family planning

The War Against Crisis Pregnancy Centers Escalates

nancyvalko abortion, culture, family, family planning, pro-life

When the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization draft decision by the US Supreme Court to return abortion law to the individual states was outrageously leaked, I wrote about the pro-abortion violence perpetrated on crisis pregnancy centers and the threats against Supreme Court judges.

Now, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is not only strongly protesting the final ruling but also states:

“With Roe gone, it’s more important than ever to crack down on so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ that mislead and deceive patients seeking abortion care,” said Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, promoting her bill. “We need to crack down on the deceptive practices these centers use to prevent people from getting abortion care, and I’ve got a bill to do just that,”

Her bill titled the “Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act” or “SAD Act” directs the Federal Trade Commission to “promulgate rules to prohibit a person from advertising with the use of misleading statements related to the provision of abortion service.” It would also allow charities to be fined $100,000 or “50 percent of the revenues earned by the ultimate parent entity” for disinformation, although the legislation itself does not define the prohibited speech.

Joining Senator Warren on the bill are Senators Hirono, Schatz, Booker, Smith, Klobuchar, Sanders, Murray, Merkley, Blumenthal, Feinstein, Wyden, Gillibrand, Markey, Warner and Markey.

Speaking with reporters in July, Senator Warren stated that:

“In Massachusetts right now, those crisis pregnancy centers that are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help outnumber true abortion clinics by 3 to 1. We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts, and we need to shut them down all around the country. You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that” (All emphasis added)

This pronouncement was met with derision, even from some reporters.

A CRISIS PREGNANCY DIRECTOR RESPONDS

Heidi Matzke, who heads a Crisis Pregnancy Center in Sacramento, California was eloquent in describing the violence her center has faced as well as responding to Senator Warren’s point that centers like hers must be shut down:

“We have had to stop operations of our mobile clinic. We’ve had to hire 24-hour onsite security. We’ve had to add cameras. We’ve had to arm our staff with pepper spray,” she said, adding last week a man with a machete showed up and was stopped before he could inflict any harm or damage.”

She also called Ms. Warren statements “horrific”:

“Pregnancy centers give away $266 million of free medical services and resources to communities all over this incredible country. And her words are just incredibly hurtful.” (Emphasis added)

She also said her center provides fully licensed OB/GYN care with medical professionals and that “most of the women working at her clinic have had an abortion before and many believe their lives would be ‘so much different’ if they had gone to a pregnancy center.”

CONCLUSION

Personally and as a nurse, I have had experience with women considering abortion as well as women (and men) who relate how they were damaged by an abortion. They need compassion and real help.

Crisis pregnancy centers are a wonderful resource and even Sen. Warren acknowledges that crisis pregnancy centers outnumber well-funded abortion clinics by 3 to 1. There’s a lesson in that.

But most importantly, I wish that all of us would realize that abortion is a tragic loss of a life regardless of the circumstances, not a political cause to celebrate!

The “Population Bomb” Fizzles, but Now There is a Birth Dearth with Grave Consequences in Many Countries

nancyvalko abortion, aging, assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, culture, disability, economics, end-of-life, family, family planning, law

 Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich was an entomologist (a scientist who specializes in the study of insects)  at Stanford University when he published his bestseller “The Population Bomb” in 1968.  Although initially ignored, it incited a worldwide fear of overpopulation and ultimately became one of the most influential books of the 20th century.

In his book, Ehrlich predicted that unless population decreased, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” in the 1970s.

That did not happen but 50 years later in a 2018 interview with Smithsonian magazine writer Charles C. Mann, Paul Ehrlich claimed that the book’s main contribution was to make population control “acceptable” as “a topic to debate.”

However, as Mr. Mann wrote:

” But the book did far more than that. It gave a huge jolt to the nascent environmental movement and fueled an anti-population-growth crusade that led to human rights abuses around the world.” (Emphasis added)

But even 50 years later and with the population declining in many countries, Paul Ehrlich continued to insist that:

“Population will fall, either when people choose to dramatically reduce birthrates or when there is a massive die-off because ecosystems can no longer support us. (Emphasis added)

THE HARSH REALITY TODAY

In 1980, China began a strict one child per married couple policy that even included forced abortions for women who did not comply.

