Tennessee Lawmakers Clash with Planned Parenthood Officials over Undercover Footage
Lila Rose of Live Action Films again exposes Planned Parenthood's reckless counseling practices. This time, Rose posed as a 14-year-old girl, who was impregnated by a 31-year-old man. Rose, in her dialogue with the Planned Parenthood counselor, mentions:
My boyfriend said he could pay for everything--But he shouldn't come here to pay 'cause you'll see him, right?" the counselor replies, "It doesn't matter. As long as your parents are not here and can't identify him, he can just pay and that's it. He could be like your older brother or whatever."
Tennessee law mandates that a minor must have parental consent before undergoing an abortion. Since the video has been released, two Tennessee state legislators, Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey and Sen. Jack Johnson, have introduced legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood.
"Why would citizens tolerate paying the bills of an organization that protects statutory rapists and victimizes young girls? This is the sad result of the careless abortion-first mentality that has persisted at Planned Parenthood for decades."
In his answer to the question on the Freedom of Choice Act, President Obama first said abortion was a "moral issue" and then went on to say:
[T]his is an issue that... individual women have to wrestle with... And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States... So that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion...
These were careful words. Notice that Obama avoided any phrasing that would suggest that he believes abortions per se ought to be reduced. He doesn't ever assert that we ought to reduce the number of abortions because that would cast abortion in a negative light; wanting fewer abortions suggests abortion is a negative thing that ought to be reduced. Rather he is always careful to say that he wants to reduce the need for abortion, which leaves abortion as a "good" and casts the pregnancy (or rather the child) as the bad that should be reduced.
The Democrat platform under Obama was changed from making abortion "rare" to reducing the need for abortion -- a move deeper into pro-abortion orthodoxy. It's like the child is the dreaded disease and abortion is the wonderful vaccine -- why would we want fewer of those wonderful vaccines? It's the dreaded disease we want to reduce!
Obama is careful in his choice of words and so should pro-lifers be: do not ever give Obama credit for wanting to reduce abortions.
The Associated Press is reporting today that the Obama Administration has decided to roll over for a federal district court decision issued last month commanding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to sell the morning-after-pill, Plan B, to 17-year-olds without a prescription.
Typically the Department of Justice (DoJ) would vigorously defend an agency decision - in this case FDA's restricting Plan B over-the-counter sales (OTC) to women 18 and over. Here, however, the Obama FDA and DoJ have decided to accept an aggressive court ruling without appeal. In essence, the Administration let a judge make a scientific decision as to when it was safe to sell Plan B over-the-counter.
President Obama's "Health Care Summit" continued at the White House today. From Ted Kennedy to the National Federation of Independent Business, a diverse group was assembled to provide input in the large public forum and in smaller "breakout" sessions.
It is beyond dispute all Americans want consistent access to high-quality and cost-effective medical insurance and care. No one who has ever seen a loved one suffer or who has personally experienced a serious disease or injury wants anything less. How we arrive at this goal is where the division lies. President Obama has asserted that health care is a "right." Is healthcare itself a "right" or is access to health care a right? These are important distinctions. If it is a fundamental right it must be provided for and that would fall to the government. A government-run monopoly would result in sharp increases in health care costs, rationing of healthcare and a decline in quality.
What do you call an American citizen who objects to one of President Obama's most radical nominees? "Verbal terrorists," according to "Hardball's" Chris Matthews. The MSNBC host, who last night addressed the controversy surrounding Kathleen Sebelius, took a gratuitous swipe at the pro-life community for opposing the Governor's radical positions. "Is she going to get through the anti-abortion people?" Matthews asked. "Yes. I think she's going to do that. I mean, verbal terrorism? Yeah, she'll get through that."
Give me a break! Educating Americans on Sebelius's record isn't "terrorism," it's activism, no, it's realism! As a candidate for one of the most influential posts in Obama's Cabinet, Sebelius's public positions matter--particularly if they're as far outside the mainstream as hers have proven to be. Before Sebelius is confirmed, Americans deserve to know where she stands. They should know that the Kansas governor supports late-term abortions, filthy, roach-infested abortion clinics, government as the final authority on children's health, the killing of innocent abortion survivors, and socialized medicine. Despite what Chris Matthews believes, standing up for the defenseless and the vulnerable is what public officials are supposed to do. This is just an attempt to shift the focus off the extremism of Sebelius' record.
Revoking the Conscience Protection Clause--not a good idea
Maybe, it is time for some around Washington to realize that discriminating against medical providers who decline to perform or refer for abortions is not a good idea. After all, they are standing for their beliefs. The Obama Administration is trying to remove this rule from the books, to which Rep. John Boehner posted this response.
This morning's Washington Postbrings news of what should be the Obama Administration's high-water attack on the sanctity of human life, and what should be for the pro-life cause our Dunkirk. Routed at the polls, pummeled on forced funding of the international population magnates, threatened with compulsory tax funding of the domestic abortion industry, we now face an Obama repeal of the Bush Administration's conscience protections for health care workers who decline to participate in abortions.
It's time to send out a call for the dinghies, the tugboats, the fishing trawlers -- anything that floats or may float -- and make it clear that in its lurch toward the Culture of Death the Obama Administration will be unable to dragoon people of conscience into their ranks or drum them out of their professions. The purest joy of an evildoer is to draw others -- especially people of highest character -- into their work and thereby drain their moral capital and sully their reputations. All this is happening because the evidence suggests that the ranks of medical personnel committed to abortion as their stock-and-trade is small and, shall we say, not drawn from the elites of the profession. In communities from Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to Midland, Texas, the local abortionist is a drive-by doc, who visits for the day to conduct his ministrations of destruction upon the population. The dearth of death-dealers makes the crushing of conscience a social value for the Left.
Moreover, it is a sign of their own bad conscience. If so many good people will not perform abortions or hesitate to thrust a cycle of pills at a 15-year-old girl who really needs a wise adult offering her a better way than feeling compelled to submit to sexual exploitation by a boyfriend or adult man, then maybe, just maybe, there is something amiss with those health personnel who seem to hesitate at nothing. For the pro-life community right now, a Mrs. Miniver moment is the right thing. We've long upheld the rose as our symbol. Let's go down to the sea in ships.
Glamour Article Strikes a Chord: New Outreach Offers Hope of Healing
Last week, Glamour magazine published an unusually candid article on the topic of abortion and women's mental health: "Abortion: The Serious Health Decision Women Aren't Talking About Until Now." Surprisingly, the article conceded that women's abortion experiences can carry with them the long-lasting burden of psychological harm and mental health morbidity. Illustrating several women's real-life personal struggles with the aftermath of their abortion decisions, which left them depressed and traumatized, the article undermines the myth that abortion is a non-event in women's lives. But the article neglects to mention the very real dilemma that there is an utter lack of resources on a public health level available to women and individuals devastated by their abortion experience and in desperate need of help.
February is Black History Month, and we are reminded of the many African-Americans who have made remarkable contributions to our great country. Sadly, I am reminded also of the huge number of African-American babies aborted every day in the United States snuffing out enormous future potential from this community. Adding insult to injury, evidence has surfaced over the last few months concerning anti-African-American attitudes in the abortion industry.
I refer to the explosive news regarding racist behavior by employees of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. A student reporter at UCLA who did some investigative journalism released some shocking recordings showing that the eugenic and racial origins of Planned Parenthood are evident in the work of the organization even today.
In the window of the Martin Luther King Library in downtown Washington, D.C., is a sign with a quote from Rev. King, the famous pastor and civil rights leader. It reads, "In the end we will not remember the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends."
For too long, women and men who know better have been silent about the negative effects of abortion on the women and babies who undergo the procedure and on their family and friends. Women in high stress situations of unplanned pregnancies, and the babies they have conceived, have been without the benefit and support of people who could have spoken up about the serious negative after effects of their own abortions or the abortions of women they know. For too long knowledgeable people remained silent while women facing abortion believed the lie that this "product of conception" was just a blob of tissue, only to be told after the abortion that, "It was a boy/girl."
Earlier this week we took a look at Planned Parenthood's burgeoning abortion industry. While the nation's overall induced abortion count is declining, Planned Parenthood's is soaring. The chart below adds two more trend lines, the number of "emergency contraceptive" kits (a.k.a. Plan B, morning after pills) distributed and the number of adoption referrals made each year by all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. Plan B distribution is brisk, even soaring, and if abortions are being averted by this lucrative tactic, it has yet to show up in the agency's own clinical data.
As you can see regarding the adoption referrals, you can hardly see the adoption referrals. The bright yellow line that crawls along the x axis of the graph is Planned Parenthood's minuscule involvement in this life-giving option. Roughly 120 babies die in their perimeter for every one that gets a chance at adoption placement. Families are unplanned, not formed, through this agency.
