Pro-Life Page
Wednesday, January 7, 2015 by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 1/6/15 6:27 PM
Prolife members of Congress today introduced legislation in the House of Representatives that bans
abortions from after 20weeks of pregnancy up to the day of birth.
With Republicans controlling both the House and Senate, there is a guarantee that the important prolife
legislation will finally receive a vote in both chambers of Congress. In 2013, the House approved the bill on
a 228196 vote with 6 Democrats voting for the bill and 6 Republicans voting against it. President Barack
Obama has issued a veto threat against that bill and Senate Democrats refused to bring it up for a vote.
Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, along with Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, are
the lead sponsors of the bill.
In a statement, Franks told LifeNews: “More
than 18,000 ‘very late term’ abortions are
performed every year on perfectly healthy
unborn babies in America. These are
innocent and defenseless children who can
not only feel pain, but who can survive
outside of the womb in most cases, and who
are torturously killed without even basic
anesthesia. Many of them cry and scream
as they die, but because it is amniotic fluid
going over their vocal cords instead of air, we
don’t hear them.”
“Late term Abortion in America has its
defenders, but no true or principled defense.
The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act seeks to afford basic protection to mothers and their unborn
babies entering the sixth month of gestation,” he said. “Throughout America’s history, the hearts of the
American people have been moved with compassion when they discover a theretofore hidden class of
victims, once they grasp both the humanity of the victims and the inhumanity of what is being done to
them. America is on the cusp of another such realization.”
“We have a moral obligation to end dangerous lateterm abortions in order to protect women and these
precious babies from criminals like Kermit Gosnell and others who prey on the most vulnerable in our
society,” Blackburn said. “The United States is one of the few remaining countries in the world that allows
abortion after 20 weeks. That is why today we renew our efforts to protect the lives of babies and their
mothers with the introduction of the PainCapable Unborn Child Protection Act. Rep. Franks and I have
been a good team moving this legislation through the House as we continue to lead the fight to ensure the
unborn are provided the same protections that all human life deserves.”
Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee says several states have already passed the bill.
“The FranksBlackburn bill is based on the NRLC model legislation that has been enacted in 10 states, and
it reflects a policy that is broadly supported in national public opinion polls. In the new Congress, every
member of the House and Senate will go on record on whether to permit the continued killing of paincapable
unborn children, in the sixth month and later,” he told LifeNews.
A national poll by The Polling Company found that, after being informed that there is scientific evidence
that unborn children are capable of feeling pain at least by 20 weeks, 64% would support a law banning
abortion after 20 weeks, unless the mother’s life was in danger. Only 30% said they would oppose such a
law.
A November 2014 poll from Quinnipiac found that 60 percent of Americans support legislation limiting
abortions after 20 weeks, including 56 percent of Independents and 46 percent of Democrats.
During the hearing on the last bill, former abortion practitioner Anthony Levatino told members of the
committee the gruesome details of his former abortion practice and how he became prolife following the
tragic automobile accident of his child.
Another bombshell dropped during the hearing came from Dr. Maureen Condic, who is Associate
Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine.
She testified that the unborn child is capable of reacting to pain as early as 810 weeks. This is when most
abortions in America take place.
The bill relies on the science of fetal pain to establish a Constitutional reason for Congress to ban abortions
late in pregnancy. The science behind the concept of fetal pain is fully established and Dr. Steven Zielinski,
an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into it. He first published
reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for it.
He has testified before Congress that an unborn child could feel pain at “eightandahalf weeks and
possibly earlier” and that a baby before birth “under the right circumstances, is capable of crying.”
He and his colleagues Dr. Vincent J. Collins and Thomas J. Marzen were the top researchers to point to
fetal pain decades ago. Collins, before his death, was Professor of Anesthesiology at Northwestern
University and the University of Illinois and author of Principles of Anesthesiology, one of the leading
medical texts on the control of pain.
“The functioning neurological structures necessary to suffer pain are developed early in a child’s
development in the womb,” they wrote.
“Functioning neurological structures necessary for pain sensation are in place as early as 8 weeks, but
certainly by 13 1/2 weeks of gestation. Sensory nerves, including nociceptors, reach the skin of the fetus
before the 9th week of gestation. The first detectable brain activity occurs in the thalamus between the 8th
and 10th weeks. The movement of electrical impulses through the neural fibers and spinal column takes
place between 8 and 9 weeks gestation. By 13 1/2 weeks, the entire sensory nervous system functions as
a whole in all parts of the body,” they continued.
With Zielinski and his colleagues the first to provide the scientific basis for the concept of fetal pain, Dr.
Kanwaljeet Anand has provided further research to substantiate their work.
