Are You Ready for the Love?
November 29, 2014 | Sarah Terzo | Live Action News
Years ago, Rayna Rapp discovered that her baby would be afflicted with down syndrome. She and her partner chose for her to have an abortion. Ever since then, she has been writing about fetal testing and abortion. A supporter of legal abortion who has herself worked in an abortion clinic, the reader can be assured that she writes with no pro-life bias.
In her book, Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: the Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America, she interviewed women and couples who were waiting for the results of an amniocentesis to discover whether their babies would have down syndrome or another genetic disability.
Most intended to abort if the test indicated a problem, though Rapp did describe one or two who spared their disabled babies’ lives. I have cited Rapp’s book before, presenting quotes from some of the men and women who intended to abort a baby with down syndrome. Continue reading
Registered Nurse Lynn Smith presents an excellent overview on some key issues to consider when couples are counseled to abort their unborn child with a fetal anomaly:
In considering the H 4223, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, people need to know that abortion is not a life saving, pain sparing medical procedure in the case of fetal anomaly.
At a recent conference, OB-GYN doctor, Byron Calhoun, presented a strong case for perinatal hospice instead of termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly. Not only is perinatal hospice safer for a woman and her family emotionally, but it is safer physically, for the mother.
There are 6-10,000 lethal fetal anomalies in the U.S. every year. Traditional treatment for lethal anomalies is termination of pregnancy, and the reasons for such treatment are not necessarily based on sound medical rationale, but on emotion: obstetric providers’ well intentioned desire to spare the mother and the family a distressing experience, their need to “do something,” and their discomfort with bereaved patients. On the physiological level, a prudent doctor is motivated to avoid maternal complications of pregnancy and childbirth, and fear of increased maternal mortality.
The doctors’ desire to be in control, and prevent suffering, is understandable, however research reveals that termination does not necessarily prevent maternal complications, mortality, or suffering but, in fact, pregnancy termination increases the risk of physical harm and prolongs suffering. Grief after termination of a pregnancy is just as intense as after a spontaneous pregnancy loss, however, grief after termination for anomalies demonstrates prolonged consequences. A study in the Netherlands of women with termination for anomalies reviewed psychological outcomes at monthly intervals. At 4 months 46% of women had pathological levels of post-traumatic stress symptoms. At 16 months, 21% still had symptoms. Grief after termination is intense and persistent, as shown in another Netherlands study. Evaluated 2-7 years post termination, 2.6% had pathological grief and 17% had post traumatic stress.
Preterm Birth Linked to Induced Abortion
by Rebecca G. Oas, Ph.D. | Reproductive Research Audit
A $200 million per year “Philanthropic Charitable” Foundation Promotes ABORTION as “The Cure” for Premature Birth—a “Cure” not merely worse than the disease, Abortion CAUSES the Disease.
The Medical Research Establishment is so heavily invested in abortion that it is willing to undergo Derangement of its Fundamental Scientific Objectivity rather than contradict the ‘abortion is safe’ dogma.
It’s as if someone blew the all-clear.
A recent study found a “strong independent relationship” between a history of abortion and the risk of a subsequent preterm birth. For the pro-life community, this comes as a vindication of many years of work to draw attention to the link, despite a lack of attention from the medical community and outright denial from pro-abortion advocates.
However, the study authors attribute the risk to abortion methods now considered obsolete.
According to the study published by open-source journal PLOS One, which analyzed data from Scotland, induced abortion was indeed linked with preterm birth, with the risk increasing in relation to the number of previous abortions. However, the study found that the association decreased over the study period between 1980 and 2008. The authors speculated that this could be due to the use of more modern abortion methods less likely to cause cervical trauma, particularly medication abortion[, i.e., RU-486].
The authors posit that the risk of preterm birth was increased in women who had surgical abortions without cervical pre-treatment. They hypothesized that the use of mechanical methods to dilate the cervix might cause trauma that could increase the difficulty of carrying a pregnancy to full term.
The authors conclude by recommending that the continued modernization of abortion methods “may be an effective long-term strategy to reduce global rates of preterm birth.”
On the one hand, it’s a surprising about-face: as recently as less than [a year] ago, Robin McMarty of RH Reality Check claimed, “There is no major medical group in the [US] that claims abortion causes preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies.” This was a paraphrase of the same assertion previously made by Paige Johnson, vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina, and echoed by other pro-abortion groups.
On the other hand, this report and its recommendations manage to finally admit the existence of the link while attempting to further the pro-abortion cause: first, by fixing the blame squarely on outdated practices, and second, by advocating for increased use of more modern methods.