Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Media’ 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 »

Charles Robinson, Kansas 1st gov

Kansas’ first Governor, Charles Robinson

Those who make a career out of praising abortionists who specialize in aborting children in the second and third trimester never fail to offer an annual tribute to George Tiller, the infamous Wichita, Kansas, abortionist who was killed on May 31, 2009.

The lengths to which his admirers will go was never more on display than last Friday when abortion promoter, Carol Joffe, absurdly compared Tiller with Charles Robinson, an important anti-slavery figure in Kansas history.

Robinson practiced medicine for about 10 years,  mostly in Massachusetts, before moving to Kansas in 1854. He become a leader of the Free Staters, and later, first governor of Kansas as a territory and then again when it became a state.

Joffe writes,“Though these men lived more than a century apart and became committed to different political causes, there are a number of striking similarities in their histories. Each, from a starting point as a quite conventional physician, changed his life plan in response to social conditions he found unacceptable.

To equate Robinson’s civic leadership against slavery with Tiller’s abortion promotion is nothing short of nauseating.

The only true similarities they share is that they both took instruction in medicine and lived in Kansas. In reality, they are polar opposites.

  • Robinson abhorred violence. Tiller’s grisly abortion business was the epitome of violence against the unborn.
  • Robinson fought political corruption. Tiller’s business thrived on the corruption of abortion support in Kansas government.
  • Robinson insured Kansas would not join the union with the immorality of slavery. Tiller spent enormous amounts to make Kansas the late-term abortion capitol of the nation.

Joffe continues her bizarre comparison with this assertion, “Were Charles Robinson and George Tiller alive today, they no doubt would be dispirited by the political situation of their beloved state… [enduring] a relentless barrage of abortion restrictions.”

Assuredly, while Tiller would not appreciate the pro-life laws passed since 2011, historical facts indicate Robinson would support them:

  1. Robinson traversed in the same ideological circles with iconic pro-life suffragettes and was related by marriage to several, including Elizabeth Blackwell and Lucy Stone.
  2. While Congress was drafting the Fourteenth (Equal Protection) Amendment, and the 1866 Civil Rights Law, the U.S. Medical & Surgical Journal published an essay on abortion that simply declared;”The true scientific position is this: from the moment of conception, when the spermatozoa coalesces with the cell wall of the ovule, the ovum is a distinct human being.”
  3. By 1880, nearly every state and territory had new legislation that made it a serious crime to induce abortions unless the mother’s life was in danger.

There is not one logical reason to link Robinson with an infamous late-term abortionist.  Our first governor was a civil-rights crusader who would have in all likelihood applauded pro-life Gov. Sam Brownback for signing so many pro-life laws, including this year’s historic Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.

Read Full Post »

Former Texas State Senator and failed gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, was caught on video Saturday saying tragic medical conditions cause all late-term abortions.

However, ten years of Kansas abortion statistics demolish that claim, as well as a recent radio interview of Kansas ex-abortionist, Kris Neuhaus.“An associate of George Tiller,” Neuhaus admitted that most late-term abortions were due to teens in denial.

Let’s look first at Davis’ response, to a friendly-sounding questioner who asked, ‘how does a pro-choicer defend aborting seven-pound babies?’ (This is a reference to Sen. Rand Paul’s recent challenge that Democrat pro-abortionists, such as DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, be forced to answer that question.) Davis said,

“First of all that never happens. It never happens. It really never happens. And, the only time that late-term abortions occur is when something has gone horribly wrong and either the mother’s life is in danger or the child’s life is in a very precarious situation.

So ”it never happens, but when it does…. Davis’ answer is what abortion industry media advisors want the public to hear– that “late” abortion is crucial to saving mothers’ lives and ending the lives of unborn children diagnosed with medical challenges.

But that’s not what ten years of abortion statistics from the Kansas health department (KDHE) indicate.

From mid-1998 to mid-2007, there were 5,179 abortions 20 weeks post-fertilization reported to KDHE. Post-20 week abortions were not obtainable after the Tiller clinic closed in June 2007. Such abortions were then banned by law effective July 2011.

