Archive for the ‘Abortion effects’ Category

147 studies show abortion-preterm link, but the denial continues

147 studies show the abortion-future preterm birth link, but pro-abortionists deny it.

The too-high rate of preterm births and low birth weight babies continues to plague state health agencies. But veteran pro-abortion apologist Dr. David Grimes assures readers in his recent Huffington post entry that any connection of premature births to abortion is merely an invention of “naive” pro-life enthusiasts.

Graves is brazenly dishonest.

The research into the  effects of induced abortion upon  future preterm births began in 1960 and now there are 147 statistically significant studies showing the connection. Many –if not most– women contemplating abortion wish to do get pregnant in the future. Is it not the essence of “informed consent” to make them aware of the possible consequences of that abortion for a subsequent pregnancy?

In July 2006, The Institutes of Medicine, which publishes several reports each year, issued a report “Preterm Birth, Its Causes, Consequences and Prevention.” The IOM cited abortion as an “immutable” factor for preterm birth.

Immutable means the effect cannot be undone; even smoking as a factor for lung cancer is not immutable. Now, granted that the “immutability” factor is buried on page 517-518 of the report, it’s still a bombshell! Ironically, Grimes was nominated to IOM membership in October 2006. Yet Grimes ignores the IOM finding.

As a trained epidemiologist and prolific author, it is unconscionable for Grimes to write there is only a “weak association” between abortion and an increased risk of subsequent premature deliveries and/or low-weight babies. There is such a high number of studies– including two “gold standard” meta-analyses (also called systematic reviews) in 2009—that demonstrate otherwise.

The APB link is settled science, according to this excerpt (emphasis added) from the invaluable book Complications: Abortion’s impact on Women (Lanfranchi, Gentiles, Ring-Cassidy, 2013)

“Thanks to two recently-published systematic reviews it is now settled science that women who have had one or more induced abortions significantly increase their chances of later giving birth to a preterm or low-birth-weight child.
Shah and colleagues analyzed 37 sound studies, and determined that the adjusted estimate of increased risk of low birth weight births was 24 per cent after one abortion, and 47 per cent after more than one abortion. The adjusted risk of preterm birth — meaning under 37 weeks’ gestation — increased by 27 per cent after one abortion, and 62 per cent after two or more abortions.
Swingle and colleagues reviewed 21 sound studies and concluded that one induced abortion increased the adjusted risk of a subsequent preterm birth by 25 per cent, while two or more abortions increased the risk by 51 per cent (Adjusted risk, means after other variables such as income, age and marital status have been taken account of).
More important, they found that women with prior induced abortions have 64 per cent higher risk of a very preterm delivery (under 32 weeks gestation) compared to women with no prior induced abortions. Both these studies confirm the “dose-response” effect; in other words, the more abortions a woman has, the greater her risk of later having a preterm and/or low weight birth child. Why should this be so? The explanation is that in a surgical abortion the cervix is forced open, thereby weakening it. The more abortions a woman has, the weaker her cervix is likely to become.”

This excerpt belies Grimes’ claim that the relevant science misgroups women, doesn’t screen out other factors, and misunderstands “causation.”

For example, the large Kissler study he dislikes, clearly says, “Observational studies like ours, however large and well-controlled, will not prove causality.” But it adds, importantly, “Health care professionals should be informed about the potential risks of repeat induced abortions on infant outcomes in subsequent pregnancy.”

As a health “professional,” Grimes should stop denying the obvious.

Read Full Post »

welcome kansas (2)KDHE, the state health department, released preliminary annual data on abortions performed in Kansas, showing a 5.4 % decrease overall from 7, 885  in 2011 to  7,457 abortions in 2012.  This is  the lowest state total since 1987, two years after all abortion providers were legally mandated to report.  The total was divided between 3,661 obtained by residents and 3,796 by non-residents.

143 women were certified for abortion at Kansas clinics this year and did not return to obtain the procedure, compared to 182 in 2011. KDHE does not collect reasons for these “no-returns.” Kansas requires “Woman’s Right to Know” (WRTK) informed consent materials be accessed 24 hours prior to abortion, whether received from the abortion clinic at her initial visit, or through the state hotline, or just by viewing online at http://www.womansrighttoknow.org.

It is not unreasonable to surmise that the WRTK materials both contribute to “no-returns” as well as deter some women from ever entering a clinic.  A woman contemplating abortion may fear a lack of support for her pregnancy needs, or be responding to subtle or overt pressure from her family or the father of the child.  In the WRTK info, she finds:

  1. fetal development explanations with high definition real-time sonography;
  2. a directory of statewide locations for free individual ultrasounds and 80 pregnancy maintenance centers;
  3. links to assistance for medically-challenging pregnancies;
  4. warnings that coerced abortions are illegal.

