FIND PAST HOMEPAGE TOPICS UNDER "CURRENT HEADLINES" IN THE LEFT MENU...

NEW! Report Finds Women Who Refuse Abortions Often Face Violent Attacks, Death

NEW! Planned Parenthood President Says Telemed Abortion Scheme Going Nationwide

NEW! Women Deliver 2 Conference Calls for Billions More $$ for Abortion

Conscience Rights: CMA in Washington Post

A Nation of Laws

Hundreds of Late-Term Abortions Committed in Victoria, Australia

The Camera Doesn't Lie: Ultrasound Changes American Opinion on Abortion

Pregnancy Center for Life Sues Montgomery County Due to Law
Requiring Public Posting of Its Pro-Life Efforts

CONSCIENCE: New Health Law Raises Concerns About Respecting Providers' Consciences

Support Mothers by Supporting Pregnancy Resource Centers This Mother's Day -- 'Silent No More' Leaders

More Abortions Procured by Poor, Minority Women: Guttmacher

G8 Battle Breaks Out Over International Abortion Funding

UNFPA and Abortion Advocates to Push "Reproductive Rights" on UN Treaty Bodies

Mother Indicted in Death of Newborn (MUG)

NY Hospital Apologizes to Nurses Punished for Refusing to Facilitate Abortion

Women Who Have Abortions Four Times More Likely to Abuse Drugs, Alcohol

Manitoba U Study Links Abortion and Mental Illness/Suicide

Study Affirms Link Between Abortion and Mental Health Problems, Increase in Suicidal Thoughts, Substance Use

Congressmen Call for Probe of Obama Administration for Abortion Push in Kenya

New US House Bill Would Overturn Last Meaningful Restrictions on International Abortion Funding

U.S. Bill Would Amend Health Care to Exclude Abortion Funding

From the Experts: The Keys to Ending Maternal Mortality

New Study Undercuts Claims Abortion Reduces Maternal Mortality Numbers

Maternal Mortality and Abortion - Myths and Facts

STUDY: New Global Study Shows Maternal Mortality Significantly Lower Than Previously Thought

Aborting Facts for Political Purposes

NEW! Summary/Abstract: Maternal Mortality for 181 Countries, 1980—2008: A Systematic Analysis of Progress Towards Millennium Development Goal 5

Mexico: Proposed Law Would Send Doctors Who Don't Suggest Abortion to Jail

Africa: New Push to Extend Controversial Maputo Plan of Action

Chile: Maternal Mortality Study Undercuts Pro-Abortion Claims

Book Shows Why Abortion for Young Rape Victims Is Likely to Harm, Not Help

Commentary: The Skeleton in Radical Feminism's Closet --
How Can They Explain Killing Girls Just for Being Girls?

Abortion and Substance Abuse

NEW! 'Telemed' Abortions Under Investigation in Iowa

Human Services Dept. Allegedly Pressured Teen to Get Abortion

Tape of Clinic Failing to Report Sex Abuse Sent to Kentucky Authorities

Woman Impregnated by Rape at Age 12 Encourages Others to Choose Life

Abortion, Suicide Often Hand-in-Hand...

Report Finds Women Who Refuse Abortions Often Face Violent Attacks, Death
 Women who refuse requests from their husbands or boyfriends to have abortions are often finding themselves subject to violent attacks that sometimes result in their deaths. That's the finding of a new report from the Elliot Institute, which calls the problem a "widespread epidemic."

The new report, Forced Abortion in America, is drawing attention to attacks on pregnant women and girls in order to prevent them from continuing their pregnancies.

It points out a "widespread epidemic of unwanted, coerced and forced abortions taking place in the United States."

The report notes how research suggests most abortions are likely unwanted or coerced, with one survey of women who had abortions finding that 64 percent said they felt pressured by others to abort.

The same survey found 80 percent of women said they did not receive the counseling they needed to make a decision -- even though more than half said they felt rushed or uncertain about the abortion.

The consequences for those who refuse abortion can be dangerous and even deadly, according to the report, which details cases of women and girls facing violent attacks or murder for resisting abortion.

Studies of death rates among pregnant women in the U.S. have found that homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women, the authors say.

The cases detailed in the report represent only a fraction of the more than 200 cases the Elliot Institute has on file of women and girls being attacked or killed with the intent of getting rid of the pregnancy. The updated report contains new cases as well as a new special section on teens and forced abortion.

Among the new cases added to the report:

* A Kansas man and his wife were convicted of sexual abuse after the man raped his stepdaughters over a several year period, resulting in four pregnancies and at least one abortion, performed on an 11-year-old. The case was reported to authorities by a pro-life organization after one of the girls visited their office seeking an abortion; the group says that the abortion business did the abortion without informing authorities of any suspected abuse.

* Two Ohio teenagers were convicted for kidnapping and assaulting a pregnant teen, killing her unborn child. Police said one of the boys thought he had fathered the child, and the two hit the teen and kicked her the abdomen to cause the death of her 8-month-old unborn child. One of them allegedly told her that she should have gotten an abortion, and that "now your baby is going to die." DNA tests showed the teen was not the father.

* A man was sentenced to 9 years in prison for secretly giving his wife an abortion-inducing drug after she refused to abort. The woman secretly taped him admitting to giving her the drug but trying to convince her that she really wanted to have an abortion.

* A high school junior was beaten to death by her 22-year-old boyfriend after she refused to have an abortion. According to police, the man hit the teen at least four times on the head with a bat and admitted he did not want her to have the baby. He pleaded guilty after leading police to the girl's body, which he had buried under leaves in the woods. The man was sentenced to 22 years to life in prison.

"Our files contain hundreds of stories from women and girls who were attacked or killed with the intent of getting rid of the pregnancy," said Elliot Institute spokesperson Amy Sobie.

She told LifeNews.com, "We've been collecting these stories for more than six years through mainstream media sources and pro-life organizations who have been diligently reporting on these kinds of cases. The information is out there, but many people aren't aware of what might be going on in their own communities."

Sobie said people might not immediately connect this with abortion because in many cases the woman or girl never makes it to an abortion center -- she's attacked or killed before she even gets there.

"In our opinion, the availability of abortion makes it easier for those around her to think that she shouldn't be having this baby, and gives those with an interest in getting rid of the unborn child a justification for doing so," she said.

Some of the new cases included in the report involve assailants using abortifacients or other drugs to secretly induce an abortion. For example, in several cases the attackers secretly put the RU-486 abortion drug in their wives' or girlfriends' food or drink with the intent of killing the unborn child.

In addition to destroying the life of the unborn child and subjecting the mother to the emotional trauma of the loss of her child, these attacks may also put the mother at risk of physical problems without her being aware of it. Side effects of RU-486 include hemorrhaging, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, painful cramping, heart problems, infections and death of the mother.

And the availability of the drug may make it easier for those who want to cause an abortion to do so without the need to use pressure, intimidation or force to get the mother to an abortion business -- putting more women and girls at risk.

Other new cases focus on pregnancy discrimination by employers, schools and others that can make women feel they have no choice but to abort.

For example, a study published in the Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics found that student athletes conceal pregnancy, feel forced into abortion or fear losing financial aid because of pregnancy, which could jeopardize their ability to stay in school.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled cases with two large U.S. companies for refusing to hire a pregnant applicant and firing an employee who became pregnant.

"Pressure may also come from bosses, school counselors and others who see a pregnancy as a threat to the woman's ability to do her job or continue her education," Sobie said. "The EEOC has reported an increase in the number of pregnancy discrimination complaints filed against employees, and a number of large companies have settled or are facing lawsuits over claims they fired or demoted female workers who became pregnant."

Elliot Institute director Dr. David Reardon said that cases of women being pressured, threatened, or subjected to violence if they refuse to abort are not unusual. He pointed out that studies have shown that homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S. and that women in abusive relationships are at risk for increased violence during pregnancy.

"In many of the cases documented for this report, police and witnesses reported that acts of violence and murder took place after the woman refused to abort or because the attacker didn't want the pregnancy," he said. "Even if a woman isn't physically threatened, she often faces intense pressure, abandonment, lack of support, or emotional blackmail if she doesn't abort. While abortion is often described as a 'choice,' women who've been there tell a very different story."

Reardon said the report underscores the need for legislation, like that recently passed in Nebraska, holding abortion businesses liable for failing to screen women for evidence of coercion or pressure to abort and to direct them to people and resources that can help them.

"Too often, abortion clinics [sic] and others simply assume that if a woman is coming for an abortion, it is her free choice," he said. "This 'no questions asked' policy is especially harmful to those in abusive situations, including young girls who are victims of sexual predators. Women should not be forced into unwanted abortions and subjected to violence or pressure from others."

Related web sites:

Forced Abortion in America Report -
http://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf
Elliot Institute - http://www.afterabortion.org
[23 May 2010, Washington, DC, www.LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/nat6356.html ]



Planned Parenthood President Says Telemed Abortion Scheme Going Nationwide
Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards delivered the keynote speech at the 30 year anniversary celebration of Planned Parenthood in Cedar Rapids. There, she shared with her fellow abortion activists more details about the telemed abortion scheme it has set up in Iowa.

The process has abortion practitioners instruct women on using the dangerous abortion drug by video conference instead of assisting them in person.

It involves the dangerous RU 486, or mifepristone, abortion drug that has killed at least 13 women worldwide and injured 1,100 in the U.S. alone, according to 2006 FDA figures.

Operation Rescue, one of the pro-life groups exposing the practice, informed LifeNews.com that Richards revealed that expanding drug-induced into every Planned Parenthood center in the country through the use of the "telemed abortion" scheme is part of PPFA's Strategic Plan for 2015.

The group joined the Pro-Life Action League and local pro-life advocates led by Steve Brody by braving the cold and rain to protest the Planned Parenthood fund-raising banquet.

Iowa Public Radio interviewed Richards, who confirmed that the telemed abortion process is beginning to expand throughout Iowa and that the abortion business has plans to expand it throughout the nation during the next five years.

Operation Rescue has filed complaints with the Iowa Board of Medicine against Planned Parenthood alleging that the telemed abortion scheme is dangerous, illegal, and violates FDA protocols for usage of the drug. The board is investigating.

"If this push-button abortion scheme is allowed to spread, it will only increase the number of abortions at a time when abortion rates are falling and abortion clinics are closing," OR president Troy Newman told LifeNews.com.

"Not only will more babies die, but women will be placed in increased danger of serious medical complications or death, with no real emergency plan other than to make patients fend for themselves at whatever emergency room they can find," he said.

Abortion rates nationally have dropped, as have the number of surgical abortion clinics. However, in Iowa, abortion rates have remained steady as telemed abortions have offset the decrease in the number of surgical abortions, Newman explained.

"In addition to the dangers, telemed abortions are a cash cow for the abortion cartel. Planned Parenthood is charging insurance companies twice the price of cash patients, without having to pay an on-site abortionist. If this dangerous scheme is allowed to spread, it will increase health care costs for everyone," said Newman.

At least a dozen small Planned Parenthood offices in Iowa are administering the dangerous abortion drug without the mother seeing a doctor in person.

Instead, practitioner Susan Haskell of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland briefly addresses abortion patients from a teleconferencing hook up from her office in Des Moines. After explaining the medical abortion process, a button is pushed and an electronic drawer opens that contains the drugs.

Newman is also concerned because his group discovered that Planned Parenthood deviates from the FDA protocols in both dosage and number of recommended office visits.

The pro-life group also discovered that Planned Parenthood charges insurance companies $1,000 for the abortion drug procedure -- twice the cost of the abortion and something Newman says will drive up insurance prices for all consumers.
[23 May 2010, Cedar Rapids, IA, www.LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/state5111.html



Women Deliver 2 Conference Calls for Billions More $$ for Abortion

Next month in Washington, DC, abortion advocates will team up with UN agencies and corporate sponsors to host the Women Deliver 2 conference.
A follow-up to the first conference held in London in October 2007, next month’s meeting is shaping up to be a bigger money grab than its predecessor.  According to the conference website, "There is just enough time, if the world commits funding now, to achieve MDG 5,” which they claim requires an “additional US $10 billion annually by 2010 and US $20 billion by 2015." 


     Women Deliver argues while donor funding for maternal, newborn and child health has increased significantly in the past few years, from US$2.1 billion in 2003 to almost US $3.5 billion in 2006, it remains far below the total funding needs.  Women Deliver organizers are stressing that the $30 billion is needed from governments and the international community "to provide essential services to all women in developing countries to meet MDG 5 (Improve Maternal Health) by 2015."

     Originally founded as an initiative of the abortion advocacy group Family Care International (FCI), Women Deliver has morphed into a separate organization, though still based at FCI headquarters in New York.

    The first Women Deliver conference was billed as a conference focused on maternal, child and newborn health and reducing maternal mortality, but participants were overwhelmed by the conference’s abortion focus.