Planned Parenthood, the nation's premier supplier of birth control, is also the nation's top deliverer of the undelivered - human lives that are ended by induced abortion. The chart below shows the regular, decades-long increase in abortions carried out in the U.S. by the agency that styles itself as focused on reducing the "need" for abortion.
Planned Parenthood has doubled its abortion count (and the figures exclude early abortions carried out through abortifacient means in the first minutes or days after conception) in the last 13 years alone. Federal (taxpayer) money for the group has also grown during this period. Money to Planned Parenthood is apparently a "stimulus" affording the group more access to women who are abortion vulnerable.
Indiana doesn't have the corner on the market for the "wink, wink -- we'll take care of you" style of illegal abortion counseling. Lila Rose and the crew from Live Action go undercover into an Arizona Planned Parenthood where instead of reporting statutory rape, a worker counsels a young girl to keep silent:
What's up in Alaska? Senator Lisa Murkowski today voted with President Obama to overturn the Mexico City Policy which, according to World Magazine, "prohibits grantees in receipt of U.S. funding from performing abortions, lobbying to legalize abortion, or promoting abortion as a family-planning method." (See also, our Tom McClusky's description of the policy below - in the blog on 1/23/09.) That places her in the company of liberal Republicans Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe as the only Republicans to vote with the Democrats. Alaska's new senator, Mark Begich, voted to fund overseas abortion providers as well.
I wonder whether Sarah Palin would have made it a trio ?? The GOP Platform on which Palin ran for President with John McCain stated:
"We strongly support the long-held policy of the Republican Party known as the 'Mexico City policy,' which prohibits federal monies from being given to non-governmental organizations that provide abortions or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other countries. We reject any treaty or agreement that would violate those values."
Perhaps, I am wrong, but I never heard Palin stating an objection to the platform on this point.
I knew the late Richard John Neuhaus when we both served on the national board of Lutherans for Life. As is widely known, Richard began his public ministry as a Lutheran pastor, serving in a mostly black congregation, St. John the Evangelist, in a poor neighborhood in Brooklyn. From there, Richard Neuhaus became a national leader in the civil rights movement, even marching at Selma with Dr. King. It was as Father Neuhaus, a Catholic priest, that Richard coined the famous phrase "welcomed in life and protected in law" to describe our pro-life goals for unborn children. Richard-may God bless his memory--never wavered in his defense of life. He said we were enlisted in the pro-life movement when we were baptized. Amen!
I thought of him yesterday as I attended a worship service at Immanuel Lutheran Church in Alexandria. Dr. Gerald Kieschnick came all the way from the headquarters of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in St. Louis to deliver a powerful and moving sermon for life. It meant a great deal to us here in Washington as we face the dread prospect of all three branches of our U.S. Government united to promote the slaughter of the innocents. In fact, Immanuel's young Pastor Esget used a Reformation-era woodcut of Herod's soldiers wielding swords against the soft flesh of babies. It was the cover of the church bulletin.
Dr. Kieschnick is the president of the Missouri Synod, a 2.4 million-member church body with more than 6,000 congregations nationwide. His presence among us showed his determination to stand firm on God's Word, "though devils all the world should fill..."
Interestingly, Immanuel also welcomed a pleasant young man from the Washington advocacy office of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), Andrew Genszler. ELCA has been the largest Lutheran denomination in this country, with more than 5 million members. Many of the good folks in ELCA-pastors and people-are strongly pro-life. But the denomination itself is pro-choice. Worse, ELCA co-owns a Chicago hospital called Christ. It was there that nurse Jill Stanek discovered little victims of live-birth abortions who had been placed in the broom closet in cold metal pans-there to gasp out their young lives in the darkness. Jill held these suffering children as they died, praying for them and singing to them. For her pains, Jill was fired by the administrators of this hospital. As we now know, a famous former Illinois state senator heard her testimony but would not agree with Jill that these dying newborns should be welcomed in life or protected in law.
Andrew Genszler certainly seemed sincere in saying that his large denomination would oppose the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) as "too extreme." Such opposition, should it be expressed publicly and strongly, could be a great help. Genszler said ELCA is committed to "reducing abortions." Our legislative team, however, thinks fatal FOCA is not the most immediate threat to life. They think an incremental strategy of federal funding for abortion and inclusion of abortion in the stimulus package, in national health care are the more real and present dangers.
