Skip to main content

Pro-Life Page

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.
Thursday, December 11, 2014

by Kristi Burton Brown | LifeNews.com | 12/10/14 4:41 PM

(LiveActionNews) — With today’s modern technology and medical information, we have a real-time window into the womb. What happens to babies before birth – all the ways they move, grow, and change – is nothing short of amazing.

Here are just 10 things that happen to babies before birth. These 10 things demonstrate their uniqueness, value, and of course, their humanity.

What’s more, each of these 10 things happen in the first trimester – when approximately 90% of abortions in the U.S. occur.

1) “On the first day following fertilization, the human embryo is identifiable as a specific individual human being on a molecular level.”

A South Dakota legislative task force, appointed to examine the science behind unborn life, found that “the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a living human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine.”

2) A Baby’s Heart Begins to Beat at 21 Days.

Here is a video of the baby’s heart beating at four weeks and four days, just a little over a week after it began beating.

 

According to The Endowment for Human Development, “[b]etween fertilization and birth, the heart beats approximately 54 million times…”

3) At 2 to 3 Weeks, a Baby’s Brain is the “First Organ to Appear.”

4) A Baby May Feel Physical Pain as Early as His Fifth Week.

After examining scientific resources and hearing medical testimony, the South Dakota Task Force found that “(the necessary pieces) for pain detection in the spinal cord exists at very early developmental stages.” Babies have also been documented moving away from unwanted or painful touch in their first few weeks of in utero life.

5) A Baby’s Kidneys are Present at Only 5 Weeks.

In fact, by eight weeks old, all of the baby’s organs are in place and only need to be fully developed.

6) A Baby’s Brainwaves Can be Measured at 6 Weeks Old.

See the brainwaves for yourself here.

8 week old human fetus. All her organs are present.

7) At 6 Weeks, a Baby Will Move Away if His Mouth is Touched.

The Endowment for Human Development has a video of a six-week-old baby responding to touch here.

8) A Baby’s Ear Can Begin to be Seen Around 6 Weeks.

9) A Baby Has Fingerprints at 9-10 Weeks.

These fingerprints will be the same throughout the baby’s life. His permanent identification is already developing. Watch a video and see an unborn baby’s fingerprints here.

10) A Baby Can Suck Her Thumb and Yawn at 9 1/2 Weeks Old.

According to The Endowment for Human Development, most babies prefer their right thumb. At this age, plenty is going on. A baby’s vocal cords are forming, her bones are hardening, and her toenails and fingernails are emerging. See a video of a ten-week-old baby yawning here.

For more on prenatal development, go here.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

by Jill Stanek | LifeNews.com | 12/9/14 1:21 PM

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards disclosed in Elle in October that she had had an abortion:

I had an abortion. It was the right decision for me and my husband, and it wasn’t a difficult decision. Before becoming president of Planned Parenthood eight years ago, I hadn’t really talked about it beyond family and close friends. But I’m here to say, when politicians argue and shout about abortion, they’re talking about me—and millions of other women around the country.

At the time I thought the “it wasn’t a difficult decision” line was terribly insensitive to Richards’ three surviving children. They certainly know it could have been any one of them who was snuffed, in which case so what, according to their mother?

But we know why Richards had to act blasé. There is a new campaign underway to destigmatize abortion, and to do that abortion has to be portrayed as nothing earth shattering to a woman and not necessarily done for awful reasons, like rape, or a handicapped baby. Explained post-abortive Merritt Tierce in a recent New York Times op ed:

By repeating only the gut-wrenching, heartbreaking, terrifying abortion stories, we protect a lie: that abortion isn’t normal. We have learned to think of abortion with shame and fear. We have accepted the damaging idea that a person who wants an abortion must grovel before the consciences of others…. We have to stop categorizing abortions as justified or unjustified.

Thus, Richards reiterated her abortion was no biggie in a video she made for the “1 in 3″ campaign a couple weeks ago, adding, “[t]oday, I’m telling my story”:

 

But Richards didn’t tell her story. She gave absolutely no details other than she and her husband were indifferent about killing their baby.

Which leaves so many unanswered questions. How can it be that the premier leader of the abortion/contraception industry got pregnant by mistake? Was she using birth control? What kind of birth control?  When did she get her abortion, before or after she was married? Why? Before, after, or between which child? Did she get her abortion at a Planned Parenthood or go to a private doctor? Did she do it for her career (which would be incredibly ironic)?