All categories saw a decrease except “RU486” abortions by pill, which rose from 20% to 30% of total Kansas abortions. This rate exceeds the 2012 CDC chemical abortion national average of 17.4%. Kansas enacted a ban on chemical abortion obtained “by webcam” in the 2011 clinic regulation law, which is not in effect due to litigation.

Two-parent consent for abortions to minors under age 18 became law in July 2011.  KDHE did not publish the number of requests for judicial bypass (waiver of parental consent). Abortions to minors continue to decline, with those obtained by minors numbering 331 in 2011 and 304 in 2012.  Abortions to girls age 15 and under declined from 32 in 2011 to 25 in 2012.

Since July 2011, Kansas bans abortions to pain-capable unborn children at 22 weeks gestation, and KDHE reports 3 Kansas women obtained out-state abortions past 22 weeks gestation, compared with 8 in 2011 (before and after the new law).

Continuing a two-year trend, more abortions in Kansas are obtained by non-residents than residents. In 2011, non-resident abortions exceeded resident by 3,939 to 3,912, in 2012 by 3,796 to 3,661. 97% of the non-residents are from Missouri, a consistent figure, as 2 of 3 Kansas abortion providers  are located in the Kansas City KS/MO metro area.

There were 5 reports of abuse or neglect collected in conjunction with these abortions (4 in 2011) but no further details on resolution of these matters are published.

HB 2253, the Pro-Life Protections Act, has passed the House and awaits Senate action next week. Relevant to informed consent, HB 2253 will:

  • add clarifying language to the coercion warnings that must be posted inside abortion clinics;
  • maintain modest, medically-based risk discussion in WRTK materials about abortion, pre-term birth and breast cancer;
  • require KDHE to beef up medical information access and community support connections for coping with pre- and post-natally-diagnosed disabilities.

Read Full Post »

In 1997 Kansas enacted state-issued informed consent provisions for abortion, with a 24-hour phone hotline and printed informational booklets. Part of the  “Woman’s Right to Know” law required abortionists to report, not only the numbers of abortions performed, but also how many women they saw for an initial visit at which time informed consent printed state materials were presented.

The encouraging result is that from 1998 through 2011, the state health department received confirmation that 3,551 women did not proceed with abortions after their initial clinic contact.

To better educate pregnant women, as well as deter them from even entering abortion clinics, Kansans for Life shepherded the “Women’s Right to Know and See” law. Passed in 2009, the law gives women not only the option to see their child’s ultrasound taken inside the abortion clinic, but also

created a state health department-run website with real-time sonography of the developing unborn child.

At www.womansrighttoknow.org, a scientifically accurate description of prenatal development accompanies a breathtaking day-by-day view inside the womb.

A pregnant women considering abortion in Kansas, whether due to personal ambivalence or coercion, no longer has to actually contact the abortion business or wait for printed materials to arrive in the mailbox. Now, thanks to this state website, the pregnant woman has direct, private access to gaze at ultrasounds of children the same age as her unborn child… without time limits. Website access to informed consent warnings and prenatal ultrasound allows her to contemplate –at her own pace –the real person already living inside her, without clinic pressure or misinformation.

We asked the Kansas health department about website traffic. They answered that in the 26 months from May 2010 through June 2012, the right-to-know website has been phenomenally busy, with 152,173 ‘hits’! 

Logically some of these hits were repeat visits and some were from students or other non-pregnant interested individuals.  But undoubtedly, the right-to-know website has contributed to the continuing decrease in Kansas abortions.

In 2008 (before the website), 10,642 pregnant women entered Kansas abortion clinics, in 2009, 9,701 did so, in 2010, 8,615, and in 2011, 8,033. Thus, nearly 2,700 women never stepped inside a Kansas abortion business, due to their access to a state informed consent website!

So, while we are pleased that a few hundred women each year do reject abortion upon reflection AFTER entering Kansas clinics, the number choosing life has greatly increased with the online website.

Read Full Post »

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute head, Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, talked to student nurses Feb.7 at Benedictine College

Abortion supporters have grossly mischaracterized the provisions of the Pro-Life Protections Act, HB 2598, and, as expected, the Wichita Eagle blindly editorialized it as a measure that “defies mainstream science”.

One of the purposes of HB 2598 is to codify basic elements of the informed consent pamphlet, so it cannot become a political football as it had been in the Sebelius administration. HB 2598 says that the booklet,
“shall also contain objective information… including risk of premature birth in future pregnancies, [and] risk of breast cancer…”  

Anti-life opponents try to frighten legislators that the national medical advocacy groups do not acknowledge the abortion-breast cancer link, but KDHE has already recognized their duty to inform women about it.

Two full paragraphs about abortion links to pre-term birth and breast cancer are ALREADY published here on page 24 of the online version of the Kansas Woman’s Right to Know pamphlet. The pre-term info is acccurate and the breast cancer section still needs tweaking to more clearly convey these relevant biological facts.

FACT: Most women who have abortions will not get breast cancer, and most women with breast cancer did not have abortions.

However, in the last 40 years (more…)

Read Full Post »

Komen: racing for the cure and towards the truth?

The national pro-life community is rejoicing at Tuesday’s revelation that Planned Parenthood has lost the hefty financial support of the Susan J. Komen foundation, the  “pink ribbon” organization self-described as leading the war against breast cancer. (see lifenews.com for many stories on this)

Yet Komen had been defeating their stated mission all along by denying the abortion-breast cancer link while funding the nation’s top abortion business. So please understand that,

  1. while Komen has taken a positive step to sever ties with Planned Parenthood, the official statement has NOT been that they have taken their blinders off on the medical evidence about the abortion/breast cancer link, because the abortion risk denial is still part of their website!
  2. Instead, a Komen spokeswoman said Planned Parenthood, which is under Congressional investigation, has become ineligible due to a new Komen policy on denying funds to entities in legal trouble; other sources say Komen has nixed pass-thru grants, the kind Planned Parenthood was accustomed to receiving. (see this article).

Yes, it is great that Planned Parenthood’s undeserved veneer of respectability is crumbling, not only by the desertion of Komen, but through the LiveAction undercover exposes buttressing state and federal actions to defund the abortion giant. But if you thank Komen (news@komen.org), do not forget to tell them to ‘fess up about the “ABC” (abortion-breast cancer) link.

In Kansas, we found (more…)

Read Full Post »

Pro-lifers hearing National Public Radio’s Morning Edition Monday had to be smiling when Science editor, Robert Krulwich, revealed a little-known bond between a mother and her child.

The report examined the increasing evidence that “when a woman has a baby, she gets not just a son or daughter, [but]

an army of protective cells– gifts from her children that will stay inside her and defend her for the rest of her life.”

Krulwich begins his interview with Dr. Kirby Johnson, of Tufts University, doing a little myth-busting about the placenta, formerly considered “an impenetrable barrier [in which the] mommy cells stay on the mommy side and nature keeps them separate.”

Rather, Johnson discusses how researchers found, “in a teaspoon of an ordinary pregnant woman’s blood… dozens, perhaps even hundreds of cells… from the baby.” (The scientific name for the phenomenon is fetomaternal microchimerism.)

Researchers were surprised that the ‘baby’ cells aren’t attacked by the ‘mom’s’ immunity system.  The natural references (more…)

Read Full Post »

October is breast cancer awareness month, in case you haven’t seen the pink ribbons on practically every consumer item.

According to last week’s bulletin from the state health department (KDHE), 1,916 women were diagnosed in Kansas with breast cancer in 2007 (the most recent year for which statistics are available). In 2009, 369 women and 3 men died of breast cancer in Kansas.

The bulletin said, “Several lifestyle recommendations may reduce the risk of breast cancer. These include avoiding tobacco, staying active, maintaining a healthy body weight, limiting alcohol intake to one or fewer drinks per day, and increasing fiber intake with whole grains, vegetables, and fruits.”

At my mammogram last week, I was asked a series of questions as part of the exam. I was NOT asked anything about smoking, food and alcohol intake or my exercise regimen. I was asked:

  1. at what age did my period begin and menopause begin;
  2. how many pregnancies did I have;
  3. how many children were living;
  4. had I ever used oral contraceptives or post-menopausal hormones.

That is because any honest expert understands that breast cancer is largely an “estrogen” story, and the questions all reflect that.

Estrogen surges at puberty, decreases at menopause, and rises 2000% above monthly peaks during each pregnancy except during nearly all pregnancies that naturally miscarry in the first trimester. Estrogen is also affected by birth-control and menopausal hormonal regimens.

Estrogen multiplies breast cells and breast cells are vulnerable to cancer-causing agents until they mature by having become milk-producing cells.  This is why the World Health Organization has taught for over 50 years (more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers