Researchers link rise in some cancers to increased sexual activity

From USA Today. (H/T Ruth Blog)

Excerpt:

Although the link between HPV and these types of cancers is indisputable, the association with oral sex is strong but a little more speculative, experts say.

A 2007 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that younger people with head and neck cancers who tested positive for oral HPV infection were more likely to have had multiple vaginal and oral sex partners in their lifetime.

In the study, having six or more oral sex partners over a lifetime was associated with a 3.4 times higher risk for oropharyngeal cancer — cancers of the base of the tongue, back of the throat or tonsils. Having 26 or more vaginal-sex partners tripled the risk.

And the association increased as the number of partners — in either category — increased.

The researchers also reported that cancers of the tonsil and base of the tongue have been increasing every year since 1973, and wrote that “widespread oral sex practices among adolescents may be a contributing factor in this increase.”

The researchers concluded that in their study, oral sex was “strongly associated” with oropharyngeal cancer, but noted that they could not “rule out transmission through direct mouth-to-mouth contact” such as French kissing.

In 90% of cases of HPV infection in the body, the immune system clears HPV naturally within two years, according to federal health agencies, but in some cases, certain types of HPV can lead to cervical cancer or less common malignancies, such as oropharyngeal cancer. A 2010 Swedish study, in fact, suggested that the rise in oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer in a number of countries “is caused by a slow epidemic of HPV infection-induced (cancers).”

HPV tends to be site specific, explained Dr. Amesh A. Adalja, an adjunct instructor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. In other words, it tends to stay wherever it first enters the body, be it the vagina (which in some cases could lead to cervical cancer), or the mouth and throat.

Now here is the scary part:

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that, in 2002, some 90% of males and 88% of females aged 25 to 44 reported ever having oral sex with a partner of the opposite sex.

Comparable figures from 1992 showed that about three-quarters of men aged 20 to 39 and closer to 70% of women aged 18 to 59 having ever given or received oral sex.

And don’t forget that breast cancer has been linked to having abortions by several independent studies.

Does dispensing the morning-after pill to teens reduce teen pregnancies?

From the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

A government scheme to give teenagers the morning-after pill free of charge at pharmacies in a bid to cut down on unwanted pregnancies has led to a rise in sexually transmitted diseases, research shows. A study has found that the policy simply encouraged young people to have unprotected sex and had failed to cut down the number of under-age pregnancies.

Professors Sourafel Girma and David Paton of Nottingham University compared areas of England where the scheme was introduced with those where it was not or where it was implemented later. They found that pregnancy rates for girls aged under 16 remained the same while the rates of sexually transmitted diseases increased by 12 per cent in those areas where the pill was available free from chemists. Prof Paton said: “We find that offering the morning-after pill free of charge didn’t have the intended effect of cutting teenage pregnancies but did have the unfortunate side of effect of increasing sexually transmitted infections.

Remember, those pills were bought with taxpayer dollars, and the morning-after-pill can cause abortions in some cases, by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. But what do you expect, it’s the socialist UK.

Iowa House passes constitutional amendment to define marriage

From Shane at Caffeinated Thoughts.

Excerpt:

The Iowa House passes HJR 6 by a vote of 62-37, this resolution introduces an amendment to the Iowa Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman.

The entire Republican caucus voted in favor of the resolution minus State Representative Betty DeBoef (R-What Cheer) who was ill today.  Three Democrats joined with Republicans to vote yes – State Representatives Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla), Brian Quirk (D–New Hampton), and Kurt Swaim (D-Bloomfield).

Before Iowans can vote on the language in this amendment it first needs to pass the Iowa Senate.  Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) has already promised to block a vote, and an attempted vote to bypass Senate rules to allow the Senate version to come to the floor to be debated and voted on failed.  The amendment would have to be passed again in the next General Assembly before it could be placed on the ballot.

It looks like the Democrats will block it in the Senate, because they oppose traditional marriage, and do not believe that children should be raised by a mother and a father. That’s why they support single motherhood, no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage.

Caffeinated Thoughts also had this post about the opponents of the definition of marriage bill.

Excerpt:

  • Family Planning Council of Iowa – their purpose is “to provide quality reproductive health care and family planning services to all people in Iowa who desire such services.”  Huh?  Protecting the traditional definition of marriage somehow diminishes their mission?  And yet, they have one lobbyist registered against.
  • Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO – they also have a lobbyist registered against HJR 6.  I wonder how the definition of marriage is a labor issue and how many of their members don’t expect their dues to pay for activity like this.
  • National Association of Social Workers – They have two lobbyists working against.  How this advances the social work field or impedes their members from doing their work I’ll never know, but it is further proof how this profession has been hijacked by the left.
  • AFSCME Iowa Council 61 – How again is this a labor issue?  Oh I know benefits… Nope, sorry if I were a union member I’d be ticked, and they have six three lobbyists registered against this bill.
  • Planned Parenthood of the Heartland – Interesting, I’m surprised they are advocating any type of monogamous relationship since they want to treat youth like they are a bunch of minks.  They have two lobbyists registered against.
  • Interfaith Alliance of Iowa – they should change their name to InterLiberalFaith Alliance of Iowa.

It’s important to understand which groups are left-wingers. Unions, abortion providers, religious pluralists, etc.

In a prior story, Arkansas Republicans passed a ban on taxpayer-funding of abortion.