And how could Richards travel the country promoting Planned Parenthood and abortion for eight whole years as president and not disclose her own abortion? Wasn’t that living one huge, stinking lie?

The mundaneness by which Richards claimed to have procured her abortion began to show itself differently in an interview she gave to Cosmopolitan, published yesterday, in which she said:

I just talked to my kids the other day, and they knew I’d had an abortion, and they were sort of like, “Mom, it was no big deal,” but I could also tell it was important to them that we talked about it.

That sentence makes no sense. If their mother’s abortion was “no big deal,” it should have not been “important” for the kids to talk about. Clipping one’s fingernails would fall under the category of “no big deal,” in which case kids wouldn’t think it important to discuss.

So what exactly was “important” for Richards and her surviving children to hash through? That they are missing a sibling? That there’s someone to mourn? That they are special to their parents, even if by the luck of the draw they could have been so unspecial as to have been killed – without a second thought?

The problem with Cecile Richards’ abortion is if it truly “wasn’t a difficult decision,” then she is showing heartlessness not just about the death of a child created with the man she loved, then killed in cooperation with him, but also toward their surviving children.

But we know Richards is lying, because it turns out she needed to somehow smooth things over with her children, I’m guessing during the Thanksgiving holiday. She needed to thread a needle of displaying callousness toward the offspring she killed but love toward the offspring she didn’t kill but easily could have – quite a feat, and good luck with that.

 

How can @CecileRichards show apathy toward the child she killed but love to those she didn’t?

Which makes the latest pro-abortion campaign another impossibility to pull off. If even the president of Planned Parenthood cant do it, no one can.

If Richards were to ever show compassion in any way toward her aborted baby, she would be unlocking a compartment in her consciousness that would begin to unravel everything she stands for.

The thing is, I think Richards already knows all that.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

by Jill Stanek | LifeNews.com | 12/9/14 1:21 PM

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards disclosed in Elle in October that she had had an abortion:

I had an abortion. It was the right decision for me and my husband, and it wasn’t a difficult decision. Before becoming president of Planned Parenthood eight years ago, I hadn’t really talked about it beyond family and close friends. But I’m here to say, when politicians argue and shout about abortion, they’re talking about me—and millions of other women around the country.

At the time I thought the “it wasn’t a difficult decision” line was terribly insensitive to Richards’ three surviving children. They certainly know it could have been any one of them who was snuffed, in which case so what, according to their mother?

But we know why Richards had to act blasé. There is a new campaign underway to destigmatize abortion, and to do that abortion has to be portrayed as nothing earth shattering to a woman and not necessarily done for awful reasons, like rape, or a handicapped baby. Explained post-abortive Merritt Tierce in a recent New York Times op ed:

By repeating only the gut-wrenching, heartbreaking, terrifying abortion stories, we protect a lie: that abortion isn’t normal. We have learned to think of abortion with shame and fear. We have accepted the damaging idea that a person who wants an abortion must grovel before the consciences of others…. We have to stop categorizing abortions as justified or unjustified.

Thus, Richards reiterated her abortion was no biggie in a video she made for the “1 in 3″ campaign a couple weeks ago, adding, “[t]oday, I’m telling my story”:

 

But Richards didn’t tell her story. She gave absolutely no details other than she and her husband were indifferent about killing their baby.

Which leaves so many unanswered questions. How can it be that the premier leader of the abortion/contraception industry got pregnant by mistake? Was she using birth control? What kind of birth control?  When did she get her abortion, before or after she was married? Why? Before, after, or between which child? Did she get her abortion at a Planned Parenthood or go to a private doctor? Did she do it for her career (which would be incredibly ironic)?

And how could Richards travel the country promoting Planned Parenthood and abortion for eight whole years as president and not disclose her own abortion? Wasn’t that living one huge, stinking lie?

The mundaneness by which Richards claimed to have procured her abortion began to show itself differently in an interview she gave to Cosmopolitan, published yesterday, in which she said:

I just talked to my kids the other day, and they knew I’d had an abortion, and they were sort of like, “Mom, it was no big deal,” but I could also tell it was important to them that we talked about it.

That sentence makes no sense. If their mother’s abortion was “no big deal,” it should have not been “important” for the kids to talk about. Clipping one’s fingernails would fall under the category of “no big deal,” in which case kids wouldn’t think it important to discuss.

