On Monday night, the Baltimore City Council, by a vote of 12 to 3, approved an ordinance requiring pregnancy care centers (PCCs) to posts signs indicating that they do not do abortions or provide contraception.  Failure to comply with the ordinance will incur a $150 per day fine.  A proposed amendment to require abortion clinics to post relevant disclaimers was defeated.

In recent years, Maryland has become “ground zero” for attempts by NARAL and other abortion advocates to lodge false accusations about PCCs and to encourage vindictive and unsupported legislative “fixes” to non-existent problems at PCCs.  In 2008, the Maryland legislature considered Senate Bill 690 (and its companion, House Bill 1146) which would have required all state PCCs to inform women that they do not perform abortions and provide “incorrect information” about the negative impact of abortion on women.  Thankfully, this state-wide threat to PCCs was defeated.

However, in addition to the just-approved Baltimore ordinance, Montgomery County Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg recently introduced an ordinance there that would require PCCs to inform women that information and advice that they receive at PCCs is not “medical advice” and does not “establish a doctor-patient relationship.” Moreover, women would be encouraged to go elsewhere for medical advice.  Although claiming that the measure is for “consumer protection,” Trachtenberg admits to buying into pro-abortion rhethoric that PCCs intentionally mislead women.

The situation in Maryland highlights the need for a full understanding of some common pro-abortion “myths” about PCCs:

Myth:  Pregnancy care centers provide medically-inaccurate information to women.
Fact:  PCCs distribute medically accurate information regarding fetal development, pregnancy, and the risks—physical and mental—of abortion.  All information used and distributed by approved providers is medically accurate, recently published, and includes citations to legitimate authorities, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), medical journals, and other reputable sources.

If there is medical debate regarding whether or not abortion carries particular risks (e.g., the abortion-breast cancer link), information on this conflict is brought to the attention of the woman and is not hidden or withheld from her.

Myth:  PCC personnel are poorly or inadequately trained.
Fact:  PCC staff and volunteers are appropriately trained for the services they provide.  Those PCCs that offer ultrasounds and/or other medical services hire medically-trained staff and comply with state and federal regulations regarding licensing and certification.

Myth:  PCCs engage in false advertising, misleading women into believing they provide abortions and abortion counseling.
Fact:  Advertising by PCCs is honest and discloses to women the types of services provided by the centers.  Most PCCs, including those affiliated with national organizations such as Birthright International and CareNet, have strict standards of integrity regarding truth in advertising and require the full disclosure of the types of services provided.

Pregnancy care centers are most often listed under “Abortion Alternatives” in the Yellow Pages or other telephone directories. In many areas, it is the Yellow Pages publisher who determines how to categorize PCCs.  PCCs do not advertise under names such as “Abortion Services.”

Myth:  PCC personnel are judgmental and do not provide a woman with counseling on “all her reproductive care options.”
Fact:  PCCs provide women with compassionate and confidential counseling in a nonjudgmental manner regardless of their pregnancy outcomes.  Women who have used the services of a PCC reported a 98% positive effect, including 71% who had a very positive effect, according to a survey of 630 women conducted by the Wirthlin Group.  Of those women who were aware of PCCs, 87% believed they have a positive impact on the women they serve, including a majority of those who identified themselves as “pro-choice.”

Upon reflection, there is no better indicator of the positive impact that PCCs are having by supporting women emotionally and financially, by protecting women from the adverse health consequences of abortion, and by helping to reduce the number of abortions performed each year than the vitriol directed toward these centers by pro-abortion advocacy groups and individuals. These groups refer to them as “fake centers” and produce and market kits for activists to target and expose pregnancy care centers with negative publicity and protests.  Even they, in their zeal to promote abortion-on-demand, cannot ignore the very real and increasingly powerful impact pregnancy care centers are having on women and on public opinion about abortion. 

For more information about the positive impact of PCCs, see “Pregnancy Care Centers: On the Frontline in the Cause for Life.”

Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Martha Coakley— a current Democrat candidate for the late Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat—strongly criticized the House health care bill for prohibiting federal funding of abortions.  The Boston Globe reported her saying that “fighting for a women’s access to abortion was more important than passing the overall bill, despite its [other] aims.”  

Apparently, AG Coakley is willing to compromise all for a women’s access to abortion—despite its inherent and realized harms to women.  In her opinion, access to abortion trumps the possibility of health care reform, but more importantly constitutionally-protected speech.  AG Coakley is the same AG who interpreted the Massachusetts Buffer Zone Law as criminalizing the mere presence of pro-life advocates around abortion clinics.  In her interpretation of the Act and guidance to law enforcement, she unconstitutionally silences any expression of opposition to abortion within a 35-foot radius around “reproductive health care” facilities. 

In relation to health care, Coakley says she will not compromise on abortion rights.  She makes evident that nothing is of more importance to her than protecting mere access to abortion (as opposed to women’s health and safety).   She criticizes fellow Democrats for not being principled on the issue of abortion, claiming that they are “selling one set of constitutional rights for another.” 

What she seems to forget (or it simply does not bother her) is she willingly “sold” explicit First Amendment rights for the Court-declared abortion right.  It is a good thing she is not expressing these views within 35 feet of an abortion clinic in MA, otherwise she would be handed a “go to jail “ card.   But then again, she would not have to say a word.  If she simply put on the abortion clinic’s volunteer vest and escorted women into the clinic for an abortion, the law exempts her and her viewpoint—actions speak louder than words. 

AG Coakley makes very clear she will use her position and power to promote abortion at any price.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found a Pittsburg ordinance restricting access to public areas around abortion clinics unconstitutional.  More specifically, the court held the ordinance to be “insufficiently tailored” because it “burdens substantially more speech than necessary” to achieve the City’s stated interest—to prevent “harassment and obstruction of entrances” to hospitals and medical clinics. 

The Pittsburg ordinance combined a “bubble zone” and a “buffer zone.”  The bubble zone extended 100 feet from the entrance of any hospital, medical office or clinic—including public sidewalks—and prohibited anyone from approaching another person within 8 feet without consent to pass a leaflet or handbill, display a sign or engage in oral protest.  The buffer zone essentially cordoned off a 15-foot zone from the entrance of a hospital or health care facility prohibiting anyone to congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate. 

The Court of Appeals found the zones to be constitutional when considered independent of each other, but when the ordinance combined both zones it overburdened protected speech.  It remanded the case for the City to decide which zone it preferred and directed the District Court to enjoin enforcement of the other zone. 

In making its ruling, the Third Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s decision involving a similar Colorado Statute, as well as, the First Circuit’s decisions involving bubble zone ordinances around Reproductive Health Care Facilities in Massachusetts.

In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld a similar 100-ft bubble zone in Colorado finding the statute a permissible content-neutral time, place and manner regulation—making it significantly easier for governments to simply forbid free speech in select public areas.  In doing so, the Court failed to call a spade a spade—or in this case a content-based regulation content-based.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics have lobbied local and state governments to pass these “bubble zone” ordinances under the governments’ public safety interest.  Asserting an interest in safe access to “healthcare” (meaning safe access to abortions), these ordinances attempt to restrict the presence of pro-life advocates and all communicative efforts by them around abortion clinics.

These ordinances criminalize any discussion of abortion outside abortion clinics.  They prohibit peaceful demonstrations and they eliminate any effective means to discuss the harms of abortion at the location these harms occur.  In application, they prevent effective sidewalk counseling and significantly hinder the communication of abortion alternatives to women who need and want the information the most.  These laws permit only one viewpoint to reach women entering abortion clinics—the pro-abortion position and those enacting them know it.

Abortion advocates simply cannot win on the merits of their arguments, so they employ tactics to prohibit or restrict the expression of views opposing abortion.  And unfortunately, they are finding some success in pursuing these  “bubble zone” ordinances across the country and in the courts. 

The courts have refused to see these ordinances for what they are—an attempt to silence opposing viewpoints and prohibit the expression of dissent to abortion. Until the courts are willing to recognize the content and viewpoint discrimination occurring through bubble zone ordinances, abortion advocates will continue to employ this new weapon of choice to unconstitutionally silence opposition to abortion.  

Once again the law surrounding abortion seems to require special exceptions to protect the abortion industry from thoughtful and full debate of the harms it causes to women and their unborn children.

Taxpayers in New York may soon be paying women to put their lives at risk.

The ethics committee of New York’s Empire State Stem Cell Board recently recommended that taxpayer money be given to researchers who have paid women for the harvesting of their eggs for research purposes.  If the full stem-cell board agrees, New York will become the first state to allow such reimbursement.

But the ethics committee shirked a glaring problem: egg harvesting endangers women’s health.  Egg donation requires preliminary hormone treatment, and this hormone therapy is accompanied by serious health risks including an increased risk of ovarian cancer and complications with future pregnancies.  Other risks include ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS), which can cause loss of fertility, organ failure, and death.

And in the current economic climate, more women will be putting their lives at risk.  At a “reimbursement” rate around $10,000, women hard-hit by the economy will be more likely to take risks they would not have otherwise taken.  The result is the commoditization of eggs and the exploitation of women.

What’s more is that there is no benefit in sight, and certainly not to the women involved.  Quoting Dr. David Prentice, Wesley Smith in Human Dignity in the Biotech Century explains that it is not possible to obtain even enough eggs to treat diabetic patients in the U.S., let alone all of the other patients who have been promised (intangible) benefits from embryonic stem cell research.  Dr. Prentice has computed that it would take 800 million eggs just to treat the 16 million Americans suffering from diabetes.  Smith concludes, “There simply aren’t enough women of childbearing age to supply all these eggs.”

In other words, the harvesting of eggs will not help produce cures, and women’s lives are placed in danger simply to satisfy scientific curiosity.  This can be categorized as nothing other than the exploitation of women.

In 2008, AUL, in conjunction with Dr. Prentice, provided an extensive report to New York’s stem cell board demonstrating that therapies utilizing adult stem cells are already treating patients and that any taxpayer money should be used for treatments that are already proven to be working.  The ethics committee ignored these hard facts.

Apparently, scientific whim is more important than the lives of women.

Yesterday, Texas Governor Rick Perry announced that the State will invest $5 million in promising adult stem-cell research.  Specifically, the funds will be used to expand and recruit researchers to the Texas A&M Health Science Center (TAMHSC) College of Medicine’s Institute of Regenerative Medicine at Scott and White. The governor also urged the Texas Legislature to continue to appropriate funds to the Texas Emerging Technology Fund (ETF).

“Commercialization of adult stem cell research will provide much-needed solutions for Texans suffering from various tissue and organ disorders while protecting the unborn from exploitation,” Gov. Perry said. “This investment will promote innovation and commercialization in this evolving biotechnology sector and attract top researchers and outside investment to the Institute of Regenerative Medicine.”

Texas is one of 15 states that have passed legislation or taken other action encouraging the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord blood for research.

Adult stem cells have a proven record of effective clinical remedies, which cannot be said for embryonic stem cells.  No clinical use of human embryonic stem cells has yet been published in the scientific literature.  Medical remedies involving embryonic stem cells are still conjectural.  In contrast, adult stem cells are being used in numerous therapeutic procedures.

Conversely, proponents of embryonic stem-cell research have created a false impression that these cells have a proven therapeutic use. In fact, embryonic cells have never helped a human patient; any claim that they may someday do so is mere speculation.

Given the lack of medical evidence to support the claims being made by proponents of embryonic stem-cell research and other forms of life-destroying research, bans on such procedures have the indirect benefit of allowing research money and effort to be directed to the already productive field of adult stem-cell transplantation and somatic cell gene therapies.  Importantly, these procedures are free of the ethical dilemmas associated with destructive human embryo research.

For more information, see the Governor’s press release at http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/11935/

Recently, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) promised to call on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department to complete its review of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and to send it to the Senate for ratification within 60 days.

If ratified, this international convention could severely undermine parents and their inherent right and responsibility to care for and raise their children without governmental oversight and interference.  It would also directly undermine U.S. sovereignty and the enforceability of American laws, subjecting U.S. citizens and American laws to the administrative oversight — and even “veto” power — of the United Nations.

A fundamental presumption of the convention is that parental responsibility exists only in so far as parents are willing to further the independent choices of their children.  To advance the convention’s purposes – seeking to make children (even young children) autonomous from their parents and arguably supplanting parents with the State — the convention grants to children a list of inviolable and radical “rights” including “the right to privacy,” “the right to freedom of thought and association,” and the right to “freedom of expression.”

Specifically, the provisions of this convention could be used to undermine and eliminate laws mandating parental involvement in a minor daughter’s abortion decision.  Article 16 of the convention purports to invest a minor with an absolute right to privacy which, in light of the U.N.’s support for unfettered abortion-on-demand, would necessarily permit a minor to obtain an abortion without the benefit of parental involvement and even without her parents ever knowing about the abortion.

Ominously, Article 19 the Convention permits the “identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up” of those – like parents – who interfere with a child’s fundamental “rights.”

For more information on this radical threat to the family and American sovereignty, go to http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={30FF0076-5974-4B3C-B658-BBF7931E3EF8}

On January 6, Senator Harry Reid introduced the Prevention First Act (S. 21) (“the Act”), which disingenuously claims to be aimed at reducing unintended pregnancies and abortion.  What it in reality does is provide continued (and elevated) funding to family planning programs that provide and counsel in favor of abortion, mandates health coverage of contraception, miseducates the public on emergency contraception, and forces religiously-based hospitals to provide emergency contraception.  It also contains a number of inaccuracies.

First, the Act provides elevated funding for family planning services and “teen pregnancy prevention programs” that counsel in favor of abortion.  The Act does not exclude abortion providers or other entities that counsel in favor of abortion from receiving funds.  Thus, entities like Planned Parenthood (which gains incredible profits every year from the provision of abortions) will be eligible for these increased funds.  And not only can such entities receive the funds, but there is nothing in the text of the Act itself that prohibits the use of the funds for the referral or counseling in favor of abortion.  This failure to exclude abortion providers demonstrates that the Act is not truly aimed at reducing abortion.

Thus, this Act diverges from the views of the majority of Americans who want to see abortions decrease.  It is an irresponsible use of federal money in this economic crisis.

Second, the Act mandates health coverage of contraception.  Group health plans and health insurers that provide coverage in connection with a group health plan may not exclude prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, or outpatient contraceptive services if the plan covers other drugs and services.  Similarly, such plans must cover experimental contraception if other types of experimental drugs are covered.  The Act would preempt any state laws that limit the coverage of contraception.

What is most troubling about this section is its failure to exclude religiously-affiliated entities or institutions from this contraceptive mandate.  Thus, if a church provides a group health plan for its employees, that health plan must cover contraception if it covers other drugs.  There is no room for conscientious objection, and churches will be forced to choose between violating their religious beliefs or refraining from offering heath coverage at all.  Again, for a nation already facing a healthcare crisis, this kind of federal ultimatum is either irresponsible, at best, or demonstrates a maliciousness toward religiously-affiliated entities, at worst.

Third, the Act advocates the use of emergency contraception (“EC”), ignoring the risks involved in using EC as well as blatantly misrepresenting how EC works.  For example, in a section delineating Congressional findings, the Act states that EC is a safe and effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy, and that research confirms that easier access to EC does not increase sexual risk-taking or sexually transmitted diseases (“STDs”).  However, EC is inherently unsafe in that its current over-the-counter access makes EC available to a larger population of women than any trial has tested upon.  Moreover, if the hormones in regular birth control pills render such drugs unsafe for non-prescription status, the higher amounts found in EC cannot be safe, either.  In addition, EC is only 75-89 percent effective—in other words, it is ineffective in 11 to 25 percent of cases.