One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand at the University of Tennessee, stated
in his expert report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice, “It is my opinion that the human fetus
possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived
by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children.”
“The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies,” explains
Steven Calvin, M.D., perinatologist, chair of the Program in Human Rights Medicine, University of
Minnesota, where he teaches obstetrics.
Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, Assistant Professor, Division of Neonatology at Northwestern University in her
testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in May 2012 said, “[w]hen we speak of infants at 22
weeks LMP [Note: this is 20 weeks post fertilization], for example, we no longer have to rely solely on
inferences or ultrasound imagery, because such premature patients are kicking, moving, reacting, and
developing right before our eyes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.”
“In today’s medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this age and are able to witness their exutero growth
and development. Medical advancement and technology have enabled us to improve our ability to care for
these infants…In fact, standard of care for neonatal intensive care units requires attention to and treatment
of neonatal pain,” Dr. Malloy testified. She continued, “[t]hus, the difference between fetal and neonatal
pain is simply the locale in which the pain occurs. The receiver’s experience of the pain is the same. I could
never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment
or cardiac injection.”
|
Tuesday, January 6, 2015 by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 1/2/15 3:44 PM Some media pundits and even pro-life advocates think the pro-life movement is losing. Yes, in the United States, abortion has been legal for more than four decades. But, as Carol Tobias of National Right to Life explains, if the flip the cup upside down, it’s definitely half full. Even within the confines of legalized abortions, babies are saved from abortion each and every day. Consider this good from Tobias in an email to LifeNews that really puts things in perspective:
National Right to Life and other pro-life groups will be fighting for a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Now that pro-life lawmakers run the U.S. Senate, it will finally get a vote in that chamber. |
Tuesday, December 30, 2014 A new survey conducted by Operation Rescue of all abortion facilities in the United States has confirmed that the abortion clinic closure trend continued strongly in 2014. Operation Rescue is the only pro-life organization that maintains a listing of abortion facilities and tracks clinic closures and its extensive research has provided the most accurate accounting of abortion facilities known to exist. In all, 73 abortion facilities shut down for all or part of the year. The total number of all remaining abortion clinics in the US is currently 739. Surgical abortion facilities account for 551 of that total while the number of medication-only abortion facilities stands at 188. Out of 60 surgical abortion clinic closures, 47 were permanent. This represents a 23% decline in surgical abortion facilities over the past five years. Thirteen surgical facilities were allowed to reopen after initially closing, primarily due to court action that enjoined abortion safety laws that had shut down the substandard facilities. Thirteen facilities that provided only medication abortions account for the remaining closures in 2014. That more than doubles the number of medication abortion facilities that closed in 2013 when six were shuttered. While the abortion clinic closures did not eclipse the high water mark of 93 total closures in 2013, the 73 closures this year far exceeds the two dozen closures recorded in 2012. The 2014 figures represent a net decrease of 31 surgical abortion facilities nationwide. even though the number of medication abortion facilities increased by 11 over 2013 numbers, they still remain below the high of 196 facilities in 2012. “We are continuing to witness the implosion of the abortion cartel in America,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “The only things that are preventing total collapse are court injunctions that are blocking several state abortion safety laws from being enforced. Once those laws clear the courts, we expect to see even more dangerous abortion facilities close. This is great news for women and babies because when abortion clinics close, lives are saved.” Like this pro-life news article? Please support LifeNews during our End of Year fundraising campaign with a donation! The greatest number of closed facilities took place in Texas as the result of the 2013 abortion law known as HB2. Eleven surgical and three medication-only facilities shut down permanently over the course of 2014. Closures far outpaced clinic openings. Fifteen facilities either added surgical abortions or opened for the first time. Thirteen clinics, primarily Planned Parenthood centers, added medication abortions to clinics that previously did not provide them. Eight clinics that formerly provided surgical abortions made the decision to halt those procedures, but continue to sell medication abortions. “As new states laws add safety standards for surgical abortions, we are seeing the beginnings of a new trend. Abortion providers who cannot or will not comply with the higher standards have, in some cases, dropped surgical abortions in favor of medical abortions so they did not have to become licensed,” said Newman. “This allows incompetent abortionists to continue exploiting women for money while evading the need to increase patient safety.” Some of the more notable abortion facility closures included:
There are several primary reasons why abortion facilities continue to close. Those reasons include:
In 1991, there were 2,176 surgical abortion facilities operating in the U.S. Since then, a full 75% of those facilities have closed. As abortion facilities continue to close, abortion numbers continue to fall. While national abortion numbers remain incomplete, the average number of abortions decreases by about 3% annually. However, state statistics show that the drop in abortions that is more pronounced in areas where there are abortion clinic closures. For example, in Ohio, four abortion facilities closed in 2013, the most recent year for which abortion figures are available. During that year, the number of abortions dropped by nine percent – three times the average national drop in abortion numbers. “No matter how one views the numbers, they show that we are winning,” said Newman. “As the truth about abortion abuses and other dangers become public and are followed by new laws that increase protections for women and their babies, we can only expect the decline of the abortion cartel to continue until it collapses altogether.” Please visit AbortionDocs.org for a listing of all abortion facilities in the U.S. and documentation of their known abuses. A listing of closed abortion facilities is also available there. LifeNews.com Note: Cheryl Sullenger is a leader of Operation Rescue, a pro-life that monitors abortion practitioners and exposes their illegal and unethical practices. |
Tuesday, December 23, 2014 by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/22/14 2:01 PM A federal appeals court issued a ruling today striking down a North Carolina law allowing women a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn child before an abortion is done. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit struck down a North Carolina law requiring a 24-hour waiting period and informed consent of a woman before an abortion is performed. In January 2013, a district court imposed a temporary injunction on the law, claiming that its mandated disclosures about abortion are an unconstitutional imposition of “the state’s philosophic and social position discouraging abortion,” rather than being factually based. The appeals court, today, agreed and essentially said that showing women an ultrasound before an abortion and giving them information on abortion’s risks and alternatives unconstitutionally has the state of North Carolina taking sides in the abortion debate and making abortion practitioners its spokespeople. The law, which gives women a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn baby before considering an abortion, faced a lawsuit from the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. The law also requires the abortion practitioner to allow a woman considering an abortion to hear the heartbeat of her baby and to describe what the ultrasound shows. A study shows 99% of abortion clinics do ultrasound prior to the abortion to determine the age of the baby beforehand. The question then becomes whether the abortion practitioner will allow women to see the ultrasound beforehand — and most do not. Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden is involved in the case. “Pro-life laws provide women with crucial information that they wouldn’t otherwise get from abortionists,” said Aden. “The court was wrong to view these reasonable disclosures of fact as merely ideological. This law simply provides women the adequate time and information they need to make such an important decision.” “Abortionists should not be exempted from the standard that anyone performing risky surgery fully inform the patient of what the procedure is and what it does. Giving women the information they need before such a weighty decision is more important than any abortionist’s bottom line. Because this law places the best interests of women and their children first, we hope that it will ultimately be upheld,” he added. “Women in need deserve laws that are in the best interest of their physical and emotional well-being, and that take into consideration their unborn child,” added Aden. “The State has a compelling interest in ensuring that women are not rushed or coerced into having an abortion,” the brief in Stuart v. Camnitz explains. “The General Assembly could appropriately take notice that some women who seek to obtain an abortion may have been pressured into doing so, and that women who have the opportunity to see and hear specific information about fetal development have time to ponder the decision and a chance to discuss it with their physician. Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, responded to the lawsuit the abortion advocates files, saying, “What are abortion advocates afraid of? Probably that when mothers see the recognizable images of their unborn children as they kick and move inside the womb, with beating hearts, abortionists will lose business.”
Balch added: “As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Gonzalss v. Carhart in 2007, ‘Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision….The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know…’” “This law would protect a mother’s right to receive vital information prior to making a life or death decision about her unborn child,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee. “We are disappointed by the decision of the Court striking down North Carolina’s Ultrasound law,” Barbara Holt, executive director of North Carolina Right to Life, told NRL News Today. “Turning the screen at an angle where the mother may view it if she wishes is very little to ask, considering that a human life hangs in the balance.” She noted that “Ultrasound technology has made tremendous advancements and provides a window to the womb that allows mothers to see their unborn children in real time. It is absolutely vital that a woman, at this most crucial life-and-death juncture, be