In 2015, China raised the limit to two children, citing a “rapidly aging society and a shrinking working-age population”.

China has now increased the number of children to 3 children but as a June 3, 2021 Wall Street Journal article states “China Delivers Three-Child Policy, but It’s Too Late for Many“.

Even with years of declining birthrates, there are fewer young people willing to buck the trend of postponing or forgoing marriage and children.

The result is an aging population with a shortage of children. In one Chinese province almost 40% of the province’s population of 880,000 are 60 or older and there is a surging demand for nursing homes. The local government is looking for private investors to help some 7,000 elderly residents who cannot take care of themselves.

Even beyond China, a May 22, 2021  New York Times article titled “Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications“ recognized that:

“All over the world, countries are confronting population stagnation and a fertility bust, a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore.” (Emphasis added)

HUNGARY FIGHTS BACK

A replacement rate of about 2.1 is necessary to sustain a population but the population in Hungary had been declining since 1981. It reached an all-time low of 1.23 in 2011.

Katalin Novák, the Minister for Family Affairs in Hungary, has facilitated a family-friendly approach that has seen birth rates start to rise. The birth rate is now up to 1.56, still low but improving.

As Minister Novak states:

“The government’s measures of the past ten years have evidently moved demographics in the right direction. The number of childbirths, abortions, the infant mortality rate, marriages, and divorces have all moved in a favorable direction. This also proves that we have made the right decision when we made family-centered governance a priority and are now on the right path. Families are enjoying government support, and we are helping our youth by giving them the opportunity to start a family whenever they want.” (Emphasis added)

THE SITUATION IN THE UNITED STATES

As of 2019 (the latest year for which data is available), the U.S has the lowest fertility rate on record and the lowest number of births in 35 years.

As the New York Times noted in its article about population decline:

“The change may take decades, but once it starts, decline (just like growth) spirals exponentially. With fewer births, fewer girls grow up to have children, and if they have smaller families than their parents did — which is happening in dozens of countries — the drop starts to look like a rock thrown off a cliff. (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

The “population bomb” theory has had unintended and disastrous consequences, even in the U.S. and despite immigration.

In 2018, a US Census Bureau article predicted “The Greying of America: More Older Adults than Kids by 2035” for the first time in US history-joining other countries with large aging populations.

As the US Census Bureau states:

“With this swelling number of older adults, the country could see greater demands for healthcare, in-home caregiving and assisted living facilities. It could also affect Social Security. We project three-and-a-half working-age adults for every older person eligible for Social Security in 2020. By 2060, that number is expected to fall to two-and-a-half working-age adults for every older person.” (Emphasis added)

A country with more older people than children can unbalance a society socially, culturally and economically.

Even worse, legalizing abortion and assisted suicide/euthanasia will only make the situation more dire the US.

Since the US Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973 with the Roe v. Wade decision,  more than 62,000,000 abortions have been performed and now the new Biden administration wants to roll back restrictions on abortion  and make abortions taxpayer-funded. 

And as efforts by groups like Compassion and Choices to legalize assisted suicide throughout the US has now spread to 9 states and the District of Columbia despite pro-life and disability rights opposition, we should not be surprised if there is another US Supreme court case in the future like the 1997 Vacco v Quill Supreme Court case  that attempted to establish physician-assisted suicide as a fundamental right for the terminally ill like the Roe v. Wade abortion decision legalizing abortion for (initially) just women in the first three months of pregnancy. 

Instead of threats to human beings at the beginning and end of life, we should be welcoming new lives and families as well as caring for the elderly, disabled and poor to improve and stabilize ourselves and our country.

New Study on Progesterone to Prevent Miscarriage Supports Use in Abortion Reversal

nancyvalko conception, Drugs, family planning, medical ethics, miscarriage, Planned Parenthood, pro-life

Recently, I was talking to a young woman relative who had a miscarriage with her first pregnancy, a successful birth with the second and is now taking progesterone as soon as she found out she was pregnant with her third on the advice of her Natural Family Planning instructor and doctor.

I was a bit perplexed about this until I read the May 28, 2019 National Catholic Register article “New Study Supports Catholic Research on Progesterone in Pregnancy” .

Based on a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine  titled  “A Randomized Trial of Progesterone in Women with Bleeding in Early Pregnancy”, it was found that those  women taking progesterone supplements during pregnancy had a 15% increase in live births.

This came as no surprise to Teresa Kenney, a women’s health nurse practitioner in Omaha at the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction where being Catholic is not required for services.

Research there has shown progesterone to be “a significant factor in pregnancies who are at risk for miscarriage or premature labor.” She also noted that progesterone is routinely used during the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) process, a process that the Institute does not offer because of moral and ethical concerns.

Dr. Hilgers who founded and directs the Pope Paul VI Institute has been studying progesterone and pregnancy for decades and found that pregnancies that were not normal-for example, those ending in miscarriage, premature labor or other complications-often had lower than normal progesterone levels in the mother’s blood.

Not every miscarriage can be prevented with progesterone in the estimated  10%-25%  of pregnancies that end in miscarriage. Fifty percent of miscarriages happen because the baby has a chromosomal problem and there are other medical problems that can lead to miscarriage.

Dr. Kathleen Raviele, an OB-GYN and former president of the Catholic Medical Association, said that if a woman has undergone a miscarriage – particularly very early in pregnancy – she recommends that her progesterone levels be tested following ovulation during a normal cycle. If numbers are low, she recommends supplementing progesterone.

That is why my relative is now taking progesterone for her expected baby.

According to Nurse Kenney and Dr. Raviele, they use careful timing and only bioidentical progesterone perfectly matching the progesterone made by the woman’s body herself-not the synthetic versions.

ABORTION REVERSAL

As I wrote in my 2018 blog “What You Need to Know About Medical Abortion and Abortion Reversal” , medical abortions can often be reversed by taking progesterone if the mother changes her mind after the first abortion pill to block progesterone is given but she hasn’t yet taken the second pill to expel the 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.

But according to Planned Parenthood :

 “…(only) a handful of states require doctors and nurses to tell their patients about (abortion reversal treatment) before they can provide abortion care. But these claims haven’t been proven in reliable medical studies — nor have they been tested for safety, effectiveness, or the likelihood of side effects — so experts like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reject these untested supposed treatments.” (Emphasis added)

Nurse Kenny replies that:

“It’s frustrating to me that these pro-abortion people are saying that this science is completely bogus, when we have studies like this [Birmingham study] that prove the absolute essential nature of progesterone to support and maintain pregnancy.”

CONCLUSION

I have long been a big supporter of Natural Family Planning and NaPro (Natural Procreative Technology) since I met Dr. Hilgers and visited the Pope Paul VI Institute decades ago.

I have told many women experiencing infertility or multiple miscarriages about these options. I believe it is essential for women to know all the options, risks and benefits when it comes to true reproductive health.

And thanks to this article, I am constantly learning more myself!

 

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

nancyvalko abortion, family planning, law, medical ethics, pro-life

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.

An “Acceptable” Prejudice

nancyvalko abortion, disability, family planning, law, medical ethics, prenatal testing

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.

“If We are Blessed with Children…”

nancyvalko family planning, marriage

Joy and Chris were married May 21, 2016. Joy is my daughter and both families were thrilled when Chris proposed. The ceremony was solemnly and beautifully performed at Immaculate Conception Church in Dardenne Prairie, Mo. where they will live. The wedding reception was great fun and went off without a hitch.

But one of the most moving times for me first came at Joy’s bridal shower. Chris was videotaped answering questions like “What do you like most about Joy?” for a bridal shower game played by the guests. Points were given for every right answer Chris and Joy predicted the other would say.

One question was “How many children do you want?” Chris answered “If we are blessed with children, we will take them one at a time.”

That answer caused a stir among the young women at the shower. One remarked that you could tell that Joy and Chris went to Natural Family Planning classes during the Pre-Cana preparation for their marriage.

Actually, they did and they learned about fertility awareness to naturally achieve or postpone pregnancy. Such classes are also available to people of any religion or none at all through groups like the Couple-to-Couple League. There are even fertility awareness methods to find the causes and treat infertility through Naprotechnology.

It is common today to hear newlywed couples talk about not necessarily having children at all or postponing off having children indefinitely for various reasons like finishing school, achieving financial stability or establishing careers. It is as if children are an just another option rather than a blessing.

With the myriad of glossy contraceptive commercials, free contraceptives under Obamacare promoted as “reproductive health” and sex ed courses in schools focused on how to avoid pregnancy and STDs, it is not surprising that many of today’s young adults also often view sex as recreation or “tryouts” rather than a physical/emotional union that can produce children.

Joy and Chris are also very health conscious. That is another big reason they were attracted to Natural Family Planning. They have seen the damage caused by abortion, the risks of hormonal contraception, single parents who are struggling,  and couples coping with infertility. They take marriage and childbearing seriously.

But best of all, they also see their adorable nieces and nephews and friends’ children growing up with loving, committed parents who are wonderful role models. This another reason they are excited by the prospect of parenthood.

Life is a challenge with many surprises and marriage requires a lot but I salute Joy and Chris for trying to make a great start!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contraception and Informed Consent

nancyvalko family planning, medical ethics

My late grandmother always told me “Never discuss religion, politics or sex”. Contraception can touch on all three of these topics and birth control itself can usually be counted on to arouse strong and conflicting opinions in any group.

However, contraception is crucially also a medical issue. With a range of contraceptive options and so many contrary claims about benefits and risks, it is essential for everyone, especially women and girls, to know the facts when they have to make a decision.

As Dr. David J. Hilger writes in his December 2015 article titled “Contraception and Informed Consent-Women Need a Full Account of the Risks”, the first oral contraceptive was marketed in 1960 and

“Despite early indications of severe and sometimes life-threatening risks, oral contraceptives were quickly approved and widely accepted. It was not until after oral contraception was widely utilized that many of the medical risks were published. Information regarding risk continues to be discovered and is reported in the medical literature, but it is not widely publicized.”

What I appreciated about this article was that it contained not only the latest information on some of the medical risks of oral contraceptives but also the latest research in Natural Family Planning, a routinely overlooked topic even in a doctor’s office or clinic. It is essential for women to know all the options, risks and benefits when making a birth control decision to have truly informed consent.

MY JOURNEY

As a nurse, I thought I was well-informed about contraception when I started using the Pill in 1974. At that time, all I knew about side effects was the risk of weight gain which I experienced myself when I almost could not fit into my wedding dress! I stopped 18 months later when my husband, a doctor, read medical journal articles about the increased risks of blood clots with the Pill

I never used hormonal birth control again and I eventually learned and practiced Natural Family Planning which worked great for me in both conceiving and postponing pregnancy.

It was many years later when I discovered more information about contraceptives in medical journal articles about the possible post-fertilization (abortifacient) effects , increased risk of depression or, most ironically, increased risk of sexual dysfunction. For me, the knowledge of the possible abortifacient effect alone would have kept me from ever using hormonal contraception.

In recent years but rarely mentioned in the media, there has also been many  birth control lawsuits filed against a number of different kinds of birth control pills and devices.

CONCLUSION

My children and especially my daughters, gave me even more incentive to research the facts when their public schools gave sex education classes and I discovered glaring lapses and inaccuracies. For example, condoms were promoted as safe sex even though a Centers for Disease Control fact sheet admits that

“However, condom use cannot provide absolute protection against any STD.”

Another example is that Natural Family Planning was ignored in favor of a negative depiction of the old “rhythm method”.

In the end, I believe that birth control is not a decision to be taken lightly and that women of all ages have the right to know the potential risks and options. I only wish I had known more myself in 1974.

Medical Professionals, Planned Parenthood and Fetal Tissue from Aborted Babies

nancyvalko abortion, family planning, fetal tissue, medical ethics, organ donation, Planned Parenthood

On August 6, 2015, the Medscape website for medical professionals had an article: “Reader Poll: “Should Medical Societies Support Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood?” with 3 questions:

1. Do you agree that Planned Parenthood should continue to receive federal funds for non-abortion-related care?
2. Do you believe that these 18 medical societies were justified in stating their support for Planned Parenthood?
3. Do you believe that it is ethical for Planned Parenthood to donate aborted fetal tissue for use in medical research?

Not surprisingly, given how these questions are worded, a large majority voted yes.

The Medscape article referenced a letter to Congress dated 8/3/2015 by 18 medical societies supporting continued funding for Planned Parenthood.
However, when I accessed the letter, it surprisingly says nothing about fetal tissue research.

I am including the actual letter and its signers below.

I wonder if these groups’ members feel the same way. I checked on two groups and couldn’t find the letter on the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or Society’s for Adolescent Health and Medicine’s websites.

I would encourage members of these groups as well as other ethical doctors and nurses to contact to contact these organizations to encourage them to protest this position (and the use of aborted babies for fetal tissue research), especially since it appears that many medical professionals are unaware of the issues involved.

I have seen this before.

Even though the American Nurses Association did not sign this letter and a current search shows no position on Planned Parenthood or fetal tissue use on its website, I was a member of the American Nurses Association (ANA) years ago and tried to work within that organization at a state level on several ethical issues. I read every issue of ANA’s Journal of Nursing, particularly the political section. When the ban on partial birth abortion came up in Congress, I read nothing about it in the Journal.

Awhile later, I was watching a political talk show and one of the panelists mentioned that the ANA was against the ban. That was news to me so I searched for the information on the internet. It took some time but I finally found the letter.

I tracked down the public relations director of the ANA and called her. At first, she said that she didn’t know what I was talking about but eventually found the information herself and seemed surprised.

I told her that I no longer could be a member of ANA not only because of its’ stance on partial birth abortion but also because of the secrecy. We members were not polled or even informed. I also told her that I would encourage other ANA members to also leave if the ANA did not change its position or inform its membership.

The PR person apologized. I gave her my phone number and encouraged her to have someone from the ANA contact me.

I never heard back from them.

We need accountability from our professional organizations, especially since these organizations claim to represent the interests of groups of medical professionals.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

In a letter dated August 3, a group of 18 medical societies, including the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, ask the Senate and House leadership to continue to allow Planned Parenthood to participate in federal health programs.

https://filemanager.capwiz.com/filemanager/file-mgr/acog/Provider_Ltr_in_Support_of_Planned_Parenthood_Funding_Updated.pdf

August 3, 2015

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Senate Majority Leader
S-230, U.S. Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable John Boehner
Speaker of the House of Representatives
H-232, U.S. Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner:

As organizations representing health care professionals and the people they serve across the country, we strongly oppose any effort to prevent Planned Parenthood health centers from participating in federal health programs, including Medicaid and the Title X family planning program. Any proposal to exclude Planned Parenthood from public health programs will severely curtail women’s access to essential health care services, including family planning, well-woman exams, breast and cervical cancers screenings, and HIV testing and counseling. At a time when we should be focused on improving the health of all people, it is frustrating to witness ongoing attempts to cut off access to life-saving preventive care.
Planned Parenthood health centers play a crucial role in improving the health and lives of people across the country. In fact, 2.7 million people rely on Planned Parenthood for health care. For many women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of care—offering basic preventive services that are fundamental to women’s health and well-being. Each year, Planned Parenthood health centers provide nearly 400,000 cervical cancer screenings and nearly 500,000 breast exams.

Additionally, Planned Parenthood provides over 2.1 million contraceptive services and nearly 4.5 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. These services improve women’s health, prevent an estimated 516,000 unintended pregnancies, and decrease infant mortality.
Policies that would exclude Planned Parenthood from public health funding would hurt millions of women and undermine health care access in communities across the country. Approximately 60 percent of Planned Parenthood patients access care through Medicaid and Title X, in addition to those who rely on other essential programs, including maternal and child health programs and Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC) breast and cervical cancer screening programs.

In some states, Planned Parenthood is the only provider participating in Title X, and more than 50 percent of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in a medically underserved or health professional shortage area. Because federal law already requires health care providers to demonstrate that no federal funds are used for abortion, prohibitions on funding for preventive care at Planned Parenthood health centers will only devastate access to these life-saving services.

Every day, we see the harmful impact that unequal access to health care has on women and communities across the country, and we therefore strongly support policies that improve access to affordable, quality health care. Policies that would deny Planned Parenthood public health funds only serve to cut millions off from critical preventive care, and we strongly oppose any effort to do so. Should you have any questions, please contact ACOG Government Affairs staff, Rachel Gandell at 202-863-2534 or rgandell@acog.org.

Sincerely,

American College of Nurse-Midwives
American Congress of Obstetrician and Gynecologists
American Medical Women’s Association
American Medical Student Association
American Public Health Association
American Society for Reproductive Medicine
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
Doctors for America
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality
National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health
National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Hispanic Medical Association
National Physicians Alliance
Physicians for Reproductive Health
Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine
cc: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Here’s What Happened when Colorado Offered Free Birth Control

nancyvalko family planning

I came of age during the era of the Pill and the sexual revolution.

At first, we were told that this hormonal contraception would be the liberator of both married and unmarried women, freeing the unmarried from the stigma of unwed motherhood and freeing the married from the burden of too many children. We were told that the Pill was absolutely reliable and safe. All we had to do was take one pill every day until we wanted a baby.

Fast forward 40 years.

On July 6, 2015, Business Insider published the article “Here’s What Happened when Colorado Offered Free Birth Control“ touting the success of newer, long-acting birth control methods that are implanted or inserted into women to prevent pregnancy even for years and are claimed to be more effective.

It turns out that the Pill was not so reliable. Note this quote from the article:

“According to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, about 9% of women using the pill, patch, or ring for three years will get pregnant.” emphasis added)

But if you read the actual NEJM study, the study’s actual statistics for the Pill are even worse:
“Annual failure rates with typical use of oral contraceptive pills are estimated at 9% for the general population, 13% for teenagers, and 30% or higher for some high-risk subgroups>.” (emphasis added)

With these rates and school sex education programs promoting contraception, no wonder Planned Parenthood becomes a self-perpetuating abortion/contraception industry.

The article also states that:

“The emphasis on long-acting contraception, like intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants, is important because the devices are permanent and last for years”. (emphasis added)

Unmentioned is that the problems with the longer-acting contraceptives like the IUDs and implants, problems like cost and side effects such as pain, bleeding, etc. have led almost 1 out of 4 women to stop using them according to a 2013 Family Medicine article.

Also unmentioned is the potential for the longer-acting contraceptive to mask an infertility issue when such contraceptives are used for years.

But this might be the real rationale behind this article publicizing the need for funding of free long-acting contraception in Colorado (and possibly elsewhere):

Between 2009 and 2015, “teen births dropped 40 percent, abortions fell 35 percent and the state avoided more than $80 million in Medicaid costs” according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s website.

Years ago, I made sure my minor daughters were aware of the physical, emotional and spiritual problems with artificial contraception and sex outside of marriage. However, they were both pressured-without my knowledge-by doctors about using artificial contraceptives. One refused and is now glad she did but my other daughter gave in and went to Planned Parenthood. She subsequently became pregnant at age 18 and later had to have surgery for a HPV (Human Papillomavirus Virus) infection.

With supportive articles like the one here and the legal confidentiality requirement that excludes parents, are we running the risk that long-acting contraception might be imposed on our minor children in the future supposedly for their own good and the good of society?

Now I fear it might be inevitable.