The agenda was organized by Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics [sic] for a Free Choice, and the majority of discussions focused on securing funding and harnessing political will for “reproductive rights,” a term that has been interpreted by UN committees to include abortion on demand.  One organizer bluntly told C-FAM's Susan Yoshihara that the Women Deliver conference was a "pro-choice conference."

     Women Deliver 2 is maintaining its focus on abortion. According to the organization, the third of the "three pillars" to save women's lives is access to abortion. Nearly one-quarter of the 110 breakout sessions will focus on abortion, "reproductive rights" or family planning.  Apart from the abortion focus, there are over a dozen sessions that take aim at obstacles to the "reproductive rights" agenda – namely, religion and existing laws.

     The organizing committee of Women Deliver 2 reads like a who’s who of the abortion industry. Abortion advocacy groups on the conference committee include: the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Human Rights Watch, the International Women’s Health Coalition, Marie Stopes International, Ipas, and abortion advocates from across the globe.   Corporate sponsors include ExxonMobil and pharmaceutical industry giants GlaxoSmithKline and Tibotec.

     The UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Bank are listed as both conference partners and conference donors. 

While these agencies have partnered with conference organizers, critics stress that Women Deliver is not a UN conference, despite the traction it has gained amongst some high level UN officials, like Thoraya Obaid of UNFPA, who has been regularly promoting Women Deliver 2 in her recent speeches and statements.

     Women Deliver 2 will take place in Washington, DC from June 7-9.
[13 May 2010, Volume 13, Number 22, C-FAM, New York, Samantha Singson, http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1627/pub_detail.asp ]



Conscience Rights: CMA in Washington Post
Excerpted from "New health-care law raises concerns about respecting providers' consciences". The Washington Post, by Rob Stein. May 11, 2010--Deep within the massive health-care overhaul legislation, a few little-noticed provisions have quietly reignited one of the bitterest debates in medicine: how to balance the right of doctors, nurses and other workers to refuse to provide services on moral or religious grounds with the right of patients to get care.

The debate has focused attention on President Obama's plan to rescind a federal regulation put into effect by the previous administration to protect workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable.

Soon after taking office, Obama announced he would lift the rule, arguing it could create obstacles to abortion and other reproductive health services. But a final decision about whether to kill, keep or replace the rule with a compromise has been pending as the debate over the health law raged."

At the end of the day regarding the legislation, a pro-life health-care professional is left with a weak and limited conscience provision that doesn't even prohibit discrimination by governments and institutions," said Jonathan Imbody, Vice President for Government Relations at the Christian Medical Association.

# "The conscience battle often is not actually a conflict over physicians who 'refuse to provide care' but a conflict over forcing physicians to kill their patients—including the patient developing in the womb. Elective abortion and assisted suicide do not qualify as medical care by any historical medical standard; they are simply means of killing.

# "Deadly procedures such as abortion and assisted suicide are not just procedures that some happen to 'find objectionable,' as if the conflict pits a physician's subjective feelings against a patient's physical needs. These lethal procedures violate life-honoring, objective standards (including the Hippocratic Oath and biblical commandments) that have guided medical ethics for millennia--

AAPLOG COMMENT: Go to www.hippocraticregistry.com, read the info, and click on "register here" to sign on as a Hippocratic physician. That identity could become crucial as government approved "reproductive healthcare" (abortion) works it's way into the mainstream standard of care. And if you would like copy of the Hippocratic Oath (2010 wording), just hit REPLY to this letter, and type in OATH. We'll send it. We suggest you print it, sign it, frame it, and post it where your patients can see what you stand for.
[from recent CMDA "News and Views; 22may10, Jdc/aaplog]


A Nation of Laws
We are a nation of Laws.

The new healthcare Law allows taxpayer-funded abortions.

Abortion is now a part of mainstream medical care, at least as far as the government is concerned. We need to deal with that reality.

Regarding American foreign policy, the same perverse value is in place. After the recent G-8 meeting in Canada, Sec. of State Clinton, talking about making maternal health a priority of the G-8, said, "And if we're talking about maternal health, you cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion."

In fact, many UN-associated organizations concerned with reducing maternal mortality (a essential priority) are focused on making access to legal abortion a cornerstone of their approach No matter that hemorrhage, infection, and BP problems are by far the main causes worldwide of maternal mortality. And that improved pre- and post-natal care an essential elements of solution.

And no matter that Chile, which has very restrictive abortion laws, has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world. (Incidentally, Chile has excellent data records and good primary maternal health services.)

And no matter that underdeveloped countries do not have the medical infra-structure to take care of the complications of surgical and medical abortion, leaving women to die of hemorrhage, infection, and BP crises.

In spite of the above, there is an obsession to legalize abortion in all countries as a major way to decrease maternal mortality. More likely, it will increase maternal mortality in many underdeveloped countries. And that is no "April Fool's Day" joke. It is reality.
[2April2010, Jdc/aaplog]



Hundreds of Late-Term Abortions Committed in Victoria, Australia

 According to the most recent figures released in the annual report of the Australian Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity, 345 late-term abortions were committed in Victoria State in 2007.

Of these, the report states that 164 were performed at a Melbourne clinic on women with perfectly healthy unborn children who said they were suffering psychological or “social” problems.

Though most of the abortions were carried out on women about six months pregnant, two of the aborted children were older than 28 weeks. A further 181 late-term abortions were committed on babies diagnosed with genetic abnormalities. Fifty-four of these babies survived the procedure to die post-natally, according to the figures released in the state government report.

In Victoria, late-term abortions can be carried out for "psycho-social" reasons even if there is no declaration of a threat to the mother's health.

The report says that many of the women given late-term abortions at the Melbourne clinic, one of the few in Australia willing to commit abortions on women 6 months or more pregnant, had travelled from other states or were foreign nationals.

One pro-life physician pointed out that these healthy children killed by abortion would find loving families if they were allowed to live and be offered for adoption.

Dr. David van Gend, of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life, told the Herald Sun, "These are babies that are older than some of the children who are born premature and who will thrive. There are literally thousands of upstanding Victorians who they could be adopted out to, but they're being aborted."

Dr. Mathew Piercey of Victoria Right to Life said babies surviving late-term abortion raises serious issues for medical practitioners.

"If there is a chance of life then resuscitation facilities should be there. People could be in serious breach of their duties," Dr. Piercey said in the Herald Sun report. [21May2010, T. M. Baklinski, MELBOURNE, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10052108.html ]

The Camera Doesn't Lie: Ultrasound Changes American Opinion on Abortion

The success of our labor is becoming more evident every day. For the third time in a row, a Gallup poll shows more Americans are calling themselves pro-life than pro-choice.

According to a May 3-6 Gallup poll (47-45), 47 percent of Americans say they are pro-life on abortion versus 45 percent who say they are "pro-choice," supporting legal abortions.

This is nearly identical to the 47% to 46% division Gallup found last July, which was down from the 51-42 percent split favoring the pro-life position last May.

Because this is the third consecutive time Gallup has found more Americans taking the pro-life position, the polling firm calls the results "a real change in public opinion."

Gallup titled their analysis, “The New Normal on Abortion.”
And they're right.

It’s no longer normal to think an unborn baby is disposable. Even the liberal Slate Magazine had to acknowledge that young people have wised up to the facts.

“My generation has seen ultrasound photos of ourselves and our siblings,” one young pro-lifer told the reporter, “so it’s sort of hard to put the ‘fetuses are just a clump of tissues’ line past us.”

As the saying goes, the camera doesn't lie. When young women considering an abortion see an ultrasound of their baby, about 80 percent choose to continue the pregnancy. Pro-abortion arguments crumble when they see a beating heart and tiny, growing body.

That’s why it’s so encouraging that more than a dozen states are considering ultrasound legislation. The bills require abortion facilities to give women the option of an ultrasound before the deadly procedure takes place. Of course pro-abortion activists are battling the proposals with all the venom they can muster. Suddenly, they're no longer for choice—not when the choice is for women to see their unborn babies.

But just as we wouldn't deny a cancer patient access to vital X-Rays, these mothers should be given the opportunity to review all medical information relevant to their procedure.

Abortion facilities already use ultrasounds to determine the size and age of the baby. The problem is that they are notorious for turning the screen away from a mother’s eyes. They know that if she sees the child, she'll likely run out that door and never come back. So they simply hide the information for the sake of hard cold cash.

Now that so many states are stepping up to the plate to deal with this blatantly unethical practice, women are one step closer to being given a life-changing (and often life-saving) choice.

That makes this a brighter day in America.  [17May2010, http://www.lifenews.com/nat6337.html; 21May2010, Bradley Mattes, http://www.lifenews.com/nat6355.html;  LifeNews.com Note: Bradley Mattes is the executive director of Life Issues Institute, a national pro-life educational group. Mattes is a veteran of the pro-life cause, with over 33 years of educational, political and humanitarian experience.]




A Pro-Life Pregnancy Center has Sued Montgomery County over a Law Requiring it to Post Information about the Care it Provides, The Gazette reports.

Centro Tepeyac Women's Center in Silver Spring believes the law is unconstitutional, said the center's lead attorney Casey Mattox. Mattox, with the Alliance Defense Fund, said the law restricts freedom of speech.

Under the law, pregnancy centers that do not provide abortions or do not provide referrals to abortion clinics are required to post disclaimers stating the center "does not have a licensed medical professional on staff" and the "Montgomery County Health Officer encourages women who are or may be pregnant to consult with a licensed health care provider."

Supporters of the law, which passed in February, say it helps caution women that information they receive at "limited-service pregnancy centers" might not be accurate.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt.[Lori Aratani  |  May 21, 2010, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/pregnancy-center-sues-montgome.html ]

New Health Law Raises Concerns About Respecting Providers' Consciences
 
Deep within the massive health-care overhaul legislation, a few
little-noticed provisions have quietly reignited one of the bitterest
debates in medicine: how to balance the right of doctors, nurses and
other workers to refuse to provide services on moral or religious
grounds with the right of patients to get care.
 
Advocates for protecting health workers argue the new law leaves
vulnerable those with qualms about abortion, morning-after pills,
stem cell research and therapies, assisted suicide and a host of
other services.

Proponents of patients' rights, meanwhile, contend that, if anything, the legislation favors those who oppose some end-of-life therapies and the termination of pregnancies and creates new obstacles for dying patients and women seeking abortions.
 
Both sides acknowledge that the scope of any new conflicts that might
arise under the legislation will become clear only as the
implications of the overhaul unfold. But both agree that clashes are
probably inevitable.
 
"It's sort of the son of the 'death panels,' " said Loren Lomasky, a
University of Virginia professor of philosophy who studies conflicts
of conscience in health care, referring to last summer's controversy
about end-of-life counseling. "This is a major transformation of the
health-care system. And when this sort of thing happens, fissures can
open up and you can fall into them if you're not careful."
 
The debate has focused attention on Obama's plan to rescind a federal regulation put into effect by the previous administration to protect workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable.

Soon after taking office, Obama announced he would lift the rule, arguing it could create obstacles to abortion and other reproductive health services. But a final decision about whether to kill, keep or replace the rule with a compromise has been pending as the debate over the health law raged. The outcome is being closely watched as a bellwether of how the administration will handle a possible thicket of conflicts under the health legislation.
 
"The act is thousands of pages of new government power,
decision-making and funding," said Matthew S. Bowman of the Alliance
Defense Fund, which represents workers who object on religious
grounds to being required to provide some forms of health care. "Any
government power over health care can be exercised in a way that
discriminates against pro-life health providers, especially when
officials already support abortion and oppose enforcement of conscience laws."
 
Bowman and others point to Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo as an example of
what they fear could become increasingly common as the government
becomes much more deeply entwined with health care.

Cenzon-DeCarlo was working at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York last year when the nurse was stunned to learn that she had been assigned to help abort a 22-week-old fetus. A devout Catholic, Cenzon-DeCarlo thought she had
a long-standing agreement with the hospital that let her avoid
abortions. But this time, despite her pleas, Cenzon-DeCarlo's bosses insisted.
 
"It felt like a horror film unfolding," Cenzon-DeCarlo said. "It was
devastating. I have suffered intense emotional pain. I've had
nightmares. . . . I felt violated and betrayed."
 
Cenzon-DeCarlo, who filed state and federal lawsuits against Mount
Sinai, is the only health-care worker who has filed a complaint under
the previous administration's rule, which remains in effect. The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services is investigating, but
officials would not comment on the case. The hospital also declined
to comment.
 
Whatever the outcome of the Cenzon-DeCarlo case and the fate of the
rule, administration officials said they were confident the rights of
health-care workers would be safeguarded.
 
