Justice For Kids

( Brent Rooney (MSc), fullterm40@gmail.com , http://www.justiceforkids.webs.com )

If before giving birth to your child 'Chris' you had one or more prior induced

abortions, you boosted the odds that 'Chris' would be born prematurely (under

37 weeks' gestation) and have a 'MACE' (Mental retardation, Autism, Cerebral

palsy, Epilepsy) disorder. This online 'book' ( Justice For Kids Now ) will show

that this 'MACE' risk is for real and if you decide to sue your abortion doctor(s)

for medical negligence for your 'MACE' damaged child, suggests evidence that

may well improve your odds of winning (before an HONEST and well informed

court) a medical negligence law suit.

In 'capsule form' here is what Justice For Kids Now (online book) is all about.

The evidence that surgical induced abortions (“suction”, D & C, D & E, D & X)

raise the risk of future premature deliveries is overwhelming. In 2006 and 2007

eminent scientist Greg Alexander (ScD), representing the Institute of Medicine

(IoM), identified: “Prior first trimester induced abortion” as an “Immutable

Medical Risk Factor Associated with Preterm Birth” in an IoM textbook; URL: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625 .[Behrman, 3] In

February 2009 Dr. Hanes M. Swingle ( U. South Alabama ) and his colleagues

published the 1^st ever 'study of studies' of induced abortion & preterm birth risk.

Dr. Swingle et al. combined data from previous studies and reported that women

with prior IAs (Induced Abortions) significantly increased their relative odds of

a delivery under 32 weeks' gestation by 64%. So, it is very clear to HONEST

people who look into it that prior surgical abortions raise a woman's risk of a

premature delivery. That's point 1 & Point 2 is: it is not debatable that preterm

infants (born under 37 weeks' gestation) have higher 'MACE' (Mental retardation,

Autism, Cerebral palsy, Epilepsy ) risk than full-term newborns. Point 3: it is a

VERY rare abortion consent form that warns women that surgical abortions will

increase their future risk of a premature and handicapped newborn.

A 'heads-up' for those with just a mild at best intention to sue. The following

concept, a principle of ethical medicine, is truly important to know & utilize in a

court of law:

PPG: PRINCIPLE of PRESUMED 'GUILT':

“In the 'Court of Medicine' a 'defendant' new surgery (or drug) is presumed

'guilty' of serious adverse side-effects, until the 'defendant' is shown by very

strong evidence to be 'innocent' of adverse side-effects.”[PPG]

Yes, the plaintiff INITIALLY has the BURDEN of PROOF to show medical

negligence on the doctor's part in a Court of Law. Let's say that the abortion doctor

performed a surgical abortion (“suction”, D & E, D & C, or D &X). The court may

well presume that the particular procedure you had, say it was the very common

“suction” (i.e. vacuum aspiration) abortion, has been safety validated via ANIMAL

testing & human studies. The grand total of published ANIMAL “suction” abortion

studies in peer-reviewed medical journals is, wait for it, ZERO as of 6 Nov. 2009;

URL: http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf . For human “suction” abortion

studies & preterm birth risk, there are well over seventy (70) statistically significant

studies finding that women with prior “suction” abortions have higher risk of later

delivering a preterm newborns than women with zero prior induced abortions. The

2009 'study of studies' by Dr. Hanes Swingle et al. (Feb. 2009) & Dr. Prakesh Shah

(October 2009) made this settled science. Dr. Shah's study was published in the

very prestigious British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

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

WARNING: Induced abortion is both a medical AND a LEGAL issue. Justice For

Kids Now thus must delve into some legal concepts. You should only use legal

concepts presented in JFK-Now that your competent and trusted lawyer accepts as

valid, since the author of JFK-Now, Brent Rooney (MSc), is NOT now nor has ever

been a lawyer! For example, in Chapter 3 Brent Rooney asserts that an elective procedure that a doctor knows or ought to know, is contraindicated and not in the

patient's best interest must be withheld from the patient. Did Rooney dream up this

legal concept while jogging one morning? That concept is found in the third edition

of Legal Liabilities of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada (judge Ellen I. Picard and

Gerald B. Robertson ). Since medical law varies by U.S. State, whether this prudent

principle applies to YOUR state (more precisely, the state in which the trial would be

held) would be a question for YOUR lawyer to ascertain; yes, there are some

medical law concepts that apply to all 50 U.S. states, such as “suction” abortion considered in general (not 100% of all cases) to be a legal medical procedure in most situations.

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

Capsule view of the following JFK-NOW chapters:

 

Chapter 1:     The introduction chapter you are now reading

Bonus    1.B  San Antonio, Texas Miracle Worker: Dr. Martha Garza

Chapter 2: Arguments against the APB (Abortion Preterm Birth) and how to

                   counter them

Chapter 3: Specific cases that should be more winnable law suits than normal.

Chapter 4: Brent Rooney (MSc) publishing credits in the preterm birth field

Chapter 5: “Miss F.B.'s” victory in 2005 ABC (Abortion-Breast-Cancer) law suit

                   and how this risk could improve your winning odds in an ABD

                   (Abortion-Brain-Damage) law suit

Chapter 6: Medical Progress Helped by Animal Studies

Chapter 7: 28 April 2009 Sworn Affidavit (affirming no published animal 

                   “suction” abortion studies)

Chapter 8: Electronic Copy of 30 October 2001 San Antonio, Texas Abortion    

                   Consent Form

Chapter 9: Prestigious LANCET concedes abortion-preemie risk in the 12

                   January 2008 issue

Chapter 10: $2009 contest reward for FIRST person to identify a published

                      ANIMAL study of “suction” abortion

Chapter 11: Editor-in-Chief of BJOG (Dr. Philip Steer) admits abortion-preemie

                      risk evidence is OVERWHELMING

Chapter 12: Poland extremely premature birth rate plunges 21% due to abortion

                      rate plummet

Chapter 13: Open letter to Ann Coulter

Chapter 14: Preemie yearly total worldwide: 13 million with 1 million preemie deaths

Chapter 15: Obama's Tuskegee

Is the abortion-preemie risk phony or is it 'for real'?

The answer to that question is well delved into in Chapter 2. Here is a hint to

what the answer is. Lancet is one of the four (4) most prestigious medical

journals (I am NOT claiming that prestige and true quality are one and the

same); the other three (3) being the British Medical Journal, Journal of the

American Medical Association (JAMA), and the New England Journal of

Medicine. In 2008 researchers led by Dr. Jay Iams had a series of  three

articles about preterm birth published in The Lancet. In the second of the 3

articles Dr. Iams et al. wrote the following[Iams, 4]:

“For example, greater public and professional awareness of evidence that

repeated uterine instrumentation—eg, uterine curettage or endometrial biopsy—

is associated with increased risk of subsequent preterm birth might over time influence decision-making about the procedure.[2,9-12]”[Iams, 4][quote taken

from page 165]

Since that above quote taken from the Iams et al. article does not include the

word abortion, how can one be confident that Iams et al. are implicating surgical abortion as a preterm birth risk factor? After the sentence are citation numbers

(2 & 9 through 12). Two of those refer to very important abortion-preemie

studies, the 2005 'Moreau' study and the 2004 'Ancel-Papiernik' study; in this

chapter those two references are “1” and “2” in the Reference section below.

Both 'Moreau' and 'Ancel-Papiernik' found that women with prior induced

abortions significantly raised their odds of a very preterm birth compared to

women with zero prior induced abortions. Not only was the 2008  Iams

published in Lancet, but three of the authors, namely Drs. Romero, Goldenberg,

&  Iams are 'heavyweights' in the 'preemie' field and none of them are known

to be associated with pro-life groups. Chapter 9 reveals more about this very important admission.

 

[Final minor note: I am NOT now nor have I, Brent Rooney (MSc), ever been a

medical doctor (aka M.D.). I am a medical researcher with a special focus on

preterm birth risk factors. From time to time emails will address me as “Dr.”,

so I generally reply via email to the sender that I am NOT a “Dr.”.]

 

Brent Rooney (MSc, Preterm Birth Researcher)

RPRC (Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition)

3456 Dunbar St. (Suite 146) Vancouver, Canada V6S 2C2

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

http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/ronney.pdf

email: fullterm40@gmail.com stopcancer@yahoo.com whatsup@vcn.bc.ca

References

1 Ancel P-Y, Lelong N, Papiernik E, Saurel-Cubizoilles M-J, Kaminski M.

   History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European

   countries: results of the EUROPOP survey Human Reproduction

   2004;112:734-740

-

2 Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY et al. Previous I induced abortions and

   the risk of very preterm delivery; Results of the EPIPAGE study. British J

   Obstetrics Gynaecology 2005;112:430-437

-

          3 Behrman RE, Butler AS, Alexander GR. [Book] Preterm Birth:

             Causes, Consequences, and Prevention. National Academies Press 2007

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

          -

4 Dr, Jay D. Iams, Dr. Robert Romero, Jennifer F. Culhane (PhD), Dr. Robert

   L.Goldenberg. Primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions to reduce the

   morbidity and mortality of preterm birth. Lancet 2008;371:164-165

   [ Abstract URL:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-4RJS1PD-14&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=727caa3fee5e184f09b6fecb114b2e3d ]

______________________________________________________________________ 

Bonus 1-B  San Antonio Miracle Worker Dr. Martha Garza 

Reducing the number of serious childhood brain injuries is wonderful work; there is

something better and reproductive health specialist Dr. Garza ( San Antonio, Texas )

made it happen by PREVENTING 'MACE' ( Mental retardation, Autism, Cerebral

palsy, Epilepsy) injuries (all caused by brain damage) in newborn babies & that is even better than curing 'MACE' maladies years after birth. Dr. Martha Garza accomplished brain damage PREVENTION with a capital P.

As of 1 January 2004 every woman going to a Texas abortion clinic is offered a WRTK (Women's Right To Know) booklet with one of the warnings being that abortions raise future risk of a premature & handicapped newborn baby.

Without Dr. Martha Garza no such abortion-preemie warning would be in the Texas WRTK booklet. Fall 2003 a special Texas medical panel was set up to specify

 which health warnings would appear in the WRTK booklet. At first the medical panel was not inclined to include any APB (Abortion-Preterm-Birth) warning. Garza studied key APB medical articles & reviews, including the 2003 Rooney/Calhoun review (URL: http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf )[1]. Dr. Martha Garza ( President, Hispanic Alliance for Life & Family;; http://www.hispanicallianceforlifeandfamily.org/about.html)

must have given a convincing presentation to the special Texas panel, since it reversed itself by including a strong abortion-preemie warning in the Texas WRTK booklet; URL: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/pdf/booklet.pdf 

[skip to page 17). Dr. Martha Garza, an Obstetrician and Gynecologist practicing in San Antonio, Texas,   is very consistent in her stand for life affirming medicine as evidenced by advising young women to use safe and effective NFP (Natural Family Planning).  The importance of young women avoiding 'The Pill' is explained in the Appendix below (after the Reference section).

Did Dr. Garza mislead the special Texas medical panel?

When Garza made her 2003 APB ( Abortion-Preterm-Birth) presentation to the special  Texas medical panel, Dr. Garza had very strong published evidence to support higher 'preemie' risk for women with prior induced abortions. But it was theoretically possible that evidence after 2003 would show no elevated 'preemie'

risk. The opposite resulted. In 2009 the first ever SYSTEMATIC reviews of the

APB risk were published.[2,3]   Both the February 2009 Dr. Hanes Swingle [2]

review and the October 2009 Dr. Prakesh Shah review (British Journal of

Obstetrics & Gynaecology) [3] confirmed that women with prior induced abortions elevate their odds of a future premature delivery. Both Dr. Swingle & Dr. Shah achieved 'statistical significance' (i.e. being at least 95% confident

of increased risk), the 'gold standard' in medical science studies.

Dr. Martha Garza, Miracle Worker in San Antonio, Texas.

 

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

 

Brent Rooney (MSc)

Research Director, Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition

3456 Dunbar St. (Suite 146) Vancouver Canada V6S 2C2

Web: http://www.justiceforkids.webs.com Email: fullterm40@gmail.com

References

1 Rooney B, Calhoun BC. Induced abortion and risk of later premature births. J

   American Physicians Surgeons 2003;8(2):46-49 [ URL:

   http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf ]

2 Shah P. et al. Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and preterm birth: a

   systematic review and meta-analysis BJOG 2009;116(11):1425-1442 URL:

   http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122591273/abstract

3 Swingle HM, Colaizy TT, Zimmerman MB, Moriss FH. Abortion and the

   Risk of Subsequent Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

   Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2009;54:95-108

Appendix: Health Disaster of 'The Pill'

Zoltan Rona is a Toronto M.D. who also has a Master of Science in biochemistry.

Dr. Zoltan Rona is a 'super-star' in the field of Classical Medicine (aka 'alternative

medicine'). The following is extracted commentary from Dr. Rona's best selling

book (Return to the Joy of Health) about birth control pill side-effects (pages 218-

219):

“Over the past 15 years, I have often said that the single biggest cause of

generated business at the doctor's office is the birth control pill. High

dose, medium dose or low dose, the story is the same—lots of visits to

doctors' offices to be examined, get Pap tests, treat all the resulting side

effects and get prescription refills....Numerous studies have documented

the fact that the pill creates vitamin and mineral deficiencies (folic acid,

zinc, B6, other B vitamins) leading to depression, fatigue, abnormal food

cravings, anorexia, migraine headaches, anemia, vision changes, and

other side effects....taking the birth control pill causes an increase in the

population of Candida (yeast) in the bowel as well as the vagina. Over

the years I have helped hundreds of women eliminate and prevent yeast

vaginitis attacks by simply having them stop taking the pill.... It is well

known that many causes of breast cancer are estrogen sensitive, meaning

that they grow in response to estrogens like those in the birth control

pill. Cancer specialists, therefore, often take breast cancer patients off

estrogens entirely...”[4]