In all of these 5,179 late-term abortions, 41% of the total were reported as performed on a “non-viable” pregnancy. Only 13 of them cited a specified fetal malady.

In all ten years’ statistics, there was only one medical emergency listed (although undescribed) and not a single one of the 5,179 late-term abortions were reported as done to save the mother’s life. None.

So the remaining three fifths of Kansas late-term abortions were performed on viable unborn children without explanation. No physical medical conditions, much less “horrible” ones for those mothers, have ever been reported. Nada, Zero.

Moreover, during 1998 and 1999, when the partial-birth method was still in use in Kansas, all those abortions were specifically reported as performed for the mother’s “mental health.”

That’s why Kris Neuhaus’ radio commentary last week is relevant.

In 1998 Kansas passed a law to ban post-20 week abortions UNLESS the woman would die or suffer ”substantial and irreversible” harm, as verified by an independent practitioner.

However, a loophole was created when then-Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall opined that such irreversible harm could include mental health. And thus a job was made for a physician willing to claim that temporary anxiety was “substantial and irreversible” harm that could only be relieved by an abortion—not delivery of a child.

From 1999-2007 Neuhaus was an otherwise unemployed Kansas-licensed abortionist who was paid to come to Tiller’s Wichita abortion business to provide supposedly unbiased “second opinions” [approvals, that is] for abortion seekers.

Neuhaus, in a self-serving interview meant to rev up contributions to her new online “fund-me” event freely revealed that most late abortions were due to the immaturity of teens in denial about their pregnancy!

According to Neuhaus, the teens didn’t really understand their pregnant condition and didn’t want the family to know they’d been sexually active.

Neuhaus said that some late -term abortions were sought for fetal anomalies but insisted the majority are done for “maternal” non-medical reasons, notedly:“you have a bunch of young women who, for whatever reasons, have decided to put themselves at risk of an unintended pregnancy and then suddenly when confronted with that– don’t always deal with that in the manner that they might at the age of 20…so that really comprises the largest percentage of [late-term abortions] that were there strictly for maternal reasons.”

In fact, those kind of abortion-seeking teens were evidenced in her 2003 medical records, subpoenaed in 2004 by former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline. Specifically, eleven cases were selected in which teens obtained third trimester abortions after Neuhaus “excused” them as being under threat of irreversible, psychological harm.

Those subpoenaed records were used by the state Healing Arts Board of Kansas to charge Neuhaus with improperly evaluating those vulnerable girls and breaking state regulations requiring a proper health record for each patient. (The Board revoked her medical license in 2012, and after reversal on appeal, again revoked her license this January, for which she again has filed an appeal.)

Contrary to the assertion of Wendy Davis, those eleven approximately ‘seven-pound’ babies were not aborted by those teens in 2003 because of bona fide medical tragedies. Nor were most of the late-term abortions obtained in Kansas, as ten years of state stats show.

Read Full Post »

Kris Neuhaus

Kris Neuhaus

Ex-Kansas abortionist Kris Neuhaus wants your pity (she sees herself as a martyr) and your money.

In a radio interview Thursday, she elaborated that she has lost her research job “without explanation” and has initiated a second online “fund-me“ campaign to raise $100,000.

Fed by adulation in multiple pro-abortion outlets where she has been termed a “hero-provider,” Neuhaus now insists (as in a press conference in April) that she be referred to as Dr. Neuhaus and bills herself as,

the first woman physician in Kansas to publicly provide abortion care, performing or consulting on over 10,000 procedures.”

Pro-life readers know that she was a failed abortionist who rubberstamped mental health “approvals” for late-term abortions for George Tiller from 1999-2007.

Her medical license was revoked in July 2012, but on appeal, was remanded to the State Board of Healing Arts in March 2014. The Board revoked the license again this January on the narrower complaint of record-keeping failure.

She is now appealing that second revocation.

Neuhaus touts herself as a martyr who lost her medical license unjustly in the pro-life administration of Gov. Sam Brownback due to her “affiliation with Dr. Tiller.”

In actuality, Neuhaus was charged in 2009— during the administration of pro-abortion Gov. Kathleen Sebelius– with violating record-keeping regulations and violating the standard of care for 11 teens obtaining late-term abortions in 2003 at Tiller’s Wichita clinic.

The state Healing Arts Board of Kansas in the past has twice deemed her “a danger to the public” and views her as defiant, self-righteous and “unable to be rehabilitated.”

Neuhaus has promised in the past she will never again do abortions, and claims to have attained a Master’s degree in Public Health at the University of Kansas, so why is she not employable? No answer to that.

In yesterday’s radio interview she said she is seeking public funding to help her afford the filing fees required to apply for medical licenses in other states. (Watchout, America!)

Eighteen months ago, her online campaign raised $63,000 –ostensibly to be used to save her home and pay her legal fees to the Board, at that time billed as $93,000. She has paid nothing to the Board and is protesting the reassessed costs of $31,000 she now owes.

Her husband is running another donation site to repay attorneys for their pro bono work on her behalf.

Neuhaus believes she deserves public support “to enable me to continue to oppose the dire state of women’s health care in Kansas, and to help expose the right-wing’s attempt to export this insanity to other states.”

Defiant and self-righteous seems an understatement.

Read Full Post »

stop dismembering posterWhen reporting about The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, the mainstream media typically refuses to include the law’s definition of what is banned--“the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments [that], slice, crush or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body in order to cut or rip it off.”

Without those details, the reader is more susceptible to the abortion industry claim that the law bans a ‘routine’ procedure that only pro-lifers believe is inhumane.

However, 37 years ago, one of the abortion industry’s own celebrated practitioners– Warren Hern of Boulder, Colorado– told colleagues about people who were disturbed by this particular method of abortion which (in his words) they “view as destructive and violent.”  Who were they? His own staff!

To unpack what Hern was acknowledging, it is first essential to establish that in a dismemberment abortion, the abortionist uses sharp metal tools to tear apart a living unborn child, piece by piece, while she is still inside her mother’s womb.

If just reading that sentence makes you squirm, imagine actually being in the room next to the surgical table and watching the abortionist repeatedly reach in and yank off baby parts and disrespectfully drop them onto a tray.

Or imagine being the employee whose job it is to visually examine each bloody piece and keep track until the entire baby has been reassembled on that tray.

And multiply that, several times a day, every day. Week after week. Year after year.

ABORTION STAFF SURVEYED
In the early years following Roe, Hern did a limited survey and interview of his own staff about their feelings and reactions to participating in dismemberment abortions. He published his findings after presenting them to a 1978 gathering of Planned Parenthood practitioners.

Hern was, in effect, giving insider tips to the abortion industry of how to understand and overcome the trauma and “personal misgivings” exhibited by abortion personnel who witness and participate in dismemberment abortions

Warren Hern

Warren Hern

The revelations about stress and revulsion were based on surveys Hern had given to 23 past and current staffers. Ordinarily, the validity of answers from paid employees to a survey written by their boss would be in question. And in fact, some resistance was shown: only 15 returned the surveys, and only six participated in a follow up one year later. Why the others didn’t respond is something we can only speculate about.

But deeply disturbing reactions were nonetheless uncovered.

According to Hern, unlike the staff response to first-trimester suction abortions, dismemberment abortions causesignificant emotional reactions of medical and counseling staff” including “physiological symptoms, sleep disturbances, effects on interpersonal relationships, and moral anguish.” Two employees reported being preoccupied with the gruesome procedure outside of work and having disturbing dreams.

Of note, Hern volunteered that a lab assistant– not part of the survey– had asked to be relieved from the task of reassembling and weighing bloody dismembered baby parts, “because of the size and intactness of the fetus.” She “found herself becoming nauseated during the tissue examination and having disturbing dreams at night.” Surely, she has not been the only individual who found the reassembly task so intolerable.

When it came to the issue of actually looking at a dismembered child, staffers admitted they averted their gaze or otherwise exhibited, “shock, dismay, amazement, disgust, fear, and sadness.”

Hern also reported a rather strange and self-serving response: some staff expressed “a “sympathy [and] wonder at how he could perform a [dismemberment abortion] at all, and a desire to protect him from the trauma.”

Protect the abortionist—really?

However, Hern also admitted that two staffers believed performing the dismemberment method, “must damage the physician psychologically.” Maybe they were the same two who couldn’t get those horrific images out of their own heads outside of work.

STAFF TRAUMATIZED
Almost as counterpoint, Hern asserted that his stress, as the abortionist, is reduced by doing more and more dismemberment abortions and growing in confidence. But that really doesn’t answer the stress of the staff. They were not reportedly anxious about whether the abortion would be ‘successfully’ performed. Rather it was the issue of demolishing a human baby limb by limb before their eyes that disturbed them.

Hern did not disagree that direct involvement in the dismemberment method adds stress for the medical staff most closely involved. But he quickly pushed past that difficulty and refocused on a key marketing angle still touted today– that in this abortion method, “the emotional trauma of the experience is reduced for the patient.”

Excerpt from medical illustration of dismemberment abortion

Excerpt from medical illustration of dismemberment abortion at 16 weeks  gestation

A little reminder is needed here. Abortionists do not clearly describe to the mother what a dismemberment abortion will do to her unborn child. Instead (as admitted in court) they define the method with vague language like, “removal of the pregnancy.”

Thus, a mother who has not been accurately informed, and undergoes the procedure while anesthetized, is going to be ignorant of the abuse to her child and, logically, less traumatized than the staff who stand by while the baby’s body is shredded.

Hern suggested to his Planned Parenthood attendees in 1978 that since dismemberment abortion “is rapidly becoming recognized as the procedure of choice in late abortion,” they will want to offer generous vacations, flex time, and staff ‘team-building’ to prevent staff stress from erupting in the form of shouting at, or withholding care from, their clients.

After all, Hern declared, some employees have “strong personal reservations about participating in an operation they view as destructive and violent.” His concluding remarks are disturbing:

“The most important challenge [of dismemberment abortion] is how we feel about it. …Some part of our cultural and perhaps even biological heritage recoils at a destructive operation on a form that is similar to our own…[yet] there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like electric current.”

This final admission is actually quite candid: abortions are destructive, not only to unborn children, but to the medical profession itself.

Today, abortionist Hern is still in business and probably concocting better employee perks to quell the morale problem.

Kansas and Oklahoma, on the other hand, have acted more wisely for all involved. In banning dismemberment abortions, living unborn children, and the integrity of the medical profession are better protected.

Read Full Post »

SB 95 bill signing in Wichita

Gov. Brownback and legislators with pro-lifers in Wichita (photo by Joseph K. Myers)

It’s no real surprise that abortionists and their supporters are furious about the ban on dismemberment abortions which has been newly enacted in Kansas and Oklahoma. Aside from the fact that legal minds realize this is a true threat to the abortion status quo. what sticks in the craw of abortion supporters is how the entire law targets dismemberment abortions that torture a living, unborn child.

Like the ban on partial-birth abortion method abortions (upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007),  the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act outlaws a particularly brutal process. Dismemberment abortions tear apart living unborn babies “one piece at a time from the uterus through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments,” as SB 95 spells out.

“I am pleased that Kansas is the first state in America to ban dismemberment abortions,” said Gov. Sam Brownback. “This is extraordinarily important.”  So important, in fact, that he decided to memorialize its enactment by staging four ceremonial signings across the state on Tuesday.

Since this was virtually a never-before-event, one would expect an outpouring of media interest.

Not so.

Instead there was a virtual media blackout on the event. It would appear obvious that any reporter who did turn up had been sent solely to get quotes from the Governor on the state’s budget woes (before the legislature reconvened Wednesday), or to recycle the opinions of angry Kansas abortion clinic directors.

Of the few small stories that were actually published, none quoted the speakers at the four events or interviewed the attendees for their opinions.

Hundreds of people came to the signings—people of all ages —yet more than a few pro-abortion bloggers intentionally misconstrued the events, including Tara Culp Ressler’s coverage which ran under this headline, “In Bizarre Stunt, Governor Pretends To Sign Extreme Abortion Ban For Group Of Teenagers .”

She reminded her readers this was the same governor who was photographed a few weeks ago at the initial bill signing, “flanked by large photos of fetuses.”  [insert “gasp!”] That reminder was supposed to make readers collectively shudder at the thought that photos got out that actually linked innocent unborn babies with this law. This was impolite, because pro-abortionists have worked very hard not to allow any stories to mention “the baby.”

At the events Tuesday, Brownback spoke without notes, from his own conviction about the beauty of life and Kansas’ commitment to defending the sanctity of life. He said,

“Kansans do not support the dismembering of babies. This a major piece of legislation, for the major issue of our day… and hopefully, starting a movement that will spread nationwide.”

That this grassroots movement will spread from state to state is why pro-abortionists are furious SB 95 ever passed. They are determined to put out the flames with lies, distortions, and by omitting the little ones whose lives the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act is intended to save.

Read Full Post »

SB 95 ceremonial signing in Lenexa

SB 95 ceremonial signing in Lenexa includes pro-life legislators

A special event is happening in Kansas for the first time today, as Gov. Sam Brownback travels to four cities for ceremonial signings of SB 95, the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act

The model language for the Act was provided by Kansans for Life, from the National Right to Life Committee. It prohibits the barbaric abortion method of dismembering living unborn children and has been enacted in both Kansas and Oklahoma.

SB 95 was technically signed into law April 7, but this dismemberment ban has such significance to advancing the pro-life cause that Gov. Brownback deemed it important enough to mark its signing with a wide public audience.

The governor is traveling with the bill’s lead sponsor, Sen. Garrett Love (R-Montezuma) and the bill’s carrier in the House, Rep. Steve Brunk (R-Wichita) to school locations in the four quadrants of the state: Lenexa, Pittsburg, Wichita and Hays. Rep. Brunk was lead sponsor of Kansas’ Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2007 and Sen. Love was a lead carrier of Kansas’ Pain-capable Unborn Child Protection Act in 2011.

The signing events kicked off at 9 a.m. in northeast Kansas at the Holy Trinity Catholic Church and elementary school. Archbishop Joseph Naumann, Catholic Conference Director Michael Schuttloffel, and representatives of Benedictine College, were among the special guests. Also in attendance were numerous legislators, including Rep. John Rubin (R-Shawnee) who assisted in the defense of the bill during floor debate.

Gov. Brownback commended the “outstanding long-term work of Kansans for Life” and for “bringing this measure to ban a horrific abortion procedure.” He told the audience that when the American public learned about partial-birth abortion, they strongly wanted it banned and the Supreme Court said it could be done. “The people of Kansas don’t support dismembering unborn children.”

Archbishop Naumann, who has been involved in pro-life advocacy for many decades, said, “We look forward to many lives being saved by this law; it is an answer to many peoples’ prayers. It will educate and awaken people to the horror that is abortion, which is the civil rights issue of our times.”

Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, offered some remarks to the the crowd, which included 7th & 8th grade students.

“The signing of this pro-life law shows Kansas’ deep commitment to protecting innocent life and setting an example for the nation.

Often a formal signing ceremony is done in the Capitol and is witnessed by those most affected by the change in law. In the case of SB 95, those who are most affected, the unborn, cannot be here today. So we stand in solidarity with those unborn children by standing here for them today.

Kansas is a great place in which to be born and to live. We are a state where our top universities are working on unlocking the keys to treating disease by using our own cells, called stem cells. We are a state with specialty care for unborn children with serious health problems. We are a state where every community has a place to help struggling mothers-to-be get the immediate and long-term help they need to become a great parent.

Let us applaud all our pro-life lawmakers and our pro-life governor for achieving this law and pray that Kansas will continue to work to show respect for life.

Pro-lifers in southeast Kansas will be gathering at 11:00 at the St. Mary Colgan high school, and pro-lifers from south central and western Kansas can attend the 1:30 signing at Bishop Carroll High School. Update: Bishop Carl Kemme also spoke at the Wichita gathering,

Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, who is a physician and testified in support of SB 95, will join the final signing event at 3:30 at his alma mater, St. Thomas More Prep- Marian school in Hays.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers