Select Page

Study: Breast Cancer Risk 66% Higher in Turkish Women after Abortions

New York Nurse Speaks Out About Hospital That Forced Abortion Participation

New! Pro-Abortion Group Calls for Government Funding of Abortion, Complains of
Abortionist Decline

New! 'Original Goal of Planned Parenthood Was to Abort Various Minorities Out Of Existence'

New! Obama Administration Engages Planned Parenthood 'in the Difficult Work of Changing this Country'

New! The Silent FOCA: Vast Abortion Expansion Slowly Coming to Light in Health "Care" Package

Health "Care" Reform Bound to Include 'Largest Expansion of Abortion Since Roe v. Wade'

New! Abortion Drug Has Killed 29 Women, European Maker Tells Italy's Government

New! Over 13 Million Abortions per Year in China: Chinese government won't budge on One Child Policy

New! Study: Higher Use of Detailed Ultrasounds Yields More Abortions of Disabled Babies

PP Breaks the Rules, Causes Deaths, Does a 180 and Calls Itself Heroic—for Doing What It Should Have Done Years Ago to Make Medication Abortions ‘Safer’ [sic]

Dutch Abortion Boat Grounded for Life

Commentary: A March of People to Say NO

Commentary: Understanding "Choice"… Two Viewpoints, But Only One Side is Heard

Commentary: Preventing the Pregnancy "Disease": One of  the 10 Great Health Achievements of the 20th Century?  / Brenda's Story

Abortion Complications:

Interesting Resources / Maafa 21 – Abortion as Genocide…

Study: Breast Cancer Risk 66% Higher in Turkish Women with Abortions.

A study conducted by Dr. Vahit Ozmen and his colleagues at the Istanbul University Medical Faculty reported a statistically significant 66% increase in breast cancer risk among women who had induced abortions.

The researchers wrote that their finding is similar to the findings of the "majority" of studies, which have "reported that induced abortion was associated with increased breast cancer risk."

However, the study also found that spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and the use of oral contraceptives was associated with the decreased risk of breast cancer – a finding that the researchers said contradicts the results of numerous other studies, necessitating further

The researchers conducted a survey among women admitted to clinics of the Istanbul Medical Faculty for examination and/or treatment of cancer related illness. The results were compared with control cases admitted to hospital for non-cancer, non-hormone related diseases.

The report was published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, an open access, peer reviewed online medical journal.

With regard to the finding of decreased risk of breast cancer for oral contraceptives users, the researchers observed that their study results were at odds with many epidemiologic studies which found that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and oral contraceptive use are directly related to
increased breast cancer risk.

The World Health Organization and the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) acknowledge that use of combined (estrogen + progestin) OCs and combined HRT increase risk of breast cancer.

"In the present study, we found that use of oral contraceptive use was associated with decreased breast cancer risk," the report states. "However, these results were not dose and duration dependent. Therefore, further studies are required to test the consistency of our findings."

While the researchers suggest that the study group was fairly representative of the general population, with over 80% of patients admitted to Istanbul
Medical Faculty Hospital residing in the Istanbul area, they admit that a hospital based study has the potential for bias: the reason being that hospitalized individuals are more likely to suffer from many illnesses or symptoms.

"We are aware that this hospital based study has some potential such as selection biases and information bias," Dr. Ozmen acknowledged.

Dr. Joel Brind, professor of endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York and a director at the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, commented that while Dr. Ozmen's findings were consistent with extensive research on the abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link, the team may actually have underestimated Turkish women's breast cancer risk associated with abortion, due to the selection bias mentioned by Ozmen.

According to Brind's hypothesis, a disproportionate number of "modern" women were likely represented among the controls, a group more likely to use HRT and OCs, have abortions and visit the hospital often for minor complaints. < br />

By contrast, a disproportionate number of "traditional" women were represented among the patients; women less likely to use HRT and OCs, have abortions and visit the hospital (except in cases of serious illness, like breast cancer).

Dr. Brind concluded that, "the simple operation of selection bias that explains the contrary results of the study (lower risk in OC and HRT users), suggests that the results obtained for induced abortion likely represent an underestimate of the true ABC link in the Turkish population."

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer echoed Dr. Brind's statement on the ABC link. She cautioned that mainline medical journals may not publish the Turkish study results because of an agenda-driven
campaign to suppress results of ABC research.

"Although the NCI, the nation's largest funder of cancer-research, and others have worked feverishly to suppress the ABC link by publishing fraudulent research and even leaning on scientists whose studies have shown risk increases among women who have abortions, honest research occasionally escapes the NCI's purview," Malec said.

Related:Abortion-Cancer Link Cover Up by U.S. National Cancer Institute Says Bioethics Journal

Russian News Agency Slams American Press for Denying Abortion Breast Cancer Link

Chinese Breast Cancer Deaths Jump 40% since One Child Abortion Policy

New Study Shows Abortion is 'Best Predictor of Breast Cancer'[28July2009, T. M. Baklinski, Istanbul,]

New Study Finds 66 Percent Increased Breast Cancer Risk After Abortion. A new study done on women in Turkey who had abortions finds a 66 percent increased risk of contracting breast cancer as a result.

The study is the latest to confirm that abortions cause significant adverse medical risks for women who have them, in addition to killing unborn children.

The results also found that, while induced abrotion causes increased breast cancer risks for women, having a spontaneuous abortion, or miscarriage, does not.

Dr. Vahit Ozmen and his colleagues at the Istanbul Medical Faculty at Istanbul University and Magee-Women's hospital in Pittsburgh conducted the new retrospective study. They published their findings in the April 2009 issue of the World Journal of Surgical Oncology and examined women who, between January 2000 and December 2006, were admitted to clinics of Istanbul Medical Faculty for examination.

