient of incidence for England. The modeling for England for the age groups 45–49 and 50–54 described in the last section was used to estimate a further increase in incidence of breast cancer in England of 14.4% in the period 2001–2004, compared to 1997–2000. This was spread across the six social classes in England in proportion to the existing gradient, and an increased gradient of incidence across social class for England for the years 2001–2004 was determined. Using the Scottish ratios, this was then converted into the increased breast cancer mortality gradient for England&Wales shown in Figure 2.
 
Cancer registrations in Scotland started in 1960. Rates have been higher than in England, but recently the increase over all ages in Scottish breast cancer rates has been less than in England (Figures 11 and 12). Figure 8 shows the lower Scottish abortion rates. Figure 9 shows the greater decline in Scottish birth rates. The trend in cohort breast cancer in ages 50–54 up to 2004 proved nonlinear and difficult to fit the model. The model was fitted for Scotland for ages 45–49 with results shown in Table 1.
 
Forecasts were made using the latest 2006 TAR for Scotland, 0.376, and the latest TFR, 1.67, giving an overall increase in the rate of cancer of 17.2%, or a yearly increase of 0.64%. Numbers of new cancers expected in Scotland are 6,177 in 2025 compared to the 3,917 reported for 2004, which is a 57.7% increase, in line with the aging of the population.
 
The lower abortion rates in Scotland lead to a forecast of a lesser further increase in incidence of breast cancer in Scotland compared to England, partly offset by lower fertility now in Scotland. Breastfeeding rates have been very low in Scotland, and this has reduced the protective effects of higher Scottish fertility in the past. With encouragement in recent years, the increase in breastfeeding has apparently offset the effects of the decline in the Scottish birth rate.
 
Data is limited, as cancer registration started in 1993. The incidence trends for the age groups 45–49 and 50–54 are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Abortions in England on women resident in Northern Ireland as reported in English abortion statistics are used to derive abortion rates for Northern Ireland. The trends in abortion and fertility in Northern Ireland are shown in Figures 8 and 9.
 
Abortion rates in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, are much lower= than in Great Britain. By smoothing the graph of cohort cáncer incidence for Northern Ireland it was possible to fit the model and make estimates.
 
With this model fitted on the available years of data to 2004 for the age range 45–49, and the latest abortion and fertility rates
22
22
23
Modeling and Forecasting for Scotland
Northern Ireland
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
Total Fertility Rate
England & Wales Scotland Northern Ireland
Republic of Ireland Sw eden Czech Republic
Denmark Replacement Level 2.07 Finland
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
%survival
0
25
50
75
100
125
Least
deprived
Most
deprived
Deprivation quintile
Incidence
Survival
Mortality
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003
Year
Rate per 100,000 women
England and Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Republic of Ireland
Sw eden Czech Republic Finland Denmark
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003
Year
Rate per 100,000 women
England and Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Republic of Ireland
Sweden Czech Republic Finland Denmark
 
Figure 9. Total Fertility Rates: TFR in England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, , Finland, and Denmark; 1968-2006 Czech Republic
 
Figure 10. Cancer of the Female Breast, Scotland: Incidence, mortality and cause-specific survival at 5 years by deprivation quintile, for patients diagnosed 1991-95. Source: ISD publication Trends in Cancer Survival in Scotland 1971-1995
 
Figure 11. Breast Cancer in Women within Ages 45-49 in England &Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Finland, and Denmark; 1943-2005
 
Figure 12. Breast Cancer in Women within Ages 50-54 in England &Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Finland, and Denmark; 1943-2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007 75 entered, the 2006 TAR for Northern Ireland is 0.16, the latest TFR is 1.87, and the forecast increase in the rate of cancer is 9.3% (yearly increase 0.36%).
 
This forecasts an increase in new cancers in Northern Ireland to 1,626 in 2025 compared to the 1,117 reported for 2004, which is a 46% increase, largely due to aging of the population. This small increase follows from the very low abortion rate and comparatively high fertility in Northern Ireland.
 
Data is limited, as cancer registration started in 1994. The incidence trends for the age groups 45–49 and 50–54 are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Data on women resident in the Republic in English abortion statistics are used to derive Irish abortion rates.
 
The trends in abortion and fertility in the Republic of Ireland are shown in Figures 8 and 9. Abortion rates in the Republic are low, and Irish fertility rates are high compared with England.
 
