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

November is NATIONAL ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH

  Truth Booth -- A Window to the Womb -- http://www.truthbooth.org/

Hippocratic Medicine means TO DO NO HARM

Induced Abortion is NOT Health Care

Women have the RIGHT TO KNOW about the Abortion - Breast Cancer CONNECTION 

AND the Connection of Abortion to Subsequent Preterm Birth, Cerebral Palsy/ ASD

Genuine CHOICE Requires OPTIONS

Refuse to Choose Abortion

                 Occupy the Womb  (SBA List)

40 Days for Life International Campaign 22 February - 1 April 2012

Abortion Business Workers: Report Problems --  http://clinicworker.com/

Fatherhood Begins in the Womb --http://www.toomanyaborted.com/?page_id=4009

  www.internationalprolifeyouth.com

www.imagesofabortion.com

Abby Johnson: Planned Parenthood Kept Me in the Dark about My Medication Abortion

Lone Abortion Business in Santa Fe, New Mexico Will Close in December

Two Michigan Abortion Businesses Close

L.A. Abortion Business of Late-Term Abortionist Josepha Seletz Officially Closed

Abortionists’ Lawsuit Against Permanent Kansas Abortion Facility Regulations Speaks Volumes

Complications of Abortion and Mental Health: Responses to APA Task Force by AAPLOG and Dr. Coleman

Secrets in The Family: A Mother Reflects on Her Daughter’s Abortions

STUDY: Flawed Miscarriage Diagnosis Criteria May Lead to Abortion of Healthy Babies

Fifth Worker at ‘House of Horrors’ Philadelphia Abortion Business Pleads Guilty to Murder

Abortionist Offers $50 Coupons for Sunday Abortions

Judge Orders Two Michigan Late-Term Abortion Businesses Temporarily Shut Down

Abortion Business Advertises: “Removing Fetal Life Support”

Is a Ban on Sex-Selective Abortion the Best Way to Fight Roe v. Wade?

Abortion Practitioner Under Investigation in Indiana

Two Philadelphia "House of Horrors" Former Gosnell Abortion Business Employees Plead Guilty to Murder

Texas Abortion Doctors Face Hearing for Massive Violations

Commentary - Planned Parenthood: Prenatal Care at 8% of their Offices, Abortions at 40% (& Climbing)

FORCED ABORTION

Woman Who Refused Abortion Killed by Father of Their Unborn Baby

Forced Abortions Make a Mockery of “Pro-Choice” on Abortion

Commentary: Abortion Advertising - They Want Our Babies for the Money

Pepsi Shareholders Demand Company Stop Using Aborted Fetal Cell Lines in Flavor

Laws Regulating Abortion Facilities Decrease Abortions

Conference Focused on How Abortion Adversely Affects Women

Seattle Hospital Faces Pressure to Do Abortions After Merger

MN PP Now Doing 'TELEMED' Abortions

STUDIES

STUDY: 2010 Study Shows Abortion - Mental Health Issues Connection 

INTERNATIONAL

Sidewalk Counseling Effectively Criminalized in Austria After Pro-Life Appeal Rejected

Swiss Police Use Water Cannons to Stop Attack on Pro-Lifers

Governments Condemn UN Official's Attempt to Create 'Right' to Abortion

San Jose Articles Launched in Europe to Combat Abortion

Eastern Europe Sees Growing Pro-Life Effort Against Abortion

Over 93,000 Children Killed by Abortion in Canada in 2009

Brazilian Doctors Convicted of Killing Patients by Removing Organs

Woman Tells of Late Abortion Horror in Australia...

Abby Johnson: Planned Parenthood Kept Me in the Dark on My Abortion

In 2009, I had my tonsils removed.  They had been bothering me for a while and no one knows what they are really for anyway…so I figured I might as well have them out.  I knew a lot of tonsil-less people, so I wasn’t nervous at all about surgery.

A couple days before I went “under the knife” I had my pre-op visit with my ENT.  We were going over a few things that I already knew.  Then, he started talking about the risks.  I guess I hadn’t really thought there would be risks with a tonsillectomy.  Severing vocal cords and being unable to speak…damage to teeth…extreme blood loss…damage to my tongue…and even death.

WHAT???  Um, maybe I should just keep my annoying tonsils.  I suddenly became very nervous.  My doctor assured me that my fear were kind of irrational…he just HAD to tell me those things.  Needless to say, two days later, the tonsils came out.  I had no problems.  My throat has never been happier.

Now, flashback to 2003.  I was 23 years old, a volunteer at Planned Parenthood, a college student, a woman who was 8 weeks pregnant by her husband…a husband she was divorcing.  I didn’t want a baby so I had a solution…abortion.  I had already had one abortion and it was easy.  Surely, this time it would be the same.  Instead of a surgical abortion, I thought this time I would choose a more “natural” way to abort…the medication abortion.

It was all pills and that seemed really simple.  Everything was done at home.  It was private, on your schedule, under your control and seemed less invasive.  “Nothing worse than a heavy period,” according to Planned Parenthood.  Sounded pretty easy to me.  So, I took the bait.  I made and appointment and got the money together.  The day came and it really felt like any other day.  I wasn’t nervous…I wasn’t having surgery.  This was going to be simple.

At the clinic I filled out paperwork, had some basic lab work done, had an ultrasound (that I don’t remember), and got put in a room for abortion counseling.  I had brought someone with me, but I, of course, had to do all of this alone.  No one except the patient was allowed past the waiting room.

I remember my “counseling” as if it happened yesterday. “You will have some heavy bleeding and period like cramps.  None of it should last too long.  You will be back to normal in a couple days,” my counselor said.  “Sounds good,” I remember saying.  And I guess it did sound pretty good.  I could get rid of my biggest burden for $400.00 and a little cramping.  Not a bad deal.  There didn’t appear to be any risks or side effects…or if there were, we didn’t go over them.  Surely if there were risks, they would have told me about them, right?  So the exchange was made.  I gave them $400.00, and they gave me a Mifeprex pill and a brown bag of pills to take home.

After taking the Mifeprex, I felt great!  No side effects…just like she said.  The next day, I did as I was told.  I ate a light lunch and took the 4 pills in my brown bag called Misoprostol.  They told me these were the pills that would start my bleeding and cramping…but nothing a few Ibuprofen couldn’t take care of.  I was told after taking the pills at home that I would probably start bleeding in about an hour.  So, I made myself comfortable on the bed and turned the TV on.

Ten minutes later, I started to feel pain in my abdomen unlike anything I had ever experienced.  Then the blood came.  It was gushing out of me.  I couldn’t wear a pad…nothing was able to absorb the amount of blood I was losing.  The only thing I could do was sit on the toilet.  I sat there for hours…bleeding, throwing up into the bathroom trashcan, crying and sweating.  I used to watch shows about childbirth.  I would see these women in labor and they would be covered in sweat.  I would always think, “Gosh, do they keep it hot in the delivery room, or what?”  But at that moment, sitting on the toilet, I knew it wasn’t from heat…it was from pain.

After several hours on the toilet, I desperately wanted to soak in the bath tub.  I was hoping that would make me feel better.  Maybe the warm water would help the cramping.  Certainly it would make me smell better.  I had vomit all in my hair and on my legs, not to mention how sweaty I was.  I filled the tub and climbed in.  It actually did feel pretty good.  I remember closing my eyes and leaning my head back.  I felt exhausted.  The cramps kept coming, but the water helped soothe them somewhat.  I opened my eyes after 15 minutes and was horrified.  My bathwater was bright red.  It looked like I was sitting in the middle of a crime scene.  And I guess it was…I had murdered my child.

I knew I had to get up and wash the blood off of me.  I stood up slowly and straightened out my body.  As soon as I was completely upright, I felt a pain worse than any other I had experienced.  I began to sweat again and felt faint.  I grabbed on to the side of the shower wall to steady myself.  Then I felt a release…and a splash in the water that was draining beneath me.  A blood clot the size of a lemon had fallen into my bath water.  Was that my baby?  I knew this huge clot was not going to go down the drain, so I reached down to pick it up.  I was able to grasp the large clot with both hands and move it to the toilet.  I stood in the warm shower for a few minutes…feeling a little relief from the cramping.

Then came the excruciating pain again.  I jumped out of the shower and sat on the toilet.  Another lemon sized blood clot.  Then another.  And another.  I thought I was dying.  This couldn’t be normal.  Planned Parenthood didn’t ever tell me this could happen.  This must be atypical.  I decided that I would call them in the morning…if I didn’t die before then.  It was around midnight and I had been in the bathroom for a good 12 hours.  I knew I couldn’t leave yet.  I didn’t want to lay in the bed…the bleeding was too heavy.  And the clots were still coming; not as often, but they were still coming.  So, I decided to sleep on the bathroom floor that night…right by the toilet.  The cold floor felt good on my face. I was physically depleted, but I could not sleep.

The next morning, I called Planned Parenthood as soon as they opened and asked to speak to the nurse.  I was told she would call me back soon.  She did.  I told her about my previous day.  She told me, “That is not abnormal.”  WHAT??  She could not be serious.  All of the bleeding, the clotting, the pain…that was NORMAL???  “Yes,” she said.  “Use heating pads, soak in a warm tub, and take Ibuprofen.”  I was angry.  How could they not tell me the side effects?  I felt betrayed.

Eight weeks passed.  Eight weeks of blood clots.  Eight weeks of nausea.  Eight weeks of excruciating cramps.  Eight weeks of heavy bleeding.  When it was finally over, I went back to volunteer at Planned Parenthood.  My anger was gone and had now been replaced by self-reproach. I no longer blamed Planned Parenthood, I blamed myself.  And honestly, I was glad that I wasn’t pregnant.  So, I just chalked it up to a terrible experience and vowed that I would do my best to never let anyone I know choose medication abortion.  I did not want anyone else to experience what I had been through.

When I started working at Planned Parenthood, I did just that.  It actually became a joke around the clinic.  “Don’t let Abby see the MAB (medication abortion) clients.  She will change them all to surgical and we will be here all day.”

I HATED medication abortion.  I hated that we were pushing it at all of our clinics.  I did not think it was best for our patients.  And I told them the risks.  I told them my story.  I told them about the clots, the cramping, the nausea, the bleeding.  I had seen too many women that had been hurt by this “natural” abortion method.  There was nothing natural about it.  At a management meeting, I voiced my concerns.  Why weren’t we talking about the risks?  Why hadn’t anyone told me?

“Well, we don’t want to scare them,” my supervisor said.  “Oh, like they are scared when they think they are dying from the amount of blood they are losing because we choose not to tell them that is supposedly normal,” I responded.  That didn’t go over too well.  That was their answer?  They didn’t want women to be scared??

The night of my medication abortion, lying on the cold bathroom floor, I had never been so scared.  What if I died there alone?  Who would find me?  Would my parents find out that their daughter died because she had an abortion?  That fear was real.

Looking back on my tonsillectomy and my abortion, one thing really stands out.  When my ENT was going over all of these crazy risks, I was kind of thinking, “Hey, can you just NOT tell me any of this.”  But then I was grateful.  Because if I woke up and I wasn’t able to talk, or if my two front teeth were all busted up, at least I would have known that was a possibility.  At least I had the CHOICE to back out.  With my abortion, I wasn’t given that CHOICE.  They didn’t tell me what was really going to happen to me…because they didn’t want to “scare” me?  So much for freedom of choice.

Here is another glaring contrast.  When my ENT was explaining the risks to me, I became nervous.  But as he was calming my fears, I remember him saying, “Don’t worry, none of this has EVER happened before to any of my patients.”  That made me feel better.  But the same cannot be said of abortion…particularly medication abortion.  Women have died from medication abortion.  Thousands of women have had very serious complications.  I saw many of them with my own eyes…I was one of them.

To not give women all of the information about abortion because you think it will “scare” them is actually very offensive.  Doesn’t Planned Parenthood claim to “trust women?” Then why don’t they trust these women enough to give them all of the information?  Do they not think women are smart enough to handle basic facts?  What kind of female empowerment is that?  Here’s the truth…Planned Parenthood is not worried about women being “scared”…Planned Parenthood is scared.  They are scared women will walk out the door if they get accurate and thorough information.  Every woman that walks out is lost revenue…that is Planned Parenthood’s biggest fear.  They are scared.  They are scared of the truth.  They are scared to give women the truth.

In 2003, a young woman died from a medication abortion.  Her name was Holly Patterson.  Since then, her father, Monty, has been working to expose the dangers and risks of abortion.  He recently created a website, http://abortionpillrisks.org.  This website is full of accurate information on the true risks of medication abortion.  I encourage all of you to please share this with people you know.  Please post this website on your facebook or twitter.

Right now, Planned Parenthood is planning to expand their medication abortion protocols to EVERY family planning clinic in the country in the next 5 years.  We must act now.  Holly didn’t have to die.  Women do not have to be hurt by abortion. 

Expose the truth.  Someone has to trust women to make the right decision…it certainly won’t be Planned Parenthood.
[Abby Johnson | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/20/11,   http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/20/abby-johnson-planned-parenthood-kept-me-in-the-dark-on-my-abortion/]

Lone Abortion Business in Santa Fe, New Mexico Closing Down
The only abortion business in Santa Fe, the state capital of New Mexico, will be closing down next month, according to a new report today from the pro-life organization Operation Rescue.

OR indicates abortion practitioner Lucia Ceis will retire from doing abortions on December 23, according to an advertisement placed in The New Mexican newspaper telling patients he will no longer be in practice and explaining to them where to obtain their medical records. The last day abortions will be done is December 16, 2011.

“Ceis admits to having done thousands of abortions over her 35 years of business,” the pro-life group indicates. “That closure will leave Santa Fe abortion-free and will reduce the number of abortion clinics in New Mexico to five. Cies’ abortion business offered abortions to 18 weeks at a cost of $500-$1,200. She also conducted abortions at St. Vincent Hospital in Santa Fe.”

“Abortion clinics continue to close as Americans become more and more pro-life,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “The number of surgical abortion clinics has dropped from 2,200 in 1991 to only about 675 today. That is quantifiable evidence that we are winning the hearts and minds of the American people. Abortion is a human rights abuse that will soon be rejected and relegated to the ash heap of history.”
For remainder of article, visit -- http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/18/lone-abortion-business-in-santa-fe-new-mexico-closing-down/

CITIZENS FOR A PRO-LIFE SOCIETY HELPS CLOSE TWO MICHIGAN ABORTION BUSINESSES: PRO-LIFE ACTIVISM WORKS!

Citizens for a Pro-life Society was at the heart of a 21 month-long effort to bring legal action against the Womans Choice Abortion Clinics located in Lansing and Saginaw, Michigan.  And our hardcore pro-life activism works!   See full press release below.

On Monday, Nov. 21, 2011,  at 2:30pm,  Eaton County Circuit Court Judge Calvin Osterhaven signed consent papers that officially shut down the Womans Choice late-term abortion clinics in Lansing and Saginaw, Michigan. Their owner Richard Remund is also forever barred from being part of any incorporation of a Michigan medical facility.  On Nov.7, Michigan Attorney General, Bill Schutte, brought a motion against Womans Choice clinics, citing the clinics for illegal incorporation.    Please see the Press Release below. As of Monday, Nov. 21st—these two abortion mills where unborn babies were killed through the 24th week of pregnancy NO LONGER EXIST!    

The whole saga began on Feb. 26, 2010 when brave pro-life activist Chris Veneklase of Lansing, MI decided one afternoon to look in the trash dumpster used by the Womans Choice clinic in Lansing. Upon doing so he made a grisly discovery—the clinic had dumped the bodies of 17 aborted babies—with the mothers’ names on the medical baggies that contained them. Chris called CPLS and we helped with numerous subsequent dumpster searches and found extensive medical waste as well as patient records. CPLS also conducted all of the trash searches of the Womans Choice’s sister clinic in Saginaw.      

                                (SEE:   imagesofabortion.com    for a full gallery of the Womans Choice aborted babies)

The Eaton County Sheriff was notified and conducted a 4 month investigation of Womans Choice in Lansing. Detectives found several patient records as well as possible bio-hazard waste.   Last October 2010 we sat down in a face to face meeting with attorneys from the AG’s office only to be told that they did not believe they could do anything because as it turned out the clinic was illegally incorporated—with no licensed physician as part of the incorporation THUS, IRONICALLY, THE AG’S OFFICE HAD NO ONE TO CHARGE for the patient records being dumped!  I could not believe what I was hearing. After all of our hard work it looked like NOTHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN and all of the 4 months-worth of evidence collected by the Eaton County detectives from the Womans Choice dumpster was going to be thrown away!

My instincts told me to rescue that evidence!  With the permission of the Eaton County Sheriff if I went to the evidence warehouse and took boxes filled with sealed evidence bags back to my home. When I started to go through them I could not believe what I was seeing!  The detectives had pulled out dozens of whole, intact patient records and scheduling sheets. They contained the names of hundreds of women and personal information on their abortions. Eerily, I even saw the same names of the women whose names were on the medical baggies that held the bodies of their dead unborn children pulled from the trash!  All of this evidence would have wound up in a landfill if CPLS hadn’t saved it from the trash heap!  This was just too much! I notified the AG’s office and nagged them for months to do something!

I believe that the AG’s office always intended to cite Womans Choice clinics for the illegal incorporation, but they have IN ADDITION—filed an allegation against the clinics on the patient records—something they could not have done had CPLS not gone back and retrieved evidence found by the detectives slated for the trash!  
And now the best possible outcome on the issue of improper incorporation has occurred.  The clinic owner has agreed to dissolve Womans Choice Clinics—and THEY NO LONGER EXIST!

The AG’s allegation regarding the dumping of patient records filed with the Michigan Bureau of Health Systems is still pending.  

21 Nov 11 Press Release

An Eaton County Circuit Court judge’s signature today climaxed a 21 month-long effort by pro-lifers, working with Michigan law-enforcement agencies, formally shutting down the Lansing and Saginaw, Michigan Womans Choice abortion clinics owned by Richard Remund. In papers submitted to the court on Friday, Nov. 18th, Remund not only officially dissolved all clinic operations but also entered an agreement with the Michigan Attorney General that forbids Remund from being part of any future incorporation of medical facilities in Michigan.  Eaton County Judge Calvin Osterhaven signed the consent order, dissolving the two abortion clinics at at 2:30pm, Monday, Nov. 21, 2011.  In short, these two Michigan abortion clinics no longer exist.

The shut-down of the Womans Choice clinics, is the result of a motion brought against the late-term abortion clinics on Nov. 7, 2011 in which the Michigan Attorney General, Bill Schutte citied the facilities for illegal incorporation within the state of Michigan--  (see link to the motion below). His action is the direct consequence of discoveries made by pro-life activists who, after searching the clinics’ trash dumpsters in 2010 found aborted babies, medical waste and patient records.  In an attempt to bring charges against Womans Choice, the Criminal Division of the Attorney General’s Office discovered the illegal incorporation.

Medical clinics in Michigan are required to have a licensed physician as head of  their formal incorporation—a requirement that the Womans Choice clinics, where abortions are performed  through the 24 week of pregnancy, deliberately managed to evade for 30 years. Womans Choice abortionists Lewis Twigg and Ronald Nichols were simply paid on a per abortion basis.

The Womans Choice shut-down is the result of Citizens for a Pro-life Society, pro-lifer Chris Veneklase, Ed Rivet of Right to Life of Michigan, and State Senator Rick Jones’ combined efforts to gather evidence of illegal practices associated with Womans Choice clinic operations.  It all began on February 26, 2010 when Lansing pro-life activist Veneklase searched the dumpster used by Womans Choice in Lansing and made a grisly discovery of the remains of 17 aborted babies tossed in the trash.   Each aborted baby was contained in a medical baggie. The names of the mothers were written on each bag as well as the date of their abortion. The aborted babies were buried nearly one year ago exactly, Nov. 20, 2010 in Lansing, MI. 

See video link: http://www.imagesofabortion.com/exposed/pages/videos/burialWomansChoice.aspx

Citizens for a Pro-life Society conducted several searches of the Womans Choice dumpster in Lansing as well as its sister clinic in Saginaw.  Veneklase and CPLS discovered medical waste and numerous patient records.  They contacted Ed Rivet of Right to Life of Michigan who notified State Senator Rick Jones in whose district the Lansing abortion clinic is located. 

From April through July 2010 the Eaton County Sheriff’s Department conducted its own independent investigation of the Womans Choice, Lansing clinic. Detectives found numerous patient records, including whole, intact scheduling sheets from December 2009 through July 2010—sheets that contained personal information of hundreds of women who obtained an abortion at Womans Choice...  The names on some of the sheets matched the names of the women written on the medical baggies containing their dead unborn children pulled from the trash.

The discovery of over 7 months of patient records in the clinic dumpster has also resulted in the Attorney General filing allegations against Womans Choice with the Michigan Bureau of Health Systems.  An investigation into those allegations is still pending.  The dumping of such records is in violation of Michigan state law and administrative regulations governing the practice of medical facilities as well as HIPAA federal law.

CPLS took extensive video of its dumpster findings, photos of the fetal remains as well as catching on tape Womans Choice staff throwing clinic trash into the dumpster.  See  video “Womans Choice Clinic Scandal”: http://www.imagesofabortion.com/exposed/pages/videos/womanschoice.aspx

Womans Choice could not be charged with illegally dumping the bodies of the aborted babies since any bio-hazard was rendered inert by formalin solution, in conformity with Michigan law at that time. In other words, although scandalous to many Michigan residents, it was not illegal for the clinic to dump the remains of aborted babies into the trash.

Since the discovery of the bodies, a new bill has been introduced into the Michigan state legislature by State Senator Rick Jones, Senate Bill 0024-0025.  This bill would make it a criminal misdemeanor to throw human body parts into the trash and requires that the remains of aborted babies—or miscarried babies— be either humanely buried or cremated.

Monica Migliorino Miller, director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society states: “The shut- down of the Womans Choice clinics is a huge victory and a direct result of pro-lifers getting active and doing something about illegal clinic practices. This process started 21 months ago when the bodies of babies killed at Womans Choice were found in the clinic trash dumpster.  We spent hours searching the dumpsters, going through the trash, photographing everything, cataloging everything, going to the  sheriff, the county prosecutor and finally the attorney general. I have to be honest, there were times when we thought nothing was going to happen. But we just never gave up! We are so pleased that the Michigan Attorney General has done what he could to bring the Woman Choice abortion clinics to justice. These clinics tried to get around the law and violated the rights of women. As of today they no longer exist!  One year ago, practically to the day, the 17 babies found in the trash were laid to rest. Now the clinic where they were killed has shut down.  We look forward to the day when the rights of the unborn are respected in law and all these places of death are finally a thing of the past.  But today we rejoice that at least Woman Choice clinics in Michigan no longer exist.”
[21 Nov 2011,CITIZENS FOR A PRO-LIFE SOCIETY, www.prolifesociety.com]

L.A. Abortion Business of Elderly Late-Term Abortionist Josepha Seletz Officially Closed

...Just to confirm, the Survivors Campus Life Team went to check it out. What they found was incredibly disturbing.

Apart from the horrible stench that emanated from the back of the now closed business, the team could actually see bio hazard materials sitting out in the open. The next morning, Campus Life Director Kristina Garza returned to the scene and put in a call to Hazmat. She explained that the hazardous waste was in an easily accessible space in the middle of a residential area. Aside from one gate, there was nothing to stop animals, or even children, from coming into contact with it.

Bio-Hazard bag inside of normal trash bag

A team of firemen responded first. Unfortunately, the firemen did not seem interested in investigating the improperly abandoned hazardous materials, or even looking for the source of the obvious overpowering smell. And, when pressed by Kristina, they actually tried to say that there was only trash behind the facility (though you could clearly see bio hazard bags from the street), and that the smell was probably just rotten lunches in an apparently locked refrigerator.

They seemed to be incredibly worried, however, about some chalkings left on the sidewalk. One fireman even went so far as to suggest that they call the FBI to investigate. Never mind the horrible smell and bio hazardous waste...sidewalk chalk was clearly more dangerous.

Thankfully, Hazmat showed up soon after to open an actual investigation, and the apathetic firemen left. Hours later, when Kristina finally had to leave, the Hazmat team was still on the grounds making phone calls and investigating the property.
[21 Nov 2011, Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust]

Abortionists’ Lawsuit Against Permanent Kansas Abortion Clinic Regulations Speaks Volumes

In a speech given on the Kansas State Capitol steps last January, I said Kansans for Life’s 2011 legislative objectives reflected the recommendations of the Pennsylvania grand jury that investigated “House of Horrors” abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

Gosnell’s employees have already pleaded guilty to charges of murder, including the drug-overdose death of one pregnant mother, and the routine killing of born-alive late-term babies. If you have the stomach for it, read the entire report  (www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf).

The Gosnell grand jury said that to prevent this from ever happening again, one thing that had to change was for state inspectors to be allowed to review abortion files onsite. They pointed out that this, and every one of their strongly-worded recommendations, had been agreed upon by every member of the jury, representing the gamut of opinion on abortion.

Now, the Hodes-Nauser Center for Women’s Health clinic, with abortion lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights, have sued our state’s newly revised abortion clinic regulations that have replaced the temporary ones they sued in July.

The abortion industry complained loudly about the first set of regulations that dictated janitorial and surgical room sizes, temperature ranges, and post-op retention times. Some of the abortionists’ concerns were addressed in the second (final) set, but, predictably, they remain very unhappy.

The main reason? Because they resent the new mandate for two annual clinic inspections during regular business hours, during which “all records shall be available at the facility for review” by the state health department (KDHE).

Abortion was legalized with the slogan: “Make abortion safe and legal.”  In reality, legality has protected abortionists, not women, and it certainly didn’t protect viable babies in Pennsylvania, nor here in Kansas, despite laws firmly in place. No, we have only one law to thank for bringing down Gosnell’s 20-year reign of terror: the law against selling illegal drugs. It was during a prescription drug raid by federal agents that Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” was discovered!

39 years after pro-abortion feminists claimed legality was meant to make abortion ‘safe’ for women, I have a question: With no law enforcement or health inspections allowed, how, exactly, is that supposed to happen?
[November 18th, 2011 NRL News, Mary Kay Culp, Kansans for Life State Executive Director, http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/11/abortionists-lawsuit-against-permanent-kansas-abortion-clinic-regulations-speaks-volumes/]

Complications of Abortion and Mental Health: Responses to APA Task Force by AAPLOG and Dr. Coleman

Dr. Priscilla Coleman's article in the Brit J. of Psychiatry has hit a raw nerve. The letters to ed. objecting to her article are multiple, and often ill informed. Does the American Psychological Assn have a bias? Consider that in 1969 the APA passed a resolution which made the pro-choice political position the organization's official stance and declared abortion a civil right. For decades the APA has aligned itself with major organizations with pro-choice social agendas. Then answer that question.
For AAPLOG's evaluation of the APA's conclusions visit -- http://www.aaplog.org/complications-of-induced-abortion/induced-abortion-and-mental-health/aaplog-response-to-the-apa-task-force-report/

The British Journal of Psychiarty printed Dr. Coleman's defense. For Dr. Coleman's reply to the critic's objections to her article visit -- http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180.abstract/reply#bjrcpsych_el_34290

Priscilla K. Coleman, Professor of Human Development & Family Studies
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA

<p>I appreciate your decision to publish my meta-analysis on abortion and mental health in the British Journal of Psychiatry,despite the controversial results and critical commentary that has predictably followed. In the barrage of recent letters, the sentiments have varied widely and the many supportive arguments presented areworthy of additional comment; however given space limitations, I have decided to focus onthe criticismstohelp insure the results are given the attention deserved.

<p>Before I address the most salient issues, I should note how encouraging it is to have a scholarly forum for discussing the many complexities inherent in conducting systematic reviews onthis topic. The optimist in me is hopeful that this dialogue will foreshadow a new era wherein the research community is able to move beyond agendas and polarized discussions tofocus exclusively on thewell-being of women, the centre of this academic debatethat is so frequently obscured.

<p>There aresome comments that I believe are without basis and may not have been made with a more careful, less emotional read of the article. For example, Littell and Coyne suggestedscientific standards for systematic reviews were not followed. The protocol employed is detailed in the methodology section and the strategy wasin line with recommendations in theHandbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Rather than focus on these types of comments, I addresscriticisms requiring more information from me to allow readers to make informed decisions regarding the merit of the issues raised. I specifically addressheterogeneity, publication bias, selection criteria, and personal bias in the text that follows.

