Abortion - Archive

September 2008: Abortion

Abortion Advocates Investigate Back-Alley Abortions Roe Was Supposed to Stop

World Health Organization Circumvents Abortion Laws in Bangladesh with Menstrual Regulation Kit

Secret Meeting to Plot Global Abortion Strategy Exposed / UN Personnel Present

HHS: If Approved, Regulations Combined to Validate Right of Conscience for Health Care Professionals

Critique of the American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Abortion and Mental Health

New Zealand Study Finds Violence Increases Risk of Abortion

Texas Groups Celebrate Closing of Dallas Late-Term Abortion Business

New Prenatal Test for Down’s Syndrome Concerns Pro-Life Advocates

South Dakota Law Requiring Telling Women Truth About Abortion Upheld by Federal Court…

ABORTION ADVOCATES INVESTIGATE BACK-ALLEY ABORTIONS ROE v WADE WAS SUPPOSED TO STOP. To hear abortion advocates tell the story, the United States needed to make abortion legal to stop the supposed high number of back-alley abortions. It turns out now that those abortions still continue and pro-abortion groups are now investigating why.

The organizations Gynuity and Ibis Reproductive Health have launched a new study in San Francisco, New York and Boston to determine how many women try self-abortions without going to an abortion center.

Despite the claim that legal abortions would stop the back-alley practice that supposedly resulted in the death of women, several stories have cropped up over the years showing women doing their own abortions.

The abortions frequently involve an anti-ulcer drug known as Cytotec, or misoprostol, that abortion advocates have urged to be used to induce an abortion in places where the practice is illegal.

ABC News quotes Daniel Grossman, an abortion activist and doctor in the San Francisco area who confirmed he sees women coming to him who have had medical complications from mis-using the drug for abortions.

"She had been given a misoprostol from her friend in San Francisco," said Grossman, he said.

It also cited Pfizer media representative Shreya Jani who said the company continues to warn against mis-using the misoprostol drug for abortions.

"Pfizer only promotes the use of its medicines for approved indications. Cytotec is off-patent with at least two generics, and we are not actively marketing the brand," she said. "Pfizer has not studied Cytotec for the purpose of labor induction or for the early termination of pregnancy, nor do we intend to."

Money may likely play a role in the back-alley abortions — as a surgical abortion, at its cheapest in the first trimester, can cost $300-400. The abortion drug mifepristone, RU 486, is cheaper but still more expensive than the $5 a pill cost for Cytotec.

"Sometimes, people talk about this as a passport to the ER," said Grossman. "They take enough so it looks like they're having a miscarriage, and then they have an aspiration procedure."

The Internet also plays a role as ancient herbal methods for doing abortions before advanced methods have cropped up on the Internet.

That back alley abortions haven't stopped with the legalization of abortion, as pro-abortion groups said it would, is no surprise.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League who is now a pro-life physician, admitted that he and other abortion proponents made up statistics about women dying from illegal abortions.

"We spoke of 5,000 – 10,000 deaths a year," he said. "I confess that I knew the figures were totally false [but] it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?"
[22Aug08, Ertelt, www.LifeNews.com Washington, DC]

WHO CIRCUMVENTS ABORTION LAWS IN BANGLADESH WITH 'MENSTRUAL REGULATION' KITS. launched an initiative recently to boost a program for menstrual regulation in Bangladesh. WHO states that the objectives of this program are to “ensure the quality of [menstrual regulation] and to share the knowledge of safe motherhood.”

     “Menstrual regulation,” also known as "menstrual extraction" (ME) is billed as a family planning method for women who missed their regular menstrual period and who strongly suspect that they are pregnant but cannot or do not want to wait for the results of a pregnancy test. Critics charge that menstrual regulation is a technique used to provide abortions in countries, like Bangladesh, where abortion is illegal.

     A fund of $2.73 million, which was established with funding from the Netherlands Ministry of Development Cooperation and in partnership with the government of Bangladesh and non-governmental organizations working on menstrual regulation, will support projects over a four-year period starting this year.

     Since there may not be an actual pregnancy to terminate, menstrual regulation is sometimes available in countries that prohibit abortion.  If the woman was pregnant at the time the menstrual extraction is performed, the evidence of an abortion is either destroyed during the procedure or easily disposed of.  Menstrual regulation is sometimes regarded as a cross between "foresight contraception" and "hindsight abortion."

