Is Abortion Really the Best We Can do for Women?

As a nurse and a mother myself, it was awful to read about the newest and most radical abortion law voted in and just signed by New York governor Andrew Cuomo. The vote on this law was even met with a standing ovation in the New York legislature.

This bill would not only legalize abortions UP TO BIRTH but also revokes the requirement for medical care that must be provided afterwards if the baby survives an abortion attempt. Now, Rhode Island is poised to do the same thing.

The “right to abortion” is a central tenet of the “Women’s Rights” movement and most mainstream media complies by constantly insisting that women want and need abortion. Planned Parenthood and even Oprah Winfrey promote women to “Shout Your Abortion” to show that abortion is empowering and even necessary to women’s success.

But is this true?

“EMPOWERING WOMEN AND DEFENDING LIFE: AN INSEPARABLE CALL TO ACTION”

This is the title of a powerful article by a woman who started working at a crisis pregnancy center after she had received help there in the past when she was pregnant and money was tight.

As the anonymous author writes in FemCatholic:

“What I hadn’t realized was that, in situations of unplanned, crisis, or unwanted pregnancies, the staff set out not only to save the life of an unborn child or give women access to free pregnancy tests and resources (as important as those things are); the counselors want to give women hope, confidence, and the ability to look within and see their own strength. In short, they want to empower every woman they encounter.

My interviewer described to me the approach that counselors took in that initial appointment. She stressed that the goal of the appointment is never to convince the woman one way or another. Instead, counselors provide each woman with information regarding all options, and work to help her realize that she has the strength to do hard things, to be courageous in the face of this difficult situation, and to assure her that there are people ready to love and support her. If the woman chooses to she can continue meeting with a counselor regularly throughout her pregnancy for support, resources, and caring community.” (All emphasis in original)

The author also writes about her other experiences:

“I have worked at two different maternity homes, and have seen firsthand the freedom that women experience when they discover and engage their strength, gifts, passions, and sheer willpower. It is incredible to watch these empowered women getting and staying sober or clean, finishing or going back to school, applying for jobs, dreaming about their futures with hope rather than despair. Women are capable of amazing things! I honestly believe one of our greatest feminine gifts is the ability to carry on in the face of even seemingly impossible situations.” (All emphasis in original)

Her message is both simple and profound:

How can we, women who are passionate about empowering other women, begin to change the conversation, to advance true liberation for women in unplanned pregnancies?”

 

WHAT ABOUT THE “WORST CASE” SCENARIO WHEN THE UNBORN BABY IS DOOMED TO DIE?

In the latest Gallup poll on abortion, 67% of the people polled approve abortion “When the child would be born with a life-threatening illness”. (Of course, sometimes that diagnosis proves to be wrong.)

But is abortion really the best answer for these distressed parents?

The answer is no, according to a recent article in The Public Discourse titled “Do Women Regret Giving Birth When the Baby is Doomed to Die? by Professor Christopher Kaczor of Loyola Marymount University.

Professor Kaczor cites a 2018 article from the Journal of Clinical Ethics titled “‘I Would Do It All Over Again’: Cherishing Time and the Absence of Regret in Continuing a Pregnancy after a Life-Limiting Diagnosis that found:

“Absence of regret was articulated in 97.5 percent of participants. Parents valued the baby as a part of their family and had opportunities to love, hold, meet, and cherish their child. Participants treasured the time together before and after the birth. Although emotionally difficult, parents articulated an empowering, transformative experience that lingers over time.” (Emphasis added)

He also cites another study titled “We want what’s best for our baby: Prenatal Parenting of Babies with Lethal Conditions” from the Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health that found:

“After the birth, and at the time of the baby’s death, parents expressed thankfulness that they were able to spend as much time with their baby as possible.”

In contrast, Professor Kaczor cites a meta-analysis (a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies) in a Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing titled “The Travesty of Choosing after Positive Prenatal Diagnosis” as well as another study to state that:

“Couples experienced selective termination as traumatic, regardless of the prenatal test revealing the fetal impairment or stage in pregnancy in which the termination occurred.”

Professor Kaczor concludes from this:

“Women who receive a lethal fetal diagnosis deserve our compassion and support. Fortunately, organizations such as Caring to Term and Perinatal Hospice & Palliative Care provide information and support for these tremendously difficult situations. Unfortunately, doctors sometimes pressure women into getting abortions and do not share with them the information that is necessary to make an informed choice. Those who receive a lethal diagnosis deserve to know the truth that 97.5 percent of women who continue pregnancies when the baby is doomed to die have no regrets about doing so—and that abortion does not have similar outcomes. Numerous studies have come to the same conclusion: giving life rather than aborting is likely to lead to greater psychological benefit for women whose baby is doomed to die.

CONCLUSION

Many  years ago with my last child, I had abortion recommended to me by two different doctors but not because the baby had an adverse prenatal diagnosis. In my case, abortion was suggested  because, due to my first husband’s severe psychosis, I would most likely wind up supporting my children alone.

The doctors’ prediction about my husband’s prognosis proved to be correct. But I was outraged that these doctors could even think about encouraging an abortion and adding more trauma to a difficult situation. And I was also outraged that they thought I was too powerless to raise 3 children on my own. I wasn’t.

Because of that experience, I now know the power of the simple phrase “I am here for you” and I have said it myself to other mothers, especially ones who were given an adverse prenatal diagnosis.

I know that choosing life is the ultimate victory!

An Amazing Video of a Living, First Trimester Unborn Baby

Recently, I saw an amazing video in a post on the Nurses&Midwives4Life Ireland Facebook page showing a living, first trimester baby on a surgical field. The baby was moving its’ tiny head and limbs remarkably like a newborn baby. The image was both beautiful and heartbreaking since this little one could not survive.

The Speak Life video is covered with a warning that “This video may be sensitive to some people” and posted by Jonathan Van Maren, communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, with the caption ”This 8-second video of a first-trimester baby tells you everything you need to know about how wrong abortion is.”

I investigated further and it seems that the that the unborn baby was about 8 weeks old and that he or she had been removed after an ectopic pregnancy in which the unborn baby develops outside the womb.

Ectopic pregnancies can be life-threatening to both mother and child when the unborn baby develops in one of the Fallopian tubes leading to the womb, although there have been some rare cases where a baby develops in the abdomen and survives. Several years ago, I had an elderly patient who told me how her unborn baby survived decades ago when the doctors did not know that the baby was in the abdomen during her uneventful pregnancy until labor began. That is unlikely today since ultrasound images are routine during pregnancy.

A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS

Although the baby in the video could not survive after he or she was removed, the video itself is powerful evidence that abortion takes the life of a real human person even in the first trimester.

Most abortions are performed in the first trimester when women and the public are often told by organizations like Planned Parenthood that the unborn baby is just a “clump of cells”.  In the first trimester, most babies are aborted by either vacuum suction which destroys the little person or by  medical abortion using pills to first disrupt the attachment of the unborn baby to the mother and then expel the baby. However, abortion reversal is possible after the first set of pills.

Women who have abortions rarely see their baby after a first trimester abortion but it has happened, especially with medical abortion. This can be very traumatic to the woman. Contrast the look of the deceased first trimester unborn baby in the article titled “She took the abortion pill, then saw her 7-week-old baby” with the living first trimester unborn baby in the video.

CONCLUSION

Years ago, my late daughter Marie became unexpectedly pregnant and found out that the unborn baby was growing in one of her Fallopian tubes rather than her womb. She had to have emergency surgery when the tube ruptured.

Afterwards, the surgeon showed me the picture he had taken (unasked) during the surgery to remove the then deceased baby, my grandchild. The picture was personally so sad to see but I was comforted that the surgeon cared enough to take a picture of this tiny person.

After so many years and so many experiences as a nurse and volunteer in the pro-life movement, I believe that all women should be given the opportunity to know the truth about their unborn baby’s humanity as part of informed consent before abortion.

And I believe the rest of us should also have the opportunity to learn the same truth before we support legalized abortion.

This video of a living, first trimester unborn baby speaks louder than mere words.

The Trouble with Planned Parenthood

In a stunning December 20, 2018 New York Times article  titled “Planned Parenthood Is Accused of Mistreating Pregnant Employees”, former employees of the $1.5 billion dollar ($543.7 million in government grants and reimbursements) organization assert that they were discriminated against because of their pregnancies.

The New York Times has long been one of the staunchest supports of Planned Parenthood as a great champion of “reproductive choice” through abortion, so it is ironic that their article paints a terrible picture of how the organization treats its own employees when they make the reproductive choice to have a child.

The New York Times interviewed several current and former employees of Planned Parenthood who described discrimination that violated state or federal laws against pregnancy discrimination by declining to hire pregnant job candidates, refusing requests by expecting mothers to take breaks and in some cases pushing women out of their jobs after they gave birth.

Perhaps the most heartbreaking story was that of  Ta’Lisa Hairston, an employee who became pregnant but later started battling high blood pressure that threatened her pregnancy. However, her multiple medical orders stating she needed frequent breaks  were ignored by management. Her hands swelled so much that she couldn’t wear the required plastic gloves and her doctor ordered bedrest. When she returned with orders not to work over 6 hours, she worked a much longer shift and few days later had to have an emergency C-section at 34 weeks. She resigned after repeated calls urging her to return to work before her guaranteed 3 months under the Family and Medical Leave Act was up.

Dr. Leana Wen, the new head of Planned Parenthood, says that the organization is looking into the allegations and will be “conducting a review to determine the cost of providing paid maternity leave to nearly 12,000 employees nationwide.”

While the New York Times article admits that “most Planned Parenthood offices do not provide paid maternity leave”, it counters that “(d)iscrimination against pregnant women and new mothers remains widespread in the American workplace.” The Times also blames “conservative lawmakers (who) routinely threaten to kill” Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding, making the organization’s financing “precarious”.

THE REAL TROUBLE WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Planned Parenthood tries to downplay its’ role as the largest provider of abortion in the US by touting  services like breast cancer screening (without mammograms), birth control pills and devices, pregnancy tests, etc. to low-income women even though the reality is that there are many more places, such as federally qualified community health centers (which do not provide abortions) that provide more comprehensive health care services than those offered by Planned Parenthood.

But the larger problem is that it is hard to reconcile two completely opposite philosophies: an unborn child is nothing more than tissue that can be removed by abortion if a woman so chooses vs an unborn child is a living human being deserving of protection. Planned Parenthood is firmly on the side of the first philosophy.

Thus, as Live Action found when it contacted 97 facilities at 41 Planned Parenthood affiliates, it is almost impossible to find a Planned Parenthood clinic that offers prenatal care as well as abortion, not to mention Planned Parenthood’s current campaign to encourage women to “Shout Out Your Abortion”.

So it perhaps it should not be a surprise that a pregnant employee who wants her unborn baby might pose a challenge in a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic.

 

 

Why is the US Supreme Court Ducking the Issue of States Defunding Planned Parenthood?

As a nurse, I have always known that medical ethics and the law are very much entwined. But when the US Supreme Court unexpectedly legalized abortion in the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, I started really studying the legal system and how it impacts medical practice beyond just the medical malpractice cases that I knew about.

When I studied the actual Roe v Wade decision itself, the dissenting opinions, commentaries, amicus briefs, etc., I was appalled to find that the decision was basically political and not based on established science and facts.

That sad knowledge has insulated me from hopelessness with many subsequent US Supreme Court decisions involving abortion and other life issues. I have always felt that the truth about human lives-born and unborn-will eventually win.

But I have to admit that I was surprised that the majority of the current Supreme Court justices ruled against even hearing the Gee v Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast case involving conflicting federal court cases decisions about states defunding Planned Parenthood in their Medicaid programs.

The Gee v Planned Parenthood case involved the issue of whether patients may sue states in federal court for restricting or removing providers from their Medicaid programs. The case does not directly involve abortion since the federal Hyde amendment prohibits Medicaid funding for abortion, a prohibition that Planned Parenthood itself insists “hurts women on Medicaid” and wants eliminated. Planned Parenthood also admits that:

Most of Planned Parenthood’s federal funding is from Medicaid reimbursements for preventive care, and some is from Title X. At least 60% of Planned Parenthood patients rely on public health programs like Medicaid and Title X for preventive and primary care.” (Emphasis added)

According to a Lozier Institute Report, in its latest report 2016-2017, Planned Parenthood received “$543.7 million in funds from all levels of government in that fiscal year…primarily from the Medicaid program”.

Several state laws have already excluded Planned Parenthood as Medicaid providers, especially after the reports of illegal harvesting of organs from aborted unborn babies and fraudulent billing. Federal law does give states substantial leeway to administer their Medicaid programs but does not define the term “qualified” for providers and states can exclude providers “for any reason…authorized by state law”. The law does allow for an appeal and judicial review for excluded providers.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

“But Planned Parenthood has leapfrogged state adjudication by recruiting plaintiffs to sue in federal court to vindicate their putative right to their preferred provider. Five appellate courts including the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have recognized a private right of action while the Eighth has not.” (Emphasis added)

This split in court decisions needed to be resolved by the Supreme Court because it involves basic questions about the state-federal relationship.

Only four Supreme Court judges were necessary to vote to hear the case but 6 judges voted not to hear the case, surprisingly two of whom were considered conservative.

Justice Thomas who voted to hear the case was scathing in his rebuke of the 6 judges who voted not to even hear the case saying:

“So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’ That makes the Court’s decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion.

Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty. If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background…The Framers gave us lifetime tenure to promote ‘that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance’ of the courts’ role as ‘bulwarks of a limited Constitution,’ unaffected by fleeting ‘mischiefs.’” (Emphasis added)

The Supreme Court’s refusal to even hear the case is more than disappointing. Continuing the legal confusion about states’ rights will almost certainly lead to more litigation against states that pass laws excluding Planned Parenthood from Medicaid programs. As the Wall Street editorial states, “If the Justices duck every case remotely implicating gender politics, substantive constitutional issues will go unresolved and individual rights may be impaired.”

CONCLUSION

Ironically, although the brief by Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast  to the Supreme Court insisted that their clinics “..provide essential medical care to thousands of low-income Louisiana residents through Medicaid” and “offer a range of services, including annual physical exams, screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer, contraception, pregnancy testing and counseling, and other preventative health services”, the reality is that there are many more places, such as federally qualified community health centers (which do not provide abortions) that provide more comprehensive health care services than those offered by Planned Parenthood.

On a personal note, several years ago my late daughter Marie secretly went to a Planned Parenthood clinic for a possible sexually transmitted disease. She finally admitted this to me when her symptoms grew worse. I immediately took her to my own gynecologist who had to perform surgery to remove part of her cervix to deal with the damage.

Planned Parenthood had missed the diagnosis.

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.

 

Planned Parenthood Branches Out

When I first read the article “Planned Parenthood’s New Low: Teaching Transgender Ideology to 4-Year-Olds”, I was skeptical.

Although I have long had no illusions about Planned Parenthood since the 1973 Roe v. Wade US Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, its’ promotion  of “comprehensive sex education” in schools, its’ fight against the partial birth abortion ban and the most recent scandal of selling body parts of aborted babies for “research, I was surprised by this new development.

I went to the Planned Parenthood website to see for myself.

There I found not only the online advice for teaching children as young as preschoolers about transgender issues but also a list of Planned Parenthood facilities across the nation that offer medical services including hormone treatment to people with transgender issues.

But why would Planned Parenthood take on this controversial issue now?

Could money be at least part of the reason?

Not only are some states moving to defund Planned Parenthood of taxpayer money  states along with efforts to defund it federally of the now over half a billion taxpayer dollars annually, but also abortion clinics are shutting down in many states. For example, just in California, three Planned Parenthood abortion facilities closed in June.

And not surprisingly, the most recent scandal about selling body parts of aborted babies has been devastating to Planned Parenthood’s self-proclaimed image as an altruistic dispenser of women’s health services and possibly its’ fundraising efforts.

Another reason for taking on this new issue of transgender identity, which is controversial even among medical experts,  could be that Planned Parenthood portrays itself as an expert on issues of sexuality. And if you regularly read the news, many activists and most mainstream media now seem almost obsessed with the politics surrounding transgender issues.

However, when I was a teenager in the 1960s,  I remember being told that Planned Parenthood was just about contraception and that it said abortion ended the life of a baby before it was born and could impair a woman’s future fertility.

I was an experienced RN by the time the US Supreme Court legalized abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and I discovered about Planned Parenthood’s involvement in abortion years before that decision.

Later, I personally found out that the “comprehensive sex education” that Planned Parenthood promotes was in my children’s public schools and I wrote about this in a 2001 article titled “What About Sex Ed?”. I also joined other concerned parents in objecting to the often biased and inaccurate information our children were receiving. The schools tried to reassure us that our concerns would be addressed in the near future.

But it wasn’t long before we realized that this was a delaying tactic to last until our children graduated. In my case, it was over a decade before my youngest finally graduated but I made sure to teach them myself about the medical, moral and emotional issues surrounding sexuality and health.

Now, this very same school district my now adult children attended is proposing to change its’ curriculum to teach even the very young grade school students  “about topics like gender roles and gender re-assignment” despite many parents publicly and strongly objecting.

CONCLUSION

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America now takes in almost $1.3 billion in total revenue with $528 million in government taxpayer funding and is listed in the top 50 of the largest U.S. charities .

But is Planned Parenthood really a charity needing massive government taxpayer funding or rather more of an enormous business enterprise with strong political ties and an expansive, society-changing agenda that should stand on its own without government funding?

We need the answer to that question as soon as possible.

 

Are Mail Order Abortions Coming?

Abortion clinics have been closing at a record pace. Since 2011, at least 162 abortion clinic have shut or stopped offering the procedure while just 21 have opened. Five states now have just one abortion clinic still open.

New pro-life laws regulating safety and standards are part of the reason but as feminist Madeleine Schwartz writes, even in liberal states “the combination of the economic difficulties of operating a clinic, a generally hostile atmosphere and declining demand means that many clinics are shutting down.

It should be no surprise that telemedicine medical abortion has also become appealing to Planned Parenthood because it reduces the cost burden of the clinics.

Not to mention that abortion has also become increasingly concentrated among the poor with 49% of aborted women patients having a family income below the federal poverty level.

MEDICAL ABORTION AND TELEMEDICINE

Although abortion was legalized in 1973, it wasn’t until 2000 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first oral abortion drug mifepristone (also known as RU-486) for medical abortions within 7 weeks of pregnancy (In March 2016, the FDA changed its guideline to allow medical abortion up to 10 weeks into pregnancy.)

Back in 2000, the “early abortion” procedure involved 3 clinic visits. The first session was with a doctor and taking the mifepristone dose to stop the progesterone necessary to establish and maintain the attachment of the unborn baby and placenta to the womb.  Two days later and if still pregnant, the expectant mother had to return to the clinic for the dose of misoprostol to cause expulsion of the preborn baby. Two weeks after the first clinic visit, the mother must return to the clinic to confirm that the pregnancy was ended.

In 2008, a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Iowa initiated the first formal telemedicine abortion program in the U.S. for abortion clinics not regularly staffed by a physician. In this situation, a physician in another location reviews prior labs and imaging to estimate the length of pregnancy and potential contraindications before speaking by a webcam to the pregnant woman.

The doctor is never physically present. Instead, he consults with the pregnant woman via the webcam about her medical history and tests, explains the procedure and then remotely activates a drawer that opens to dispense the abortion pills.

Now rates of medical abortions rival surgical abortions in the U.S.

However by citing safety concerns, 37 states currently require clinicians who perform medication abortions to be licensed physicians and 19 states require that the clinician providing a medication abortion be physically present during the procedure, thereby prohibiting the use of telemedicine to prescribe medication for abortion remotely.

NOW MEDICAL ABORTIONS BY MAIL?

A new study has been started in 4 states (Hawaii, New York, Oregon and Washington) to allow women to terminate a pregnancy by telemedicine and mail-order drugs.

Although the telemedicine medical abortions by email are touted as especially a boon for women in rural areas without a close abortion clinic, the process does not allow women to avoid the doctor’s office entirely. Using a video hookup on a home computer, a woman first consults a physician (or other clinician such as a nurse practitioner) at one of three participating abortion clinics who evaluates her medical history, explains how to take the abortion pills and what to expect. The woman then must get medical tests including ultrasound and blood work at a medical facility.

The study is being conducted by Gynuity Health Projects in the hope that good results will encourage the FDA to stop restrictions on mifepristone in pharmacies.

IS MEDICAL ABORTION EVEN PHYSICALLY SAFE?

The list of contraindications for medical abortion include ectopic pregnancy, chronic adrenal failure, chronic corticosteroid use and blood clotting problems. If tests do not reveal such problems or if a pregnant woman does not know or tell the doctor about certain conditions, the results could be deadly.

Complications of medical abortions include infection, heavy or prolonged bleeding in an estimated 1% of women and in an estimated 2% to 5% of medical abortions, the unborn baby is not completely expelled from the womb. When the unborn baby is not completely expelled, a surgical abortion is done to prevent infection or other problems

In December 2014, the University of California-San Francisco (UCSF) released an extensive study on Medicaid abortions in California. While its press release was titled “Major Complication rate after Abortion is Extremely Low”, Stanford University Ph.D. Michael New and his team found something quite different when they analyzed the data. They found that the study confirmed the finding that telemedicine abortions have “four times more risk of complications”.

A NURSE’S PERSPECTIVE

Although Planned Parenthood calls medical abortion “similar to a miscarriage”, it’s not.

Years ago, I had a miscarriage at 10 weeks with complications. I had a doctor who knew my medical history before he gently told me that my baby had died in my womb. When I had complications at home during my miscarriage, he met me in the emergency room and took care of the problem. It was my doctor who reassured me when I was hospitalized overnight. That kind of physical and emotional support is not possible with a medical abortion from a clinic.

Now imagine a young woman afraid to tell anyone she is pregnant and who visits an abortion clinic to get the abortion pills. Will anyone be with her or even know when she goes home and experiences what Planned Parenthood says is “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”? Will she recognize the signs of a complication? Will anyone follow up if she doesn’t return to the clinic to be checked after the abortion?

There is a big difference between medical abortion and miscarriage physically, emotionally and spiritually because abortion is NOT health care.