My Review of “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer”

I just saw the movie “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer” and was moved to tears even though I already knew much of the story about the notorious Philadelphia abortionist who ran an outrageously filthy clinic where he executed late-term babies who survived abortion by callously cutting their spinal cords. I also knew that some of the women died, suffered serious complications or contracted diseases from dirty instruments during the 30 years Dr. Kermit Gosnell ran his politically protected clinic.

This PG 13 movie scrupulously avoids sensationalism but through great acting, writing and accurate depictions of the clinic and Gosnell himself (actual pictures were shown at the end of the movie), the enormity of the evil cannot be ignored.

The movie starts much like an episode of “Law and Order” portraying a drug bust but then expands as police raid Gosnell’s abortion clinic for evidence of illegal prescription drug sales and find even greater problems. After the initial reluctance to prosecute by the District Attorney because the case involves abortion, a courageous assistant district attorney puts her job on the line to prosecute Gosnell.

The trial of Gosnell is riveting, especially when an expert witness abortionist describes how to correctly perform a late-term abortion that is unnervingly similar in callousness to Gosnell’s. The testimony of girls as young as 15 when they were trained by Dr. Gosnell to be his unlicensed assistants is also devastating as they describe an aborted baby swimming in a toilet or another struggling to keep breathing. The trial is very contentious but a stunning development late in the trial determines the result.

I highly recommend seeing this movie that even opened the eyes of people like Ann McElhinney who was neutral on abortion until she worked on this film.

CONCLUSION

Although one of the most shocking aspects of the Gosnell trial was his cutting the spinal cords of babies who survived abortion, Kermit Gosnell was not the first known abortionist to deliberately end the lives of babies who survived abortions.

In 1999, nurse Jill Stanek was shocked to discover a live baby boy left to die after an induced-labor abortion  and found this was a common practice in her hospital. Her courageous testimony led to the 2002 “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” which extended legal protection to infants born alive after an abortion.

However, the lack of legal enforcement power in this Act led to the current “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act that not only requires physicians and abortion facilities to afford “the same degree” of care to a baby born alive during an abortion that would apply “to any other child born alive at the same gestational age,” including transportation to a hospital, but also mandates fines and the possibility of imprisonment for medical professionals found to be noncompliant.

This bill was passed in the US House of Representatives this year and sent to the Senate where (because of procedural hurdles), it might need 60 votes to pass and be signed into law by President Trump.

Although it might be difficult to pass the Act now because of the political entrenchment of abortion supporters in the Senate, passing this law would provide at least one fitting endnote to the horrors of Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s clinic.

Two Wonderful Stories: A Prenatal Misdiagnosis; Man Saves Grandchild from Abortion

A PRENATAL MISDIAGNOSIS

 Drew and Adriann Corpstein were devastated when they were told at 20 weeks that their unborn baby had a lethal brain abnormality called semilobar holoprosencephaly, an abnormality of brain development in which the brain doesn’t properly divide into right and left hemispheres. They were told that the baby might only live a few days as a “vegetable” and encouraged the couple to consider a late-term abortion.

Instead they decided to trust God, deliver their baby and love him for whatever time they had with him.

Baby Matthew was born on July 29 but just the next day, the doctor gave them the stunning news that Baby Matthew did NOT have the lethal brain condition but rather hydrocephalus-an excess of fluid around the brain that can be treated with a shunt. Baby Matthew could then survive and even have the chance of a fully functioning life! (Click here to see a beautiful video of Baby Matthew and his parents.)

Personally, I have seen more than one prenatal diagnosis turn out to be wrong.

Of course, prenatal testing is not always wrong but there is cause for concern about the number of unborn babies misdiagnosed, especially with some newer screening blood tests. (Please see my February blog A Dark Side of Prenatal Testing” )

But there are alternatives to abortion when the prenatal diagnosis turns out to be accurate.

As Baby Matthew’s parents mentioned in the article, they prepared for end of life care for him when he was expected to die shortly after birth and there are often such hospices available in many areas.

There are also organizations like Prenatal Partners for Life  and Be Not Afraid that provide support, information, resources and encouragement for carrying to term with an adverse prenatal diagnosis.

These organizations’ websites also have parents’ stories of their children with a range of prenatal diagnoses ranging from lethal ones like anencephaly to disabilities like Down Syndrome or Spina Bifida.

MAN SAVES GRANDCHILD FROM ABORTION

This month, I read an uplifting story that personally resonated with me.

With a heavy heart because his wife was “dead-set” on abortion for their 16 year old daughter, “Brian” took his daughter to A Woman’s Pregnancy Center  in Tallahassee, Florida. But when his daughter went in to speak to a counselor, “Brian” was surprised when a male counselor wanted to speak with him.

“Brian” didn’t know that when a client comes into A Women’s Pregnancy Center (a crisis pregnancy center) with another person, the staff determines the other person’s relationship to the client and invites the support person to speak with a different counselor about their thoughts and feelings on the client’s situation.

“Brian” told the counselor that his wife wanted their daughter to have an abortion and he wanted their daughter to be safe. But when the counselor told him, in effect, that ‘You are made in the image of God for a reason and a purpose. You are Eliza’s father AND the grandfather of her child. He is the Creator of the Universe and has given you this role. Trust Him, and He will equip you to take care of your family’, “Brian” changed.

He went to his daughter and said “Baby girl, we’ve got this.” He told his daughter to look at him and said “I’m going to take care of you.” His daughter burst into tears of relief.

Sherri Daume, director of client services at the clinic, explained about ministering to a support person when a woman is considering abortion:

“The support person is often as confused and scared for their loved one as the client herself. They might have a grandchild or niece or nephew in the picture. They usually want to help the client but don’t know how. We equip the support person with information and resources that help them support their loved one in a relevant way.”

I totally agree with this and I have personally seen the effects of such support.

When my oldest daughter Marie became pregnant at 18, her friends were “pro-choice” on abortion. But, as she told me, she knew too much about unborn babies and abortion from growing up in a pro-life family. For Marie, abortion was out of the question.

Marie was surprised but pleased when she told her “pro-choice” friends that she would not have an abortion and they enthusiastically supported her decision. Many even offered to help. However, they did not support her anguished but brave decision to release her baby for adoption.

I told her that I would support her if she decided to raise her baby herself but she decided that her and the father’s problems would keep her baby from having the best life possible.

That decision was hard for our family to accept but our beautiful oldest granddaughter turned 20 this week with the loving and proud parents who adopted her after birth. And despite my daughter’s untimely death almost 9 years ago, we are so grateful that our family will also be able to celebrate this milestone with her and the family who adopted her.

 

 

Journal of the American Medical Association Article Calls Crisis Pregnancy Centers “Legal but Unethical”

When I first started nursing school, abortion was illegal in all 50 states and the American Medical Association (AMA) was influential and widely admired.

But, as cited and influential in the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, the AMA dropped its’ opposition to abortion in 1970  after a few states legalized abortion with resolutions  that stated:

“abortion is a medical procedure that should be performed by a licensed physician in an accredited hospital only after consultation with two other physicians and in conformity with state law, and that no party to the procedure should be required to violate personally held moral principles”.

I remember how upset many doctors were with the AMA after Roe v Wade and many dropped out of the AMA.

Now, there are over one million MDs in the US  but less than 25% of practicing doctors are members of the AMA, down from 75% in the 1950s. (This is not just because of abortion but also the politics of the AMA.)

The AMA today now stands firmly for abortion rights and even against common sense conscience rights protection.

“AT ‘CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS’, CRITICS SAY, IDEOLOGY TRUMPS EVIDENCE”

This is the title of a July 18, 2018 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Rita Rubin, MA excoriating crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) as “legal but unethical”.

Among the allegedly “unethical” practices the article cites are that CPCs “don’t prescribe or provide birth control” and “dispense misleading information-sometimes mandated by the state-about disproved or exaggerated harms associated with abortion, including increased risk of breast cancer, depression and infertility”. The article also criticizes the free ultrasounds as “medically unnecessary” and “emotional manipulation”.

But, according to the article, the biggest ethical problem seems to be “withholding information” about obtaining abortions.

The article cites California as the first state to pass a crisis pregnancy mandatory disclosure law that mandates CPCs to “post or distribute a notice about California’s public programs that provide free or low-cost contraception, prenatal care, and abortion“.(Emphasis added)

The article criticizes the June 26, 2018, the US Supreme Court’s National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra decision that struck down the California law as likely unconstitutional.

The JAMA article also decries a recent Health and Human Services’ announcement that Title X family planning services grants includes “natural family planning methods” and that faith-based organizations are eligible to apply for such grants.

THE REAL FACTS ABOUT CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS

As even the JAMA article admits, there are more than 3500 CPCs in the US, more than twice the number of US institutions that performed at least 1 abortion in 2014 according to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. That is a decline of 3% between 2011 and 2014.

Obviously, crisis pregnancy centers are seen as threatening to the pro-abortion movement.

As CPC volunteer Patty Knap observed in her blog The Real Reason Crisis Pregnancy Centers Must Always be Free”,  “The difference between an abortion center and a pro-life pregnancy center is like day and night. Or life and death.”

Ms. Knap observes that, unlike an abortion clinic that charges for everything, CPCs don’t charge for anything-including pregnancy tests. Instead, Ms. Knap says, “Every pregnancy center in the country is constantly fundraising”.

Ms. Knap says offering their services without charge is necessary because the trust factor is so important. When their clients understand the motivation of someone who isn’t profiting from the decision they are making, they are more likely to accept the truth and real help.

CONCLUSION

Just as outrageous as California’s attempt to compel crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion is that so many mainstream media outlets continue to ignore or disparage the ongoing efforts of the pro-life movement to offer desperate women a loving opportunity for them and their unborn babies.

We may sometimes wonder if attending fundraising baby showers in our churches, picketing abortion clinics with telephone numbers for help, donating to Birthright, etc.  is really accomplishing much. But, as the successes of CPCs show, even the smallest effort by a great number of people can produce the awesome result of helping distressed mothers and saving their babies’ lives.

Caught in Social Media Bias

I have been hearing about Facebook blocking or restricting “conservative” content on the internet. Recently, there was a National Right to Life News story about a Republican judge from my state of Missouri who could not “boost”  (pay for reaching a wider audience) a pro-life video of his nephew overcoming a life-threatening birth defect detected prenatally. Facebook’s stunning rationale?

“Your Ad wasn’t approved because it doesn’t follow our Advertising Policies. We don’t allow ads that contain shocking, disrespectful or sensational content, including ads that depict violence or threats of violence.” (Emphasis added)

A short time ago, I saw that a shared written item from #NoAbortionCoercion on protecting conscience rights for healthcare providers on our National Association of Prolife Nurses (NAPN) Facebook page  was not allowed to be “boosted” because it also conflicted with Facebook’s advertising policies.

The item read:

“Conscience rights of healthcare providers must always be protected. As nurses, the government is constantly telling us what we must and mustn’t do when caring for our patients. There can be no coercion to act against our consciences. Compassion and love is and will always be at the center of what we do. #NoAbortionCoercion”

Our NAPN media nurse says that this has happened before and he has been told that some ads are considered “political”.

However, NAPN is a 501C3 educational organization, not a political one. We have only volunteers, not salaried employees. We do not endorse candidates.

I am a spokesperson for NAPN and as our NAPN website states :

“NAPN is a not-for-profit organization uniting nurses who seek excellence in nurturing for all, including the unborn, newborn, disabled, mentally and or/physically ill, the aged and the dying. Beginning in 1973, when abortion was accepted as a legal alternative to pregnancy, healthcare professionals have been confronted by an ever-increasing number of morally challenging life issues. The list of ethical dilemmas continues to grow: in vitro fertilization, cloning, fetal experimentation, organ donation and transplantation, nutrition and hydration, patient rights, certain sterilization practices, looming rationing of medical resources, assisted suicide and euthanasia, and stem cell research with its promise of advances in the treatment of disease. No one is more affected by these morally challenging issues than the nurse and the pressure to utilize unethical techniques and practices in the care of patients is increasing. Through a united, educational, professional organization such as NAPN, nurses can, in good conscience, deliver the best possible patient care while preserving, protecting and defending respect for human life.”

NAPN also helps to support nurses facing conscience rights legal battles and even offers a $1000 pro-life scholarship award each year to the school of the winning nursing student based on his or her essay, academic achievements, demonstration of leadership and participation in pro-life activities. Applications for the next 2018-2019 award will be posted soon on our website and Facebook page.

CONCLUSION

Of course, NAPN is only one of many groups and individuals complaining about apparent bias against pro-life or conservative groups on social media.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg testified in April before the US Congress that he had no knowledge of bias against conservatives but as Lifenews.com and other news sources have found, there is conservative speech being suppressed not only by Facebook but also Twitter, Google and YouTube. We need more than just reassurances that improvements will be made while the problems are still ongoing.

With so much of the mainstream media enthusiastically supporting abortion, assisted suicide and other deliberate death decisions while ignoring or negatively reporting on issues like conscience rights and alternatives like crisis pregnancy centers, it is especially important for the public to be able to access social media sites like NAPN’s for real facts.

In today’s volatile legal and cultural climate, we need all available information-not a double standard.

An “Acceptable” Prejudice

This week, Fox News had a story  about John Cronin, a young man with Down Syndrome who, with his father, founded and runs what is now a $4 million dollar company called Crazy Socks.

This story follows the February announcement that the new Gerber Spokesbaby is Lucas Warren who had Down Syndrome. The famous baby food company stated that Lucas “exemplifies Gerber’s longstanding heritage of recognizing that every baby is a Gerber baby.” (Emphasis added)

However, this past week, the influential ethicist Arthur L. Caplan, PhD wrote a commentary titled “Should It Be Harder to Get Abortions for Down Syndrome Babies?”
for Medscape, a password protected medical news website for health professionals.

In his commentary, ethicist Caplan recognizes the worries that “Down Syndrome is becoming increasingly rare in Europe and the United States” because of prenatal testing and abortion.

But he contends that because:

“In recent years, we have even seen kids with Down syndrome appearing on cheerleading squads, or being put into beauty pageants. It’s clear that there has been movement to not exile or isolate children in the United States with Down syndrome and to try and get them more mainstream.” (Emphasis added)

Nevertheless, ethicist Caplan accepts the ultimate “exile” of Down Syndrome by abortion because “After all, legally, you don’t have to have any reason to decide to end the pregnancy.” (Emphasis added) He additionally cites polls showing high public support for abortion for “genetic  or hereditary diseases”.

Therefore he also criticizes the few states that have passed laws to protect unborn babies testing positive for Down Syndrome from abortion. (Emphasis added)

Dr. Caplan says he is not against “offering information to parents” about Down Syndrome but he is against “mandating” that such information be given.

Perhaps Dr. Caplan has forgotten that in 2008, the Kennedy Brownback law “Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act” was overwhelmingly passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law “(t)o amend the Public Health Service Act to increase the provision of scientifically sound information and support services to patients receiving a positive test diagnosis for Down syndrome or other prenatally and postnatally diagnosed conditions.”

DOWN SYNDROME AND PREJUDICE

Unfortunately, prenatal discrimination naturally leads to postnatal discrimination as I personally discovered when my husband and I had our daughter Karen who had Down Syndrome and a heart defect. We were shocked when the cardiologist gave us the option of refusing cardiac surgery and letting her die despite the excellent chance for survival with surgery.

Although we chose life for our daughter, we later found that Karen was secretly made a “Do not Resuscitate” (DNR) during one hospitalization by our trusted pediatrician who said I was “too emotionally involved with that retarded baby”. Unfortunately, we eventually lost our Karen to complications from pneumonia before her planned surgery.

I’m sure Dr. Caplan would not be in favor of terminating anyone because of race, sex, etc. but he apparently has a “politically correct” blind spot when it comes to abortion.

Ironically, one of the state laws that ethicist Caplan objects to states:

“That Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because of the fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Downs syndrome or any other disability.”  (Emphasis added)

Sadly, that Indiana law was ruled unconstitutional in 2018 because of the legal “right to abortion” for any or no reason at all.

CONCLUSION

There is no test that will prove that an unborn baby is “perfect”, either before or after birth. For example, many of us have had our so-called “normal” children unexpectedly die or become addicted to illegal drugs years after birth. It is a sad conceit to assume that we can ensure the happiness of ourselves and our families by testing and then controlling which of our unborn babies are allowed to live.

In reality, a 2016 study “Positive attitudes prevail within families of people with Down syndrome” showed that almost 90% of families with members having Down Syndrome reported pride, love and even feelings of enrichment.

And a 2011 study in the American Journal of Medical Genetics titled “Self-perceptions from People with Down Syndrome “ found that “99% of people with Down syndrome indicated that they were happy with their lives”.

Nevertheless, as those of us who have had children with Down Syndrome know, the negative stereotypes of people with Down Syndrome persist despite these studies and often affect the medical professionals and ethicists charged with giving women and families information and options (including adoption) for conditions like Down Syndrome. Incomplete or biased information can be deadly and result in the now up to 90% of mothers who abort their unborn babies after a diagnosis of Down Syndrome.

The world is so much poorer without people like my late daughter Karen who was greatly loved. Prejudice against Down Syndrome justified as the legal “right to abortion” is lethal, not “acceptable”.

Women and their families surely deserve both comprehensive information and support when a prenatal diagnosis like Down Syndrome is made.

And every child, born or unborn, deserves a chance for life.

Conscientious Objection and the Duty to Refer

When the Trump administration announced a new department of Conscience and Religious Freedom, the pushback from abortion and assisted suicide proponents like Planned Parenthood and Compassion and Choices was immediate and accompanied by apocalyptic predictions of harm to patients.

Now the term “conscientious objection” is increasingly being used rather than “conscience rights” when it comes to health care professionals. I believe this is not accidental. The term “conscience rights” is a powerful and accepted term about individual rights while “conscientious objection” is associated with the traditional definition of  “A person who refuses to serve in the military due to religious or strong philosophical views against war or killing” and who “may be required to perform some nonviolent work like driving an ambulance.” (Emphasis added)

Nevertheless, in a March 30, 2018 Medscape (password protected) article titled “Should Clinicians With Conscientious Objections Be Protected?”, well-known ethicist Arthur L. Caplan, PhD criticizes the new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division as an expensive “overreaction” that can be mediated by allowing health care professionals to refuse to provide a legal act (like abortion or assisted suicide in certain areas NV) but requiring them “to tell patients where they can go and how they can go about getting it.”

This echoes last year’s New England Journal of Medicine article “Physicians, Not Conscripts — Conscientious Objection in Health Care” by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (one of the architects of Obamacare) and Ronit Y. Stahl, PhD. who insist that medical professionals “cannot completely absent themselves from providing these services” and are still required to convey “accurate information” and provide “timely referrals to ensure patients receive care.”

The authors even state that:

“Health care professionals who are unwilling to accept these limits have two choices: select an area of medicine, such as radiology, that will not put them in situations that conflict with their personal morality or, if there is no such area, leave the profession. “ (Emphasis added)

Their rationale for this extreme position is that “the patient comes first, which means the patient’s conscience and autonomy receive priority over those of the physician.”  (Emphasis added)

However, this could now conflict with the recently amended federal Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) that states:

 “No qualified health plan offered through an Exchange may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.”

and

“The Federal Government, and any State or local government or health care provider that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act) or any health plan created under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act), may not subject an individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity does not provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.” (All emphasis added)

THE DUTY TO “CONVEY ACCURATE INFORMATION” AND “REFER”

Ironically, do groups like Planned Parenthood and Compassion & Choices really want to require a medical professional opposed to abortion and/or assisted suicide to convey accurate information?

First of all, medical referrals require a measure of trust. For example, no doctor or nurse would knowingly refer a patient to another doctor or organization that he/ she considers incompetent or unethical or for a procedure the medical professional considers harmful to the patient. When a patient asks for procedures like abortion or assisted suicide, the medical professional should be free to refer the patient to support services like crisis pregnancy centers, etc. or to an ethical palliative care specialist, mental health expert, etc. The medical professional should also be free to convey accurate information regarding abortion such as  how abortions are performed, potential physical and emotional complications, fetal development, etc.  With assisted suicide, the medical professional should be free to discuss such issues as the potential complications of a lethal overdose, the potential effects on family and friends, the criminal/ civil immunity of the assisted suicide doctor if the assisted suicide goes awry, etc.

Medical professionals should also have the right to be honest and tell patients if they personally don’t know any doctor or organization that they would recommend to provide a referral for abortion or assisted suicide.

Patients, especially those in distress, need a well-informed medical professional who really listens to their concerns and responds with facts and helpful options rather than one who just hands out a “politically correct” referral.

CONCLUSION

The so-called duty to perform/participate in a life-ending procedure or refer for one is not really about conscience rights but rather another way to extinguish resistance to abortion and assisted suicide, normalize such procedures into standard medical practice and discourage/bully ethical health care professionals into leaving or never entering the medical professions.

Those of us who believe in medical ethics as, first and foremost, doing no harm to patients must actively fight this for the sake of our professions and for the safety of the public that puts their lives in our hands.

If we don’t speak up for our medical professions and our patients, who will?

 

What You Need to Know About Medical Abortion and Abortion Reversal

This month Governor Butch Otter signed a law making Idaho the fifth state to mandate that women getting a medical (drug-induced) abortion be told that the abortion may possibly be stopped after the first dose if the woman changes her mind about having the abortion. This abortion reversal process  involves taking the hormone progesterone to counteract the first abortion drug mifepristone and before taking the second drug misoprostol 36-72 hours later that causes expulsion of the unborn baby. There is now a website at www.abortionpillreversal.com for information on abortion reversal that includes a hotline phone number at 1-877-558-0333.

The first abortion reversal  was performed by Dr. Matthew Harrison in 2007 and by 2015, he claimed that more than 213 babies had been saved. Although not always successful, abortion reversal has resulted in hundreds more babies alive today. Last December, the California Board of Registered Nursing finally notified Heartbeat International that it can now grant continuing education units (CEUs) to nurses who study the life-saving process known as Abortion Pill Reversal.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups are not pleased.

As I wrote in my February 16, 2017 blog “Are Mail Order Abortions Coming?” , medical abortions rates now rival surgical abortion rates while abortion clinics are closing at a record pace because of factors like “economic difficulties”, “a generally hostile atmosphere and declining demand”. Thus, the medical abortion procedure has become more appealing to groups like Planned Parenthood and now there are even efforts to provide more medical abortions by telemedicine even though a 2014 study found more complications with medical abortions than surgical ones.

THE PROMOTION AND CHANGING CRITERIA FOR MEDICAL ABORTION

In a disturbing March 27, 2018 Medscape article Medical Abortion in Very Early Pregnancy” (password protected),  Peter Kovacs, MD, PhD touts a study that allegedly shows medical abortion is now safe even “as soon as early pregnancy is diagnosed” and even before an ultrasound can show if the unborn baby is developing outside the womb. This abnormality is called an ectopic pregnancy and, if not detected early, can result in life-threatening complications and surgery.  Ectopic pregnancy occurs in 1-2% of  all pregnancies.

But as even Dr. Kovacs admits:

“Under well-controlled conditions using sedation and appropriate pain control, surgical termination of pregnancy is associated with minimal bleeding or pain. However, it can be associated with surgical complications (trauma, heavier bleeding, infection), which can lead to further interventions.

Medical abortion can be more painful because the products of conception have to be expelled from the uterus, and it is accompanied by prolonged bleeding. Still, medical abortion obviates surgical complications and is significantly cheaper.” (Emphasis added)

He recommends  “(A)propriate patient selection (no increased risk for or symptoms of ectopic pregnancy, appropriate follow-up to confirm successful abortion, patient compliance)” as obviously important. (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Planned Parenthood tells women that having a medical abortion (at home, of course) is just “kind of like having a really heavy, crampy period” with large clots and that “(a)ny chills, fevers, or nausea you have should go away pretty quickly”.

And that:

“People can have a range of emotions after having an abortion. Most people feel relief, but sometimes people feel sad or regretful. This is totally normal. If your mood keeps you from doing the things you usually do each day, call your doctor or nurse for help” along with numbers to call for “free, confidential, and non-judgmental emotional support after an abortion.” (Emphasis added)

But two things Planned Parenthood does not tell women about is medical abortion reversal and the availability of real assistance with a problematic pregnancy including crisis pregnancy centers that now outnumber abortion clinics in the US.

Women need-and have a right-to know about both these alternatives.  It’s up to all of us to make sure as many women as possible know this.

Should Nurses or Other Non-Physicians Be Allowed to Perform Abortions?

When abortion was legalized in the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, we were told that abortion should be a private decision between a woman and her doctor.

Now there is a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union to force the state of Maine to allow abortions by non-physicians such as nurses and midwives.

Why? Although Planned Parenthood and the ACLU claim that this is about the safety of first-trimester abortion and the lack of enough accessible abortion clinics as well as “threats of violence”, the truth is that it is getting harder and harder to find doctors willing to do abortions.

This new expansion of abortion is part of a larger movement to remove restrictions on abortion. According to the liberal Public Leadership Institute, already “California, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon and Vermont allow trained and licensed APCs (advance practice clinicians like nurses and physician assistants) to perform aspiration abortions.”

The Institute even provides model legislation for states called the ““Qualified Providers of Abortion Act” and cites the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as recommending “expanding the pool of non-obstetrician/gynecologist abortion providers by training advanced-practice clinicians (APCs)—nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives and physician assistants—to perform aspiration (aka suction or vacuum) abortions.”

 ABORTION AND SAFETY

The source cited for the claim of safety for non-physician abortions is a new National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report, “The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States.”

This report cites a 2013 study “Safety of Aspiration Abortion Performed by Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nurse Midwifes, and Physician Assistants Under a California Legal Waiver”  that dismissed the result of twice the number of complications for the non-physicians vs physicians as not “clinically relevant”.

But finding any true statistics on complications of abortion (including death) is already virtually impossible because according to the national Centers for Disease Control (CDC)  “states and areas voluntarily report data to CDC for inclusion in its annual Abortion Surveillance Report. CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health prepares surveillance reports as data become available. There is no national requirement for data submission or reporting.” (Emphasis added)

In addition, abortion clinic health inspections are often lax or ignored. As the Washington Free Beacon reported last October, according to the 2016 “Unsafe-How the Public Health Crisis in America’s Abortion Clinics Endangers Women report from the pro-life advocacy group Americans United for Life, “between 2008 and 2016, 227 abortion clinics were cited for over 1,400 health and safety deficiencies.”

According to Arina Grossu, a bioethicist and the director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, “Restaurants and tanning salons and vet clinics, they’re all more closely regulated than the abortion industry.”

This, of course, does not take into account the physical, spiritual and emotional toll of abortion on women that I have seen both personally and professionally.

CONCLUSION

In the 2016 US Supreme Court’s Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstadt at decision held that:

“Two provisions in a Texas law – requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and requiring abortion clinics in the state to have facilities comparable to an ambulatory surgical center – place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and therefore violate the Constitution.”

Abortion supporters cheered and are now emboldened to go farther in their quest for tax-payer funded abortion on demand without restrictions.

But all is not lost.

The number of abortions is declining and there are now more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion clinics.  and more lives are being saved. Programs like Project Rachel are helping even more women and men suffering from the tremendous psychological damage caused by abortion.

Most women are choosing life after viewing an ultrasound of their baby and more  people are opposing taxpayer funding of groups like Planned Parenthood, especially after the scandal of selling aborted babies’ body parts.

But most importantly, we must keep working towards a society that once again views abortion as unthinkable.

The New Federal Conscience and Religious Freedom Division

As a nurse threatened with termination for refusing to participate in an unethical health care decision years ago, I have a special interest in conscience rights for health care professionals.

Over the past several decades, new threats to conscience rights have widened from refusing to participate in abortions to other deliberate death decisions like withdrawal of feedings from people with serious brain injuries, VSED (voluntary stopping of eating and drinking), terminal sedation and physician-assisted suicide.

Thus, I am pleased that the Trump administration just announced the new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division  in the department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to enforce “federal laws that protect conscience and the free exercise of religion and prohibit coercion and discrimination in health and human services”. The division specifically mentions “issues such as abortion and assisted suicide (among others) in HHS-funded or conducted programs and activities” and includes a link to file a conscience or religious freedom complaint “if you feel a health care provider or government agency coerced or discriminated against you (or someone else) unlawfully”.

Predictably, both Compassion and Choices and Planned Parenthood immediately condemned the new department.

In a recent fundraising email, Compassion and Choices states that:

 “This office (OCR) is not about freedom; it’s about denying patient autonomy. Under their proposed rules, providers are encouraged to impose their own religious beliefs on their patients and withhold vital information about treatment options from their patients — up to, and including, the option of medical aid in dying. And your federal tax dollars will be used to protect physicians who make the unconscionable decision to willfully withhold crucial information regarding their care from a patient and abandon them when they are most vulnerable.” (Emphasis added)

Planned Parenthood is just as adamant and includes other issues in their reaction:

“OCR is an important office within the HHS that’s meant to protect health care for marginalized communities, including LGBTQ people and underserved women. But the creation of the new “Conscience and Religious Freedom Division” paves the way for discrimination against people for a variety of reasons — be it their gender identity, sexual orientation, or decision to access a safe, legal abortion.” (Emphasis in original)

A SHORT RECENT HISTORY OF FEDERAL CONSCIENCE RIGHTS PROTECTIONS

In response to declining numbers of doctors willing to do abortions in the 1990s, efforts began to mainstream abortion into the health professions such as requiring abortion training for OB/GYNs, shifting training and practice into teaching hospitals and  integrating abortion into regular health care.

The National Abortion Federation along with Medical Students for Choice, pushed for change and in 1995, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education ruled that OB/GYN residency programs must include abortion training or lose accreditation.

That was overturned the next year with the Coats Amendment passed by Congress but  efforts to marginalize pro-life medical professionals continued, especially with newly passed physician-assisted suicide laws and well-publicized withdrawal of feeding tube cases like Terri Schiavo’s.

In 2008, the Christian Medical Association compiled a list of dozens of real-life cases of discrimination in health care, including doctors, medical students, nurses and pharmacists.

That same year, President Bush strengthened the HHS rules protecting the conscience rights of doctors and nurses to refuse to perform abortions.

In 2011, the Obama administration dismantled key provisions of the Bush administration conscience rights rules.

That same year, 12 New Jersey nurses faced firing for refusal to participate in abortion and had to rely on groups like Alliance Defending Freedom to bring a  lawsuit defending their rights. They were finally vindicated in 2013.

Right now, Wisconsin is considering a physician-assisted suicide bill that states a doctor’s refusal to prescribe the lethal drugs or refer the patient to a willing doctor “constitutes unprofessional conduct”.

Obviously, conscience rights cannot depend just on litigation, conflicting state laws or professional organization positions like the American Medical Association’s  or American Nurses Association’s that don’t vigorously defend conscience rights.

As explained on the Dorsey Health Care group website ,

“In January 2018, OCR announced a proposed rule to strengthen conscience-based protections for individuals and entities with objections to certain activities based on religious belief and moral convictions.”

“OCR now proposes to return much of 45 CFR part 88 to its 2008 Bush-era form, adding a requirement that certain recipients of HHS funds certify they comply with conscience protection laws and notify individuals of their rights thereunder”, enhance investigative and enforcement abilities and expands its enforcement authority to more conscience-protection laws than the 2008 or 2011 iterations. It will also “handle complaints [both formal and not], perform compliance reviews, investigate, and seek appropriate action,” including terminating funding and requiring repayment. OCR states “that a more centralized approach to enforcement of conscience protections is necessary in part due to rapidly rising complaints.” (Emphasis added) Comments on this proposed rule can be submitted by March 27, 2018.

CONCLUSION

Health care professionals with pro-life views have been under attack for decades. It’s more than just not being “politically correct”; the very existence of such health care professionals threatens the appropriation of health care by groups dedicated to promoting abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia as civil rights.

Without strong conscience rights protections like a successful Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, they will succeed in making health care termination-friendly.

But in the end, enforcement of the most basic civil right of health care professionals to provide care for patients without being required to participate in life-destroying  activities should not be determined by politics or popularity polls but by the acceptance of the universal principle of respect and protection for human life.

 

A Dark Side of Prenatal Testing

In her February 2018 article “Prenatal Testing and Denial of Care” , Bridget Mora exposes another dark side of prenatal testing: refusal to treat. Ms. Mora is the community education and communications coordinator for Be Not Afraid, a nonprofit that supports parents experiencing a prenatal diagnosis and carrying to term.

While most people have heard of amniocentesis (using a needle to extract and analyze the fluid surrounding an unborn baby in the second trimester), many people are unaware of the screening blood tests that have now become virtually routine for all pregnant women.

The difference is that blood screening tests may indicate a probability or risk score that a baby has a chromosomal anomaly, but a definitive diagnosis can only be made through amniocentesis or CVS (Chorionic villus sampling) using a needle to take a sample of tissue from an unborn baby’s placenta for analysis in the first trimester. Tragically, some parents make a decision to abort based on just a blood screening test.

Ms. Mora tells the story of Oliver Keith whose parents refused amniocentesis because of the risk of miscarriage. When an ultrasound showed abnormalities that suggested a genetic condition like Trisomy 13 or 18, the parents agreed to a blood test when the doctor told them that a diagnosis would ensure the proper treatment when Oliver was born.

However, when the results of the tests showed that Oliver had Trisomy 18, their son was “denied routine care during labor as well as the heart surgery that the same doctors had said would be necessary before the trisomy 18 diagnosis”.

The parents felt that Oliver was being discriminated against because of his trisomy 18 diagnosis and tried to give Oliver every chance at life but, in the end, Oliver died.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PRENATAL TESTING

When I had my last child in 1985, I was offered but refused amniocentesis. In my case, it was offered because I had previously had Karen, my daughter with Down Syndrome.

Some people asked if I was brave or stupid. I told them that I was just well-informed after researching both amniocentesis and CVS.

I knew that both procedures carry a risk of miscarriage and that I would never abort a child because of a disability. I also knew that such procedures can only test for some of the thousands of known “birth defects” and I personally met families who were erroneously told that their child had a defect but were born healthy.

After that, I was remarkably worry-free during my last pregnancy and delivered a healthy girl.

But maternity care has changed a lot since 1985.

Ms. Mora has done a great service in researching newer developments in prenatal testing that now include routine blood tests for all expectant mothers regardless of age or risk factors.

She notes that most parents are simply looking for reassurance that their baby is healthy.

But she also notes:

“Parents may not understand the difference between screening and diagnostic tests or be prepared for the consequences of a poor diagnosis or prognosis.

Very few genetic conditions can be treated prenatally, so if a disability is found, the “cure” proposed by the medical team is frequently abortion. In our utilitarian culture, prenatal screening has increasingly become a search-and-destroy mission to detect and eliminate babies with disabilities as early in pregnancy as possible.

Pressure to abort quickly, before they have had time to process a poor diagnosis and grieve the loss of the healthy child they expected, can throw parents off their usual moral compass.”

PHYSICIAN ATTITUDES MATTER

Ms. Mora is especially concerned about a newer and expensive cell-free fetal DNA test (also called NIPT) done in the first trimester using the mother’s blood. She says that although promoted as up to 99% accurate, independent laboratory studies have found that a positive result for a genetic condition can be incorrect 50% of the time or more.

Ms. Mora writes:

“Despite these serious limitations, adverse NIPT results all too frequently lead parents to have an abortion or doctors to alter treatment.

If a disability or potential disability is detected, the pressure to abort quickly may become intense. Although most parents undergo prenatal screening or testing with no plan to abort on the basis of the results, 80 percent decide to abort after being told their unborn baby has a severe congenital anomaly.

Counseling from physicians is often directive and parents may be encouraged to terminate on the basis of the doctor’s personal biases. A survey conducted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that 90 percent of the doctors who responded considered abortion to be a justifiable response to uniformly fatal fetal anomalies. Sixty-three percent considered abortion to be a justifiable response to nonfatal anomalies.” (Emphasis added)

HOPE

Bur even when the prognosis for an unborn baby is terminal, Ms. Mora maintains that parents usually want a better option than abortion and states that when offered perinatal hospice support, about 80% of US parents choose to carry their child to term and studies have found that “there appears to be a psychological benefit to women to continue the pregnancy following a lethal fetal diagnosis.”

And as I wrote in “Parent Power”, parents themselves are changing physician attitudes towards children with genetic conditions and even producing laws like “Simon’s Law” which passed in Kansas in 2017.

In the end, knowledge is power and discrimination against people with disabilities is wrong no matter how small the person.