     Bangladesh has allowed menstrual regulation since the 1970s. A memo from 1979 established menstrual regulation as an "interim method of establishing non-pregnancy" for a woman at risk of being pregnant, whether or not she is actually pregnant.

     Officials touted the menstrual regulation initiative as a positive step to help Bangladesh achieve Millennium Development Goal 5 to reduce maternal mortality by three-quarters. The maternal mortality rate in Bangladesh is decreasing, but is still one of the highest in the world.  According to the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), of the 2.5 million women who become pregnant each year, an estimated 370,000 develop fetal complications which the health facilities in the country are neither equipped nor able to handle.

     Proponents of the WHO initiative assert that the decreasing maternal mortality rate can be primarily attributed to increased family planning services, including menstrual regulation. They argue that making menstrual regulation more widely available reduces the maternal deaths, decreasing the likelihood that a woman would recourse to an unsafe abortion.

     UNICEF cites lack of access to emergency obstetric care, lack of skilled birth attendants, and maternal malnutrition as the primary causes of maternal death in Bangladesh, not unsafe abortion.  According to UNICEF statistics, half of Bangladeshi women of reproductive age are underweight and in 2001, only 11.8 percent of deliveries were assisted by qualified medical
personnel.

     Critics of the WHO initiative charge that the menstrual regulation program may lead to fewer deliveries, and thus lower the maternal mortality rate, but it will not make women’s deliveries any safer.

     The WHO is currently reviewing project proposals from interested organizations and research institutes working on menstrual regulation. [August 21, 2008, Friday Fax, Volume 11, Number 36, Samantha Singson, C-FAM, New York, http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.722/pub_detail.asp; CWA, 21Aug08]

SECRET MEETING TO PLOT GLOBAL ABORTION STRATEGY EXPOSED / UN PERSONNEL PRESENT. A group calling itself the "brain trust" met in secret recently to plot how to take advantage of conflict situations to advance the abortion and radical feminist agenda.

A new group called the Global Justice Center (GJC) hosted the New York meeting on June 9 of this year.

The Friday Fax was given the chance to listen to a recording of the inaugural meeting of the "brain trust” which details the GJC's plan to exploit ceasefire and peace talks to gain leverage in newly-formed governments.        

The GJC meeting brought together academics, lawyers, practitioners with ties to radical groups as the George Soros’ Open Society Institute, Equality Now, Center for Reproductive Rights, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) and Amnesty International.  Jeremy Sarkin, the current UN Special Rapporteur for Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances was also at the meeting.    

Participants at the meeting lamented the lack of international political will to enforce “gender justice” around the world and agreed that “shock treatment” was needed to change “the entrenched political and cultural norms that perpetuate male-dominated decision-making bodies and constrain women.”
   
Janet Benshoof, former president of the Center for Reproductive Rights and current president and founder of the GJC, asserted that conflict situations could be used as an “access point” to change the culture and the players. Benshoof argued that the prime opportunities for advancing their cause lay in the “transitioning government structures which afford particular opportunity for repositioning women's role in public life and decision-making.”   
   

Meeting participants deliberated on how human rights law precedents could be made in conflict situations to “reshape power structures,” ensure gender equality, create “judicial entrepreneurs” and change norms. Some ideas included: increasing the number of women judges, increasing the number of female legislators by getting political parties to actively recruit women, and implementing affirmative action policies.

One participant mused, “A lot of laws have not been interpreted or defined in a new country and you can assume that whatever you want the law to be, it is – unless it is proven otherwise. So of course we put the most progressive spin on it.”

Apart from getting involved in conflict situations, the group discussed other possible opportunities and entry points to change norms and advance the agenda. 

The group expressed hope in being able to take advantage of the new human rights bodies that are being created by the Association of South East Asian Nations and the Arab League.    

One member of the group boasted, “The more we say it, the more people get to believing it. We’re changing the norm. First they laugh and then they start repeating it.”
   
The Global Justice Center started as a project of Women’s Link Worldwide, which was founded by the pro-abortion advocacy group The Center for Reproductive Rights, an organization that seeks to create an international human right to abortion on demand through litigation.          

