Archive for RU486

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.

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?

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.

Walt Disney produced family planning vid for eugenics founded Population Council

Posted in Disney, Eugenics, Family Planning with tags , , , , , , , , on June 3, 2014 by saynsumthn

FP Vid - walt disney
A 1960’s public service video on family planning produced at the Walt Disney studios has caught my attention.

First off, why in the world is a company that makes it’s living on children producing a vid on “family planning?”

News Donald Ducks new rold birth control

___________________________________________________

EUGENICS?

Even more disturbing is WHO the vid was made for. Walt Disney apparently teamed up with the eugenics organization: Population Council ! The film was directed by Les Clark and produced by Ken Peterson.

Walt Disney and Population Council

The Population Council, was founded by Frederic Osborn who was a founding member of the American Eugenics Society. In 1969, the Population Council’s President, Bernard Berelson, published an article suggesting 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 eugenics founded organization even brags about their Disney collaboration on their website’s timeline noting the film has been translated into 25 languages:
Disney colaborates with population council

The film uses iconic characters like Donald Duck….and begins by saying, “By nature, man is one of the animals. But he has something the rest do not have, human intelligence and the ability to reason and plan ahead…”

Donald Duck

Man woman upward rise

In what they call an “upward rise” of man, the film’s narrator says, “But this upward rise is being slowed by the sheer weight in numbers. The family of man is increasing at an astonishing rate. Almost doubling every generation. Ironically, this to comes about through man’s intelligence…”

Doubling

The film takes a slight Malthusian look at population growth explaining that at one point deaths and births were about the same. Then, blaming the increase in population on medical advances, the film says, “There is still about the same number of babies being born each year but, today, deaths are cut in half, or better especially among children. The old balance is upset. Those who live now, instead of dying, are added each year to the number of people in the community…”

Large Family

The film indoctrinates it’s viewers that a “Happy Family” is one with a modest number of children while large families basically starve with “no money for modern conveniences…the mother will have too much to do. She’ll be tired and cross and her health will suffer. The children will be sickly and unhappy with little hope for the future,” the film states.

Donald Duck Family Planning Vid

Then the motto we hear so often from Planned Parenthood:

“This picture can be true for complex families if the number if children born is LEFT TO CHANCE!

FP Key DOnald Duck

And their solution?

Today things have changed,” the film explains,” modern science has given us a key that makes possible a new kind of personal freedom – FAMILY PLANNING! .

The film goes on to answer questions about family planning – like where you can go to get information or if it is acceptable in society and finally if it benefits the family. Because, of course, as the film explains, it does.

Oh…by the way…The Population Council is who brought us the abortion pill RU486 – just FYI!

Leave your thoughts about this discovery in the comments below- would be interested in reading them !

FP WD The End

Watch the Video here :

_____________________________

Company that provided Zyklon B for Nazi holocaust provided RU-486 for Abortion Holocaust

Posted in Nazi, Rockefeller, RU-486, Zyklon B with tags , , , , , , , on February 21, 2014 by saynsumthn

Did u know? The company that provided Zyklon B for the Nazi holocaust later provided RU-486 for the American Holocaust.

Zyklon B Maafa21

At the end of World War II, the German chemical manufacturer, I.G. Farben, was identified as the company that supplied the gas used in the Nazi concentration camps. The gas was called Zyklon-B and evidence later showed that Farben’s executives knew how it was being used.

In fact, evidence was uncovered to indicate that Farben engineers had actually designed the gas chambers. This led to some of them being tried at Nuremburg for crimes against humanity including genocide and slavery. Interestingly, I.G. Farben was a financial partner with John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil of New Jersey in a company called Standard I.G. Farben.

In addition, within three months after Hitler came to power, the publicity director of the Rockefeller Foundation – and personal advisor to John D. Rockefeller – a man named Ivy Ledbetter Lee – was assigned the responsibility of directing public relations for I. G. Farben. After the war, I.G. Farben would change its name and become known as Hoechst AG. Today, Hoechst is a gigantic multi-national corporation with subsidiaries all over the world including the United States.

Ironically, one of Hoechst’s subsidiaries, Roussel Uclaf, is the French company that developed RU486. In other words, the same company that produced the gas used in the Nazi death camps also produced the abortion pill that is now being used in American abortion clinics. And in both cases, there was a known connection to the Rockefeller Foundation.

From Maafa21:

Rockfeller Nazi

IG Farben Zyklon B

Widely Published Webcam Abortions Study by Partner of Planned Parenthood

Posted in Abortion pill, Population Council, RU-486, Webcam Abortion with tags , , , , , , , on February 28, 2013 by saynsumthn

Widely Published Webcam Abortions Study by Partner of Planned Parenthood
Jenifer Bowen | February 26, 2013 |

JeniferBowen

What looked like a study promoting Planned Parenthood’s webcam abortions that was widely published in the media, turns out to be co-authored by a radical abortion group, that not only works closely with Planned Parenthood, but collaborates with Planned Parenthood on dangerous abortion experiments on women in the Third World.

The article on the study which ran in The Des Moines Register, 11/16/12, features Daniel Grossman, MD, Vice President for research at Ibis Reproductive Health. Ibis, based in Massachusetts, is an organization that aggressively promotes abortion, especially medication (abortion pill / RU-486) abortions like the ones Planned Parenthood offers by webcam in Iowa. On its website, Ibis’ goals include:

• Documenting the impact of abortion restrictions and making the argument to lift those restrict-ions (particularly bans on public funding for abortion in the U.S.)
• Conducting clinical and social science research to shed light on ways to improve second-trimester abortion services and access to these services.
• Testing cutting-edge service delivery models that have promise for increasing access to medication abortion (e-medicine, pharmacy and primary care provision, role of misoprostol alone, simplifying the regimen, etc.)
• Leading the effort to bring researchers, advocates, and providers together to move oral contraceptives over the counter.

Clearly, a study by Ibis is not an unbiased, independent review of Planned Parenthood. It gets worse.

Ibis’s relationship with Planned Parenthood goes deeper. The two organizations collaborate on testing of dangerous abortion procedures on women in the Third World.
In a 2012 study, “Cervical Priming Before Dilation and Evacuation,” one of the things Ibis and Planned Parenthood are testing on women in the Western Cape Province of South Africa, is to see if the drug misprostol might expel the babies of women at “13 to 20 weeks gestation,” before a D&E abortion.

D&E is Dilation and Evacuation: an abortion method where a baby up to 24 weeks or 6 months in the womb is torn apart by forceps with sharp metal jaws.
Misoprostol is the second set of drugs given in a medication (abortion pill/RU-486) abortion. Planned Parenthood uses it here in Iowa with its webcam abortions— it’s the drug the woman takes at home which expels the baby.

So in South Africa, Ibis and Planned Parenthood are testing misoprostol abortion pills on women who are 3-5 months pregnant, who should be having a surgical abortion. What kind of complications do they anticipate?

Ibis and Planned Parenthood’s study, listed on the U.S. National Institute of Health’s website http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, says, “Major complications to include:
• Death
• Admission to the ward after the procedure
• Readmission after discharge
• Abdominal surgical procedure
• Suspected uterine perforation
• Seizure
• Hemorrhage requiring transfusion”
These women are abortion industry guinea pigs, whose lives are expendable. In the Third World, U.S. based abortion organizations like Ibis and Planned Parenthood are less likely to face lawsuits or other consequences even when the major complications of their experiments include “Death.”

In the U.S., the FDA protocol has only approved RU-486 / medication abortions for women up to 49 days (or 7 weeks) into their pregnancy.
Here in Iowa, Planned Parenthood offers RU-486/medication abortions up to 63 days (2 months and 1 week) into a pregnancy, in violation of FDA protocol.
But the women in the Ibis study are 3-5 months into their pregnancy—well into their second trimester.

In another Ibis sponsored study, also listed on http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, Canadian women as young as 16, were tested in Vancouver, to see if they might abort using misoprostol alone. This means doing away with the first drug in a medication (RU-486 abortion), Mifeprex, which kills the baby.

Why misoprostol? Because it is cheap. Planned Parenthood in Iowa, in addition to going beyond on FDA Protocol limits on when a medication abortion can be used, also violates the FDA Protocol by changing the combination of pills — lowering the number of Mifeprex pills (the first drug in a medication abortion that kills the baby) and then upping the number of misoprostol pills. Mifeprex costs about $90 a pill, while misoprostol costs about $1 a pill. (For more information, see IRTL News, September 2010 online at http://www.iowaRTL.org/ “What’s New.”)

Ties to population control group, Population Council

Before Ibis, Dr. Grossman worked for the Population Council of Mexico City, an offshoot of the Population Council, first founded in 1952 by John D. Rockefeller III — to force population control across the globe. Several of Ibis’ board members are former Population Council employees.

In 1967, Planned Parenthood awarded Rockefeller III, its dubious “Margaret Sanger Award,” named for the Planned Parenthood founder, whose goal was to purify the human race through birth control, sterilization and abortion. Rockefeller, like Sanger, was into eugenics.

The Population Council holds the patent and rights to market and distribute RU-486 (medication abortion pills) in the United States. The developer of the drug, French pharmaceutical company Roussel Uclaf donated the patent to the Population Council in 1994 to avoid protests in the United States.

The Population Council sponsored the RU-486 trials in the U.S. in the late 1990s, which then Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, took part.

Readers of the IRTL News will recall that in 1995, Jill June, Planned Parenthood’s CEO in Iowa, told the press that there had been no complications among the women participating in the trial at Planned Parenthood’s Des Moines clinic.

Later reports indicated that at least one woman who had taken the abortion pill at the Des Moines clinic nearly bled to death.

About the Author (Author Profile)
Jenifer Bowen is the executive director of Iowa Right to Life. She is a graduate of Baptist Bible College in Pennsylvania, and in her words: “an ordinary girl LOVED by an Extraordinary God!”

Is Planned Parenthood violating the law by dispensing abortion pills? Legal group files suit !

Posted in Planned Parenthood Investigated, Planned Parenthood lawsuit, pro-choice, Pro-choice law breakers with tags , , , , , , on April 19, 2012 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood illegally distributing abortion pill, legal group says
by Ben JohnsonWed Apr 18, 2012 17:45 EST

CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE, April 18, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Planned Parenthood has been breaking New Hampshire state law by dispensing thousands of dollars of prescription drugs, including Plan B and RU-486, every single day, according to a legal complaint filed by the Alliance Defense Fund.

The nation’s largest abortion provider “must obey state laws that say only licensed pharmacists may distribute prescription drugs when a clinic is not under contract with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services,” said Michael Tierney, an attorney affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund.

Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (PPNNE) lost its contract with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services in July. But the ADF says this did not end the group’s distribution of abortion-inducing drugs.

Instead, “Planned Parenthood is dispensing a substantial amount of pharmaceuticals,” according to Tierney’s legal complaint, which he filed Tuesday with the state Board of Pharmacy. “It dispenses over $4,000 of pharmaceuticals a day.”

Exhibit A reproduces an e-mail demonstrating PPNNE officials knew they had lost their contract. Another e-mail records a meeting involving high-level state officials, including Democratic Governor John Lynch, aiming to restore state funding.

Tierney states the group has continued handing out prescriptions since last September and intends to apply for a Limited Retail Drug Distributor’s license in June. He is asking the state to “take all appropriate action” to end this practice.

In January, the state legislature put Planned Parenthood at the bottom of organizations receiving family planning funds, effectively defunding it.
PPNNE has six locations throughout the state including Manchester, Exeter, Lebanon, Derry, Claremont, and Keene.

Dying for the abortion pill !

Posted in Abortion, Abortion complication, Abortion death, Abortion injury, Abortion pill, Morning After Pill, RU-486 with tags , , , , , , , , , , on July 18, 2011 by saynsumthn

This video is from 2005 – since then several more women have died….is abortion worth YOUR life?

Abortion pill warning- too many deaths, posted with vodpod

The Truth About Chemical Abortion and Women’s Health: Updated FDA on RU486

by Jeanne Monahan
July 12, 2011

A summary of adverse event reports (AERS) recently released by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and obtained through Sen. Orrin Hatch’s office reveal that in the span of almost eleven years since the approval of the abortion drug, popularly known as RU-486, in the United States, at least 11 women have died as a result of complications related to taking the drug.[1] Internationally, the number of women who have died as a result of RU-486 is at least 17.[2]

That’s not all. The dangerous complications associated with this drug continue include hemorrhaging and infection. In the U.S., at least 612 women have been hospitalized after taking RU-486; and at least 339 women required blood transfusions as a result of serious blood loss after taking the abortion drug.

Clearly highlighting the need for more stringent medical oversight, the report also indicates that 58 women were prescribed RU-486 despite having ectopic pregnancies. Yet, “[a]dministration of mifepristone and misoprostol is contraindicated in patients with confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy.”[3] To state it more clearly, a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy and takes the RU486 regimen places her life in danger.

It is not only women in the U.S. who are suffering as a result of chemical abortion, it is a worldwide trend. A recent Australian health department audit of nearly 10,000 abortions performed in 2009 and 2010 compared the safety of RU-486 with surgical abortion, with the outcome being in the words of one major media outlet “The Abortion Pill ‘Less Safe than Surgery’”. The Australian report showed that 1 in 18 patients who used RU-486 had to be re-admitted to hospitals (a total of 5.7% of women vs. only .4% of surgical abortions.) The same study revealed that as many as 33% of women who had second trimester RU-486 abortions required some form of surgical intervention.[4]

Marketing the abortion drug as simple and painless, such as taking an aspirin, is dangerously misleading to women. RU-486 is in a class of drugs categorized as selective progesterone receptor modulators, which, in addition to blocking progesterone necessary for the developing baby, also suppresses a woman’s immune system. Additionally, it is sometimes the case that the remains of the pregnancy are not entirely expelled from a woman’s uterus, causing infection and other problems.

Despite the seriousness and intensity of adverse effects related to RU-486, use of this form of abortion is on the rise, and frequently the regimen is dispensed with less medical oversight than surgical abortion. Even more troubling, nationally and internationally, “telemed” dissemination of RU-486 is increasing.[5] Telemed abortions involved doctors proscribing RU-486 through skype or over the internet rather than during a patient visit.

The bottom line is that abortion drugs are not about improving women’s health but are more accurately about advancing a radical pro-abortion agenda regardless of the impact on women’s health, even when it proves deadly.

[1] Food and Drug Administration, “Mifepristone U.S. Postmarketing Adverse Events Summary through 04/30/2011” (http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11G29.pdf).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Jamie Walker, “Abortion pill ‘less safe than surgery’,” The Australian (May 7, 2011) (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abortion-pill-less-safe-than-surgery/story-fn59niix-1226051434394).

[4] EA Mulligan, “Mifepristone in South Australia” Australian Family Physician Vol. 40, No. 5, May 2011 (http://www.frcblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Australian-AERs_RU486_201105mulligan.pdf).

[5] Michel Martin (host), “Growing Controversy Surrounds ‘Telemed’ Abortions,” National Public Radio (January 24, 2011) (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133182875/Growing-Controversy-Surrounds-Telemed-Abortions).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 652 other followers