"No matter what decision is made in terms of this particular rule,
providers will continue to be protected -- as they have been for
years -- by the existing conscience-clause statutes that will remain
on the books," said HHS spokeswoman Jenny Backus. "Not only are there
strong existing protections in current law, but the new health-reform
law also explicitly demonstrates strong support for the rights of
providers and patients."
 
The new legislation mandates that plans offered through the
state-based insurance marketplaces called exchanges do not
"discriminate against any individual health care provider or health
care facility because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for,
provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."

The legislation also bars discrimination against those opposed to "assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing." In addition, Obama's accompanying executive order, signed as part of last-ditch efforts to pass the
legislation, reaffirms all existing federal conscience protections.
 
 
But some argue that the legislation does not go nearly far enough,
given the breadth of the new legislation and possible unanticipated
effects. For example, the legislation does not protect workers who
oppose abortion from discrimination by any entities other than health
plans, leaving federal, state and local governments, clinics,
hospitals and others potentially free to compel providers to perform
abortions, they say.
 
"At the end of the day regarding the legislation, a pro-life
health-care professional is left with a weak and limited conscience
provision that doesn't even prohibit discrimination by governments
and institutions," said Jonathan Imbody, vice president for
government relations at the Christian Medical Association.
 
And the legislation does not safeguard doctors, nurses and others who
object to anything else, especially care that might be mandated by
the federal government as "essential services," such as birth control
pills, sterilization, genetic testing and in-vitro fertilization.
 
"There are literally dozens of procedures that can be controversial
to Catholics, for some to Jews, for some for Muslims, for evangelical
Protestants," said Lynn Wardle, a professor of law at the Brigham
Young University Law School.
 
Current protections
 
Administration officials and abortion-rights groups argue that
sufficient protections are already in force through a host of federal
and state laws and regulations, most notably the long-standing Weldon
and Church amendments. In addition, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 protects against religious discrimination.
 
"We are quite concerned about religious liberty, but we think the
current law appropriately balances individual religious liberty and
patients' need for access to health care," said Jennifer Dalven, who
directs the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom
Project. "What some people are seeking are rules that take patients
out of the equation."
 
Critics, however, note that the Weldon and Church amendments apply
only to entities funded through federal appropriations bills to which
they are annually attached, and would not apply to funding that comes
directly from the new legislation.
 
"This creates new mandates and new appropriations, and those new
things will create new potential conscience problems unless there are
new conscience fixes," said Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel
for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
 
For their part, abortion-rights advocates are alarmed that the
legislation did not include equal defenses for health-care workers
who perform abortions. With abortion providers dwindling in number as
they face protests and sometimes even violence, advocates fear the
legislation will lead health plans to exclude doctors still willing
to terminate pregnancies.
 
"What made it through is a lopsided conscience protection," said
Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a
nonprofit group based in New York. "In a country where 87 percent of
U.S. counties don't have an abortion provider, where abortion
providers are murdered and harassed, you really need protections for
those who advocate for both performing and referring for abortions.
Not the other way around."
 
In addition, critics of the conscience language argue, the
legislation in some ways expands protections for those who oppose
abortion by shielding providers who refuse to even refer women to a
willing doctor.
 
Proponents for end-of-life care, meanwhile, fear the legislation
could enable doctors and nurses to refuse a range of requests from
dying patients.
 
"All patients have the right to refuse medical interventions," said
Kathryn L. Tucker, director of legal affairs for Denver-based
Compassion & Choices.

"If a patient directs . . . the withdrawal of a ventilator, and all know death will result, and a health-care provider refuses to respect the patient's wish, does this provide immunity to that provider? Putting the rights of the provider above
the patient's? If so, that turns the provider-patient relationship
upside down."   [May 11, 2010, Rob Stein, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051003235.html ]

Support Mothers by Supporting Pregnancy Resource Centers This Mother's Day -- 'Silent No More' Leaders
Leaders of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, the world's largest network of individuals harmed by abortion, today urged people to commemorate Mother's Day by supporting pregnancy resource centers.

"There is no better way to celebrate Mother's Day than to help those who actually stand with mothers in their time of need, our nation's pregnancy resource centers," said Georgette Forney, co-founder of SNMAC. "These locally run organizations embody selflessness and sacrifice in helping mothers who weren't planning on being mothers. They need our support now more than ever."

"Motherhood is under attack from Planned Parenthood, a billion dollar business that never stops trying to increase its profits by increasing abortions," added Janet Morana, also a SNMAC co-founder. "The work of pregnancy resource centers in the face of the culture of death Planned Parenthood promotes is nothing short of heroic. They deserve our support this Mother's Day and every day."

Since the launching of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign in 2003, 3,877 women and men have shared their testimonies publicly at over 572 gatherings in 48 states and ten countries where more than 110,830 attendees have heard the truth about abortion's negative aftereffects. More than 9,027 people are registered to be Silent No More. Raising awareness about the hurtful aftermath of abortion and the help that is available to cope with the pain are two of the Campaign's goals.
[7May10, Staten Island, Christian Newswire; PharmFacts E-News Update, 7 May 2010]


More Abortions Coming from Poor, Minority Women: Guttmacher
[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10050512.html
Life Site News; 6May10, ALL Pro-Life Today]
A rising percentage of U.S. children killed by abortion are carried by poor women and women of minority races, according to a study released Tuesday by the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood. The proportion of abortion patients who were poor increased by almost 60 percent in eight years - from 27 percent in 2000 to 42 percent in 2008 - according to "Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients, 2008," by Rachel K. Jones, Lawrence B. Finer and Susheela Singh of the Guttmacher Institute. This shift is the most striking of the changes noted in the profile of women obtaining abortions.





G8 Battle Breaks Out Over International Abortion Funding

The campaign to insert abortion funding into maternal health initiatives has dominated the media coverage leading up to the 36th annual G8 Summit, which will be held in Huntsville, Canada in late June.  The host government, Canada, has come under considerable criticism from the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), pro-abortion NGOs and the Canadian media for refusing to bring abortion into the debate.

     The G8 Summit brings together the leaders of eight of the largest economies of the world.  Traditionally, the host country has wide latitude to set the agenda.  In January, the Canadian government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, announced its intention to make maternal and child health a development priority for this year’s summit.

     Almost immediately, pro-abortion groups attacked the plan for not specifically including family planning and abortion. The opposition has been led by Maureen McTeer, the wife of former Prime Minister Joe Clark and the Canadian representative for the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood, who has been actively lobbying Canadian government officials using a briefing paper published by Action Canada for Population Development.

     The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) stopped funding abortion services overseas last year by not renewing funding contracts with two of the largest international abortion providers, International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International.   It is this non-renewal of funding for these abortion providers that some believe is at the heart of the protests over the Canadian policy for the G8 health initiative.

     In February and again in March, Canadian administration officials confirmed that family planning and abortion would not be included in the G8 maternal and child health initiative, because as one official explained, “the purpose of this is to be able to save lives.”

     On March 30, at the G8 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Quebec, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stoked the fires of the debate by declaring, “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health, and reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”  The UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, expressed his nation’s agreement with the US: “Our position is very much as stated by Secretary Clinton.”

     Although the Canadian government has softened its stance on family planning, they have held firm on the abortion issue.  Last week, Prime Minister Harper definitively ruled out abortion as part of the G8 initiative, stating “"We want to make sure our funds are used to save the lives of women and children and are used on the many, many things that are available to us that frankly do not divide the Canadian population.”
 
     Despite Secretary Clinton’s statement in March, neither the US nor Canada currently directly fund abortion services in developing countries. While  the US Agency for International Development (USAID) does give money to independent agencies that provide access to abortion, it is also restricted by the Helms Amendment, which states that “No foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.”
[6May10, Friday Fax, Volume 13, Number 21, Terrence McKeegan, J.D., c-fam.org, New York, http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1621/pub_detail.asp]




UNFPA and Abortion Advocates to Push "Reproductive Rights" on UN Treaty Bodies

This week, abortion advocates the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) and Amnesty International (AI) are teaming up with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to host the "first-ever" briefings on "reproductive rights" for the committees responsible for monitoring compliance with the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

     According to the CRR website, the briefing with the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) will focus on "reproductive rights violations" such  "denial of reproductive healthcare services, including abortion and post-abortion care."

     Critics point out that not only has the term "reproductive rights" never before been included in any binding UN treaty, but also that delegations have made explicit statements to define abortion out of the term whenever it has been included in lower level, non-binding conference outcome documents and resolutions.

     UN observers have watched compliance committees, especially the body that monitors the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), overstep their mandates in over 100 different instances over the years to misinterpret treaty provisions and pressure countries to decriminalize or liberalize access to abortion.

     The CRR briefing with the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), co-sponsored by UNFPA, will address maternal mortality "as a human right issue." CRR bills this meeting as part of its "ongoing advocacy" with this UN committee "as it develops its new general comment on sexual and reproductive health rights."

     In the C-FAM paper "Rights By Stealth," authors Susan Yoshihara and Douglas Sylva explain that general comments "are the treaty body members' own interpretations of the articles of the conventions" and that "once created, they serve as the committees' official interpretations." Even though states never agreed to any abortion provisions, a new general recommendation on "reproductive rights" and "sexual and reproductive health" signals that the committee will seek to expand the treaty beyond the boundaries set by those who carefully negotiated its language.

     Recently, UNFPA has been holding meetings to work on an ICESCR General Comment.  Aminata Toure of UNFPA stated, "we have to define the meaning for this right [to sexual and reproductive health] and the necessary actions to be taken by the states in order to realize it." Luz Angela Melo, also with UNFPA, added that, “A General Comment on the right to sexual and reproductive health can be very useful for UNFPA’s advocacy work."

     States have started to push back on the misinterpretations of the treaty monitoring bodies. Just last year during the General Assembly, states registered objections to a reference on a new ICESCR general comment on "sexual orientation." Iraq, on behalf of the Arab group, led the successful opposition to General Comment 20, and noted at the time that it was "of paramount importance to make it clear that international agreements should not be strangely interpreted."

     The CRR briefings are scheduled for May 7 and May 10 in Geneva. [6May10, Volume 13, Number 21, Friday Fax, Samantha Singson, c-fam.org, New York, http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1622/pub_detail.asp]


Mother Indicted in Death of Newborn (MUG)

Michelle Marie Vasquez has been indicted with first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated child abuse in the death of her 8-day-old baby.
A Santa Rosa County grand jury returned the indictment Monday, according to a news release from the state attorney’s office.
[http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/newborn-28691-death-indicted.html
Life Site News; 6May10, ALL Pro-Life Today]


NY Hospital Apologizes to Nurses Punished for Refusing to Facilitate Abortion

The president of a New York hospital has reversed punishment against eight nurses who refused to take part in an abortion, and has issued an apology to some of them, reported Newsday on Thursday. However, there remains question as to whether the hospital would have persisted in coercing the nurses, in conflict with New York and federal law, had the patient's case been accurately deemed an "emergency situation." [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10050503.html
Life Site News; 6May10, ALL Pro-Life Today]

Women Who Have Abortions Four Times More Likely to Abuse Drugs, Alcohol

A new study conducted by researchers at the University of Manitoba finds women who have had abortions are about four times more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol as those who carried their pregnancy to term.

The authors confirmed a link between abortion and the substance abuse issues.

Natalie Mota, a PhD student in the U of M's clinical psychology department, co-wrote the study with authors Margaret Burnett and Jitender Sareen.

The study appeared in the April 2010 issue of the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry and it showed women having abortions were 3.8 times more likely to have substance abuse disorders.

That was the case even when other factors such as exposure to violence were included that could have raised the risk outside of abortion.

The Canadian study also found abortion associated with other mental health conditions such as mood disorders, but substance abuse proved to be the strongest link when it comes to post-abortion problems for women.

"These are associations only," Mota told the Toronto Sun newspaper. "Further research needs to look at the different factors that might be playing a part."

Still, the study provides more evidence that abortions hurt women as Mota told the newspaper hers was larger than many prior studies showing adverse mental health issues for women following an abortion compared with keeping the baby.

Mota and her colleagues told the Sun they also suggest abortion centers pre-screen women for substance abuse problems prior to abortions. Women who already have struggles with drug and alcohol abuse may see those problems exacerbated by the abortion. Currently, abortion centers typically don't provide such screening or encourage women who struggle with those mental health issues to carry to term.

Priscilla Coleman, an Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University, has already conducted multiple studies on the link between abortion and mental health problems for women.

Coleman analyzed the study further and found that, when compared to women without a history of abortion, those who had an abortion had a 61% increased risk for mood disorders. Social Phobia was linked with a 61% increased risk and suicide ideation with a 59% increased risk.

"In the area of substance abuse the increased risk for alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, drug abuse, drug dependence, and any substance use disorder were equal to 261%, 142%, 313%, 287%, and 280% respectively," she told LifeNews.com.

"Between 5.8% and 24.7% of the national prevalence of all the above disorders was determined to be related to abortion."

Coleman told LifeNews.com the Canadian study affirms "results of many previous studies on abortion and mental health" and are generally consistent with our results using an earlier version of the National Co-morbidity Survey (NCS) data."

The Canadian researchers used the NCS replication data collected between 2001 and 2003.

"A large nationally representative U.S. sample was examined for associations between abortion and life-time prevalence of numerous mental disorders and suicidal behavior," she said.

Coleman said researchers who support legal abortions "frequently claim the associations between abortion and mental health problems in the literature are due to an unmeasured history of violence exposure being related to both the choice to abort and to mental health problems."

"Mota and colleagues tested this assumption by controlling for violence in all the analyses conducted. They also controlled for age, education, marital status, household income, and ethno-racial background," she said. "The results revealed statistically significant associations between abortion history and a wide range of mental health problems after controlling for the experience of interpersonal violence and demographic variables."

Coleman says the new study provides more evidence for the American Psychological Association in a challenge to its position that abortion presents no mental health problems for women.

"This report represents the latest in a series of articles from across the globe (U.S., New Zealand, Australia, Norway, and South Africa) published in recent years directly contradicting the findings of the American Psychological Association Task Force report released in 2008. Large scale, well-controlled studies using sophisticated data analysis methodologies consistently confirm a relationship between abortion and psychological distress that the national professional organization has dismissed," the professor said.

"Standing above the political controversies regarding the legality of abortion, several contemporary researchers have demonstrated a willingness to publish data that contradicts many well-ingrained socio-cultural beliefs regarding psychology as a benign psychological experience. This is good news for science, the healing professions, and for women," she concluded.  [3May2010, Ertelt, Winnipeg, Canada, www.LifeNews.com, http://lifenews.com/int1531.html ]

Manitoba Univ. Study Links Abortion and Mental Illness/Suicide

 Researchers at the University of Manitoba have published findings of a study showing a link between abortion, mental illness and suicide.

The researchers, from the departments of psychology and psychiatry, as well as obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences, found that abortion was associated with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse and suicide attempts.

They report that depression and drug dependence followed abortion in about half of the women studied.  Additionally, women with a household income of $75,000 or more were more likely to report an abortion than those with household incomes under $25,000.

They used data from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Drug Abuse to look for correlations between a number of factors, including abortion, anxiety, substance abuse, eating disorders, disruptive behaviour and suicide attempts. They then checked for evidence of mental disorders following abortions.

“This was the first study to examine associations between abortion and several mental disorders,” says Dr. Jitender Sareen, psychiatry.  “We found a higher likelihood of lifetime mood disorder in women who had experienced an abortion compared with those who had never had an abortion.”

Sareen pointed out, however, that the data, while identifying a correlation, was unable to speak to the question of causation. “A woman with a mood disorder might be more inclined to have an abortion, while conversely, an unplanned pregnancy and abortion could precipitate a mood disorder,” he said.

“Studies like this are so validating for men and women who are suffering,” said Angelina Steenstra, national coordinator of Canada's Silent No More Awareness Campaign, who indicated that, based upon her experience, the disorders identified by the researchers are the direct result of abortion.

Silent No More Awareness has brought together countless men and women, who have shared their personal stories about their abortions and how they negatively impacted their lives.

Steenstra, who obtained an abortion when she was 15 after being date-raped, and has since suffered from infertility, said she certainly experienced the effects identified by the study.  “At the moment the baby died through abortion, I knew something terrible happened and I was never going to be able to undo it,” she told LifeSiteNews.  “I knew that I had participated in the taking of another human life.”

“I was plummeted into a depression that lasted for years, until I actually started making the connection that the depression was related to the aftermath of abortion,” she said.  “I didn't deal with it, I avoided the truth.”

Following the abortion, she says, her “lifestyle became corrupted,” including involvement with drugs, partying, and promiscuous behavior.  “I tainted my behavior to, really, cover up the pain of the abortion,” she added.

She was only able to move out of the depression, she said, “by seeing the truth” in an image of an aborted baby.  “I came out of the depression when I started grieving my lost child,” she added, explaining that she only did so after losing a second child through an ectopic pregnancy, which was connected to her abortion.

“The claim that abortion is safe is not true.  Women are still dying from abortion, even though it is supposed to be legal and safe,” she said.  “It's dangerous for women psychologically. … It's dangerous on the level of relationships.  It was dangerous for me physically.”

“I think that information like this is so helpful to men and women who are suffering, as I suffered, because it's a name,” she said.  “Once you name something, that's the first step of healing, to acknowledge, to accept, to become aware of what you're suffering.”

Once people become aware of the negative effects of abortion, she said, they can begin the journey towards healing through such after-care programs as Rachel's Vineyard or Entering Canaan, which is run by the Sisters of Life.  “When people plug in to those after-care programs, they actually move on and can turn the other page, and integrate the experience into their life,” she explained.

The University of Manitoba study, entitled 'Associations Between Abortion, Mental Disorders, and Suicidal Behaviour in a Nationally Representative Sample', was published this month in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.

For information about post-abortion healing through Rachel's Vineyard visit their website.
[April 30, 2010, Patrick B. Craine, Winnipeg, Manitoba, www.LifeSiteNews.com, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10043012.html ]

Study Affirms Link Between Abortion and Mental Health Problems: Increase in Suicidal Thoughts, Substance Use and Other Problems After Abortion
A new study has found that women are more likely to experience substance abuse, suicidal thoughts and other problems after abortion, affirming the results of previous studies finding a link between abortion and mental health problems.

The study, published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, examined a nationally representative sample of more than 3,000 women in the United States.

The researchers found that, after controlling for age, marital status, race, education, household income and any violence, women in the study who underwent an abortion had a 98 percent increased risk for any mental health disorders compared to women who did not have an abortion.

Women who had abortions also had:
59 percent increased risk for suicidal thoughts
61 percent increased risk for mood disorders
61 percent increased risk for social anxiety disorders
261 percent increased risk for alcohol abuse
313 percent increased risk for drug abuse
280 percent increased risk for any substance use disorder
 
Approximately 6 percent of suicidal ideation cases among women nationwide and 25 percent of cases of drug use could be related to abortion, the researchers found.1

The study affirms findings from earlier studies showing that women are more likely to suffer emotional injury after undergoing abortion. For example, a 2005 New Zealand study found that, even after controlling for existing mental health problems, women who aborted were more likely to later experience depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse and suicidal thoughts.2

And a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research in 2008 found that mental disorders among women who had abortions were 17 percent higher than among women who did not have abortions. When researchers looked at specific disorders, the increased rate among women who had abortions ranged from 44 percent higher for panic attacks to 167 percent higher for bipolar disorder.3

Abortion and Violence
 
The new study affirms that mental health problems associated with abortion cannot be solely explained by an exposure to other forms of violence. The earlier 2008 study also found that abortion was more likely to cause mental health problems among women than was a history of other traumas such as childhood sexual abuse, rape, physical violence or neglect.

Elliot Institute director Dr. David Reardon, who has worked on more than a dozen studies on mental health issues after abortion, said that further research is also needed to look at the other side of the equation: whether having an abortion is likely to increase a women's risk of suffering violence or abuse.

He expressed concern that the study published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry made no distinction between exposure to violence that occurred before the abortion and exposure which occurred after the abortion, noting that violence may actually be an aftereffect of abortion.

"I believe this is a very important distinction which should be investigated, as we have evidence from surveys and interviews with women which indicate that abortion may increase a woman's risk of experiencing violence in numerous ways," Reardon said. "In short, controlling for exposure to violence which occurs after an abortion may be taking out one of the effects of abortion rather than an independent factor."

Other studies have found an increase in suicide, depression, substance abuse, anxiety, sleep disorders, symptoms of post-traumatic stress and other problems. This latest study adds more evidence to the need for meaningful help and alternatives to abortion, as well as measures, such as that recently passed in Nebraska, that would hold abortion businesses liable for failing to screen for coercion and other known factors that put women and teens at risk for mental health disorders after abortion.

Educate others: Download and share our Recent Research Fact Sheet highlighting studies on abortion's impact on women...  http://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/OnePageFactSheets/RecentResearchSheet1.pdf

Citations

1. Mota, NP et. al., "Associations Between Abortion, Mental Disorders and Suicidal Behavior in a Nationally Representative Sample," The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 55(4): 239-246 (April 2010).

2. Fergusson, DM et. al., "Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health," Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (2006) 47(1): 16-24.

3. Coleman, PK et. al., "Induced abortion and anxiety, mood, and substance abuse disorders: Isolating the effects of abortion in the national comorbidity survey," Journal of Psychiatric Research (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.10.009.

Read this complete article, with imbedded links, at ... http://www.afterabortion.org/news/motalmentalhealthstudy.html


Free Resources
AbortionRisks.org: Visit the world's most comprehensive online bibliography of abortion studies
Recent Research Fact Sheet to download, copy and share... http://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/OnePageFactSheets/RecentResearchSheet1.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Half of Aborting Women Are Having Repeat Abortions, Study Finds
Experts Say Repeat Abortions Are Often Result of Trauma, Coercion

New statistics published by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute indicate that half of women undergoing abortions have had a previous abortion.

The high rate of repeat abortions poses a risk to women since having a repeat abortion increases the likelihood that a woman will have physical or mental health problems afterward, including a higher risk of substance abuse and subsequent preterm birth. Women who have repeat abortions are also more likely to be living in unstable situations, be divorced or be dependent on social services.

Experts say that there are a number of reasons why women might have multiple abortions. One reason is traumatic reenactment, a symptom related to post-traumatic stress disorder, in which a person continually repeats the trauma in an attempt to resolve it.

The problem may also be compounded by the desire of many women to have a "replacement pregnancy" after an abortion, only to find that the problems and pressures that led to abortion in the first place still exist and they once again see no other alternative. If abuse, pressure or force from others is involved it may be very difficult for her to break away from the abusive cycle.

Repeat Abortions As a Result of Coercion

Repeat abortions are also often facilitated by the fact that abortions are frequently performed without any effort to determine why a woman or girl is aborting, even when there is coercion or abuse involved. A study of U.S. women who had abortions found that even though 64 percent are pressured to abort and more than half felt rushed or uncertain about about abortion, 67 percent said they didn't receive any counseling before abortion and 84 percent said they didn't receive enough counseling to make an informed decision.

Further, abortions are usually performed without any attempt to screen women or girls for coercion or for factors, including repeat abortions, that put them at risk for psychological problems afterward.

Learn more: Read an excerpt about repeat abortions from Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion...  http://www.afterabortion.info/repeatabortions.html

Read entire article, with imbedded links at...

http://www.theunchoice.com/News/repeatabortions.htm
[Springfield, IL, May 6, 2010]

Free Resources
AbortionRisks.org: Visit the world's most comprehensive online bibliography of abortion studies
Recent Research Fact Sheet to download, copy and share... http://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/OnePageFactSheets/RecentResearchSheet1.pdf

Congressmen Call for Probe of Obama Administration for Abortion Push in Kenya
Three leading U.S. congressmen have requested a federal probe into whether the Obama administration broke federal laws by promoting a proposed Kenyan constitution that “radically” changes abortion policy.

The Obama administration’s advocacy supporting Kenya’s proposed constitution may constitute a “serious violation” of the Siljander Amendment and may be subject to civil and criminal penalties, the lawmakers said.
[http://www.ewtnnews.com/new.php?id=640; Pro-Life Today | 12 May 2010]

New US House Bill Would Overturn Last Meaningful Restrictions on International Abortion Funding

Last Friday [23Apr10], a Congresswoman from Brooklyn, New York introduced a bill in the United States (US) House of Representatives that would greatly expand international funding for abortion, contraception, and sex education, and would effectively eliminate the long-standing Helms Amendment prohibiting the use of US foreign assistance funds for abortion.

Rep. Yvette Clark     The Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2010, sponsored by Representative Yvette Clarke and co-sponsored by at least 17 other House members, appears to be linked to the US statement at the recently concluded United Nations (UN) Commission on Population and Development (CPD).  That statement touted that “President Obama has requested $715.7 million for bilateral and multilateral reproductive health, including family planning, in 2011.  If approved later this year by Congress, this amount will represent the single largest U.S. contribution in history for international reproductive health programs.”

     The stated purpose of the bill is the “advancement of sexual and reproductive health is necessary to meeting most of the eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),” with its findings based almost entirely on the controversial UN report entitled “Adding It Up." That report was authored and sponsored by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and was also cited prominently in the US statement to the CPD.  It advocated increased family planning and access to abortion as the primary means of reducing maternal mortality worldwide.

     The bill states that foreign assistance funds should be used to “support safe abortion services, including referrals, and support the training of abortion providers and the necessary equipment and commodities for surgical and medical abortion.”