So what exactly was “important” for Richards and her surviving children to hash through? That they are missing a sibling? That there’s someone to mourn? That they are special to their parents, even if by the luck of the draw they could have been so unspecial as to have been killed – without a second thought?

The problem with Cecile Richards’ abortion is if it truly “wasn’t a difficult decision,” then she is showing heartlessness not just about the death of a child created with the man she loved, then killed in cooperation with him, but also toward their surviving children.

But we know Richards is lying, because it turns out she needed to somehow smooth things over with her children, I’m guessing during the Thanksgiving holiday. She needed to thread a needle of displaying callousness toward the offspring she killed but love toward the offspring she didn’t kill but easily could have – quite a feat, and good luck with that.

 

How can @CecileRichards show apathy toward the child she killed but love to those she didn’t?

Which makes the latest pro-abortion campaign another impossibility to pull off. If even the president of Planned Parenthood cant do it, no one can.

If Richards were to ever show compassion in any way toward her aborted baby, she would be unlocking a compartment in her consciousness that would begin to unravel everything she stands for.

The thing is, I think Richards already knows all that.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/8/14 12:30 PM
 
A Catholic religious order, the Little Sisters of the Poor, will appear before a federal appeals court today to
tell it to protect their religious liberties and prevent the Obama administration from making them comply
with Obamacare’s abortion mandate.
The mandate compels religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions.
Without relief, the Little Sisters face millions of dollars in IRS fines because they cannot comply with the
government’s mandate that they give their employees free access to contraception, sterilization, and
abortion­inducing drugs.
 
Previously, the U.S. Supreme
Court temporarily protected the
Little Sisters from the mandate.
The Little Sisters are now before
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
in Denver to extend that protection,
and their attorneys will present oral
arguments today.
“We are thrilled the Supreme Court
temporarily protected the Little
Sisters from having to violate their
conscience or pay crippling IRS
fines. We are hopeful the Tenth
Circuit will give them more lasting protection,” said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for
Religious Liberty and lead counsel for Little Sisters of the Poor. “The federal government is a massive
entity that has lots of ways to deliver contraceptives to people–it doesn’t need to force the Little Sisters to
participate.”
 
The injunction from the Supreme Court provided the Little Sisters short­term protection from being forced
to sign and deliver the controversial government forms authorizing, ordering, and incentivizing their health
benefits administrator to provide contraceptives, sterilization, and drugs and devices that may cause early
abortions. Instead, the Little Sisters simply had to inform HHS of their religious identity and objections.
Protection has been given to 18 of the 19 similar cases.
 
“Virtually every other party who asked for protection from the mandate has been given it,” said Rienzi.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that the Christian­run Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to obey the
HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare that requires businesses to pay for abortion causing drugs in
their employee health care plans.
The Little Sisters are joined in the lawsuit by their religious health benefit providers, Christian Brothers
Services and Christian Brothers Employee Benefits Trust, and hundreds of similarly­situated Catholic
ministries that obtain their health benefits from the same providers. The Plaintiffs are also represented by
Locke Lord, a national law firm, and by Kevin Walsh, a law professor at the University of Richmond.
A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby
Lobby to obey the mandate.
 
“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free
contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.
The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S.
Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all
government­approved contraceptives for women without co­payments or other charges to the patient.
Fifty­one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance
with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”
Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate
Monday, December 8, 2014
by Kathy Ostrowski | LifeNews.com | 12/8/14 11:08 AM
 
Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid­Missouri has withdrawn its challenge in federal court to a Kansas law
requiring that its website homepage contain a live link to the Kansas Health Department “informed consent”
information.
This concession happened at the eleventh hour, as a hearing was scheduled Monday in the court of Judge
Kathryn Vratil. PPKMM technically has until Monday to refile, which is extremely unlikely.
PPKMM had refused to comply with the weblink law even after all other Kansas abortion clinics had
complied and despite the fact that a separate challenge from the Hodes & Nauser abortion clinic collapsed
in state district court this spring.
 
This is the fourth win for the legal team under Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt in
defending sound pro­life laws promoted by Kansans for Life.
Kansas has required abortion clinics to provide
access to state materials on prenatal development,
abortion information and assistance for unplanned
pregnancies since 1997. The required weblink at
issue reads:
 
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment
maintains a website containing information about the
development of the unborn child, as well as video of
sonogram images of the unborn child at various
stages of development, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment`s website can be accessed
here[womansrighttoknow.org].
 
 
The state’s defense was rock solid against PPKMM’s argument that the weblink was:
1. a free speech infringement of PPKMM’s preferred narrative about pregnancy, and
2. it didn’t belong on the homepage where other non­abortion clients might see it.
The state rebutted that the required link was a form of consumer protection and that the state had a right
to alert women before they committed to abortion. From the state’s most recent filing (emphasis added):
 
“In the 1980s and 1990s, public access to the Internet was extremely limited. Few businesses or public
institutions had websites. …In the face of these changes in technology and access, and in order to more
effectively reach women as they are contemplating the weighty decision of whether to undergo an abortion,
the Kansas Legislature enacted a law in 2013…that when a company is in the business of performing
abortions and that company maintains a website, it must include a link on its homepage.”
 
Friday, December 5, 2014
by Radiance Foundation | LifeNews.com | 12/4/14 2:33 PM
 
The world’s largest pro­life event, the annual March for Life in DC, brings together hundreds of thousands
of passionate advocates for life. With over 500,000 in attendance,
the majority of people are there due to the passionate and
persistent work of the Catholic Church.
Evangelicals are emerging, too, in greater numbers to fight the
social injustice of abortion.
 
For the first time ever, a non­denominational prayer and worship
event, OneVoiceDC (www.OneVoiceDC.com), will be held at the
Renaissance Washington DC Downtown Hotel (the main hotel of the
March for Life), the night before the massive march.
OneVoiceDC is open to all and is being spearheaded by The
Radiance Foundation, Bound4LIFE and Online For Life in
partnership with numerous pro­life, pro­family, and pro­Liberty
organizations. This unifying evangelical event, with racially and
denominationally diverse leadership, will be held from 7pm­9:30pm
at the Renaissance hotel’s Grand Ballroom Wednesday, January
21st, 2015. It will be a powerful time of focused prayer (ending abortion, post­abortive healing, victories)
and worship led by an inspirational team of worship leaders.
 
“The March for Life is such an incredibly diverse experience–racially, ethnically, denominationally, and
generationally,” says Ryan Bomberger, Chief Creative Officer of The Radiance Foundation. “OneVoiceDC
is an event that will enable Christians to focus on what we’re all about—loving God and loving people.”
“When God’s people pray, anything is possible—mountains can move, wounded people can get healed,
justice can be released,” says Matt Lockett, Executive Director of Bound4LIFE. “OneVoiceDC is an
opportunity to join together in prayer for all this and more on behalf of the nation.”
 
Online For Life President, Brian Fisher, explains: “The culture of death and abortion in America is primarily
a spiritual condition. Prayer, therefore, is our primary act in the effort to end abortion in America. I can’t
wait to see how God answers the prayers of His people at OneVoiceDC. Hearts will be changed, babies will
be rescued, and families will be restored.”
 
OneVoiceDC is a free event, but those who’d like to attend are encouraged to register online (and receive
a free­t­shirt) at http://www.onevoicedc.com. Seating is limited
Thursday, December 4, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/3/14 12:40 PM

Since the introduction of the dangerous RU 486 (mifepristone) abortion drug, pro-life physicians have focused on coming up with a method of reversing the abortion pill process if a mother decides immediately after taking it that she wants her baby.

It’s not commonly known that the RU 486 abortion drug process can be reversed if a mother changes her mind about the abortion in time. LifeNews has chronicled a number of women who have already reversed their abortions.

However, a protocol has already been developed for helping women who changed their minds about going through with a multi-day second-trimester abortion after it’s been started. The process, which involves reversing a second trimester abortions by removing the laminaria, can be used as long as the abortion practitioner has not yet done the lethal injection that destroys the life of the unborn baby.

Now, pregnancy centers that help women find abortion alternatives are now also helping women who change their minds immediately after taking the abortion pill.

On November 17, 2014 the Women’s Choice Center of the Quad-Cities became the first pregnancy center in the Midwest to offer natural progesterone treatments to attempt to reverse RU-486 medical abortions. The treatments are being offered in partnership with Moline, Iowa-based OBGYN Dr. Karla Polaschek, the center’s medical director.

