Life-Affirming Pregnancy Centers Preferred over Abortion Providers in 2014 National Poll

By an overwhelming margin, American women and men report more favorable opinions of life-affirming pregnancy centers offering abortion alternatives, as compared to organizations providing abortions such as Planned Parenthood, according to a 2014 national poll commissioned by the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI). One thousand American women aged 18-44 years and 300 men of the same age range were surveyed about questions related to health behaviors, specifically geared towards unexpected pregnancy decisions and care. Overall opinions and impressions about experiences were measured to contrast views towards organizations which provide abortion alternatives at the community-based level and those which offer and refer for abortion. (In addition, the survey population was polled on four direct measures of attitudes on the life issue including general pro-life and pro-choice sentiment as well as opinions on time limits and exceptions with respect to abortion laws. These results comported with a nationally representative sample within the margin of error.) To gauge opinions regarding life-affirming pregnancy centers (also known as pregnancy resource, pregnancy care and/or pregnancy help centers) the survey first provided a description of the services these types of groups offer: “These centers provide free medical services and other support to women with an unexpected pregnancy and encourage them to give birth to their babies. They do not offer or refer women for abortions.” Then to follow up, “Do you have an overall opinion of organizations of this kind?” A range of favorable and unfavorable options for response were provided. Tweet This: 80 percent of Americans have positive view of #prolife pregnancy help. @SBAList An impressive 80 percent of respondents reported a “favorable view” of pregnancy...

Abortion Stigma: Two Abortionists Quit After Being Listed on AbortionDocs.org

Proving that participation in abortion is a bad career move, two Alabama abortionists have quit their jobs at abortion facilities in Alabama and turned to more reputable work. Elizabeth Kemp, who was formerly employed with Reproductive Health Services of Montgomery, left her job as an abortionist soon after she was listed on AbortionDocs.org, a website managed by Operation Rescue that lists every abortion facility in the U.S. and all known abortion providers along with documents related to them and their practices. Kemp’s Alabama medical license status is listed as “inactive.” “So often, we find that abortion providers do not want the world to know what they do for a living, especially if abortion is a side job to their non-abortion-related career, because there is a stigma attached to being an abortionist, and rightfully so,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, co-author of the new book, Abortion Free. “We applaud those who are brave enough to stop participating in the human tragedy that abortion inflicts upon women and families, and instead use their training and skills to help and heal people.” Another former abortionist who quit the abortion cartel  formerly worked for Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives in Huntsville, Alabama. AbortionDocs.org has deactivated their profiles as current abortionists. In addition, abortionist Louis Thomason Payne of the West Alabama Women’s Center (WAWC) in Tuscaloosa has retired, leaving that abortion facility without abortion services early in 2015. Operation Rescue confirmed that WAWC is currently not taking abortion appointments with no set date for when it might be able to resume. Reproductive Health Services of Montgomery was able to replace Kemp...

Nurses, Midwives, and PAs ‘Fill Gap’ as Abortion Providers

When physician is removed, does risk increase? California now permits non-physicians to perform abortions, a move that supporters say guarantees access, while opponents claim is bad medicine. Over the last 4 years 30 states passed legislation aimed at restricting access to abortion, a trend that California bucked when the state passed Assembly bill 154 in 2013, enabling mid-level providers to offer medication and surgical abortions. Mary Davenport, MD, FACOG, an obstetrician-gynecologist practicing in the San Francisco area and a medical director of the Magnificat Maternal Health Program in Nigeria, called the state’s decision “bad policy” based on “bad research.” Davenport promotes a technique to reverse medical abortions that use RU-486 — www.abortionpillreversal.com and http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/GeneralOBGYN/50164 At the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists here last month, Davenport critiqued a study by Tracy Weitz, PhD [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673521/ see Abstract and excerpts below], published in the American Journal of Public Health, which compared safety outcomes among physicians and non physicians performing surgical abortions, also known as aspiration or “vacuum” abortions. Davenport argued that Weitz had a predetermined conclusion before even beginning her research. “She’s a brilliant woman. She had a firm ideology about abortion access, and then she did a study that was instrumental in getting this law passed in the legislature,” Davenport said. Weitz’s prospective observational study was designed to measure the safety among women whose abortions were administered by either nonphysicians — nurse practitioners, physicians assistants or nurse midwives — or physicians. The researchers chose a noninferiority design because “we anticipated a slightly higher number of complications among newly trained NPs, CNMs, and PAs than among the experienced physicians,”...

The Reality of Late-Term Abortion (2011)

The Reality of Late-Term Abortion By Susan W. Enouen, P.E. Most abortionists who specialize in doing abortions in the second- or third-trimester go quietly about their killing business without any media fanfare. But in the United States, there are at least 10 late-term abortionists doing abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy who have gotten a fair amount of media attention. Some of them are facing financial, licensing or criminal issues, and most are notorious, unabashed by the headlines they make. But they are just a fraction of the people who kill viable babies for a living. The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research organization, indicates that 20% of abortionists will do abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.1 This means that in 2005, over 350 late-term abortionists killed pre-born babies beyond the 5th month of pregnancy. These abortionists use grisly procedures that the average abortion facility is not necessarily equipped to provide, and the entire process requires 2-4 days. One of these procedures, Partial-Birth Abortion (also known as D&X — Intact Dilation and Extraction), was banned by federal law in 2007, but other techniques are still legal. For most people, it is reasonable to wonder why anyone would get involved in this gruesome business. News stories only provide a piece of the picture, but they suggest that some late-term abortionists live by a warped credo, professing to help women in need, while taking the lives of babies. Others appear to have no scruples whatsoever, and seem to care nothing for the women or the babies. The most notorious of them seem to think that they are above the law, operating with...

Guttmacher Report. Abortion Providers

Guttmacher Report – Abortion Incidence and Access to Services in the United States, 2008 http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4304111.pdf The survey on which the study is based was the Guttmacher Institute’s 15th census of all known abortion providers in the United States. The study, “Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States, 2008,” [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4304111.pdf] has been published online and will appear in the March 2010 issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. [updated Jan 2011]...