American Society of Reproductive Medicine Statement Confirms ‘The Pill’ Causes Abortion (2008)

Amidst an ongoing debate among prolife advocates about whether to classify the Pill as an abortifacient or a prophylactic, pro-abortion advocates have published an authoritative statement declaring that the Pill prevents implantation of embryos, thereby causing an abortion. In a supplement to its November 2008 issue, top reproductive health journal Fertility and Sterility published the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) statement, “Hormonal contraception: recent advances and controversies.” In a summary of the development of contraception in the United States the statement called oral contraceptives the “most widely used” reversible method. In the “wide variety” of oral contraceptives that are available, the “mechanisms of action” are the same, said the statement: “inhibition of ovulation, alteration in the cervical mucus, and/or modification of the endometrium, thus preventing implantation.” Pro-life advocates who oppose abortion, but not contraception, have long considered the Pill as an ethical contraceptive option, as opposed to the IUD, which causes abortions by preventing implantation. However, the statement by the ASRM clearly indicates that the pill is medically classified as a drug that acts by “preventing implantation,” thereby causing the death of a fertilized embryo – a unique and living human being. A large body of literature supports this statement, including articles from Fertility and Sterility. The most significant of these is a 1996 study by a group of OB/GYNs from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, that concluded that “impaired uterine receptivity” is “one mechanism by which OCs exert their contraceptive actions.” [12December2008, Ellen M. Rice,...

Touching Video: Blind Mother ‘Sees’ Her Unborn Baby with 3D Ultrasound Image (2015)

[See video at link below] Tatiana Guerra, 30, is from Brazil, and was 20 weeks pregnant when this video was taken. When she was 17, she lost her sight. Courtesy of Huggies Brazil and the digital design firm, The Goodfellas, what you see on YouTube is the unfolding of a minor miracle– at least to we who are sighted and especially to those of us who grapple with understanding 3D printing. The YouTube is less than 4 minutes long. We are immediately introduced to Tatiana and “Dr. David.” He seems to have a gentle touch and a reassuring voice, the perfect bedside manner. After the opening “hellos,” the video cuts to Tatiana at home. She caresses her swollen abdomen and talks quietly and persistently to Murio. Clearly, Tatiana is passionately in love with her unborn son. “Mommy can’t wait to feel your little body, your little face, your little hands ….So come,” she says. “Mommy is counting the days. …You don’t need to be afraid.” The video cuts back to Dr. David as he is performing the ultrasound. They chat back and forth. “What does his face look like?” “His nose looks like yours,” Dr. David says. “His two little eyes are closed.” Tatiana smiles and giggles when she is told her son has a “small mouth” and a “chubby hand.” All the while a 3D printer is transforming ultrasound images of Murilo’s face into something solid. “And if…if you could touch him, would that let you know what he’s like?” “Yes,” she responds. At that juncture Dr. David hands Tatiana the 3-D sculpture of her unborn son’s face...

Abortion and Breast Cancer: "Reanalysis" Critiqued (4/04)

ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER: ONLY FUZZY MATH CAN MAKE THE ABC LINK DISAPPEAR [Joel Brind, Ph.D.  8Apr04] A supposedly definitive study of immense statistical power, published in a top medical journal, has once again [tried to prove] the abortion-breast cancer link (ABC link) nonexistent.   This time [25Mar04] it was "a collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries". It was authored by a prestigious group of Oxford researchers, and published in the Lancet, one of the most prominent medical journals in the world…To say that the Beral study is seriously flawed and that its conclusions do not stand up to close scrutiny is to understate seriously the magnitude of what is really going on here. For starters, the claim that this is a "full analysis" is flatly false. Let's just do the simple math. We start with 41 studies which showed data on induced abortion and breast cancer, dating as far back as 1957. Then how do we get to 53 studies? (Actually, the total is 52 studies.) We add 11 studies worth of unpublished data, right? That might be okay, but it wasn't what was done. What Beral et al. actually did was: **Throw out 2 studies for the scientifically appropriate reason that "specific information on whether pregnancies ended as spontaneous or induced abortions had not been recorded systematically for women with breast cancer and a comparison group." Specifically, one such study from Sweden in 1989 used general population statistics for comparison, instead of a control group, and one US study from 1993 ascertained abortions only indirectly, by subtracting the...

Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health Care: Abortion is Not Maternal Health

Almost 900 medical professionals have now signed the Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health, launched in 2012 to declare that abortion is not needed to save women’s lives. [UPDATE: More than 1010 Signatories, June 2015] Unveiled at the International Symposium on Maternal Healthcare in Dublin, Ireland, the Declaration states: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. “We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. “We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.” Signatory Dr. Eoghan de Faoite told LifeSiteNews there is a fundamental difference between life saving treatment a woman may need during pregnancy, and abortion, which is the direct and intentional taking of the life of the unborn child. “The Dublin Declaration clarifies this quite succinctly,” he said. He pointed out that through the Dublin Declaration, obstetricians, gynecologists, neonatologists, pediatricians and other doctors from across the specialties of medicine and surgery testify that a country does not need legalized abortion in order to preserve maternal health and reduce maternal mortality. “Let us not underestimate the power of such a statement,” de Faoite stressed. “This is hugely important to all of us who work to protect women and children from abortion and who seek to make this cruel injustice...