So far, there have been 58 babies born alive and healthy to mothers treated with this protocol after beginning a medical abortion. In addition, 106 women are expecting delivery of children they first tried to abort.

Dr. Poascheck is using a hormone treatment protocol developed by Dr. George Delgado, Medical Director of Culture of Life Family Services. Dr. Delgado reports a 60% success rate in attempted abortion pill reversals started within the first 72 hours after taking the first pill. Dr. Polaschek, who also serves on the board of Human Life International introduced the Iowa pregnancy center to the RU-486 attempted reversal concept. She recommended WCC become a referral site for women attempting to reverse their medical abortions.

According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, nearly half (2,314) of 4,638 abortions recorded in Iowa in 2012 were abortions involving RU 486. In an RU 486 pill-based abortion, pregnant women are given two drugs and directed to take them three days apart. The first, mifepristone, blocks the hormone progesterone from getting to the growing baby, starving it of the nutrients it needs to survive. The second drug, the ulcer pill misoprostol, triggers uterine contractions to expel the dead baby. Women eventually complete the abortion and home and deliver a dead baby.

Dr. Delgado and Dr. Thomas Hilgers found that women who receive high doses of progesterone shortly after taking the first abortion pill can override the action of the progesterone blocker, and save the pregnancy.

“Time is critical,” says Dr. Polaschek, who notes that the pregnancy center is launching a rapid-response protocol to get women wanting to reverse their medical abortions to their Clinic as quickly as possible, preferably within the first day or hours after the first abortion pill is taken.

Within the first week of offering the treatment protocol, WCC received its first call from the national website/hotline (www.abortionpillreversal.com), which offers referrals to women seeking to reverse their medical abortions.

“The potential demand for attempted reversals is great,” says Tyler, a certified counselor who has helped hundreds of post-abortive women along the path to healing. “Regret after an abortion can be devastating. For some, that regret begins immediately after the abortion. Previously, there hasn’t been much hope for turning back once a medical abortion began. Now there is.”

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

by Randy O'Bannon, Ph.D. | LifeNews.com | 12/2/14 10:44 AM

The government’s latest report confirms the good news reported by Guttmacher earlier this year. That not only the number of abortions in the U.S. have dropped to lows not seen since the earliest days of legal abortion in America, so, too, have abortion rates and abortion ratios.

The 730,322 abortions reported to the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in 2011 do not include any from California, Maryland, or New Hampshire, which did not make them available. Guttmacher reported 1,058,470 for the same year. (As we explain fully below, Guttmacher’s numbers will always be higher because it directly surveys abortion “providers.”)

But it is significant that this is the lowest figure the CDC has reported since dropping California, New Hampshire, and at least one other state in 1998.

Long term drops in abortion rates and ratios make it clear that we are in the midst of a historic trend. The 13.9 abortion rate (the number of abortions per thousand women ages 15-44) is lower than any rate recorded by the CDC since abortion became legal in the U.S. in 1973.

Granted, abortions from California or other states missing since 1998 might have given us somewhat higher rates. When numbers from California were available, the abortion rates for the U.S. were about 2 to 3 points higher than those calculated without them. But that does not change that the 2011 abortion rate of 13.9 has dropped by nearly half (44.4%) from what it was at its high point in 1980: 25 abortions per thousand women of reproductive age.

Likewise, the abortion ratio (the number of abortions for every 1,000 live births) is at a historic low, with 219 abortions for every thousand births. [1] The same caveat mentioned above about missing California numbers applies here. But the enormous drop from 359.2 abortion for every 1,000 births in 1980 to the 219 for every 1,000 for 2011 cannot simply be explained by missing states with high abortion proclivities.

CDC versus Guttmacher

Around Thanksgiving every year, the CDC publishes its annual report of national abortion data. This year’s report “Abortion Surveillance – United States, 2011″ issued November 28, 2014 (it takes the government a few years to collect and process the state data), shows the number and rate of abortions dropping by 5% over the previous year. The ratio of abortion to live births declining by nearly as much, 4%.

The Guttmacher Institute’s report, issued earlier this year, showed similar significant drops in the number of abortions, though starting from higher numbers. As we have explained, Guttmacher surveys abortion clinics directly while the CDC relies on state health reports, meaning Guttmacher’s numbers will always be higher than CDC’s.

With respect to CDC, some state data is better than others, and not every state reports data to the CDC; abortion numbers from the nation’s most populous state, California is missing from this latest report, along with data from Maryland and New Hampshire.

