Category archives: Abortion

Blogs 4 Life Recap from Twitter

by Krystle Gabele

January 22, 2009

In case you missed Blogs 4 Life, there is a great way for you to read (in 140 characters or less) about the event. The Twitter hashtag #B4L has gained some considerable traction today.

Here’s the list of those Twitter-ing from Blogs 4 Life.

Hopefully, you will be able to join the fun next year as we commemorate March for Life 2010 and Blogs 4 Life 2010.

Blogs 4 Life 2009

by Krystle Gabele

January 15, 2009

It’s that time of year again! Blogs 4 Life 2009 will be taking place on Thursday, January 22 from 8:30-11:30 a.m. at the FRC Headquarters in Washington, D.C. B4L will take place on the same day as March For Life, and will provide an amazing opportunity to hear from renowned conservative voices such as: U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, Amanda Carpenter, Jill Stanek, Michael New, Ph.D., Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., Michael Illions, Chris Gacek, J.D., Ph.D., and Martha Shuping, M.D.

This is a great opportunity for bloggers to network and grow in their knowledge of how internet technology can be used to promote life and bring ideas into action in a post-Roe America.

If you are unable to make B4L will also have a webcast that will be live streaming on FRC’s website. Additionally, there will be a Twitter hashtag devoted to B4L (#B4L) for those who are interested.

I hope to see you there.

Tales of Chemical Abortion in the New York Times

by Chris Gacek

January 8, 2009

 

On January 5, 2009, the New York Times carried an article (“For Privacy’s Sake, Taking Risks to End Pregnancy” by Jennifer R. Lee and Cara Buckley) describing the fact that many Dominican women in New York City are aborting using the anti-ulcer drug, misoprostol (Cytotec).  Misoprostol is also the second drug in the FDA-approved abortion regimen of mifepristone (RU-486 or Mifeprex) and misoprostol.  Using misoprostol alone is a practice that is widely found in Latin American nations because misoprostol is cheap and available in pharmacies while mifepristone is either expensive, restricted in distribution, or both.  (From some quick web research: RU-486 does not appear to be approved in many Latin American nations; it isn’t even approved in Canada.)

Access to RU-486 is tightly controlled in the United States, but misoprostol is sold in drug stores as an anti-ulcer medication for people who take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS).  In New York City “women can obtain the pills either through pharmacies that are willing to bend the rules and provide the medicine without a prescription or by having the drugs shipped from overseas.”

The RU-486 regimen was developed so that mifepristone could chemically end the pregnancy’s development while relying on misoprostol to then bring about the violent uterine contractions needed to expel the “products of conception.”  With misoprostol-only abortions the mifepristone-related chemical action does not occur, and abortions, like those reported in the article, depend primarily on termination based on contractions and expulsion.  Because of the dual action, RU-486 abortions are more effective than misoprostol-only abortions, but even they fail 3-5% of the time.

To their credit, Lee and Buckley do note that misoprostol abortions have “side effects” that “can be serious, and include rupture of the uterus, severe bleeding and shock.”  The article also quotes a doctor who has studied misoprostol abortions in New York City where “he saw a lot of Dominican immigrants with incomplete abortions in the emergency room.” 

Of course, this is the pattern that we at FRC, along with doctors from the American Association of Pro Life Ob/Gyns (“AAPLOG”), have observed.  We analyzed RU-486 adverse event reports obtained from the FDA via the Freedom of Information Act.  Many chemical abortions do not complete themselves and women are forced to seek out emergency room care while they are tremendously sick.  Blood loss can be significant sometimes requiring transfusions.

Instead of portraying these abortions as events that end the life of a human being while abusing the bodies of the women who have them, chemical abortions are portrayed in a benign light in the article.  But the reality is much different. 

For more on RU-486 abortions and the drug’s U.S. approval, download Politicized Science: The Manipulated Approval of RU-486 and Its Dangers to Women’s Health.

Responding to Guttmacher’s Attack

by Michael New

December 19, 2008

Earlier this month, the Alan Guttmacher Institute attacked my September Family Research Council study which documented the effectiveness of state level pro-life parental involvement laws. They claim that my methodology is ‘faulty.’ They also argue that forcing minors to reveal their pregnancy to their parents places teens at risk of abuse.

In my response I document three studies in peer reviewed journals that show that the overall incidence of abortion among minors declines after the passage of parental involvement laws. Additionally,parental involvement laws protect minors in other ways. Parental involvement laws make it more difficult for child predators to use abortions to cover up their criminal behavior.

Furthermore, many minors seeking abortions without their parents’ knowledge are at risk because they are unaware of their own medical history. In my response, I report cases where minors undergoing abortions died because they experienced an allergic reaction to the anesthesia.

It is for these reasons and others that many district attorneys, law enforcement officials, and groups representing crisis pregnancy centers support pro-life parental involvement laws. Here is a link to my full response [PDF].

Blogs for Life 2009

by Jared Bridges

December 16, 2008

If you haven’t already, mark your calendars for the fourth-annual Blogs For Life conference on January 22nd, 2009. It will again be hosted here at Family Research Council Headquarters in Washington, D.C. and will run from 8:30 - 11:30a.m.

This year’s event will, as usual, precede the March for Life, which marks the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. We’ll be webcasting the event again, and we’re in the process of lining up another great group of speakers, so stay tuned to this spot for more information.

In the meantime, check out last year’s lineup.

More information here.

If FOCA is passed, then Catholic Hospitals are in Danger of Closing

by Krystle Gabele

December 9, 2008

This morning, I read an article in The Washington Examiner about how the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would be a huge threat to Catholic health care systems, not just in Maryland, but around the nation. 

Barack Obama has pledged the very first thing he would sign into law would be legislation aimed towards making abortion legal throughout the pregnancy and place the burden on taxpayers to cover this horrific procedure.

With this type of legislation being possibly enacted, many bishops are considering closing Catholic hospitals.  At a recent general meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Chicago Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki said, “We may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely.”  In Maryland, there are eight hospitals that would be threatened, including St. Joseph Medical Center in Towson, which is nationally renowned for their cardiac care center.

According to our own government affairs department here at FRC, Maryland, along with six other states has legislation similar to FOCA.

In Maryland , FOCA-type legislation has been on the books since 1991.   According to Planned Parenthood’s Alan Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rate in the United States DECREASED nine percent since 2000 to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 2005.  By contrast, the state of Maryland in 2005 produced a rate of 31.5 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age, an INCREASE of eight percent since 1991.”

Hopefully, Congress will use common sense and not pass such a detrimental piece of legislation that would threaten quality medical care straight across the board.

 

New Mental Health Studies Dispel Myth That Abortion is a ‘Non-Event’

by Moira Gaul

December 5, 2008

News of note this week is that two new studies published in peer-reviewed journals continue to link abortion and negative mental health effects.

The first paper , published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, analyzed data from the National Comorbidity Survey, the most comprehensive national dataset on the prevalence of psychological disorders, to explore associations between abortion history and mental health. Abortion was found to be associated with an increased risk of a number of mental health problems including: panic attacks, panic disorder, agoraphobia, post traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and major depression. The four study authors presented their research on topic at a panel discussion at the Family Research Council in October 2008.

The second paper, written by New Zealand researcher David Fergusson, analyzed data from a 30-year longitudinal study. The methodology, analysis employing two types of models for concurrent and long-term health effects, strong control for confounding variables, and comparison groups were all strengths of the study. The results indicated abortion to be associated with an increased risk of mental disorders, including major depression, anxiety disorder, illicit drug dependence, and suicide ideation.

The results of both studies add to the strong body of evidence detailing the causal association between abortion and mental health disorders. These findings continue to raise important implications concerning informed consent in healthcare. Women in this country deserve quality healthcare which provides accurate information on the associated risks accompanying abortion.

Also making news yesterday was a review paper published by researchers at Johns Hopkins University. In their own press release the university/dept. cited the review paper as the most rigorous review of the literature to date which purported that “studies with the most flawed methodology found negative mental health sequelae of abortion.” This is an insult to Johns Hopkins as a credible academic research institution. The exclusion of numerous studies published in peer-reviewed journals was a gaping omission. The ties of senior author Robert Blum to the Alan Guttmacher Institute as a board member and previous board chair as well as the funding of the university’s department of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, where three of the four study authors work, by Planned Parenthood of Maryland, serve as evidence of the political motivation behind the publishing of the study. Johns Hopkins should be admonished for stamping such sham science.

Women are increasingly coming forward to share about the negative impacts of abortion in their lives. Clinicians treating women for mental health disorders are increasingly stepping forward to tell the truth about the large numbers seeking treatment due to the fallout from abortion. The repeated lies from the pro-abortion community that abortion is a non-event or somehow “therapeutic” in women’s lives are being dispelled and the truth clearly elucidated by scientific findings.

Archives