Bill Cassidy’s Abortion Leave Mandate Is Classic Republican ‘Failure Theater’
Instead of blaming the Biden administration for exceeding its legislative authority, Bill Cassidy should look in the mirror.
Think of the number of pregnant and nursing women in the military, health care, education, and many other professions who were forced to get shots that the U.K. government admitted at the time should not have been given. The “fact checkers” are sputtering about minutiae of the timing of this document, but the reality is that the establishment pressured and even forced some pregnant and nursing women to get a shot that even they admitted at the time had no reliable data, and although they now say it’s safe, the reality paints a very different picture.
Last week, Norman Fenton, professor of risk information management at Queen Mary University of London, among other U.K. researchers, posted a link to a report titled, “Summary of the Public Assessment Report for COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech,” in which researchers clearly recommend against vaccinating pregnant and nursing women. The report was originally posted in December 2020, but like many CDC reports, this U.K. government paper has been updated a few times, the most recent of which was Aug. 16, 2022. The money quote from the paper is as follows:
The U.K. media immediately pounced on those drawing attention to this report, asserting that it’s really an old report from December 2020 and has only had minor updates since then. And of course, in the ensuing year or so, the vaccines have been proven to be pristine for everyone, including nursing and pregnant women. But the noise around the date of publication obfuscates the main point: that at the time they forced many pregnant and nursing women to get the shot, the government knew the shots were not proven safe for those cohorts. Moreover, the question remains why this document has indeed been updated many times – however minor those updates may have been – yet this paragraph has never been changed and still remains on the website, even as militaries, health care facilities, and regular doctors continue to pressure and even force pregnant women to get the shots.
In response to those drawing attention to this report, whoever runs this government website posted an updated text block clarifying that this document was from December 2020 and that the government’s recommendation on vaccination has not changed.
Yet they still list the most recent update to this page as August 16, rather than September 2, which is when this box was inserted.
This is the same cat-and-mouse game the U.S. government has played every time researchers point to damaging statements from their own websites; they seek to tamper with the website and then dispatch their media allies (that we now know worked directly with them) to label it as misinformation.
However, in this case we need not haggle over the semantics of the U.K. government’s current recommendation vs. the timing of their post raising concerns about vaccinating nursing and pregnant women. We can simply open our eyes to what we are seeing epidemiologically throughout the world. It is now a proven fact that these shots can potentially cause thousands of categories of injuries and that there is a causal relationship with excess deaths and severe adverse events. While it’s not proven yet that they cause specific fetal-maternal issues, the correlations are too strong to ignore, especially when we usually take a “guilty until proven innocent” approach with new therapeutics administered to pregnant women – even those that aren’t associated with so many injuries to non-pregnant women.
Nowhere is this violation of the Nuremberg Code with reproductive health more apparent than with a recent study published by the Israeli government. Israel’s Ministry of Health tasked Prof. Mati Berkowitz, a leading Israeli expert on pharmacology and toxicology, to put together a group of experts to examine vaccine injury from Dec. 2021 through May 2022. After the results were concealed for two months, among many of the report’s findings was that for 90% of those who experienced menstrual irregularities from the shot, they lasted for at least three months.
\u201cWhat happens after the IMOH learns, in an internal discussion, that contrary to what they repeatedly claim, menstraual irregularities are not short term and transient, but in fact many times long-term,\u201d— Yaffa Shir-Raz (@Yaffa Shir-Raz) 1661364469
Researchers further established causality between the menstrual irregularities and the timing of the shot, because a number of Israelis who experienced the problem after the first dose suffered from a relapse right after the second dose.
\u201cand that even when they do pass, they re-appear many times after repeated doses - which establishes causality?\u201d— Yaffa Shir-Raz (@Yaffa Shir-Raz) 1661364469
Israeli health reporter Yaffa Shir-Raz translated parts of the report in Hebrew. Here is the money quote:
Studies carried out on the above-mentioned subject noted short-term abnormalities (up to a few days) in the menstrual cycle. However, over 90% of the reports detailing the characteristics of the duration of this adverse event indicate long-term changes (emphasis in the original. Y.S). Over 60% indicate duration of over 3 months.
Steve Kirsch has an exhaustive report on the Israeli government’s cover-up of the report and how officials dragged their feet reporting this to the public, then distorted the magnitude of the findings by misusing denominators from the study period.
Now, does this alone mean the shots are necessarily causing maternal-fetal problems? Not proven, but when you put it together with the VAERS reports of nearly 5,000 miscarriages and 11,300 reports of vaginal hemorrhaging, the sudden decline in birth rates in numerous countries perfectly coinciding with nine months from the period of vaccine take-up, the sudden rise in stillbirths over a similar time period, the studies showing decreased sperm count and motility, and that the pro-inflammatory lipid nanoparticles deposit in the ovaries and testes, it is immoral to continue with this until the vaccine is definitively ruled out as a cause. Long-term suspension of menstrual cycles is nothing to scoff at.
In a leaked video of the video meeting of the committee experts, Prof. Berkowitz says, in reference to the long-lasting side effects:
Here we will need to think about this medico-legally. Why? Because for not a few side-effects, we said, “OK, it exists and there’s a report, but please get vaccinated.” So we need to think about how to write it and present it in the correct way, so they won’t come afterwards with lawsuits: “Wait a second, you said it would go away and it’s OK to get vaccinated, now look what happened to me.”
Fortunately for Pfizer, the voices of those victims are drowned out because there are no lawsuits. Pfizer and Moderna are completely exempt, even as they get billions in taxpayer funding, free marketing and distribution, and government-sponsored censorship on their behalf. This is why they can continue injecting them into the most sensitive demographics without any accountability.
Just a few months after updating its style guide to include phrases such as "pregnant people" and "people seeking abortions," the AP has attempted to clarify the context in which such phrases should be used. In most cases, the AP states, gendered phrases that refer to women are "acceptable."
According to a tweet from the @APStylebook account on Wednesday, phrases that specifically identify women as the group of people who can get pregnant may, in fact, be appropriate.
"Pregnant women or women seeking abortions is acceptable phrasing," the AP wrote.
However, there is a catch.
"Phrasing like pregnant people or people seeking abortions is also acceptable to include people who have those experiences but do not identify as women," the AP continued, "such as some transgender men and some nonbinary people."
\u201cWe now have guidance saying that "pregnant women" or "women seeking abortions" is acceptable phrasing. \nPhrases like "pregnant people" or "people seeking abortions" are acceptable when you want to be inclusive of people who have those experiences but do not identify as women.\u201d— APStylebook (@APStylebook) 1660745199
The AP cautions that men and women alike should "use judgment" in such cases, always keeping in mind that "neutral alternatives" that make no reference to gender are "also acceptable." "Overly clinical language," the AP insists, should be avoided.
This updated style tip comes just three months after the previous updated style tip, which first introduced the gender-neutral phrases "pregnant people" and "people seeking abortions" only for those stories "that specifically address the experiences of people who do not identify as women." Thus, the latest update is not so much a departure from the previous update as a clarification about when to use supposedly more inclusive alternatives.
Still, this update does imply that a generalized association between women and pregnancy is "acceptable," with some notable exceptions.
But most tweet commenters seemed to prefer to keep things simple.
"In the entire history of human beings on this planet, only women have ever been pregnant," replied @DanShreffler.
"I love the continuing efforts to make basic communication as difficult and exhaustive as possible," said another response.
Others took issue with the word women, not because of the gender it connotes, but because of the age.
"Please keep in mind that the use of 'people' is inclusive of *girls* as well as trans/non-binary people. A ten-year-old is not a 'pregnant woman.' Calling her that minimizes the horror of what’s happening in the US," wrote one user, perhaps in reference to the recent alleged rape of a 10-year-old girl in Ohio.
The AP claims that though it publishes a spiral-bound version of its Stylebook updates only every other year, it updates its Stylebook digital services "throughout the year as style changes and updates are made."
In a push for federal legislation that would protect abortion rights, Vice President Kamala Harris appeared to suggest that women getting pregnant in America is a problem only abortion can solve.
"Listen, women are getting pregnant every day in America, and this is a real issue," Harris said during an interview with podcast host Brian Tyler Cohen that was published Sunday.
Harris was attempting to argue that Congress needs to codify a federal right to abortion to nullify state restrictions on abortion that went into effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The vice president said lawmakers "need to act with a sense of haste about what is at play, what is at stake."
She added that "codifying Roe" will put protections back in place for "the folks who are at risk right now" of getting pregnant.
The Republican Party's communications team had a field day with her gaffe, which made it sound like she opposes pregnancy.
\u201cKAMALA HARRIS: "Women are getting pregnant every day in America, and this is a real issue."\u201d— RNC Research (@RNC Research) 1658678217
The GOP also put Harris on blast for misinforming Cohen's audience about Florida's Parental Rights in Education law, which prohibits K-3 educators from instructing children about sexual orientation or gender identity, restricting classroom discussion on those topics to what is developmentally or age-appropriate in higher grades.
Harris, like other Democratic activists before her, incorrectly referred to the legislation as the "Don't Say Gay" law. She also claimed that by preventing teachers from discussing their sex lives with children ages 5 to 8, the law somehow prevents them from being able "to love openly."
“These are issues that impact young people because, as we all know, your right to vote and the action of voting unlocks all the other rights, including same-sex marriage,” the vice president told Cohen. "Including whether we are going to stand up against a law that says ‘Don’t Say Gay,’ basically restricting kindergarten through third-grade teachers in Florida to be able to love openly and teach what they believe is important for people to understand.”
The text of Florida's parental rights law states: "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
Christina Pushaw, a spokeswoman for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and vigorous defender of the parental rights law, questioned why the vice president wants teachers to be talking about their personal lives with children.
\u201c@RNCResearch Love whoever you want . But regardless of gay or straight, why do you need to \u201clove openly\u201d at work when you work with children????\u201d— RNC Research (@RNC Research) 1658679186
"Love whoever you want. But regardless of gay or straight, why do you need to 'love openly' at work when you work with children????" she tweeted.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning that common blood tests used to screen pregnant women for signs of genetic abnormalities in their pre-born babies run the risk of giving false results.
On Tuesday, the FDA put out a safety communication advising expecting parents that genetic non-invasive prenatal screening tests, sometimes called non-invasive prenatal testing or tests, or NIPTs, have not been authorized or approved by the agency. The agency said that women have chosen to kill their unborn children based on the results of these tests, which run the risk of false-positives.
NIPTs are blood tests done to screen an unborn child for genetic conditions that could result in that child being born with serious health problems. The FDA warns that the accuracy and performance of these widely used tests has not been evaluated by regulators and that false results could lead parents to believe their unborn babies have a genetic disorder when they do not.
"The FDA is aware of reports that patients and health care providers have made critical health care decisions based on results from these screening tests alone and without additional confirmatory testing," the agency said. "Specifically, pregnant people have ended pregnancies based only on the results of NIPS tests."
The FDA strongly emphasized that there is a distinction between screening, which evaluates the risk of a child having certain genetic abnormalities, and diagnosis, which confirms or rules out disease.
"Without confirming the results with a diagnostic test, there is no way to know whether the fetus actually had the genetic abnormality reported by the screening test," the FDA said, adding that there have been cases where a follow-up diagnostic test after a positive screening test found that the unborn child was actually healthy.
Prenatal screening tests available today are categorized as laboratory developed tests, which are not subject to review by the FDA. The New York Times reported in January that more than a third of pregnant women in America have sought the services of NIPT providers. The report revealed that as many as 80% of the screening results for rare genetic conditions were false positives, which led some women to consider seeking abortions when they had healthy babies.
The FDA said that companies offering prenatal screening market the tests as "reliable" and "highly accurate" so that expecting parents can have "peace of mind." But these claims are not based in "sound science," Dr. Jeff Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.
“Without proper understanding of how these tests should be used, people may make inappropriate health care decisions regarding their pregnancy. We strongly urge patients to discuss the benefits and risks of these tests with a genetic counselor or other health care provider prior to making decisions based on the results of these tests,” he said.
Congress is working with the FDA on bipartisan legislation that would give the agency regulatory power over the safety and efficacy of genetic testing and also over how the tests are marketed to patients.