     Section 7 of the bill calls for funding to ensure and promote “sexual and reproductive health care for young people,” including comprehensive sexuality and reproductive health education, as well as abortion services. The bill defines “young people” as including all individuals as young as 10 years of age up to 25 years old.

     According to the pro-abortion Ipas organization, “Adoption of the Act would mean the end of the Helms Amendment.”  The Helms Amendment was first enacted in 1973 and states that, “No foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.”

     A statement from Representative Clarke’s office suggests the bill is needed to comply with international norms: “By revising existing legislation to meet current international standards, we can establish an integrated, progressive model for delivering more efficient and effective sexual and reproductive health services across the globe.”

     Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, expressed her outrage to the Friday Fax.  “This bill is beyond irresponsible. No abortion procedure is fully safe – and the danger multiplies for women without access to basic medical care, clean water or penicillin. Exporting abortion to the most deprived women in the world and promoting 10 year olds to engage in sex, putting them at risk of deadly disease, exploitation by pedophiles, and candidates for abortion, could be considered a method of ethnic cleansing.” [29April2010, Terrence McKeegan, J.D., Friday Fax, Volume 13, Number 20, C-FAM, New York, http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1618/pub_detail.asp]

U.S. Bill Would Amend Health Care to Exclude Abortion Funding

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) has introduced bipartisan legislation that aims to apply the Hyde amendment to the recently passed health care law.

Rep. Pitts' bill would amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to prevent federal funding for abortion or abortion coverage through government exchanges, community health centers, or any other program funded or created by PPACA.  Additionally, the bill protects the right of conscience for health care professionals and ensures that private insurance companies are not forced to cover abortion.

H.R. 5111, the Protect Life Act, has 57 Republican and Democrat co-sponsors, and reflects the bill-wide ban of federal abortion funding once spearheaded by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), but that was not included in the final version of the health bill.

Stupak and a group of Democrats, after initially vowing to vote down the abortion-expanding law, were persuaded by the Obama administration hours before the final vote to support it in exchange for an executive order that purported to apply the Hyde amendment to the legislation. Various analysts have concluded, and the White House has since admitted, however, that the order merely reiterates what is already stated in the bill.

The Protect Life Act would afford the same pro-life protections that were approved with bipartisan support in the House last year.

“Last fall a strong bipartisan majority in the House insisted that the pro-life principles of the Hyde amendment should apply to the new healthcare law. Unfortunately, the legislation ultimately signed by the President lacked these critical safeguards," said Pitts in a press release April 22.

“A majority of Americans have consistently shown they oppose federal funding for abortion," he continued.  "The new health care law is riddled with loopholes that allow taxpayer subsidies for coverage that includes abortion.

“I’m proud to have strong support from both sides of the aisle. I never want protecting life to be a partisan issue.” 
Complete text of bill: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010_docs/PITTS_023_xml.pdf
[April 29, 2010, DC, www.LifeSiteNews.com, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10042910.html ]





From the Experts: The Keys to Ending Maternal Mortality

Two experts on maternal mortality spoke at a congressional briefing on Tuesday sponsored by U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), a pro-life and human rights leader, explaining the global decline in maternal deaths and why life-affirming maternal care, not abortion, is a practical solution.

According to the World Health Organization, maternal conditions contributed to 1.9 percent of the world’s total deaths in 2004. While the death of the mother is already a tragedy, the tragedy is compounded many times over in societies where mothers take up much of the burden in care-giving for the extended family and members of the community.

“We desire to reduce, if not eliminate, preventable maternal mortality,” said Dr. Bob Scanlon, an obstetrician associated with Maternal Life International who worked and trained maternal health care workers in Africa.

“Pregnant women – be they in the United States or in Africa – face similar medical problems related to pregnancy and childbirth,” said Scanlon, reflecting on his 10 years of experience in Africa, where he repaired obstetric fistula, delivered babies, and trained maternal health care workers.

“I am a board certified obstetrician; my training has taught me why women die in childbirth and how to prevent such problems,” he continued. “I understand what the medical community has known for years: pregnant women die from bleeding, infections, obstructed labor and hypertensive disorders.”

Scanlon said that women in third world nations with high maternal mortality need skilled maternal health care workers trained in safe birthing practices, improved basic medical care, access to education, and retroviral drugs if they are HIV-positive.

He said that maternal mortality began its precipitous decline over the past hundred years in the western world when women started getting assistance in birth from midwives and doctors on a large scale basis and from medical advances, allowing them to have a “safe passage” in the transition from pregnancy to birth.

“How do we provide this safe passage?” said Scanlon. “By training and equipping maternal health care workers.”

Dr. Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, augmented Scanlon’s practical experience by highlighting the findings from a just-released study from The Lancet, a British medical journal, which showed that maternal mortality deaths were significantly lower than previously thought.

Harrison in her presentation explained why, contrary to the claims of abortion advocates, the abortion procedure does not reduce or eliminate the life-threatening risk that would otherwise occur to a woman in delivery, and for that reason has no practical benefit toward reducing maternal mortality.

The fact is that in every pregnancy, said Harrison, a woman faces a “window of vulnerability” known as “parturition,” which is the separation of the mother and the unborn child. This includes live birth, still birth, other deliveries (ectopic, molar pregnancy), spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion, where parturition can expose the mother to the danger of infection and excessive bleeding.

The Lancet study “Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980 – 2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5” showed four main reasons for the improvement in maternal survival: declining total fertility rates in some countries (reducing direct exposure to maternal death), improved economic status (leading to better nutrition, physical health, access to better health care), higher education rates for women, and increasing availability of basic medical care including “skilled birth attendants.”

However, the medical journal never mentioned legal abortion as a factor in bringing down maternal mortality ratios. In fact, pro-life nations such as Poland, Malta, and Ireland had just as low or even lower ratios of maternal mortality than the United States, Norway, and Canada, which all have very liberal abortion laws.

Harrison pointed out that induced abortion actually puts women in danger of bleeding/hemorrhage, infection, and damage to reproductive organs, especially if not all the pieces of the destroyed unborn child are completely evacuated. The risks are even greater for medical abortion, Harrison said, highlighting a study published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, which found that women having a medical abortion had an eightfold risk of bleeding, fivefold risk of incomplete abortion, and twofold risk of (re)evacuation than surgical abortion. The study concluded that medical abortion was likely “to result in an elevated incidence of overall morbidity related to termination of pregnancy.”

In third-world developing countries, the adverse events associated with medical abortion can prove deadly if women do not have medical infrastructure to monitor them when things go wrong.

Instead, Harrison indicated that the key to eliminating maternal mortality as much as possible is getting women educated and ensuring universal access to skilled birth attendants.

Her presentation pointed to the example of Chile which had legal abortion until 1988 and where maternal mortality peaked in 1961. The ratio of maternal mortality continues to decline steadily even after 1988, as women become more literate (98.6 percent by 2007) and with the percentage of births delivered by a skilled birth attendant rising (99.8 percent of births in 2007). By 2007, maternal mortality was 1.7 deaths per 100,000 live births.

“What’s going on is that there are not enough trained skilled birth attendants,” to address maternal mortality in the developing world, said Scanlon in a question and answer session afterward. “Boy, we would be loved in many countries if we trained and equipped skilled birth attendants, but that is not what we are doing.”

“So the mantra is skilled birth attendants, antibiotics, oxytoxic drugs, magnesium sulfate, and a literacy program,” added Harrison. “Female literacy is the key: you train the mom you train the next generation.”  [April 29, 2010, Peter J. Smith, D.C., http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10042909.html ]

New Study Undercuts Claims Abortion Reduces Maternal Mortality Numbers

Preliminary findings by a prominent biomedical researcher examining the dramatic decrease in maternal mortality, over the past fifty years in the Latin American nation of Chile, appear to undercut claims by global abortion lobbyists that liberal abortion laws are necessary to reduce maternal mortality rates.

According Dr. Elard Koch, an epidemiologist on the faculty of medicine at the University of Chile, Chile's promotion of "safe pregnancy" measures such as "prenatal detection" and accessibility to professional birth attendants in a hospital setting are primarily responsible for the decrease in maternal mortality.

The maternal mortality rate declined from 275 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1960 to 18.7 deaths in 2000, the largest reduction in any Latin country.

Because Chile is a nation that protects unborn life in its penal laws and constitution, the decline is therefore not attributable to access to legal abortion. In fact, the preliminary study shows, maternal mortality in Chile declined over the last century regardless of whether abortion was legal or illegal. Chile tightened its restrictions on abortion in the late 1980s.

According to Dr. Koch, "From 1960 onwards, there has been a breakthrough in the public health system and primary care" in Chile, with resources devoted to the development of "highly trained personnel, the construction of many primary health centers and the increase of schooling of the population.”

Education appeared to be a primary factor in the country’s improved maternal health. Chile today touts a maternal health record comparable to those of developed nations.

Statistics released the World Health Organization (WHO) support such conclusions. In South America, according to WHO, Chile boasts of the lowest rate of maternal mortality, whereas Guyana, which significantly liberalized its laws in the mid-1990s citing concern over maternal deaths, has the highest.

Indeed, perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of the decline of maternal death rates in the developed world, a peer-reviewed article by Irvine Loudon appearing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2000 confirms that the “sudden and dramatic decline in maternal mortality rates, which occurred after 1937, took place in all developed countries and eliminated the previously wide country-level differences in national mortality rates. The main factors that led to this decline seem to have been successive improvements in maternal care.”

As with Chile today, these strides in the developed world occurred at a time before access to abortion had been liberalized. Thus it appears that improving access to quality maternal health care, rather than permissive abortion laws, is what drives reductions in maternal death during pregnancy and delivery.

Maternal health experts such as noted obstetrician Donna Harrison, MD, point out that introducing abortion in a developing world setting without first improving basic maternal health care increases the risk of maternal death since health systems cannot adequately respond to complications from invasive surgical procedures such as abortion.

Indeed, nations such as South Africa, which has one of the continent’s most liberal abortion regimes, has seen an increase in maternal deaths attributable in part to complications arising from legal abortion.

Dr. Koch presented his initial findings at the inaugural meeting of the International Working Group for Global Women's Health Research last month in Washington, DC.
[12Feb2010, Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. and Piero A. Tozzi, J.D., Santiago, Chile;
LifeNews.com Note: Piero Tozzi, J.D. and Emanuele Rizzardi write for C-FAM. This article originally appeared in the group's Friday Fax publication. http://www.lifenews.com/int1464.html ]

 
Maternal Mortality and Abortion - Myths and Facts
The need to reduce maternal mortality is an argument frequently used to promote the legalisation of abortion, or indeed a 'Right to Abortion‘.

This argument runs as follows:

Every year, x women die as a result of botched illegal abortions, which take place under unsafe conditions. If abortion was legal (and affordable), they could have recourse to safe abortions. This would be the lesser evil: women who want to have abortion, will have abortion anyway (the life of the child can therefore not be protected) - but by legalizing abortion one can at least protect the pregnant woman's life.

The facts, however, are the following:

    * It is estimated that every year there are ca. 50 million abortions worldwide. Roughly 40% of these are estimated to be ‘illegal'. That makes 20 million illegal abortions every year.[1]

    * For the purposes of the above-quoted argument, the pro-abortion lobby usually quote a figure of 65.000 women (other sources[2] quote even 74.000 women) dying as a consequence of ‘illegal' abortions every year. For the sake of argument, we use the higher estimate.

    * If 74.000 of 20 million having an illegal abortion die in the process, the death risk is 0,37 %. In other words: of 1000 women having an illegal abortion, less than four will die. 996 will survive. By contrast, of the 1000 children, not a single one will survive.

    * The statistics remain, however, conspicuously silent on the death risk associated with ‘legal' abortions. No statistics are ever provided by the UN or any other source in this regard. Yet common sense tells us that statistics on ‘legal' abortions must be much more readily available than statistics on ‘illegal' abortions.

    * It also seems very unlikely that ‘legal' abortions are completely free of risk. Thus, the comparison is not between 0,37% risk and nought, but between 0,37% and a risk that remains to be identified.

    * It should be noted that ‘illegal' and ‘legal' abortions are often carried out by the same practitioners, using the same methods and implements. Furthermore, the ‘illegality' may simply result from the fact that, in a country where abortion is ‘legal' during the first three months, it takes place at a later stage of the pregnancy - which naturally increases the risk for the pregnant woman.

[1] A report on the worldwide incidence of abortion in 1995, published by the pro-abortionist Guttmacher Institute, provides the following information: "Approximately 26 million legal and 20 million illegal abortions were performed worldwide in 1995" (International Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 25(Supplement):S30-S38,). UNFPA reports (on its website) that "more than 50 million of the 190 million women who become pregnant each year have abortions". The quote of 40% illegal abortions was quoted in a recent report by the UN. This (40% of 50 million) is how the estimate of 20 million illegal abortions is reached.

