Category Archives: Medical


Abortion Doesn’t Prevent, It CAUSES Subsequent Premature Birth

“We can now admit that surgical abortion increases risk of subsequent premature delivery BECAUSE SURGICAL ABORTION IS ‘OBSOLETE’.”

There’s just one problem—Surgical abortion is not ‘obsolete’, it is still used for more than 75% of abortions.

Chemical Abortion accounts for 18% to 22% of induced abortions. Its opposite,
Surgical Abortion, accounts for 77% to 81% of induced abortions.

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].

Study Shows Abortion Raises Risk of Premature Birth 69%, More Abortions Raise It Even More—Dr. Pim Ankum of the Academic Medical Centre of the University of Amsterdam, analyzed 21 cohort studies covering almost 2 million women. Ankum found that D&Cs performed for abortion or miscarriage increase the risk of a subsequent premature birth (under 37 weeks) by 29%, and the risk of very premature birth (under 32 weeks) by 69%.


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.

Continue reading

RU-486 Morbidity & Mortality

Mifepristone Side-Effects, 2000-2012

RU-486 also blocks cortisol, a critical molecule in the functioning of the innate immune system, a biological defense mechanism that protects the body against bacterial infections. Mothers recovering from chemical abortion suffer 150% greater E.R. admissions than for surgical abortion. One-third of RU-486 abortions require later surgical intervention.

By Chris Gacek, Ph.D., Senior Fellow for Regulatory Policy, Family Research Council
Christopher M. Gacek, Ph.D.

DangerRU486On April 30, 2011 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) staff completed a one-page assessment of the adverse event reports (AERs) it had collected on mifepristone (RU-486; Mifeprex®), the primary drug in the only medical abortion regimen approved in the United States.+[1] Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) requested a copy of the assessment and subsequently made it available to the Family Research Council (FRC) in the summer of 2011.[2] FRC has studied the RU-486 regimen’s approval process and has tracked the drug’s side-effects since mifepristone’s FDA approval on September 28, 2000 .[3] In the decade following the regimen’s approval, FRC has continued to analyze the abortion regimen’s side-effects as described in the RU-486 AERs and other public sources – both domestic and international. The FDA estimates that as of the end of April 2011, 1.52 million American women had taken RU-486 to induce an abortion.[4] While the loss of 1.52 million preborn children is inherently a moral tragedy, this paper focuses on the additional medical hazards that many women face when using RU-486 to induce an abortion.

RU-486 Background

To have a well-grounded understanding of the FDA’s RU-486 safety statistics, one first must have some basic knowledge about how RU-486 causes a medical abortion. Progesterone is one of the most important hormones affecting human pregnancy. It prepares the uterus for embryonic implantation and plays an essential role in maintaining an established pregnancy. RU-486 acts as a progesterone blocker or antagonist because it prevents progesterone from binding to its receptors located in critical cells of the uterine lining (i.e., endometrium).[5]

486SwastikaDeath-Camp Gas » Population Control
From Zyklon-B to RU-486

“In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there [Poland and Russia] had as many abortions as possible. Active trade in contraceptives ought to actually be encouraged in the Eastern territories, as we could not possibly have the slightest interest in increasing the non-German population. … We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman’s health. … It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions [‘clinics’] and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics.” – Adolf Hitler, Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier, 1941-42.

One can understand how mifepristone functions by using the following analogy. RU-486 is like a blank key that fits into a key hole but cannot turn the lock. A blank is the specific type of key for a lock but one that has not yet been cut by the locksmith to turn the lock. This useless blank key, RU-486, prevents a working key (progesterone) from entering the key hole and turning the lock’s mechanism. RU-486’s blockage of progesterone receptors leads to the deterioration of the uterine wall in which an embryo is implanted. As this deterioration worsens, the uterus is no longer able to sustain the pregnancy and the embryo dies.

Additionally, RU-486 is not sufficiently potent to reliably kill the developing embryo and expel the dead embryo or fetus. Accordingly, a second drug, misoprostol, is taken one to two days after RU-486 to trigger the uterine contractions needed to expel the remaining “products of conception” or viable embryo. FDA’s approval mandated a mifepristone-misoprostol regimen to induce an abortion.[6] Misoprostol, marketed as Cytotec®, is a prostaglandin approved to prevent ulcers in certain patients who take NSAIDs.[7] However, powerful and often painful uterine contractions commence very soon after a pregnant woman ingests misoprostol. Obstetricians commonly use misoprostol now to induce labor in women reaching the end of their pregnancies.

We return to our lock and key model. The chemical-biological world contains many locks (chemical receptors) and the RU-486 blank key fits into two very important locks. As noted above, one is the lock – the receptor – for progesterone. The second is the lock for cortisol, a critical molecule in the functioning of the innate immune system, a biological defense mechanism that protects the body against bacterial infections. RU-486 fits into both locks because cortisol closely resembles progesterone in its molecular structure.

Continue reading


Sacramento Bishop Soto Calls on Gov Brown to Support Human Services, not Population Control

The Most Rev. Jaime Soto, president of the California Catholic Conference and Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Sacramento, issued the following statement upon word that the recently passed State Budget includes a 40% increase in rates paid to abortion providers, but continues a 10% cut in all other hospital and provider fees that endangers access to care for all women and families participating in the Medi-Cal Program:

“It’s no secret that millions of Californians, along with the Catholic Church, consider abortion the taking of an innocent human life. It is an intrinsic evil. No euphemism, no perversion of language can change that essential Truth.

“But buried deeply in the State Budget, and in the Medi-Cal Estimates provided by the Department of Health Care Services, is the fact that at a time when all health care provider rates remain slashed by 10% and women and families are struggling to find doctors, nurses and hospitals willing and able to provide essential medical care, abortion providers like Planned Parenthood and others are poised to receive a 40% increase in the fees they receive for performing abortions.

“This is insanely distorted health care. At a time when the state claims it is too poor to fully fund health care for nearly 10 million people, and women are struggling to find providers to give them basic medical care, the state returns a political favor by giving extra money to abortion providers.

“If that’s not bad enough, the Medi-Cal estimate that lays out this policy (attached), explains this is a cost-effective decision, because ‘Early statewide access insures services are less costly, whereas lack of access results in increased ongoing expenses for years.’

“In other words, it’s cheaper for state government to pay for abortions than care for mothers and children. By approving this budget, State elected officials are choosing abortion and pushing their preference on to women.

“What a callous and calculating thing for anyone to say, much less a government official.

“I call on Gov. Brown and the Department of Health Care Services to undo this wrong. Women deserve better. Children are not a threat to California. We believe abortion is bad health care for women and families. It is misguided to give special treatment to abortion providers. California should do better than this. Rollback this increase and fund essential health care, don’t double-down on something as wrong as abortion.”