Another Look
The New York Times: Blind Chinese Dissident Leaves on Flight for U.S.
The New York Times By ANDREW JACOBS Published: May 19, 2012
BEIJING — Chen Guangcheng, the blind legal defender who made a dramatic escape from house arrest and whose decision to seek refuge in the American Embassy here jolted American-Sino relations, left China aboard a commercial flight bound for Newark on Saturday.
Mr. Chen and his family departed around 5:30 p.m. on a United Airlines flight after facing earlier delays. The Chens, accompanied by American officials, were brought onto the plane shortly before takeoff and seated in the business-class cabin. Flight attendants drew a curtain around their seats and barred other passengers in the cabin from using the toilet while the plane was on the runway.
In a statement, American officials obliquely praised the Chinese government for its cooperation in resolving what had become a diplomatic headache for both sides. “We also express our appreciation for the manner in which we were able to resolve this matter and to support Mr. Chen’s desire to study in the U.S. and pursue his goals,” Victoria Nuland, a State Department spokeswoman said.
Kyodo News, via Associated Press Chen Guangcheng arrived at the Beijing airport on Saturday. May 20, 2012 Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
Speaking by cellphone before he boarded the flight, Mr. Chen told friends he was excited to leave China but that he was also worried about the fate of relatives left behind. “He’s happy to finally have a rest after seven years of suffering, but he’s also worried they will suffer some retribution,” said Bob Fu, president of ChinaAid, a Christian advocacy group in Texas that championed Mr. Chen’s case.
Mr. Fu, who spoke to Mr. Chen several times on Saturday, said the family had no idea they were leaving — or where they were going — until officials notified them to pack up their few belongings.
They were driven directly to Beijing International Airport by employees of Chaoyang Hospital, where Mr. Chen was being treated for intestinal problems and for the foot he broke during his escape. Mr. Chen told friends that he and his family were handed their passports by Chinese officials shortly before they boarded the plane.
The family waited for their flight in an area separated from other passengers. Airline officials increased security on the flight, and reporters were told they would not be able to speak to Mr. Chen during the 13-hour trip to Newark.
One of China’s best known dissidents, Mr. Chen, 40, made a daring escape last month from home confinement, scaling walls and evading the dozens of guards who were charged with keeping him and his family locked up in their Shandong Province farmhouse.
With the help of Chinese activists, he made his way to Beijing, and three days later, into the American diplomatic compound. During 30 hours of tense negotiations between American and Chinese officials, Mr. Chen rejected the idea of asylum and insisted that he wanted to stay in China — as long as he and his family could be shielded from further persecution. Exile, he feared, might silence his voice as an advocate for legal reform in China.
A deal was reached, but Mr. Chen grew fearful and changed his mind in the hours after leaving the embassy. A fresh crisis ensued — with critics accusing the Obama administration of pressuring him to leave the compound — and another agreement was quickly forged. The deal, announced May 4, allowed Mr. Chen to attend New York University Law School on a fellowship.
The American Embassy bought the plane tickets but will reimbursed by New York University, said a source with knowledge of the arrangements. An embassy spokesman declined to comment on Saturday.
The story of Mr. Chen’s tribulations, and his unlikely escape from draconian house arrest, has riveted much of the world, even as censors kept the news from ordinary citizens in China.
A self-taught lawyer blinded by childhood illness, he was once toasted by the state media for his advocacy of the disabled and the disenfranchised. His wife, Yuan Weijing, would read aloud to him legal documents and help with court filings.
But in 2005, he ran into trouble with the authorities by organizing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of women in Shandong who had been subjected to forced abortions and sterilizations. A year later, a court sent him to prison for more than four years on charges that were widely seen as spurious.
Although technically a free man after his release in September 2010, Mr. Chen encountered a new round of restrictions. Local officials, with the backing of provincial authorities, turned his home into a makeshift prison, with surveillance cameras, hired thugs and cellphone jamming equipment ensuring he was cut off from the outside world.
In a homemade video that was smuggled out of Dongshigu village last year and posted on the Internet, the couple detailed the indignities of their detention. Local officials responded with a vicious round of beatings that Mr. Chen said left them with lingering injuries.
The cordon also kept out visitors, including the journalists, diplomats and freelance Chinese activist who were violently repelled when they tried to enter the village.
His entry into the embassy, aided by American officials who evaded pursuing security agents, infuriated Chinese leaders, who accused Washington of meddling in its domestic affairs. The diplomatic crisis was compounded by a deadline: the imminent arrival of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other top officials for previously scheduled talks in the capital.
Despite some early missteps, human rights advocates mostly lauded the State Department for crafting a resolution that satisfied Mr. Chen and his supporters while preventing a wider rift with Beijing. The last dissident to seek protection in the embassy, Fang Lizhi, spent a year in the diplomatic compound before Chinese officials agreed to let him leave for the United States in 1990. Mr. Fang, who died last month in Arizona, never returned to China.
Nicholas Bequelin, a researcher based in Hong Kong for Human Rights Watch, offered tempered praise for the Chinese government’s handling of the episode but said he would reserve further judgment until the day Mr. Chen sought to return to China. “Only then would this episode register as a significant turning point for the rights defense movement, and for U.S. diplomacy in creating a tailored solution that is different from the model of the past,” Mr. Bequelin said.
In the two weeks since he left the embassy, Mr. Chen has expressed concern for relatives still at the mercy of local officials in Shandong. American diplomats said Chinese officials rejected a list of 13 people, many of them family members, that Mr. Chen had said he wanted protected from harassment.
A nephew, Chen Kegui, is in police custody accused of slashing and injuring men who broke into his family’s rural home last month in their search for Mr. Chen. The nephew faces a possible death sentence and has been denied access to his lawyers. His father, Chen Guangfu, has said he was tied to a chair and beaten for three days by interrogators seeking information on his brother’s whereabouts.
On Saturday, however, many Chinese dissidents and rights advocates were celebrating, among them Teng Biao, a prominent rights lawyer and friend who had advised Mr. Chen to go abroad.
“I am very happy Mr. Chen will finally have a chance at a normal life,” he said
Edy Yin contributed reporting from United Airlines Flight 88.
VOCN: Bob Fu Talks with Chen Guangcheng in CECC Congressional Hearing on 5/3/2012 (Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgmnYPaDtyE
Chinese Activist Tells CNN: ‘We are in danger’
CNN spoke with Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng and his wife Yuan Weijing from his Beijing hospital room just before 3 a.m. (3 p.m. ET) on Thursday May 3, hours after he left the U.S. embassy of his own volition to seek medical care. This is an English translation of a phone interview conducted in Mandarin.
Q: Why did you change your mind about staying in China?
A: I think it’s time for me to make such a choice.
Q: Why?
A: For safety.
Q: Fear for your life or your family’s?
A: Both.
Q: What would happen if you stay in China?
Chen’s impact on U.S.-China ties
A: Anything could happen.
Q: U.S. officials said you looked optimistic when you walked out of the embassy, what happened?
A: At the time I didn’t have a lot of information. I wasn’t allowed to call my friends from inside the embassy. I couldn’t keep up with news so I didn’t know a lot of things that were happening.
Q: What prompted your change of heart?
A: The embassy kept lobbying me to leave and promised to have people stay with me in the hospital. But this afternoon as soon as I checked into the hospital room, I noticed they were all gone.
Q: Has the U.S. disappointed you?
A: I’m very disappointed at the U.S. government.
Q: Why?
A: I don’t think (U.S. officials) protected human rights in this case.
Q: What would you say to U.S. President Obama?
A: I would like to say to (President Obama): Please do everything you can to get our whole family out.
Q: Is this your most urgent wish?
A: That’s right.
Q: What has your wife told you after you escaped?
A: (My wife) was tied to a chair by police for two days. Then they carried sticks to our home, threatening to beat her to death. Now they have moved into the house — eating at our table and using our stuff. Our home is teeming with security — on the roof and in the yard. They have installed seven surveillance cameras inside the house and built electric fences around the yard.
Q: What did officials tell her if you didn’t leave the embassy?
A: They said they would send her back (to Shandong) and people there would beat her.
Q: If you stay in China, is there no future?
A: I tend to think so.
Q: You learned most information in the hospital after you left the embassy?
A: Yes, most of it.
Q: Are your wife and kids with you?
A: Yes. I just switched my cell phone back on. For a while, I couldn’t make or receive calls. Now I can receive calls but still can’t dial out. I feel my rights are already being violated.
Q: Is it true no one from the embassy picked up your calls?
A: Yes. I called two embassy people numerous times.
Q: What do you want to say to the U.S. government?
A: I want them to protect human rights through concrete actions. We are in danger. If you can talk to Hillary (Clinton), I hope she can help my whole family leave China.
Q: As soon as possible?
A: Yes, as soon as possible.
Q: The whole world is watching you — how do you feel about this?
A: I feel very grateful. I feel they are sincere in their concern, not just for show.
Q: Do you feel you were lied to by the embassy?
A: I feel a little like that.
Q: What has this ordeal taught you?
A: I feel everyone focuses too much on their self-interest at the expense of their credibility.
Q: You’re both still up at 3 a.m. — feeling anxious?
A: Yes, we feel a lot of anxiety…. I told the embassy I would like to talk to Rep. Smith (Congressman Chris Smith) but they somehow never managed to arrange it. I feel a little puzzled.
Yuan Weijing, Chen Guangcheng’s wife
Q: What do you want right now?
A: After seeing the reality, we both want to leave this place with our kids as soon as possible. It’s very dangerous for us.
Q: Has the situation gotten worse since his escape?
A: Yes, worse.
Q: What happened to you after he escaped — where is his mother?
A: She’s still back home and others have moved in. It used to be plainclothes security hired locally but now it’s all policemen. They’ve threatened to cut our power. They are also digging something outside our yard. It seems that they’ll install something there.
Q: What happened when they took you into custody after his escape?
A: They wanted to know how exactly he escaped. Guangcheng is blind and we hired so many guards, how did we lose him and what exactly would he do once he was out?
Q: Is China the kind of country you want to bring your children up?
A: After Guangcheng got out, the government was persuading me to stay here. But they were also tightening their grip on me. I became really worried. If they ever get us back home, they would put us in an iron cage.
Q: What would you say to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?
A: I know Sino-U.S. relations encompass many issues and they have to consider many things. But the reality about my family is that our lives are in obvious danger. If we stay here or get sent back to Shandong, our lives would be at stake. Under such circumstances, I hope the U.S. government will protect us and help us leave China based on its value of protecting human rights.
Q: Are you prepared for not being allowed back?
A: We are prepared because our current situation is very dangerous… They made many promises. But right now, we can’t even freely use our phone. I can’t even freely walk out of the hospital. Friends can’t visit us. It just proves that our human rights are not being protected.
Q: Are there people watching you at the hospital?
A: They have security guards here.
Q: Have the embassy people have left?
A: Yes. They promised to stay here with Guangcheng — that would give us some sense of security. But we haven’t seen anyone since we checked into this hospital room. I was actually persuading Guangcheng to seek treatment in a hospital — but I didn’t know the embassy (people) were lobbying him to leave (the embassy).
In the most recent Gallup poll on abortion, as many Americans described themselves as pro-life as called themselves pro-choice. A combined 58 percent of Americans stated that abortion should either be “illegal in all circumstances” or “legal in only a few circumstances.” These results do not vary appreciably by gender: In the first Gallup poll to show a slight pro-life majority, conducted in May 2009, half of U.S. women described themselves as pro-life.
But if you’ve followed the media frenzy surrounding the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation’s decision – which it backpedaled from, with an apology, after a wave of frankly brutal coverage – to discontinue about $700,000 in funding for Planned Parenthood, you would think all these millions of anti-abortion Americans simply do not exist.
From the nightly news shows to print and online media, the coverage’s tone alternated between wonder and outrage – wonder that anyone could possibly find Planned Parenthood even remotely controversial and outrage that the Komen foundation had “politicized” the cause of women’s health.
In story after story, journalists explicitly passed judgment on Komen for creating a controversy where none need ever have existed.
Conservative complaints about media bias are sometimes overdrawn. But on the abortion issue, the press’ prejudices are often absolute, its biases blatant and its blinders impenetrable. In many newsrooms and television studios across the country, Planned Parenthood is regarded as the equivalent of, well, the Komen foundation: an apolitical, high-minded and humanitarian institution whose work no rational person – and certainly no self-respecting woman – could possibly question or oppose.
But of course millions of Americans – including, yes, millions of American women – do oppose Planned Parenthood. They oppose the 300,000-plus abortions it performs every year (making it the largest abortion provider in the country), and they oppose its tireless opposition to even modest limits on abortion.
It’s true that abortion is only one of the services Planned Parenthood provides. But abortion is hardly an itty-bitty and purely tangential aspect of its mission, as many credulous journalists have implied.
Planned Parenthood likes to claim that abortion accounts for just 3 percent of its services, and this statistic has been endlessly recycled in the press. But the percentage of clients who received an abortion is probably closer to one in 10.
By way of comparison, the organization also refers pregnant women for adoption. In 2010, this happened 841 times, against 329,445 abortions.
For the minority of Americans who have no moral qualms about using surgery or chemicals to put an end to a growing embryo or fetus, there should be nothing troubling in these numbers. And if you think abortion rights are more important to female health and flourishing than the nearly $2 billion the pink ribbon has raised for breast cancer research, Komen deserved your scorn and Planned Parenthood deserves your donations.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg just pledged $250,000 to Planned Parenthood; that’s obviously his right. Before Komen backtracked, the Yale School of Public Health said its invitation to Komen founder Nancy Brinker to speak at commencement was “under careful review”; that’s certainly any school’s prerogative.
But reporters have different obligations. Even if some forms of partiality are inevitable, journalists betray their calling when they simply ignore self-evident truths about a story.
Three truths, in particular, should be obvious to everyone reporting on the Komen-Planned Parenthood controversy. First, that the fight against breast cancer is unifying and completely uncontroversial, while the provision of abortion may be the most polarizing issue in the United States today. Second, that it’s no more “political” to disassociate oneself from the nation’s largest abortion provider than it is to associate with it in the first place.
Third, that for every American who greeted Komen’s initial shift with “anger and outrage” (as Andrea Mitchell put it), there was probably an American who was relieved and gratified.
But of course, you wouldn’t know that from most of the media coverage. After all, the people making those donations don’t exist.
Russ Douthat is a columnist for the New York Times, 620 Eighth Ave., New York, NY 10018-1405.
Pro-life advocates have argued for years that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer — due to hormonal changes during pregnancy which leave breasts more vulnerable to cancer. Despite their advocacy, the Department of Health and Human Services denies that there is any link.
On Monday the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer pointed to a new study which found a nearly 3-fold increase in the risk of breast cancer among Armenian women who had an abortion as yet another reason women should steer clear of the procedure.
The report, “Influence of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 and Prolonged Estrogen Exposure on Risk of Breast Cancer Among Women in Armenia” published in Taylor & Francis was authored by Lilit Khachatryan of the Department of Public Health at the American University of Armenia. The study included researchers from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the University of Pennsylvania.
The research found that induced abortions increased a woman’s risk of beast cancer 2.86 times — they claim however that “most evidence … points to no effect.”
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer contends that political correctness was the reason the researchers claimed there is no link.
Baruch College biology and endocrinology professor Joel Brind — an advocate of the breast cancer/abortion link — criticized the findings, explaining in a statement that the researchers “did not — and perhaps were not allowed to — characterize their findings honestly in the politically correct atmosphere of the U.S. and Europe. The good news is that they were able to report their findings in a prominent peer-reviewed journal at all.”
Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer pointed out that, though they deny a link, the researchers’ finding — that women who had an abortion were 2.68 times more likely to have breast cancer — was not a surprise as, according to Malec, 51 of 67 epidemiological studies since 1957 show a link.
The HHS’s National Cancer Institute, however, says that it is “well established” that “induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.”
When queried about the possible link between abortion and breast cancer NCI spokeswoman Aleea Farrakh Khan directed The Daily Caller to the NCI’s “Fact Sheet” regarding abortion and breast cancer risk.
According to the online document, NCI convened a 2003 workshop featuring “100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk.” The experts “concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.”
That workshop represents the basis on which NCI concluded that there is no link. NCI notes that it regularly considers new scientific findings but has not been swayed from its 2003 conclusion.
According to NCI, the factors that increase the chance of breast cancer are old age, family history of breast cancer, early age of first menstruation, late age of menopause, late age at the time of her first full term baby, and “certain breast conditions.” Obesity also represents a risk for postmenopausal women.
Despite the government’s assurance, the school of thought that continues to allege possible links is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
NEW YORK – The results of the blood test revealed only a risk, but when she saw them, she still threw up. Now she had to find out for sure.
So she lay on her back at a doctor’s office, praying, comforted by her Christian faith and her mother at her side, while a needle was slipped into her belly.
Erin Witkowski of Port Jervis, N.Y., was going to find out if the baby she was carrying had Down syndrome.
This is the first of a two-part series on prenatal testing and the ethical issues raised by it.
For years, many women have gone through an experience like hers: a blood or ultrasound test that indicates a heightened risk of the syndrome, followed by a medical procedure to make a firm diagnosis by capturing DNA from the fetus.
Usually it’s the needle procedure Witkowski had, called amniocentesis, done almost four months or more into the pregnancy. Sometimes it’s an earlier test called CVS, or chorionic villus sampling, which collects a bit of tissue from the placenta. Both pose a tiny but real chance for miscarriage, and experts say highly skilled practitioners are not available everywhere.
But by this time next year there may be an alternative — one that offers accurate results as early as nine weeks into the pregnancy.
Companies are racing to market a more accurate blood test than those available now that could spare many women the need for an amnio or CVS. It would retrieve fetal DNA from the mother’s bloodstream. And the answer could come before the pregnancy is obvious to others. For some women, that might mean abortion is a more tenable choice. For others it could be a mixed blessing.
Down syndrome slows mental and physical development, and people with it usually show mild to moderate disability in intellect and skills for everyday living. Physically, they often have a flat face with a short neck and smaller hands and feet. They’re at risk for complications like heart defects and hearing problems. Life expectancy is about 60 years.
Most cases are diagnosed after birth now, but if the blood test is widely adopted it could become chiefly a prenatal event.
A diagnosis before birth can pose a difficult challenge for couples as they decide whether to continue the pregnancy. It’s not only about child-rearing, but also about what happens as the child grows into an older adult and may need care that the aging parents struggle to provide, says Dr. Mary Norton, a Stanford University professor of obstetrics and gynecology.
Dr. Brian Skotko, a Down syndrome specialist at Children’s Hospital Boston who has written a research paper for doctors on how to deliver a diagnosis, said “the vast majority of people with Down syndrome and families affirm that their contributions to their communities are significant, and their lives are very valuable.”
Current prenatal screening has already cut into the number of babies born with the syndrome, which now stands at about 6,000 each year in the United States, or about 1 in every 691 babies, says Skotko, who serves on the board of the National Down Syndrome Society. He cites one study that concludes the number of Down syndrome births in the nation dropped 11 percent between 1989 and 2006, a time when it would otherwise be expected to rise 42 percent.
Initially, doctors are expected to use the new blood test with women at risk for a Down syndrome pregnancy, such as those older than 35. A negative result would indicate a woman could skip the amnio or CVS; a positive result would suggest she get one done to be sure.
Eventually it might replace the routine screening tests offered to all pregnant women. Since the test sounds fewer false alarms than current tests, fewer women would be told they need the invasive follow-up procedures, experts say. And some suggest that with further fine-tuning, it could largely replace amnio and CVS. With no miscarriage risk, more women might be willing to take it, and so more women would find out they have a Down syndrome pregnancy.
Two California companies, Sequenom Inc. and Verinata Health Inc., hope to offer the test to doctors in the United States by next April. They say it could be done in the first trimester, with Sequenom aiming as early as 10 weeks, and Verinata as early as eight weeks. Results would be available 7 to 10 days later. In addition, LifeCodexx AG of Germany says it wants to start offering its test in Europe by the end of this year, to be performed at 12 to 14 weeks initially. None of the companies would discuss its cost.
“I would have definitely taken a noninvasive test over the struggle for deciding whether to do an amnio or not,” says Nancy McCrea Iannone of Sewell, N.J., who gave birth six years ago to a daughter with Down syndrome. She’d been alerted by screening results, but hesitated to get amniocentesis because of the risk of a miscarriage and the prospect of “a needle in my belly,” she recalls. Ultimately, she did have one.
Iannone now counsels women who plan to deliver babies with Down syndrome. Her charitable group, Down Syndrome Pregnancy Inc., lists several reasons for getting a diagnosis before birth, such as more time to adjust, grieve and learn about the condition, preparing friends and family, and checking on available medical care and insurance.
But detecting the condition earlier in a pregnancy through the new blood test would be a mixed blessing, Iannone said.
The time between diagnosis and birth is “an unnatural state,” she said, and “the longer that time period is, the harder it is.”
“All you know is that they have Down syndrome. You’re coping with that diagnosis in a vacuum, without a baby… It’s fear of the unknown, you haven’t met your baby yet. You spend a lot of time worrying.”
That might weigh heavily on women who haven’t decided whether to continue the pregnancy or not, she said.
Since the new blood test could deliver an answer so early — before a pregnancy is showing or the baby is kicking — it might make getting an abortion easier, several observers said. Women haven’t bonded so much, and “they wouldn’t have to explain to as many people,” said Christie Brooks, who moderates an online support group for women who’ve gotten abortions for medical reasons.
“No one needs to know you’re pregnant,” said Skotko. “Maybe you haven’t even told your husband.”
Skotko said he respects that a woman’s right to continue or terminate a pregnancy is a personal one for couples. But he’s concerned that in the case of Down syndrome, many women may be getting bad information about what having the baby would mean. And if the new test became routine it would only exacerbate that problem, he said.
Studies show medical students are poorly trained about people with disabilities and that some doctors who make a prenatal diagnosis emphasize negative information about the condition, he said.
“We have a fleet of physicians who are saying they’re untrained, unprepared and sometimes knowingly inserting their own personal bias,” he said. “How are women today able to make a truly informed decision?”
Others say the blood test could thrust some women into a choice they didn’t ask to make.
Hank Greely, a Stanford University law professor, said women sign forms for plenty of blood tests during prenatal care and often don’t focus on them. Many California women are surprised to learn they’d authorized the screening test for Down syndrome, he said.
If these tests are someday replaced by the new blood test, many women may be told out of the blue not simply that they’re at risk, but that in fact their baby almost surely has Down syndrome, Greely says.
“They’re going to jump directly to the final answer, which is not necessarily something they wanted to get,” Greely said. So the new test poses a challenge to the medical establishment about how to assure that women get adequate counseling to make an informed choice, he said.
Witkowski, who prayed as that needle was slipped into her swollen belly in 2009, got her answer: It was Down syndrome. As her doctor gave her the news, her baby kicked her and “I could see my belly move,” she recalled.
Her doctor started talking immediately about abortion, a step Witkowski rejected. She changed doctors and gave birth to Grady in February 2010.
“When they first gave him to me,” Witkowski said, “I saw tiny little hands, and he had the most beautiful eyes… He didn’t have `Down syndrome’ stamped on his forehead. He cried and he peed and he pooped. He was a baby.”
Husband Behind BirthOrNot Site Admits Abortion Vote a Hoax (Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com, 11/23/10) The husband behind the BirthOrNot web site that caused an international controversy over a vote on an abortion has now admitted the web site was a hoax.
Pete and Alisha Arnold put up the web site under the claim that they were conflicted over a decision about whether to have an abortion and take the live of their 17-week-old unborn child or give birth to the baby.
In new comments to CNN, Pete Arnold said his wife supports legalized abortion but he admitted the couple put the web site online knowing they never intended to seek an abortion.
Arnold also admitted what bloggers from both sides of the abortion debate revealed days ago — that he purchased the BirthOrNot.com web domain about four months ago — well before Alisha became pregnant.
“We chose our words very carefully,” Arnold told CNN about public statements saying the site was legitimate during the international press craze that followed the initial stories.
He said Arnolds, who live in Minnesota, wanted to put up a web site that would engage people on the issue of abortion because so many feel it’s a topic that doesn’t touch them personally.
“A lot of people elect representatives based on this issue alone, yet nothing happens, nothing comes of it, nothing changes.” he said, telling CNN the couple called the unborn child ”Baby Wiggles” to give people more to consider.
“My intent is not to deceive people, but at the same point, I do want people to talk about this. This seemed like a pretty good way to further the discussion, because people don’t ever seem to want to talk about it for real if there’s no name on it, no Baby Wiggles,” he said.
Before Arnold admitted the hoax, pro-life nurse and blogger Jill Stanek said she thought that was the case.
“Although the posts appeared plausible when I perused them, the concept had “scam” written all over it. So I didn’t buy in. My thought was the couple was trying to punk pro-lifers,” she wrote.
“The reaction has been most interesting. Pro-choicers think this is a scam against them. Now, while pro-lifers are becoming incensed and begging the couple not to abort, pro-choicers are becoming incensed and wanting the couple to be shot.”
Stanek said the detailed descriptions of the development of the unborn child and the couple’s posting of ultrasound pictures led
her to believe the couple is pro-life and using the web site and the attention to show the absurdity of abortion.
“I’ve come to agree this is a pro-life stunt. A pro-choicer, unless a real sicko, would not go into this sort of detail about the 16-week development of the baby she may abort,” Stanek said.
Blogger Amanda Marcotte, who is pro-abortion, noted the Arnolds purchased the domain name for the web site in May and, as pro-lifer Stanek says, “well before Alisha got pregnant, which I estimate was August 4, according to my handy dandy pregnancy wheel.”
The Arnolds told the web site Gawker, which broke the story last week, that they bought the domain during their second pregnancy, which ended in miscarriage and maintain the web site is legitimate because they planned to put that pregnancy up for a vote but waiting until they became pregnant again.
“The couple said they purchased their domain before miscarrying their second baby but actually bought it the month afterward – when not at all pregnant. In other words, they planned this,” Stanek concludes. “This corroborates that this is a publicity stunt of some sort. I wouldn’t get too emotionally involved. But I will be watching with interest to see how they play this out.”
Pro-abortion bloggers confirmed Pete Arnold had worked with a conservative radio talk show and frequently posted online as a conservative and had advocated the pro-life perspective.
Earlier this week, KSTP-TV reported that Alisha Arnold was fired from her job at Eagan, Minnesota-based software company TempWorks. KSTP obtained an internal memo showing the web site and press attention were deemed a “grave threat” to the reputation of the company.
Daily Iowan Paper Implies Catholic Doctors Uninformed on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link (Karen Malec,12/03/09) On two occasions early in November, The Daily Iowan’s opinion editor, Shawn Gude, invited a reader by the name of Rebecca Curtis to send him a 600-word rebuttal in response to a guest opinion written by University of Iowa law students, Amber Fricke and Amy Hirst, on October 27, 2009 that incorrectly stated that abortion does not increase breast cancer risk. [1]
Curtis sent The Daily Iowan a rebuttal, but Gude rejected it on November 5 and invited her to re-write it. She quickly responded by sending him a revised rebuttal, but on November 9, he rejected that too. Gude explained to Curtis, “While I appreciate your submission, I remain skeptical of some of your sources.”
Gude objected that Curtis had cited research published in The Linacre Quarterly, a publication of the Catholic Medical Association, and the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a publication of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, even though both publications are peer-reviewed medical journals and the authors of the research papers in question are esteemed, international experts on the abortion-breast cancer link. [8,9] (The term “peer-reviewed” means that the scientific papers have been evaluated by an impartial panel of experts who recommend the papers for publication or rejection.)Full story at LifeNews.com