Study Finds Women Who Have Abortions Experience Post-Traumatic Stress

Trauma Symptoms After Abortion Are Common, New Study Shows: Women Attribute Substance Abuse, Sexual Disorders, and Suicidal Thoughts to Abortion

African-American Leaders Protest Racist Planned Parenthood Antics

New Web Site Establishes Safe Environment for Those Changed by Abortion

Pro-Choice's Consequence: Premature Birth in Future Offspring

The Mystery of the Missing Lawsuits: One Year After the Supreme Court’s Partial-Birth Abortion Ruling, Something Remarkable has Happened: Nothing.

Pro-Abortion Group Honors Abortionists, But Ignores Illegal Activities

Medical Waste, Patient Records Found in Michigan Abortion Business Dumpster

Quotes from Abortion Textbooks and Court Testimony about Legal Abortion Activity

NEW! Another MI Abortionist Trashes Babies in Dumpster...

STUDY FINDS WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS EXPERIENCE POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS. A study published in the journal BMC Psychiatry found that women who have abortions typically experience high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The findings mirror other research reports showing women are more likely to suffer mental health issues following abortions compared with keeping the baby.

The study appeared in the July 2007 issue of the professional psychological publication but it only coming to light now.

The research involved 155 women from South Africa who had abortions and were evaluated one month and three months afterwards.

Approximately 20 percent of the women had post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms just one month later.

The results led the authors to note that "high rates of PTSD characterize women who have undergone voluntary pregnancy termination".

Dr. David Reardon, the head of the Elliot Institute and a post-abortion research who has been involved in more than a dozen studies documenting the psychological impact of abortion on women, notified LifeNews.com of the new study.

"The abortion industry should not be subjecting women to a procedure that is likely to increase or cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress or other mental health problems," he said.

"Furthermore, the evidence shows that many of these abortions are unwanted and the result of pressure or coercion from others," Reardon added. "The industry should be held liable for putting women at risk and performing unwanted and dangerous abortions."

Reardon said the researchers also examined the effect of levels of pain and post-abortion psychological outcomes.

The study found women who had received a local anesthetic versus those who had received IV sedation had higher levels of pain and were more likely to experience PTSD symptoms in the short-term but there was no long-term difference.

According to Reardon that means the abortion itself is more likely to cause the PTSD issues rather than the kind of pain management given during the abortion process.

This isn't the first study to show a link between abortion and post-traumatic stress disorders.

In a 2004 study published in the Medical Science Monitor (see below), 65 percent of American women reported PTSD symptoms after an abortion and just over 14 percent reported all the symptoms necessary for a clinical diagnosis of PTSD.
Related web sites:
Elliot Institute - http://www.AfterAbortion.Info
[July 2007, BMC Psychiatry; 13Feb08, Ertelt, LifeNews.com, DC]



TRAUMA SYMPTOMS AFTER ABORTIONS ARE COMMON, STUDY SHOWS: WOMEN ATTRIBUTE SUBSTANCE ABUSE, SEXUAL DISORDERS, & SUICIDAL THOUGHTS TO ABORTION. Post-traumatic reactions to induced abortion may be far more common than previously thought, according to a new study published in the Medical Science Monitor. Sixty-five percent of American women studied experienced multiple symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which they attributed to their abortions. Slightly over 14 percent reported all the symptoms necessary for a clinical diagnosis of abortion induced PTSD.

    Researchers gathered data from women seeking general health care treatment at clinics and hospitals in both the United States and Russia. Women with a history of pregnancy loss, including miscarriage or abortion, were asked to complete an extensive questionnaire about their experiences.

    The subsample used in this study included 331 Russian women and 217 American women. American women were significantly more likely to report traumatic reactions they attributed to their abortions, while Russian women were more likely to report disruption of cognitive schema, which is described as the equivalent of one's "psychological road map" for understanding the world and one's place in it.

    Both Russian and American women were more likely to experience negative reactions to abortion if they had prior negative opinions of abortion, felt pressured into unwanted abortions, were more religious, or received little or no counseling prior to the abortion. American women were more likely to report being exposed to one or more of these risk factors. For example, 64 percent of American women felt pressured by others to choose abortion compared to 37 percent of Russian women. In addition, only 25 percent of American women reported receiving adequate counseling prior to their abortions compared to 64 percent of the Russian women.

    American and Russian women reported fewer postive reactions to abortion than negative ones. The most commonly reported positive reaction was relief, but only 7 percent of Russian women and 14 percent of American women attributed this feeling to their abortions. American women were more likely to attribute to their abortion subsequent thoughts of suicide (36 percent), increased use of drugs or alcohol (27 percent), sexual problems (24 percent), relationship problems (27 percent), guilt (78 percent), and an inability to forgive themselves (62 percent). Approximately two percent of the American women studied attributed a subsequent psychiatric hospitalization to their abortion.

    "This is the first published study to compare reactions to abortion among women in two different countries," said Dr. Vincent Rue, the lead author of the study and a traumatologist who heads the Institute for Pregnancy Loss. "It is also the first to provide a detailed breakdown of traumatic symptoms which the subjects themselves attribute to their abortions. These results will help mental health workers to be better prepared to recognize and treat the psychological complications of abortion."

    While this new study focuses on traumatic reactions to abortion, it follows on the heals of nearly a dozen other peer-reviewed studies published in the last three years linking abortion to increased risk of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicidal behavior. Recent studies have also linked abortion to higher rates of death from heart disease, which investigators believe may be a long term effect of elevated rates of anxiety and depression.

    Because of the increasing concern about the mental health effects of abortion on women, legislation has been introduced in Congress to expand funding for treatment programs and research in this area.

    # # #

    Citing: Rue VM, Coleman PK, Rue JJ, Reardon DC. Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women. Med Sci Monit, 2004 10(10): SR5-16.

    The article can be downloaded free of charge at:
http://www.medscimonit.com/medscimonit/modules.php?name=GetPDF&pg=2&idm=4923

[Springfield, IL (November 16, 2004]





AFRICAN-AMERICAN LEADERS PROTEST RACIST PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Students for Life of America mobilizes African-American Pastors and Pro-Life leaders to call on Congress to De-fund Planned Parenthood.

[See the highlight video soon at www.studentsforlife.org.]

On 24April2008, Students for Life of America organized and led a protest against the racist practices of Planned Parenthood.

In widely circulated YouTube videos during recent months, Planned Parenthood staffers are caught on audio getting "excited" for a donation by a no-holds-barred racist over the phone. The caller plainly states that he wants his donation to be earmarked for a "black baby" because he thinks there are too many blacks already. To see one of the videos, click here.

The protest and press conference was held outside of the Planned Parenthood on 16th St. NW in Washington, D.C. In attendance were: Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-2), Kristan Hawkins (Students for Life of America), Day Gardner (National Black Pro-Life Union), Rev. Clenard Childress (BlackGenocide.org), Rev. Jesse Peterson (B.O.N.D.), Dr. Lillie Epps (Preserving Life and Legacy, Inc), Pastor Stephen Broden, Rev. Derek McCoy (High Impact Leadership Coalition), and Catherine Davis (Network of Politically Active Christians).

Students for Life of America's Executive Director, Kristan Hawkins, opened the press conference by quoting eugenicist Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood.

Hawkins quoted from Sanger's 1939 letter, "We should hire 3 or 4 colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." 

Hawkins went on to highlight how Planned Parenthood has continued the agenda of Margaret Sanger by maintaining policies that discriminate against minority communities. She highlighted that while African-American women only make 17% of all live births, they make up 36% of all abortions.

At the press conference, Day Gardner read a letter signed by over 30 African-American pastors and pro-life leaders calling on Congress to investigate and de-fund Planned Parenthood which receives over $300 million each year from taxpayers.

Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02) offered his support and assistance to the cause.  And Dr. Lillie Epps spoke of her personal abortion experience at the very Planned Parenthood location.  After being promised by Planned Parenthood that they would take care of her "problem," the problem of her child, she came back to say that Planned Parenthood lied to her and stripped her of her legacy. She said, "We are tired of being targeted, we are tired of being called weeds and enough is enough, the buck does stop here.  If we don't do something today, if we don't stop abortion in the African American community, we will not have a generation to come. We must stand today not just for our generation but for the generation to come." [25Apr08,  Students for Life of America, www.studentsforlife.org]

```````````````````````````````````````
Reproductive Racism  http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62426
23April08
``````````````````````````````````````
 
 

NEW WEB SITE ESTABLISHES SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR THOSE CHANGED BY ABORTION. AbortionChangesYou.com Extends Invitation to Make Sense of One's Abortion Experience and Find Support, Healing

 Michaelene Fredenburg became pregnant at 18. "I thought abortion would erase the pregnancy," she says. "I thought I could move on with my life. I was wrong." With the help of a professional counselor and the support of family and friends she was able to begin a healthy grieving process.

During the grieving process Fredenburg discovered that her family had also been impacted by her decision to abort. Drawing from this experience, Fredenburg is breaking new ground with the launch of the Abortion Changes You(TM) outreach that connects those touched by abortion with support resources.

AbortionChangesYou.com is more than a Web site for people who have experienced abortion - it's a safe online environment where visitors can participate in interactive content, explore the experiences of others and type in a ZIP code to connect with local resources.

"Just as each person's story is unique, every person moves through the process of healing differently. The Web site allows visitors to privately explore the voices of men, women, grandparents, other family members and friends who have been touched by abortion. The Web site also offers suggestions about how to begin the healing process," Fredenburg says. For example, the section Healing Pathways offers interactive content such as how to build a support system, explore emotions, identify unhealthy behaviors, and space to anonymously share stories, artwork, poetry, and songs.

The outreach and Web site are non-political and non-religious. Ultimately, Abortion Changes You(TM) hopes to demonstrate to anyone touched by abortion - either their own or that of someone close to them - that they are not alone.

"It is my hope that this Web site will assist men and women as they seek to make sense of their abortion or the abortion of someone close to them," Fredenburg says.

Michaelene Fredenburg is available for interviews. Please contact Ashley Walker at 678-990-9032 or Christine Schicker at 404-610-8871, both with The Maximus Group. [http://www.earnedmedia.org/maxg04231.htm; Contact: Ashley Walker, 678-990-9032; Christine Schicker, 404-610-8871; both with The Maximus Group
San Diego, April 23, 2008 /Christian Newswire]

PRO-CHOICE'S GUINEA PIGS. The birth of my fourth granddaughter two weeks ago -- healthy, a good weight -- was the occasion for joy and relief in equal measure.

My daughter's pregnancy had first been fraught with ominous signs of imminent miscarriage. Then the worry was a probable extremely pre-term birth (at 24 weeks' gestation, her high-risk specialist ominously murmured, "Let's try to get you to 28 weeks … "). Even on bed rest she was offered only 5% odds of going 37 weeks (she made it to 39!).

This was our family's first experience with an abnormal pregnancy. In the course of the unwanted adventure I acquired an education in the risks associated with prematurity, today a feature of one in eight births.

The most harrowing risk of an extremely pre-term birth (XPB) -- under 28 weeks gestation -- is cerebral palsy. The risk is about 38 times higher in XPB than in the overall newborn population.

Sometimes XPB is just bad luck. Sometimes it isn't. According to obstetrician Barbara Luke's classic Every Pregnant Woman's Guide to Preventing Premature Birth, "If you have had one or more induced abortions, your risk of prematurity with this pregnancy increases about 30%." After two, a woman's chance of an XPB doubles. A woman who has had four or more abortions runs nine times the risk of XPB, an increase of 800%.

Studies of black American women throw the problem into bold relief. Black American women, although only 12% of the American population, undergo 35.2% of all abortions. In 1987 it was reported in The New England Journal of Medicine that black American women with two previous abortions had a 91% higher relative risk of a subsequent pre-term birth.

As far back as 1967, Dr. Malcolm Potts -- himself a robust defender of abortion -- writing in The Eugenics Review, noted: "There seems little doubt that there is a true relationship between the high incidence of therapeutic abortion and prematurity. The interruption of pregnancy in the young (under 17) is more dangerous than in other cases."

(Of the approximately 120,000 abortions performed annually in Canada, the repeat rate is more than 29%, and amongst teenagers repeats are four times as high as for older women.)

This concession by Potts, who actually believed in eugenics, well before the organized and militant ideological polarization on abortion we're so familiar with, gives the lie to pro-choicers insisting such claims are "scare tactics" fabricated by pro-life activists.

But you won't find a future-pregnancy prematurity risk on pro-choice Web site fact sheets. The National Abortion Federation's states: "Comprehensive reviews of the data have concluded that a vacuum aspirational procedure in the first trimester poses virtually no risk to future reproductive health."

Since "suction" is the standard abortion method, I wondered if abortion clinics give actual potential clients a more nuanced picture. So I asked a friend in her 30s to do some sleuthing in person.

"Johanne" visited two abortion clinics in Montreal.
The Morgentaler clinic does not offer consultations prior to abortions. One signs the consent form and proceeds directly to the abortion. A consultation was only reluctantly arranged at Johanne's insistence.
Johanne asked a number of questions, including: "Is there a risk associated with a second abortion?" Answer: "No, and the proof is that [the woman] is fertile … One, two, three abortions, there are no risks."

At the Clinique Medicale de l'Alternative, Johanne was received with less suspicion. As at the Morgentaler, there is no consultation prior to the abortion. (I stress this because where prior counselling is offered, as in Sweden, fewer women choose to abort).

Johanne asked a doctor there the same questions, and again, was there a risk to future pregnancies associated with a second abortion? "No, a woman can have one, two, three, four, five abortions with no problem… "

In response to Nazi atrocities in human experimentation, the Nuremberg Code was adopted in 1964. The code insists on animal studies before exposing human beings to any procedure. All surgical procedures in Canada have been tested on animals. Except one. There are no published animal studies on vacuum aspiration abortion.
So the fact that women are guinea pigs is something else you won't see on the pro-abortion fact sheets or on consent forms. What other abortion risks are women not being warned about? Too many to mention in one column, that's for sure.
[http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=415216
Barbara Kay,  National Post,  Published: April 02, 2008]

THE MYSTERY OF THE MISSING LAWSUITS: ONE YEAR AFTER THE SUPREME COURT'S PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION RULING, SOMETHING REMARKABLE HAS HAPPENED: NOTHING. Exactly one year ago today, the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart rejected a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003. Confronting “documented medical disagreement whether the Act’s prohibition [on partial-birth abortion] would ever impose significant health risks on women,” the five-justice majority ruled that such disagreement about health risks in particular circumstances did not warrant invalidating the act in its entirety.

Instead, the Court virtually invited practitioners of partial-birth abortion and their allies to bring so-called as-applied challenges that would carve out from the Act’s scope any circumstances in which partial-birth abortion might be shown to be necessary to preserve the mother’s health. (See my essay “The Face-Off Over Partial-Birth Abortion” for a fuller discussion of the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges.)

In dissent, Justice Ginsburg predicted that these as-applied challenges would “be mounted swiftly, to ward off serious, sometimes irremediable harm, to women whose health would be endangered by the [Act’s] prohibition.” According to Ginsburg, “the record already includes hundreds and hundreds of pages of testimony identifying ‘discrete and well-defined instances’ in which recourse to an intact D&E [i.e., partial-birth abortion] would better protect the health of women with particular conditions.”

So how many as-applied challenges have been filed over the past year? Zero.

This fact is worth pondering, not only because the abortion industry had already compiled its best evidence of alleged health risks but also because it has long demonstrated its zeal to race to court on a moment’s notice. Why hasn’t it brought any as-applied challenges?

In a debate with me ten months ago, the Planned Parenthood attorney who presented oral argument in Gonzales v. Carhart offered successive makeshift explanations for the surprising inaction as of then. First, she contended that the as-applied challenges contemplated by the Court required that “a woman who has a serious medical need for an intact D&E abortion … just wait until the exact moment of that need, when she may in fact be hemorrhaging, [when] she may be hospitalized due to a systemic infection … [and] then file a lawsuit in federal court and wait for relief.”

Nice sound bite, perhaps, but manifestly untrue. As I pointed out, the proper plaintiff in as-applied actions is the abortionist, not the mother, as the penalties under the Act apply to him, not her. It’s quite clear from the Court’s ruling (and Ginsburg assumes as much in her dissent) that an abortionist who reasonably expects to face circumstances in his practice that he thinks call for partial-birth abortion to preserve the mother’s health can challenge the Act’s application to those circumstances.

Indeed, the Court notes that even the Department of Justice “has acknowledged that preenforcement, as-applied challenges to the Act can be maintained.” And even if it weren’t clear, that wouldn’t typically stop the pro-abortion litigation juggernaut from striving to establish the point.

The Planned Parenthood attorney then shifted to another explanation, as she asserted that the two injunctions that had been put in place “in the cases that went to the Supreme Court . . . have not yet been lifted by the lower court.” But that explanation made no sense either. By reversing the rulings below, the Supreme Court swept away the injunctions; no mopping-up by the lower courts was necessary.

So, given the supposed need to “ward off serious, sometimes irremediable harm” to pregnant women, why haven’t Planned Parenthood and its allies pursued any as-applied challenges over the course of the past year?

~~~~
One hint to the answer may be provided by the abortion industry’s previous record of remarkable misstatements about partial-birth abortion. To cite two leading examples:

In 1995, as the barbaric facts of partial-birth abortion were first coming to light, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups claimed that anesthesia given to the mother caused painless death of the baby before the partial-birth abortion was done — before, that is, the abortionist extracted the baby by her feet until all but her head had emerged, stabbed scissors into her head, sucked out her brains, collapsed her skull, and delivered her dead body. A Planned Parenthood abortionist even made that claim to the Senate Judiciary Committee. But two major societies of anesthesiologists firmly repudiated it.

Planned Parenthood and its allies also claimed in the mid-1990s that partial-birth abortion was “rare and performed primarily to save the lives or fertility of women bearing severely malformed babies” (in the New York Times’s paraphrase of a typical claim).

But in 1997 the New York Times reported that Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted that he had “lied through my teeth” in parroting that claim. In truth, “the procedure was common,” and “[i]n the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along.”

In Fitzsimmons’s words, “The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else.” Yet as late as 2003, Planned Parenthood was still claiming that partial-birth abortion was “used primarily in emergency abortions.” (And, even after the Court’s 2007 ruling, the lie lives on: for example, Supreme Court reporter Jeffrey Toobin repeated the falsehood both in a New Yorker article and in his book The Nine.)

Let me offer my own best guess why the abo