The claim regarding sexual risk-taking and the transmission of STDs is also untrue.  As we report in Defending Life:

Studies reveal that emergency contraception does not reduce pregnancy and abortion rates.  In one study, abortion rates increased by nearly 6,000 in a one-year period, jumping 3.2 percent.  Once EC became available without prescription in the United Kingdom, use among teenage girls doubled from 1 in 12 to 1 in 5.  In fact, one study reported that 4 out of 12 women were influenced to have unprotected sex because of the easy access to EC.  With the increased rate of sexual activity and the substantial failure rate of EC, the over-the-counter availability of Plan B cannot be expected to reduce the number of pregnancies or abortions.  Furthermore, in those areas with easy access to EC, the number of sexually transmitted diseases has skyrocketed.

See The Deadly Convenience of RU-486 and Plan B, available at http://www.aul.org/Deadly_Convenience (including references to the sources cited). 

The Act also completely misleads as to the way in which EC works, stating that EC “prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation, fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a uterus.”  What the Act purposely avoids stating is that it is not an egg that is prevented from implanting—it is a fertilized egg.  In other words, conception has occurred, and a new human being has been formed.  Scientifically speaking, it cannot be disputed that a new human organism, with its own genetic information, has been formed.  Even the drug manufacturer’s label states that a fertilized egg is prevented from implanting.

Moreover, the Act provides for the dissemination of information to the public and healthcare providers that EC is safe and effective—and it does not require the dissemination of information on the risks of EC.  As already demonstrated above, this information is misleading and puts women’s health and lives at risk.  Ironically, another section of the Act requires that any information about contraception be “medically accurate.”  But nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to the Act’s own discussion of EC. 

The Act also requires the information to include “a recommendation regarding the use of such contraception in appropriate cases”—placing the federal government in a position where it is actually advocating the use of EC.

Finally, the Act states that no federal funds will be provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides oral and written information about EC, offers EC, and provides EC to sexual assault victims.  There is no exemption within the Act itself for religiously-affiliated hospitals that conscientiously object to the provision of EC.  Thus, this provision also further exacerbates the ongoing healthcare crisis by forcing religiously-affiliated hospitals to choose between violating their moral beliefs or accepting federal funding.

If a hospital chooses to accept federal funding, it must inform women that “emergency contraception does not cause an abortion.”   But this runs contrary to the ongoing debate within the medical community, and also ignores the fact that the drug manufacturer itself confirms that EC prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg (i.e., after conception has occurred).  It also runs contrary to the religious and ethical beliefs of numerous individuals and healthcare providers that life begins at conception—and thus that preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg is in fact an abortion.  It may represent the misinformed ideology of Senator Reid and his co-sponsors—such as Senator Boxer—but it certainly does not represent the beliefs of a vast number of women and healthcare providers across the nation.  Women and healthcare providers who will be purposely misled by the government if the Act is passed.

And again, the information provided to women must explain that EC is effective in most cases—ignoring the fact that it is ineffective in 11 to 25 percent of cases, and failing to inform women of the risks of EC.

Conclusion

What is clear from the face of this Act is that it is not at all about the reduction of abortion, but the funding of abortion providers and the purposeful miseducation of the American public.  It is bad for women—and well as for the healthcare industry and the economy.

In the January 17, 2009 (Roe v. Wade) edition of World magazine, Marvin Olasky pays tribute to former AUL President Guy Condon. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, Condon spearheaded efforts within the pro-life movement to correct the public’s perception of the movement and to focus public attention on the damage the abortion inflicts on both the mother and the child.

Condon’s efforts have yielded tremendous results — as Olasky points out — such as:

• Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans now tell pollsters that abortion is morally wrong — that’s a significant improvement from 20 years ago;
• The number of abortions performed each year has declined from over 1.6 million 20 years ago to 1.2 million or less now — a lower annual rate than was predicted when Roe was decided;
• The campaign against partial-birth abortion has helped swing public opinion toward the “conservative side” of the abortion issue — favoring significant limits on the availability of abortion; and
• A substantial increase in the numbers of pregnancy care centers around the nation, offering women real alternatives to abortion. Twenty years ago, there were about 300 such centers. Today, there are over 1,100.

The pro-life movement should be proud of its accomplishments over the past 20 years, but much remains to be done and we — relying on the legacy of Guy Condon and others like him — are up to the task and challenges ahead.

Chicago, Illinois — In response to the U.S. Supreme Court announcement that it will not grant further review to life-related cases from Arizona, Missouri, and New Jersey, Americans United for Life (AUL) made the following statements.

Arizona Life Coalition v. Stanton requires that Choose Life license plates be offered in Arizona.

Denise Burke, AUL’s Vice President & Legal Director said: “This is huge victory for ‘Choose Life’ license plates. By denying review, the Court has affirmed that Arizona and other states cannot deny Choose Life license plates simply because of their pro-life message.”

AUL filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of pregnancy care centers arguing that the Arizona Life Coalition was discriminated against when the state failed to grant its petition for a “Choose Life” license plate. The Ninth Circuit agreed, and the State of Arizona subsequently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

AUL’s amicus brief before the Ninth Circuit is available at
http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/ArizonaLifeCoalitionvStanton.pdf

As cases involving “Choose Life” license plates are still pending in New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma, AUL’s Staff Counsel Mailee Smith remarked, “We are hopeful that the Court’s denial of review will signal to those courts that states cannot discriminate against ‘Choose Life’ license plates.”

In addition, the Court denied review in Roe v. Crawford, a Missouri case where a female prison inmate has successfully argued that she has a right to be transported at state expense for an elective abortion. At issue was a Department of Corrections policy prohibiting such transport.

“By denying review, the Supreme Court is allowing a prisoner to unilaterally demand that she be transported for a controversial elective procedure where the associated costs will ultimately be borne by the taxpayers,” stated AUL Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke. “The Court is also ignoring the state’s interest in protecting women from the negative consequences of abortion—especially those women who are in custody and under the care of the state.”

AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of Missouri legislators arguing in favor of the prison policy. The Eighth Circuit sided in part with AUL, agreeing that the denial of elective abortions does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment, and even stating that elective abortions do not constitute medical need. However, the court ultimately agreed with the inmate that her Fourteenth Amendment “right” to abortion means that the state must transport her for abortion.

AUL’s amicus brief before the Eighth Circuit is available at
http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/RoevCrawford.pdf

Finally, the Court also denied review in Acuna v. Turkish, a New Jersey case where an abortionist failed to adequately counsel and answer a woman’s questions before her abortion.

“This case underscores the dire need for comprehensive informed consent laws. Had the abortionist in this case been held to this type of legal requirement, Ms. Acuna would have received the information she needed in making the abortion decision,” stated AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith.

To date, New Jersey, 17 other states, and the District of Columbia do not require that women receive any information pertinent to making the abortion decision.

This is the fifth of a series of posts highlighting various studies that document medical risks from abortion.

Heightened Risk of Placenta Previa

Thorp, Hartmann & Shadigian, Long-Term Physical and Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence, 58 Obst. & Gyn. Survey 67 (2003)

Abstract:
Induced abortion is a prevalent response to an unintended pregnancy. The long-term health consequences are poorly investigated and conclusions must be drawn from observational studies. Using strict inclusion criteria (study population >100 subjects, follow up >60 days) we reviewed an array of conditions in women’s health. Induced abortion was not associated with changes in the prevalence of subsequent subfertility, spontaneous abortion, or ectopic pregnancy.

Previous abortion was a risk factor for placenta previa. Moreover, induced abortion increased the risks for both a subsequent preterm delivery and mood disorders substantial enough to provoke attempts of self-harm. Preterm delivery and depression are important conditions in women’s health and avoidance of induced abortion has potential as a strategy to reduce their prevalence.

Only review articles including the single published meta-analysis exploring linkages between abortion and breast cancer were relied upon to draw conclusions. Reviewers were mixed on whether subsequent breast neoplasia can be linked to induced abortion, although the sole meta-analysis found a summary odds ratio of 1.2. Whatever the effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk, a young woman with an unintended pregnancy clearly sacrifices the protective effect of a term delivery should she decide to abort and delay childbearing. That increase in risk can be quantified using the Gail Model.

Thus, we conclude that informed consent before induced abortion should include information about the subsequent risk of preterm delivery and depression. Although it remains uncertain whether elective abortion increases subsequent breast cancer, it is clear that a decision to abort and delay pregnancy culminates in a loss of protection with the net effect being an increased risk.

This is the fourth of a series of posts highlighting various studies that document medical risks from abortion.

Rooney & Calhoun, Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births, 8 J. Am. Physicians & Surgeons 46 (2003)

Abstract:

At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in women with prior induced abortions (IAs). This paper will focus on the risk of early premature births (EPBs) (< 32 weeks gestation) and extremely early premature births (XPBs) (<28) weeks gestation). Large studies have reported a doubling of EPB risk from two prior IAs. Women who had four or more. IAs experienced, on average, nine times the risk of XPB, an increase of 800 percent.

These results suggest that women contemplating IA should be informed of this potential risk to subsequent pregnancies, and that physicians should be aware of the potential liability and possible need for intensified prenatal care.

This is the third of a series of posts highlighting various studies that document medical risks from abortion.

Heightened Risk of Pre-Term Birth (PTB)

Ancel et al., “History of Induced Abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: Results of EUROPOP survey,” 19 Human Reproduction 734 (2004)

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between history of induced abortion and preterm delivery in various parts of Europe, and according to the main cause of preterm birth.

METHODS: We used data from a case–control survey, the EUROPOP study; 2,938 preterm births and 4,781 controls at term from ten European countries were included. Based on national statistics, we distinguished three groups of countries with high, intermediate and low rates of induced abortion.

RESULTS: Previous induced abortions were significantly associated with preterm delivery and the risk of preterm birth increased with the number of abortions. Odds ratios did not differ significantly between the three groups of countries. The extent of association with previous induced abortion varied according to the cause of preterm delivery. Previous induced abortions significantly increased the risk of preterm delivery after idiopathic preterm labour, preterm premature rupture of membranes and ante-partum haemorrhage, but not preterm delivery after maternal hypertension. The strength of the association increased with decreasing gestational age at birth.

CONCLUSIONS: Identifying subgroups of preterm births on the basis of the complications involved in delivery increases our understanding of the mechanisms by which previous induced abortion affects subsequent pregnancy outcomes.

This is the second of a series of posts highlighting various studies that document medical risks from abortion.

Heightened Risk of Pre-Term Birth (PTB)

Moreau, et al., “Previous Induced Abortion and the Risk of Very PreTerm Delivery: Results of the EPIPAGE Study,” 112 Brit. J. Gyn 430 (April 2005).

Abstract:
There is some concern about the effects of induced abortion on subsequent pregnancy outcomes, in part because abortion usually is induced early or about halfway through a woman’s reproductive life. Recent studies have shown an excessive risk of preterm delivery. This study examined the risk of very preterm birth, at 22 to 32 weeks gestation, as related to previous induced abortion. A case-control study enrolled 1843 very preterm live-born singleton infants at less than 33 weeks gestation, 276 infants born at 33 to 34 weeks gestation (moderately premature), and 618 unmatched full-term control women who delivered at 39 to 40 weeks duration. Mothers of preterm infants were younger than those with full-term infants, had less education, and were likelier to be living alone, to be unemployed, and to smoke.

A history of induced abortion correlated with an increased risk of very preterm birth (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.1). There was little change when controlling for maternal characteristics or without adjusting for a history of preterm deliveries. In addition, the association remained the same when women with previous preterm delivery were excluded. The risk tended to increase with the number of previous induced abortions. The adjusted risk of preterm delivery associated with induced abortions tended to be highest for extremely preterm deliveries. The major complications leading to very preterm birth were premature rupture of membranes and idiopathic spontaneous preterm labor, and these occurred more often in connection with extremely preterm birth. Hypertension and fetal growth restriction were more common when infants were born at 28 to 32 weeks gestation. An association between previous induced abortion and very preterm delivery related to fetal growth restriction was apparent in infants born at 28 to 32 weeks gestation.

This study shows that a history of induced abortion increases the risk of very preterm birth, particularly extremely preterm deliveries. It appears that both infectious and mechanical mechanisms may be involved.

Gonzales v. Carhart: One Year Later
Letting the People Decide

By Denise M. Burke
Vice President & Legal Director, Americans United for Life

One year ago, the public debate over abortion was irrevocably altered. In the landmark Gonzales v. Carhart decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and, more importantly, abdicated, at least in part, its role as the “National Abortion Control Board.”

In its decision, the Court signaled an increasing willingness to blunt attempts by abortion extremists to use the courts to unilaterally impose their radical agenda on the American public, and an increasing willingness to let the people decide abortion policy. The immediate reaction of activists, state legislators, and the public confirmed this critical shift.

While abortion extremists hastily recycled the hyperbolic rhetoric of the 1970s, legislators and the public increasingly considered prudent responses to the mounting evidence of the negative impact of abortion on women. [more]

by Clarke Forsythe and Dr. Donna Harrison

From the March 2, 2008 Our Sunday Visitor:

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade, women still do not know all of its health risks. The reasons for this are varied — a seriously inadequate abortion-reporting program at both the state and federal levels; obstruction by state and federal courts, as well as by abortion supporters such as Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights; and political resistance or indifference at the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at state health departments.

These obstacles make it difficult for researchers to obtain data in the United States, but this has been offset in recent years by medical studies from countries that do a better job of tracking data. Looking at the U.S. and international data combined show several well-documented medical risks from abortion. However, a January report by the Guttmacher Institute, formerly the research arm of Planned Parenthood, denies any significant health risk from abortion.

The article examines four of the report’s claims that don’t tell the whole story.

Read it at AUL.org

As we noted in the press release on the 35th anniversary of Roe, the five most well-documented medical risks from abortion are:

1. A heightened risk of pre-term birth in future pregnancy
2. An increased incidence of alcohol and drug abuse
3. An increased risk of suicide
4. A heightened risk of placenta previa in future pregnancies
5. The loss of protective effect against breast cancer from a first full-term pregnancy

This post is the first in a series of posts that will highlight the studies documenting these risks.

Heightened Risk of Pre-Term Birth (PTB)

Calhoun, Shadigian, and Rooney, “Cost Consequences of Induced Abortion as an Attributable Risk for Preterm Birth and Impact on Informed Consent,” 52 J. Repro. Medicine 929 (2007).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the human and monetary cost consequences of preterm delivery as related to induced abortion (IA), with its impact on informed consent and medical malpractice.

STUDY DESIGN: A review of the literature in English was performed to assess the effect of IA on preterm delivery rates from 24 to 316/7 weeks to assess the risk for preterm birth attributable to IA. After calculating preterm birth risk, the increased initial neonatal hospital costs and cerebral palsy (CP) risks related to IA were calculated.

RESULTS: IA increased the early preterm delivery rate by 31.5%, with a yearly increase in initial neonatal hospital costs related to IA of >$1.2 billion. The yearly human cost includes 22,917 excess early preterm births (EPB) (<32 weeks) and 1,096 excess CP cases in very-low-birth-weight newborns, <1,500 g.

CONCLUSION: IA contributes to significantly increased neonatal health costs by causing 31.5% of EPB. Providers of obstetric care and abortion should be aware of the risk of preterm birth attributable to induced abortion, with its significant increase in initial neonatal hospital costs and CP cases. (J Reprod Med 2007;52:929-937)