For all of these reasons, Guttmacher’s totals are considered to be more accurate. The offset, however, is Guttmacher only reports every few years or so.

By contrast, the CDC reports its data every year. And because it generally tracks the same variables from year to year, the CDC report is a very useful tool for studying abortion demographics and confirming trends.

The CDC suggests that economics could have played a part in the decline in the number of abortions, which may be so. But with the long term drop in abortions and abortion rates and abortion ratios being seen in times of both economic booms and busts, the correlation is hard to nail down.

“Increasing acceptance of non-marital childbearing” is offered as one more possible explanation for the reduced incidence of abortion, but data point to something more. The statistics indeed show us that more children who would have been aborted are now being born. However there has not been a measurable increase in U.S. birth rates that matches up well with decreasing abortion rates.

Though the CDC does not seem to put a lot of weight on factors such as pro-life legislation such as parental involvement, waiting period laws, state regulations on clinics, and does not appear to consider that the lower numbers may reflect changing public attitudes towards abortion, these developments do seem to offer an explanation coherent with the data.

Americans are obviously tiring of a “solution” to an unplanned pregnancy that it has discovered to be no solution at all. Faced with the grisly reality of abortion, the gruesome truth about America’s abortionists, and, thanks to right to know laws and selfless pro-life volunteers reaching out to young women in crisis, the knowledge that there are practical, realistic alternatives to abortion that are better for both them and their babies, more women are choosing life.

We will provide more details on demographic data from the CDC report tomorrow.

[1] This does not include miscarriages or stillbirths, so cannot be easily turned into an abortion percentage. Other CDC sources attempting to count these have put the percentage of pregnant women aborting their babies at 18%.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

by Katie Yoder | LifeNews.com | 12/1/14 10:59 AM

The media are all for giving voice to the voiceless, as long as the message fits their agenda. Case in point: journalists recently rushed to publicize the positive – but only the positive – stories of women who chose to abort their unborn babies.

Dozens of women shared their abortion experiences on Nov. 20 during a live-streamed Abortion Speakout hosted by Advocates for Youth’s 1 in 3 Campaign. Participants included Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards, comedian Lizz Winstead and columnist Jessica Valenti.

Half a dozen outlets including The Washington Post and The Daily Beast reported on the event to praise women “who made the best decision” with “no regrets.” These stories ignore the abortion testimonies from women full of “regret” and “horror,” like those published by the Silent No More Awareness Campaign since 2003. Co-founder Georgette Forney explained to MRC Culture how these outlets “censor” and “edit” women who regret their abortions. The media are “trying to keep us quiet, all the while pretending to be representing women.”

The 1 in 3 Campaign aims to “end the stigma and shame women are made to feel about abortion” by stressing that one in three women will have an abortion during her lifetime (a statistic disputed by the pro-life movement).

Media Hype ONLY ‘Happily Ever After’ Abortions

In her anticipation of the event, The Washington Post’s Diana Reese wrote “Women will talk about their abortions Thursday, and I spoke with two of them.” While Reese stressed the trials and tribulations of those two women, she also focused on the “positive” (a recent trend at her newspaper).

To begin, Reese spoke with Marycruz Figueroa about her abortion story. Figueroa detailed how she made “the most responsible decision for all parties involved.” “I have no doubts, no regrets,” she emphasized.

Another woman, Julie Bindeman, made the “heart-breaking decision” to abort her child with a brain abnormality, Reese reported. But, after having other children, Reese consoled, “Her story has a happy ending.”

For anti-American Al Jazeera, Claire Gordon interviewed Michelle Kinsey Bruns. Recounting her abortion, Bruns said, “I’m glad that I did it. I don’t have any regrets.”

“Bruns knows that her abusive childhood, her youth, her poverty, her mental health, all explain her decision to have an abortion 20 years ago,” wrote Gordon. “But to her, they aren’t justifications, because they don’t need to be.”

For her part, Cosmo’s Jill Filipovic cited Jacqui Morton, a woman who aborted her baby with a “chromosomal defect.” “I couldn’t have a baby and bring her into a world and a life of suffering,” Morton told the magazine, which received an “Excellence in Media Award” by Planned Parenthood this past August. “If I hadn’t had the abortion, I would never have met my husband.”

Although she didn’t have a story to share, MSNBC’s Irin Carmon still chimed in. Abortion access, she wrote, “remains under assault across the country, and, decades later, the procedure is still often shrouded in silence.”

Writing for the abortion-plugging Daily Beast, Brandy Zadrozny covered the event “with presenters as diverse as the stories on display.” She noted the story of Brittany Mostiller. “Yes I’ve had an abortion,” Mostiller told Zadrozny. “And yes that’s ok, yes I have a family, and yes I made the best decision for myself and my family.”

After listing women in the media who have described their abortions, Zadrozny concluded, “If the current trend towards openness about abortion continues, soon there will be very few people – regardless of ideology – who can claim not to know ‘the kind of woman’ who would have an abortion.”

Emma Cueto agreed via feminist site Bustle:

The voices that are so rarely consulted, and are often shamed or shouted down when they do speak out, are the women who have actual, first hand experience with abortion. Those are the voices who should be shaping our understanding of what abortion is.

Ironically, the 1 in 3 Campaign – and these journalists themselves – shares the blame of censoring women’s stories on abortion.

The Media-Censored Stories

“Sadly, many self-identified feminists who see themselves as advocating for the health, welfare and empowerment of women deny the lived reality of thousands of women after abortion,” Janet Morana, co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, told MRC Culture.

She argued, “These campaigns to normalize and affirm a woman’s abortion experience fail to acknowledge that for many women, abortion can be an experience that has a negative impact on their lives.”

Morana’s organization, a project of Priests for Life and Anglicans for Life, “seeks to expose and heal the secrecy and silence surrounding the emotional and physical pain of abortion.”

Serving as a witness, the site lists thousands of testimonials from people ravaged by abortion – many from women who regret their choice. Here are just a few of the stories the media refuse to share:

  • “Please understand the horror of getting an abortion. It’s not a procedure to fix an illness; it’s to end a life.  It’s not all going to go away, you will think about it for the rest of your life.  It will haunt you.” – Jenna, Indiana
  • “The cold, dark, heart-breaking experience at the abortion clinic slowly infiltrated every area of my life. It’s so ironic that the abortion clinic tells you how quick and safe the procedure is but never mentions that the effects are destructive and will last a lifetime.” – Katie, Indiana
  • “I had an abortion; it was my choice. I regret it.” – Erica, Illinois
  • “I’m living proof that you never get over an abortion.  Every time someone dies or I see a couple struggling to become pregnant, I’m reminded of how precious life is.  If I can offer one bit of advice to a young woman in a similar situation to mine, it’s don’t have an abortion.  You’ll regret it the rest of your life, just like I have.” – Debbie, Montana
  • “If I could do it over, I would have kept her … I will never forget what a horrible decision I made at the time, and I will never forget that I killed my little girl, my only girl.” – Young, Alabama
  • “To my precious baby: I will not forget you. I never have. You were always here hidden in my heart. I will not hide you anymore. I love you. To say that I am sorry doesn’t seem to be enough.  I will never forget you! Your life does matter. I know that you are with Jesus in His Kingdom, and I will see you one day. Love, Mom” – Joanne, New York

As the other founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, Georgette Forney slammed the media for censorship. “They’re censoring us,” she told MRC Culture. “They’re basically saying, ‘We don’t want your voice included in the debate.’”

She found it “upsetting” that, since the organization’s founding, “the media has ignored our message because it doesn’t go along with their agenda” in that “it doesn’t affirm abortion.”

The media’s actions, Forney continued, “tell me they’re much more interested in protecting the right to abortion than protecting the women.” Or in other words, “they don’t really care about women. They care about the abortion industry.”

And by “editing our stories,” the media “are in essence trying to keep us quiet all the while pretending to be representing women,” she stressed.

While the media promote the “1 in 3” story, she said, they ignore “the thousands of voices that have been out there speaking for years.” That includes Forney’s organization, which has “had over 5,600 testimonies shared publicly in the last 12 years.”

“What we’re saying is that lots of people are impacted by the consequences and the pain that comes with abortion,” she explained, “[a]nd all of these people have been ignored and shut down and censored.”

But “our voices do count,” she emphasized. “Even if the media wants to shut us down, we’ll continue to stand out in public places and share the truth.”

This latest “1 in 3” push by the media follows journalists’ new spin on abortion: that the destruction of the most vulnerable is a “moral” “social good.”