<p>Heterogeneity: The studies included in the meta-analysis have a relatively high degree of heterogeneity given the demographic and cultural differences in sampling, the variability in control groups and outcomes, and differences in third variable controls, etc. Counter to the claim by Polis and colleagues, heterogeneity was addressed by employing a random effects model. The random effects model yields an estimate of the mean of a distribution of true effects;whereas in the fixed effects model there is an assumption that all the included studies share one common effect. When assigning weights to studies in a fixed effectsmodel, the smaller ones are affordedless importance, since the same effect isbelieved to be more precisely assessed in the larger studies. In contrast, in the random effects model, individual studies of varying sizes contribute data from distinct populations, all of which must be considered in the pooled estimate. Weighting is therefore more balanced in the random effects vs. fixed effects model withsmaller studies given relatively more emphasis.In recognition of the heterogeneity, I not only employed the random effects model, but I ran separate meta-analyses based on distinct comparison groups and outcomes.

<p>Publication Bias: Goldacre and Lee provided a funnel plot analysisand presentedit as evidence of publication bias. However, the funnel plot is largely inappropriate for heterogeneous meta-analyses, wherein studies are not likely from a single underlying population [1-4], andseveral investigators havewarned thatuse of funnel plots with meta-analyses derived from heterogeneous samples may result in false-positive claims of publication bias [1-4]. When funnel plot asymmetry is detected in a heterogeneous meta -analysis, the cause islikely due to essential differences between the smaller and larger studies. For example, the majority of the smaller studies included in my meta-analysis employed substance use outcome variables and these outcomes tend to yield the strongest, most robust effects [5,6]. In addition, the larger studies were more likely than the smaller studies to include actual diagnoses for disorders, rarer events than cut off scores on single surveys. In the context of this meta- analysis, the funnel plot most certainly does not provide evidence of publication bias.

<p> My experience attempting to locate unpublished data/studies on abortion and mental health has been very dishearteningover the last 15 years,with virtually all requests ignored. I suspect reluctance to share unpublished data is an attempt to keep results that challenge contemporary views on abortion, indicating significant increased risks for adverse psychological effects,out of the public domain. In contrast, I believe energy is likely invested in seeing to it that non-significant findings, suggesting abortion carries no increased psychological risks, find their way into the journals. If there is any topic wherein many editors, researchers, and professional organizations are highly motivated to publish non-significant effects, it is this one, rendering publication bias less common than in other areas. Support for this notion can be found in the American Psychological Association's 42 year history of abortion advocacy.

<p>In 1969 the APA passed a resolution which made the pro- choice political position the organization's official stance and declared abortion a civil right. For decades the APA has aligned itself with major organizations with pro-choice social agendas, including the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, National Abortion Federation, National Abortion Rights Action League, Guttmacher Institute, and Planned Parenthood among others, frequently submitting amicus briefs and providing congressional testimony.Martel [7]recently discussed the APA's position on abortion, among other issues,noting that the organization's stance has led them to promote psychological research and disseminate data to lawmakers to inform the public and advocate for societal change.Martel further pointed out that the political stanceof the APA lacks the strong backing of empirical data. With this long history of abortion advocacy by the strongest professional psychology organization in the world, politically motivated efforts to publish null findings to support and legitimize their position is logical.

<p>Selection Criteria: As indicated under the methodology section of the meta-analysis, studies identified using the Medline and PsycINFO data baseswere included based on sample size, comparison groups, outcome variables, controls for 3rd variables, use of odds ratios, and publication in English in peer-reviewed journals between 1995 and 2009. In an effort to isolate the effect of abortion on mental health, use of comparisons groups and controls for 3rd variables are basic methodological requirementsconsistent with the Bradford Hill criteria [8]. The majority of studies meeting these criteria and incorporated into the meta-analysis also had many other strong methodological features (multiple data points, nationally representative samples, etc.) I purposely avoided selecting from among the many more peripheral methodological criteria that could be argued as a necessary basis for including or excluding studies, when there is not universal agreement regarding strengths necessary to consider a study's results sufficiently reliable and valid, nor is there consensus on the particular deficiencies necessary for the wholesale dismissal of a study.

<p> Using the criteria outlined above, a significant proportion of the included studies (11/22) were articles that I authored or co- authored. However, having published 33 peer-reviewedarticles, I believe I am more widely published on this topic than any other researcher in the world. It makes sense, therefore, that I am a co-author on a significant proportion of the included studies. Moreover, no studies satisfying the inclusion criteria were left out of the analyses.

<p> Curiously the issue of my not including a study by Danish researchers Munk-Olsen and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine [9]was raised despite the fact that the paper came out long after my meta-analysis was completed and submitted for publication.Incidentally, the NEJM paper is presented as offering more reliable conclusions than the meta-analysis. However, there are several problematic features of this study. To begin with, Munk-Olsen and colleagues note that previous studies lack controls for third variables, but the only third variables they consider are age and parity. There are no controls for pregnancy intendedness, pressure to abort, marital status, income, education, exposure to violence and other traumas, etc. Many studies have been deemed inadequate based on only one of these variables not being accounted for (see APA Task Force Report [10]).The data indicated that rates of mental health problems were higher after abortion compared to childbirth (15.2% vs. 6.7%); howeverthe generally comparable rates before and after abortion were used to negate a possible causal link between abortion and mental health. This reasoning is problematicas many women were likely disturbed to the point of seeking help precisely because they were pregnant and contemplating an abortion or they were involved in troubled relationships. These factors may have resolved, yet disturbance rates remained elevated due to the impact of the abortion. Further, the Danish Civil Registration System contains over 40 years of data, but the researchers curiously compressed the study period to 12 years. A more appropriate strategy would have been to include all women experiencing an abortion, a birth, or no pregnancy and then compare pre and post-pregnancy mental health visits with statistical controls for all psychiatric visits pre-dating conception and all other relevant third variables described above.

<p> Personal Bias: A quote from a presentation I gave at the annual meeting of the American Association of Prolife Obstetricians and Gynecologists was used by Goldacre and Lee to label me an "anti-abortion campaigner." Thisout of context comment was part of a broader call for more concerted efforts to createenvironments wherein objective scientists are able to make the psychology of abortion a priority. Once strong synopses of the best evidence are published, the data can and should be used to intelligibly inform policy. I am opposed to professional organizations like the APA creating a culture wherein it is perfectly acceptable for any political position (in this case pro-choice) to drive data collection efforts, restrict grants to researchers committed to a political agenda, serve as journal gatekeepers to block publication of findings that are not consonant with the political agenda, and ultimately usethe biased information assembledto back policy.

<p> I do not hold membership in any political organizations and my work has never been funded by any pro-life group. My expertise tends to be called upon by the pro-life community and unfortunatelyI am never asked to present my research or perspective on the literature togroups committed to a pro-choice political position. As a professor at a public university, what motivates me is simply the desire to foster high quality research and reach as many people as one individual can with an accurate appraisal of the literature, given the biases that permeate the study of abortion and dissemination of information through the usual channels. I do not have many graduate students working with me or large grants, and it is alarmingthat a researcher with such modest resources was the first to conduct a major quantitative review.

<p> Rather than hurling unfounded accusations of personal bias, we need to more effectively utilize the well-established methods of science to fairly scrutinizethe methodologies of individual studies, expand the empirical investigation of abortion and mental health, and develop a consensus-based standardized set of criteria for ranking studies meritinginclusion in reviews.Without agreement, the selectedstandards may be used to manipulate conclusions. For example, the ranking system employed by Charles et al. [11] ignored two central methodological considerations in prospective research designs: 1) percentageconsenting to participate (no information was provided by the authors of the Gilchrist et al. [12] study that this team ranked as "Very Good"); and 2) retention of subjects over time. In the Gilchrist et al. study, only 34.4% of the termination group and 43.4% of the group that did not request termination were retained. A major problem with nearly all the recently published narrative reviews was somewhat arbitrary exclusion criteria at best and the purposeful selection of specific criteria resulting in dismissal of large bodies of evidence with politically incorrect results at worst.

<p> By raising concerns of publication bias and attempting to undermine the credibility of anindividual researcher, whomanaged to publish in a high profile journal, several peoplehave sought to shift attention from the truly shameful and systemic bias that permeates the psychology of abortion. Professional organizations in the U.S. and elsewhere have arrogantly sought to distort the scientific literature and paternalistically deny women the information they deserve to make fully informed health care choices and receive necessary mental health counseling when and if an abortion decision proves detrimental.

<p> 1. Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA. The inappropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey. CMAJl2007; 176 (3):1091-1096.

<p> 2. Lau, J., Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 2007; 333:597-600.

<p> 3. Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J, et al. Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Stat Med2003;22:2113- 26.

<p> 4. Ioannidis JP. Differentiating biases from genuine heterogeneity: distinguishing artifactual from substantive effects. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, editors. Publication bias in meta- analysis: prevention, assessment and adjustments. Sussex: John Wiley and Sons; 2005. 287-302.

<p. 5. Coleman PK. Induced Abortion and increased risk of substance use: A review of the evidence. Current Women's Health Reviews 2005; 1: 21-34.

<p> 6. Mota NP, Burnett M, &Sareen J. Associations between abortion, mental disorders, and suicidal behaviour in a nationally representative sample. Can J Psychiatry 2010; 55(4):2 39-47.

<p. 7. Martel MM. The ethics of psychology's role in politics and the development and institution of social policy. Ethics & Behavior 2009; 19(2):103-111.

<p> 8. Hill BA. The environment and disease: Association or causation?Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58:295-300.

<p> 9. Munk-Olsen, T., et al., Induced first-trimester abortion and risk of mental disorder. N Engl J Med 2011; 364:332-9.

<p> 10. American Psychological Association Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion. Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion 2008, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

<p> 11. Charles VE, Polis CB, Sridhara SK, Blum RW. Abortion and long-term mental health outcomes: a systematic review of the evidence. Contraception 2008;78:436-50.

<p> 12. Gilchrist A, Hannaford P, Frank P, Kay C. Termination of pregnancy and psychiatric morbidity. Br J Psychiatry 1995; 167:243-248.





Secrets in The Family: A Mother Reflects on Her Daughter’s Abortions

*The following is written by Andrew Chew from the perspective of a woman he recently interviewed.

I will never forget the day I learned about my daughter’s abortions.

It was late at night; my husband and I were both fast asleep when the phone started ringing, jolting both of us awake. I got to the phone first and all I could hear when I answered the call was the voice of my daughter’s friend yelling, asking us to come down right away to the park near our house because K, my daughter and her boyfriend were having a fight, and it was really bad.

We didn’t have time to think and we didn’t know what was going on so we just bolted from our house and ran to the park as fast as we could. When we found them a few minutes later, I did not recognize the person who looked like my daughter: she had become this wild, raging, and furiously angry creature. She was screaming at her boyfriend but the terrible sounds she was making didn’t seem to just come from her mouth. The way she shook and trembled, it looked like her whole body was screaming.

Her boyfriend was yelling too but when he saw us coming, he quickly turned to us and said, “I need to talk to you. I need to tell you that your daughter is a liar. She’s been lying to you all this time. I just want to tell you the truth.” That got K even more mad.  She tried dragging us away from him, but as she did so, he stabbed his finger at our daughter and cried, “Do you know that she’s had two abortions?”

I remember looking immediately at my daughter’s face. I guess I was desperately hoping for her to say something, for her to deny it; I was hoping for a sign, anything at all that would signal that what he said wasn’t true, but all I heard was the sound of a horrible, awful silence.

My husband was able to take the boyfriend aside, calm him down and a little while later, everyone left thepark. I think I must have been in shock as we walked home because I felt totally numb. Abortion wasn’t even in my vocabulary then; it was a taboo topic.  I guess I’m what you would call these days a prude about sex and sexuality: do the right thing, respect yourself and others, and virginity till you tie the knot. I have always tried my best to "walk the talk” and to show my daughter how to do the same. As a mother, I had always believed I was modeling all these things to K. So to think about not just one but the two abortions my daughter had gone through – it just blew my mind.

When we got home, my daughter didn’t want to talk but I felt so utterly lost that I desperately needed to know something, anything: Who was the father? When did it happen? How did it happen? What had been going on all this while? And over the next few, very long days, small fragments of the story began to surface.

Both abortions had taken place within the span of two years. The father was the same for both of them, someone from a previous relationship. The first time she got pregnant, they aborted without telling anyone. But during the second pregnancy, they approached some friends of theirs, an older, married couple they both knew and trusted, for advice.  This couple told them that they were not ready to have a baby and told K to go for an abortion.

I guess hearing this was one of the things that hurt me the most. I was hurt because the daughter I loved so much, whom I had tried to shield from harm all her life, had suffered so much.  I was hurt because I had lost two grandchildren. But most of all, I was hurt because I felt like a complete and utter failure as a mother. Why hadn’t she talked with me? I had always believed in and prided myself on the openness and trust I thought we had in our relationship. Was it all really a lie? Why hadn’t she come to me, her mum, for advice, for help, for counsel? That was what I didn’t understand then – I still don’t understand it now – and it tore me to pieces.

The days and weeks after that night in the park were the darkest of my life. I couldn’t talk to anyone, not my daughter, not even my husband. I felt as if I had sunk to the bottom of the ocean and there, utterly alone in the terrible blackness, I was being smothered by a thick, heavy shroud of burning hot shame.

It was a couple of months later when I got a call from one of my closest friends telling me about Rachel’s Vineyard, a new ministry she was involved in that helped people to heal from the wounds of abortion.

She also shared about her own abortion experience for the first time. During that call, all I did was listen. But the next evening, it was my turn to pick up the phone; I was ready to talk. I think so many people have secrets like this in the family and it just needs someone to voice their heart cries, someone to give permission to talk, for other people to start telling their stories too. And that’s what I did.

At first, we thought that the upcoming Rachel’s Vineyard retreat was for my daughter but after talking itover with K, it was quite clear that she wasn’t ready to take that journey yet.  But I was. I needed some way to deal with the turmoil I was feeling in my heart, mind, and soul, so I signed up for the retreat instead.

I was uncomfortable at first being the only person there who hadn’t actually had an abortion, but that feeling gradually faded away. Over that weekend, God began teaching me how to breathe again, how to see light again. I discovered to my surprise that I had a connection with the two babies that had been aborted. They are my two grandchildren. I was glad that I could acknowledge that. I was able to name them – my Hope and Grace – mourn them, and release them.

Through the stories of my fellow retreatants, I began to understand my daughter better, what she could have been going through, and why she might have made the choices she did. It gave me hope that I could learn how to love her the way she needed to be loved, and that I could somehow help her rediscover her own preciousness, that very beautiful and fragile thing that had been lost and shattered in all the darkness of her life.

And over that weekend, I was finally able to confront my sense of failure and let it go. I learned the very simple and very profound truth that my daughter is not me; she is who she is and the choices she makes are her own. That was very releasing for me.

