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.

Whole Woman’s Health brings dangerous ‘webcam abortions’ to Minneapolis

The following news release was issued today, March 1, 2013.

MINNEAPOLIS—The state's newest abortion center is bringing a dangerous Internet abortion method to Minneapolis. Texas-based Whole Woman's Health, which purchased a second abortion center in downtown Minneapolis in November, revealed in a Bloomberg interview that it plans to add "webcam abortions" to its offerings, which also include surgical abortions.

Webcam abortions involve RU486, the chemical abortion method that requires taking two drugs, two days apart (neither is "emergency contraception"). The first, mifepristone, cuts off nutrition to the developing unborn child, causing it to die. The second drug, misoprostol, induces powerful contractions to expel the now-dead baby. The process can take from a few days to several weeks, and in rare cases does not work at all.

At least 14 women are known to have died in the U.S. from RU486 (September 2000-April 2011), according to the Food & Drug Administration. Many died from sepsis, hemorrhage or an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy. More than 2,000 others have suffered adverse effects. As a result, women have petitioned the FDA to remove this dangerous drug from the market to prevent more deaths. The RU486 method accounted for 2,175 abortions in Minnesota in 2011, according to the Minnesota Department of Health—about 20 percent of the statewide total.

The webcam abortion method exacerbates the risks of RU486 to women, because the prescribing doctor is not physically present when women take the drugs. Instead of examining her to determine whether the woman is at risk of an ectopic pregnancy or another complication, the abortionist uses a webcam. The woman sits in front of a computer; the doctor is typically in another city or state. After a conversation, the abortionist hits a button to open a drawer containing the two drugs. The woman ingests the first and takes the other home to have her abortion alone.

"Another abortion provider in our state is willing to put women's lives at even greater risk by offering webcam abortions," lamented Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). Planned Parenthood brought dangerous webcam abortions to the state in 2010. "Whole Woman's Health is seeking to increase its revenues at the expense of women's health."

Whole Woman's Health (WWH) was fined $83,000 in Texas, along with its medical waste vendor, for illegally dumping the remains of aborted babies in open trash receptacles. Eight of its abortionists were disciplined by the Texas Medical Board for numerous allegations, including the illegal dumping of private patient medical records, HIPAA violations, and violations of Texas informed consent laws. Several WWH abortionists have previous disciplinary histories, including one who was responsible for a patient death.

"Their past record demonstrates that Whole Woman's Health is willing to violate the law. This only underscores the need to license and inspect abortion facilities in the state," Fischbach said. MCCL supports S.F. 752/H.F. 900 to require licensing of abortion facilities.

Legislation to ban webcam abortions was passed by the Minnesota Legislature in 2012, but vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton.

Study shows that telemedicine expands abortion access in Iowa

A new study published in the American Journal of Public Health analyzes the use of telemedicine to remotely administer "medical" (chemical, RU486) abortions in Iowa. Planned Parenthood began performing these "webcam abortions" in 2008, and by 2010 they were offered at 11 different clinics across Iowa.

The study should be taken with a few grains of salt because the authors strongly favor abortion; one actually worked for Planned Parenthood in Iowa at the time of the study, and two more work for the abortion advocacy organization Ibis Reproductive Health. The research should not be dismissed for that reason -- it must be assessed on its merits -- but readers should know the ideological perspective the authors seek to advance.

MCCL brochure

The study only analyzes the first two years after webcam abortions were introduced -- and they were "phased in" over 21 months, nearly the entire study period -- so the full effect may not yet be clear (a limitation acknowledged by the authors). But here is what the researchers write in their summary:

[T]he proportion of abortions in the [Planned Parenthood] clinics that were medical increased from 46% to 54%. After telemedicine was introduced, and with adjustment for other factors, clinic patients had increased odds of obtaining both medical abortion and abortion before 13 weeks' gestation. Although distance traveled to the clinic decreased only slightly, women living farther than 50 miles from the nearest clinic offering surgical abortion were more likely to obtain an abortion after telemedicine introduction.

The researchers also note that overall abortions in Iowa declined during this period (as they did in many states), but that is clearly despite the webcam introduction, not because of it. Planned Parenthood -- the group performing the webcam abortions -- saw an increase in abortions. And while abortions dropped in the heavily-populated Des Moines area (where abortion was already very accessible), "the data showed ... an increase in the number of abortions performed on women living in the western and eastern portions of the state" -- the places where webcam abortions were introduced. Indeed, "availability of abortion services certainly increased after telemedicine introduction, because the number of clinics providing abortion care increased."

While the number of surgical abortions decreased, the number of RU486 abortions increased. And "most of the increase in the number of medical abortions after telemedicine introduction occurred among women living more than 50 miles from one of the surgical abortion clinics, especially in more remote parts of Iowa, as well as in eastern Nebraska and northwest Illinois. In most cases, the increases occurred in areas surrounding telemedicine sites."

With regard to abortion clinics in general (not just Planned Parenthood clinics), "The proportion of medical abortions among all abortions increased significantly, from 33.4% to 45.3%." So almost half of abortions in Iowa from 2008 to 2010 were RU486 abortions. That is startling, and the percentage is probably higher now than it was over the whole two-year period.

The authors conclude that "telemedicine could improve access to medical abortion, especially for women living in remote areas, and reduce second-trimester abortion." The bottom line is that this study 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 considering both the unborn children killed and the women who risk their health by this particular abortion method.

Policy analyst Jacqueline Harvey, Ph.D., notes:

While methodologically sound, the study reads more like market research than a treatise on public health, especially since there was no mention of any complications. Using the most conservative numbers in range on incomplete abortions requiring surgical follow-up to a mere 2%, this means that of the study's 9,758 patients, at least 195 women who could not make the trip to a see a physician in person faced this complication alone. While earlier abortions do pose less risk, the authors do not acknowledge the risks involved with unsupervised self-abortion. The authors herald tele-med abortions as increasing access to abortions for women in rural areas, but do not consider a potential danger for women who cannot be treated for complications over a webcam.

The study is especially relevant to us in Minnesota because Planned Parenthood is now offering webcam abortions at its Rochester facility. It could soon expand this practice as it did in Iowa.

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.

Dayton kills ban on dangerous ‘webcam abortions’

The following was released today, April 30.

ST. PAUL — Legislation to ban "webcam abortions" was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton today. The women's safety measure had the strong support of the Legislature and Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

"Once again, Gov. Dayton has come to the defense of the abortion industry at the expense of women's safety," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "This is the seventh pro-life initiative that would protect women and unborn children that has been vetoed. The Dayton record is now clear: he is no friend of women or their babies."

H.F. 2341, authored by Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, and Rep. Joyce Peppin, R-Rogers, would have stopped dangerous webcam abortions by requiring that a physician be physically present when administering the drugs for a chemical 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, and then presses a button which opens a drawer to remotely dispense the drug.

The doctor is never physically present in a webcam abortion to examine the woman for a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy or any other condition or factor that would make this abortion procedure especially dangerous for her. Planned Parenthood began offering webcam abortions last year at its Rochester facility; women consult with a doctor in St. Paul. The webcam abortion method is cost-effective for Planned Parenthood, allowing it to forgo a surgical center and on-site physician.

"This legislation focuses primarily on the life of the mother," Gazelka said during floor debate. "A doctor will do the exam to make sure the woman is a proper patient for this. So this is certainly looking out for the best interest of the mother but not the best interest of the abortion provider."

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. At least six states, including North Dakota and Wisconsin, have already enacted webcam abortion bans, and other states are currently working to pass legislation to the same effect. Canada does not permit use of RU486 due to safety concerns.

"This is a very serious and dangerous drug and we just don't want to take this lightly," Peppin said during floor debate. "The FDA requires a physician to administer this drug."

Planned Parenthood introduced webcam abortions in Iowa in 2008 at one location; now it promotes them at nearly all of its 17 Iowa locations. Planned Parenthood has 18 locations in Minnesota and could greatly expand availability of this dangerous abortion method.

MMA sides with abortion industry

Two MCCL-supported bills recently passed by the Legislature (one has already been vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton) would help ensure the health and safety of pregnant women. In a letter that was publicized yesterday, the Minnesota Medical Association (MMA) urges the governor to veto both bills, calling them "unnecessary restrictions on legal medical procedures."

This is very unfortunate. The MMA -- which is supposed to represent physicians across Minnesota -- is going out of its way to oppose commonsense safety requirements and to protect an unfettered abortion industry. And this is not the first time. The MMA actively opposed the Woman's Right to Know informed consent law, for example, which ensures that pregnant women are aware of basic facts before undergoing abortion.

One of the bills, vetoed yesterday by the governor, would require that abortion facilities be licensed to ensure minimal health standards and prevent the kind of dangerous practices uncovered elsewhere. The MMA says it "objected to a procedure-based approach to licensing." But the reason abortion centers are specified in the legislation is that they currently are effectively exempted (due to loopholes in the law) from the licensing requirements that govern other outpatient surgical centers. The bill simply corrects that gap in government oversight by treating abortion facilities (which perform common and invasive surgical procedures) the same as similar surgical centers. Regrettably, the MMA has sided with Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers who demand special treatment.

The second bill would require a physician to be physically present when prescribing the RU486 abortion drug, thus preventing "webcam abortions" in which RU486 is dispensed remotely after a conversation with the pregnant woman via videoconference. The MMA says: "Bill supporters have said that the legislation has been introduced ... to ensure a physician's presence in case the drug has an adverse effect on her [but] the greatest risk ... comes from sepsis and does not occur when the drug is initially taken but rather over the following two weeks." Actually, bill supporters argue that a doctor should be present to physically examine the woman for any risk factors prior to administering the chemical abortion. For instance, a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy can go undetected (and has, in at least two U.S. cases that resulted in death) because its symptoms mirror the expected side effects of RU486.

The MMA worries about the legislation's "implication for the use of telemedicine in Minnesota." But the bill's advocates have not criticized telemedicine itself or in general -- it can be and is used to extend legitimate health care to many people who need it. Administering RU486 via telemedicine is simply a misuse of this technology. RU486 is an elective abortion method, not health care; it does not treat any medical condition. And it carries serious risks to the health of women that are exacerbated when a doctor is not present.

The MMA complains that "these pieces of legislation inappropriately intrude on the practice of medicine in the state of Minnesota." They intrude on a largely profit-driven abortion industry by implementing certain safety requirements deemed important by the state Legislature, representing the people of Minnesota. That is the Legislature's business.

Senate approves 'webcam abortion' ban, 39-25

The following is a news release issued today, April 24.

ST. PAUL — Legislation to ban "webcam abortions" was approved 39-25 by the Minnesota Senate late yesterday. The women's safety measure has the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

H.F. 2341, authored by Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, would stop dangerous webcam abortions by requiring that a physician be physically present when administering the drugs for a chemical 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 in a webcam abortion to examine the woman for any problems, such as a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy or any other condition or factor, that would make this abortion procedure especially dangerous for her. Planned Parenthood began offering webcam abortions last year at its Rochester facility; women consult with a doctor in St. Paul.

"This legislation focuses primarily on the life of the mother," Gazelka said during the floor debate. "Currently in Minnesota, some chemical abortions are being performed without a physician physically present. Instead, the physician is watching via webcam from a different city or location."

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. Last month, an Australian agency disclosed that a woman there died from an infection after taking RU486. A prominent gynecologist and advocate of the drug has called for a review of the drug's protocol.

At least six states, including North Dakota and Wisconsin, have already enacted webcam abortion bans, and other states are currently working to pass legislation to the same effect. Canada does not permit use of RU486 due to safety concerns.

"RU486 is not an aspirin; it's not a prescription. It's dangerous," Gazelka added. "This [requiring a physician to be present] may not be the most cost-effective way for Planned Parenthood to deliver abortions, but it certainly considers the life of the mother."

A companion bill was approved in the House on Apr. 18 on a vote of 80-48. The women's safety measure is expected to be sent to Gov. Mark Dayton soon.

"Governor Dayton should recognize that such a serious and life-altering procedure as abortion deserves the presence of a physician," said MCCL Legislative Associate Jordan Harris. "His veto would greatly increase the health risks to women who are administered this abortion method remotely without being examined by a physician."

Fact-checking the MPR fact-checkers on RU486 abortions

By Jordan Marie Harris

This week, the Minnesota House of Representatives took up a commonsense measure that would require a doctor to be physically present when administering the dangerous abortion drug RU486 (mifepristone). This would afford women the dignity of a physical exam and evaluation by a physician—to ensure that she is a good candidate for taking this drug—before undergoing the chemical abortion.

RU486 in the United States has resulted in more than 2,200 "adverse events," or serious complications, including the deaths of at least 14 women, according to the FDA. Planned Parenthood recently began using a dispensation scheme in which women in Rochester speak with an abortionist located in St. Paul via video conferencing, and are then remotely administered the drug.

During floor debate, Rep. Joyce Peppin, chief author of the bill to require physicians to be physically present when administering RU486, emphasized safety concerns and made this claim: "The drug is so dangerous that it was banned in places like Canada and China, places that are very liberal on abortion policies in general."

MPR's "PoliGraph," the news outlet's political fact-checking service, concludes that Rep. Peppin's statement "leans toward false." However, MPR misses some key facts about RU486 and abortion in these countries.

While other drugs can be used for chemical abortions in Canada, RU486 has never been approved, legalized, or made available—even though abortion in general is legal for any reason throughout all of pregnancy. The commercial importation into Canada of RU486 (an unauthorized drug) is illegal under the Food and Drugs Act.

A 2005 National Review of Medicine article explains some of the back-story: "In 2001, the only Canadian trial of mifepristone ... was suspended after the death of a woman from toxic shock brought on by a bacterial infection related to her abortion." The story of that young woman's death is told here. Canadians for Choice, a pro-choice group, acknowledges: "Unfortunately, RU-486 is not legal in Canada. Many opponents raised concerns about its safety because of the possibility to cause Clostridium sordellii infections and septic shock."

Rep. Peppin's comment about Canada is justifiable for the simple reason that RU486 is illegal there—it is not permitted under the law.

China is known for very liberal abortion policies and a coercive one-child law that often leads to sex-selection abortion and infanticide, in which female babies are killed simply because they are female. In 2001, China outlawed all pharmaceutical sales of RU486. This fact is the basis for Rep. Peppin's remark, yet it is never mentioned by MPR.

The State Drug Administration, charged with the oversight of drugs in China, explained the decision: "In order to guarantee patients' safety and protect their health, it is decided that no matter whether patients have a doctor's prescription or not, retail drug stores are forbidden to sell mifepristone tablets." This was reported under the headline "China Bans RU 486 Abortion Drug" in the Oct. 9, 2001, Beijing Morning Post. The story cited the fact that hospitals were left treating RU486 complications as a reason for the new policy. Admittedly, the ban only applied to drug stores.

It is clear that the health dangers of RU486 have not gone unnoticed by other countries, and they shouldn't be ignored in Minnesota, either. The risks inherent in RU486 are exacerbated when a physician is not physically present. Rep. Peppin's legislation is a reasonable attempt to safeguard the health of women from a risky practice introduced only recently by the state's leading performer and promoter of abortion, Planned Parenthood.

Senate approves abortion clinic licensing; House passes 'webcam abortion' ban

Today the Minnesota Senate approved the MCCL-backed bill to license and inspect abortion facilities on a bipartisan 43-23 vote. It will soon be heard in the House. Learn more in the MCCL news release here. (All news releases are listed here.)

Also today, on an 80-48 vote, the House passed the MCCL-backed bill to prohibit "webcam abortions" by requiring a physician to be physically present when administering an RU486 chemical abortion. A vote is expected soon in the Senate. Read the news release here.

One clarification should be made. In response to the webcam abortion ban, WCCO reporter Pat Kessler tweeted: "MN House passes bill to require MD to be in the room when a woman takes emergency contraceptive." Others have also tweeted or re-tweeted this claim.

No, that's false. Kessler and the others are confusing RU486 (mifepristone) with contraception. (Kessler's tweet has since been corrected.) Contraception prevents conception (hence the name); RU486 is a nonsurgical method of abortion used through the first nine weeks of gestation (the FDA has only approved it for use through seven weeks, but Planned Parenthood administers it later than that). We are not talking about a contraceptive pill. We are talking about an abortion drug that causes the death of a rapidly-developing unborn human being; a second drug, misoprostol, is taken about two days later to induce contractions that expel the dead child.

More information about RU486 -- and how its health risks are exacerbated when it is dispensed via telemedicine -- is included in our brochure, available online here.

House committee approves ban on webcam abortions

The following news release was issued today, March 20, 2012.

ST. PAUL — Legislation to ensure women's safety was approved 14-6 by the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee today. The bill to ban "webcam abortions" has the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

H.F. 2341 (S.F. 1912), authored by 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, and then presses a button which opens a drawer to remotely dispense the drug.

The doctor is never physically present in a webcam abortion 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.

"Not only is it shocking to know that Planned Parenthood is offering these abortions, but its actions show a real disregard for the health and safety of women given the especially dangerous complications and risks associated with RU486," said MCCL Legislative Associate Jordan Marie Harris.

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. Just yesterday, an Australian agency disclosed that a woman there died from an infection after taking RU486. A prominent gynecologist and advocate of RU486 has called for a review of the drugs' protocol.

At least six states, including North Dakota and South Dakota, have already banned webcam abortions, and other states, like Wisconsin, are currently working to pass legislation to the same effect. RU486 is not legal in Canada, due to safety concerns.

"Physician involvement, as well as the patient-doctor relationship, is critical in helping to mitigate the risk of very serious complications occurring as a result of taking RU486," MCCL's Harris added.

Answering criticisms of the MCCL-backed bills

Two MCCL-backed bills were discussed and approved yesterday in the Minnesota Senate Health and Human Services Committee. One (S.F. 1921) would require that abortion clinics be licensed and allow for inspections by the Department of Health. The other (S.F. 1912) would require a physician to be present during an RU486 chemical abortion, thereby prohibiting webcam (telemedicine) abortions.

Critics of the first bill suggested that it is a "solution in search of a problem." But the licensing requirement is so basic, so commonsensical, that we cannot even know if there are any health problems in abortion clinics unless this bill is enacted into law. Kermit Gosnell's now-infamous Philadelphia abortion clinic, for example, committed its atrocities over many years, and no one knew about them because there were no inspections.

MCCL's Andrea Rau testifies
at the Feb. 27 hearing

One senator thought that the bill is an attempt to single out abortion providers. On the contrary: Why are abortion providers currently singled out from the kind of basic licensing that is required of a wide variety of other facilities, including ones engaged in much less serious and health-related practices? No one seems to question such licensing; those who accept it should for the same reasons (to ensure public safety) accept the licensing of abortion clinics, which perform one of the most common surgical procedures in the state. To have one without the other does not seem to be a rationally defensible position.

Critics of the second bill touted the benefits of telemedicine. But the bill's advocates have not criticized telemedicine itself or in general -- it can be and is used to extend legitimate health care to many people who need it. Administering RU486 via telemedicine is simply a misuse of this technology. RU486 is an elective abortion method, not health care; it does not treat any medical condition. And it carries serious risks to the health of women that are exacerbated when a doctor is not present.

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: 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)