Someone wrote a letter to the editor criticizing my recent letter opposing embryonic stem cell research. My rebuttal follows here...

...but part of that post fits here at After Abortion.

Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's famous 1989 letter came up: http://justfacts.com/koop.html

Yes, that Koop letter, the one that abortion rights advocates tout as one of their "proofs" that there are no post-abortion traumas of any kind. We've heard it many times. Even from psychiatrists who apparently "bought" only what the media reported at the time.

Yet Koop said, among many qualifying things,

"I have concluded in my review of this issue that, at this time [Ed.Note: January 1989, 16 long years ago], the available scientific evidence about the psychological sequelae of abortion simply cannot support either the preconceived beliefs of those pro-life or of those pro-choice...the data do not support the premise that abortion does or does not cause or contribute to psychological problems." [Emphases mine]

We've heard all the pro-choice-leaning snippets from that Koop's report. As counterpoint to those, physician/blogger MedPundit changed her mind over two years ago on this "proof," and I'm following in her footsteps quoting the pieces the abortion advocates conveniently leave out or don't read far enough to find:

"It is to be noted that when pregnancy, whether wanted or unwanted, comes to full term and delivery, there is a well documented, low incidence of adverse mental health effects."

"For the physical situation, data have been gathered on some women after abortions. It has been documented that after abortion there can be infertility, a damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight babies, etc. But, I further conclude that these events are difficult to quantify and difficult to prove as abortion sequelae for two reasons. First, these events are difficult to quantify because approximately half of abortions are done in free-standing abortion clinics where records which might have been helpful in this regard, have not been kept. Second, when compared with the number of abortions performed annually, 50 percent of women who have had an abortion apparently deny having had one when questioned. Further, these events are difficult to prove, as sequelae of abortion because all of these same problems can and do follow pregnancy carried to term or not carried to term, - indeed can occur in women who have never been pregnant previously. Clearly, however, the incidents of physical injury is greater in instances where abortions are performed or attempted by those not qualified to do them or under less than sterile conditions."

"...a study should include the psychological effects of failure to conceive, as well as the physical and mental sequelae of pregnancy, - planned and unplanned, wanted and unwanted - whether carried to delivery, miscarried, or terminated by abortion. To do such a study that would be above criticism would consume a great deal of time. The most desirable prospective study could be conducted for approximately $100 million over the next five years. A less expensive yet satisfactory study could be conducted for approximately $10 million over the same period of time. This $10 million study could start yielding data after the first year.

"There is a major design problem which must be solved before undertaking any study. It is imperative that any survey instrument be designed to eliminate the discrepancy between the number of abortions on record and the number of women who admit having an abortion on survey. It is critical that this problem of 'denial' be dealt with before proceeding with further investigations."

50% of women deny they had an abortion.

FIFTY PERCENT.

And 16 years later, we still don't have even the cheapo study. Yet the good ol' government poluhtishuns have $10 million for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska".

No, wait, scratch that. We have between $120 and $315 million for that

"bridge to connect an island that has 50 people on it."

And that's Republican pork!

(Psst! Anyone want to start the Republocrat Party with me? Now if we just had a mascot animal...)

That's around twice as much taxpayer money for a stupid, useless bridge as we needed to spend to find out "scientifically" if American women are really being as damaged and destroyed by abortion as we know "anecdotally" we are.

UPDATE #1: Read this most informative assessment of what the Koop Report actually said.

UPDATE, WAY, WAY, WAAAY OT: In the comments, Julie wrote:

Annie, I'll join up and back you for Pres. on the Republocrat Party ticket.

I then replied,

Oh, Lord! Ashli: "President BanAnnie." whaddya think??

to which she nimbly replied

perfection! and our mascot can be the elephass!

Hence, this post, to complete the silliness.