I still have so many questions, and I know there won’t be any answers until my daughter is ready to give voice to her own heart cries. But at least I can now breathe again while I wait and, even though the night isn’t over yet, I have learned to see through the darkness and perceive the light beyond.

Andrew is a member of the Rachel's Vineyard team in Singapore.  He is also a professional writer and photographer --




317 women harmed by TX abortionists violating law

A blog states that "at least 317 TX women have been harmed by baby-killing abortionists in TX, according to a lawsuit filed this week on their behalf. The suit alleges the baby killing centers were violating TX law that requires informed consent before submitting themselves and their preborn babies to the 'surgery' skills of the abortionists in question." [18 Nov 11]




Study: Flawed Miscarriage Diagnosis Criteria May Lead to Abortion of Healthy Babies

According to a report published in the international journal Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, current ultrasound scan guidelines used to determine if a women has had a miscarriage are inadequate and unreliable, and following these guidelines may result in healthy and wanted pregnancies being aborted.

“This research shows that the current guidance on how to use ultrasound scans to detect a miscarriage may lead to a wrong diagnosis in some cases. Health professionals need clearer evidence-based guidance to prevent this happening,” said Professor Basky Thilaganathan, editor-in-chief of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Currently, when a miscarriage is suspected, the standard test is an ultrasound scan to measure the size of the gestational sac and look for the presence of an embryo.

When there is doubt about the diagnosis of miscarriage, current guidelines suggest the gestational sac should be re-measured seven to ten days later. If the sac has not grown, it is assumed that a miscarriage has occurred.

  However, the study led by Professor Tom Bourne from Imperial College London found that perfectly healthy pregnancies may show no measurable growth over this period of time. Moreover, the study revealed a variation of up to 20% in the reported size of gestational sacs when different clinicians measure the same women, showing that an incorrect first measurement compounded by an error in the second measurement could easily lead to the misdiagnosis that a miscarriage had occurred when in fact a healthy child was living in the mother’s womb.

If a miscarriage is diagnosed a mother may be advised to wait and let the miscarriage progress naturally, or choose to speed up the process by a surgical intervention, such as dilatation and curettage where the lining of the womb is scraped with a curette, which could lead to the death of a healthy child if miscarriage is misdiagnosed.

“Currently there is a risk that some women seeking reassurance with pain or bleeding in early pregnancy may be told they have had a miscarriage, and choose to undergo surgical or medical treatment when the pregnancy is in fact healthy,” said Professor Bourne.

“By identifying this problem we hope that guidelines will be reviewed so that inadvertent termination of wanted pregnancies cannot happen.”

Researcher Dr Shakila Thangaratinam, Senior Clinical Lecturer at Queen Mary, University of London said there is an urgent need to conduct a large-scale study to be confident that diagnosis of miscarriage is correct in every case using the ultrasound measurements.

“When we’re testing to see if someone has a healthy pregnancy or not, we want to be absolutely confident that the test is reliable to avoid making a misdiagnosis. Our paper raises concerns about the gaps in evidence,” said Dr Thangaratinam.

The full text of the study titled “Accuracy of first-trimester ultrasound in the diagnosis of early embryonic demise: a systematic review” is available here -- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/uog.10108/full
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Volume 38, Issue 5, pages 489–496, November 2011, online 13 OCT 2011, DOI: 10.1002/uog.10108

Conclusions  "... Before guidelines for the safe management of threatened miscarriage can be formulated, there is an urgent need for an appropriately powered, prospective study using current ultrasound technology and an agreed reference standard for pregnancy success or loss."

[Oct 17, 2011, Thaddeus Baklinski, LONDON, UK, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/misdiagnosed-miscarriages-may-lead-to-abortion-of-healthy-babies-study?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=24350fc230-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines10_17_2011&utm_medium=email]   

Fifth Worker at ‘House of Horrors’ Philadelphia Abortion Business Pleads Guilty to Murder

A former abortion worker has pleaded guilty to two counts of murder in relation to the deaths of an abortion client and an infant born alive during a botched abortion at Philadelphia’s notorious “House of Horrors” abortion facility.

Lynda Williams, 43, entered her guilty plea yesterday.
Investigators had found that despite the fact that Williams was both unlicensed and untrained, with only a ninth grade education, she routinely anesthetized abortion clients and performed ultrasounds at Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic.

According to a Grand Jury report issued earlier this year, Williams was also responsible for dealing with babies who were born alive while Gosnell was away, which she did in the same way all the other staff at the clinic did – by snipping their spinal cords.

In addition to the two counts of third degree murder, Williams also pleded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to participate in a corrupt organization, and illegally administering drugs to women undergoing late-term abortions.

Williams’ crimes could net her 200 years in prison, but her plea bargain agreement allows for a reduced sentence in exchange for providing testimony against Gosnell. Her sentencing has been delayed until after the Gosnell trial, which may not happen for another year.

Williams is the fifth employee at Gosnell’s clinic to plead guilty: four pleaded guilty to murder, while a fifth to perjury.

The Grand Jury report released in January of this year had detailed testimony from clinic staff who said that “killing large, late-term babies who had been observed breathing and moving was a regular occurrence” and “standard procedure” at the filthy clinic: one staffer said such events happened “hundreds” of times.

The authors of the report slammed Gosnell’s abortion practice, saying it “reflected an utter disregard for the health and safety of his patients, a cruel lack of respect for their dignity, and an arrogant belief that he could forever get away with the slovenly and careless treatment of the women who came to his clinic.

“The only thing Gosnell seemed to care about was the cash he raked in from his illegal operation,” they said.

According to one clinic staffer, about 40% of the second trimester “abortions” performed by Gosnell were past 24 weeks, at which point the babies would be viable outside the womb. He also said that he believed Gosnell would perform even later term abortions on Sundays, when the rest of the staff were away.

Another clinic worker, Tina Baldwin, told the investigators that Gosnell once joked about a baby that was writhing as he cut its neck: “that’s what you call a chicken with its head cut off.”

After news of the conditions in the clinic broke earlier this year, “scores” of women stepped forward to tell their horror stories of forced abortions and abysmally poor care at the hands of Gosnell and his employees.

Investigators who raided the facility wrote that they found the abortion equipment broken, dirty, and rusty; downstairs, the dismembered remains of newborn and nearly-born children were stuffed into jars, bags, milk jugs, and cat food containers. Others shared space in a refrigerator-freezer with employees’ lunches.

Upon entering the building, investigators were hit by the stench of cat urine and the sight of drugged and moaning women lying on blood-stained blankets. Flea-ridden cats defecated freely on the bloodied floors.

The Grand Jury report had issued scathing indictments of both the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the Department of State for turning a blind eye to the clinic. The report said the government agencies had allowed the clinic to wallow in filth for years, and ignored several complaints lodged against the abortionist, while allowing his official record to remain clean.

Fifth Abortion Worker Pleads Guilty to Murder

Philadelphia, PA - Former abortion clinic worker Lynda Williams, 43, pled guilty yesterday to two counts of murder, one related to the death of an abortion patient and the other for the death of an infant born alive during a botched abortion at Kermit Gosnell's now-closed Women's Medical Society abortion mill in Philadelphia.

In addition to the two counts of third degree murder, Williams also pled guilty to conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to participate in a corrupt organization, and illegally administering drugs to women undergoing late-term abortions. Williams has only a ninth grade education.

Williams' crimes could net her 200 years in prison, but her plea bargain agreement allows for a reduced sentence in exchange for providing testimony against Gosnell. Her sentencing has been delayed until after the Gosnell trial, which may not happen for another year.

Williams is the fifth of Gosnell's nine co-defendants to enter pleas after a judge denied their request for separate trials. Those who have already entered pleas are:

Elizabeth Hamilton, 52, pled guilty to perjury. She is Gosnell's sister-in-law.
Adrienne Moton, 34, pled guilty to one count of third degree murder related to killing a newborn infant and several related charges.
Sherry West, 52, pled guilty to one count of third degree murder in the death of Karnamaya Mongar, an abortion patient, and several related charges.
Steven Masoff, 49, pled guilty to two counts of third-degree murder related to the stabbing deaths of two newborn infants after failed abortions. He confessed that he killed hundreds of babies in this way. He also pled guilty to numerous related charges.

Gosnell's "house of horrors" abortion clinic was discovered after District Attorney Seth Williams raided the clinic, thinking it was an illegal "pill mill." Discoveries of the bodies of murdered infants and the severed feet of aborted babies apparently kept as trophies launched a grand jury investigation into the largest abortion-related murder conspiracy case in history.

The 281-page Grand Jury Report stunned the public with gruesome details of Gosnell's "criminal enterprise" that had been operating without governmental accountability for years. The Grand Jury concluded that abortion supporters in oversight agencies created a political climate that was responsible for ignoring complaints against Gosnell's illegal operation. This enabled his murderous rampage to continue for years at the cost of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lives.

Gosnell is charged with seven counts of murder and faces a possible death penalty if convicted.

Four others who were charged with Gosnell could also accept plea deals in the coming weeks and spare themselves having to be tried alongside Gosnell.

"This case highlights the abortion cartel's dirty little secret that abortion clinics routinely operate outside the law. While Gosnell's case is extreme, aspects of his 'house of horrors' inhabits every abortion clinic in the nation," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

"This is what happens when states fail to enforce the laws and treat abortionist as if they are above it. It is frightening to think that there are likely other abortionists as bad as Gosnell operating out there right now under the protection of a pro-abortion political climate. Our country still has lessons to learn from the Gosnell case."
[November 10, 2011, John Jalsevac, LifeSiteNews.com,   http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fifth-worker-at-house-of-horrors-abortion-clinic-pleads-guilty-to-murder?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2fa7855522-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines11_10_2011&utm_medium=email ; OR, 10 Nov 11]



Abortionist Offers $50 Coupons for Sunday Abortions

Dr. James Pendergraft, a Florida abortionist who earlier this year was order to pay $36 million in damages after a botched abortion left a baby alive, but severely disabled, is now attempting to attract clients to his Orlando Women’s Center by offering a coupon for abortions, valid on Sundays only.

The coupon, which can be used to kill an unborn baby up to 24 weeks old, is advertised on the main page of the Center’s website.
Abortionist James Pendergraft

“Limited time special! Print this page and bring it in for $50 savings only on Sundays!” reads the coupon. “VALID FOR ABORTIONS PERFORMED BY 5/31/12. You must present this page to the receptionist at the time of the abortion ON SUNDAYS ONLY. $50 credit towards cost of abortion. No cash value.”

The website says that the clinic was founded by Pendergraft in response to “a great need” for first trimester and late term abortions in the Orlando area.

The notorious abortionist, who has had his medical license suspended four times, owns four other clinics in the state. The most recent suspension of his medical license was imposed in August 2010 for allowing an employee to administer narcotics without a license. He was also found guilty of prescribing steroids for no apparent reason to an employee known to have a drug problem.

In a decision that some criticized as overly lenient considering Pendergraft’s long history of ethical violations, the Florida Board of Medicine ordered a one year suspension, to be followed by three years of probation.

Aaron Liberman, the chairman of the Department of Health Management and Informatics at the University of Central Florida, told Central Florida News 13 that is was “a wake-up call ...  when we have an individual who is allowed to practice medicine in a way that draws question as to both his credibility and capability.”

Previous suspensions have been for performing illegal abortions, including third trimester abortions.

Pendergraft also lost a lawsuit earlier this year for a botched abortion he performed at the Orlando Woman’s Center, the clinic offering the coupon. A judge awarded $36.7 million in compensatory and punitive damages for the 2004 abortion that left a baby alive but severely disabled.
[10 Nov 11, Christine Dhanagom, ORLANDO, FL,   http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/troubled-abortionist-offers-50-coupons-for-sunday-abortions?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2fa7855522-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines11_10_2011&utm_medium=email]



Judge Orders Michigan Late-Term Abortion Businesses Temporarily Shut Down

A Michigan judge late yesterday ordered two late-term abortion businesses in the state to be temporarily shut down.

The order was given the day after Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a lawsuit to permanently dissolve Health Care Clinic [sic], of Delta Township, and the affiliated Women’s Choice Clinic [sic], of Saginaw.

Both of the facilities are owned by Richard Remund, whom the attorney general is seeking to bar from organizing another abortion company.

The complaint by Schuette followed a year-long investigation launched when pro-life activists discovered the bodies of 17 aborted unborn children in a dumpster outside Woman’s Choice Clinic [sic] in early 2010. They also found unredacted medical records and trash bags containing bloody or soiled cannulas, gloves, gauze, and surgical sheets, which require disposal as biohazardous waste.

[A photo showing the 17 unborn babies that were discovered in a dumpster outside Woman’s Choice business.]

According to Pamela Sherstad, the media spokesman at Michigan Right to Life, the judge’s order will shut the clinics [sic] down until the first hearing in the case, scheduled for November 21st.

Because hearings in the case had not even begun, Sherstad observed, the judge’s choice to order the clinics [sic] closed was extraordinary, suggesting that he finds the attorney general’s complaint compelling.

In a press release, Monica Miller of Citizens for a Pro-life Society, who has been involved in the case from the beginning, said that her organization “is thrilled about this court action as we hope it will result in babies saved from abortion.”

“These clinics [sic] cannot perform abortions on any of the women who are already scheduled,” she observed. “[and] that the ultimate outcome of the action taken by the Michigan Attorney General will result in a permanent shut down of these killing centers.”

State authorities had previously determined that they lacked the legal standing to pursue the clinics for the improper handling of medical records or of the bodies of the unborn babies. Instead, Shuette’s complaint argues that the two clinics [sic] were improperly incorporated and licensed, and therefore they “cannot lawfully offer and/or provide medical services to the public.”

“To ensure accountability and patient safety, Michigan law requires medical facilities to be incorporated with a licensed medical professional at the helm,” said Schuette. “Strict enforcement of the law ensures medical clinics cannot put profit ahead of responsible patient care.”

Shuette’s action against the abortion businesses has already received support from two Michigan lawmakers.

“It’s widely known that employees at these facilities tossed unborn babies in the trash, so it is not surprising to find more evidence of callous disregard for state laws intended to protect patient safety,” said Senator Rick Jones. “I applaud Attorney General Schuette for taking steps to hold these facilities accountable.”

“This commonsense enforcement of state law governing medical clinics is long overdue,” said Representative Deb Shaughnessy. “No one should be exempt from following laws passed to preserve health, safety and welfare. I thank Attorney General Schuette for working to shut down this clinic [sic] and put patient safety first.”

Womans Choice Cannot Do Abortions--Judge Orders TRO Pending Hearing

CPLS received word from the Michigan Attorney General's Office that Tuesday, Nov. 8th an Eaton County Circuit Court Judge Calvin Oosterhaven signed a TRO (temporary restraining order) against Womans Choice abortion center in Lansing (6500 Centurion Dr., Lansing, MI) --AS WELL AS its sister clinic in Saginaw, MI. This TRO is the result of the Michigan Attorney General taking action against Womans Choice.  
 
This TRO means that these two abortion centers CANNOT perform any abortions at least until the court hearing scheduled for Nov. 21st.
 
For a full photo gallery of the babies dumped in the trash by Womans Choice see:
http://imagesofabortion.com/exposed/pages/galleriesAll/womanschoice.aspx
 
See these links to various news articles on Attorney General's action:.
 
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011111080319
 
http://www.freep.com/article/20111108/NEWS06/111080358/Michigan-Attorney-General-seeks-closure-2-abortion-clinics

http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2011/11/attorney_general_bill_schuette.html
[November 9, 2011, John Jalsevac, LifeSiteNews.com,  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-orders-michigan-late-term-abortion-clinics-temporarily-shut-down?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=77ddce53d7-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines11_09_2011&utm_medium=email ; 9 Nov 11, Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D., Director of Citizens for a Pro-life Society]






Abortion Clinic Advertises: “Removing Fetal Life Support”

So far in this tour of abortion clinics we’ve seen the clinic in NYC that offers “gentle abortions” and promises there will be “no pain” and “no memories.” No memories of what?

We’ve toured the website of a unique sort of place in NYC that isn’t even a clinic; it’s something else. They do “natural abortions” with no disturbing suction noise, a “five minute procedure” from which you will “immediately recover.” Then there was an offer from the clinic in Orlando that offers a “medical abortion at 24 weeks,” literally a procedure whereby a six month old viable unborn child can be poisoned and killed in the womb and the mother can go home and deliver the dead baby in privacy so she can “say goodbye” her own way. And they offer a $50 discount on Sundays.

Next stop – Michigan, where women are treated with a “more holistic approach,” and “stress-reducing, therapeutic relaxation techniques in a warm soothing atmosphere” are used to treat the “whole body.” There is “soft lighting and relaxing music” and “aromatherapy” to encourage a “deeper state of relaxation before, during and after the abortion procedure.” This makes them different. Meet NFP, (no not Natural Family Planning) Northland Family Planning. They take a spiritual attitude toward abortion. They “believe” and they “promise.”...

...In this grandiose scheme to holistically treat the pain-free, aromatherapied woman and give her “medically accurate” information, they describe the abortion procedure. They promise that their doctors will “take gentle medical and surgical steps to remove fetal life support and cause fetal death before removing the pregnancy.”...
[For entire article, visit --  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/10/abortion-clinic-advertises-removing-fetal-life-support/ ; Stacy Trasancos, DC | LifeNews.com | 11/10/11 ]



Is a Ban on Sex-Selective Abortion the Best Way to Fight Roe v. Wade?

Millions of women obtain abortions because they do not want baby girls.

It’s shocking, but incontrovertible. Two decades ago, Harvard economist Amartya Sen, in an arrestingly titled article, documented the statistical reality that “More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing.” In a recently published book, Unnatural Selection, journalist Mara Hvistendahl convincingly demonstrates that the overwhelming reason for the increasingly large demographic disparity in the male-female birth ratio is sex-selection abortion. Hvistendahl estimates the number of missing or dead now to be 160 million and counting. Women have abortions because (among other reasons) they are able to learn the sex of their unborn baby and kill her if she’s a girl.

The phenomenon is most pronounced in certain Asian populations where the birth of girls is especially discouraged, but is not limited to Asia. Hvistendahl shows that sex-selection is not culturally or uniquely Asian. Male-child preference exists everywhere. Sex-selection abortion rises as birth rates fall, as wealth increases (especially in developing nations), and as technology for identifying a child’s gender in utero becomes more reliable and more available.
With such a ban the U.S. Supreme Court would be asked: Does the U.S. Constitution create a right to abortion, even when the woman’s reason for abortion is that she does not like the sex of her unborn child?

Sex-selection abortion occurs in America, too, and the practice is likely to increase. In August, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that a simple blood test seven weeks into pregnancy can reliably identify the sex of the child. Watch for a spike in abortion rates over the next few years as parents find it easier and cheaper to “choose” to have a boy by killing the fetus if—in a bitter reversal of an expression of joy—“it’s a girl.”

The shocking reality of sex-selection abortion cries out for laws banning the practice. Polls have shown that about 95 percent of the American people oppose sex-selection abortion. Even those who style themselves “pro-choice” overwhelmingly agree that abortion should not be allowed when the reason for such a choice is that the child to be born is female. The most pernicious radical feminist argument for abortion rights—that abortion is essential for “gender equality”—doubles back on itself in the case of sex-selection abortion: if abortion on the basis of the sex of the child—killing girls because they are not boys—is not sex discrimination, it is hard to know what is. (Hvistendahl is, awkwardly, pro-choice, yet horrified by the consequences of “unnatural selection.”)

Four states—Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and most recently Arizona—have enacted laws prohibiting sex-selection abortion. Those laws have yet to be tested in the courts. At least seven other states have considered bills that would ban the practice. A sex-selection-ban bill was introduced in Congress in 2009—I worked with committee staff on the bill—but it died in the then Democrat-controlled House.

Are such bans constitutional under the Supreme Court’s decisions creating a right to abortion? The question such laws present is a dramatic one, challenging the underpinnings of Roe v. Wade in the most fundamental and direct of ways: Does the U.S. Constitution create a right to abortion, even when the woman’s reason for abortion is that she does not like the sex of her unborn child?

Sadly, the answer, under the Supreme Court’s absurd, through-the-looking-glass constitutional law of abortion, is yes. Under Roe and the Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a woman has a constitutional right to abort for any reason up to the point of “viability,” when the child could live outside the mother’s womb. Even after viability, a woman may abort for any “health” reason, an exception that ends up swallowing the rule: the Court’s abortion decisions define “health” justifications for abortion to include any “emotional,” “psychological,” or “familial” reason for wanting an abortion.

A pregnant woman’s (or a couple’s) preference for a boy rather than a girl would seem to fit comfortably within the gaping loophole for “emotional” or “familial” reasons for abortion. Parents are thus free to choose to kill female human fetuses because they are female, even when the unborn child could live outside her mother’s womb. It thus appears that, under Roe and Casey, laws banning sex-selection abortions are unconstitutional through all nine months of pregnancy.

This, of course, is madness, and it highlights, in an especially persuasive way, the extreme madness of the Supreme Court’s current abortion doctrine. It exposes the grim legal reality that abortions may be had for any reason. It lays bare the doublespeak of “health” justifications for abortions, and it highlights the logical (and moral) incoherence of abortion-rights arguments predicated on notions of “women’s rights” or “equal protection”: a right to abortion, in the name of gender equality, ends up being a right to abort females.

The fact that laws banning sex-selection may fly in the face of the Roe and Casey decisions is no reason not to enact them. On the contrary, it is a powerful reason to enact them: the justices, and abortion supporters generally, ought to be forced to confront the uncomfortable reality of the Court’s abortion jurisprudence. Those who style themselves as “centrists” or “moderates” on abortion–such as those who claim to be “personally opposed but pro-choice” or who acquiesce to Roe’s abortion regime for some other political or social reason—need to understand precisely what such a position entails and the lethal logic of what they have agreed to accept.

This goes for Supreme Court justices, as well. Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote was pivotal to the 1992 Casey decision reaffirming Roe on grounds of stare decisis, professed himself shocked— shocked!—to discover a few years later that the logic of Casey yielded a constitutional right to partial-birth abortion. He had not realized that a plenary right to “choice” on abortion meant that a physician could induce labor, deliver an intact, living baby except for the head, puncture the child’s skull, vacuum out its contents, and then complete delivery. Kennedy found himself outvoted, 5–4, and thus dissented in the 2000 Stenberg v. Carhart decision, recognizing a constitutional right to partial-birth abortion.

He wrote the majority opinion narrowly upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban, 5–4, in Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007. (Alas, Kennedy reaffirmed the “health” exception and the Court only distinguished, and did not overrule, its earlier partial-birth ruling. In the end, Gonzales holds only that partial-birth abortion can be banned only if it is clear that an equally “safe” abortion is available by some other method.)

Being confronted with a harsh reality can change the minds of persons who have thought about a question only in abstract, arid terms. It is possible, then, that even a pro-abortion Court, confronted with a law banning sex-selection abortion, might recognize and retreat from the consequences of its own prior decisions. Enacting sex-selection bans, even if contrary to Roe and Casey, just might lead the Court to begin charting a path away from Roe.

A sex-selection ban would indeed present the Supreme Court with a dilemma. To strike down such a law—in essence, to embrace a constitutional right to sex-selection abortion—would expose just how extreme and immoral the Court’s present abortion doctrine really is. To read such a result in the name of “gender equality” would be monstrous and absurd.

Such a ruling would undermine support both for Roe and for the Court as an institution as never before. (Concern for the Court’s own prestige and public support was, in fact, part of the reasoning in Casey for reaffirming Roe.) A sex-selection ban dares the pro-abortion justices to embrace an abortion right to kill girls for being girls. Such a ruling would expose the illegitimacy of the Court’s abortion decisions.

On the other hand, for the Court to uphold a ban on such abortions would require a concession with powerful symbolic consequences: the human fetus has a gender; and killing a living fetus on the basis of such a distinctive, personal, permanent feature of human identity is unthinkable, and may rightly be punished. Such a concession would undermine the moral and legal premises of the entire judicially created right to abortion.

If abortion merely removes unwanted tissue, its gender does not matter.

But if gender matters, it must be because the unborn living being in the womb is already a human child, not merely “potential” life. The issue of sex-selection abortion thus challenges the very “it”-ness of the living human embryo or fetus killed by abortion—the implicit non-humanity of the fetus that underlies most arguments for allowing abortion. It is a girl or a boy—a member of the human family, albeit an extremely vulnerable one, whose life hangs in the balance. Acknowledge the humanity of the fetus and the regime of Roe collapses.

It is unclear which horn of the dilemma the Court would choose today. Four justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) would almost certainly uphold a sex-selection ban. Indeed, they would probably all agree that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided, and could properly be overruled. Four justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) would probably hold that Roe’s right of choice is inviolable and, yes, that abortion is allowable for any reason a woman chooses.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has explicitly defended Roe’s result on “feminist” grounds of sex equality. It would be interesting, and revealing, to see if she would affirm an absolute constitutional right to abort female human fetuses because they are female, in the face of a state or a federal ban forbidding sex-discrimination abortions. Would the woman who built her fame as a crusader against gender discrimination end up embracing fetal gendercide?

That leaves Justice Kennedy, whose votes in abortion cases have reflected a wet-finger-to-the-wind approach driven by the desire to appear moderate, by extreme sensitivity to elite public opinion, and by a concern to preserve the Court’s political capital and prestige. He has voted, alternately, to replace Roe (in 1989), to reaffirm Roe on the basis of stare decisis (in 1992), to deny a right to partial-birth abortion (in 2000) and, most recently, to accept but cut back on such a right (in 2007).

His vote, more than that of any other justice, will be susceptible to the political winds and attuned to a decision’s effect on public perceptions of the Court as an institution and of him personally. He might provide a fifth vote to uphold a ban on sex-selection abortion, but would be unlikely to support any full-scale reversal of Roe’s or Casey’s core premises.

The intellectual, constitutional, legal case against the legitimacy of Roe already has been won. Roe hangs on by the thread of stare decisis, which in turn is a function of a few justices’ perception of the need to adhere to a concededly indefensible precedent for essentially social and policy reasons rooted in believed public support for the outcome. Knock out the prop of public support, and Roe falls.

In making this specific issue, sex-selection abortion, the pressure point of political and legal debate, and of public discourse over the constitutional status of abortion rights, we can frame the discussion in terms most favorable to the pro-life stance, most persuasive to those who are undecided or uncommitted, and most uncomfortable for defenders of the extreme pro-abortion status quo. The result of any test case, down the road, very likely turns on whether President Obama has a chance to make further appointments to the Court.

This suggests yet another reason for pressing this issue in the form of a proposed federal law banning sex-selection abortion. Not just pro-choice justices, but also pro-choice politicians need to be confronted with, and called to account for, the lethal logic and terrible consequences of their support of Roe. President Obama, and pro-choice members of Congress and state legislatures, should be put to a straightforward test: Do you support or oppose a right to abortion for reasons of sex-selection? Should a woman have a constitutional right to abortion because “it’s a girl”?

There is no better litmus test issue over life, and there is no better time for pressing such a challenge than during an election year.

Michael Stokes Paulsen is University Chair and Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas, in Minneapolis, and co-director of its Pro-Life Advocacy Center (“PLACE”). This article is reprinted with permission from PublicDiscourse.com
[11 Nov 11, Michael Stokes Paulsen, PublicDiscourse.com  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/is-a-ban-on-sex-selective-abortion-the-best-way-to-fight-roe-v-wade?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=5a8ebe812e-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines11_11_2011&utm_medium=email]

Abortion Practitioner Under Investigation in Indiana

An abortion practitioner based in Indiana is under investigation by state officials for hiding the fact that he does abortions in the Hoosier State on medical forms filed with Ohio officials. For article, visit -- http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/02/abortion-practitioner-under-investigation-in-indiana/

Two Philadelphia "House of Horrors" Former Gosnell Abortion Business Employees Plead Guilty to Murder
[Story contains graphic descriptions in paragraphs five through eight.]

Two employees of a Philadelphia abortion business where live, viable babies were allegedly killed and a patient died after being given on overdose of painkillers pleaded guilty on Thursday to murder.

Guilty pleas to third-degree murder were entered by Adrienne Moton, 34, and Sherry West, 52, who both worked for Dr. Kermit Gosnell at what prosecutors have described as a decrepit and unsanitary clinic known as Women's Medical Society in West Philadelphia.

Due to a court-issued gag order, attorneys declined to comment on reports that no plea agreement was reached in the case.

Sentencing was set for December 2 by Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner. The maximum penalty for third-degree murder is 40 years in prison.

Seven more defendants face charges in the case, including Gosnell, who a grand jury in January said, "killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy -- and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors."

The grand jury said that a clinic co-worker of Moton's testified that a woman gave birth to a large baby at the clinic, delivering the child into a toilet. The jurors identified the newborn as "Baby D."

The jurors said the co-worker told them that the baby was moving and looked like it was swimming.

"Moton reached into the toilet, got the baby out and cut its neck," the grand jury said in its report.

West was accused of murder in the death of a 41-year-old patient, Karnamaya Mongar.

"The evidence presented to the grand jury established that Karnamaya Mongar died of cardiac arrest because she was overdosed with Demerol," the grand jurors said.

The grand jury said West and another employee administered the drug at Gosnell's direction and that Mongar died as a result of "wanton reckless conduct."
[27 Oct 2011, UTC 2011, Dave Warner, Philadelphia, Reuters.com, Editing by Barbara Goldberg and Greg McCune; Drudge Report]
October 26, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com)  - Two former employees of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell have pled guilty to 3rd degree murder charges for their roles in the deaths of an abortion patient and one baby born alive during a failed late-term abortion.

This is reportedly the first time that an abortion worker has been found guilty of murder for killing a baby.
Former Gosnell employees Adrienne Moton and Sherry West.

Former Gosnell employee Adrienne Moton admitted her part in the murder of one baby. Another employee, Sherry West, pled guilty for helping to drug abortion client Karanaya Mongar to death during a botched abortion. Neither women had any medical training or licensing.

The pair also pled guilty to lesser charges, including participating in a corrupt organization.

Gosnell, who ran an abortion facility in Philadelphia that has been dubbed a “House of Horrors,” has been charged with eight counts of murder, including of seven newborn babies and one client, and is awaiting trial. Moton and West may testify against his as part of their plea agreement.

According to testimony by former employees, Gosnell and his assistants killed “hundreds” of newborn babies by severing their spinal cords rather than killing them in the womb, because the abortionist was too unskilled to administer the lethal injection in utero.

After news of the conditions in the clinic broke earlier this year, “scores” of women stepped forward to tell their horror stories of forced abortions and abysmally poor care at the hands of Gosnell and his employees.

Investigators who raided the facility had found that the abortion equipment itself was broken, dirty, and rusty; downstairs, the dismembered remains of newborn and nearly-born children were stuffed into jars, bags, milk jugs, and cat food containers. Others shared space in a refrigerator-freezer with employees’ lunches.

Upon entering the building, investigators were hit by the stench of cat urine and the sight of drugged and moaning women lying on blood-stained blankets. Flea-ridden cats defecated freely on the bloodied floors.

A Grand Jury report in January detailed testimony from clinic staff who said that “killing large, late-term babies who had been observed breathing and moving was a regular occurrence” at the filthy business...

“We look forward to a full airing of the evidence in a court of law so Americans can come face to face with the atrocity of abortion. Maybe if we finally have a public airing of the truth about what goes on inside abortion clinics [sic], American will stop tolerating the barbaric, unnecessary, and outdated practice. This case serves as a warning to abortionists who break the law. Sooner or later you will get caught.”
[26 Oct 11, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-workers-at-house-of-horrors-abortion-clinic-plead-guilty-to-murder?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=eec26de242-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines10_27_2011&utm_medium=email]

Texas Abortion Docs Face Hearing for Massive Violations
Five Texas-based abortion practitioners are the first of a group of 10 total who will face disciplinary hearings for massive violations of state abortion and patient laws following an undercover investigation launched by two pro-life groups.

Operation Rescue and The Survivors conducted a statewide investigation that consisted of recorded phone calls to abortion businesses and combing through dumpsters located outside them. In total, the probes found abortion practitioners and their staff violated informed consent laws and the state’s 24-hour waiting period before an abortion.

They also found staff coached minor girls to cross state lines to avoid Texas parental notification laws, ignored cases of child sex abuse, illegally disposed private patient information in violation of HIPAA, improperly handled and disposed of controlled substances and the remains of aborted babies, and maintained their facilities in substandard conditions.

Five of the abortion practitioners are scheduled to appear before the Texas Medical Board on Friday to answer to allegations of wrongdoing based on complaints filed by the groups following their three-month investigation. Robert Hanson, Alan Molson, William W. West, Jr., Franz Theard, and Douglas A. Karpen are slated to appear.
For Remainder of article, visit -- http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/24/texas-abortion-docs-face-hearing-for-massive-violations/




Commentary: Planned Parenthood: Prenatal Care at 8% of PP Businesses, Abortions at 40%
Planned Parenthood is notorious for priding itself as a “reproductive health care” organization that advocates for women’s rights and choices. However, when we simply look into the numbers, it becomes abundantly clear that Planned Parenthood is in no way in favor of pregnancy “choices.” It’s all about abortion [& the money].

According to Tait Sye, national spokeswoman of Planned Parenthood, 63 of the more than 800 Planned Parenthood facilities in America provide the option of prenatal care to pregnant clients—that’s 7.8% of the businesses.
On the other hand, 321 of the businesses—about 40%— provide abortion services, and every one refers for abortion, according to Planned Parenthood’s website.

A mandate to be implemented would ensure that every Planned Parenthood affiliate will control a minimum of one abortion facility by 2013, expanding those services even further.
For remainder of commentary, visit -- http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/28/planned-parenthood-prenatal-care-at-8-of-clinics-abortions-40/

FORCED ABORTION

Woman Who Refused Abortion Killed by Father of Unborn Baby

Although abortion proponents always describe abortion as a woman’s “choice,” statistics show that women who are facing an unplanned pregnancy are often coerced by the men in their lives to abort.

One study found that 64% of women who have abortions feel that they have been coerced by their partners. (1) In the most tragic and extreme cases, women who refuse abortions become the targets of violence.

A terrible example of such an event occurred in Queens, New York in October of 2008. Derrick Reed, 38, brutally stabbed to death his pregnant girlfriend. Reed was convicted on Thursday, November 3rd of this year.

According to police, Reed had been pressuring the victim, Niasha Delain, to have an abortion for months. She had steadfastly refused. Enraged at the imminent birth of the baby, Reed stabbed Delain in the stomach and torso over twenty times. This brutal crime took place on Delain’s due date. The full term baby suffered five stab wounds and died with Delain.

Delain’s mother, Towanda Wimms, has pledged to campaign for a law that would make the killing of an unborn baby during a homicide legally recognized as murder. Under current law, Reed could only be charged with one murder, not two, despite the fact that he killed an unborn baby that could have easily survived outside the womb.

Stories like this are tragically common. Murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women.  (2)  The Elliot Institute, in their report on coerced abortion, identified over thirty cases of murders committed by men who killed their pregnant partners (or ex-partners).

These include the case of 15-year old Kyunia Taylo who was shot by a gunman hired by her 29 year old boyfriend.  Another teen, Teshibra Bell from Texas, was murdered by the man who fathered her unborn baby. Sixteen year old Vanessa Youngbear was killed by her ex-boyfriend and one of his friends after she asked him to take a paternity test. She was seven months pregnant.

More examples of violence aimed at pregnant women who refuse to abort can be found in the Elliot Institute report on coerced abortions (http://www.theunchoice.com/intro.htm )

References   

VM Rue et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical Science Monitor 10(10): SR5-16 (2004).
    

I.L. Horton and D. Cheng, “Enhanced Surveillance for Pregnancy-Associated Mortality-Maryland, 1993-1998,” JAMA 285(11): 1455-1459 (2001); see also J. Mcfarlane et. al., “Abuse During Pregnancy and Femicide: Urgent Implications for Women’s Health,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 100: 27-36 (2002).

LifeNews.com Note: Sarah Terzo is a pro-life liberal who runs www.ClinicQuotes.com, a web site devoted to exposing the abortion industry.
[8 Nov 11, Sarah Terzo | New York, NY,  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/08/woman-who-refused-abortion-killed-by-father-of-unborn-baby/]

Forced Abortions Make a Mockery of “Pro-Choice” on Abortion
It is not unusual for men to try to coerce their partners into having an unwanted abortion. In fact, according to the Elliot Institute, which deals with post-abortive women, 64% of women who have abortions claim that they were pressured by other people (usually their partners) into having them. So much for women’s choice!

So it’s no real surprise to find out that a British man has taken coercion one step further – he drugged his pregnant fiancée with an abortion pill, causing her to miscarry.

The woman, who has not been named for legal reasons, was rushed to the hospital with severe bleeding, were she found out that her baby had died. She was forced to undergo an emergency operation and required a blood transfusion of two pints of blood.

She did not know the cause of her miscarriage until months later, when she overheard her fiancé bragging to someone over the phone about slipping the abortion pill to her without her knowledge.

She reported the crime to the police, who arrested him. It is not clear at this point where he acquired the abortion drug.
For remainder of the article, visit -- http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/24/forced-abortions-make-a-mockery-of-pro-choice-on-abortion/

Commentary - Abortion: Planned Parenthood Wants Your Baby Dead

Advertising is a deliberate act. No company floats a message into public places without a strategy. Alcohol and tobacco industries, for years, have specifically targeted certain demographics far more heavily than others.

Black neighborhoods, in cities throughout the country, have historically been more heavily exposed to (often sexualized) alcohol and cigarette billboard ads than any other racial demographics. Researchers and esteemed medical journals found that twice as many of these ads appear in black communities, raising deep concerns about their negative impact.

Opposition to this practice sprung up in major cities nationwide, especially during the late 80s and early 90s. The racial targeting was unquestionable, and resistance was fierce from health care advocates. They saw ads encouraging unhealthy behavior, often resulting in disparate and deadly health outcomes, as a threat to the community.

The abortion industry kills more black people than the alcohol and tobacco industries, combined. According to the CDC, in the latest annual report on abortion statistics, there were over 363,705 deaths caused by abortion versus 289,366 deaths from all other causes combined.  Where’s the outrage?

Where’s the resistance against the number one killer of African-Americans? 

Abortion is advertised even more disproportionately, and has a consistent negative health outcome—death.  On billboards, in school-based clinics, through advocate media, nonreciprocal PR responses (Tebow Ad response) and tragically, in churches, abortion is heralded as merely a positive “choice”.

Planned Parenthood has lodged itself in the urban environment for decades, overseeing and instigating years of the decay of the black family, increasing unintended pregnancy rates, soaring fatherlessness (72.3%) and exponentially higher STD rates.

Gonorrhea is 20 times higher among blacks than whites and 10 times higher than Hispanics.  Chlamydia is 8 times higher among blacks than whites and 3 times higher than Hispanics. 

And with all of the targeting that Planned Parenthood does, aiming for the black community since The Negro Project, abortion occurs 4.9 times more among blacks than whites, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

We have more access to condoms and all other forms of birth control than ever before in human history. Yet Planned Parenthood, the self-professed savior of the urban community, fails at its most basic tasks—reducing unintended pregnancy rates and preventing the spread of STDs. The only thing they do not fail at is killing through abortions. Their entire billion-dollar business model centers on this heinous human injustice.

Last year, The Radiance Foundation’s TooManyAborted.com billboards began to encroach upon the urban domain of abortion clinic dominance (see ProLifeAmerica.com’s devastating report on clinic locations).

One would think the same opposition to alcohol and tobacco ad targeting would see the undeniable targeting of the black community by Big Abortion (aka Planned Parenthood). 

For the most part, their silence shows how outrage can often be feigned and political allegiances lead one to ignore the most destructive forces among us.

Planned Parenthood is not giving up. They’ll distort, contort, and misreport whatever they need to in order to procure their most precious re$ource—your baby.

But unlike millions of parents across this nation, who will do anything to protect that awe-inspiring little planned or unplanned life, Planned Parenthood wants your baby…dead.
[27 Oct 11, Ryan Bomberger, DC, http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/27/abortion-planned-parenthood-wants-your-baby-dead/]

Pepsi Shareholders Demand Company Stop Using Aborted Fetal Cell Lines in Flavor Research

The pro-life organization Children of God for Life announced today the filing of a shareholder resolution with the Securities and Exchange Commission and PepsiCo, protesting the use of aborted a fetal cell line for the research and development of flavor enhancers for their beverages.

In August 2010, PepsiCo entered into a 4-year agreement with Senomyx for the development of artificial high-potency sweeteners for PepsiCo beverages.  Under the contract, PepsiCo is paying $30 million to Senomyx for the research and future royalties on PepsiCo products sold using Senomyx technology.

When the pro-life group wrote both companies requesting they use one of several non-objectionable, viable cell lines listed in their patents, Senomyx did not respond.  PepsiCo did reply however, saying that this research, using cell lines derived from aborted babies, would produce “great tasting, lower-calorie beverages.”

Join a Facebook page to end abortion here.

Appalled by the response, Children of God for Life launched a boycott, and was joined by over two dozen other pro-life organizations .  The boycott now includes supporters from Australia, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Scotland, Poland and the UK.

Meanwhile, letters sent to all PepsiCo Board Members and Senior Management have gone unanswered.

“Shareholders have a right to know the truth about what PepsiCo is doing with their hard-earned savings,” stated Children of God for Life Executive Director, Debi Vinnedge. “PepsiCo’s lack of consideration to the public’s moral sensibilities has only served to fuel the fire and threatens stock values, retirement pensions and investments.”

The PepsiCo shareholder who filed the resolution requested that “the Board of Directors adopt a corporate policy that recognizes human rights and employs ethical standards which do not involve using the remains of aborted human beings in both private and collaborative research and development agreements.”

PepsiCo’s own Code of Conduct boasts that they “deal with customers, suppliers, the public and our competitors in an ethical and appropriate manner.”

“There is nothing ethical or appropriate in the way they are exploiting the remains of an innocent aborted child,” noted Vinnedge.

One 12-year-old Florida boy who learned of PepsiCo’s research from his mom’s prolife news reports was upset enough to take action himself.  At a 40 Days for Life kickoff, Gene spoke passionately to the audience.

“When I found out about this, I was sick to my stomach,” he said.  “I decided I wouldn’t let this happen so I came up with a way to boycott Pepsi products called United Schools for Life.  This program will attempt to remove all Pepsi products from the schools in our diocese.”  Gene hopes to spread his mission through the entire state.

Vinnedge said she was moved by Gene’s initiative and courage.

“We hope that PepsiCo senior management gives serious consideration to what this boy has done,” she noted.  “Even a child knows this is wrong. God bless him for standing up for the unborn who have no voice of their own!”

[For further information see www.cogforlife.org/pepsiboycott.htm ; http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pepsi-shareholders-demand-company-stop-using-aborted-fetal-cell-lines-in-fl ; 25 Oct 11, John-Henry Westen, LARGO, FL]

Proof: Laws Regulating Abortion Facilities Stop Abortions

In the years following the Roe v. Wade decision, most legislative efforts to prevent abortions have been “demand-side” strategies. In short pro-lifers have attempted to pass legislation to either discourage pregnant women from obtaining abortions or raise the costs of obtaining an abortion.

