Archive for the University o California San Francisco (UCSF) Category

Abortion training counselor claims parenting and abortion are morally equivalent

Posted in Abortion Training, Abortionist, University o California San Francisco (UCSF) with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 5, 2019 by saynsumthn

Image: Alissa Perrucci all pregnancy options are moral

video presented by abortion counselor Alissa Perrucci, Phd, MPH, who describes herself as “shepherding the counseling revolution,” presents as normal the idea that there is no moral distinction between parenting a child and ending a child’s life in an abortion. The video, “Decision Counseling for Positive Pregnancy Test Results,” was uploaded as part of training modules from Innovating Education, a project of the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). Bixby trains abortion providers though its Ryan Residency Training Program.

Alissa Perrucci claims all pregnancy options are moral

Perrucci is a Counseling and Administrative Manager at the Women’s Options Center, an abortion facility within San Francisco General Hospital. She admitted to All-Options, “Our clinic is the safety net clinic for Northern and Central California, accepting Medi-Cal as full payment to 24 weeks….”  In her book, Perrucci claims that being an abortion counselor brings her joy, “when women are walking toward the exit after their abortions….”

In the video, Perrucci states that in the decision between abortion and parenting, one “pregnancy decision is not more moral than another.” Of the woman contemplating her choices, which include abortion, Perrucci says, “She is a good person making a moral decision about herself,” adding, “The patient has the answer for her dilemma.”

 

Perrucci goes on to suggest that abortion counselors should give “accurate information.”

But, she adds, “In this context – in helping people make pregnancy decisions – I want you to suspend that assumption that you have the answer and let the patient find that for herself.”

Alissa Perrucci on abortion counseling

She tells her audience that in pregnancy counseling, abortion counselors should “take a step back from professional mode.”

“In this context, when guiding people through pregnancy decision making, you actually don’t have the answer. Nor are you obligated to find it out for the patient. Remember that she has the answer.”

Perrucci offers two examples (seen below) when delivering the news of “a positive pregnancy test result” to a pregnant client. Calling it a “closed ended question,” Perrucci draws the attention of her audience to the statement on the left, pointing out that using the term “baby” isn’t a good idea….

Alissa Perrucci on positive pregnancy test result

“The thing you want to look at and analyze is the use of the word keep and the use of the word baby. In this scenario, the counselor or the person delivering the pregnancy test result has decided to use the word baby, maybe without knowing if that’s how the patient refers to the pregnancy.”

“…I want you to think a little more deeply about what it means to use the word keepand what that might imply in terms of the opposite.”

READ: Former Planned Parenthood worker: ‘We were told not to say baby’

When addressing the “Three pregnancy options: Abortion, Adoption, and Parenting,” the abortion counselor states, “We want to examine our language. So, we want to pay attention to – are we using the word – abortion? Or, are we finding different ways to say abortion?”

“Its not that you can’t use different words, a lot of people say termination, a lot of people say procedure, and I think it’s very interesting to pay attention to whether you’re avoiding saying certain words and what that communicates to our patients, and what that might be contributing to in terms of stigma on any particular option.”

Alissa Perrucci on three pregnancy options

What’s interesting is that Perrucci appears to avoid mentioning the baby when discussing the abortion option. She is okay bringing up the baby when discussing adoption, however: “Make an adoption plan or place the baby for adoption. Place the child for adoption.”

While Perrucci is concerned about “misinformation” surrounding abortion, her suggested description of abortion leaves much to be desired. She characterizes early abortion as “gentle suction” which “empties the uterus.”

Yet, at the same time, she says, “In your descriptions, it’s going to be really important that you define medical terms or any kind of terminology that the patient might not understand. So that you’re really ensuring comprehension.”

To recap: When discussing a “pregnancy” avoid terms like baby but be sure to “define medical terms” when discussing abortion… hmm….

Alissa Perrucci on describing abortion

In the video below, former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino describes a first trimester aspiration abortion:

 

Those in the abortion industry actually patronize women by refusing to give them factual and straightforward information. Withholding accurate information about fetal development and what abortion really does, does nothing to help women make “moral decisions.” What it does is help the profitable abortion industry remain profitable.

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

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.