Archive for September, 2013

Abortion, by any other name, is still abortion

Friday, September 27th, 2013

130927 blog image JM

My colleague Marie Smith of the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues this week brought to my attention some very disturbing news: A group of academics and researchers – whose work seems to suggest they have never met an abortion they didn’t like — is trying to drum up support and development funding for a new type of “post-fertilization contraception.” They envision a pill that women could take up to a month after an unprotected sex act resulted in pregnancy.

That’s not contraception. That’s abortion.

What these researchers laud as a potential wonder drug that “could serve more women and provide more benefit at a population level,” the rest of us recognize as another way to abort a child, with considerable risk to the mother. Imagine the hormonal horror of a pill strong enough to dislodge and kill a developing baby.

As I pointed out in the book “Recall Abortion,” the birth control pill is bad medicine, causing everything from blood clots to strokes to cancer. Emergency contraception is touted as safe as can be, but after reading patients reviews of Plan B and Ella, you don’t get such a warm and fuzzy feeling. Women talk about menstrual cycles knocked out of whack and lingering back and abdominal pain. And then there’s RU-486, whose mortality rate prompted the FDA to issue new warnings about its use even as its popularity, and profitability, grew. Make no mistake about it, RU-486 poses a great risk to women’s health.

But these hard facts aren’t enough to deter this band of population control advocates from calling for the development of yet another harmful pill. For this group, preventing birth is the ultimate and only goal.

In their article, “Embracing post-fertilisation methods of family planning: a call to action,” published in the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, the group helpfully notes that “A woman could potentially use a post-fertilisation method on a planned schedule only once in each menstrual cycle, no matter how many prior coital acts she had had in that cycle.” The promise of spontaneity and a complete freedom from personal responsibility is what will sell this do-it-yourself abortion, they believe. Young women and girls who have drunk the Kool-Aid of “reproductive justice” would likely be the main targets of this population control campaign.

This pill has yet to be developed, thank God, but you can be sure that if it ever comes to market, it will be very profitable for some, and very, very detrimental to many — women and children.

To read what Marie Smith wrote about “post-fertilization contraception,” click here:

To sign a petition to get abortion off the market, go to www.recallabortion.com

Posted in Abortion, Contraception, Family, Health Care, RU-486, Women's Health | 1 Comment »
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.

RU-486 and the return of the coat hanger

Friday, September 13th, 2013

JM 130913 blog image

I’m wondering when we changed the definition of “health care” to include women and girls self-aborting at home and flushing the remains of their babies down the toilet. Isn’t RU-486 just the modern version of the coat hanger?

The use, and misuse, of RU-486 is getting a lot of pro-abortion ink these days, as the Supreme Court seems poised to hear a case from Oklahoma that could limit the way doctors prescribe the abortion drugs.

When the FDA approved the use of RU-486 in this country in 2000, the protocol called for several office visits for women planning to abort their children through a medication abortion. The first pill was given the first day, and the pill that causes contractions was given on the second visit, two or three days later. But Planned Parenthood and other providers saw the opportunity for a greater financial dividend by allowing women to take the second set of medications alone at home after receiving the first dose from a doctor. Then along came telemedicine, which allowed doctors to dispense the deadly drugs via video conference, so doctors never once examined their abortion-bound patients. Seventeen states have since banned abortion by telemedicine, and that ban is included in the Oklahoma law now in dispute.

But it’s another portion of the law that pro-aborts are concentrating on in Oklahoma. The initial FDA approval allowed the use of the drugs through seven weeks of pregnancy but doctors have decided it’s effective through nine weeks. Also, FDA approval came with a set of instructions that indicated the second dose of medication was to be swallowed, but some abortionists are telling women it is more effective if allowed to dissolve in the mouth or used as a vaginal suppository. And now it has become standard practice to send women home to take the second dose (Less mess for the clinic workers). This “off-label” use of the drug is what the Supreme Court could rule on, if it ultimately hears the case.

This week, the pro-abortion writer Emily Bazelon and the editorial board of the DesMoines Register have become cheerleaders for off-label use of RU-486, pointing out, correctly, that many drugs have turned out to be effective for things other than their originally intended purpose. But history has shown that off-label use is not always a good thing. The sleep aid Thalidomide was not intended as a treatment for morning sickness in pregnant women, and not long after it began to be prescribed off-label, an epidemic of profound and tragic birth defects resulted. More recently, Neurontin, a drug approved for the treatment of epilepsy and nerve pain, began being prescribed to bipolar patients. The drug didn’t really help and for at two patients at least, may have played a role in their suicides. Pfizer, the drug’s maker, agreed to pay a $430 million settlement to end lawsuits against it.

RU-486 has proved itself to be deadly too. Several years after approving it, the FDA took notice that it was killing some women. New labeling warnings were issued that, according to the FDA website, “were prompted by reports of serious bacterial infection, bleeding, ectopic pregnancies that have ruptured, and death… The warnings point out that serious bacterial infection and sepsis may occur without the usual signs of infection, such as fever and tenderness on examination. The warnings also caution providers that prolonged, heavy bleeding may warrant surgical intervention.”

As we wait for the Supreme Court to rule on off-label uses for RU-486, let’s hear from some women who decided that an abortion at home was the best choice for them.

At About.com, on the Women’s Health message boards, a woman from England wrote:
“I would not recommend this to anyone. It was the most painful and traumatic experience I have ever had to go through. It was so painful and the whole process lasted about five hours and I felt like I was in labor. I was violently sick and this awful experience lives with me today. I would not recommend anyone to opt to have this done if you have the option.”

A teenager who posted at SteadyHealth.com had this to say:
“I’m 16 and I too had a medical abortion. The pain that I went through after dissolving the four tablets in my cheeks was crippling and crept on me only 20 minutes after leaving the clinic. I was crawled up (sic) in a ball and rolling around on the floor. I couldn’t tell my parents because I didn’t want to explain the pregnancy.”

Another post at SteadyHealth was from a woman in her 30s who had the abortion at home with her boyfriend, a nurse. She took the first pill at an unnamed Planned Parenthood clinic:

“Exactly 25 hours after the mifepristone, I took 4 pills of misoprostol (880 mg), the prostaglandin that would start the contractions. I let the pills dissolve with some candy next to my cheeks. The 800 mg is double the amount recommended by the FDA but I was not aware of this until I did some fact-checking on PP. They prescribe a higher amount due to some inabsorption due to throwing up the pills, and to guarantee the medical dosage is high enough to prevent partial or incomplete miscarriage. I did throw up 45 minutes after the pills went into my mouth, so I hoped I got the medicine I needed. I tried taking analgesics but also threw those up soon after, so I had no choice but to endure the pain.

“Pain: Worst pain ever. No joke, no exaggeration. Awful, terrible, unquitting, terror. I don’t want to scare everyone here, but this was my experience. Some women only experience mild cramping, mine was severe. It vacillated from a 6 on the pain scale to an 8.5, never going down below a 4. This was without a break, started 45 minutes after the pills and increased to a crescendo 2 hours in. I couldn’t walk or talk. Just whimper and lay next to the toilet. Taking turns throwing up, diarrhea, and just writhing in pain. My boyfriend was at a loss of how to help me. All I could think of is will this ever end? Please just stop so I can breathe for 3 seconds! I had no energy to cry, just try to curl up and hope this will go away. I couldn’t hold down the vicodin for longer than 15 minutes so I hardly got any relief from that. I was not really bleeding at all either so all the cramping felt meaningless.”

So this is where we are today. Pro-lifers who want abortion to end are the ones insisting that until that day, women should be protected from unscrupulous practitioners and dangerous procedures, like off-label use of RU-486, and pro-choicers are the ones insisting that access to abortion “on demand and without apology” is much more important than any woman’s life.

If you stop to think about it, you’ll see that abortion turns everything upside down — the First Amendment, the Hippocratic Oath, parental rights, even common sense. But we can’t just throw up our hands and learn to live with the modern version of the coat hanger, no matter what the Supreme Court ultimately says about RU-486. We have to get rid of abortion by documenting every single instance where it proves to be a bad product, and then we have to recall it. Pull it from the shelves.

If you agree with me that we need a nationwide abortion recall, please go to RecallAbortion.com and sign the petition.

Posted in Contraception, Health Care, RU-486 | 2 Comments »
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.

Perpetuating the myth that pro-lifers don’t care about women and children

Friday, September 6th, 2013

130906 Janet Blog Image

Elizabeth Jahr, a student at Marymount University, wrote an op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor that suggested pro-lifers should skip the March for Life in January and instead use the money they would have spent to get there to provide pre-natal care for 6,600 women, or pre-natal vitamins for 25,000. I should be infuriated by her suggestion that we are wasting our money at the March, but I understand that her naiveté is informing her opinion.

Planned Parenthood, which kills more than 300,000 unborn children every year, receives $1.5 million in taxpayer funding EVERY DAY. Pro-aborts will helpfully point out that tax funding can’t be used for abortion-related programs, to which I say, baloney. While committing more than one-quarter of the nation’s abortions annually, Planned Parenthood refers 1,000 or fewer women to adoption agencies every year. There is no payday for an abortionist if there is no abortion. Planned Parenthood could use that taxpayer money to provide prenatal services, but they don’t. According to an analysis by the American Center for Law and Justice, prenatal care accounts for just 0.28 of the services provided. So maybe Ms. Jahr should take Planned Parenthood to task.

The Monitor piece also omits any mention of the real, concrete help offered to women at 3,000 pregnancy help centers across the country. There are four times as many of these centers as there are abortion clinics, but they are rarely seen in the mainstream media, and only then when someone is headed to court to force the centers to hang signs that say “We don’t do abortions here.”

The centers are often taken to task for providing “medically inaccurate information” by pointing out the link between abortion and breast cancer. This is another instance of the mainstream media accepting as gospel truth that there is no such link. We know otherwise. As I learned as I was researching my book, “Recall Abortion,” the abortion-breast cancer link has been reported in more than 60 peer-reviewed scientific studies. And a study out this year found that since 1976, there has been a significant increase in the most aggressive breast cancers among young women. The study authors don’t theorize what might be causing this increase, but abortion was legalized three years earlier than the trend began, and that can’t be a coincidence.

But I’m getting off track. Pro-life people are criticized every day for not caring enough about babies once they’re born, or not caring about the women facing unplanned pregnancies. Those are unfair characterizations. I can’t even count the people I know who have adopted children, including special needs babies, or those who have opened their homes and hearts to pregnant women and girls. We are painted as judgmental and unforgiving toward those who have had abortions, which is another lie. Many programs, like our own Rachel’s Vineyard, offer help and healing to women, and men, suffering after an abortion. Every day, pro-life groups throw baby showers for pregnant women, drive them to doctor’s appointments and even accompany them in labor and delivery. Just about every pro-life event has at least one mother there, with her child, happy to talk about the day she changed her mind and chose life.

Ms. Jahr is saying we should put our money where our mouths are, and I can assure you that we do. And we unapologetically plan for the next March for Life because it is much, much more than a few hours spent standing in the cold holding signs. It’s a vital gathering of pro-lifers who learn from each other, celebrate each other’s victories, carry each other’s burdens and show the world that 40 years – almost 41 now – since our nation legalized murder, we are stronger, more committed, and more assured of victory than ever.

 

Posted in Abortion | 4 Comments »
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.

NY Times’ wedding announcement details a couple’s abortion

Wednesday, September 4th, 2013

                                                         Udonis Haslem and Faith Rein

 
The pro-abort camp has sunk to a new low in its well-orchestrated effort to eliminate the “stigma” of abortion. A story in the Sept. 1 print edition of the  New York Times “Weddings/Celebrations” section included information about the couple’s abortion in 2002, when they were deeply in love but too deeply involved in their respective athletic careers to let their child live.

 Udonis Haslem, now of the NBA’s Miami Heat, and Faith Rein, became a couple in May 2001. A year later, she became pregnant. She was a junior at college, he was a senior.

 From the story:

 “Despite the pregnancy, she was busy with track meets and helping him complete homework. The timing was bad.

 “ ‘I am not a huge fan of abortion, but we both had sports careers, plus we could not financially handle a baby,’ said Haslem, noting how he struggled with supporting Kedonis, the son he had in high school, who is now 14 and lives with his mother.”

 This next part will really tug at your heart strings. It’s Ms. Rein’s turn to speak.

 “ ‘Udonis appreciated that I was willing to have an abortion,’ Ms. Rein said. “I found him caring, supportive, nurturing and all over me to be sure I was OK. I saw another side of him during that difficult time and fell deeply in love. He had a big heart and was the whole package.’ “

 I am always amazed by how low we can sink as a society. Now a man can show his big heart by sticking around after an abortion? It’s true, that doesn’t happen much; usually the man has hightailed it while his girlfriend is still recovering in a bloody recliner in the back room of the “safe and legal” abortion mill. But honestly, should his willingness not to bolt be the measure of a man?

 Pro-aborts are ecstatic that the Times included the murder of the couple’s first child in their wedding announcement (they now have two living children together). From ThinkProgress.com: “The New York Times’ decision to include those details in a column in its prominent wedding section is a small step toward dispelling the persistent abortion stigma that’s deeply ingrained in our society.” 

Jezebel.com says the story shows that abortion is “a decision to be considered or ignored or made or nearly made by people based on their own priorities and not some imaginary standard of adulthood made by a pious, anti-choice finger-waggers (sic).”

 The Frisky, Salon, basically all the abortion-loving media sites commended the couple and the Times for courage and commitment to choice.

 But here’s another example of a media site willing to tell the truth, and I think it is much more accurate in showing exactly who is empowered by legal abortion. This post at ReturnofKings.com, written by “Bacon,” is titled “How To Convince a Girl to Get an Abortion.” It details how to talk a girlfriend or “long-term booty call” into aborting her child, and also gives advice for coercing into abortion “girls where minimal emotions were involved in the sexual relationship.”

 This advice is for the girlfriend: “… Explain if she has the abortion now, you will be able to plan your lives together so that everything is perfect. Then, after she agrees and has the abortion, dump her.”

 And this is for the hook-up: “ … Explain to her in no uncertain terms that you will not be a father to this child…. To instill the seriousness of your message, add that you will refuse any efforts in the future to include you in the child’s life.”

 This is reality for the majority of women who make the irrevocable choice to abort: A dead child and an ex-boyfriend.

 It’s not the stigma of abortion that’s the problem. Abortion is the problem.

 To experience what it’s really like to have an abortion, read the stories of dozens of women who are quoted in my book, “Recall Abortion.” Go to RecallAbortion.com to order.

Posted in Abortion, Stigma | 15 Comments »
Click here to leave a comment for
the article above.