The researchers said that their findings showed abortion was "significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk." "Breast cancer risk was found to be increased in women with … induced abortion (95% confidence interval)" and an age above 35 years-old at the time of a first live birth.

"However, decreased breast cancer risk was associated with … presence of spontaneous abortion."

"Our study revealed that spontaneous abortion was associated with the decreased risk of breast cancer in univariate analysis whereas induced abortion was associated with increased breast cancer risk in both univariate and multivariable analyses," they wrote.

Contrary to the claims of groups like Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen for the Cure that say there is no such-abortion breast cancer link, the physicians involved in the study assert otherwise.

Other studies "found a positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk in women younger than 50. Therefore, similar to our findings, the majority of the studies reported that induced abortion was associated with increased breast cancer risk."

Joel Brind, Ph.D., the head of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in the United States and a professor of endocrinology at Baruch College in
New York, says he is not surprised by the results.

"I guess they didn't get the 'memo' from the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI), which declared back in 2003 that the non-existence of the abortion-breast cancer link had been 'established,'" he told

Brind also said that the breast cancer risk the doctors found in Turkey is likely higher than they reported. He said Ozmen's team most likely underestimated the breast cancer risk associated with abortion because of a flaw known as "selection bias."

Selection bias is a flaw in the study because only hospital or clinic patients were selected as study subjects, and they were therefore not
representative of the general population.

According to Brind's hypothesis, a disproportionate number of "modern" women were likely represented among the controls — a group more likely to have abortions and visit the hospital often for minor complaints.

By contrast, a disproportionate number of "traditional" women were represented among the patients; women less likely to abortions and visit the hospital.
"To their credit, Dr. Ozmen et al. did acknowledge the likelihood of selection bias in their study, although they were not specific in attributing any effects on their results to it," he said.

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, also commented on the study and said American medical groups need to take notice of the results.

"Although the NCI, the nation's largest funder of cancer-research, and others have worked feverishly to suppress the ABC link by publishing fraudulent
research and even leaning on scientists whose studies have shown risk increases among women who have abortions, honest research occasionally
escapes the NCI's purview," she said.

Citation: Ozmen et al. Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women – a university hospital-based nested case control study. World J Surg Onc 2009;7:37.

Related: Abstract of the study –

[28July09, Ertelt,, Washington, DC;]



New York Nurse Speaks Out About Hospital That Forced Abortion Participation. A nurse in New York City who Mount Sinai Hospital forced to participate in an abortion is speaking out about her ordeal. As first reported, Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit last week for the nurse who says she told the hospital about her objections.

Since 2004, officials at Mount Sinai Hospital knew that she had deeply-felt pro-life views and would not consent to assisting in an abortion.

That didn't stop hospital officials from threatening her with disciplinary measures if she did not honor a last-minute summons to assist in a scheduled late-term abortion.

"It felt like a horror film unfolding," she told the New York Post today about having to participate in an abortion against her wishes. "I couldn't believe that this could happen."

She told the newspaper she has been having nightmares and trouble sleeping ever since the May 24 incident.

"I felt violated and betrayed," she said about how officials at the hospital treated her after knowing her faith and values.

Now, she hopes the lawsuit will be sufficient to restore protection for her religious and moral views about abortion in the workplace.

"I emigrated to this country in the belief that here religious freedom is sacred," she said. "Doctors and nurses shouldn't be forced to abandon their beliefs and participate in abortion in order to keep their jobs."

Despite the fact that the patient was not in crisis at the time of the surgery, the hospital insisted on her participation in the procedure on the grounds that it was an “emergency."

Federal laws prohibit hospitals that receive federal funds from forcing employees to participate in abortion procedures under any circumstances but that apparently didn't stop Mount Sinai Hospital from asking the nurse to join in the abortion of the 22-week-old unborn child.

ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman talked with last week about the case.

“Pro-life nurses shouldn't be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs,” he said. “Requiring a devout, Catholic nurse to participate in a late-term abortion in order to remain employed is illegal, unethical, and violates her rights of conscience."

"Federal law requires that employers who receive funding from tax dollars must not compel employees to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, but this nurse’s objections fell on deaf ears," Bowman added.

“Chasing away workers from the health care field is disastrous health care policy,” Bowman continued.

“An individual’s conscience is likely what brought them to the health care field. Denying or coercing their conscience will likely drive them right out.”
According to the lawsuit, the abortion was not an emergency situation.

“Category I” is the classification reserved for “patients requiring immediate surgical intervention for life or limb threatening conditions," but the abortion in this case was classified as a “Category II."

That is a determination for surgeries needing to take place within six hours.
ADF says that means the hospital had no reason to insist upon her assistance in the abortion in order to protect the patient.

Bowman said plenty of time existed to find a different nurse to assist, especially since evidence indicates that the patient’s condition did not rise even to a Category II.

The lawsuit adds that Cenzon-DeCarlo observed no indications that the abortion was a medical emergency while in the operating room.

ADF attorneys filed the complaint in Cenzon-DeCarlo v. The Mount Sinai Hospital with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

They are also requesting a preliminary injunction that would order the hospital to honor her religious objection against assisting in abortion and refrain from retaliation against her while the case moves forward.

Related web sites:Alliance Defense Fund –

[28July09, Ertelt,, New York, NY]




Abortion Group Rues Decrease in Abortion Providers, Calls for Procedure To Be Part of Health Care
The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) has issued a report analyzing the continuing decline in abortion providers and calling for abortion to be accepted as a part of mainstream health care.   In its “Defending Human Rights” [sic] report, the CRR voiced its concern over the declining number of abortion providers throughout the country.
As Americans continue to shift towards pro-life views, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) has issued a report analyzing the continuing decline in abortion providers and calling for abortion to be accepted as a part of mainstream health care.