I certainly hope ELCA will weigh in against these threats, too. During this grand Inaugural week, however, I recalled John F. Kennedy's eloquent words: "Civility is not a sign of weakness and sincerity is always subject to proof." I am glad my fellow Lutherans greeted the ELCA representative with civility. ELCA should prove its sincerity by stopping abortions at a Chicago hospital called Christ. We would all then bless them for this act of justice and mercy.
I'm amazed with the number of people, on both sides of the abortion issue, in the media and definitely in Congress who have no understanding of what the Mexico City Policy is and does. I recently did an NPR interview where the obviously biased reporter asked me a number of "questions" that showed both a bias and a lack of knowledge in the policy. At a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in October of 2007 a number of witnesses (including Joana Nerquaye-Tetteh, former executive director of Planned Parenthood Association of Ghana) who support the overturning of the Mexico City Policy had to actually admit ignorance of the policy during the hearing after some intense questioning from Republicans on the Committee.
First a little background. The Mexico City policy was first implemented via a memorandum by President Reagan in 1984 at a United Nations population conference in Mexico City, thus the name Mexico City policy. Prior to President Reagan's actions American policy on paper was to never promote abortion overseas, however in practice US tax dollars directly supported organizations which advocated and performed abortion. It remained in effect until 1993 when President Clinton rescinded the Mexico City policy on January 22, 1993 for the entirety of his tenure in office. On January 22, 2001, President Bush issued a memorandum restoring the Mexico City policy.
In as little words as possible, the Mexico City policy halts U.S. family planning funds from going to foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that perform abortions or "actively promote" abortion as a method of family planning in other countries.
What does this mean? Under the Mexico City Policy for an NGO to be "actively promoting" abortions means they provide advice and information regarding the availability of abortion or encourage women to consider abortion; lobby a foreign government to legalize or make more available abortion; or conduct a public information campaign regarding the benefits and/or availability of abortion.
That is what NGO's can't do. What they CAN still do under the Mexico City Policy is provide referrals for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life would be endangered if the unborn child were carried to term; and treat injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, i.e., post-abortion care. The argument that the Mexico City Policy is in actually a "global gag rule" is pure and utter nonsense - unless you actually believe that abortion, killing the child in the womb, is a form of family planning.
The effect of President Obama rescinding the Mexico City Policy is that now millions ($461 million in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008) of dollars are taken away from family planning groups that do not promote abortion, and delivered into the hands of organizations that are the most militant in promoting abortion as a population-control method - especially in countries that find abortion objectionable on moral grounds.
On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose.
While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.
On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere
On first blush, it is nothing new - it follows a pattern in these statements from defenders of Roe v. Wade and its progeny in that it: 1) makes no effort to establish that the Supreme Court was and is properly vested with the power to create and enforce such a "right"; 2) uses the catchphrase "right to choose" without specifying what is being chosen, why there is a right to it, and especially why there is a right to choose something that should not be chosen so often; and 3) links this spurious right with things that most Americans do agree are right and good, particularly equal opportunity for women.
The statement's "equality" language is meant to dress a mean act of destruction with the high fashion of principle. The reality of tension and conflict between men and women at all levels is real and serious, within every venue of life. As to why the ability to abandon the life the two sexes have created to the tender mercies of the abortionist is a guarantor of equality, rather than an abdication of responsibility, the statement does not say. The small body of a child rests lifeless in this struggle between the sexes. It is so sad and unnecessary, as the lives of millions of accomplished men and women who both faced their responsibilities and fulfilled their careers attest. This does not mean the feminist struggle lacks import in the area of reproduction; it surely does. It only means that abortion is not the answer. More likely, it is a major part of a very wrong answer.
Where Mr. Obama's statement is notable is that he repeats the latest of the catchphrases, "the need for abortion," which was offered up in the 2008 Democratic platform. It becomes his phrase in a new way now. For one, it means this issue is not above his pay grade anymore. There is a "need for abortion." If that is so, this practice is in every way distinct from something morally objectionable or inherently wrong. Who would speak of a "need for human trafficking"? A "need for child abuse"? A "need for prostitution"? There are indeed many sorrows in this Vale of Tears that the law, for prudential reasons, does not address. Non-obscene pornography for one, perhaps. But no one but the most radical people speaks of these evils as things for which there is a "need."
President Obama says he wants to reduce the need for abortion. But if it is essential to women's equality, why reduce it? His policies, deferred today for a few hours, weeks, or - we hope - months, will certainly promote and increase the abortion rate. Today's statement says that "we are united in our determination . . . to support women and families in the choices they make" on this issue, irrespective of "our views." Either that is a very presumptive editorial "we" or a very elastic use of the word "support." It probably means public funding for both maternity care and abortion. But most Americans oppose tax funding of abortion. We as a nation are not "united" in this matter, though President Obama may seek to force a new unity upon us with the chains of appropriations law.
The best hope is that this portion of his statement is rhetoric. That he, or other Democrats in Congress who retain some respect for the Hyde Amendment and similar provisions that have kept a wall of conscience between the citizenry and this bloody trade, may yet have a change of heart and allow only those who will death, Planned Parenthood and its friends, to fund death. Common ground so blood-soaked is not a place where men and women can stand together. Virtues die in such soil.
In case you missed Blogs 4 Life, there is a great way for you to read (in 140 characters or less) about the event. The Twitter hashtag #B4L has gained some considerable traction today.
Here's the list of those Twitter-ing from Blogs 4 Life.
It's that time of year again! Blogs 4 Life 2009 will be taking place on Thursday, January 22 from 8:30-11:30 a.m. at the FRC Headquarters in Washington, D.C. B4L will take place on the same day as March For Life, and will provide an amazing opportunity to hear from renowned conservative voices such as: U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, Amanda Carpenter, Jill Stanek, Michael New, Ph.D., Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., Michael Illions, Chris Gacek, J.D., Ph.D., and Martha Shuping, M.D.
This is a great opportunity for bloggers to network and grow in their knowledge of how internet technology can be used to promote life and bring ideas into action in a post-Roe America.
If you are unable to make B4L will also have a webcast that will be live streaming on FRC's website. Additionally, there will be a Twitter hashtag devoted to B4L (#B4L) for those who are interested.
On January 5, 2009, the New York Times carried an article ("For Privacy's Sake, Taking Risks to End Pregnancy" by Jennifer R. Lee and Cara Buckley) describing the fact that many Dominican women in New York City are aborting using the anti-ulcer drug, misoprostol (Cytotec®). Misoprostol is also the second drug in the FDA-approved abortion regimen of mifepristone (RU-486 or Mifeprex®) and misoprostol. Using misoprostol alone is a practice that is widely found in Latin American nations because misoprostol is cheap and available in pharmacies while mifepristone is either expensive, restricted in distribution, or both. (From some quick web research: RU-486 does not appear to be approved in many Latin American nations; it isn't even approved in Canada.)
Access to RU-486 is tightly controlled in the United States, but misoprostol is sold in drug stores as an anti-ulcer medication for people who take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS). In New York City "women can obtain the pills either through pharmacies that are willing to bend the rules and provide the medicine without a prescription or by having the drugs shipped from overseas."
The RU-486 regimen was developed so that mifepristone could chemically end the pregnancy's development while relying on misoprostol to then bring about the violent uterine contractions needed to expel the "products of conception." With misoprostol-only abortions the mifepristone-related chemical action does not occur, and abortions, like those reported in the article, depend primarily on termination based on contractions and expulsion. Because of the dual action, RU-486 abortions are more effective than misoprostol-only abortions, but even they fail 3-5% of the time.
To their credit, Lee and Buckley do note that misoprostol abortions have "side effects" that "can be serious, and include rupture of the uterus, severe bleeding and shock." The article also quotes a doctor who has studied misoprostol abortions in New York City where "he saw a lot of Dominican immigrants with incomplete abortions in the emergency room."
Of course, this is the pattern that we at FRC, along with doctors from the American Association of Pro Life Ob/Gyns ("AAPLOG"), have observed. We analyzed RU-486 adverse event reports obtained from the FDA via the Freedom of Information Act. Many chemical abortions do not complete themselves and women are forced to seek out emergency room care while they are tremendously sick. Blood loss can be significant sometimes requiring transfusions.
Instead of portraying these abortions as events that end the life of a human being while abusing the bodies of the women who have them, chemical abortions are portrayed in a benign light in the article. But the reality is much different.
Earlier this month, the Alan Guttmacher Institute attacked my September Family Research Council study which documented the effectiveness of state level pro-life parental involvement laws. They claim that my methodology is 'faulty.' They also argue that forcing minors to reveal their pregnancy to their parents places teens at risk of abuse.
In my response I document three studies in peer reviewed journals that show that the overall incidence of abortion among minors declines after the passage of parental involvement laws. Additionally,parental involvement laws protect minors in other ways. Parental involvement laws make it more difficult for child predators to use abortions to cover up their criminal behavior.
Furthermore, many minors seeking abortions without their parents' knowledge are at risk because they are unaware of their own medical history. In my response, I report cases where minors undergoing abortions died because they experienced an allergic reaction to the anesthesia.
It is for these reasons and others that many district attorneys, law enforcement officials, and groups representing crisis pregnancy centers support pro-life parental involvement laws. Here is a link to my full response [PDF].
If you haven't already, mark your calendars for the fourth-annual Blogs For Life conference on January 22nd, 2009. It will again be hosted here at Family Research Council Headquarters in Washington, D.C. and will run from 8:30 - 11:30a.m.
This year's event will, as usual, precede the March for Life, which marks the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. We'll be webcasting the event again, and we're in the process of lining up another great group of speakers, so stay tuned to this spot for more information.
If FOCA is passed, then Catholic Hospitals are in Danger of Closing
This morning, I read an article in The Washington Examiner about how the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would be a huge threat to Catholic health care systems, not just in Maryland, but around the nation.
Barack Obama has pledged the very first thing he would sign into law would be legislation aimed towards making abortion legal throughout the pregnancy and place the burden on taxpayers to cover this horrific procedure.
With this type of legislation being possibly enacted, many bishops are considering closing Catholic hospitals. At a recent general meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Chicago Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki said, "We may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely." In Maryland, there are eight hospitals that would be threatened, including St. Joseph Medical Center in Towson, which is nationally renowned for their cardiac care center.
According to our own government affairs department here at FRC, Maryland, along with six other states has legislation similar to FOCA.
"In Maryland , FOCA-type legislation has been on the books since 1991. According to Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rate in the United States DECREASED nine percent since 2000 to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 2005. By contrast, the state of Maryland in 2005 produced a rate of 31.5 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age, an INCREASE of eight percent since 1991."
Hopefully, Congress will use common sense and not pass such a detrimental piece of legislation that would threaten quality medical care straight across the board.
New Mental Health Studies Dispel Myth That Abortion is a 'Non-Event'
News of note this week is that two new studies published in peer-reviewed journals continue to link abortion and negative mental health effects.
The first paper , published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, analyzed data from the National Comorbidity Survey, the most comprehensive national dataset on the prevalence of psychological disorders, to explore associations between abortion history and mental health. Abortion was found to be associated with an increased risk of a number of mental health problems including: panic attacks, panic disorder, agoraphobia, post traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and major depression. The four study authors presented their research on topic at a panel discussion at the Family Research Council in October 2008.
The second paper, written by New Zealand researcher David Fergusson, analyzed data from a 30-year longitudinal study. The methodology, analysis employing two types of models for concurrent and long-term health effects, strong control for confounding variables, and comparison groups were all strengths of the study. The results indicated abortion to be associated with an increased risk of mental disorders, including major depression, anxiety disorder, illicit drug dependence, and suicide ideation.
The results of both studies add to the strong body of evidence detailing the causal association between abortion and mental health disorders. These findings continue to raise important implications concerning informed consent in healthcare. Women in this country deserve quality healthcare which provides accurate information on the associated risks accompanying abortion.
Also making news yesterday was a review paper published by researchers at Johns Hopkins University. In their own press release the university/dept. cited the review paper as the most rigorous review of the literature to date which purported that "studies with the most flawed methodology found negative mental health sequelae of abortion." This is an insult to Johns Hopkins as a credible academic research institution. The exclusion of numerous studies published in peer-reviewed journals was a gaping omission. The ties of senior author Robert Blum to the Alan Guttmacher Institute as a board member and previous board chair as well as the funding of the university's department of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, where three of the four study authors work, by Planned Parenthood of Maryland, serve as evidence of the political motivation behind the publishing of the study. Johns Hopkins should be admonished for stamping such sham science.
Women are increasingly coming forward to share about the negative impacts of abortion in their lives. Clinicians treating women for mental health disorders are increasingly stepping forward to tell the truth about the large numbers seeking treatment due to the fallout from abortion. The repeated lies from the pro-abortion community that abortion is a non-event or somehow "therapeutic" in women's lives are being dispelled and the truth clearly elucidated by scientific findings.
