Preterm birth is a serious global problem—but its link to abortion is ignored

Nov. 17 was World Prematurity Day. New global estimates indicate that, as Eve Lackritz of the Global Alliance to Prevent Prematurity and Stillbirth explains, "important gains have been made for nearly all causes of child death, except one in which progress has remained nearly stagnant: newborn mortality."

Preterm birth is not only the leading cause of newborn mortality. It is now the leading cause of all under-five deaths. About 3,000 children die each day from complications of prematurity, and those who survive are much more likely to have cerebral palsy or other health problems.

But the international community and media coverage have failed to acknowledge a significant risk factor for premature delivery. A wealth of worldwide research has established that induced abortion substantially increases the risk of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies. For example, a 2009 systematic review published in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found that a history of one induced abortion increased the risk of preterm birth by 36 percent and increased the risk of low birth weight by 35 percent. The increased risks greatly escalated with additional abortions—to 93 percent and 72 percent, respectively. Another 2009 systematic review, in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine, concluded that abortion raised the risk of birth before 32 weeks' gestation by 64 percent. A 2013 study in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada showed "a significant increase in the risk of preterm delivery in women with a history of previous induced abortion."

The prevalence of abortion undeniably contributes to the problem of newborn mortality (as well as to cerebral palsy and other disabilities). Abortion doesn't just take the lives of human beings in utero—it leads to the deaths of already-born babies too.

Will 1 in 3 women have an abortion?

Abortion advocacy organizations often say that 1 in 3 women will have an abortion in her lifetime. In fact, a whole campaign is based on that statistic.

But it's not accurate. Secular Pro-Life has put together a new website, Not1in3.com. The website explains:

The study most activist groups cite in order to justify the "1 in 3" statistic is Changes in Abortion Rates Between 2000 and 2008 and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion, published in 2011 by Dr. Rachel K. Jones and Dr. Megan L. Kavanaugh. ... The lifetime abortion rate given by the study is approximately 3 in 10, not 1 in 3. But the authors caution us that even the lower figure of 3 in 10 may be overstated ...

Moreover, given the recent declining abortion numbers, the 30 percent figure is clearly obsolete:

Abortion statistics are always a few years behind. That's why the Jones & Kavanaugh study, which was published in 2011, contained an analysis of data only as recent as 2008. It wasn't until three years after the study was published that reliable numbers were available through 2011. In 2014, Dr. Jones revealed the stunning news: between 2008 and 2011, abortion rates plummeted to the lowest level recorded since Roe v. Wade.

The 2011 study's prediction that 3 in 10 American women would have an abortion came with an important caveat; it only applied if American women were "exposed to prevailing abortion rates throughout their reproductive lives." There were almost 165,000 fewer abortions in 2011 than there were in 2008.

The positive trend shows no signs of stopping. Although reliable post-2011 abortion statistics are not yet available, we know that dozens of abortion businesses across the country have closed in the last three years due to a combination of decreased demand and pro-life legislation.

So it is likely that significantly fewer than 1 in 3 women will have an abortion.

Of course, more than a million abortions still occur in the United States each year—it is the leading cause of human death. But the prevalence of abortion should not lead us to accept it, as abortion advocates apparently think. It should lead us to work to protect the unborn, meet the needs of pregnant women, and care for those who have been detrimentally affected by abortion—so that the impact of abortion in American culture will continue to diminish.

Dads and abortion: Three ways they intersect

Abortion isn't only a women's issue. Here are three ways that fatherhood and abortion intersect.

(1) The importance of supportive fathers. According to the Guttmacher Institute, half of women having abortions say (as a reason) that they do not want to be a single parent or they are having trouble with their partner. A 2009 study published in the International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction found that pregnant women who felt they lacked support from the child's father were more likely to choose abortion. A 2004 study in Medical Science Monitor found that 64 percent of American women having abortions said they felt pressured by others to abort. A wealth of other evidence confirms that fathers often play a central role in determining pregnancy outcomes.

Men who help conceive a baby must support (emotionally, economically, or in whatever other ways) both mother and child. When they don't, abortion is more likely—and women and children pay a price, whether abortion is chosen or not.

(2) The effect of abortion on fathers. Abortion can detrimentally affect men just as it can women. Fathers may experience grief, guilt, anger, depression and other psychological consequences following abortion. Books like Men and Abortion: A Path to Healing, Redeeming a Father's Heart, Fatherhood Aborted and Men and Abortion: Losses, Lessons and Love have explored this issue. A number of ministries and websites (including www.fatherhoodforever.org, www.menandabortion.net and www.menandabortion.info) seek to provide healing for men who have lost children to abortion.

(3) Defending the unborn. Pro-choice advocates sometimes say that only women may speak about abortion, and many men are silent or have their opinions disregarded. But the case against abortion is sound irrespective of the gender (or any other characteristic) of an individual making it. Many, many women, after all, make the very same pro-life case. Men have an obligation to graciously speak the truth and to defend the lives of those who cannot defend themselves—the little girls and boys who have not yet been born.

Father's Day recognizes that dads play an essential role in the lives of their children. They are also essential to restoring a culture of life in which all human beings, especially the youngest and most vulnerable, are respected and protected.

Why Ipas is wrong to say legalizing abortion worldwide would save lives

The international abortion advocacy organization Ipas helped convene a meeting this week calling for governments to "repeal laws that criminalize abortion and remove barriers on women's and girls' access to safe abortion services," making "safe, legal abortion universally available, accessible and affordable for all women and girls." The conference attendees say abortion must be legalized to "sav[e] women's lives."

That is false. Maternal health depends far more on the quality of medical care (and related factors) than on the legal status or availability of abortion. Consider:

• Maternal mortality declined dramatically in the developed world as a result of advancements in modern medicine that took place before the widespread legalization of abortion.
• Today Ireland, Poland, Malta and Chile significantly restrict or prohibit abortion and yet have very low maternal mortality ratios.
• Among the few countries that achieved a 75 percent reduction in their maternal mortality ratios (a target of Millennium Development Goal 5) by 2010, Maldives, Bhutan and the Islamic Republic of Iran did so while generally prohibiting abortion.
• After Chile banned abortion in 1989, its maternal mortality ratio continued to decline significantly and at about the same rate, dropping 69.2 percent over the next 14 years, according to a 2012 study by Elard Koch, et al. Even maternal deaths due specifically to abortion declined—from 10.78 abortion deaths per 100,000 live births in 1989 to 0.83 in 2007, a reduction of 92.3 percent after abortion was made illegal.

Legalizing abortion, the Chilean study's authors conclude, is demonstrably unnecessary for the improvement of maternal health and the saving of women's lives.

In fact, legalizing or expanding abortion can be detrimental to the health and safety of pregnant women. Abortion poses physical and psychological risks. These risks include immediate complications such as hemorrhage, infection and death as well as long-term risks such as breast cancer. A wealth of worldwide research has established that abortion increases the risk of subsequent preterm birth, which can cause death or disability in newborn children. Abortion is also associated with a variety of psychological and social problems, including depression, drug abuse and suicide.

The health risks of abortion are exacerbated in countries where basic health care is lacking. The legalization or expansion of abortion in such countries can increase the incidence of abortion, increasing the number of women subjected to the risks of abortion.

The evidence shows that better maternal health care, not abortion, is the way to save lives.

Abortion and breast cancer: The evidence from China

A new meta-study published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Cancer Causes & Control analyzes 36 different studies of the association between abortion and breast cancer in China.

Combined, the studies show that abortion increases a woman's risk of breast cancer by 44 percent. The increased risk jumps to 76 percent after two or more abortions and 89 percent after three or more. The researchers conclude, "IA [induced abortion] is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases."

In China, which has a coercive population control policy, abortion is extremely prevalent. The weight of the evidence of an abortion-breast cancer link from all of these academic studies (which cover 14 different provinces in China) seems overwhelming.

The Chinese data should come as no surprise. Dozens of studies worldwide, spanning decades, show an abortion-breast cancer connection. A 1996 meta-analysis found a 30 percent increase in breast cancer risk among post-abortion women. And the physiological explanation of this increased risk (how abortion leaves a woman with more cancer-vulnerable breast tissue) makes perfect sense.

This isn't just a scientific discussion. It has very real consequences. As Dr. Joel Brind writes:

It is really frightening when you start doing the math on the impact of abortion on a population of over a billion women—in India and China alone: Just a 2% lifetime risk of breast cancer due to abortion—a very conservative estimate—means upwards of 10 million women getting breast cancer, and millions dying from it.

Many continue to deny (or ignore, in the case of the mainstream media) any link between abortion and breast cancer, but the criticisms of the evidence do not seem to withstand scrutiny, and more studies from around the world continue to surface. They are making the link seem almost undeniable.

Great Britain and Ireland: Data refute myths about abortion law and women's health

A new paper published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons contrasts maternal and neonatal health in Great Britain, which has legal elective abortion, with Ireland, which prohibits abortion. The data from these countries refute three myths about abortion that are prevalent in the international (and domestic) debate.

Myth #1: Legalizing abortion reduces maternal mortality; prohibiting abortion increases it. False. In their paper ("Maternal and Neonatal Health and Abortion: 40-Year Trends in Great Britain and Ireland"), Byron C. Calhoun, John M. Thorp and Patrick S. Carroll note that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (both of which prohibit abortion) have very low maternal mortality rates—typically lower than England, Wales and Scotland (which permit elective abortion). This is consistent with other evidence from around the world showing that maternal mortality is determined by the quality of maternal health care and not by the legal status of abortion.

Myth #2: Prohibiting abortion in one country only causes women to travel to neighboring countries to obtain abortions. Many women do, of course, but most don't. The total abortion rate in 2011 among women in England and Wales was four times greater than the rate among women in the Republic of Ireland and 6.5 times greater than Northern Ireland. The low Irish abortion rates included all Irish women who traveled elsewhere to obtain abortions. Calhoun, Thorp and Carroll observe, "Single parents choose in Northern Ireland to have additional children when their contemporaries in Great Britain tend more often to have abortions. And in Ireland expecting couples often choose to marry while their British contemporaries are more prone to have abortions."

The evidence from Great Britain and Ireland suggests that abortion law does affect the number of abortions—that legalizing abortion increases and prohibiting decreases its incidence.

Myth #3: Abortion doesn't increase the risk of subsequent preterm birth (which is linked to cerebral palsy) or cause other harm to to the health of women and children. The connection between abortion and preterm birth is demonstrated by a wealth of research. A 2009 meta-analysis of 22 studies, for example, found a 36 percent increased risk of future premature birth following abortion. This is further supported by the examples of Great Britain and Ireland. Preterm birth is more common in England, Wales and Scotland than in the Republic of Ireland, which also boasts lower rates of stillbirths and low-birthweight babies.

Calhoun, Thorp and Carroll conclude:

Over the 40 years of legalized abortion in the UK there has been a consistent pattern in which higher abortion rates have run parallel to higher incidence of stillbirths, premature births, low birth-weight neonates, cerebral palsy, and maternal deaths as sequelae [aftereffects] of abortion. In contrast, both Irish jurisdictions consistently display lower rates of all morbidities and mortality associated with legalized abortion.

Legalized abortion offers no benefit to the health of women or their children.

Fathers and abortion

Fathers will be honored this Sunday, as they should be. Abortion is often called a women's issue, but here are three ways that it intersects with fatherhood.

(1) The importance of supportive fathers. A 2009 study published in the International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction found that pregnant women who felt they lacked support from the child's father were more likely to choose abortion. A 2004 study in Medical Science Monitor found that 64 percent of American women having abortions said they felt pressured by others to abort. Other studies and evidence confirm that fathers often play a central role in determining pregnancy outcomes.

Men who help conceive a baby must support (emotionally and in whatever other ways) both mother and child. When they don't, abortion is more likely, and women and children suffer (whether abortion is chosen or not).

(2) The effect of abortion on fathers. Abortion can detrimentally affect men just as it can women. Fathers may experience grief, guilt, anger, depression and other psychological consequences following abortion. Books like Men and Abortion: A Path to Healing, Redeeming a Father's Heart and Men and Abortion: Losses, Lessons and Love have explored this issue. A 2000 Canadian study of couples having first-trimester abortions concluded that "being involved in a first-trimester abortion can be highly distressing for both women and men."

Still, the tragedy of "lost fatherhood" has largely been unstudied and ignored. It shouldn't be.

(3) Speaking out. Pro-choice advocates like to say that only women can speak about abortion, and many men are silent or (if they are pro-life, but strangely not if they are pro-choice) their opinions are disregarded. But that doesn't make any sense. The pro-life (or any other) position must be considered on its merits, not dismissed because of some characteristic of a person advancing that position. Many, many women, after all, make the very same pro-life case. Men have an obligation to graciously speak the truth and to defend the lives of those who cannot defend themselves.

Father's Day recognizes that fathers play an essential role in the lives of their children. They are also essential to restoring a culture of life in which all human beings, especially the youngest and most vulnerable, are respected and protected.

Women suffer in multiple ways from abortion, reveals new analysis of research

The following news release was issued today, May 22, 2013.

GENEVA, Switzerland — Legalized abortion is widely touted as beneficial to women, but a wealth of medical and psychological evidence suggests otherwise, according to a new analysis of decades of research. The analysis was released today at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Global Outreach (MCCL GO) and National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund (NRLC), an NGO based in Washington, D.C. Jeanne E. Head, R.N., Patrick Buckley and Scott Fischbach, who are in Geneva introducing the analysis, are calling for a renewed emphasis on providing women with improved maternal health care.

"Women face numerous risks with abortion, legal or illegal, and those risks are substantially greater in the developing world," said Jeanne Head, R.N., National Right to Life vice-president for international affairs and U.N. representative. "Yet some in the international community have focused their resources primarily on legalizing abortion at the expense of women’s lives and health."

"The evidence is overwhelming: Abortion is dangerous for women," said MCCL GO Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "Abortion is by its very nature a violent and damaging procedure."

"Rather than legalize or promote abortion, governments should protect the equal dignity and basic rights of all human beings, including women and their unborn children," said Patrick Buckley, Geneva main representative for the U.K. Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

The analysis, "How Abortion Hurts Women," provides an overview of extensive research from multiple countries into the risks of abortion. Documented complications include hemorrhage, infection, cervical damage, uterine perforation, pelvic disease and retained fetal or placental tissue. Large record-based studies from Finland, Denmark and the United States found that maternal mortality rates were significantly higher after abortion compared to childbirth.

Long-term risks of abortion, including subsequent preterm birth, infertility, cancer, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and placenta previa, can substantially impede future reproductive success. In addition, abortion is associated with increased risk of negative psycho-social consequences. For example, a 2011 meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found an 81 percent increased risk of mental health problems. Anxiety, depression, alcohol and drug use and suicidal behaviors have been found to increase following abortion, along with damage to key relationships.

In the developing world, these dangers increase where basic maternal health care is unavailable. Ms. Head explains: "The incidence of maternal mortality is mainly determined by the quality of maternal health care. Legalization does not improve outcomes, but only increases the number of women subjected to the risks of abortion."

MCCL GO and National Right to Life called upon the WHA to focus its resources on the improvement of women's health care in the developing world.

"We call upon the WHA to acknowledge that abortion needlessly puts women at serious risk, both physically and psychologically," Mr. Fischbach added. "We urge the World Health Assembly to adopt measures that protect women from abortion and improve women's health care."

The analysis is available in English, French and Spanish at the MCCL GO website, www.mccl-go.org.

The consequences of more webcam abortions in Minnesota

We noted last week that Whole Woman's Health in Minneapolis may soon offer RU486 abortions remotely via telemedicine. These "webcam abortions" are already offered at the Planned Parenthood facility in Rochester. What will be the consequences?

