Archive for the RU-486 Category

Media ignores profit motive of researcher attempting to discredit abortion pill reversal

Posted in Abortion pill, Abortion Pill Connections, Abortion Pill Study, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Clinical Trial APR, Contraception Journal, DANCO, Daniel Grossman, Mitchell D. Creinin, Population Council, Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP), RU-486, University o California San Francisco (UCSF), University of California, University of California Davis with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 23, 2019 by saynsumthn

abortion pill birth control

 

The principal investigator of a study seeking to disprove the legitimacy of abortion pill reversal has direct ties — including financial ties — to abortion pill manufacturer Danco, which was formed by the eugenics-founded Population Council. This potential conflict of interest should demand scrutiny from the media — but instead, the media willingly questions abortion pill reversal based upon a single “expert” that receives compensation from Danco. This “expert” is Mitchell D. Creinin, a professor at University of California, Davis, sponsor of the study.

Mitchell Creinin has long history with abortion. He is an abortionist who was involved in clinical trials of RU-486 at Magee-Women’s Hospital Dept. of OB/GYN Pittsburgh, PA. He was the previous medical and lab director of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, as described by Oxford University Press. He worked on an abortion training publication for the National Abortion Federation (NAF). He has served on the Board of Directors for the Association for Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP). He is also listed among the advisory counsel for the early abortion training guide published by Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), part of UCSF’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health.

As I detailed in a Twitter thread shown below, Creinin’s abortion history and connections to the abortion pill’s manufacturer are deep and worth mentioning. This calls into question the validity of his study into abortion pill reversal. Creinin has financial incentive to make sure the abortion pill remains in demand, as do the study’s sponsors. This is a blatant conflict of interest.

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

Person behind “Clinical Trial” to attempt to disprove abortion pill reversal (APR) – connected to abortion and takes money from abortion pill manufacturer- can you say CONFLICT? https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/ 

The who’s who (and who not to trust) behind an abortion pill reversal study

Abortion advocates want broad access to the abortion pill, and are pushing studies funded by people who stand to gain financially from abortion pill sales.

liveaction.org

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

 

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

3/ Mitchell D Creinin is Professor at University of California, Davis (UCD) – the anti-APR study’s sponsor more here https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/  pic.twitter.com/ceovZv7Uqr

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets
View image on Twitter

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

4/ Mitchell D Creinin is a consultant for abortion pill manufacturer, receiving consulting fees $$/ honorarium f/ DANCO https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/  pic.twitter.com/GZ4s3kfmSp

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

5/ Mitchell D Creinin provided “third-party telephone consults,” for pill (Mifeprex or RU486) DANCO – formed by Population Council
More here https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/  pic.twitter.com/MsAH2mXW7v

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

6/ Creinin founding member of Society of Family Planning (SFP) began w/ Packard Foundation $$ – which is funding abortion pill studies/ publications. SFP funding study- granted UC Davis $401,764. https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/  pic.twitter.com/FTtWWM90gm

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

7/ Creinin, deputy editor SFP’s journal Contraception, publishes Packard-funded reports promoting self-managed abortion. Funds Gynuity which sponsors abortion pill expansion studies https://www.liveaction.org/news/exposed-conflicts-interest-abortion-pill/  more here https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/  pic.twitter.com/CarYNczMXg

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

8/ Packard’s investment seeded abortion pill MFG, DANCO including a $14 million loan as early as 1996 to bring drug RU486 (Mifepristone) to US Packard funds UC Davis sponsor of study https://www.liveaction.org/news/secrecy-abortion-pill-maker-investors/  More here https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/  pic.twitter.com/SYzUaTfwHV

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

9/ Creinin is Principal Investigator (PI) in another clinical trial by abortionist on pharmacy dispension of abortion pill https://www.liveaction.org/news/this-abortionist-claims-abortion-pill-doesnt-need-regulations-hes-wrong/ 
More here https://www.liveaction.org/news/whos-who-abortion-pill-reversal-study/ 

The who’s who (and who not to trust) behind an abortion pill reversal study

Abortion advocates want broad access to the abortion pill, and are pushing studies funded by people who stand to gain financially from abortion pill sales.

liveaction.org

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

10/ Creinin previous medical/lab director Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania – and an abortionist involved in original clinical trials of RU-486 abortion pill

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

Carole Novielli@CaroleNovielli

11/ In summary- FOLLOW THE MONEY – something this @VICE report FAILED to do – https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/j5wqqp/theres-no-proof-abortion-reversals-are-real-this-study-could-end-the-debate 
These abortion “studies” are tied together by $$ from / Danco support from

There’s no proof “abortion reversals” are real. This study could end the debate.

Four states already mandate that doctors advise women their abortions can be reversed.

news.vice.com

See Carole Novielli’s other Tweets

As shown in the Twitter thread above, Creinin serves as consultant for abortion pill (Mifeprex) manufacturer, Danco, and receives consulting fees and compensation from the company. In addition, he receives honorarium from Danco. Creinin also provides “third-party telephone consults” for Danco. Creinin’s study sponsor is financed by the Packard Foundation, one of Danco’s major financial investors.

If this all weren’t enough to show a major conflict of interest, Creinin is also a founding member of the Society of Family Planning, which is collaborating on the study. This organization’s mission is to support abortion research, it, too, is funded by the Packard Foundation. Creinin is also the deputy editor of SFP’s official journalContraceptionPackard-funded studies in this journal unsurprisingly support the pro-abortion cause, claiming self-managed abortion is safe, and urging the undoing of current FDA safety standards restricting dispensation of the abortion pill (known as REMS). The Journal’s editorial board has been stacked with abortion industry insiders, including a National Abortion Federation board member and members of the Population Council (responsible for bringing the abortion pill into the US and forming DANCO, the manufacturer of the pill).  Obviously, the journal is pro-abortion.

Creinin is also the principal investigator in another clinical trial run abortionist/researcher Daniel Grossman (professor at University of California, San Francisco) on pharmacy dispension of the abortion pill.