By the end of the day-long meeting, participants said they were looking forward to coming together again to discuss monitoring and implementation and “to think of creative mechanisms for enforcing laws.” Future meetings of the "brain trust" have not yet been announced. [August 14, 2008, C-FAM Friday Fax, Volume 11, Number 35, Samantha Singson, New York
http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.711/pub_detail.asp; prolifeamerica.com, 15Aug08]

HHS: IF APPROVED, REGULATIONS COMBINED TO VALIDATE RIGHT OF COSCIENCE FOR HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS. The Bush administration has proposed stronger job protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said that health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.

"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," said Leavitt. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."

The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.

Abortion foes called it a victory for the First Amendment, but abortion rights supporters said they feared the rule could stretch the definition of abortion to include birth control, and served notice that they intend to challenge the administration.

"Women's ability to manage their own health care is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology," Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.

Abortion rights groups had complained that earlier drafts contained vague language that might block access to birth control, and they said the latest version has not addressed all of their concerns.

The rule "fails to give assurances that current laws about abortion will not be stretched to cover birth control," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

But Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said it upholds basic constitutional freedoms.

"This proposal ensures that doctors and other medical personnel will retain the constitutional right to listen to their own conscience when it comes to performing or participating in an abortion," Perkins said. "These regulations will ensure that pro-life medical personnel will not be forced to engage in the unconscionable killing of innocent human life."
Leavitt said the regulation was intende

d to protect practitioners who have moral objections to abortion and sterilization, and would not interfere with patients' ability to get birth control or any legal medical procedure.

"Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient's right to any legal procedure," he said, noting that a patient could go to another provider.

"This regulation is not about contraception," Leavitt added. "It's about abortion and conscience. It is very closely focused on abortion and physician's conscience."

The 42-page rule seeks to set up a system for enforcing conscience protections in three separate federal laws, the earliest of which dates to the 1970s. In some cases, the laws aim to protect both providers who refuse to take part in abortions and those who do.

The regulation is written to apply to a broad swath of the health care work force, not doctors alone. Accordingly, an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments used in a particular procedure would be covered. Also covered would be volunteers and trainees.

The underlying laws deal mainly with abortion and sterilization, but both the laws and the language of the rule seem to recognize that objections on conscience grounds could involve other types of services.

"This regulation does not limit patient access to health care, but rather protects any individual health care provider or institution from being compelled to participate in, or from being punished for refusal to participate in, a service that, for example, violates their conscience," the rule said.

Planned Parenthood attorney Roger Evans said that a key legal problem with the rule is that it fails to define what constitutes an abortion, and thereby could be stretched to cover other types of services. But Leavitt said existing laws adequately define abortion.

The regulation now faces a 30-day public comment period.
[8/21/2008, NewsFlash Home, by R.Alonso-Zaldivar, Washington, The Associated Press, http://www.al.com/newsflash/washington/index.ssf?/base/politics-15/1219342177182940.xml&storylist=washington#continue]

Proposed U.S. Government Regulations Strengthen Doctors' Increasingly Threatened Freedom of Conscience
Would allow health care workers to refuse even indirect involvement in some procedures
The United States Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) today proposed regulations that would increase awareness of federally funded health care providers' right of conscience, including their right to refuse involvement in abortion or sterilization procedures on moral grounds. Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association (CMA), praised the proposed regulations as "desperately needed" to fight back against widespread coercion of health care professionals to perform against their moral or religious beliefs.

The regulations ensure "that the Department of Health and Human Services funds do not support coercive or discriminatory policies or practices" by highlighting three anti-discrimination laws that already protect health care workers' First Amendment rights.  Under the proposed regulations, government fund recipients will be required to submit a written document certifying their compliance to these laws, and the HHS Office for Civil Rights will be designated to receive and assess complaints of discrimination – demonstrating that protecting the freedoms of health care workers who are discriminated against due to religious or moral beliefs is in fact a civil rights issue.

The regulation would allow all federal health care workers to refuse even indirect involvement in certain procedures they find morally objectionable without fear of losing their job.  Some have objected that the proposed rule protects moral and religious objections to procedures other than abortion.  This is only true in the cases where the longstanding statutes being implemented by the rule have this broader scope.  For example, since 1973 Congress has required that the moral and religious convictions of individuals regarding any medical or biomedical research procedure be respected in programs receiving federal funds.

The CMA's Dr. Stevens claimed that two out of five CMA members reported being pressured or discriminated against at work "simply because they adhere to life-affirming, patient-protecting standards of medical ethics such as the Hippocratic Oath.  If current trends of coercion are allowed to continue, patients will not be able to find physicians who share their life-affirming values."

Dr. Stevens noted that "The recent all-out campaign by those who oppose conscience rights to muzzle these HHS regulations actually has served to highlight the need for the regulations.

"Their comments have demonstrated the poisonous, hostile and intolerant environment they have created for healthcare professionals who practice medicine according to life-honoring standards of ethics."

In response to the official proposal, Planned Parenthood stepped up its already massive campaign to fever-pitch, attacking the "new rule" for bringing "politics in the exam room."   Their homepage declares: "We must defeat this new rule in order to ensure access to accurate, comprehensive health care, including birth control and abortion services, for every person who wants and needs it." 

If the regulations are finalized, all federally-funded programs, including Planned Parenthood, would be required not to discriminate against pro-life nurses and other workers who apply for a job. 

Planned Parenthood expressed fear that "crisis pregnancy centers" run by "anti-choice zealots" will "receive a massive influx of our tax dollars to expand their deceptive operations and to attract hundreds of thousands of women who think they'll be getting medical care but instead will receive a large dose of anti-choice ideology."
(http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071604.html)

"Clearly, abortion advocates do not believe in the 'right to choose' if the choice is not to participate in abortion or provide drugs that can take the life of a human being," said Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America.

Although LifeSiteNews.com reported an attempt to define abortion in this context to include abortifacient contraceptives, according to Kevin Schweers, representing HHS, this definition did not survive in the most recent draft of the regulations.  (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071604.html)

The regulations will now undergo a 30-day public comment period.  Administrators will take these comments into account as they continue the finalization process.

To support the regulations:
visit http://www.regulations.gov (Under "comment or submission," enter keywords "provider conscience") or
http://secretarysblog.hhs.gov/ (Comment box provided at bottom of page)

To view the regulation, including more information on comment submission: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821reg.pdf

For further information, contact:
Brenda Destro
Office of Public Health and Science
Department of Health and Human Services
Room 728E
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201
(202) 401-2305
[22Aug08, Kathleen Gilbert, DC, August 22, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com]

 

CRITIQUE OF THE APA TASK FORCE ON ABORTION AND MENTAL HEALTH
Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D.
The charge of the APA Task Force on Abortion and Mental Health was to collect, examine, and summarize

peer-reviewed research published over the last 17 years pertaining to outcomes associated with abortion.

Evidence described below indicates an extensive, politically motivated bias in the selection of studies, analysis of the literature, and in the conclusions derived by the Task Force. As opposed to bringing light to a complex literature, the misleading report carries enormous potential to hinder scientific understanding of the meaning of abortion in women's lives.

The report should be recalled and at a minimum, the conclusion changed. There is sufficient data in the world's published literature to conclude that abortion increases risk of anxiety, depression, substance use, and suicide. At this juncture, the APA can not be trusted to provide accurate assimilation of information.

Problematic Features of the Report Substantiated in this Critique:
The conclusion DOES NOT follow from the literature reviewed
When comparing reviews of the literature there is selective reporting
Avoidance of quantification
Biased selection of Task Force members and possibly reviewers
Power attributed to cultural stigmatization in women's abortion-related
stress is unsupported
Selection criteria resulted in dozens of studies indicating negative effects
being ignored
Methodologically based selection criteria as opposed to geographic locale should have
been employed and consistently applied
Shifting standards of evaluation of studies presented based on the
conclusion's fit with a pro-choice agenda

1) The conclusion (in quotes below) DOES NOT follow from the literature
reviewed

"The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy." They also note "Rarely did research designs include a comparison group that was otherwise equivalent to women who had an elective abortion, impairing the ability to draw conclusions about relative risks."

Here are a few comments from a participant, for starters:

Friends —

The APA Council took up the question of whether or not to receive the Report of the Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion at about 10:45 today (Wednesday, August 13, 2008). There were six people who spoke on the Report. Four were for it and talked about how very much it was the best of psychologists, and we needn't worry that it included researchers reviewing their own work because the specific individuals did not review their own specific work for the Task Force. One speaker said that while he thought it should be accepted, we really had ought to watch out for the appearance problem that comes from having researchers reviewing their own work. Mine was the lone voice of dissent; I approached the mike and got permission to speak as a non-Council member — but only briefly, so what I could say was minimal. And apparently irrelevant.