A recent study of webcam abortions in Iowa, which were introduced in 2008 and administered at 11 different clinics by 2010, provides evidence that the use of telemedicine for abortion does precisely what one would expect: it increases the incidence of RU486 abortions, increases the percentage of overall abortions that use RU486, and increases the incidence of abortion among women in rural areas—which increases the overall incidence of abortion relative to what it would otherwise be.

None of that is good for the unborn children who are killed by this chemical abortion method. It is certainly not consistent with a desire to reduce the number of abortions. But what about the women?

Dr. Jacqueline Harvey of ReproductiveResearchAudit.com notes that the study's authors (who strongly favor abortion) neglect the health consequences of webcam abortions for women. The researchers "fail to note medical [RU486] abortions have greater rates of complications than surgical abortions," she explains. "The researchers only examine geography and service delivery, not safety or complication."

In her own analysis, then, Harvey uses "the number of abortions by type provided in the ... study" together with "the percentage of women facing complications from each abortion method (also provided by [the study's lead author in his other work])" to conclude that "the increased prevalence of medical abortion will likely yield an 11% increase in the number of women suffering from complications."

An estimated 11 percent increase in the number of women suffering from abortion complications. Based on data provided by abortion advocates, including one who worked for Planned Parenthood in Iowa at the time of the study.

And that is not to mention concerns about the webcam method itself, such as the absence of doctors nearby to treat complications. "The incidence of requiring follow-up care face-to-face with a physician is greater with medical abortions than with surgical abortions—in spite of the fact that telemedicine is justified as expanding access to abortion in rural areas that lack qualified doctors," writes Harvey. "Telemedicine therefore increases the incidence of women electing for the abortion method with a greater incidence of risk, confounded with reduced access to medical professionals when these risks become reality."

It was for the health and safety of pregnant women that the Minnesota Legislature passed a ban on webcam abortions in 2012—requiring simply that a doctor be physically present when administering RU486—but the measure was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton. And now this dangerous and abortion-expanding practice is beginning to grow.

New study links abortion to higher risk of death than childbirth

A recent study published in the Medical Science Monitor indicates that women who undergo abortions have a higher mortality rate than women who give birth.

The researchers, Priscilla K. Coleman (Bowling Green State University) and David C. Reardon (the Elliot Institute), note the limitations of previous studies on this issue:

All existing studies of mortality rates associated with prior pregnancy outcomes have been limited to pregnancies within an arbitrary range of women's reproductive lives and have lacked information on the subjects' complete reproductive history. Therefore, one of the main purposes of this study is to eliminate the potential confounding effect of unknown prior pregnancy history by examining mortality rates associated specifically with first pregnancy outcome alone.

The authors summarize the findings of their study, which used detailed medical records from Denmark:

A total of 463,473 women had their first pregnancy between 1980 and 2004, of whom 2,238 died. In nearly all time periods examined, mortality rates associated with miscarriage or abortion of a first pregnancy were higher than those associated with birth. Compared to women who delivered, the age and birth year adjusted cumulative risk of death for women who had a first trimester abortion was significantly higher in all periods examined, from 180 days through 10 years, as was the risk for women who had abortions after 12 weeks from one year through 10 years.

"[C]ompared to a first pregnancy ending in a live birth," Coleman and Reardon write, "an abortion prior to 12 weeks is associated with 80% higher risk of death within the first year and a 40% higher risk of death over 10 years."

The study can be downloaded here.

The risks of RU486 to pregnant women

Since the FDA approved the abortion drug RU486 in September 2000, more than 1.5 million unborn children have been killed by that method. A detailed new analysis by Chris Gacek for the Family Research Council "focuses on the additional medical hazards that many women face when using RU-486 to induce an abortion." According to the FDA, at least 14 U.S. women have died after taking RU486, and thousands have experienced "adverse events." (And probably only a fraction of complications are reported to the FDA.) Below are a few excerpts from Gacek's report (notes omitted).

On how RU486 may interfere with the immune system:

Dr. Ralph Miech, emeritus professor at Brown University's medical school, has published two peer-reviewed articles describing potentially undesirable effects related to RU-486 and its anti-glucocorticoid properties. First, he believes that RU-486's blockade of cortisol receptors on bacteria-destroying white blood cells may impede the antibacterial defense mechanism of the innate immune system. Such interference, he hypothesizes, played a significant role in the deaths of at least five North Americans in which there was a post abortion, bacterial invasion of the uterus and subsequent septic shock. Second, prompted by an article describing mifepristone-related adverse events with significant and unexpected levels of hemorrhage, Miech's second article argues that RU-486 appears to interfere with the body's ability to control uterine hemorrhage. Such interference, if true, would be a dangerous feature of an abortion procedure that is designed to produce a simulated miscarriage. [T]he number of hemorrhage/transfusion and serious infection cases revealed by FDA support Miech's concern about RU-486 and hemorrhage.

On comparing the complications of RU486 (nonsurgical, chemical, "medical") abortion to surgical abortion:

One significant study on medical abortion's safety and effectiveness was published by Obstetrics & Gynecology in October 2009. It compared the immediate complications that occurred after medical and surgical abortions. The study was conducted in Finland where there is a comprehensive network of medical registries that could be used to track abortion outcomes in that country's government-based medical system. From 2000-2006 all women (n=42,619) who had abortions up to 63 days gestational age were followed up until 42 days.

Overall, medical abortion had roughly four times the rate of adverse events than surgical abortion did: 20.0% of women in the medical-abortion group and 5.6% of women in the surgical-abortion group had at least one type of adverse event. Hemorrhage, as an adverse event, was experienced by 15.6% of medical abortion patients compared with 2.1% for surgical patients. Incomplete abortions were experienced by 6.7% of medical abortion patients while only 1.6% of surgical patients had incomplete abortions. The rate for surgical (re)evacuation of the uterus was 5.9% (medical) versus 1.8% (surgical) for all causes (hemorrhage, infection, incomplete abortion). In summary, the Finnish registries revealed that first-trimester medical abortions with mifepristone and a prostaglandin - typically misoprostol - resulted in: 1) 20 out of every 100 women with a significant adverse event; 2) about 16 out of 100 women hemorrhaging excessively; 3) 7 out of every 100 women with tissue left inside; and, 4) approximately 6 out of every 100 women needing surgical re-evacuation of the uterus.

An Australian study, Gacek notes, found that 1 in 30 women taking RU486 in the first trimester of pregnancy had to go to the emergency room. It also found that among RU486 abortions performed in the second trimester, "a staggering 33% required some form of surgical intervention." In the United States, the FDA has only approved RU486 for use within the first 49 days of gestation, but Planned Parenthood administers it through 63 days' gestation -- when the danger is perhaps greater.

The risks of RU486 to pregnant women are particularly relevant because the abortion industry sees RU486 as a cost-efficient means of expanding abortion. The percentage of total abortions that use the RU486 method has increased steadily since FDA approval. In Iowa and Minnesota, Planned Parenthood now administers RU486 through telemedicine -- so-called webcam abortions, which can be promoted in rural areas lacking immediate medical resources in the event of complications. And international abortion advocates are even pushing the use of RU486 (or its companion drug misoprostol alone) in developing nations. As Gacek explains:

The track record established by RU-486 makes it clear that the push for the widespread use of medical abortion in poor nations is inhumane and detrimental to the interests of the female patients who take these pills. First, unless ultrasound equipment is available, ectopic pregnancy cannot be ruled out. Second, access to clean blood for transfusions is a necessity. Third, a surgical procedure must be offered as the back-up for women who have had incomplete medical abortions. Therefore, all of the technologies, facilities, and skilled personnel needed to perform a surgical evacuation of the uterus must be in place for medical abortion patients. Those pushing for medical abortions in developing nations do so arguing that the short supply of medical capabilities argues in favor of making medical abortions available to women in these areas. Good conscience and good medicine requires us to point out that the exact opposite is the case.

Abortion advocates are promoting a riskier method of abortion (both in the United States and abroad) because it doesn't require the expense of having an actual doctor, surgical equipment, etc., nearby. But the absence of a doctor, etc., only further increases the risk! This thinking is precisely backwards if one is at all concerned about the health and safety of pregnant women, and not just about the expansion of abortion access and/or profiting from said expansion (e.g., in the case of Planned Parenthood).

For more, see MCCL's recently updated RU486 brochure (above right), which highlights the risks of the drug and discusses the introduction of webcam abortions in Minnesota.

Abortion facility licensing bill passed by Senate panel

The following was released today, March 13, 2012.

ST. PAUL — Legislation to require licensure of abortion centers was approved by the Minnesota Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee today on an 8-5 vote. It was the second hearing for the measure seeking women’s safety, and has the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).

S.F. 1921 (H.F. 2340), authored by Sen. Claire Robling, R-Jordan, would require facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed. The state commissioner of health would establish rules necessary for licensure. The bill also authorizes the commissioner to perform inspections of abortion facilities as deemed necessary, with no prior notice required.

"The state already licenses other similar facilities, including hospitals, outpatient surgical centers, and many more—even facilities that specialize in body art like tattoos and piercings," MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau testified.

Rau also discussed the filthy conditions found at an abortion clinic in Pennsylvania, which did not license or inspect abortion centers. Several women died, others contracted venereal diseases from unsanitary equipment, and babies born alive were killed. Once discovered, the clinic was called a "house of horrors" by grand jury investigators. S.F. 1921 would protect women from such dangers.

The requirement would apply to the state's seven abortion clinics, which together perform more than 98 percent of all abortions in Minnesota. In 2010, a total of 11,505 abortions were performed in the state.

Planned Parenthood is the state's largest abortion provider. In 2010, it performed more than 4,000 abortions, or more than 75 per week. Last week an ambulance was called to transport someone from Planned Parenthood's new St. Paul abortion clinic, bringing to light the need for inspection and licensing of such facilities.

Sen. Robling listed the many serious complications that can result from various surgical and non-surgical abortion methods. She also noted that other states have established abortion clinic licensure laws, which have been upheld by the courts in legal challenges.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that maternal health is a legitimate interest to support regulations regarding abortion," Sen. Robling said.

In her testimony on behalf of the bill, Prof. Teresa Collett of the University of St. Thomas School of Law noted that in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can regulate abortion clinic practices throughout the duration of the pregnancy.

"Surely in the abortion debate in this state, we can agree on one thing: that women who choose abortion have a right to know that the clinics they are being treated by observe the highest standard of professional responsibility and sanitary equipment," Collett said.

Senate panel approves two MCCL-backed bills on women’s safety

The following news release was issued today, Feb. 27, 2012.

ST. PAUL — Bills to prohibit dangerous "webcam abortions" and to require licensure of abortion centers were approved by the Minnesota Senate Health and Human Services Committee today on voice votes. It was the first hearing for both measures seeking women's safety, which have the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).

S.F. 1912 (H.F. 2341), authored by Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, would stop dangerous webcam abortions by requiring that a physician be physically present during an abortion. Webcam abortions involve the RU486 abortion drug, administered via video conference with an abortion provider in another location. The doctor talks with the woman, then presses a button which remotely opens a drawer to dispense the drug. The doctor is never physically present to examine the woman for any problems such as a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy. Planned Parenthood began offering webcam abortions last year at its Rochester facility; women consult with a doctor in St. Paul.

"Abortion is like no other procedure, as the courts have recognized. As Justice Potter Stewart wrote for the majority in Harris v. McRae (1980), 'Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life,'" said MCCL Legislative Associate Jordan Marie Harris in testimony. "This legislation seeks to protect women by requiring that a physician be in the same room and in the physical presence of the woman when administering RU486."

Three advocates of webcam abortion testified, including Dr. Carrie Terrell of Whole Women's Health abortion center in Minneapolis, and Karen Law of Pro-Choice Resources. No mention was made of the importance of the doctor-patient relationship, a hallmark of "pro-choice" arguments.

S.F. 1921 (H.F. 2340), authored by Sen. Claire Robling, R-Jordan, would require facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed. The state commissioner of health would establish rules necessary for licensure. The bill also authorizes the commissioner to perform inspections of abortion facilities as deemed necessary, with no prior notice required.

"The purpose of all government regulation is to protect the public by enforcing minimum standards. This legislation asks the Department of Health to determine specifically what these standards would be," MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau testified.

No one testified in opposition to the bill. Both bills will now be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Women’s safety is focus of two pro-life bills introduced today

The following news release was issued today, Feb. 16, 2012.

ST. PAUL — Minnesota women would be provided greater safety under two measures introduced today at the State Capitol. A bill to ban "webcam abortions" and another to allow abortion facilities to be inspected have the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

S.F. 1912 and H.F. 2341, authored by Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, and Rep. Joyce Peppin, R-Rogers, would stop dangerous webcam abortions by requiring that a physician be physically present during an abortion. Webcam abortions involve the RU486 abortion drug, administered via video conference with an abortion provider in another location. The doctor talks with the woman, then presses a button which opens a drawer to remotely dispense the drug. The doctor is never physically present to examine the woman for any problems such as a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy. Planned Parenthood began offering webcam abortions last year at its Rochester facility; women consult with a doctor in St. Paul.

The risks of RU486 can be severe: 14 women are known to have died in the U.S. after taking the drugs, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Canada has banned the abortion method due to safety concerns.

"Webcam abortions are highly cost-effective for abortion providers, but far too risky for women," said MCCL Legislative Associate Jordan Marie Harris. "As with any medical procedure, the safety of the patient must be the primary concern, not profit."

S.F. 1921 and H.F. 2340, authored by Sen. Claire Robling, R-Jordan, and Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, would require facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed. The state commissioner of health would establish rules necessary for licensure. The bill also authorizes the commissioner to perform inspections of abortion facilities as deemed necessary, with no prior notice required.

Minnesota licenses game farms, youth camps, nursing homes and veterinary medicine facilities, but not abortion providers, even though abortion is one of the most common medical procedures in the state. Health dangers have been uncovered at unlicensed abortion centers in cities outside Minnesota in recent years.

"For far too long, Minnesota's abortion industry has operated outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Health, and this has left women vulnerable," Harris said. "It is time that the state ensure the safety of women."

Video: A mother's letter to her aborted child

The following video was created by a high school student, using the text of an actual letter written by a post-abortive woman to her unborn child.

Video: Fact, not opinion, about RU486 abortion

The following video shows a fictional consultation between a doctor and a woman seeking an RU486 (chemical) abortion. Unlike most such consultations, this abortionist is honest and factually accurate. The nonprofit educational organization behind the video, the Human Development Resource Council, has provided medical documentation backing up every statement the abortionist makes.



(HT: Josh Brahm)

Planned Parenthood brings 'webcam' abortions to Minnesota

Minnesota, apparently, was next in line for Planned Parenthood's webcam abortion expansion.

MCCL reported on Aug. 30 that Planned Parenthood had begun performing RU486 chemical abortions at its Rochester (Minnesota) clinic. It was the first time that Planned Parenthood in Minnesota -- the leading performer and promoter of abortion in our state -- had expanded its abortion operation beyond its St. Paul abortion center.

We then learned and reported in the Sept.-Oct. issue of MCCL News that these RU486 abortions in Rochester are being done via webcam. This is a very troubling development.

So-called "webcam" or "telemedicine" abortions were pioneered by Planned Parenthood in Iowa. Rather than meeting the abortionist in person, a pregnant woman converses with him long-distance via webcam before receiving the abortion drugs. (RU486 abortions are a two drug process: the first is mifepristone, or RU486, which kills the developing human being in utero; the second is a prostaglandin that expels the dead child.)

The webcam method allows Planned Parenthood to bring RU486 abortions to more women, especially in rural areas, who no longer have to travel to meet with a doctor in person. Women at the Rochester clinic talk with an abortionist who is located at Planned Parenthood's St. Paul center. The predictable result is more abortions performed and more revenue for Planned Parenthood.

Explains Dr. Randall K. O'Bannon of National Right to Life:

Webcam abortions generate buzz and open up a whole new customer base in locations where Planned Parenthood can't afford to post an abortionist. It gives some of their smaller offices a chance to bring in a very profitable product without having to make a lot of changes or buy a whole lot of new equipment.

Webcam abortions also pose serious dangers to women. RU486 itself is a particularly dangerous abortion method for pregnant women: Fourteen women are known to have died from RU486 in the United States since 2000, according to the FDA, and thousands of women have suffered complications. Moreover, the webcam technique means that women can receive RU486 in areas in which there may be no doctors (or no doctors familiar with the RU486 abortion process) available in the event of such complications.

It is true, of course, that many legitimate medical procedures are offered via telemedicine, as a means of helping more people, especially in emergency situations; but abortion is not a legitimate medical procedure. It is an elective procedure that kills young members of the human family and risks the health of women. Webcam abortion expands destruction, not health care.

Planned Parenthood's webcam abortion operation in our state must be opposed because it will increase the number of unborn human beings who are unjustly killed, and because it needlessly endangers pregnant women, who deserve care and support, not chemical abortion with little medical supervision.

Aristotle, the poor pregnant mom, and true happiness

From a new interview Kathryn Jean Lopez conducted with philosopher Christopher Kaczor, author of the recent book The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice:

LOPEZ: What does Aristotle have to do with the poor mom who feels as if she has no alternatives when she realizes she is pregnant? The desperate teenager? The single professional who can't both do her job and have this child?

KACZOR: I believe that everyone, including the poor mom, the desperate teenager, and the single professional, desires to find true happiness. I also believe that Aristotle, and even more fully Thomas Aquinas, showed that the way to true happiness consists in activity in accordance with virtue. There can be, therefore, no authentic happiness found in activity that is unjust. Aristotle's perspective has found a powerful analogue in the findings of contemporary positive psychology, which emphasizes the concept of flow in activity, strong relationships with others, and forgiveness.

I know that many women face unbelievably difficult circumstances in their pregnancy. For this reason, I think that all people of good will have an obligation to help them, to celebrate their heroism when they choose life, and to love them even when they do not. I can think of one case in particular: a young student, not yet finished with her education, who found herself pregnant with a man she did not know well. With so many responsibilities, both to her extended family and to her studies, she felt desperate, alone, and trapped. It was truly an act of heroism for that woman to decide to place that child for adoption. I know the woman in the story very well. She is my birth mother. I feel such an enormous debt of gratitude to her. Even though her choice was unbelievably difficult, I know and she knows that she made the right decision not to end my life. I don't think there is any woman who in the long term regrets, even in the most difficult of circumstances, making the choice for life. But I know there are many thousands of women who still remember and mourn, even decades later, the date that their baby would have been born.

Read the rest of the interview here.

Does rape justify abortion? Three points

"Having lived through rape, and having raised a child 'conceived in rape,' I feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal for rape and incest. I feel that we're being used to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story." -- Kathleen DeZeeuw, quoted in Victims and Victors

Abortion defenders frequently appeal to cases of pregnancy resulting from rape. Surely abortion should be allowed in such tragic and unfair situations, they argue. What can one say in response?

Rape is a truly horrifying crime. Rapists should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Victims of rape should be supported and treated with enormous compassion. But rape as an argument for the permissibility of abortion fails completely and decisively. Here's why.

(1) The vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape. Less than one percent of abortions end pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest. Thus, rape cannot justify the standard pro-choice position (and current legal regime in the United States) of abortion on demand. Pro-choice advocates must offer reasons to think that the other 99-plus percent of abortions are permissible. Appealing to rape is very often a red herring.

(2) Even in the cases of pregnancy resulting from rape, abortion is impermissible. Why? Because abortion is the unjust killing of an innocent human being (as I argue elsewhere), and the circumstances of sexual assault pregnancies do not change the ethics of such killing. Consider the following.

First, the fact that one has been the victim of a horrible crime does not justify inflicting a similar injustice against another innocent person. If abortion is such an injustice, then abortion in cases of rape is clearly wrong, for two wrongs do not make a right. An innocent child may not be put to death for the crime of her father.

Second, the circumstances of someone's conception have no bearing on his or her moral status as a human being. The people alive today who were conceived in rape (many of whom are now pro-life activists) may not be killed on those grounds. To argue for the permissibility of abortion in cases of rape -- indeed, to argue for the permissibility of abortion in all other cases -- one must show that the unborn (the embryo or fetus) who is killed by abortion is not a valuable, rights-bearing member of the human family, like you and me. The circumstances of conception are obviously irrelevant.

Third, we many not kill valuable, rights-bearing members of the human family in order to relieve or prevent emotional or psychological distress. The reasons for having an abortion after rape do not justify the killing of human persons. So, again, if the unborn is a valuable person, then abortion in cases of rape is not justified.

Finally, an abortion defender might argue that because a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape didn't consent to the sex that led to pregnancy, she has no obligation to let the unborn human being "use" her body as a "life-support system" (as a defender of the argument might put it). But a lack of special obligation does not justify intentional and direct killing, which most abortions entail. And not all of our obligations are voluntarily assumed. For more, see my critique of the bodily autonomy argument famously proposed by Judith Jarvis Thomson.

None of this is to deny that a woman who is raped is brutally victimized, and that she is further wronged if she subsequently becomes pregnant, unfairly tasking her with the gestation of a child (who is also an innocent victim, having come into existence in such a terrible way, through no fault of her own). Carrying to term a child conceived in rape is a heroic act, but sometimes heroism is the only acceptable course of action. Explains philosopher Christopher Kaczor:

The weight of philosophical discussion from Plato through Kant up to such twentieth-century writers as Dietrich Bonhoeffer urges us to do good and avoid doing evil, even when the personal cost is great, even if we are forced to choose between the morally impermissible and the morally heroic in cases where the merely permissible is not available due to the evil choices of others.

Fortunately, pregnancy care centers all across the state and nation stand ready to help women suffering after sexual assault. They are not alone.

(3) Research shows that abortion does not benefit women who have been victimized by rape. The rationale for rape victims getting abortions in the first place -- it will spare them emotional or psychological pain -- is simply not true in the real world. In their book Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault, David C. Reardon, Julie Makimaa (herself conceived in rape) and Amy Sobie document the cases of women who became pregnant as a result of sexual assault. They write:

It is a little known fact that the vast majority of sexual assault victims do not want abortions. In addition, when sexual assault victims do have abortions, the long term, and even short term, psychological effects are devastating. Most of these women describe the negative effects of abortion on their lives as even more devastating than sexual assault.

Sexual assault is actually a contraindication for abortion. A doctor treating a pregnant sexual assault victim should advise against abortion precisely because of the traumatic nature of the pregnancy. ... [B]oth the mother and the child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence. ...

Abortion only adds to and accentuates the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault. Rather than easing the psychological burdens, abortion adds to them.

Abortion and rape are both wrong because they are the unjust, brutal, dehumanizing treatment of innocent human beings. Abortion when pregnancy is a result of rape makes no moral sense. Notes Kaczor in his recent book The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice:

Unfortunately, nothing, including having an abortion, can undo a rape. However, to bear a child conceived in these most difficult of circumstances is to perform an act that is in complete contradiction of what takes place in a rape. In rape, a man assaults an innocent human being; in nurturing life, a woman protects an innocent human being. In rape, a man undermines the freedom of another; in nurturing life, a woman grants freedom to another. In rape, a man imposes himself to the great detriment of another; in nurturing life, a woman makes a gift of herself to the great benefit of another. While, unfortunately, rape once perpetrated can never be undone, the rationalizations, maxims, and motives of rape are never so completely rejected as when someone chooses life in the most difficult circumstances, circumstances that make such a choice heroic.

Breast cancer, abortion, and Susan G. Komen for the Cure

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Americans rightly want to help breast cancer victims and prevent future suffering and death from the terrible disease. Why? Because we recognize the dignity of our fellow human persons, who deserve our care, regard and compassion.

Tragically, one major breast cancer organization -- Susan G. Komen for the Cure -- actively supports Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading performer and promoter of abortion. Many of the group's affiliates award grants to the abortion chain. In 2010 18 Komen affiliates gave a total of more than $569,000 to Planned Parenthood; affiliates gave almost $4 million from 2004 to 2010. It does not appear that the Minnesota Komen affiliate gives to Planned Parenthood.

Support for Planned Parenthood contradicts the very same principle of human dignity that undergirds our commitment to helping breast cancer victims in the first place. Abortion is the unjust killing of young human beings, whose age, size, ability (or inability) and dependency do not disqualify them from the respect and protection that is owed to every member of the human family.

Komen says the money it gives to Planned Parenthood does not go toward abortion. But the money is fungible, and any funding supports Planned Parenthood's continued existence and work, which is centered on abortion. To subsidize Planned Parenthood is to subsidize the abortion industry, effectively increasing the number of abortions that take place. Moreover, breast-related care is better provided by other organizations and programs. Planned Parenthood does not even perform mammograms -- women must go elsewhere for serious health care. (Learn more about Planned Parenthood and the debate over its funding here.)

Komen's support for Planned Parenthood is tragically ironic in a second way: A large body of evidence suggests that abortion increases a woman's risk of breast cancer. Dr. Gerard Nadal explains:

For a half-century now, well over a hundred studies have indicated a link between abortion and breast cancer, with increased risks being upward of 50% for abortions before a first full-term pregnancy, with many showing increased risks above 100%.

The biological explanation for this link is very simple and has been demonstrated repeatedly in animal studies. Prior to a first full term pregnancy a woman's breasts are not fully developed, with her lobules made up of immature and cancer-prone Type 1 and Type 2 cells. When she conceives a child, estrogen levels rise dramatically, along with the pregnancy hormone HCG, which stimulate the lobules to undergo massive cell proliferation, roughly doubling in number. These first trimester events leave the woman with twice as many cells where cancer can start.

At the end of the second trimester, the baby begins to protect the mother by secreting the hormone human placental lactogen. This hormone matures the lobule cells into cancer-resistant Type 4 cells, which will produce milk. By the end of the pregnancy 85% of the lobule cells will have undergone this differentiation. The remaining 15% will undergo differentiation to Type 4 Cells during breastfeeding and subsequent pregnancies.

As animal studies bear out, if pregnancy is ended by abortion the woman is left with twice as many immature, cancer-prone cells where cancer can start, but she does not derive the protective effect of the third trimester.

Learn more about the link between abortion and breast cancer here and here.