[2]
UNFPA
[4/30/10, By J.C. von Krempach, J.D., http://www.c-fam.org/blog/default.asp#maternal%20mortality%20and%20abortion%20-%20myths%20and%20facts ]

New Global Study Shows Maternal Mortality Significantly Lower Than Previously Thought
 A new study out this week by the leading British medical journal shows maternal mortality rates have been significantly overestimated by United Nations (UN) agencies.

The Lancet reports that maternal deaths worldwide in 2008 totalled 342,900, rather than the 500,000+ used by the World Bank, World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) in recent years.

The study finds both that the numbers from WHO and UNICEF were faulty due to a lack of proper reporting and also imprecise statistical modelling. But The Lancet study also finds progress has been made in preventing pregnant women from dying.

The study cites four main reasons for the improvement: declining pregnancy rates in some countries, higher per capita income, higher education rates for women, and increasing availability of basic medical care including “skilled birth attendants.”

The report finds that HIV/AIDS caused 60,000 maternal deaths and suggests that maternal deaths would have been significantly lower in Africa if mothers were given antiretroviral drugs. This sharply contradicts current UN and Obama administration policies, which divert funding from HIV/AIDS to family planning as a way to reduce maternal deaths.

The study shows that 50% of maternal deaths come from just six countries; India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Researchers were surprised that three of the richest countries in the world actually showed increased maternal mortality; the United States, Canada and Norway - three countries with the most liberal abortion laws in the world.

What was not cited anywhere in the document is abortion.

Contrary to this study, the UN has promoted better maternal health through legal, or “safe,” abortion. At the UN-sponsored Women Deliver Conference in London two years ago, which was billed as a conference on maternal mortality, abortion advocate Frances Kissling told C-Fam's Friday Fax the conference was a “pro-choice conference.”

The Lancet’s editor Dr. Richard Horton told the New York Times he was pressured “by advocacy groups” to delay publication of the report until later this year.

Horton said the groups wanted the information withheld until after the current UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD), the Women Deliver Conference scheduled for this June in Washington DC, and the next UN General Assembly, which is also scheduled to address maternal mortality.

Pro-life critics of the maternal mortality numbers have long complained that the 500,000 number was likely too high and based on ideological assumptions.

Dr. Donna Harrison, writing in a C-FAM briefing paper last year, said the WHO introduction of medical abortion in some countries to reduce maternal mortality has been based on unreliable data, unreliability now confirmed by the much broader and more detailed study by The Lancet.

Regarding the new Lancet study, Harrison, the president of the American Academy of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) said, “This study uses the best statistical methods currently available and clearly demonstrates that worldwide legalization of abortion is unnecessary to bring about significant decreases in maternal mortality.  AAPLOG encourages UN member nations to continue to develop even better statistical information by improving the identification of maternal mortality causality, especially induced abortion related mortality, which is most often underreported or misreported.”

There is little doubt that this new study will have a direct impact on the negotiations going on this week at the UN CPD, where the negotiated document on maternal mortality includes dozens of references to reproductive health, which is used as a codeword for abortion. [15April2010, Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. and Austin Ruse, www.C-FAM.org, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041505.html ]


ABORTING FACTS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES
By Judie Brown

A couple of recent studies that reflect negatively on abortion have come to our attention. We in turn want to make you are aware of them—not because they are shocking, but rather because the secular “news” media has once again found it not in their best pro-death interest to report them objectively. For the most part, there has been no mention of them.

The first deals with the Congressional briefing hosted by Congressman Chris Smith this past week, a well-known advocate for human rights, truth and life. The purpose of the Smith briefing was to discuss the global decline in maternal death rates and the reasons why improved prenatal care, rather than abortion, holds the key to continued success in this area.

During the briefing, Dr. Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), focused attention on a recent study published in the British medical journal, Lancet, entitled “Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980—2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5.”
[ http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960518-1/fulltext ]

It credits these four reasons for the improvement in maternal health: declining pregnancy rates in some countries, higher per capita income, higher education rates for women and the increasing availability of basic medical care including “skilled birth attendants.”  

As Dr. Harrison explained, the Lancet report “never mentioned legal abortion as a factor in bringing down maternal mortality ratios. In fact, pro-life nations such as Poland, Malta and Ireland had just as low or even lower ratios of maternal mortality than the United States, Norway, and Canada, which all have very liberal abortion laws.”

Harrison pointed out that induced abortion actually puts women in danger of bleeding/hemorrhage, infection, and damage to reproductive organs, especially if not all the pieces of the destroyed unborn child are completely evacuated.

The risks are even greater for medical abortion, Harrison said, highlighting a study published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, which found that women having a medical [medication] abortion had an eightfold risk of bleeding, fivefold risk of incomplete abortion, and twofold risk of (re)evacuation than surgical abortion. The study concluded that medical abortion was likely “to result in an elevated incidence of overall morbidity related to termination of pregnancy.

While this comes as no surprise to anyone involved in the pro-life apostolate, it is not us who need to hear these facts, but rather the general public who is still being spoon-fed the lie that abortion is “safe and legal” and childbirth can be deadly for the mother. So where is the media, you might ask?
Well, as the New York Times reports:

[S]ome advocates for women’s health tried to pressure The Lancet into delaying publication of the new findings, fearing that good news would detract from the urgency of their cause, Dr. Horton said in a telephone interview.

“I think this is one of those instances when science and advocacy can conflict,” he said.
Dr. Horton said the advocates, whom he declined to name, wanted the new information held and released only after certain meetings about maternal and child health had already taken place.

He said the meetings included one at the United Nations this week, and another to be held in Washington in June, where advocates hope to win support for more foreign aid for maternal health from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Other meetings of concern to the advocates are the Pacific Health Summit in June, and the United Nations General Assembly meeting in December.

“People who have spent many years committed to the issue of maternal health were understandably worried that these figures could divert attention from an issue that they care passionately about,” Dr. Horton said. “But my feeling is that they are misguided in their view that this would be damaging. My view is that actually these numbers help their cause, not hinder it.”

All I can say to that is, Dr. Horton, GIVE ME A BREAK! Who do you think you are kidding? Or are you so naïve you do not understand that those who equate maternal health with killing preborn children before birth don’t want any kind of good news being touted in the media that will undermine their heinous agenda.

If it were truly the case, that advocates for maternal health were committed to protecting expectant mothers and their babies from dreadful disease, difficulties, birth anomalies and death, they would be staunch advocates for both patients and never recommend killing as a healthy response! However, as we know, such is not the case here or in any of the developing nations where the United States has been funding the culture of death for so many years.

Further, these very same advocates, if they were honestly committed to women and children, would have been first in line with the news that researchers at the University of Manitoba have shown a distinct link between abortion and mental illness including thoughts of suicide:

The researchers, from the departments of psychology and psychiatry, as well as obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences, found that abortion was associated with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse and suicide attempts.

They report that depression and drug dependence followed abortion in about half of the women studied.  Additionally, women with a household income of $75,000 or more were more likely to report an abortion than those with household incomes under $25,000.

They used data from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Drug Abuse to look for correlations between a number of factors, including abortion, anxiety, substance abuse, eating disorders, disruptive behavior and suicide attempts. They then checked for evidence of mental disorders following abortions.

“This was the first study to examine associations between abortion and several mental disorders,” says Dr. Jitender Sareen, psychiatry. “We found a higher likelihood of lifetime mood disorder in women who had experienced an abortion compared with those who had never had an abortion.”

But even those involved with this study were rather hasty to tell the secular media no conclusions can be drawn linking abortion to mental illness!  The Canadian news agency reports that “[a]bortion providers worry the study's findings could be misinterpreted and become fodder for anti-abortion groups.”

In other words, regardless of the actual clinical information that exposes the deleterious effects of abortion on the mother, let alone the child, the political advocacy of abortion is what is most important. Rather than being objective, the news media must rush to see what those negatively affected by such studies have to say because, as far as I can tell, the act of abortion is not in the same category as other surgical procedures when it comes to telling the truth to the public. The protection of the sacred act of abortion is clearly what is most important to far too many who should be dedicated to honest and fair reporting.

For many years, I have known that the relatively naïve pro-life activities of the late seventies and early eighties that ultimately put abortion into the framework of “political issues” were bound to backfire. Today, as these two studies and the public reaction affirms, this is in fact the case.  We are not dealing with honesty in the media or the medical profession when we discuss abortion today. No, it is all about politics. 

And frankly, the only solution for all this is an ongoing discussion about the humanity of the preborn child with a specific focus on his human personhood.

As advocates for these people, we are not and should not be involved in a partisan political discussion. Nor will we patiently wait for the medical world to own up to the truth and admit that those who commit abortion are committing murder. We are the ones who are going to repeat the truth about what abortion really is, regardless of our popularity, our social status or our opportunities to be welcomed into the wider community of secular thoughts and ideas.

...Abortion is an act that takes the life of a person and the antidote is human personhood. A focus on that child’s humanity is the only educational tool that has lasting power to turn the tide... 

[The Lancet, Early Online Publication, 12 April 2010,
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60518-1, http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960518-1/fulltext ; Pro-Life Today, 3May2010; Judie Brown is president of American Life League]

Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980—2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960518-1/fulltext
Summary:
Background
Maternal mortality remains a major challenge to health systems worldwide. Reliable information about the rates and trends in maternal mortality is essential for resource mobilisation, and for planning and assessment of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5 (MDG 5), the target for which is a 75% reduction in the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) from 1990 to 2015. We assessed levels and trends in maternal mortality for 181 countries.

Methods
We constructed a database of 2651 observations of maternal mortality for 181 countries for 1980—2008, from vital registration data, censuses, surveys, and verbal autopsy studies. We used robust analytical methods to generate estimates of maternal deaths and the MMR for each year between 1980 and 2008. We explored the sensitivity of our data to model specification and show the out-of-sample predictive validity of our methods.

Findings
We estimated that there were 342 900 (uncertainty interval 302 100—394 300) maternal deaths worldwide in 2008, down from 526 300 (446 400—629 600) in 1980. The global MMR decreased from 422 (358—505) in 1980 to 320 (272—388) in 1990, and was 251 (221—289) per 100 000 livebirths in 2008.

The yearly rate of decline of the global MMR since 1990 was 1·3% (1·0—1·5). During 1990—2008, rates of yearly decline in the MMR varied between countries, from 8·8% (8·7—14·1) in the Maldives to an increase of 5·5% (5·2—5·6) in Zimbabwe.

More than 50% of all maternal deaths were in only six countries in 2008 (India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo).

In the absence of HIV, there would have been 281 500 (243 900—327 900) maternal deaths worldwide in 2008.

Interpretation
Substantial, albeit varied, progress has been made towards MDG 5. Although only 23 countries are on track to achieve a 75% decrease in MMR by 2015, countries such as Egypt, China, Ecuador, and Bolivia have been achieving accelerated progress.

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

COMMENT: Remember ACOG Ethics Committee Opinion #385 (2007)? The one that says we must all refer for abortions, and even suggests we locate our office near an abortion provider for patient convenience (yes, it does say that!).

AAPLOG requested that ACOG revisit and revise that document. ACOG Ethics Committee did revisit it, and DID NOT revise a word of it. That was 2008.

Fast fwd to 2010: We have a State Dept with world wide access to legal abortion as part of its foreign policy. We have a Congress passing a Major law that allows tax-payer funding of abortion. We have a president who is behind these initiatives, pushing. Next step?? Why not legislate that we refer for abortion or go to jail? Don't laugh. It could be happening just south of us (see below), and it could happen here.

(By the way, we strongly urge you to go to our website, click on "Hippocratic registry," and sign on as a Hippocratic physician-which you are if you are prolife.)


Proposed Law in Mexico Would Send Doctors Who Don't Suggest Abortion to Jail

Doctors who fail to inform their pregnant patients that they have the legal right to have an abortion -- or who refuse to refer women to doctors who perform abortions -- could be thrown into the slammer for up to four years, if the dominant political party in Mexico City's legislature has its way.

Doctors who fail to inform their pregnant patients that they have the legal right to have an abortion -- or who refuse to refer women to doctors who perform abortions -- could be thrown into jail for up to four years, if the dominant political party in Mexico City's legislature has its way.

A bill has been co-introduced by the city's Health Committee chairwoman and a leading legislator that would mandate that all pregnant women in Mexico City be informed that they have the right to have an abortion in their first three months.

The bill, which is being debated in the legislature and is expected to pass, has the support of more than a dozen members of Mexico City's ruling Democratic Revolution party -- the same party that passed the 2007 law that legalized abortion in Mexico's capital city.

If passed into law, doctors who do not discuss abortion with their pregnant patients will be subject to penalties that include one to four years in prison, heavy fines and the loss of their medical licenses.