The vote was a show of hands that included almost everyone. I thought I saw a few hands for "no" votes, but a journalist I spoke to afterward thought those were all absentions; he counted 6.

One of the speakers did make reference to the letters all Council had received, the
response to which was basically a smirk on the part of the group. At this point, of course, we're beyond the issue of abortion itself into the issue of the competence of APA itself, which is an additional problem in being convincing.

The reporter who flagged me down afterward said he was from the National Psychologist, a publication for practitioners. He said that perhaps I could have been more convincing if I had been given more time. Whether that's true or not, it says something about what he was thinking. I spoke with him for about 15-20 minutes.

The Report is now received, and the vote was not anywhere near close enough to make me feel bad that I didn't do more lobbying. The press release concerning it has already gone out. The report is now up on the web, and the new position will presumably go up there soon as well. I have no information about plans for journal publication.

[Comment: This is a beginning critique of the APA report. We will present the critique in several sections over the next couple weeks. Their conclusion and evaluation process was certainly politically correct, if nothing else.

And obviously the Royal College of Psychiatrists was way off base when they came to a different conclusion 2 months ago.
How many years did it take to overcome the denials about the link between smoking and lung cancer? Now, no one doubts it.]

[13August2008, Bowling Green State University; This document is not copyrighted and may be distributed or quoted directly without the author's permission.]

 

 

 

NEW ZEALAND STUDY FINDS VIOLENCE INCREASES RISK OF ABORTION: Almost One in 10 Pregnant Women Were Abused While Pregnant. New surveys of women in New Zealand have found that nearly one in 10 pregnant women experienced violence during pregnancy, and that women who experienced domestic violence were 2.5 times more likely to abort than women who were not victims of violence. A research team from the University of Auckland conducted two surveys of around 1,000 each women from two regions in New Zealand, the results of which were published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

According to a news release from the research team, the survey also found that among the women who had been in an abusive relationship, the violence did not diminish when they became pregnant but in many cases either stayed the same or increased. And 43 percent of women who experienced violence while pregnant reported being punched or kicked in the abdomen, usually by the father of the unborn baby.

The researchers urged abortion businesses to provide better training for staff and to ensure adequate resources to help women facing domestic violence.1

The findings add to a growing body of evidence linking domestic violence and abortion. Studies in the U.S. have found that violence is the leading cause of death among pregnant women,2 and that pregnant women are more at risk for violence.3 Anecdotal evidence found that in many cases, women were assaulted or killed for refusing to abort or because the attacker did not want the baby.4

For example, a Baltimore man was convicted earlier this year in the death of his pregnant girlfriend and her unborn child. Police said that after 25-year-old David Miller learned Elizabeth Walters was pregnant, he arranged to meet her and a friend in a mall parking lot and shot her. The friend, who was injured in the shooting, said that Miller told Walters, "You're not going to ruin my life."5

Evidence suggests that, even when violence is not a factor, many women undergoing abortion are not freely choosing it. A large-scale survey of women who had abortions found that 64 percent of American respondents were pressured to abort by others, more than half said they felt rushed or uncertain about the abortion and more than 80 percent said they di

d not receive adequate counseling to allow them to make a decision.6

The Elliot Institute has called for legislation that would hold abortion businesses liable for failing to screen women for coercion, as well as for risk factors that make them more likely to experience psychological problems after abortion.
~~~
Sources:
1. "Partner violence has huge impact on women's reproductive health," University of Auckland News Release, Aug. 13, 2008.
2. 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).
3. Julie A. Gazmararian et al., “The Relationship Between Pregnancy Intendedness and Physical Violence in Mothers of Newborns,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, 85 :1031 (1995); Hortensia Amaro et al., “Violence During Pregnancy and Substance Use,” American Journal of Public Health, 80: 575 (1990); and J. McFarlane et al., “Abuse During Pregnancy and Femicide: Urgent Implications for Women’s Health,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, 100: 27, 27-36 (2002).
4. For more information, see the special report, Forced Abortion in America.
5. Luke Broadwater, "Man convicted of killing girlfriend, unborn baby," Baltimore Examiner, March 27, 2008.
6. 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).

TX GROUPS CELEBRATE THE CLOSING OF A DALLAS LATE-TERM ABORTION BUSINESS. The number of abortion centers closing down continues and pro-life advocates in Dallas, Texas are excited to learn that they're next on the list. Aaron Women’s Health Center, a late-term abortion facility, has closed its doors. The closing follows on the heels of recent closures of abortion centers in other states, including Kentucky, MA, and New York.

Aaron Women’s Health Center was one of three abortion businesses in Texas authorized to do late-term abortions when it upgraded its facility in early 2005 to comply with a new state law regulating abortion centers as "ambulatory surgical centers." When it complied with the new law, it qualified to do abortions on unborn babies older than 16 weeks’ gestation.

Citizens and groups maintained a constant presence of peaceful prayer and sidewalk counseling in front of Aaron’s for over a decade. They undertook the 40 Days for Life campaign in 2004 that saw nearly 1,000 people from dozens of different churches participate. “Not only is this a victory for the pro-life movement, for mothers and for babies, but it is a victory for Dallas as well, as the horrific practice of the killing of unborn children will take place at one less location in our city," she added.  In the 1980s, there were 13 abortion centers in Dallas and seven have closed since then. After Aaron’s closes, only five abortion centers will remain in the area. [24June08, Ertelt, Dallas, TX, LifeNews.com]

PRENATAL TEST FOR DOWN'S SYNDROME CONCERNS PRO-LIFE ADVOCATES. A new, non-invasive prenatal test for Down's syndrome is reportedly being developed in England and Hong Kong on a blood-test that claims 90 percent accuracy. The media is praising the new procedure as risk free and saying it will detect in the mother’s bloodstream a Down syndrome pregnancy.

This simple blood test would replace the current “risky” method of inserting a needle into the mother’s womb to extract amniotic fluid near the fetus, a procedure that takes place sometime after the 14th week of pregnancy and sometimes results in miscarriage.

But Alison Davis of the No Less Human group that is a part of the British Society for the Protection of Unborn Children responded to the news.

“"The new non-invasive test for Down's syndrome will inevitably mean more pre-natal testing, leading to more abortions of babies with the condition. Describing this as a 'breakthrough' is offensive to people who live with Down's syndrome, and to all who recognize the equal right to life of disabled people,” she said.

Of the new tests, Davis said “no comment is made on the equal tragedy of the deliberate seeking out and destruction of babies with the syndrome, because this is the whole aim of pre-natal testing. It is certainly no 'breakthrough' for people living with disabilities."  [1 July 08, Washington, DC LifeNews.com]

SD LAW REQUIRING TELLING WOMEN TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION UPHELD BY FEDERAL COURT. In 6/08, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a South Dakota statute requiring abortion practitioners to tell women the truth about abortion. The measure specifically tells them to tell women "the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," defined as a human being.

It also requires that the abortion practitioner give women the contact information of a local pregnancy center, as well other information about her health risks and pregnancy support available. The Court vacated a temporary injunction which had been issued by the lower court in regards to a 2005 South Dakota informed consent law on abortion.

The federal appeals court cited the portion of the Supreme Court's recent Gonzales v. Carhart decision on partial-birth abortion referring to the post-abortion problems women experience.

The court indicated "some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.”

Tracy Reynolds, of Operation Outcry, tells LifeNews.com this is an excellent development because the understanding of the medical, mental health and spiritual problems women face after an abortion is gaining a legal foothold.

She says post-abortion women “are extremely pleased that courts are now listening to real women who have been hurt by abortion and beginning to protect women from abortionists, rather than listening only to Planned Parenthood.”

“This citation of post-abortive women's pain by the courts demonstrates again that the voices of the women of Operation Outcry are beginning to have a deep and long lasting impact on the courts of the United States,” she added.

Meanwhile, Melinda Delahoyde, the president of Care Net, the national network of pregnancy centers, applauded the Planned Parenthood v. Rounds decision as well.

In the interest of women's health, two of Care Net's South Dakota pregnancy center affiliates joined the case.

Delahoyde told LifeNews.com the decision “affirms the work of pregnancy centers that for years have been providing critical information to women considering abortion.”

She said the decision “sends a clarion call to abortion providers that providing such information to women is straight-forward, truthful, and relevant to her pregnancy decision, and if withheld, deprives her of life-saving information.” [3July08, Ertelt, Pierre, SD LifeNews.com]