In its “Defending Human Rights” [sic] report, the CRR voiced its concern over the declining number of abortion providers throughout the country. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the number of abortion providers in the U.S. declined by 25% between 1992 and 2005.

The report found that some states in the U.S. currently have as few as one abortion provider. International abortion providers are struggling as well, as indicated by the ending of the Women on Waves organization, which used to operate a boat in international seas, providing abortifacient pills for women living in countries where abortion is illegal.

In particular, the CRR noted with concern that there are “few new, young doctors entering the field” and as a result, the number of abortion providers “is dwindling almost across the board.”

…Mary Spaulding Balch, state legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, told CNA that she believes the real reason for this decrease in abortionists is the nature of abortion itself.

“I think they have been diminishing in number for years because this is the type of trade that is contrary to the reason that peopl

e go to medical school,” said Spaulding Balch, observing that most people enter the medical field with hopes of preserving and saving life, not destroying it.

“It’s difficult to find people willing to be abortionists,” she said. “It’s not easy on the nerves.”

Spaulding Balch believes that the lack of young doctors entering the abortion industry is due largely due to a change in perspective due to new technology, including ultrasounds and fetal surgery. The older generation of doctors began practicing when ultrasounds were not common and fetal surgery was nonexistent, she explained.

But developments in those two areas make it very clear that the unborn child is indeed a living human being. “Newer generations of doctors are understanding the unborn child as the second patient,” she told CNA.

The CRR report also denounced laws requiring a waiting period before obtaining an abortion, as well as those that require an ultrasound to be performed, or counseling and materials to be given to women. The publication claimed that such information is “irrelevant, unnecessary, misleading, or medically inappropriate information” for women considering an abortion.

Spaulding Balch responded to this claim by saying that abortion supporters are hesitant to inform women because “the more information a woman has on the subject, the less likely she is to go forward with the abortion.”

“If they were truly pro-choice, as they claim to be, they would not be afraid of giving the woman more information, so that she can make the best choice possible,” she continued, noting the important role of information in true consent.

Rather than being “irrelevant” or “medically inappropriate,” Spaulding Balch explained to CNA that the information required to be given to women seeking an abortion is actually “simple and basic.”

This information includes a description of what the abortion procedure entails, possible risks of the procedure and possible alternatives. “This would be considered normal and reasonable information for any other procedure,” she said.

“This information is all reasonable, rational, and relevant to the decision the mother is about to make.”

Another topic included in the CRR report is the “stigma” of abortion providers among medical professionals and the general public. The document says that abortion is “marginalized and perceived as ‘dirty’ and outside of normal medicine practice,” and that this negative image results in many doctors refusing to perform, assist in, or even refer abortions.

The report claims that this stigma exists “because abortion is not integrated into mainstream healthcare.”

Saying that it is a “normal human reaction” for people to be repulsed by the idea of abortion, Spaulding Balch rejected CRR's argument. “There is something inherently evil about it,” she said, explaining that people understand this instinctively, and that is why they are still not comfortable with it, even 30 years after its legalization.

Spaulding Balch contrasted abortion with other medical procedures that are uncommon or may be otherwise “not integrated into mainstream health care,” but which the general public does not view with distrust. The fact that it is not mainstream health care is not the cause of the revulsion, she said. Rather, it is the horror of the abortion itself. “There is an inherent distinction between treating a rare disease and killing a living human.”

The publication of the report comes amid discussions of a health care reform package that would allow abortion to be required as a minimum health care benefit. Spaulding Balch explained to CNA that abortion advocates are working intensely to have the package approved in an attempt to save the dying industry.

“The abortion industry knows that they need this for their survival. They must make abortion part of mainstream health care, or the industry will see its demise,” she said. [New York City, N.Y., Jul 30, 2009, CNA; 31Jul09, ALL Pro-Life Today]



'Original Goal of Planned Parenthood Was to Abort Various Minorities Out Of Existence'
The Sunday New York Times published a recent interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg, and after expressing her annoyance over a 1980 decision that forbids using Medicaid tax dollars for abortions, Justice Ginsburg said this — I want to quote it: "Frankly, I had thought at the time that Roe was decided that there was concern about population growth, particularly growth in populations we don't want to have too many of, so that Roe was going to then be set up for Medicaid funding for abortion," unquote. [ALL Pro-Life Today, 14July09;

Obama Administration Engages Planned Parenthood 'in the Difficult Work of Changing this Country'
When Barack Obama renamed Richard Nixon’s Office of Public Liaison to the Office of Public Engagement, he declared, “This office will seek to engage as many Americans as possible in the difficult work of changing this country.”

But as the OPE has developed over the last few months, the political winds have blown the office left of center and the OPE has been busy engaging left-wing interests.

That trend was recently reinforced when it was announced the OPE’s director, Christina M. Tchen, spoke at Planned Parenthood’s National Convention alongside the abortion provider’s president, Cecil Richards.

The PP Convention is a yearly event in which members of the pro-abortion organization meet to celebrate the abortion movement and discuss ways to challenge the nation’s pro-life laws. In 2007, Mr. Obama addressed the convention and pledged to appoint federal judges who would protect the judicially created right to abortion.

Ms. Tchen’s appearance at the conference signals the Obama administration will remain a friend of abortion rights organizations like Planned Parenthood. It also shows that the Obama outreach program is geared towards left-wing allies who helped elect the president.

In an NPR interview in June, Ms. Tchen described her office as one defined by “outreach.” She explained the purpose of the OPE was to break the Beltway monopoly special interest groups have onthe White House and take the dialogue to Main Street America.