Ask yourself: what would I do if I were practicing in Mexico City when this law passes? Maintaining our conscience rights as doctors is the ultimate battleground, and the battle has already begun (see Ethics Committee Opinion #385 if you don't believe this.)
[30Apr2010, AAPLOG, aaplog.org, e-update; By Jana Winter, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29/proposed-law-mexico-send-doctors-dont-suggest-abortion-jail/ ]






New Push to Extend Controversial Maputo Plan of Action in Africa
Last week, the African Union (AU) held a continental conference on maternal and child health in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to discuss the possibility of extending the non-binding Maputo Plan of Action on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (Maputo PoA), which was scheduled to expire this year.

     The conference, themed "Achieving the MDGs through the Accelerated Reduction of Maternal and Child Mortality in Africa," brought together maternal and child health experts from AU Member States, United Nations (UN) agencies and non-governmental organization (NGO) representatives to discuss ways of reducing the high rates of maternal mortality in the continent, and in particular to review a lengthy extension of the Maputo PoA through 2015 to coincide with the time frame of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
 
     Originally discussed at an AU special session of health ministers in September 2006, the Maputo PoA was designed as a short-term, three-year action plan. Among other things, it includes abortion provisions which call for AU member states to "enact policies and legal frameworks to reduce incidence of unsafe abortion" and to "prepare and implement national plans of action to reduce incidence of unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortion."

     Abortion advocates have been vocal champions of the Maputo PoA, declaring the document a regional victory in Africa in their work to achieve a universal right to abortion.  While proponents present the Maputo PoA as a consensus document of the AU, in 2007 high level government officials told the Friday Fax that African heads of state never approved the document and that trickery and deception were used by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and others to push the document through various AU meetings.

     Back in 2006, several AU delegations objected to the abortion provisions contained in the draft Maputo PoA and only gave their approval to the draft on the understanding that the abortion provisions would be removed from the text.  The changes were never made and when delegates later realized that the abortion provision had not been removed, several said they felt "manipulated" by the AU secretariat.

     UNFPA declared that the PoA would form the basis for their work in Africa. In her address to the AU assembly last week, Etta Tadesse, UNFPA's regional representative, pushed for the extension and said that "clearly, the time frame for the implementation of Maputo Plan of Action has not been sufficient."

     While the Maputo Plan of Action is non-binding and its legitimacy as a consensus document remains highly controversial, experts warn that the targets and indicators on abortion will continue to be used to pressure AU member states to amend their laws on abortion as part of maternal mortality reduction.

     The Maputo Plan of Action bears a similar name with another document called the Maputo Protocol, which is a regional treaty that is binding on states that have ratified it. So far this includes 27 of the 53 AU members. Future ratifications remain uncertain as controversy swells around the Protocol’s provision for legalized abortion on demand. At least one state that ratified the Protocol explicitly rejected this provision.
[29Apr2010, Friday Fax, Volume 13, Number 20, Samantha Singson, C_FAM, New York, http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1617/pub_detail.asp ]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Parliamentarian,
You will find attached, news about the extension of Maputo Plan of
Action for African countries. The UNFPA, IPPF, IPAS, Gates Foundation and other pro-abortion organizations are pushing for extension of the Maputo Plan of Action, which was used as a cover to support state-sponsored abortion on demand in Africa...

[T]his is what you will hear from them: they will portray the so-called 'safe abortion' as a means to reduce maternal and child mortality. They say to us Africans, kill your children by abortions, make your women lose motherhood. Of course, there will be reduced infant mortality because so many fetuses were killed before they could be born alive, and reduced maternal mortality because fewer mothers carried pregnancy to term...

They will not put funding into modern antenatal care, childhood
disease prevention, water/sanitation and economic empowerment of
African women. No International Aid Agency in Africa offers a
widespread microcredit loan scheme for poor African women, not even the World Bank. But all will commit billions of US$ to contraception and abortion. It is time to stop this Nonsense, and you are our Hope to do just that. They think Africans are stupid, tell them we are smart, by saying NO to Renewal of Maputo Plan of Action, which promotes abortion on demand; it expires this year.

The Maputo Plan of Action had no tangible achievement in the past three  years, instead we got worse for it. Maternal Mortality and Infant Mortality has only gone up in Nigeria, Africa's most populous Nation. The rise in infant mortality rate (IMR) in Nigeria from 71.35 deaths per 1000 live births in 2003 to 95.74 deaths per 1000 live births in 2008, was related to the switch of the public health system personnel and activities from child care and maternal care services such as ORT, emergency obstetrical services to the so-called REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH (code name for abortion and contraceptive IUCD implants). Nigeria ratified and implemented the Maputo Protocol and Maputo Plan of Action in every practical sense, abortions went up and contraceptive IUCD implants and high-dose estrogen injections were more obtainable at no cost than
antimalarials and blood tonics.

What is in this Plan for Africans?
Nothing but Death!

Read how we opposed it in attached AAAC Letter Reply to G8 Leaders - Facts & Figs on Abortion.pdf. 
Prince Dr Philip C. Njemanze,
Chairman, Global Prolife Alliance





Chilean Maternal Mortality Study Undercuts Pro-Abortion Claims
 Preliminary findings by a prominent biomedical researcher examining the dramatic decrease in maternal mortality, over the past fifty years in the Latin American nation of Chile, appear to undercut claims by global abortion lobbyists that liberal abortion laws are necessary to reduce maternal mortality rates.

     According Dr. Elard Koch, an epidemiologist on the faculty of medicine at the University of Chile, Chile's promotion of "safe pregnancy" measures such as "prenatal detection" and accessibility to professional birth attendants in a hospital setting are primarily responsible for the decrease in maternal mortality.

The maternal mortality rate declined from 275 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1960 to 18.7 deaths in 2000, the largest reduction in any Latin country.

     Because Chile is a nation that protects unborn life in its penal laws and constitution, the decline is therefore not attributable to access to legal abortion.

In fact, the preliminary study shows, maternal mortality in Chile declined over the last century regardless of whether abortion was legal or illegal. Chile tightened its restrictions on abortion in the late 1980s.

     According to Dr. Koch, "From 1960 onwards, there has been a breakthrough in the public health system and primary care" in Chile, with resources devoted to the development of "highly trained personnel, the construction of many primary health centers and the increase of schooling of the population.” Education appeared to be a primary factor in the country’s improved maternal health. Chile today touts a maternal health record comparable to those of developed nations.

     Statistics released the World Health Organization (WHO) support such conclusions. In South America, according to WHO, Chile boasts of the lowest rate of maternal mortality, whereas Guyana, which significantly liberalized its laws in the mid-1990s citing concern over maternal deaths, has the highest.

     Indeed, perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of the decline of maternal death rates in the developed world, a peer-reviewed article by Irvine Loudon appearing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2000 confirms that the “sudden and dramatic decline in maternal mortality rates, which occurred after 1937, took place in all developed countries and eliminated the previously wide country-level differences in national mortality rates. The main factors that led to this decline seem to have been successive improvements in maternal care.”

     As with Chile today, these strides in the developed world occurred at a time before access to abortion had been liberalized. Thus it appears that improving access to quality maternal health care, rather than permissive abortion laws, is what drives reductions in maternal death during pregnancy and delivery.

     Maternal health experts such as noted obstetrician Donna Harrison, MD, point out that introducing abortion in a developing world setting without first improving basic maternal health care increases the risk of maternal death since health systems cannot adequately respond to complications from invasive surgical procedures such as abortion. Indeed, nations such as South Africa, which has one of the continent’s most liberal abortion regimes, has seen an increase in maternal deaths attributable in part to complications arising from legal abortion.

     Dr. Koch presented his initial findings at the inaugural meeting of the International Working Group for Global Women's Health Research last month in Washington, DC.
[11Feb2010, Friday Fax, Volume 13, Number 9, Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.   Piero A. Tozzi, J.D., Elard Koch, NEW YORK, C-FAM http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1571/pub_detail.asp

Book Shows Why Abortion for Young Rape Victims Is Likely to Harm, Not Help: Women Who Tell Their Stories Say Abortion Makes the Situation Worse

The news that an 11-year-old girl in Mexico who became pregnant through rape, allegedly by her stepfather, has decided to continue her pregnancy has caused a lot of controversy in recent days.

Some abortion advocates have argued that the girl in Mexico is too young to continue the pregnancy and should have an abortion, with some even suggesting that it be done despite her expressed wish to have the baby.

Such issues are also a focus during April, which is Sexual Assault Awareness month.

 But a book about women who became pregnant through rape or incest -- including young girls in situations similar to this -- suggests that, rather than helping the girl recover, abortion is more likely to cause her further psychological harm.

Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault, is based on a survey of 192 women who became pregnant through rape or incest and either had an abortion or continued the pregnancy.

Victims and Victors includes personal stories from 20 women who recalled their experiences and explained how the outcome of their pregnancy affected them.

One woman who became pregnant by her father at the age of 15 said that she refused an abortion after becoming pregnant but, at her father's request, was held down on a table and given the abortion anyway.

"I was told that an abortion would solve my problem, when it was never really the problem in the first place," she wrote years later. "I was told, 'Your parents know what's best,' when they obviously were only concerned about their own reputations. I was told, 'You made the right decision,' when I was never given a choice. More important, where was my baby's choice?"

Indeed, the survey on which the book was based found that many of those who had abortions did so due to pressure, demands  or even force. And in almost every case in which the pregnancy resulted from incest, it was the girl's parents or the perpetrator who made the decision and arrangements for the abortion, not the girl herself. None of the incest victims reported having any say in the decision.

Evidence Shows Abortion Only Compounds the Trauma

Elliot Institute Director David Reardon, one of the editors of Victims and Victors, said that nearly 80 percent of the women in the survey who had abortions said abortion didn't help them. Instead, many reported problems such as depression, substance abuse, broken and abusive relationships, and suicide attempts after abortion.

"Most of the respondents who had abortions told us that abortion actually compounded the trauma and emotional pain they experienced from the sexual abuse, and that it was not a good solution," Reardon said. "On the other hand, none of the women who carried to term said they wished they had not given birth or that they had aborted instead."

A common theme among the stories told by women in the book was that abortion allowed others to dismiss their pain rather than offering authentic support.

"Abortion frequently increases the woman's sense of isolation and stigma by allowing others to pretend the problem didn't exist," Reardon said.

"By getting rid of the pregnancy, which is a reminder of the sexual assault, it allows other people to ignore the woman's need for understanding and honest exploration and resolution of what she has been through."

Further, having a history of sexual assault or abuse, having an abortion as a teen and having an unwanted abortion are known risk factors for psychological injury after abortion, Reardon said.

One woman who was impregnated by her stepfather at the age of 12 and forced to have an abortion later wrote:

"Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and have felt a sense of loss. ... "The abortion which was to 'be in my best interest' just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only 'saved their reputations,' 'solved their problems,' and 'allowed their lives to go merrily on.' "

During Sexual Assault Awareness Month the Elliot Institute also worked to raise awareness that abortion harms, rather than helps, women who become pregnant through sexual assault, through the publication of a special report entitled Abortion and Sexual Assault Pregnancy: Information for Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

In addition, the group provides information and free educational resources on this issue for individuals and organizations.
See this article online at http://www.theunchoice.com/News/vvrelease.htm
[Springfield, IL, April 28, 2010]



MEANEY: The Skeleton in Radical Feminism's Closet
How Can They Explain Killing Girls Just for Being Girls?
By Joseph Meaney

Well over 40 percent of the world's annual births are occurring in countries where a girl is far less likely to be born than a boy. For more than 30 years, "son preference," a euphemism in societies where ultrasound scans commonly are used to find female fetuses for the purpose of aborting them, has silently created a demographic crisis for the modern world. How is it possible that "100 million 'missing' girls," a recent headline from the Boston Globe, could happen without major institutions and organizations worldwide mobilizing to fight it?

Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize-winning Indian economist, raised the alarm about missing women in a controversial 1990 article in the New York Review of Books. Mr. Sen began with the simple observation that deadly discrimination against women must be occurring because women live on average several years longer than men, but they are a minority of the population in many countries. In a 2003 British Medical Journal article that highlighted the role of sex-selection abortions, he admitted to having missed the key fact that the principal driver of missing women was discrimination before rather than after birth.

Even earlier, philosopher Mary Anne Warren wrote "Gendercide: The Implications of Sex Selection" in 1985. This new term, "gendercide," that Ms. Warren coined derived from genocide but with the distinction that the killings are targeted at one sex. Amazingly for a person explicitly alarmed about massacres based on gender, Ms. Warren's view is that "there is great danger that the legal prohibition of sex selection would endanger other aspects of women's reproductive freedom." Her radical abortion rights position makes her unwilling to stand up for the lives of unwanted unborn women, and she is not alone among feminists.

In 2007, a resolution condemning sex-selection abortion was proposed at the annual meeting of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. It had broad support and obviously was addressing discrimination against women.  

Imagine my surprise and that of many others when the powerful women's rights non-governmental organizations at the U.N. lobbied hard and successfully to kill the resolution, thanks to their allies in the European Union and China.

The principal feminist talking point in the corridors was that this resolution was a "tactical move" by the pro-life lobbyists at the U.N. and the right to abortion must not be limited in any way. Surely one would have thought common ground could be achieved by feminist and pro-life groups on the topic of the sex-selection abortion of unborn girls?

Many would agree that no social movement can long survive a fundamental betrayal of its reason for existing. The case for feminism is combating discrimination against women. It is an act of incredible hypocrisy for influential groups and leaders in a movement that claims to defend women to choose unlimited abortion over fighting to save millions of unborn girls targeted for death every year for the "crime" of being female.

Most people are just waking up to the gendercide of a generation of Asian women, but when they start asking the hard questions about how this was allowed to happen, institutional feminism will be hard-pressed to explain its actions.

Joseph Meaney is Human Life International's director of international coordination.
[30Apr2010, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/29/the-skeleton-in-radical-feminisms-closet/ ]

Abortion and Substance Abuse: Information for Alcohol Awareness Month

April was national Alcohol Awareness Month, an event dedicated to raising awareness of the devastating effects of alcohol abuse and encouraging those effected to seek help and treatment.

Research shows that women are likely to date the onset of alcohol or drug abuse to a particular stressful event or situation in their lives. For some women, this stressful event may be an abortion.

For example, Monica underwent an abortion at 18. She writes:

... [T]he aftermath affected almost every area of my life. I think alcohol and drug abuse were at the top of the list, but also there were nightmares, uncontrollable fear to the point of a panic disorder, and a deep sadness, the source of which I couldn’t identify or understand.

I frequently thought about killing myself. I had anger and rage, sexual problems, low self-esteem, incredible self-hatred and a depression that came and went like an unexpected wind. But most of all, grief that chilled me to the bone. My grief turned on me like a hungry lion waiting to destroy every area of my life. Drinking and drugs were the only way I could cope.

For many women, using drugs or alcohol after abortion might be a way to cope with a traumatic situation. Writing in Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion, Rachel's Vineyard founder Dr. Theresa Burke notes:

 The human mind has a tremendous capacity to repress undesirable feelings and re-channel them into more tolerable tortures.

If we cannot find a way to work through the trauma with our conscious intellect, our unconscious mind will accomplish the task for us.

Trying to cope with these shattered phantoms may invite the abuse of alcohol or drugs, and a vicious, unrelenting cycle of self-destruction, heaping insult on top of injury until awareness of the original problem has been annihilated.

What the Research Says

 So far, more than 20 studies have found a strong association between substance abuse and abortion. Among the findings:

One study found that among women without a prior history of substance abuse, women who aborted their first pregnancy had a 4.5 times higher risk of subsequent substance abuse compared to women who carried their first pregnancy to term.1

Another study found that women who had undergone an abortion were over three times more likely to report heavy alcohol use and twice as likely to report cigarette smoking.
 
A survey of American women who had abortions found that the 27 percent of respondents reported increased use of drugs or alcohol and that they attributed this problem to their abortion.
 
A study in New Zealand that tracked approximately 500 women from birth to 25 years of age has confirmed that young women who have abortions subsequently experience elevated rates of suicidal behaviors, depression, substance abuse, anxiety, and other mental problems.
 
A study of women whose first pregnancies were unintended found that those who aborted reported more frequent and recent use of drugs or alcohol afterward compared to women who gave birth.2

Alcohol abuse is likely to affect not only the women themselves, but also their families: Mothers who abuse drugs or alcohol are more likely to "engage in authoritarian and punitive parenting practices," and parental substance abuse increases the risk that the children will suffer abuse or neglect.
 

There are many risk factors that increase the risk of a woman or girl suffering from post-abortion trauma. These include being pressured or coerced to abort, poor pre-abortion counseling, abortion due to fetal anomalies, and other problems such as a history of past abuse, conflicted feelings about the abortion; having an abortion as a teen; having prior children; having abortion due to poor prenatal diagnosis, and more.
 
When the most conservative risk estimates are applied to the general population of women, it indicates that at least 150,000 women per year abuse drugs and/or alcohol as a means of dealing with post-abortion stress.1

April is a good time to raise awareness of how trauma from abortion can increase the risks of alcohol abuse among women, and how it effects their families.

~~~
Take Action: Raise awareness at your church or in your community about the link between abortion and alcohol abuse by downloading and sharing this ad/flyer with others.

Make copies to distribute as a flyer, post on bulletin boards or stuff it into bulletins, newsletters or other mailings. You can also post it on your web site, blog or Facebook page. A co-op version is also available that can include information about your organization or resources for help and healing.

Citations

1. David C. Reardon and Philip G. Ney, "Abortion and subsequent substance abuse," American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse 26(1):61-75, 2000.

2. D.C. Reardon, P.K. Coleman, and J.R. Cougle, "Substance use associated with unintended pregnancy outcomes in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth," American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 26(1):369-383, 2004.
[25 March 2010, The Elliot Institute News, Post-Abortion Research, Vol. 9, No. 4]
www.AfterAbortion.org

The UnChoice Campaign: TheUnChoice.com
 

'Telemed' Abortions Under Investigation in Iowa
Operation Rescue has been notified in writing that the Iowa Medical Board is now investigating the "care and treatment" practices of abortionist Susan Haskell and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. The investigation is in response to complaints filed by Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger concerning "Telemed" abortions.

"Telemed" is short for telemedicine, a practice when the patient consults with a physician over the Internet via Skype or other teleconferencing hook-up.

Operation Rescue investigators found that a dozen small Planned Parenthood offices in Iowa were administering the dangerous abortion drug, RU 486, without the patient ever having been personally examined by a physician. Instead, an abortionist briefly addresses abortion patients from a teleconferencing hook up from her office in Des Moines. After explaining the medical abortion process, a button is pushed and an electronic drawer opens that contains the drugs.

"We believe that this practice is illegal and violates Iowa law that requires that a licensed physician perform abortions in that state, and increases the serious dangers to the public," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

It was also discovered that Planned Parenthood deviates from the FDA protocols in both dosage and number of recommended office visits. The abortion patient never has personal access to a licensed physician, even for follow- up. Insurance companies are charged $1,000 for the procedure, twice the cost of cash patients and over 2½ times the national average cost for such abortions, a practice that will drive up insurance costs for everyone.

The abortion pill has a failure rate of 7-20% depending on how it is administered, but with no licensed physician in sight, women are left in a condition that is considered life- threatening. At least 13 women have died from medical abortions and over 1,100 have suffered serious complications.

"Planned Parenthood has come up with a dangerous scheme to peddle abortion pills to women without the cost of transporting a licensed physician to each clinic. Without enough abortionists to staff all of their clinics, this 'telemed' scheme is the goose that laid the golden egg for them. Never mind that it is a serious danger to women and to the economics of this country, especially if it expands nationally," said Newman.

Read OR's Full Special Report: 'Telemed Abortions' Endanger Women and Drive Up Insurance Costs -- http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/special-report-telemed-abortions-endanger-women-and-drive-up-insurance-costs/  DES MOINES, Iowa, 4May 2010 /Christian Newswire/

Human Services Dept. Allegedly Pressured Teen to Get Abortion

A caseworker with the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) allegedly pressured a pregnant teenager in foster care into a late-term abortion by threatening to take away her toddler or her yet-unborn baby.  Additionally, Marisol Rivera, the girl's social worker, said that she was fired for refusing to take the teen to a late-term abortion clinic.

"They hired me to work in child protection, not to kill children," Rivera told the Philadelphia Daily News.

According to the newspaper, the girl's foster mother said that the 16-year old was excited about having the baby and had already told her 1-year-old child that she would have a little brother.  The teenager's birth mother, identified only as Deborah M., also said the girl was excited.

But this all changed, according to the teenager's foster mother, after the DHS worker Cynthia Brown threatened to take away her children.

"She said that if she decided to have the infant she wasn't going to let her have both babies, that I know," the foster mother said. "They wouldn't be together."

Another source, however, insisted that the girl's foster mother, whose first language is Spanish, did not understand the conversation between the girl and Cynthia Brown.

Yet Deborah M. said that she believed the foster mother's allegations, because she had witnessed Brown bullying her daughter before.  She said Brown threatened to take away her one of her children unless the teen began taking her older child to daycare.

The DHS reportedly procured a judge's order allowing an abortion; Pennsylvania state law requires parental consent for abortion, but this may be bypassed by court approval.

Brown said she drove the teen to get an abortion in New Jersey at the Cherry Hill Women's Center, because abortions in Pennsylvania are illegal at 24 weeks.  There, her infant was killed by the injection of a feticide.

Marisol Rivera initially refused to drive the girl to the abortion mill for the second appointment, scheduled to remove the baby's body, but did so after she learned that the baby had already been killed.

"That baby had to be taken out of her," Rivera said. "It couldn't stay in there much longer. It was against my will, but I had no other option. Instead of one dying, two were going to die."

Rivera worked for Concilio, which performs subcontract work for the DHS.  She says her supervisor threatened to fire her when she initially refused to take the teenager to the clinic; after she complained to Concilio's human-relations director about the threat, Rivera says she was fired.

The Philadelphia Daily News claimed that the DHS and Concilio have tried to suppress the publication of the affair.

The DHS had not returned LSN's request for comment at press time.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10050309.html
[3 May 2010, James Tillman, Philadelphia, PA, www.LifeSiteNews.com]

Tape of Clinic Failing to Report Sex Abuse Sent to Kentucky Authorities

On 23April2010, student-led pro-life group Live Action sent full footage of their undercover investigation showing a Louisville abortion facility failing to report sexual abuse of a child to Kentucky authorities.

The 34 minute tape was taken by Live Action President Lila Rose and actor Jackie Stollar who posed undercover as minors with Rose telling the staff that she was 14-years-old and impregnated by her 31-year-old "boyfriend." In the state of Kentucky, sex between a 14-year-old and a 31-year-old is rape in the third degree. Kentucky law requires child abuse to be reported to law enforcement immediately.

In media reports following the release of the footage to the public last Wednesday, the clinic admitted that an abused child report was not filed and that they "would never report it at that point" to authorities because of a lack of information. Live Action President and UCLA student Lila Rose disagrees, "This abortion center does not get to choose when to report abuse of a child. Kentucky law states that child abuse must be reported immediately and after clinic staff was clearly told about the abuse scenario, they failed to report or even ask the appropriate questions."

Live Action is also requesting authorities investigate the clinic's compliance with state informed consent laws. The clinic staff presents misinformation about fetal development, saying that, "you don't get brain activity till like 18, 19 weeks" despite the fact that brain waves have been detected as soon as 6 weeks and 2 days after fertilization. The clinic also falsely implies that the unborn child is not living by stating that, "it's not a living, breathing, baby at this point." Live Action believes these statements indicate the clinic may be disregarding state health standards and informed consent laws.

The Kentucky authorities who are receiving copies of the footage are Commonwealth's Attorney R. David Stengel, State Attorney General Jack Conway, and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services.

Live Action has previously released videos of statutory rape cover-up at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in Bloomington, IN, Indianapolis, IN, Memphis, TN, Birmingham, AL, Los Angeles, CA, Tucson, AZ, Phoenix, AZ, and Milwaukee, WI. Prompted by a Live Action video, the Alabama Health Department placed the Birmingham clinic on probation after conducting its own investigation which found 9 legal violations.

Watch highlights of the undercover video, as well as the unedited tape at: http://liveaction.org/index.php/projects/monalisa/142
[27Apr10, http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/4298113724.html , Louisville, Lila Rose, Live Action, 323-454-3304, ]

Woman Impregnated by Rape at Age 12 Encourages Others to Choose Life

At the age of 12 years, after having been raped by a gang in her neighborhood, Lianna Rebolledo was told she was pregnant -- and the doctors wanted her to have an abortion. 

But Rebolledo, who is now 33 years old and works at a radio station in Los Angeles, says she never even considered the possibility, and she wants others in Mexico to know that she is very happy that she chose life for her child. [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10042611.html , Life Site News; Pro-Life Today, 27 April 2010]

Abortion, Suicide Often Hand-in-Hand
Mental health risks are becoming increasingly associated with women who have had an abortion. According to Dr. David Reardon, director of the Elliot Institute, a number of studies indicate an elevated risk of suicide following an abortion.

"About [one]-fourth of women who report having negative reactions to abortion will also report that they attempted suicide at least once, and suicidal thoughts are even more common," Reardon reports.
[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=973252 ; 26Apr10, PFLI PharmFacts E-News Update]