provided all the information possible about the abortion procedure and the development of her unborn child. Simply put, the abortion decision cannot be undone. Women deserve all the facts.” Holt added, “We will continue to work and urge the legislature to pass legislation that seeks to protect mothers and their unborn children.” The informed consent bill provides that a booklet containing scientifically accurate information about risks, alternatives and information on the development of the unborn child, compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services, be offered to the mother at least 24 hours prior to an abortion so that she might have the opportunity to read and understand the information. It also provides that an ultrasound image of the unborn child be displayed at least four hours prior to an abortion so that the mother might view it. “The abortion industry, working in league with Governor Perdue, attempted to place a financial bottom line above the rights and protection of mothers,” Balch added. U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles in Greensboro issued the initial ruling about the law, which also provides for a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion. The lawsuit, filed in the Middle District of North Carolina, claims the new law violates the rights of women and abortion facilities. The law is important because women frequently complain they were not shown any ultrasound information before the abortion even though abortion centers routinely do them to determine the age of the unborn child at the time of the abortion. The pro-life measure received approved from the state legislature this summer and became law when lawmakers overturned a veto from pro-abortion Governor Bev Perdue, a Democrat. The measure helps women obtain information about abortion’s risks and alternatives they may not otherwise receive before an abortion. The bill also allows women a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn baby, something abortion centers routinely do but don’t let women see. Planned Parenthood Health Systems, Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina and the Center for Reproductive Rights, a New York-based pro-abortion legal group, joined the lawsuit the ACLU filed. But Rep. Ruth Samuelson, a Mecklenburg County Republican who sponsored the bill, told AP she expected the law to survive the legal challenge and said it is in the best interest of women to have it in place. The Woman’s Right to Know bill, H 854, is similar to legislation other states have passed and is proven to reduce abortions. When women are given information about abortion that Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses don’t routinely provide, they frequently consider alternatives. Some 34 other states already have a waiting period on abortion on the books and Republican Sen. Warren Daniel of Morganton, on the Senate floor, told lawmakers, “We know statistically that this type of legislation helps to make abortions more rare.” He said the bill could reduce the 30,000 abortions in North Carolina annually by as much as 10 percent. |
Monday, December 22, 2014 by Cheryl Sullenger | LifeNews.com | 12/22/14 11:15 AM
Prolife activists caught an ambulance on video as it rushed a patient to the hospital from Southwestern
Women’s Options, an abortion facility known to specialize in very lateterm abortions. The incident took
place on Friday, December 19, 2014.
This represents the seventeenth documented botched abortion at that facility since 2008.
The video clearly shows a patient on a gurney
as she was loaded into an awaiting ambulance
and whisked away to a nearby hospital.
“While abortion is never safe for mother or
child, those who champion abortion in New
Mexico cannot claim to care about women
seeking abortions when these injuries continue
to pile up without consequence,” stated Bud
Shaver, Executive Director of Protest ABQ.
Tara Shaver, also of Protest ABQ, verified that
the abortionist on duty was Shelley Sella, who
was featured in the film “After Tiller,” which explored controversial lateterm abortions done by Sella and
others throughout all nine months of pregnancy.
Sella, who flies in from her home in California to conduct abortions in Albuquerque, faced license
revocation in 2012 for botching an abortion done at 35 weeks on a woman with a history of having a
previous Cesarean section. The woman’s uterus ruptured during labor and she nearly died. The incident
was discovered by Tara Shaver, who had obtained 911 records that dramatically documented the event.
Both Shaver and Operation Rescue filed complaints against Sella with the New Mexico Medical Board.
However, after a disciplinary hearing in which the Board’s attorney recommended sanctions against Sella,
the New Mexico Medical Board inexplicably cleared her of all wrongdoing in 2013, leaving Sella to
continue her pattern of seriously injuring women.
In addition, New Mexico has enacted no minimum safety standards for abortions and continues to allow
abortion clinics to operate without inspection or any other accountability despite the large number of
documented abortion injuries.
“New Mexico continues to be the Wild West for an outofcontrol abortion cartel that is allowed to run amok
by a state government that refuses to hold it accountable to even the most rudimentary safety standards
that could spare women from needless injury,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “Until
that changes, we will continue to see women hurt and perhaps killed by abortionists that admit they do not
use practices that meet the minimum standard of care. Women everywhere should be outraged that
women’s lives and health are regarded with less consideration that what New Mexico‘s pets receive.”
Operation Rescue continues to urge the New Mexico Medical Board to take action to protect women and
shut down Southwestern Women’s Options permanently.
|
Friday, December 19, 2014 by Sarah Torre | LifeNews.com | 12/18/14 12:45 PM
Yesterday, the Council of the District of Columbia passed a bill that could force employers in the nation’s capital to cover elective abortions in their health plans and require even pro-life organizations to hire individuals who oppose their views on abortion. The bill will now go to Mayor Vincent Gray for approval. This latest attempt to violate the freedom of individuals in the District should spur Congress to better protect the conscience rights for all Americans. The “Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act,” specifically prohibits employers from discriminating in “compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment” on the basis of an individual’s “reproductive health decision making” – including the “termination of a pregnancy.” In light of comments made by Council member David Grosso at a hearing on the bill earlier this year, the D.C. legislation could be interpreted to force even religious and pro-life employers to provide coverage of elective abortions. The threat against conscience rights is serious for many organizations in D.C. like Americans United for Life, March for Life, Family Research Council and the Archdiocese of Washington, among others. Organizations whose mission is to empower women facing unplanned pregnancies with physical and emotional support or who advocate for policies that affirm the dignity and value of both mother and child in law could be forced to provide health insurance for the life-ending procedure they oppose. “This bill is an egregious attack on pro-life conscience,” said Alliance Defending Freedom’s Senior Counsel Casey Mattox, who wrote letters to the council on behalf of a number of pro-life groups in the District. “The government has no business forcing pro-life organizations to pay for elective abortions.” The bill could also prohibit an organization from making employment decisions in accordance with their beliefs so as to maintain the integrity of their pro-life mission and advocacy. “Under the proposed bill, a Catholic school could not fire a principal who had an elective abortion, announced this to staff and students, and stated she believed this decision was consistent with Church teaching,” writes Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in a letter to the D.C. council. He explains:
Even D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray urged the council to postpone voting on the bill a few weeks ago, noting a review of the legislation by the Office of Attorney General “deemed the legislation legally insufficient.” The Mayor’s letter continued:
In addition to those concerns, the District could also be in hot water under federal conscience law. To the extent the D.C. bill would force employers to include coverage of elective abortion in their health plans, the District would be in violation of a federal policy known as the Weldon Amendment. Since 2004, the Weldon Amendment has prohibited state and local governments receiving certain federal funds from discriminating against health care entities that decline to “provide, pay for, provide coverage of or refer for abortions.” That protection extends to health care plans. Enforcement of the conscience policy, however, is left to the discretion of officials in the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a less-than-illustrious track record of moving quickly on complaints. Congress should provide victims of conscience rights violations the ability to defend their rights in court, not leave them to wait on bureaucrats in the Obama administration. The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act would do just that by modifying the Weldon amendment to provide a private right of action for individuals and institutions who are discriminated against because they decline to participate in or pay for coverage of abortion. The D.C. bill is the second time this year a government has forced employers to cover elective abortions in their health plans. In August, California mandated that almost ever health plan in the state include coverage of elective abortions, including those offered by religious organizations, religious schools – even churches. Requests to HHS officials to review the state’s mandate have so far gone unanswered by the Obama administration. Policymakers shouldn’t wait for more assaults on conscience to better protect the freedom of every American – from California to D.C. and everywhere in between. |
Thursday, December 18, 2014 by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/17/14 11:28 AM
In a horrible defeat for conscience rights for medical professionals, a British court today ruled that a pair of
midwives who didn’t want to be involved in assisting abortions must do so.
Midwives Mary Doogan and Connie Wood won a lower court decision last year but the UK’s Supreme
Court heard an appeal brought by the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which is supported by the proabortion
British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) and the Royal College of Midwives.
The midwives, with more than 20 years’
experience, initially lost their cases against their
employers in the Outer House of the Court of
Session in Edinburgh in 2012. However that
decision was overturned in 2013 by the Court’s
Inner House, which judged the midwives were
legally allowed to refrain from delegating to,
supervising and supporting colleagues involved in
abortion care on their wards.
The dispute arose when Doogan’s and Wood’s
employers reorganized abortion services in 2007.
Midterm and lateterm abortions would be
performed on the labor ward rather than on the gynecology ward and the midwives were told they had to
oversee abortion procedures.
Central to Doogan’s and Wood’s defense was that previously they were not called on to delegate,
supervise or support staff engaged in the care of patients undergoing abortions.
But today the Supreme Court has rejected the opportunity to uphold the right of conscientious objection for
senior midwives who refuse to supervise abortions performed on a labour ward. Today’s decision issued in
the Supreme Court has been condemned by those who backed the Glasgow midwives’ fight for their right
to work in the NHS without being involved in abortions.
“We are both saddened and extremely disappointed with today’s verdict from the Supreme Court and can
only imagine the subsequent detrimental consequences that will result from today’s decision on staff of
conscience throughout the UK,” the midwives said after the decision.
They added: “Despite it having been recognised that the number of abortions on the labour ward at our
hospital is in fact a tiny percentage of the workload, which in turn could allow the accommodation of
conscientious objection with minimal effort, this judgment, with its constraints and narrow interpretation,
has resulted in the provision of a conscience clause which now in practice is meaningless for senior
midwives on a labour ward.”
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) which paid the midwives’ legal expenses
throughout the case has said that senior midwives who refuse to kill babies could be forced to leave the
profession.
Paul Tully, general secretary of SPUC said: “The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
acknowledges the great debt that the whole prolife community owes to Mary Doogan and Connie Wood
for fighting this battle over the past seven years. They have fought not only for their own careers, but for all
current and future members of the profession who uphold the right to life of everyone, from the time of
conception, without discrimination. We are bitterly disappointed for them.”
He told LifeNews: “Today’s decision sadly makes it likely that senior midwives who refuse to kill babies will
be forced to leave the profession. Junior midwives might still be able to work in labour wards where
abortions are performed but they will be restricted to ‘staff midwife’ status at best. They could easily be
placed in an impossible situation by proabortion superiors, and would be unable to receive promotion to a
more senior role without fear of being required to violate their consciences. This will affect anyone who
objects to abortion, of any religion or none. It will create a secondclass status in midwifery for those who
only deliver babies and don’t kill them.”
Tully continued: “Furthermore, the court has used the opportunity of this case to decide that the
conscience clause in the Abortion Act does not apply to General Practitioners and that hospital doctors
asked to prescribe abortion drugs will not be covered by the conscience clause. We anticipate that this will
lead to renewed efforts by health officials to force doctors who have a conscientious objection to abortion
either to compromise their respect for human life or to leave the profession. SPUC will support and
encourage doctors to resist any such bullying approach.”
The prolife advocate concluded: “The proabortion lobby has long argued that conscientious objectors
should be required to refer women seeking legal abortion to other practitioners. Bodies such as the
Department of Health have qualified this by saying that this only applies when the statutory grounds for a
legal abortion apply, but the Supreme Court has said that any medical professional who refuses to provide
an abortion should arrange for a referral to someone else who will do so. This seems to go far beyond the
scope of the Abortion Act, and furthermore is not even an issue there was any need for the Court to decide
in this case.”
The Abortion Act of 1967 states that no one with a conscientious objection can be obliged to participate in
abortion procedures. “However, the hospital management insisted that a conscientious objection clause in
the 1967 Abortion Act applied only to active participation in a termination and did not cover the women’s
duties to delegate, supervise and support staff.
“The Court has nevertheless said that midwives and doctors with conscientious objections are obliged to
refer abortion patients to colleagues who don’t object to abortion. This goes further than the General
Medical Council, for instance, whose current guidance Personal Belief and Medical Practice says that
doctors should refer patients to another doctor, but does not require them to check their colleague’s proabortion
credentials,” Tully said.
|
Wednesday, December 17, 2014 by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/16/14 1:13 PM Australia was rocked by a rare episode of terrorism on Tuesday, when a tense hostage siege in Sydney came to an end after police rescued hostages from a tenuous situation. As the world follows the fallout of the horrific event, stories of courage are emerging. Tori Johnson, 34, and Katrina Dawson, 38 below right, were killed during the terrorist siege at Sydney’s Lindt cafe on Monday. Johnson, the cafe manager of two years, tried to wrestle the gun from the hostage-taker before he was shot. And Johnson was actually protecting two people — Dawson, 38, whose children are all under ten, was an attorney in Sydney’s central business district opposite the siege site and died of a heart attack. Julie Taylor, 38, was getting coffee with Katrina Dawson in the Lindt cafe when Man Haron Monis launched his fatal attack. One newspaper recounts what happened as she attempted to shield her pregnant friend. “She had been getting coffee with pregnant Julie Taylor when Man Haron Monis entered the building – and later admirably shielded her friend from bullets,” the paper reported. “It was not clear whether Mrs Dawson was shot or what other injuries, if any, she sustained in the shocking incident.” “Archbishop Anthony Fisher spoke at a prayer service later on Tuesday of how the two victims were ‘willing to lay down their lives so others might live,” it said.
|
Tuesday, December 16, 2014 by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/15/14 11:44 AM
The RU 486 abortion pill has been responsible for killing dozens of people — including women in the
United States — and injuring thousands more. But the Supreme Court refused to take a case today to
protect women from it.
Contrary to Food and Drug Administration protocols, Planned Parenthood distributes abortioninducing
drugs to women, oftentimes without requiring an inperson visit, up until two weeks beyond the prescribed
49 days from their last menstrual cycle. Furthermore, the organization sends women home to complete the
chemical abortion themselves without a physician present.
Planned Parenthood’s instructions have directly led to the deaths of women from mifepristone, another
name for the RU 486 abortion pill. Planned Parenthood had been telling women to use the abortion drug
vaginally even though the FDA indicated oral use is safer for women. It wasn’t until four California women
all died within a week of using the abortion drug they received from Planned Parenthood abortion
businesses that it changed its policy to conform to the FDA protocol.
Knowing all that, the state of Arizona had
approved a bill designed to protect women’s
health from Planned Parenthood, the abortion
business that was violating FDA protocols and
putting women’s lives at risk by how it was
improperly dispensing the abortion drug. The
law bans dispensing the drug during the 7th9th
weeks of pregnancy, when women may die
form using it.
Previously, the The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling siding with the Planned Parenthood
abortion business in its legal battle to ignore FDA rules and subject women to dangerous abortions by
giving them the abortion drug outside the guidelines the FDA has put in place. Today, the Supreme Court
refused to hear the state’s appeal in order to uphold the prolife law.
The abortion drug is responsible for the deaths of dozens of women worldwide, including several in the
United States alone, and it has injured at least 1,100 women in the United States alone as of 2006 figures
from the Food and Drug Administration.
Planned Parenthood Arizona’s lawsuit was initially filed in Maricopa County Superior Court and it
challenges two prolife bills slated to take effect in 2011. The abortion business complains the bills would
make abortions tougher to get in Arizona and would prohibit nonphysicians from giving women the
abortion drug — something the FDA recommends be limited to a licensed doctor.
After its passage in the Arizona legislature, the prolife Center for Arizona Policy hailed the law.
“Passed in 2012, the purpose of this law is to ensure the abortion industry distributes the dangerous and
deadly abortion pill in line with FDA protocol. While the FDA protocol requires the pill to be distributed within
the first 49 days of a pregnancy, Planned Parenthood has dispensed the pill through 63 days of a
pregnancy,” it said.
“With all the evidence that shows the abortion pill presents serious risks to the lives of women, it should be
distributed with the utmost care. It is irresponsible for Planned Parenthood to persist in ignoring this
protocol for a pill that is responsible for at least 14 deaths in the United States,” it added.
The case is Humble v. Planned Parenthood, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14284.
|
Monday, December 15, 2014 by Randy O'Bannon, Ph.D. | LifeNews.com | 12/12/14 7:44 PM
What if you walked into the waiting room of any of the country’s abortion clinics and told the young mothers
waiting there in the lobby that there’s a new study indicating that the “procedure” they’re about to undergo
will, in the coming year, send thousands of women to the emergency room or back to the clinic to deal with
a complication or a “failed abortion”?
How many of them would say that makes them feel more comfortable with their decision? None, you would
suspect.
Yet if one actually reads a new study (as opposed to the press release) out of the University of California –
San Francisco (UCSF), that’s what is being acknowledged but cloaked. Instead of a true picture, you get a
UCSF release trumpeting the results as showing that the “Major Complication Rate After Abortion Is
Extremely Low” (UCSF Release, 12/8/14).
But a closer look at the data shows there is some
real stretching and spinning going on here, belying
the “extremely low” complication rate assertion. As
you read our analysis, be sure to focus in on what
the authors consider to be “minor” complications.
The UCSF study, “Incidence of Emergency
Department Visits and Complications After Abortion,”
is based on a recent study of California Medicaid
recipients. It appeared in the December 8, 2014,
edition of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
California is one of the states that pays for the abortions of women enrolled in Medicaid. The study looked
at the billing data from 50,273 MediCal patients who had 54,911 abortions in 20092010.
The authors do not give comparable state data from those years, but note that of the 181,730 abortions
performed in California in 2011, about 51% were covered by the state’s MediCal program. This study
looked at just those records of patients were treated under the feeforservice (vs. managed care) part of
the program. [1]
Nearly 8% (or between one in 12 and one in 13) of women showed up at the clinic or a local Emergency
Room (ER) seeking some service within six weeks of their abortions. Some of those were eliminated from
further study because billing records appeared to show that they came in for some service unrelated to the
abortion. (These were not specified, but this could be something like smashing a finger in the car door,
coming down with the flu, etc.)
But even pulling these out and other “complications not validated,” one is left with a substantial number of
women dealing with medical problems resulting from their “safe” abortions.
On the billing records of those women returning to the clinic or going to the ER, they found women
hemorrhaging, dealing with infections, uterine perforations – the sort of problems we’re supposed to think
were relics of the early days following the Roe v. Wade decision when abortionists were just learning their
craft.
A surprising number of these were related to the new chemical or “medication” abortion method that was
supposed to offer women a safer alternative to surgical abortion.
There were nearly four times as many surgical abortions (34,755 first trimester, 8,837 2nd trimester or
later) tracked by the study as there were chemical abortions. (11,319). Yet there were more identified
complications associated with the chemical method (588) than they were for the surgical ones (438 for first
trimester, 130 for 2nd or later) combined.
The complication rate for chemical abortions was 5.2%, versus complication rates of 1.3% for first trimester
suction aspiration abortions and 1.5% for second trimester or later methods. This would make chemical
abortions four times riskier than early surgical ones and more than three times less safe than a second or
third trimester procedure.
This is hardly the “advance” or “improvement” that women were promised when the government was
asked to approve RU486 more than a decade ago.
A number of these complications involved “incomplete” or “failed” abortions [2]. Most of these were
identified as “minor” complications by researchers (there were also “minor” hemorrhages, uterine
perforations, and infections).
UCSF originally found 535 repeat abortions within six weeks –165 “subsequent medication [chemical]
abortions,” and 370 “subsequent aspirations.
Theoretically, some of these could be new abortions, but much more likely is that these are chemical or
surgical procedures that were performed to complete the earlier incomplete or failed abortions.
These may not all have been counted as complications, or they may have fallen into the category of 658
“Other” or “Undetermined” complications. The latter seems likely, given that the “treatment” for 400 of
these (about 61%) was “uterine aspiration.”
The point which their own data makes abundantly clear is that these abortions far from being as
safe or successful as advertised.
Remarkably, the researchers attribute the high rate of complications (the majority of which they term
“minor” and “expected”) among women having chemical abortions to “aspirations performed presumptively
or to alleviate bleeding or cramping symptoms.”
In other words, bleeding or cramping was so bad that women came back to the clinic or went to the ER,
where doctors (noticeably including those from the clinic who would have seen ordinary abortion bleeding
before) decided emergency surgery was needed. Yet in most cases, UCSF wants us to believe, this was
just a “minor” or “expected” complication.
All told, the study found that 2.1%, or about one out of every 48 abortions, were connected to a
complication that was diagnosed or treated at some medical facility. Though perhaps lower than the
complication rates one might expect for essential lifesaving major surgery, this is hardly the risk free
“procedure” the abortion industry and lobby wants people to think it is. It is also higher than people might
expect for a “procedure” that abortionists have been working to perfect for over 40 years.
Remember this study was of a selected population in California. What if one applied these results
nationwide, based on the estimate there are now roughly 1.05 million abortions annual?
It would translate into more than 22,000 women visiting their local ER or returning to the clinic for medical
care each year. How many women in clinic waiting rooms today would be surprised to hear that number?
How many would be reassured of abortion’s safety?
An important consideration to keep in mind: This focuses on just the first six weeks, makes no effort to
track complications or injuries that might occur later on, such as infertility, subsequent premature birth, or
breast cancer, which can be heartbreaking, expensive, or even deadly. And we have not even begun to
consider the longterm psychosocial effects of abortion and the health consequences that flow from
subsequent depression, drug abuse, eating disorders, and documented higher rates of suicide.
The UCSF researchers admit that there may be critical data missing from their study. Some complications
might never have been recorded and there was no data at all on abortion’s maternal mortality, possibly the
most critical piece of information.
Also, by relying on MediCal codes, we could not assess whether any of the complications lead to deaths
or detect complications not documented by the billing codes. For instance it is possible that complications
seen or treated at the original abortion facility did not result in any MediCal reimbursements, thereby
undermining the complication rate.
This last sentence tell us that if a woman returned, distraught and bleeding, to the abortion clinic where she
first went for her abortion, and the clinic decided not to make waves and charge the state to complete the
abortion or repair the damage done by the first procedure, there would be no record of the complication.
In the light of recent operations like those of abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s, such a scenario does not seem
farfetched. If true, it would point to an even higher complication rate.
On the whole, by tracking and matching the billing records of clinics and hospitals, the study does
represent an improvement over surveys which simply relied on abortionists selfreporting. This is probably
one reason why the numbers were as high as they were, even with some still potentially serious holes in
the data.
One thing is clear. No matter the spin, no matter the “medical progress,” no matter the experience, the
special training, the new methods, abortion has not become “safe” or even appreciably safer. Women are
still being injured by abortion, and women are still dying.
Of course, the biggest “complication” is that someone – the innocent unborn child – dies in every
“successful” abortion. This alone is evidence that abortion is an inherently unsafe and unsound “medical
procedure.” Abortion violates the most basic principle of medical ethics: “first do no harm.”
Abortion harms women and children. What further research do we need?
[1] The data from this study was supposed to be better because patients who did not return to the clinic but
went instead to the ER were included by cross referencing the abortion billing and treatment coding.
Researchers looked at any billing for any medical service occurring anywhere within six weeks of their
original abortion billing and sought from codes to determine whether or not that treatment was abortion
related.
[2] “Incomplete” abortions, of which there were 231, would be those abortions in which some part of the
baby, placenta, gestational sac remained in the woman’s body. “Failed” abortions, of which there were 30,
would be when the baby remained and the abortion failed to occur.
|