Examples of these types of laws include public-funding restrictions, parental-notice laws, and informed-consent laws. Pro-lifers have succeeded in enacting these laws in a number of states and there is a substantial body of peer-reviewed research documenting the effectiveness of Medicaid funding restrictions and parental-involvement laws

However, a recent article in The New England Journal of Medicine shows that supply-side strategies — strategies aimed at reducing the number of abortion providers — also have promise for lowering abortion rates.

The article analyzes the impact of a Texas law which required that all abortions which take place at or after 16 weeks of gestation be performed in either a hospital or an ambulatory surgical center. Ambulatory surgical centers must adhere to more rigorous staffing, reporting, and facility structure requirements than free-standing abortion clinics [sic].

When the Texas law took effect, none of Texas’s non-hospital-based abortion providers met the requirements for an ambulatory surgical center. As such, the average distance to the non-hospital-based abortion provider which performed abortions after 16 weeks increased from 33 miles to 252 miles.

Not surprisingly, the number of abortions performed in Texas at or after 16 weeks of gestation fell by 88 percent. While there was an increase in the number of Texas residents seeking late-term abortions in other states, the out-of-state increase did not offset the in-state decline. The year the law took effect saw over 2,000 fewer late-term abortions (both in-state and out-of-state) performed on Texas residents.

The article contrasts this supply-side law to a demand-side law, specifically the Texas informed-consent laws which went into effect in January 2004. The author argues that this informed-consent law failed to reduce the incidence of abortion in Texas. However, the author analyzes the number of abortions, not the abortion rate, and thus fails to account for increases in the population of women of childbearing age. More importantly this Texas informed-consent law is relatively weak because it does not mandate two in-person visits to the abortion provider.

There is a growing body of evidence that informed-consent laws which require women to make two separate trips to the abortion provider substantially lower abortion rates.

Overall, there has been relatively little academic research on the impact of these supply-side strategies. However, there is anecdotal evidence of their effects.

Following the enactment of an Arizona pro-life law in 2009, Planned Parenthood announced they would stop providing abortions at seven of their ten clinics. The end result has been a 30-percent decline in the number of abortions performed in Arizona. Similarly, supporters of legal abortion stated that Virginia’s new abortion-clinic regulations would result in the closure of in the closure of 17 of Virginia’s 21 abortion clinics. While this may well prove to be an exaggeration, it does demonstrate the concern that supporters of legal abortion have about the potency of clinic regulations.

Since 1982 the number of abortion providers has fallen by a third. This is largely because many abortion providers have retired and younger physicians are less interested in performing abortions. However, some of these supply side strategies may be having an effect as well. 

There exists peer reviewed research showing that declines in abortion providers reduce abortion rates.

As such, considering that courts have been willing to uphold clinic regulations in many states, these supply side strategies represent a new opportunity for grassroots pro-lifers.

LifeNews.com Note: Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan–Dearborn and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J. This article originally appeared on the National Review. It is reprinted here with permission of the author.
[Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/26/11, http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/26/proof-laws-regulating-abortion-facilities-stop-abortions/  and  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/do-laws-seeking-to-reduce-abortion-rates-work-according-to-one-study-yes?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=bf7d50ecea-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines10_25_2011&utm_medium=email]

Conference Focused on How Abortion Adversely Affects Women

Health issues, mental effects and the social and psychological ramifications of abortion were presented and discussed by international experts and researchers at a conference in Milwaukee this weekend.

Researchers from Duke University, Georgetown University Medical School and Bowling Green State University presented medical findings on cross-cultural social responses to abortion and related women’s mental health issues on the opening day of the 13th annual Healing Visions Conference in Milwaukee.

Priscilla Coleman Ph.D. (Bowling Green), Doctor Monique Chireau (OB/GYN; Duke), and Anne Speckhard Ph.D. (Georgetown) headlined the day’s docket, which also included Doctor Patricia Casey of Ireland, and Kathleen Grey, R.N. of Montreal, Canada.

Other featured speakers included Greg Lester (Ph.D.; University of Colorado), Catherine Coyle (Ph.D; University of Wisconsin), Althea Hayton of Hertfordshire, England,  Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City, and Susan Wills of the USCCB.

Organizers described Healing Visions as a think tank conference of academics, medical professionals, mental health experts and caregivers, gathered to share resources and research, and network.

During the opening sessions Wednesday, Coleman discussed literature and anecdotes from Australia, New Zealand, Norway and the United States.
Chireau presented: “the Medical Implications of Induced Abortion,” and Speckhard spoke on universal responses to abortion across cultures.

Thursday’s sessions focused on the effects of abortion on men. Featured speakers include Coyle, Hayton and family counselor Greg Hasek (Misty Mountain, Oregon).

Friday’s slate included keynotes by Naumann, Wills and Milwaukee social worker Mary Briggs. The day’s workshops included: abortion’s effects on couples, adolescent healing, attachment and intimacy, substance abuse and forgiveness therapy, and self-care for caregivers.

Saturday’s presenters were Lester, and Pastor Ken Freeman, of Last Harvest Ministries, in Garland, Texas.
Healing Visions was organized by the National Office of Post Abortion Reconciliation and Healing.
LifeNews.com Note: Vicki Thorn is the director of the National Office of Post Abortion Reconciliation and Healing.
[[Vicki Thorn | Milwaukee, WI | LifeNews.com | 10/27/11,  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/27/conference-focuses-on-how-abortion-adversely-affects-women/]

Seattle Hospital Faces Pressure to Do Abortions After Merger

An abortion/medical conscience controversy is riling the decidedly pro choice state of Washington, presaging what I think will become one of our own most contentious bioethical controversies. The issue involves the existence and extent of “conscience rights” for medical professionals and facilities opposed to participating in interventions that take human life.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/26/seattle-hospital-faces-pressure-to-do-abortions-after-merger/

MN PP Now Doing 'TELEMED' Abortions
Unborn babies are now being killed at the Planned Parenthood in Rochester, MN, using the 'Telemed' medication abortions, in which there is no physician present, no actual exam, and no physician to provide continuous oversight.

A nurse practitioner hands the pregnant woman the mifepristone (originally termed RU 486) pills which she swallows while the abortionist watches and talks long-distance via two-way video conferencing through the internet.

Medication abortions using mifepristone ('Mifeprex') of course kill the unborn child and can harm the mother as well.  No long-term studies to determine the adverse effects to the woman's body; we do not know the long-term effects of this chemical pollution on the woman.

We do know that thousands of women have suffered adverse effects from these medication abortions, and that at least 29 women have died. While no major studies have been done to determine this, the data available does suggest that medication abortions may be even more dangerous than surgical abortions.

Almost 43% of the abortions done at the St. Paul PP business are mifepristone medication abortions.

Rochester is the first known place in Minnesota where 'Telemed' medications abortions are being done; tragically, Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed last year that expanding 'Telemed' abortions into every PP center in the USA is part of its Strategic Plan for 2015.
[October 2011, Pro-Life Action News]

STUDIES

Another Study Shows Abortion-Mental Health Issues Link

AAPLOG [the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists ] has drawn attention to yet another study showing a strong link between abortion and mental illness.

The paper, titled ‘Associations Between Abortion, Mental Disorders, and Suicidal Behaviour in a Nationally Representative Sample’ was published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry in April 2010 and confirmed ‘a strong association between abortion and mental disorders’.

As such it adds further support to the landmark meta-analysis by Priscilla Coleman which I highlighted on this blog in August which showed that abortion raises the risk of mental health problems by an average of 81%.

The Canadian researchers used the National Co-morbidity Survey (NCS) replication data collected between 2001 and 2003. Key points (courtesy of AAPLOG) are:

• A large nationally representative U.S. sample was examined for associations between abortion and life-time prevalence of numerous mental disorders and suicidal behaviors.

• Pro-choice researchers 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. These researchers 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.

• 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.

• 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.

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

The forces of mainstream psychology are bent on proving that abortion is a benign psychological experience for most women. The American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force report of 2008 is a classic example of this agenda

(See AAPLOG critique at www.aaplog.org/complications-of-induced-abortion/induced-abortion-and-mental-health/aaplog-response-to-the-apa-task-force-report/)

This Canadian 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 APA Task Force report.

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.

LifeNews.com Note: Dr. Peter Saunders is a doctor and the CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a British organization with 4,500 doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. This article originally appeared on his blog. He is also associated with the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK.
[3 November 2011, Dr. Peter Saunders, London, England, http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/03/another-study-shows-abortion-mental-health-issues-link/]

INTERNATIONAL

Sidewalk Counseling Effectively Criminalized in Austria After Pro-Life Appeal Rejected
A judge in Graz has rejected an appeal made by four members of an Austria pro-life group against their conviction and resulting fines for publicly witnessing to the value of human life in front of an abortion facility in Graz last April. The rejection effectively criminalizes sidewalk counseling in front of Austrian abortion mills.

The pro-lifers, including Dietmar Fischer, the head of the Austrian branch of Human Life International (HLI) were convicted last July of “stalking” the resident abortionist and given fines totaling €8490 EUR, or about $12,000 USD.
HLI Austria Director Dietmar Fischer

Caroline List, the judge presiding over the appeals synod, said that sidewalk counseling on public ground amounted to a “witch hunt” against the abortion doctor, Johannes Hanfstingl, reported Gloria.tv.

The judge reportedly rejected the appeal despite the testimony from the witnesses of the prosecution that no one had actually been accosted by members of the pro-life group. One witness did testify that she had once been directly but “politely” approached by the group.

Judge List did not allow the Pro-life group to make a further appeal.

Fischer, a 2010 recipient of the Cardinal von Galen Award for outstanding service in defence of innocent human life, said he was “horrified” by the judge’s verdict, calling it a “scandal and purely political.”

“It was mandated by the minister of Justice. Judge Caroline List admitted that her verdict was about a more ample [larger] legal question. It is about whether Pro-lifers will be able to stand in front of clinics and to offer help or not.”

“The verdict of Judge Caroline List intends to stop this,” said Fischer as he pointed to the fact that the Austrian branch of Human Life International has saved the lives of more than 15,000 children.

The pro-life group still has the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France as its last resort for justice.
Gloria.tv has learned that the group plans on pursuing this option.
[GRAZ, Austria, November 4, 2011, Peter Baklinski,  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sidewalk-counseling-effectively-criminalized-in-austria-after-pro-life-appe?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2a7855878a-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines11_04_2011&utm_medium=email]





Swiss Police Use Water Cannons to Stop Attack on Pro-Lifers
Police in Zurich, Switzerland were forced to use water cannons and tear gas against anti-life protesters who tried to disrupt a recent March for Life of about a thousand pro-life supporters marching through the streets of the Swiss capital.
For article, visit -- http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/02/swiss-police-use-water-cannons-to-stop-attack-on-pro-lifers/

Governments Condemn UN Official’s Attempt to Create ‘Right’ to Abortion

At UN headquarters this week, a number of governments dismissed a high level UN bureaucrat’s claim that abortion is a human right and went so far as to scold him for overstepping his mandate.

The Special Rapporteur for Health, Anand Grover, presented his report to delegates of the UN Third Committee linking unrestricted abortion with the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. He adamantly affirmed his intention to redefine the “right to health” in UN conventions and treaties to include abortion.

The delegate from Swaziland questioned why the Special Rapporteur neglected his mandate by reporting only on reproductive health while ignoring a myriad of other health concerns such as hunger and disease. She criticized the notion that the Special Rapporteur would include a “non-existent” right to abortion within the right to health. The Holy See delegate insisted there is no right to abortion in international law, and that the Special Rapporteur failed to consider conventions that “safeguard the inherent worth and dignity of the person both born and unborn.”

The Egypt government challenged the Special Rapporteur’s “systematic attempts to reinterpret internationally agreed conventions” in order to redefine the right to health according to his own interpretations. In particular, the Egyptian spokesman was concerned by the way Mr. Grover stepped beyond his mandate in order to give “new perspectives” on the right to health in relation to child and maternal mortality.

The Chilean government emphasized that it is essential to recognize the right to life of all human beings. Its statement was of special interest given the country’s history with legalized abortion. Abortion was legal in Chile until 1989. After its criminalization, maternal mortality decreased.

Chile’s experience calls into question the very foundation of the Special Rapporteur’s report. It contradicts the claim that maternal mortality is higher in states where abortion is criminalized. In Guyana, where abortion has been legal without restriction since 1995, the maternal mortality rate is 30 times higher than in Chile.

Honduras endorsed Chile’s statement. Both countries’ constitutions protect life from the moment of conception. (The delegate from Uganda told observers after the session that she wanted to criticize the report but had lost her voice to illness.)

In response, the Special Rapporteur defiantly disagreed that legalized abortion fell anywhere outside his mandate, arguing that the death of “44,000” women a year from illegal abortions was directly linked to the right to health. This number, however, is highly contentious and, according to many experts, is unverifiable and unsubstantiated. Data from the World Health Organization, frequently cited in UN reports, shows that the majority of maternal deaths are the result of hemorrhaging, eclampsia, and infection and are easily addressed by improved health care services, not abortion.

As the final word before the session ended, Grover claimed that since international law is silent on abortion, then there is “no denial of abortion in international law.” Restricting abortion, he asserted, dehumanizes, stigmatizes and lowers the dignity of people. Countries should not only decriminalize abortion but “put services in place” to provide it.
[Timothy Herrmann, NEW YORK, October 27, 2011, C-FAM, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/governments-condemn-un-officials-attempt-to-create-right-to-abortion?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=eec26de242-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines10_27_2011&utm_medium=email]

San Jose Articles Launched in Europe to Combat Abortion
On October 26th 2011, the “San Jose Articles” were launched at a press conference held during the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. For article, visit -- http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/28/san-jose-articles-launched-in-europe-to-combat-abortion/

Eastern Europe Sees Growing Pro-Life Effort Against Abortion
In a previously recorded interview that aired on October 22, 2011, Joseph Meaney, director of international coordination at Human Life International (HLI), spoke to EWTN’s Celtic Connections radio program about recent updates on the pro-life front in Eastern Europe.

When asked what country should be watched for upcoming pro-life initiatives, Meaney replied that pro-lifers should look towards Russia.

“The Russian presidency and the parliament are both interested in finding concrete solutions to limiting abortion,” Meaney told Celtic Connections. “They’ve already started with a number of measures this year, particularly making it illegal to describe abortion as a ‘safe medical procedure,’ and requiring those who advertise for abortion to talk about the health risks associated with it.”

“But I think they’re going to move even more in the direction of outright banning of abortions for all kinds of different reasons,” said Meaney.

The same weekend the interview aired, the Russian parliament voted to restrict abortions in the country beyond the 12th week of pregnancy. The new measure also imposes a mandatory waiting period of between two and seven days before having an abortion. Unfortunately for pro-life advocates, exceptions are still permitted for economic hardship, which allows abortions up to 22 weeks of gestation.

“In the near future, probably in Croatia and Slovakia we’ll start seeing some wonderful [pro-life initiatives],” Meaney added.

Meaney reported that pro-lifers in Slovakia recently held a conference celebrating the tenth anniversary of the first major pro-life conference to be held in Slovakia in 2001. Participants discussed their future goals for spreading the culture of life in Slovakia.

“They’re hoping to get a number of things enforced [in Slovakia]. One of them is conscientious objection: allowing hospitals and doctors to refuse to participate in any kind of abortion,” Meaney said.

“There has been strong pressure on countries to force institutions like Catholic hospitals to allow abortions to take place,” said Meaney. “They’re really hoping to make that absolutely impossible in Slovakia.”

Meaney also said that doctors who are conscientious objectors to abortion in Slovenia are having a hard time finding work, are being punished administratively for not performing abortions. Medical school students in Slovenia are also under pressure to perform abortions according to Meaney.

“They had a pro-life week [in Slovenia], and a professor ... talked to them about their rights as human beings, not to be forced to be complicit with the culture of death,” said Meaney.
Listen to Joseph Meaney’s full interview with Celtic Connections at this link:  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/26/eastern-europe-sees-growing-pro-life-effort-against-abortion/

Over 93,000 Children Killed by Abortion in Canada in 2009 According to New Stats

The statistics for the number of abortions committed in Canada in 2009, the latest figures available, were released on October 28 by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI).

This year the CIHI has added a number of new tables to the report, including on method of abortion and complications after abortion, and has updated the reports for 2007 and 2008.

According to the report, 93,755 children were aborted in 2009, down slightly from the revised 2008 figure of 95,876. The report notes, however, that data for abortions in British Columbia clinics is again incomplete.

As LifeSiteNews has reported before, the data made available by the government agency does not reflect the true number of abortions committed because reporting data is voluntary for abortion clinics, and therefore the data is incomplete.

“Hospitals are mandated by their provincial/territorial ministry of health to report all hospital activity (not limited to abortions); therefore, coverage of abortions performed in Canadian hospitals can be considered complete. However, there is no such legislative requirement for clinics to report their activity (reporting is voluntary). For 2009 (and previous years), clinic data for British Columbia is incomplete,” the CIHI states in its report.

The true number of abortions may also be skewed because data from Ontario and Quebec includes only induced abortions covered by their respective provincial health insurance plans. Data from all other provinces/territories (including Ontario hospital data) includes all induced abortions, whether paid for by the patient or by a different health insurance plan.

The new tables showing complications after abortion indicate that the percentage of women injured by aborting their children has stayed relatively constant, with between 2.3% and 2.6% of abortions resulting in complications such as hemorrhage, infection, retained “products of conception”, “other” and combinations of some or all of the above.

However, the complications tables show only stats from hospitals, not from clinics, and no complication stats are given for Quebec, which has the second highest abortion rate, following Ontario, in Canada.

The most common method of abortion, at about 86%, in Canada is, “Aspiration and Curettage” which involves removing the child from the womb using a suction curet.

As in previous years, abortion appears to have been most common for women aged 20-24, who procured 22% of reported abortions. This figure does not include Quebec, however, because the province did not provide an age breakdown.

The statistics are available at the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s website here.
[Oct 31, 2011, Thaddeus Baklinski, OTTAWA,  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/over-93000-children-killed-by-abortion-in-canada-in-2009-according-to-new-s]




Brazilian Doctors Convicted of Killing Patients by Removing Organs

A jury convicted three Brazilian doctors of killing four patients by removing their organs, which prosecutors said were used for transplants at an expensive private clinic.

Sao Paulo state Judge Marco Montemor sentenced doctors Rui Sacramento, Pedro Torrecillas and Mariano Fiore Junior to 17 years and six months each in prison.

Sacramento and Torrecillas were charged with murder after removing both kidneys from the patients and preparing the organs for transport. Fiore, a neurosurgeon, was charged as an accomplice for incorrectly declaring the patients brain dead and authorizing the harvest of their organs.

Another neurosurgeon who had been accused in the case, Antonio de Carvalho Monteiro, died last year.

Sacramento fainted when the sentence was read late Thursday, and family members of the victims who packed the court cried and hugged each other.

The case described by authorities as extremely complex took 25 years for a verdict to be handed down. Brazil’s criminal justice system is notoriously slow, and it isn’t unusual for complicated cases to take years or even decades to work their way through the courts.

The case first emerged on Dec. 16, 1986, when the head of the University of Taubate’s medical school realized an affiliated hospital had conducted a kidney transplant that he hadn’t expected, said Sao Paulo state prosecutor Marcio Friggi de Carvalho.

Kalume looked up the records and exams connected to the transplant and found irregularities. He then investigated the team of doctors and turned over the evidence he found to the Federal Counsel of Medicine, the agency that regulates and licenses medical doctors, Carvalho said.

Police took up the matter after the agency’s investigation as the case made its way through Brazil’s court system.

“They simply did not have the diagnosis of brain death,” said Carvalho. “They opened people up, took out their kidneys and sent them on.”

Sergio Salgado Badaro, the defense attorney representing the doctors, had told the jury that convicting them would be a serious mistake and an injustice.
“If you convict them, you will be the first jury in the country to convict doctors for killing people who were already dead,” he said in court.

Badaro also told reporters gathered outside the courtroom that his clients were not giving up: “I respect the jury’s decision, but that doesn’t mean I agree or that I’m not going to appeal.”

Two organ recipients testified they paid up to $41,000 for the transplants with private doctors at a private clinic and hadn’t known the origin of their kidneys, Carvalho said.

The case didn’t have a clear-cut connection to organ trafficking, since there was little documentation of the transactions, the prosecutor said. That’s why the doctors were charged only in connection to the death of the patients, Carvalho said.

What is known is that the organs went from a public hospital, where transplants are free and waiting lists can be long, to an expensive private clinic serving patients who can pay out of their own pockets, court records show.

“You can’t say there was the buying and selling of organs; there are no receipts,” Carvalho said. “What we have is an informal, obscure context that is very problematic.”
[Oct. 21, 2011, Juliana Barbassa, AP, Rio de Janeiro, http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20111023/NEWS/111021025/Brazilian-doctors-convicted-killing-patients-by-removing-organs]

Woman Tells of Late Abortion Horror in Australia

Pheap Sem ended up critically ill in hospital after a late-term abortion by Dr Mark Schulberg.
 A controversial doctor is under investigation after performing an abortion on a seriously ill woman, reports Michael Bachelard.
FOR Pheap Sem to be at home walking around is, her daughter Chantha says, ''a miracle''.

Six weeks ago, the 40-year-old mother of four lay barely alive in an intensive care bed at Box Hill Hospital, her body racked with multiple organ failure.
Dr. Mark Schulberg performed Pheap Sem's late-term abortion.

''It was just waiting to see if they got a response: 'Give her this, see if she gets better or not, but prepare for the worst,' '' recalls John*, 19-year-old Chantha's boyfriend.

Ms Sem had arrived at the emergency department on August 18 in a critical condition following a late-term abortion performed by one of Melbourne's most controversial doctors, Mark Schulberg.

Ms Sem's case has sparked the third investigation in six years into the clinic, now Marie Stopes Maroondah, but formerly the Croydon Day Surgery.

Dr Schulberg had aborted Ms Sem's 23-week-old foetus, without anaesthetic, even though she was dangerously ill, unconscious and had no family present.

''I thought they would take care of me but they didn't,'' Ms Sem told The Sunday Age yesterday. ''I'm angry that now I'm sick. Before I wasn't sick. I was just going to get an abortion. I didn't think I'd stay in hospital for so long.''

Ms Sem, who came to Australia from Cambodia 20 years ago and does not speak English, hadn't realised she was pregnant until quite late because she did not have morning sickness and her belly was not protruding.

Speaking through Chantha, she said she could not recall the abortion or the days before it. ''It was like I went to sleep and woke up in hospital.''

The reality was more like a nightmare for Chantha and John. Ms Sem was booked to have an abortion on Thursday, August 18. Single and unemployed, she felt she could not support a fifth child in her tiny two-bedroom flat.

Three days earlier, on the Monday, she began taking drugs prescribed and supplied by the clinic. On Tuesday she became drowsy and dehydrated. On the Wednesday night after Ms Sem had an appointment at the clinic, John said, ''she was just out of it. It took us about 10 minutes to walk her out of the front door of the clinic to get into a taxi'' to go to a nearby motel where they were to spend the night before the following day's surgery.

But when Chantha and John tried to wake Ms Sem early on Thursday, she was unresponsive.

''She'd had about two days of just drugging up basically, just getting ready for the procedure,'' says John.

Ms Sem's skin and eyeballs were bright yellow, the skin on her arms bruised from scratching - both signs of jaundice, suggesting liver failure, which can prevent blood from clotting.

Chantha and John considered ringing an ambulance, but rang the clinic instead. The nurses insisted they bring her in. ''The woman [at the clinic] told me pick her up from the bed and lift her up and take her to a taxi,'' says Chantha.

''We would have [sent her to hospital],'' recalls John, ''but the nurses said, 'No, we've got to take her to the clinic.' We called a taxi, but I could only get her to the couch, a metre away.''

With mounting alarm, John went to another nearby medical centre to hire a wheelchair. When he returned to the motel, two nurses from the Croydon clinic had arrived to remove Ms Sem. With John's help they put her in the wheelchair and moved her to the nurses' car, where she was laid across the back seat. It was about 10am.

The nurses told the young couple to wait at the motel, but Chantha and John ignored the advice and called a taxi.

Before they had arrived at the clinic, Ms Sem had been taken into Dr Schulberg's suite.

Still unconscious, without pain relief or oxygen, with clear signs that her liver was not producing the proteins that would enable her blood to clot, and without any of her family or friends nearby, she underwent the abortion. Shortly afterwards, at 10.39am, clinic staff called an ambulance. But even then they only called for a ''Code 2'' pick-up - meaning ''not time critical'', so no lights and sirens.

When the ambulance arrived, however, it became clear Ms Sem was near death. A MICA unit was called. Ms Sem's heartbeat was fast but her breathing slow, at 10 or fewer breaths per minute. She was dehydrated and had hypothermia. Her blood pressure was a dangerously low 60 over 40, and her body was covered in bruises from liver and kidney failure. She was not responding to any stimulus, including pain.

Her patient notes show that on the Glasgow Coma Scale, which measures consciousness, her score of three was the lowest possible. Anything lower is dead.

Ms Sem was rushed to Box Hill Hospital, where she battled for life in intensive care for almost three weeks. Had she died, Chantha would have become an orphan and the primary carer of her three brothers, aged 13, five and two.

Ms Sem, now recuperating at home, has not been contacted by the clinic since she was taken to hospital. There has been no apology and no offer to refund the $4000 fee for the abortion.

The Medical Board is still investigating the case. It has interviewed Chantha and John and held a special hearing. The Nursing Board did likewise and suspended one of the clinic's nurses. Dr Schulberg is still under investigation, but continues to practice at the clinic.

A Medical Board spokeswoman said the board could immediately suspend a practitioner if they posed a serious risk to public health or safety.

Late-term abortions are performed in stages, generally over two days, and usually in hospitals because of the risks.

By law, an abortion beyond 24 weeks can only be carried out if two doctors agree it is appropriate, but a second opinion was not legally required in Ms Sem's case as her foetus was 23 weeks old.

Marie Stopes Australia's chief executive, Marie Deveson Crabbe, said Marie Stopes International did not own the Maroondah centre. It worked ''in association with the centre owner [Dr Schulberg] … to ensure that the vital service provided … is available to Australian women and that it is delivered to the highest standards''.

Dr Schulberg - widely known as Australia's late-term abortion specialist - could not be contacted by The Sunday Age. But when he was questioned by Lateline, which reported elements of this story in August, Dr Schulberg said Ms Sem had a serious pre-existing condition and the abortion had not contributed to her current state of health.

This echoes an assertion the nurses at the clinic made to John and Chantha that Ms Sem ''must have had an addiction'' to illicit drugs, an allegation her family says is ''ridiculous''.

When it comes to drugs, Dr Schulberg has run into problems. Last year, he was required to sign an undertaking undertaking as part of his medical registration not to supply a number of drugs including addictive ''Schedule 8'' drugs such as amphetamine, methadone and pethidine.

The case involving Dr Schulberg's drug restrictions will be heard at VCAT, where the most serious medical misconduct cases are heard, a source has said.

His clinic was where anaesthetist Dr James Latham Peters infected at least 49 women with hepatitis C in 2008 and 2009.

And in 2009, Dr Schulberg was found guilty in VCAT of serious unprofessional conduct for failing to obtain proper consent to perform an abortion on an intellectually disabled woman who was raped by her father.

That case took four years to conclude, and Ms Sem's family has been told the Medical Board investigation into her treatment will ''certainly take months''.

In the meantime, the family is concerned that the clinic is not safe.

''They just didn't have the patient's interest at heart. Just get the job done and get them out,'' said John.

*Name has been changed

While television's Channel Ten's 7PM Project (26/9) was used to push unrestricted access to late term abortions nationwide, the Sunday Age is to be congratulated for now revealing the dark side of this industry. According to the family of the latest maternal victim of the Marie Stopes Maroondah, formerly Croydon Day Surgery clinic, " they just didn't have the patient's interest at heart. Just get the job done and get them out" (Sun Age 23/10) Health Minister David Davis should shut the clinic down and send Marie Stopes International packing. There are two victims of the disgraceful treatment, detailed in your report, of this woman, a migrant seeking a better life in to our country. A dead baby and a damaged mother. Had she died there would have been six. Her four orphaned children would have been victims. "Single and unemployed, she felt she could not support a fifth child in her tiny two bedroom flat." If only the "clinic" had called us for help. We have helped before and we will again. But there was a $4000 fee for the abortion to be had. For which there has not been a refund or even an apology.
 
[24 Oct 11, Denise M Cameron, Pro Life Victoria (Inc), Michael Bachelard, October 23, 2011, ; http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/woman-tells-of-late-abortion-horror-20111022-1mdvv.html#ixzz1bkQecH5P
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/woman-tells-of-late-abortion-horror-20111022-1mdvv.html]