Despite the fact that this conflict exists between the study’s “investigator” and Danco, media outlets ignore it. Such was the case over at Vice, which published the latest attack against abortion pill reversal, highlighting Creinin’s study without drawing one line to his connections to the abortion pill’s manufacturer. Vice headlined their hit piece: “THERE’S NO PROOF ‘ABORTION REVERSALS’ ARE REAL. THIS STUDY COULD END THE DEBATE,” in spite of the fact that Creinin’s study is only at the recruiting stage, and hasn’t reached any conclusions yet.

Or has it?

Creinin makes no secret that he doesn’t believe in abortion pill reversal  — and his profitable relationship with Danco should give any critically thinking person reason to question the motivations behind this push to “test” the effectiveness of the abortion pill reversal protocol.

    • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

How pro-abortion men hijacked the women’s movement for their own benefit

Posted in Abortion pill, Abortion prior to Roe, Bernard Nathanson, Betty Friedan, Birth Control and Eugenics, Civil Rights, DANCO, Eugenics, Feminism, Frederick OSborn, Lader, Live Action, Margaret Sanger, Men and Abortion, Population Control, Roe V Wade History, RU-486, Subverted, Women's Movement with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 25, 2019 by saynsumthn

 

Image: Larry Lader in 2000

Larry Lader in 2000

The “Father of Abortion Rights,” Larry Lader, held eugenic beliefs inspired by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger — but on abortion, they parted ways, with Lader being extremely in favor of abortion. Lader and his colleague Bernard Nathanson were the two men most instrumental in pushing the 1960’s women’s movement towards abortion.

The reason we know this information, says “Subverted” author Sue Ellen Browder, is because Nathanson, an abortionist who later converted to the pro-life cause, had stories to tell.

Image: Larry Lader and Bernard Nathanson. Both men worked against the feminist pro-life movement to push abortion on women.

Larry Lader and Bernard Nathanson — two men behind the 1960s abortion push in the U.S.

Browder told Live Action president Lila Rose in an interview, “These two men, Larry Lader and Bernard Nathanson, had founded this organization [NARAL] and… Lader knew Betty Friedan very well. They were magazine writers together in New York. Larry Lader had graduated from Harvard University. He was fairly independently wealthy… and his greatest passion was to make abortion legal. And he worked on Betty Friedan for years to try to convince her to insert abortion into her list of demands [within the National Organization for Women (NOW)]….”

“We would never had known it was Lader who at last persuaded Betty to insert abortion into NOW’s package of ‘women’s rights’ if it weren’t for the written testimony of a third party who eye-witnessed events as they unfolded behind the scenes,” Browder wrote in her book. That eyewitness was Nathanson.

“If we’re going to move abortion out of the books and into the streets, we’re going to have to recruit the feminists,” Browder quotes Lader as suggesting.

“Friedan has got to put her troops into this thing – while she still has control of them,” Lader stated.

READ: 8 ways pro-abortion men pushed legalized abortion on America

Friedan, Browder notes, had agreed to write a foreword in the jacket of Lader’s book. “He wrote a book on abortion and it was full of half truths, selective truths and truths out of context. But it was trying to prove to women that they need abortion to be free,” Browder stated. “And Betty Friedan bought it. She gave him a wonderful blurb on the back cover saying what a wonderful book this was. So, she now agreed with him.”

Image: Abortion written by Lawrence (Larry) Lader 1966

Abortion written by Lawrence (Larry) Lader 1966

Lader wanted to “unleash the fury of women”

Nathanson, who reluctantly agreed to work with Lader in 1967 to convince Friedan’s feminists to support an abortion plank, once admitted, “Larry’s marriage with the feminists was a brilliant tactic.” But Nathanson later regretted the decision.

“In short I found, to my surprise, that I had been subtly dragooned into planning political strategy with Lader,” Nathanson wrote regretfully in his book, “The Hand of God.” Nathanson called himself and Lader “radicals,” writing, “We would settle for nothing less than striking down all existing statutes and substituting abortion on demand.”

The scheme was simple. In “Abortion,” Lader placed the responsibility on women to pronounce abortion as a freedom:

Women themselves must bear the special responsibility of rallying opinion behind reform, standing up and making their demands for justice known throughout the country. Nothing is stronger than the moral power of an idea once it has come of age. And the moral power of legalized abortion will surely prevail when women have directed their anger against the superstitions of centuries, and cried out for the final freedom of procreative choice.

In “Abortion II,” Lader prophetically concluded that to legalize abortion, women would need “to stand before television cameras and describe their own abortions to the public…. It needed brawling women, shouting defiance of the law….” Lader then took credit for convincing women to join, writing, “It took only a few of us in 1966 – the early fanatics – to break the silence and unleash the fury of women. Once the National Organization for Women and Women’s Liberation groups joined the abortion movement, we were ready to shake the country.”

“Significantly, even Friedan, one of the most impressive militants of her time, avoided the abortion issue at first,” Lader recounted in the same book. He wrote, “[W]hile she was writing Mystique, I occasionally suggested that all feminist demands hinged on contraception and abortion and a woman’s control over her own body and procreation. Yet, her book hardly touched this fundamental problem and mentioned Margaret Sanger only peripherally….”

Image: Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique

Betty Friedan’s Feminine Mystique

 

READ: Film documents Planned Parenthood’s history of Black genocide, eugenics

“The breakthrough came slowly,” Lader wrote. “In June 1966, at a meeting of the Commissions on the Status of Women in Washington, Friedan emerged from the status of woman to activist,” Lader said, recounting how Friedan founded NOW. “Although pounding away at the abortion issue in her lectures, she still hesitated to force it into the NOW platform for fear of splitting off Catholics and conservative professionals.”

Then, in a 1966 news conference announcing Lader‘sbook, the LA Times recounted how reporters began using new rhetoric, calling abortion “a civil rights movement for women.”

One year later, in 1967, Lader would convince Friedan to add an abortion plank into NOW.

“Friedan has claimed that she did not start out consciously to start to a revolution,” Lader noted in his book “Ideas Triumphant.” But, he said, “This is not completely accurate. At the time she agreed to write a plug for my book jacket in 1965, we were discussing how to turn ideas into organizing. The founding of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966 was pivotal.”

“By bringing NOW and eventually Women’s Lib into the abortion campaign, Friedan assured that the struggle for feminine liberation was solidly rooted in the one base that could turn theory into reality – a woman’s control over her own body and procreation,” Lader wrote in “Abortion II.”

Lader’s abortion obsession continued into the 1990’s when he pushed for the legalization of the abortion pill, RU486. In a 2000 press release, Lader bragged about his “plot” to break the law and smuggle the drug into the US.

He told an audience, “We have all sorts of little tricks; we’re tricky people. We smuggled some in from China through a doctor I knew coming in…. We then set up a very small lab… to make a small amount… and then we were very lucky; we found a very good manufacturer in the US and we have been with them ever since.”

Lader died in 2006 from colon cancer. He was 86.

This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

____________________

 

  • ( Part One) ‘Father of abortion rights’ called minority children in America ‘unwanted’
  • (Part Two) ‘Father of abortion rights’ called self a ‘disciple’ of Planned Parenthood founder and eugenicist Margaret Sanger
  • (Part Three) ‘Father of abortion rights’: Minorities need abortion to prevent future ‘drug addicts’
  • (Part Four) Pro-abortion leader hoped abortion would end ‘morality’ and ‘the nuclear family’
  • Larry Lader and Margaret Sanger (here) (here)
  • Larry Lader on Planned Parenthood (here). (here) (here)
  • Larry Lader, Bernard Nathanson and NOW, Betty Friedan and NARAL – Here and here.
  • Men like Larry Lader who pushed abortion and helped Roe (here)
  • Lies about illegal abortion (here)

Conflicts of interest? Abortion pill investor funds study claiming women want expanded distribution

Posted in Abortion pill, DANCO, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, George Soros, Journal Contraception, Population Council, RU-486, self-managed abortion, Warren Buffet with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 30, 2018 by saynsumthn

EXPOSED: Massive conflicts of interest found in new abortion pill study

abortion pill

Abortion industry insiders insist that there is a large public interest in expanding distribution of the abortion pill by lifting safety requirements for the drug regimen. Now, right on cue, a study done by abortion industry insiders and funded by a large investor of the abortion pill’s manufacturer purports to show that women want “alternative models” for obtaining the abortion pill. But the move is anything but organic and is being strategically driven by abortion industry insiders.

Published by the Journal Contraception, the study claims that women support obtaining abortion pills “(1) in advance from a doctor for future use, (2) over-the-counter (OTC) from a drugstore and (3) online without a prescription.” But there is more beneath the surface at play here. Not only are the Journal and its authors deeply embedded in the abortion industry, but the funding for this study also came from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, a major investor in Danco, the manufacturer of the abortion pill.

In 1998, according to reports, Packard seeded Danco with $10 million, and Packard also currently funds Gynuity Health Projects, which conducts abortion pill clinical trials. Packard’s investment in Danco included a $14 million loan as early as 1996 to bring the drug to the US, as well as additional grants made in 2000, 2004, and 2009. And yet, the Journal claims there are no conflicts of interest.

Image: Packard Foundation self managed abortion pill study (Image: 2018 study from Journal Contraception)

Packard Foundation self managed abortion pill study (Image: 2018 study from Journal Contraception

Additional investors in Danco include George Soros (Open Society), Warren Buffet (Buffet Foundation) and the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation.

Image: Packard Foundation invested in abortion pill manufacturer DANCO (Image: David and Lucile Packard Foundation )

Packard Foundation invested in abortion pill manufacturer DANCO (Image: David and Lucile Packard Foundation )

Journal Contraception  

Authors

Image: Journal Contraception 2018 study on self managed abortion

Journal Contraception 2018 study on self managed abortion

 

Image: Author Sarah Raifman Tweet June 2018 SB320 (Image: Twitter)

Author Sarah Raifman Tweet June 2018 SB320 (Image: Twitter)

  • Author Diana G. Foster is another ANSIRH staffer who opposes late-term abortion restrictions. She sits on the board of the Later Abortion Initiative (LAI), a group with the mission of “increas[ing] the number of sites where later abortion is available” and “expand[ing] the number of physicians who can perform later abortion, especially at 20 weeks’ gestation and beyond.” Foster has been applauded by the abortion advocacy group, NARAL.
Image: Author Diana G Foster applauded by NARAL 2016 tweet

Author Diana G Foster applauded by NARAL 2016 tweet

READ: Amazing: Over 500 babies saved thanks to abortion pill reversal

The abortion pill regimen, RU486, is made up of two drugs: Misoprostol and Mifeprex. This regimen is currently regulated by the FDA under a system known as REMS. As Live Action News previously explained, taking the abortion pill regimen isn’t just a simple thing — if a woman is too far along or if her pregnancy is ectopic, these factors put women at additional risk. There have been 22 reported deaths and thousands of hospitalizations since the abortion pill’s approval in 2000.

Live Action News has previously documented how:

  • Abortion insiders brought RU486 to the US.
  • Abortion insiders are conducting clinical trials for “home-use” and “self managed” abortions.
  • Abortion insiders collaborated to push “home use” abortions.
  • Abortion insiders recently coordinated a Tweetfest to promote “self-managed” abortions.
  • And now, abortion insiders conveniently roll out a study claiming women support “alternative models of medication abortion provision.”

Despite the clear conflicts of interest surrounding this study about the abortion pill, it and other studies like it are likely to go unchallenged by the mainstream media, just as abortion industry leader Planned Parenthood’s claims continue to go unchallenged. This does a grave disservice to women.

Abortion industry responsible for women dying from home use/ self managed abortions – here’s why!

Posted in Abortion death, Abortion pill, Abortionist, ACOG, Gynuity, Home Use Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood Clinical Trials, RU-486, Self Managed Abortion with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 27, 2018 by saynsumthn

The abortion industry is now pushing dangerous home abortions

By  |  Via LiveActionNews.org

abortion

When the abortion industry speaks about women dying from “home abortions”, they leave out the fact that historically, they were the ones lined up to assist women in obtaining illegal abortions. Today, the trend seems to be continuing. “Abortion AMA: Can I give myself an abortion?” published weeks ago by Bustle and written by Danielle Campoamor, points out that even though abortion is legal in the US, groups like Women Help Women are advising women on “self managed abortions.”

Image: Bustle promotes self abortions

Bustle promotes self abortions

A June 2018 BBC article reported, “By buying pills online and sharing medical advice through WhatsApp groups, women are increasingly turning to technology to sidestep legal barriers to abortion.” Women on Web, an international group that helps women obtain illegal abortions, suggests women lie about complications and tell the doctors they had a miscarriage instead. Despite warnings against purchasing drugs online, activists Francine Coeytaux and Victoria Nichols created the website, PlanC, to push dangerous home abortions.

Joanna Erdman, assistant professor at Dalhousie University’s Schulich School of Law in Halifax, told the New York Times that Plan C is the “same feminist ideology of ‘self-help’ that guided the many safe-abortion initiatives before it, including, most notably, the Abortion Counseling Service of Women’s Liberation, or Jane.”

Image: Plan C pushes home abortions

Plan C pushes home abortions

Today, despite Roe v. Wade remaining firmly in place, the industry is pushing a legal version of “home use” abortion.

The move, being tested in clinical trials, would allow the drug Mifeprex to be mailed to women, or obtained over-the-counter at a local pharmacy. Mifeprex is regulated by the FDA under Approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS), which ensures that Mifeprex is only dispensed in certain healthcare settings by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.

The abortion-inducing regimen is made up of two pills: Mifeprex, also known as mifepristone, and misoprostol, which, according to the FDA, will end “an early pregnancy (70 days or less since the first day of the last menstrual period).” Of course, “the pregnancy” is a term for ending the life of a preborn child in the womb. But sometimes these chemicals also claim the lives of their mothers. This process is explained by Dr. Anthony Levatino in the video below:

 

Between May 2009 and February 2011, Clinical Trials “to assess the acceptability of home-use mifepristone” were conducted and reviewed in the United States, Moldova, and the Republic of Nepal, sponsored by Gynuity Health Projects. The sponsor sought to recruit 615 women between 18 to 55 to enroll in the non-randomized study, Uptake and Acceptability of Home-use of Mifepristone for Medical Abortion. The trial within the USA included locations in three states — Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania:

Image: Feminist Women's Health Center home use abortion

Feminist Women’s Health Center home use abortion

Gynuity was founded in 2003 by Beverly Winikoff, M.D., M.P.H, and according to the website, “Winikoff was employed… at the Population Council.. Prior to joining the Council in 1978, she was Assistant Director for Health Sciences, The Rockefeller Foundation.”

Image: Gynuity Home Use Abortion

Senior Clinical Adviser Paul Blumenthal also currently serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Abortion Federation (NAF).

Gynuity is funded by organizations known for their support of abortion and population control, including:

  • The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  • The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
  • Planned Parenthood Global
  • Population Council
  • Society for Family Planning
  • The Rockefeller Foundation
  • The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Image: Abortion by Mail (Screen: The Atlantic)

Abortion by Mail (Screen: The Atlantic)

A report published by the pro-abortion journal ContraceptionAcceptability of Home-use of Mifepristone for Medical Abortion, reviewed a trial conducted from May 2009 through November 2010 at “four urban, demographically diverse clinical sites in New York City, Philadelphia and Atlanta…” which reported, “Four women in the home-use group and five women in the office-use group reported visiting the emergency room (ER) for care related to their abortion.”

Image: Home Use abortions send women to ER (Image: Journal Contraception)

Home Use abortions send women to ER (Image: Journal Contraception)

white paper overview written by authors at the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health at George Washington University states, “More recent studies include one involving 400 women who received care at six US Planned Parenthood centers.” The Planned Parenthood home use study was conducted between April 2013 and June 2014, and results were published in Contraception, titled A prospective, non-randomized study of home use of mifepristone for medical abortion in the U.S, in 2015.

Abortion promoters are currently recruiting for a study at sites in California and Washington, where women will obtain the abortion pill regimen from the pharmacy instead of in the facility itself. Gynuity is also conducting clinical trials for the “Feasibility of Medical Abortion by Direct-to-Consumer Telemedicine,” or “mail order” abortion pills at select locations, including Planned Parenthood.

website, Teleabortion, has even been created to recruit for this experiment.

Image: Telabortion website

Telabortion website

While activists in favor of Roe and their complicit media allies claim abortion is safe, recent FDA reports indicate that almost a dozen women, who obtained pills at medical facilities, have died from it, and a thousand have been hospitalized.

Image: RU486 abortion pill deaths updated 2017

RU486 abortion pill deaths updated 2017

The real numbers may be difficult to track since, as Live Action News has previously documented, nearly half of all states do not require complications be reported. In addition, women suffering complications may present to the emergency room claiming they are suffering a miscarriage, without telling the truth about what has really happened.

In the years leading up to Roe v. Wade, advocates openly admitted that a majority of “illegal abortions” were being performed by “reputable physicians.” Past Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher admitted to the Harvard Crimson in 1967 that “Seventy per cent of the illegal abortions in the country are performed by reputable physicians, each thinking himself a knight in white armor.”

Underground groups are already being formed to help commit “cheap, safe” abortions. There are also legal groups dedicated to “liberating” women who commit self-induced abortions. ACOG, which has shown itself to be pro-abortion, has also called for women to not be prosecuted for any self-induced abortions.

Regardless of the legal status of Roe v. Wade, women will continue to die, and the blame should be placed solely at the feet of the people who enable the killing to keep happening.

This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Group that brought abortion pill to US has eugenics history

Posted in Abortion pill, American Eugenics Society, Bernard Berelson, Eugenics, Every Child a Wanted Child, Frank Notestein, Frederick OSborn, Guttmacher, Population Council, RU-486 with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 20, 2017 by saynsumthn

The Population Council has a shocking 65-year history, and it’s nothing to celebrate

(From Live Action News)

John D Rockefeller-founded Population-Council

The Population Council, the eugenics organization credited with bringing the abortion pill RU-486 to the United States, turns 65 this month — but it is nothing to celebrate.

In 1952, John D. Rockefeller III founded the Population Council and served as the organization’s first president.  According to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Population Council, Inc., was incorporated following Rockefeller’s Conference on Population Problems, “…to stimulate, encourage, promote, conduct and support significant activities in the broad field of population.”

Like its founder, the Population Council’s other members were concerned about population issues — and, like other population organizations such as Planned Parenthood, high ranking Population Council leaders were well connected to the eugenics movement.

Frederick Osborn

 

Frederic Osborn followed Rockefeller as Population Council president in 1957. Osborn was a founding member of the American Eugenics Society who signed Margaret Sanger’s “Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood,” published in April of 1938. Osborn once wrote, “Eugenic goals are most likely attained under a name other than eugenics.” Some speculate that Planned Parenthood’s infamous slogan, “Every Child a Wanted Child,” may have originated with Osborn. It is no wonder that Osborn also said that “Birth Control and abortion are turning out to be the great eugenic advances of our time.”

Frank W Notestein

Frank W. Notestein followed Osborn as president in 1959. Like Osborn, he was member of the American Eugenics Society and as the American Philosophical Society, according to a biography published by Princeton University. He was also one of the organization’s original four trustees, according to the Population Council’s 1957 Annual Report.

In 1939, Notestein and Osborn served together on the Medical Advisory Board for Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Federation. By 1967, under Notestein’s leadership, the Population Council released a controversial film, entitled “Family Planning,” which featured Disney’s iconic cartoon figure Donald Duck. It was one of many efforts in the 1960s and ’70s to indoctrinate the culture on the use of birth control.

By 1970, Notestein was serving on the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood-World Population.

Bernard Berelson

Bernard Berelson took the helm of Population Council in 1968, as its fourth president. A year later, in 1969, Berelson published an article which suggested that if voluntary methods of birth control were not successful, it may become necessary for the government to put a “fertility control agent” in the water supplies of “urban” neighborhoods. The article was published in the journal, “Studies in Family Planning,” published by the Population Council. Berelson was also featured in the Population Council’s first issue of “Population and Development Review.”

 

Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D. sat on the Population Council’s first Medical Advisory Board. Guttmacher, a former Planned Parenthood president, was also vice president of the American Eugenics Society. His ideas of forced or compulsory population control measures were in lock-step with Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger, who made sure that Planned Parenthood was knee deep in eugenics. Guttmacher’s namesake institution, the Guttmacher Institute, would later be referred to as a “research arm” and a “special affiliate” of Planned Parenthood.

Alan Guttmacher, president of past Planned Parenthood (screenshot: CBS news)

Thomas Parran, Jr. was on the original Population Council’s board of trustees. On paper, he has a very distinguished career, having been named the nation’s sixth U.S. Surgeon General, building support for the passage of Social Security as well as the establishment of the World Health Organization. His name even appeared on the public health building of the University of Pittsburgh as “one of the giants of 20th-century medicine.”

Thomas Parran (Photo: NIH/NLM)

But according to USA Today, “Parran’s legacy was tainted in 2010, when the U.S. government apologized to Guatemala for the syphilis experiments that exposed 1,308 men, women and children to syphilis without consent from 1946 to 1948. Parran approved of the experiments, conducted by U.S. Public Health Service physician John Cutler.” (Cutler and his wife Eleise contributed to the Population Council and Cutler’s wife admitted that she served on the board of Planned Parenthood.)

Earlier this year, Philly.com reported that Parran was suspected of being the “intellectual inspiration of the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study”:

Regrettably, Parran’s great work, impressive resume, and proud legacy are besmirched by his ethical violations. The truth of his association with horrendous experiments using impoverished Alabama sharecroppers, federal prison inmates, and an array of vulnerable subjects in Guatemala who were purposefully infected with syphilis were already known. But newly discovered evidence disclosing his role as the architect of the Tuskegee study may have caused his already troubling case to reach the tipping point…

Pitt trustees now must confront evidence showing Parran was more than a distant bureaucrat during the Tuskegee study. New documents disclose that Parran believed the African American population of Macon County, Ala., was perfect for a nontreatment exercise. “If one wished to study the natural history of syphilis in the Negro race uninfluenced by treatment,” Parran wrote in January 1932, “this county would be an ideal location for such a study.”

Eugenics founded Guttmacher praises Eugenics founded Population Council which turned 65

The Rockefeller family has long been connected to eugenics. According to author Rebecca Messall, “Rockefeller money funded eugenic scientists decades before Hitler put eugenic theories into practice.”

Rockefeller eugenics (image: New York Times)

According to author Edwin Black (emphasis added), “Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims… The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.”

According to author Edwin Black (emphasis added), “Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims… The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.”

Black added, “In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 to the German Psychiatric Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, later to become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rüdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler’s systematic medical repression.” (NOTE: In 1933, Rüdin’s call for racial purity was published in Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review. According to the documentary film, Maafa21, Rudin would be chosen by Hitler to write Germany’s eugenics laws.)

Rockefeller III once claimed that birth control was “directly related to the matter of meaningful peace.”

In her review of the book, “Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population,” written by Columbia University historian Matthew Connelly, C-Fam author Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D, discovered what led up to Rockefeller’s founding of the Population Council:

John D Rockefeller III (Image: Rockefeller Foundation)

In 1952, at a secret, invitation-only gathering in Colonial Williamsburg, John D. Rockefeller III brought together what would become the modern population control establishment. Setting the agenda for the following decades were the heads of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, National Academy of Sciences, and top scientists “from embryology to economics,” including past and present Nobel Prize winners.

From verbatim transcripts of the “Conference on Population Problems,” just one of the countless number of such meetings the book exposes, Connelly found that what drove them were the questions of how many people the world could hold along with “whether ‘industrial development should be withheld’ from poor, agrarian countries like India.” By decreasing mortality and encouraging “breeding,” development would increase inferior populations and further degrade “the genetic quality of the human race.” They decided radical measures to reduce birthrates were justified in order to save “Western Civilization” from being dragged down by the growing humanitarian demands of Third World countries.

Thus was born the Population Council, which would in turn become the nexus of the entire population control movement, going on to coordinate the work of the United Nations, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) – founded three weeks later – as well as major pharmaceutical firms.

In 1994, with the encouragement of the Clinton administration, french pharmaceutical manufacturer Roussel-Uclaf assigned the US rights of marketing and distribution of abortion pill RU-486 to the Population Council. The right to distribute the harmful drugs were later handed over to Danco Laboratories, a sub-licensee of the Population Council.

In 2015, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that from fiscal year 2010 through 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) reported sending about $236 million to six organizations and their affiliates and member associations: Advocates for Youth, Guttmacher Institute, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and the Population Council.

Today, abortion remains among the Population Council’s strategic priorities, according to its latest annual report.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Oh the lies: Hillary Clinton saying she will work with pastor to reduce abortion and Elvis is alive !

Posted in Abortion Vintage, Clinton, Hillary clinton, Jim Wallis, Partial Birth Abortion, RU-486 with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 26, 2015 by saynsumthn

In 2007, Dr. Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church (www.northlandchurch.net), served as a panelist during a live CNN discussion with leading Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama at the Sojourners Presidential Forum on Faith, Values, and Poverty.

Rev. Hunter asked then Senator Clinton, ‘Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero?’

Hillary Clinton Faith Politcs Abortion

At the time Hillary was touting her husband Bill Clinton’s old rhetoric that “abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.”

However, Bill Clinton was the most radically pro-abortion president at the time he served his two terms in office.

Bill CLinton lifts several bans on abortion 1993

Listen to his speech here.

In fact one of his first acts as President was to lift several bans on abortion through executive order on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion on demand in the United States.

Bill CLinton lifts abortion restrictions Executive Orders Jan 22 1993

Bill CLinton Executive Orders abortion

Bill Clinton vetoed pro-life measures like a ban on the horrific partial birth abortion procedure which allows an abortionist to partially deliver the unborn child before stabbing the baby in the neck and sucking out their brains:

Clinton Vetoes Partial Birth Abortion BIll 1996

Bill Clinton approved the abortion drug: RU486:

Bill Clinton RU486 abortion

And did even more to open the flood gates of abortion:

Abortion Clinic Access Bill Clinton 1994

Abortion Gag rule pulled Clinton 1993

Clinto eases laws abortion

_____________________________________________________________________________

Hillary CLinton Abortion

Lest you think Bill’s abortion promotion was not approved by Hillary, think again. Carl Bernstein writes in A Woman in Charge, “On the 4th day of the Clinton presidency, Jan. 23, the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Bill Clinton signed a series of executive orders undoing the draconian policies of the Reagan-Bush era relating to abortion, contraception, and family planning.

Hillary had pushed unequivocally for the orders, but Bill’s pollster argued that she was dead wrong on the timing of such a hot-button issue; by acting on abortion policy as one of the administration’s first pieces of business, the president and, worse, Hillary, would be perceived as governing from the left. But Hillary regarded the prohibitions in question as a powerful symbol of Reagan-era policies, and an opportunity to declare boldly that the Clinton era had begun.

“The milestone anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in Hillary’s view, was the perfect opportunity to move the new presidency on course unambiguously in terms of women’s rights, signal the religious right that its decade of dominance in regard to personal questions was over.”
_________________________________________________________

In Fact, when Hillary Clinton was pushing for nationalized healthcare back when Bill was president, she proposed funding abortions in her healthcare plan:

Hillary Clinton Abortion Health Care

Paul Kengor, wrote about it in his 2007 book: God and Hillary Clinton,”Mrs. Clinton, during her efforts to revolutionize the health care industry, said 1993 that under her plan, abortion services “would be widely available.” This prompted anxieties over the prospect of taxpayer-funded abortions, sparking the Coates Amendment, which sought to strip abortion funding from the plan.

“The first lady allowed for a “conscience exemption” in which doctors and hospitals would not be forced to perform abortions. Pro-lifers were relieved; still, they could not fathom that their tax dollars might be used to find what they saw as the deliberate destruction of innocent human life.

“Mrs. Clinton’s words also ignited fears among moderate and conservative Christians over the availability of the abortion pill, RU-486, under her health care plan. One of her husband’s first acts in office was to push the pill to market through an expedited FDA approval process that was criticized by pro-lifers as allegedly too quick for the safety of the women who would take the pill.”

_______________________________________________

hillary clinton Planned Parenthood

In the 2007 event shown in the video below, Hillary Clinton was being politically savvy – plain and simple- since she supported all her husband’s actions and as Senator dug in her support for abortion as well.

Hilary Clinton continues to push a radical pro-abortion agenda of abortion on demand for any reason at all nine months of pregnancy.

It’s [abortion] a moral issue and should not be in any way diminished as a moral issue no matter which side you are on,” Clinton said.

Really?

Do not be deceived by the Clinton spin machine !!

Here is the transcript:

Dr. Joel C. Hunter: Hi, Senator Clinton.

Abortion continues to be one of the most hurtful and divisive facts of our nation. I come from the part of the faith community that is very strongly pro-life. I know you’re pro-choice, but you have indicated that you would like to reduce the number of abortions.

Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero?

CLINTON: Yes. Yes.

And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare.

And it’s been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro- choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: … there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions.

There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today.

We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make.

And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed.

We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally. And, so, I think there is a great opportunity. But it would require sort of a — a leaving at the sides the suspicion and the baggage that comes with people who have very strong, heartfelt feelings.

You know, when I first started thinking about this very difficult issue — because it is. It’s a moral issue. And it should not be in any way diminished as a moral issue, no matter which side you’re on, because I have seen cases where I honestly believed that the — the moral choice was very complicated and not so straightforward as to what a young woman, her family, her physician, her pastor should do.

And what concerns me is that there’s been a — a real reluctance for anyone to make a move toward the other side, for fear of being labeled as turning one’s back on the moral dimensions of the issue from either direction.

So, I would invite you, and I would be willing to work with you, to see whether there couldn’t be some common ground that one could find.

Hillary CLinton Cnngrats NARAL 2

Think about this, Hillary Clinton once told the abortion lobby group NARAL, that abortion was a fundamental American value, “ I want to congratulate NARAL for calling choice what it is, a fundamental American value, and Freedom.” ~ Hillary Clinton on the 26th anniversary of Roe. V. Wade which legalized abortion on demand.

Do you see any common ground here?

For some background on Hillary’s ties to Planned Parenthood an article in Politico is a great read!

Others are:

Hillary defends chop shop Planned Parenthood

Hillary Clinton praises racist Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood

Hillary Clinton the CHAMPION of Abortion and eugenics founded Planned Parenthood

Hillary Clinton “I will lift ban on embryonic stem cell research” supports Biotech companies and GMO’s

Hillary Clinton silent on harvesting parts from aborted babies outspoken on doing it to Elephants

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s defense of gruesome late term abortion procedure: Partial Birth Abortion

Hillary Clinton claims religious beliefs have to change on abortion NOT!

Reducing abortions is there an abortion change?

Posted in Abortion decreasing, Abortion Numbers, Abortion pill, Abortion reporting, Abortion stats, AHA, CDC, Guttmacher, Medication Abortion, Morning After Pill, Non-Surgical abortion, Plan B, RU-486 with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 11, 2015 by saynsumthn

Anti-abortion activists who “claim” that abortions are not decreasing have neither the documentation nor the knowledge to prove their claims.

One such pro-life “claim” was refuted recently by Jill Stanek on her blog which you can read here.

The argument is that medical abortion as opposed to surgical abortion are somehow not counted in the overall abortion stats which then contradicts statements by pro-life leaders who say that abortions are decreasing in United States.

Mifeprex -ABORTION-PILL-082713

Of all the people I have heard use this bogus claim, no one offers a single study to back it up.

In addition, they fail to mention that medical abortions are counted in the overall abortion stats where abortion reporting is required.

It is important to note that medical abortions never went OTC because of popularity – this happened because of politics plain and simple.

The early medical abortion, RU486 or mifepristone was not approved for use in the US until Sept 2000.

So how do they account or the drop in abortions prior to those dates?

The chemical abortion, Plan B, regarded by the FDA as a “emergency contraction”, was first approved in July 2009 for use without a prescription for women age 17 and older and as a prescription-only option for women younger than age 17. In April 2013, the product was approved for nonprescription use for women as young as 15. In June of 2013, Plan B became available to women and girls of all ages.

Although, it might be true that some chemicals labeled “contraception” which are abortive, may not be included in the abortion numbers – it is also true that this has always been the case.

For example, if emergency contraception is counted as “birth control” and not “abortion” that does not negate the fact that abortions are on the decrease.

Because emergency contraception (also called “morning after pills” or “day after pills”) is only effective up to 5 days after having sex and Plan B must be taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse to be effective, it may be true that some women who take EC or Plan B are pregnant – but- it may also be true that some are not pregnant – a fact we will never know.

Just as it is true that the birth control pill and other forms of “contraception” may also be abortive, their numbers have never been included in the overall abortion stats.

What we are looking at is “trends.”

Prior to Roe, women were not seeking abortions by the millions like they do today.

After abortion was legalized it is true that abortion numbers rose.

However, according to stats, abortions peaked in 1990 (around then) and after groups like Operation Rescue and others took to the streets – they went on a downward trend which continues to this day.

According to the CDC:

    following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace . However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations (5–9). Moreover, during 2006–2008, an interruption occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but was then followed in subsequent years by even greater decreases.

We used to have almost 2200 abortion clinics in America and according to a 2014 analysis by Operation Rescue which tracks abortion clinics closures, the total number of all remaining abortion clinics in the US is currently 739. Surgical abortion facilities account for 551 of that total while the number of medication-only abortion facilities stands at 188.

How can the majority of abortions be medical when the majority of clinics are surgical?

Abortion restrictions limit abortion access and reduce abortion numbers.

Guttmacher ab restrictions

We know that legalization makes abortion “appear” acceptable – which in turn increases them. We know from studying trends that when abortion became legalized, for example the numbers of African American women who had abortions went way up. We also know from studies that if an abortion clinic is within certain miles of a woman seeking abortion that her decision to have the abortion increases. All those factors change when the abortion clinic is closed.

Trends for example in the African American community show that not only did legalization increase abortion so did access.

Studies from the CDC show that, prior to legalization, approximately 80% of all illegal abortions were done on white women. One study in New York even found that white women had five-times as many abortions as black women.

But, at the moment abortion became legal, that began to reverse.

In 1973, researchers within the abortion movements were documenting that easy access to abortion clinics produces higher abortion rates in the surrounding area. And at least one expert discovered that having a nearby clinic is a bigger factor in the black abortion rate than it is in the while abortion rate.

In a 1999 paper published by the American Journal of Public Health Phillip B. Levine, Douglas Staigei; along with Thomas J. Kane and David J. Zimnmerman, entitled, Roe v Wade and American Fertility, the group points out that when abortions are made legal, fertility rates drop with a reduction in births of teens and non-White women to be the largest.

Phillip B Levine Roe v Wade and American Fertility

Estimates show that births to non-White women in repeal states (vs states with no law change) fell by 12% just following repeal, more than 3 times the effect on White women’s fertility,” that paper states.

Effect of abortion on Black births

The group also concluded that there was an important connection between the fall of birth rates in states where abortion was accessible vs. states where it was not, “The results indicate that travel between states to obtain abortions was important. Births in repeal states fell by almost 11% relative to births in nonrepeal states more than 750 miles away but only by 4.5% relative to births in states less than 250 miles away and those in states between 250 and 750 miles away,” the authors write.

What this shows is the reverse is also true. Closing abortion clinics will reduce abortions overall.

Abortion advocates know that when abortion access i.e. the closing of local abortion clinics takes place- fewer women have abortions.

Many reasons for women NOT to get a medical abortion.

According to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology women prefer surgical abortions, “Generally, women are satisfied with the method they choose but, when randomized, prefer surgical abortion to medical abortion, ACOG says.

    When women choose medical abortion they choose them because of a desire to avoid surgery, a perception that medical abortion is safer than surgical abortion, and a belief that medical abortion is more natural and private than a surgical procedure.

    However, compared with surgical abortion, medical abortion takes longer to complete, requires more active patient participation, and is associated with higher reported rates of bleeding and cramping.

ACOG medical versus chemical abortion

    With medical abortion, expulsion of the products of conception [i.e. the unborn baby], most likely will occur at home, but a few women will still require surgical evacuation to complete the abortion. An early surgical abortion takes place most commonly in one visit and involves less waiting and less doubt about when the abortion occurs compared with medical abortion. In addition, women who undergo surgical abortion will not see any products of conception [or fetal body parts] or blood clots during the procedure.

Given this data, it is a marketing ploy by the for-profit abortion lobby to give an impression that many abortions are “non-cutting” or non-surgical. That is because “Surgery” scares clients.

However- the use of the term non-surgical abortion does not imply that they are medical as Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D at National Right to Life explains:

    Clinics are obviously trying to address and assuage these fears. On the one hand they explicitly try to argue in their descriptions of the procedures that “no cutting is involved” (Aaron’s Women’s Clinic, Houston TX). Or they can say that in a vacuum aspiration “There is NO cutting or scraping of the uterus” (Northside Women’s Clinic, Atlanta, GA).

    The South Jersey Women’s Center still calls these surgical abortions (which they are), but tries to distinguish these from ordinary surgical procedures. “No cutting or incision is necessary and the procedure takes only 5 to 7 minutes.”

    Planned Parenthood avoids the term “surgical” and tries to call these “In-Clinic Abortion Procedures.”

    New York OB/GYN AssociatesTM classifies these as “Non-Surgical Abortions” because they “do not involve any scraping or scarring of the uterus.” They say that “There is no cutting during an Aspiration Abortion.” They maintain that “There is no scraping, no scaring and no damage to the uterine wall.”
    Both the chemical and aspiration methods they advertise “are designed to naturally release a woman’s pregnancy in a gentle and safe way, which does not cause damage.”

    However there is more to this than just calming fears and apprehensions. The abortion industry has found it increasingly difficult to find doctors willing to perform abortions or to add abortion to their practices. By re-defining the abortion procedure as “non-surgical,” this opens up the performance of abortion to a whole new set of medical practitioners.

    Promoters of the idea that these are “non-surgical” try to employ the rationale that because they do not cut tissue to enter the woman’s body but enter through the birth canal, these are somehow, strictly speaking, not surgery.

What the increase of medical abortions show is that abortions are occurring earlier, not that more are happening.

As of 2008 medical abortions comprised around 15-16% of abortions.

In 2011, the CDC reported that at ≤8 weeks’ gestation, early medical abortion accounted for 28.5% of abortions, but at all subsequent points in gestation the use of medications to induce abortions through nonsurgical methods accounted for only 0.6%–5.3% of reported abortions.

CDC 2011 Surgical and Medical abortion state

A July 2014 report by Guttmacher said that in 2011, medication abortion accounted for 23% of all nonhospital abortions and 36% of abortions before nine weeks’ gestation a similar figure to the CDC.

Guttmacher Medical Abortions 2011

Early medication abortions have increased from 6% of all abortions in 2001 to 23% in 2011, even while the overall number of abortions continued to decline, Guttmacher reports.

(NOTE: Medication and nonsurgical abortions numbers are reflected in Guttmachers overall abortion totals.)

REPORTING

Having said all of that, I do agree that not all abortions are reported – but – as I document above- they never have been.

What we are using to determine that abortions are declining is stats that have been in place since the 1970’s.

An analogy by Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, reveals the nonsense of critics of the pro-life movement by comparing stats on abortion numbers to other statistics we commonly reference, “How do they know robbery and murder rates are down? Those are just stats also,” he told Saynsumthn.

Newman points out that there are many ways to steal online and those thefts may not get counted.

In addition, Newman says that people can be murdered in ways that don’t look like murder, “Does that mean that the “anti-murder” crowd and the “anti-robbery crowd” need to do a better job and stop quoting published crime stats?” he asked.

Take polls for example, they do not sample all people but are a proven indication of trends. If you do not use any source for your abortion stats how can you then make the claim from that – nothing has changed?

So, even though an argument can be made that every abortion is not reported, that does not prove that abortions are not decreasing in numbers.

Know this, that had it not been for pro-life legislation, pro-life counselors outside abortion clinics, undercover efforts to expose doctors and clinics the numbers would be much higher no matter how you look at it. This is not a complete victory – but it is a reason to push all the harder to banish abortion from our land.

No one has ever claimed that ALL abortions are reported however the baseline is consistent.

Whatever the real number – pro-lifers have the testimony of many women who have chosen life as a source as well.

I have been in this fight for 32 years and no person who is recently interested in the unborn will EVER convince me that we have not saved lives and made a difference.

You can try to re-write history if you want to, but some of us lived this history and until we are dead we will testify to the changes we have witnessed.