Modeling used the latest available cancer data up to 2005 fitted for cohort incidence within ages 45–49. Forecasting used the TAR of 0.18 for 2006 and TFR of 1.86, giving a forecast increase in the rate of cancer of 8.3%, which corresponds to a yearly compound increase of 0.32%. This predicts an increase in numbers of new cancers in the Republic of Ireland to around 3,601 in 2025, compared to the 2,336 reported for 2005. The 54% increase is largely a consequence of the expected growth and aging of the Irish population.
 
In Sweden cancer registration started in 1958. The incidence trends for the age groups 45–49 and 50–54 are shown in Figures 11and 12. The trends in abortion and fertility in Sweden are shown in Figures 8 and 9. The nonlinear trend in fertility makes modeling difficult. The abortion rates in Sweden are higher than in England at the adult ages, but in Sweden most abortions are parous. Breastfeeding is also successfully promoted in Sweden, offsetting the carcinogenic effect of a high abortion rate.
 
Modeling is possible using recent years data. Forecasting with the latest TAR for Sweden of 0.65 and the latest TFR of 1.75 produces an overall increase in the rate of cancer of 31.3%, which corresponds to a yearly compound increase of 1.12%. From this model, new cancers in Sweden are expected to be 10,895 in 2025, compared to the 7,293 reported for 2005, a 49% increase.
 
In the Czech Republic cancer registration started in 1977. The incidence trends are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Czech rates o breast cancer are low by comparison with other countries considered. Perhaps there is less genetic susceptibility.The trends in abortion and fertility in the Czech Republic are shown in Figures 8 and 9. Abortion rates in the Czech Republic were high, and most abortions are parous. Data for recent yearswas used to fit the model.
 
Forecasts using the latest TAR for the Czech Republic of 0.35 and the latest TFR of 1.23 gave an overall increase in the rate of cancer of 39.2%, or a yearly increase of 1.33%. The Czech abortion rate has declined markedly, but the Czech birth rate has declined even more remarkably in recent years. These are offsetting factors Republic of
Ireland
Sweden
Czech Republic
24
for breast cancer. The model predicts 8,412 new malignancies in the
Czech Republic in 2025 compared to the 5,449 reported for 2003, a
54% increase.
 
In Finland cancer registration started in 1953 and data is available for years since 1977. The incidence trends are shown in Figures 11 and 12. The trends in abortion and fertility in Finland are shown in Figures 8 and 9. By using data for recent years it was possible to fit the model.
 
The latest available TAR for Finland is 0.34 and the latest TFR is 1.7. In the modeling these gave an expected decrease in the rate of cancer of 6.8%, i.e. a yearly compound decrease of 0.28%,
reflecting the decline in the Finnish abortion rate and some
recovery in the birth rate in Finland. The forecast increase to 4,045
breast cancers in 2025, compared to the 3,794 reported for 2003,
results from the aging of the population.
 
Anegative social gradient in Finland is reported in a large study.
“Cancers of the breast were most common in high social classes
throughout the whole observation period 1971–1995. The relative
difference between the SIRs (Standardised Incidence Ratios) of
social classes I and IV diminished from 2-fold in the period
1971–1975 to 1.5-fold in 1991–1995. SIRs were 1.67 in social class
I and 0.81 in social class IV in 1971–1975 and 1.4 and 0.81
respectively in 1991–1995.”
 
The social gradient was not explicable in terms of fertility. “In
Finland there is relatively little difference between social classes in
the age at first birth and average number of children.” Abortion
was not considered as an explanatory variable in this study. If it had
been considered, the gradient might have been better understood.
The lessening of the social gradient may be linked to a decline in the
Finnish abortion rate.
 
In Denmark cancer registration goes back to the 1940s but data
after 2001 is not available. The trend is similar to other countries
discussed above (Figures 11 and 12). Abortion rates declined after
1989 (Figure 8) and are less than in Sweden and England. Fertility
shows a decline similar to that in Sweden (Figure 9).
 
Cohort fertility for years of birth before 1945 and abortion rates
before 1973 were estimated. Age-specific fertility rates were not
available for earlier years, and approximate estimates were made.
Trend lines proved nonlinear, and model fitting was difficult.
 
Modeling used a fixed intercept and recent data with results
summarized in Table 1. The latest TAR (0.45) and TFR (1.8) gave
an expected decrease in the rate of cancer of 4.1%, i.e. a yearly
compound decrease of 0.16%. This decline reflects the decline in
the Danish abortion rate.
 
A social gradient has also been found in Denmark. A large
Danish national study found a higher incidence of breast cancer in
the higher social classes. Academics (persons with higher
education) had the highest risk of breast cancer, which was 74%
above that of women in agriculture, who had the lowest risk. The
records were adequate to control for various risk factors, and the
study concluded that “the large social differences in fertility history
among Danish women could not explain the social differences in
breast cancer risk.” In particular, “[a]ge at first birth and parity
Finland
Denmark
25
25
26,27
27
26
76
 
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007 could not explain the “effect of socioeconomic group on breast cancer incidence and mortality.” Abortion was not considered as a relevant factor. If it had been considered the gradient might have been explained.
 
In most countries considered, women now over age 45 have had more abortions and fewer children than previous generations of women, and a further increase in breast cancer incidence is to be expected. Variations in breast cancer incidence across social class and across geographic regions can also be expected to increase.
 
In England, a high rate of abortion leads to the large forecast increase. In Scotland, the lower abortion rate, offset by lower fertility than in England, leads to a slightly lower rate of increase expected. In both Irish jurisdictions, a continuation of low abortion rates and comparatively high fertility rates lead to low forecast increases in incidence of breast cancer. In Sweden a high abortion rate is offset partly by fewer nulliparous abortions and a high level of fertility and breastfeeding.
 
In the Czech Republic, the forecast of an increase in breast cancer incidence is largely the result of the fallen birth rate. In Finland and Denmark, lower abortion rates imply less breast cáncer in the future.
 
The negative or reverse social gradient whereby upper class women have more breast cancer is apparent in four countries where it is measured: England&Wales, Scotland, , and Denmark.
 
In all of these countries the known reproductive factors other than
abortion fail to explain the gradient. But the known likelihood for
upper class and upwardly mobile women to prefer abortions when
pregnant could provide some explanation of this gradient. If
abortions had been examined in the studies of this social gradient,
the role of this factor could have been made clear.
 
The increase in breast cancer incidence appears to be best
explained by an increase in abortion rates, especially nulliparous
abortions, and lower fertility. And the social gradient, which is not
explained by fertility, seems also attributable circumstantially to
abortion. A linear regression model of successive birth cohorts of
women with abortion and fertility as explanatory variables fitted to the cancer incidence up to 1977 has produced forecasts that have performed well in the years 1998–2004 in Great Britain (AppendixA).
 
The new forecasts for eight countries can be tested in the coming years.
27
Summary
Conclusion
Finland
Patrick S. Carroll, M.A.,
Acknowledgements:
Potential conflicts of interest:
is Director of Research, Pension and Population  Research Institute (PAPRI), 35 Canonbury Road, London N1 2DG, UK.  Contact: papriresearch@btconnect.com.
 
Particular thanks are due to the charities LIFE and The Medical Education Trust, which funded the research, to the national statistical  offices and cancer registries, which provided the data, and to the statisticians who kindly gave advice. Figure 10 is reproduced from the publication with permission of the Cancer Surveillance Team, Information Services Division (ISD), NHS National Services, Scotland. Computing was done by Andrew Chan and Lee Young.
 
none disclosed.
Trends
in Cancer Survival in Scotland 1971-1995
 
 
REFERENCES
1 Goldacre MJ, Kurina LM, Seagroat V, et al. A case control record
linkage study. J EpidemiolCommunityHealth 2001:55:336-337.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
27
28
29
Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Estimates of U.S. abortion incidence in 2001
and 2002. Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI); 2005.
Blayo C. L’evolution du recourse a l’avortement en France depuis
1976. Institut National des Etudes Demographiques
(INED); 1995:779-810.
Cancer Incidence Data, Office for National Statistics and Welsh
Cancer Incidence and Surveillance Unit (WCISU). Available at:
31, 2007.
Melbye M,Wohlfahrt J, Olsen JH, et al. Induced abortion and the risk
of breast cancer. 1997:336.81-85.
Brewster DH, Stockton DL, Dobbie R, et al. Risk of breast cancer after
miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record linkage case
control study. 2005;59:283-287.
Lindefors Harris BM, Eklund G, et al. Risk of cancer of the breast after
legal abortion during first trimester: a Swedish register study.
1989:299:1430-1322.
Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast
cancer. 2005;10:105-110.
Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G. Breast cancer and abortion:
collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies.
2004;363:1007-1016.
Erlandsson G, Montgomery SM, Cnattingius S, Ekborn A. Abortions
and breast cancer: record based control study.
2003;103:676-679.
Schwerdlow A, dos Santos Silva I, Doll R.
. Oxford
University Press; 2001.
Howe H, Senie R T, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P. Early abortion and breast
cancer risk among women under age 40.
1989;18:300-304.
White C, van Galen F, Chow YH. Trends in social class differences in
mortality by cause, 1986-2000.
2003(winter):25-37. Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/
statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=6725&More=N. Accessed Jul 31, 2007.
Lee E, Clements S, Ingham R, et al. York, UK:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2004. Available at: http://www.
jrf.org.uk/. Accessed Jul 31, 2007.
Birth Statistics. Office for National Statistics (ONS) (UK).
London,UK: ONS; 2005.
Abortion Statistics . ONS 1968–2001. Department of
Health 2002–2006.
Russo J, Rivera R, Russo IH. Influence of age and parity on the
development of the human breast.
1992:23:211-218.
Leon D. A prospective study of the independent effects of parity and
age at first birth on breast cancer incidence in England &Wales.
1989:43:986-991.
Ramazzini B. London, UK; 1751:152.
Carroll P. Pregnancy related risk factors in female breast cancer
incidence. 2002;4:331-375.
Information and Statistics Division of the National Health Service in
Scotland. Edinburgh, Scotland; 1960–2004.
White A, Freeth S, O’Brian M. London, UK: Office
for Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS); 1992.
Stockholm, Sweden: Socialstyrelsen; 2000.
Pukkala E. Time trends in socio-economic differences in incidence
rates of cancers of the breast and female genital organs.
1999;81:56-61.
Dano H, Andersen O, Ewertz M, et al. Socio-economic status and
breast cancer in Denmark. 2003: 32: 216-226.
Dano H, Hansen KD, Jensen P, et. al. Fertility pattern does not explain
social gradient in breast cancer in Denmark.
2004:111:451-456.
Carroll P. Trends and reproductive risk factors in female breast cancer
incidence in Great Britain. 2004;91(Suppl 1):S24, Poster 2.
Carroll P. Trends and risk factors in British female breast cancer.
Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM), American
Statistical Association, Minneapolis, Minn.; 2005:2511-2519.
Population No. 3.
NEngl JMed
J Epidemiol Community Health
BMJ
J AmPhys Surg
Lancet
Int J Cancer
Cancer Incidence and
Mortality in England & Wales. Trends and Risk Factors
Int J Epidemiol
Health Statistics Quarterly No. 20;
A Matter of Choice.
Cancer Atlas of the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
Int J
Cancer
Of the Diseases of Artificers.
Int Congress of Actuaries, Transactions
Infant Feeding 1990.
Anning av barn foedda. [Breastfeeding of Infants Born in 1998].
Int J Cancer
Int J Epidemiol
Int J Cancer
BrJCancer
Statistics in Epidemiology.
17
24
25
England &Wales
Statistical Bulletin;
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 12 Number 3 Fall 2007 77
AppendixA. Female BreastCancers and Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) in
England&Wales: Comparison of ForecastNumbers Published in 2002 with
Reported Incidence in theYears 1998– 2004
Modelling based on breast cancer incidence data up to 1997 was used
to forecast incidence over future years through 2027. Forecast rates were
applied to the projected female population in the 1998-based forecast made
by theUKGovernmentActuary to calculate forecast numbers of cancers.
In these 1997-based forecasts, the same rate of increase in incidence
was assumed to apply to all age groups.
Two forecasts were made: (1) Using model fitting without weighting to
allow for additionally carcinogenic effect of nulliparous abortions gave a
lower increase in rates of 44.4% over 30 years, or 1.25% per annum. (2)
With weighting to allow for the additionally carcinogenic effects of
nulliparous abortions, the model gave a higher increase of 2.2% per annum or 92%over 30 years.
 
21 Tables 1A-3A show the observed cases from official counts of new  cases and the expected numbers calculated with the unweighted model, for cancers, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and cancers combined with DCIS, respectively. The forecast tended to underestimate slightly the number of cancers; the ratio of observed to expected was 1.013 (101.3%) in 2004. For DCIS, the underestimate, O/E = 1.54 (154.3%) for 2004, was much more notable, probably owing to extension of screening programs.
 
The combined rate of cancers and DCIS was somewhat underestimated, O/E = 1.04 (104.4%) in 2004.
 
Weighting for the increased carcinogenicity of nulliparous abortionsgave the results shown in Tables 4A-6A for cancers, DCIS, and cancers combined with DCIS, respectively. Cancers were slightly overestimated, O/E = 0.946 (94.6%) for 2004. DCIS was underestimated, but less so than with the first model: O/E = 1.44 (144%) in 2004. The combined forecast proved quite good, with 100.5% of the total new malignancies anticipated [in 2003, and 97.5% in 2004.
 
Year 15-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ All ages
%Observed/
Expected
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Age Groups
3880
4005
4022
4153
4183
4151
4375
4161
4527
4101
4666
4214
4802
4312
3220
3099
3241
3088
3275
3042
3365
2950
3487
2993
3619
3066
3771
3268
4725
4633
4909
5031
5051
4951
5172
4957
5039
4514
5021
4554
5081
4439
3621
3880
3805
4198
4005
4138
4284
4477
4761
4819
5079
5396
5292
5136
19042
19029
19450
19791
19872
19544
20374
19846
20836
20293
21402
21575
21981
21557
34488
34646
35427
36261
36386
35826
37570
36391
38650
36720
39787
38805
40927
38712
100.5
102.4
98.5
96.9
95.0
97.5
94.6
Year 15-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ All ages
%Observed/
Expected
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Age Groups
193
136
200
255
208
279
218
264
225
290
232
278
239
315
321
231
323
272
327
243
336
272
348
261
361
249
376
275
471
674
490
765
504
804
516
832
503
813
501
817
507
827
375
454
394
488
414
544
443
622
493
675
526
789
547
612
746
917
765
1006
784
1163
800
1163
819
1230
847
1530
881
1644
2106
2412
2172
2786
2237
3033
2313
3153
2388
3269
2467
3663
2550
3673
114.5
128.3
135.6
136.3
136.9
148.5
144.0
Year 15-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ All ages
%Observed/
Expected
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Age Groups
4073
4141
4222
4408
4391
4430
4593
4425
4752
4391
4898
4492
5041
4627
3541
3330
3564
3360
3602
3285
3701
3222
3835
3254
3980
3315
4147
3543
5196
5307
5399
5796
5555
5755
5688
5789
5542
5327
5522
5371
5588
5266
3996
4334
4199
4686
4419
4682
4727
5099
5254
5494
5605
6185
5839
5748
19788
19946
20215
20797
20656
20707
21174
21009
21655
21523
22249
23105
22862
23201
36594
37058
37599
39047
38623
38859
39883
39544
41038
39989
42254
42468
43477
42385
101.3
103.9
100.6
99.2
97.4
100.5
97.5
Year 15-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ All ages
%Observed/
Expected
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Age Groups
4033
4141
4140
4408
4264
4430
4415
4425
4524
4391
4558
4492
4705
4627
3507
3330
3494
3360
3497
3285
3559
3222
3650
3254
3752
3315
3871
3543
5145
5307
5294
5796
5393
5755
5468
5789
5275
5327
5205
5371
5216
5266
3956
4334
4117
4686
4290
4682
4545
5099
5002
5494
5284
6185
5451
5748
19595
19946
20453
20797
20055
20707
20357
21009
20616
21523
20975
23105
21365
23201
36236
37058
37498
39047
37499
38859
38344
39544
39067
39989
39774
42468
40608
42385
102.3
104.1
103.6
103.1
102.4
106.8
104.4
Year 15-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ All ages
%Observed/
Expected
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Age Groups
191
136
196
255
202
279
209
264
214
290
219
278
223
315
318
231
317
272
317
243
323
272
331
261
340
249
351
275
467
674
480
765
489
804
496
832
478
813
472
817
473
827
371
454
386
488
402
544
426
622
469
675
496
789
511
612
739
917
751
1006
761
1163
769
1163
780
1230
799
1530
822
1644
2086
2412
2130
2786
2171
3033
2223
3153
2272
3269
2326
3663
2380
3673
115.6
130.8
139.7
141.8
143.9
157.5
154.3
Year 15-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ All ages
% Observed/
Expected
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
Expected
Observed
3842
4005
3944
4153
4062
4151
4206
4161
4310
4101
4339
4214
4482
4312
3189
3099
3177
3088
3180
3042
3236
2950
3319
2993
3412
3066
3520
3268
4678
4633
4814
5031
4904
4951
4972
4957
4797
4514
4733
4554
4743
4439
3585
3880
3731
4198
3888
4138
4119
4477
4533
4819
4788
5396
4940
5136
18856
19029
19702
19791
<