But politics has crept into the OPE and Ms. Tchen, who also heads the Obama created Council on Women and Girls, has made statements defending gender-based politics.

In explaining the Council on Women and Girls, Ms. Tchen said she “went to each of the federal agencies and asked what they are doing for women and girls,” adding, “the issues confronting women and girls belong to all agencies.” And abortion is a key issue among left-leaning females.

Though Mr. Obama pledged to find common ground on the issue of abortion, his adopted policy positions on the controversial subject has moved him outside the mainstream. He repealed the Mexico City policy barring taxpayer funded overseas abortions, lifted the federal ban on stem cell research, is advocating for taxpayer funded abortions in Washington, D.C., and nominated a pro-choice justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.

During her confirmation hearing Tuesday, U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee the concept of abortion rights rests upon “settled law.”

"There is a right of privacy. T

he court has found it in various places in the Constitution,” Ms. Sotomayor said, adding, “all precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law.”
[15July09, The Bulletin of Philadelphia, White House Addresses Abortion Provider's National Conference, By Joe Murray, The Bulletin]

The Silent FOCA: Vast Abortion Expansion Slowly Coming to Light in Health "Care" Package
Pro-life groups and lawmakers are continuing to raise the alarm over the healthcare reform package President Obama is aggressively pushing through both the House and the Senate.  The groups are urging Americans to oppose the healthcare overhaul, as pro-abortion lawmakers are insisting that abortion must be included in the basic healthcare package that all public and private insurers will eventually be required to cover. [ , Life Site News]



Obama Health-Care Reform Bound to Include 'Largest Expansion of Abortion Since Roe v. Wade': NRLC, Chris Smith
"If the proposed plan moves forward without an explicit exclusion that ensures that abortion is excluded from any government mandated or government subsidized benefits, health care reform will be a death sentence for thousands of unborn children," says Congressman Chris Smith.  [ALL Pro-Life Today, 14July09; ]

Abortion Drug Has Killed 29 Women, European Maker Tells Italy's Government
The world may never know how many thousands of women have been injured, or even killed, by the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug. The best worldwide guess is that 13 women have been killed as a result of the mifepristone abortion pill, but the maker of the drug in Europe is saying 29 women have died.

If the information given to the Italian Pharmaceuticals Agency (AIFA) by European abortion drug maker Exelgyn is correct, then twice as many women have died from the abortion drug globally than the pro-life community has thought.

Currently, eight women have died from using the RU 486 abortion drug in the United States, two in England, and one each in Canada, Sweden and France.

But, according to a report by the Italian news agency ASCA, Exelgyn provided the figure of 29 women dying from the abortion pill to the Italy Ministry of Health, which, in turn, gave the information to the AIFA drug regulatory agency.

Meanwhile, Eugenia Roccella, the subsecretary of the Italian health office, also reportedly confirmed the figure she received from Exelgyn…

AIFA is the agency that announced this week that the abortion drug, marketed in Italy as Mifegyne, will now be available for purchase across Italy, after years of the European nation only allowing surgical abortions.

Dr. Randy O'Bannon, the director of research for the National Right to Life Committee and one of the American authorities on the abortion drug, told that he can't confirm the Exelgyn figure of 29 deaths.

"It has always been difficult to get complete information on the deaths and injuries associated with the RU-486 method," he said Friday.

Typically, a death from the mifepristone abortion pill doesn't become public information "unless someone knows that a woman has had a chemical abortion and recognizes that her complications are related to that event" or "unless someone reports that to the distributor or manufacturer."

Abortion deaths may also become known if someone submits a report to a governmental agency or "someone goes to the press or the press uncovers and publicizes those incidents," O'Bannon says.

If none of those actions occur, "then no one knows and the industry goes on promoting the myth of these drugs’ safety and more women’s lives are put at risk."

"We can only wonder how high the number would be if we had all the information," O'Bannon said. [31July09, Ertelt,, Rome, Italy,]

Over 13 Million Abortions per Year in China: Chinese government won't budge on One Child Policy. At least 13 million Chinese children lose their lives to abortion every year, compared with 20 million live births, an English language Chinese news service reports. Chinese officials, however, admitted that this number takes into account only surgical abortions committed in hospitals, not those in unregistered rural facilities. In addition, 10 million abortifacients are sold every year. China became the first country in the world to approve the deadly RU 486 abortion pill in 1988 to assist with its One Child "family planning" programs.

The number of Chinese children killed by abortion per year is roughly the equivalent to the entire population of Guatemala, and to more than twice the population of Denmark, Slovakia and Finland. 13 million deaths a year would, within one year, entirely depopulate Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Hungary or Sweden.

Despite the government's ongoing coercive one child policy, which continues to employ fines, heavy pressure and intimidation to convince people to abort, local experts have blamed lack of knowledge among young people of sex and contraceptives for the figures. Li Ying, a professor at Peking University cited a survey that showed fewer than 30 percent of young people who called a hospital hotline knew "how to avoid" pregnancy.

"Sex education needs to be strengthened, with universities and our society giving more guidance," she said.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government has affirmed that its one child policy will continue. The official state news agency reported that despite media-generated rumors of a relaxation to the rules, the policy will "be strictly enforced as a means of controlling births for decades to come as overpopulation is still a major concern."

China's "family planning" policies have resulted in a number of threats to the country's demographic stability. The cultural preference for boys and the availability of sex-selective ultrasounds have resulted in the world's most severe gender imbalance, with 32 million more males than females in China under the age of 18, according to a study in the British Medical Journal. The report said, "Sex selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males."

Despite claims by the United Nations Population Fund that the Chinese program no longer employs coerced abortion, an investigation by Population Research Institute (PRI) found earlier this year that the government continues to employ "crippling fines," intimidation, pressure for sterilization and even the seizure of "illegal children" to force local people to comply. PRI's Colin Mason, who headed up the investigation, told that "any and all official action concerning reproductive health and/or population control was entirely coercive and administrative in nature."

Recently, the financial centre of Shanghai, the country's largest city with a population of just under 19 million, is reportedly independently relaxing the one child rule. Officials announced last week that couples should consider having a second child to offset the aging of the overall population.

"We advocate eligible couples to have two kids, because it can help to reduce the proportion of the aging people and alleviate a workforce shortage in the future," Xie Linli, director of the Shanghai Population and Family Planning Commission, told the Times.

Shanghai's demographics reflect the problems seen in
the rest of the country, with its population divided between 51.4 percent males and 48.6 per cent females. Only 12.2 percent of the population is under 14 and 21.6 percent, or more than three million, is over 60.  
On-the-Ground China Investigation Re-Confirms UNFPA Complicit in Coercive One-Child Policy

Shanghai Starts Backpedaling One-Child Policy in Face of Demographic Implosion
[30July09,  Hilary White,]

Study: Higher Use of Detailed Ultrasounds Yields More Abortions of Disabled Babies. A new study involving researchers at Cornell University finds that a more frequent use of detailed ultrasound on women who have babies with majority physical abnormalities results in more abortions.

While ultrasounds have increased a respect for the lives of unborn children and are credited with helping more than 80 percent of women choose abortion alternatives, the study shows they can be used for a destructive purpose as well.

The Cornell researchers, who published their study in the Journal of Ultrasound Medicine, evaluated the impact of restrictive versus routine use of "detailed" second-trimester sonography.

They reviewed records of women with pregnancies involving one unborn child who were evaluated from 2004 to 2008.

The women all received a detailed examination and major structural abnormalities were categorized on the basis of whether the problem would have been diagnosed in a "basic" examination without the extensive use of an ultrasound.

The study found major abnormalities in 218 of the unborn children examined by the ultrasound, and 75 of the mothers decided to have an abortion after learning they were pregnant with severely disabled babies.

The study found that 88 of the babies, 40.4 percent of those involved in the study, would not have been diagnosed with the abnormalities in a more basic evaluation without the extensive ultrasound.

"Restricting detailed evaluation to those with risk factors would have prevented detection of a substantial proportion of anomalies," the authors concluded.

The use of abortion to kill disabled babies has been a hot topic with the pro-life community as rates of abortions on babies with issues such as Down syndrome or other conditions are quite high.

In October 2008, President Bush signed into law legislation focusing on reducing the number of abortions done on disabled unborn children.

The Pre-natally and Post-natally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act requires giving families who receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome or any other condition, pre-natally or up until a year after birth, pertinent helpful information.

The information would include facts about the condition and connections to support services and networks that could offer assistance in raising a disabled child.

Senator Sam Brownback was the prime sponsor of the bill in the Senate and he told he's delighted President Bush put his signature on it.

“President Bush signed into law a bill that will help an untold number of expecting parents who learn that their unborn child may be born with a disability,” he said.

“This is a great victory for the culture of life we should all seek to promote," Brownback added. "Currently, 90 percent of children pre-natally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. That number is much too high and suggests that we as a society are not doing everything we can to protect every human life, at every stage.”

That percentage of babies who die from abortions is similar for children pre-natally diagnosed with other conditions such as spina bifida, cystic fibrosis and dwarfism.

The plight of Down syndrome babies received significant attention thanks to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, who gave birth to a baby with the condition last year.

Reference – J Ultrasound Med 28:1015-1018 • 0278-4297
Abstract –
[30July09, Ertelt, Washington, DC]






PP Breaks the Rules, Causes Deaths, Does a 180 and Calls Itself Heroic—for Doing What It Should Have Done Years Ago to Make Medication Abortions ‘Safer’ [sic]. Until 2006, Planned Parenthood was giving advice about administration of medical abortion-inducing drugs that contradicted Food and Drug Administration and drug manufacturer guidelines.

While the manufacturer of misopristol and the FDA recommended oral administration, PP advised women to take the medication intravaginally.

At least two women died from infection after following the vaginally administered abortion pill regimen at PP facilities.

In 2006, following publicity about four maternal deaths resulting from this abortion-inducing drug regimen, PP did a 180 and began to recommend oral administration.

PP has now announced that its researchers are saying that taking antibiotics along with the abortion pill and taking it orally will make it safer for mothers to abort their children. The FDA, however, does not recommend prophylactic antibiotics as an adjunct to the abortion pill regimen and has never approved vaginal administration of the drugs as previously recommended by PP.

On its web site, the FDA says this about the four maternal deaths resulting from infection following medical abortions (from September 2003 to June 2005): “All four cases involved the off-label dosing regimen consisting of 200 mg of oral Mifeprex followed by 800 mcg of intra-vaginally placed misoprostol.” It further states, “The safety and effectiveness of other Mifeprex dosing regimens, including use of oral misoprostol tablets intravaginally, has not been established by the FDA.”

Ignoring its own complicity in deaths resulting from taking the medication intravaginally, a PP spokesperson is quoted in the Reuters article unveiling the “new” findings: “Our goal was to make a safe procedure even safer.” PP now portrays itself as heroic for partially reverting to the protocol it ignored for years, which resulted in the deaths of unsuspecting women.

As we reported in our 2008 Report on Planned Parenthood Facilities in the United States, PP has increased the number of facilities performing medical abortions by 61 in the last two years, thus increasing its abortion business without having to find more abortionists to commit surgical abortions. [STOPP Report 7/15/09; PharmFacts E-News Update, 16July09]




Dutch Abortion Boat Grounded for Life. Abortionist and activist Rebecca Gomperts told Dutch news media yesterday that her abortion ship is being permanently docked due to changes in the abortion laws in the Netherlands.

Women on Waves had been successful in its main purpose, Gomperts said, which had been to promote the use of the abortion pill RU-486 in countries where it is outlawed.

However, the
Dutch government has now restricted the distribution of the pills to recognised abortion facilities, which do not include her abortion ship. 

A spokesman for the Netherlands health authorities also said that Gomperts's organization, Women on Waves (WoW), may be facing prosecution for illegal distribution of abortifacient drugs from a rented yacht moored off the Spanish coast in 2008.

"WoW is only licensed to distribute abortion pills from its floating clinic. As WoW did not request the license be transferred to a yacht, they were breaking the
law," said the spokesman.

Gomperts told the NRC Handelsblad newspaper that the greatest achievement of Women on Waves has been the establishment of Women on the Web, an internet site, registered in Canada, where women can order the abortion drugs for delivery to countries where they are outlawed. Gomperts said that in 2007, about 150 of the pills were being distributed through the site per month. "It must be up to several hundred by now," she added.

Gomperts, who got her start in activism with Greenpeace, called the threat of prosecution "quite remarkable," and said that "resistance to abortion is
growing in The Hague" under a coalition government that includes the Christian Democrats and the ChristenUnie.

She said her group would be contesting the new rules in a lawsuit.
Gomperts said that the ship, a converted tugboat dubbed the "death ship" by Argentine media in 2006, had been intended as a means of overcoming the laws in those countries where abortion was restricted, sailing from port to port offering women "medical abortions."

Gomperts said, "I figured we would sail from country to country and help x number of women per day." Women on Waves had planned to send the boat to Nicaragua, Chile, Brazil and Argentina, but these trips have been cancelled.

In its maiden voyage, the abortion ship went to Ireland in 2001, carrying a staff of two doctors and one nurse. It has since been to Poland where it was
pelted with eggs by Polish youth and searched for illegal drugs by Polish customs officers. The attempt in 2004 to land the ship in Portugal was met with strong resistance from the government, who ordered it to be blockaded by a warship, a move that garnered a rebuke from the European Union's Court of Human Rights. But Gomperts boasted that one of the most successful projects of Women on Waves had been to influence Portugal, then under a new Socialist regime, to
loosen restrictions on abortion by the 2007 referendum.

But Gomperts said her dream of a fleet of boats committing surgical as well as chemical abortions has failed. "The abortion boat is a myth," she said. "There are people who think we provide practical help all over the world. Of course it's a pretty sight: a ship entering a harbour full of women saying: abortion is a right. And then there will always be people wanting to stop the boat. The result is a symbolic fight that speaks to the imagination."The real purpose of the boat, however, was as a propaganda and publicity tool, she said. "Our only
real strategy is letting women know that there is such a thing as the abortion pill. They have to know that there is medication available for pregnancy termination."
In October 2008 Women on Waves received permission to use a converted sea container to perform curettages (surgical abortions) up to 12 weeks pregnancy.

This project will also be abandoned and the mobile surgical facility will be sent to the Boijmans Van Beuningen museum in Rotterdam as an exhibit of "feminist art." Related:Victory for Portugal as Dutch Abortion Ship Retreats Mission Unaccomplished
Pro-Aborts Complain Pro-Life and Pro-Family

Attitudes on the Rise in Europe

Maltese Overwhelmingly Reject Dutch Abortion Ship [28July09, Hilary White,]

Commentary: A March of People to Say NO. We delightfully report the success of our collective campaign to stop Biological Colonialism of Africa and to stop the establishment of a legalized Trans-Atlantic Embryonic Tissue Trafficking from Africa to Europe and America.

…Africa resoundingly said No! to this new form of slavery.

The result is that Africa has now been dropped from the top priority of the Obama Administration and their Pro-abortion grand coalition headed by billionaire investors in the biotechnology industry.

They have changed their international focus to Southeast Asia as a potential source of embryonic stem cells and also the Obama administration is pushing for a home source of embryonic stem cells.

Thus they found the program for Healthcare Reform. The aim of this Health Reform is to give venom after being beaten by their snake of contraception, abortion and pouching of ovarian eggs. They believe that they would need a constant stream of ovarian eggs to meet the 100 million eggs needed to perfect the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technique from the poor and
immigrant population in the United States.

The American public, they reckon will not pay attention to the complicated details of their plans covertly hidden in the voluminous details of the so-called socialized Medicare.

They use the urgency of timing to create diversionary tactics in the Congress. Detailed letters and VCDs were sent to each member of Congress several months ahead to allow them see the Approach of the pro-abortionists in Africa as to help them understand what was going to happen as it is now at home.

We all must now engage in the Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice War in America. We must engage all members of Congress through a persistent campaign in the next few days.

Let us understand what is going on here. A small group of multi-billionaires who own over 80% of the biotechnology firms have convinced the G7 leaders that they can save the G7 economies by moving the World to a new medical breakthrough and create the Human Industrial Revolution based on embryonic stem cell use.

They lament that Southeast Asia would become ever more competitive in electronic technology, so they have lost out in that area.
They projected that in the first few years of their operation they would create a 30 Trillion USD economy within the G7…

But this does not deter them; they are rather pushing forward with their plans to kill more embryos and subject people as objects of Human Industry. They are heading for a total ann

ihilation economically…

Black Americans were a target of the biotechnology firms using Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

It is of interest to see how much support there will be for this Obama Policy when the Black People of America know the truth of their being the people to bear the burden of supplying these ovarian eggs for research, in so-called donations.

The problem we have in America with disseminating information is that these few billionaires own the press, and the poorly informed international press
have total allegiance to these billionaire masters. So we must use other means.

We must stand with the American People and the Unborn in America at this time of great tribulation.
We must participate in all their national efforts like that at to get the members of Congress to rethink their approach.

The red envelope campaign by the American Pro-Lifers is one good approach, but we may now include some basic information to each neighbor in America.

Above all is a March of People … and its grand Coalition in every major City in America to say No! to Abortion and embryonic Stem Cell Research.

We hope that they will give it their best consideration. [25July09, Dr P. N. MD. African Anti-Abortion Coalition, Chairman, Global Prolife Alliance]





Commentary: Understanding "Choice"… Two Viewpoints, But Only One Side is Heard

The Washington Post published a letter by a medical student, R. F. L., reporting her shift from a pro-life position to pro-choice.

One of her classmates, M. R., wrote a letter responding to some of Love’s points and inviting her to a dialogue on this dramatic issue.

The Washington Post declined to publish her letter. Is this another example of one-way dialogue?

Understanding “Choice”: A Reply to R. F. L.

In response to the June 7th article “My Choice,” written by my classmate R. F. L., I offer here what I hope to be the beginning of a fruitful dialogue
amongst us and within our community.

Since the question of abortion is not first a political question, but a human one, we should dedicate ourselves to answering it as such.

In this way, our discussion may have to take into account perspectives that we are not used to dealing with in the public-political (and often, medical) sphere.

Such questions I hope to raise with my patients, particularly those troubled by an unplanned pregnancy: What is life for? What is happiness? What does it mean to love and be loved?

These questions are not “peripheral” to the doctor-patient encounter in the Ob/Gyn clinic, but in fact offer us a method by which to approach the patient.

Each of us has a fundamental need to answer these questions, and the extent to which they are not welcomed and pursued reveals a lack of humanity in medicine and our culture at large.

My first simple point, then, is that the questions at hand regarding abortion are deeper than those we so often reduce ourselves to in the public debate. This is not to say that those many facets of the issue shouldn’t be discussed – they should, with great patience and thoroughness.

But to reduce our discussion solely to Love’s terms is to ignore the greater repercussions of the debate, a debate that goes to the heart of what it is to be human. In an effort to respond, I will try to say something regarding the points that Love has raised, and then will offer a few considerations at the end.

To begin with, I would like to address the starting point of Love’s article, namely the experience of having met Emily Lyons, the living victim of a tragic abortion clinic bombing.

The introduction of Emily and the references to the recent murder of Dr. Tiller no doubt shed light on the severity of this issue in our culture. And yet, while recognizing the reality of these violent acts, the emotional plea on their behalf puts all intelligent and reasonable pro-lifers – of whom there are many – in a position to pounce. The great majority of us whose love for life propels us to see it protected from the moment of conception would likewise agree with Love that the vicious atrocities committed against both Emily Lyons and Dr. Tiller have no place in our world.

But to use these events to fuel an argument on behalf of abortion is not justifiable.

This subtle accusation does not take into account the reasonability of our position, but rather attempts a clever fusion of all pro-lifers into the radical sect – a lump assumption that many of us find annoyingly offensive.

Along these same lines, I would offer that the displays of fetal corpses on billboards fuels this violent antagonism and does all of us a great disservice, perhaps most of all the pro-life movement to whom the promoters of these images claim allegiance.

The truth is beautiful.

Pictures of aborted fetuses are not.

In this way, regardless of the fact that those pictures portray an event that truly happened, they do not take into account the very nature of Truth, which always attracts rather than repulses.

My point here is simply that the constant use of the ‘bloody victims’ on both sides of the debate puts us all on an automatic defensive, impinging upon our vulnerability in front of one another, and in the end limiting the possibility of our dialogue.

Secondly, Love comments, “When I advocate for reproductive rights, for choice, I don’t claim that abortion is morally acceptable. I think that is a very private, intensely personal decision.”

Within this division between “morality” on the one hand, and “privacy” on the other comes the claim that a “private” decision is not worthy to enter the sphere of public discussion.

I think we could all consider examples (such as child abuse, when done “in private”), for which we clearly would not want to make this division. And yet, perhaps Love would respond that the “private” in this instance is an exception, as it refers to the body.

Herein, it becomes necessary to broaden our discussion to address what we mean by “choice” as it pertains to the body.

Particularly in America in the last half-century, we have come to assume a dualism between the “body” and the “I,” such that the physical body has been reduced to “vacant stuff” that exists for the service of my “I,” while my “I” is unattached to any particular nature inherent in the body.

This has vast implications, particularly in medicine. By denying a particular order of nature intrinsic to the body, the body becomes an instrument through which “I” can choose what “I” want my body to be, i.e., pregnant, not pregnant, a surrogate baby-carrier, etc. There are too many situations to mention them all here.

I would simply like to make the strong point that, in contrast to the way we often treat the body in medicine, particularly in the Ob/Gyn clinic with respect to reproduction, the body already bears an order that is not reducible to “choice.”

Rather, the intrinsic nature of the body, understood most acutely in the sexual difference, reminds us of the body’s objective “relativity” to others.

In this way, the very physical structure of the body reveals that the human person exists as a relation of love.

Likewise with respect to the fetus: though without his parents he would obviously not exist, any effort of theirs to eliminate his existence fails because his “I” is not in the end reducible to their “choice.” He is an other than them – and radically so. A new person has burst into the world of being.

Having the pleasure of knowing Rozalyn, I want to reaffirm her view that every abortion is a tragedy. I’m grateful that reducing the number of abortions is a goal we share.

Yet what leads her to claim that abortion is still at times “necessary,” to the extent that she wants to provide this procedure as a doctor, does not follow from the totality of the tragedy that taking a life entails.

While I do not doubt her feelings of desperation in front of the couple whose third-trimester child was diagnosed with a lethal congenital anomaly, I firmly disagree that “they needed Dr. Tiller.”

In fact, their need was far greater. They needed to know that their suffering as parents, wrapped in all the hopes for the future of their child – a future that was not to be – was not meaningless.

They needed family, friends, and a hospital staff who could remind them of how beautiful love is, even when the child breathes his last after only minutes in his mother’s arms. They needed hope that life is yet worth living, even after this tragic loss.

Finally, Love writes, “neither my family nor my church would welcome my questions or understand my struggle.”

In response, I ask only that the questions continue. While these questions are better raised in the context of friendship, I hope that ours, and this discussion, will continue.M. R., M.T.S., University of Alabama School of Medicine, 3rd-year Student

[16 June 2009, Culture, Religion & Science APPROFONDISCI, martedì 16 giugno2009, ]




Commentary: Preventing the Pregnancy "Disease": One of  the 10 Great Health Achievements of the 20th Century?
In a recent blog, the president of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund, Sarah Stoesz, claims to give “The Simple Truth about Family Planning.” Actually, all she manages to do is treat birth control like the discovery of penicillin.

According to a report from the obviously-unbiased-attached-at-the-hip-buddy-of-Planned-Parenthood research group, the Guttmacher Institute, “the typical American woman, who wants two children, spends about five years pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant, and three decades – more than three-quarters of her reproductive life – trying to avoid pregnancy.”

Watch out! Duck and dodge! Get down! Put on your pregnancy-proof vest and wear protective gear as you navigate through those dangerous reproductive years! Heaven forbid you allow blessings of LIFE to penetrate your anti-life armor. The results could be disastrous: hearing the joyous laughter of more than two children filling your house! Lollipops, toddlers and bottles, oh my!

Even the CDC recognizes the importance of “family planning,” also known as technologies that rescue “unsuspecting” women from the horror of pregnancy and childbearing. They list it as “one of the ten greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.” You know, right alongside such medical advances as controlling infectious diseases, decline in deaths from heart disease and stroke, and healthier mothers and babies.  

Really, CDC? In the same breath that you list “healthier mothers and babies” and “decline in deaths from coronary heart disease and stroke” as achievements, you also include “family planning”? Go ahead and ignore the fact that so-called family planning has resulted in at least 51 million dead babies and grieving women, in addition to hormonal birth control increasing female deaths from stroke, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrest, hypertensive diseases and heart failure [ ].

Wait – C … D … C. Doesn’t that stand for the Centers for Disease Control? Why, yes, it does. And what disease is being controlled with “family planning”? Oh, that’s right; abortion advocates think pregnancy is a disease. I guess we all just began our lives as little diseases in our mother’s wombs. I think I’m going to get a complex.

Explaining why it made the list, the CDC asserts “family planning has provided health benefits such as smaller family size.” And what health “benefits” come from a smaller family size? I can only think of disadvantages such as creating spoiled, self-centered kids who, despite their parents’ claim that limiting the number of children provides more time and focus on the kids they do have, have poor, strained relationships with their parents, and don’t know the meaning of sacrifice or service.

Stoesz then tries to appeal to fiscal conservatives, saying they should “embrace fa

mily planning,” for “it costs less to fund contraceptive services than it does to pay for prenatal care, delivery, and infant care associated with unintended pregnancies.” Sorry, Ms. Stoesz, but unlike some who are labeled as “far right” or “conservative” for their view on government spending, true pro-lifers care not how much money a precious child costs to keep alive and don’t consider humans as financial burdens. Regardless of what box we’re put in, we believe that a human being's life is more important than money or trees or tax debates.

Brenda’s story:
 When I was a teenager at the age of 15, I found myself pregnant. I was not a Christian at that time and wasn't sure at all what I was going to do. After talking with my friends, who – most of all of them – said I should get an abortion, I realized how sad people were to think that abortion was such an easy recomendation. I decided that I would have my child and make it a mission to let people know how important it was to respect children at their biological beginning, and how hurtful abortion is.
I never fullly realized how much abortion affected women until my little sister-in-law decided to have an abortion without telling any of us. When we realized what had happened, it was already too late, and the torment and pain that she has suffered for the last couple of years have far surpassed any struggles that might have come from having the baby or offering her to another caring family.
As I read more on how abortions are performed and the medicines that science continues to put out to kill our children, I feel more and more compelled to stand up and do something positive on thier behalf.
My goal for starting this chapter of Rock For Life is [to] spread the word to girls and women to know that abortion of all kinds is wrong and that there are so many other positive alternatives – to offer help and understanding of some of these, such as adoptions, parenting, and most of all, abstinence until marriage. My daughter is now almost 11 years old, and I thank God every day that even though I didn't know Him at the time, the still small voice in my heart was loud enough not to go with the advice of those around me, but rather help me to see that my daughter was more than a child, but [also] a blessing! So that is why I have decided to side with Rock For Life, and  of course, it doesn't hurt that I love music as well!
Brenda, KY chapter leader







Embryology of the new human being confirms humanity of the preborn….


Basic primer on genetics, cloning and other manipulations of molecular genetics….


The Inherent Racism of Population Control


Hippocratic Oath makes a Comeback


Maafa 21 — Abortion as Genocide

Maafa 21 Dr. Johnny Hunter Speaks about Maafa 21

Congressman Trent Franks Speaks about Maafa 21

"Everybody has to see Maafa 21"

Maafa 21 trailer: