October 11, 2014

Journal of Clinical Nursing: Abortions of babies with “very human form” is “distressing”

unbornbaby25
In 2009, there was a crisis in New Zealand when a number of nurses refused to assist in second-trimester abortions. In the article “More nurses opting out of abortion ops,” one person interviewed commented:

[It is] an issue of nurses expressing an unwillingness to continue contributing to this particular service. It’s not an area of practice where many staff choose or are comfortable to work.

An article in the Journal of Clinical Nursing sheds light on why. According to the article:

Second trimester terminations require the woman concerned to go through an induced labour, the result of which is a fetus in a very human form. (1)

Indeed, babies in the second trimester have a “very human form.” In these abortions, the baby is injected with poison to kill him or her, and then labor is induced. The woman in effect “gives birth” to a dead baby. In the U.S., third-trimester abortions are almost always done this way – by injecting the baby with poison (usually digoxin) and then inducing labor. (This method is also used in the second trimester in the U.S., although many second-trimester abortions here are done by D&E, where the baby is dismembered in utero.)

The nursing journal article goes on to say:

This event  requires sensitive management as it has the potential to cause a great deal of distress for the women involved due to the psychological and physical impact of the procedure. However, health professionals involved can also find this a distressing clinical event due to the complex nature of the management and care required. (1)

One can imagine that coming face-to-face with the baby you just had killed could be a distressing experience. The image of one’s own child, killed by one’s own choice, can haunt the woman for the rest of her life. Indeed, this is what happened to NancyJo Mann, who had a similar type of abortion, and later started Women Exploited by Abortion, one of the first groups in the country to reach out to post-abortion women.

In her testimony, she describes being lied to and given a sanitized description of the abortion procedure by her doctor:

After a quick examination, my abortionist told me that I would have to have the abortion done within the next 24-hours or I would be outside the limit of the law. Of course this wasn’t true, but I didn’t know that then. Abortions are legal throughout all three trimesters, right up to the day before birth, and I was still well within the second trimester. He just used this little lie to pressure me into making a quick decision.

The second lie [the abortionist told me] came during my “counseling session,” when I asked, “What are you going to do to me if I have this abortion?” All he did was look at my stomach and say, “I’m going to take a little fluid out, put a little fluid in, you’ll have severe cramps and expel the fetus.” “Is that all?” I asked. “That’s it.” “O.K.,” I said. It was only later, after the abortion had begun, that I was to learn that what he described as “cramps” was actually the labor process. These “severe cramps” were not just going to make my pregnancy magically disappear. Instead, I was going to go through all the motions of normal childbirth–water breaking, labor pains, etc. The only difference was that the baby I would deliver would be dead….

I was so naive. I trusted him. After all, he was a doctor. A respected and educated man. And like everyone else, I had always heard that legal abortion was “safe and easy.” It wasn’t until he had me on the table that I began to question these illusions. It wasn’t until he pulled out an enormous syringe that I became scared. The needle alone was four inches long. Suddenly I realized that this was not going to be as easy as he had implied.

Then NancyJo describes what happened to her and her daughter:

The first thing he did was withdraw 60 cc’s of amniotic fluid. At that point I started to feel afraid for my baby. I could feel her thrashing about, scared by this intrusion. I wanted to scream out, “Please, stop. Don’t do this to me!” But I just couldn’t get it out. I was petrified with fear.

After the fluid was withdrawn, he injected 200 cc’s of the saline solution–half a pint of concentrated salt solution. From then on, it was terrible. My baby began thrashing about–it was like a regular boxing match in there. She was in pain. The saline was burning her skin, her eyes, her throat. It was choking her, making her sick. She was in agony, trying to escape. She was scared and confused at how her wonderful little home had suddenly been turned into a death trap.

… There was no way to save her. So instead I talked to her. I tried to comfort her. I tried to ease her pain. I told her I didn’t want to do this to her, but it was too late to stop it. I didn’t want her to die. I begged her not to die. I told her I was sorry, to forgive me, that I was wrong, that I didn’t want to kill her.

For two hours I could feel her struggling inside me. But then, as suddenly as it began, she stopped. Even today, I remember her very last kick on my left side.

She describes seeing her daughter:

When finally I delivered, the nurses didn’t make it to my room in time. I delivered my daughter myself at 5:30 the next morning, October 31st. After I delivered her, I held her in my hands. I looked her over from top to bottom. She had a head of hair, and her eyes were opening. I looked at her little tiny feet and hands. Her fingers and toes even had little fingernails and swirls of fingerprints.

Everything was perfect. She was not a “fetus.” She was not a “product of conception.” She was a tiny human being. The pathology report listed her as more than seven inches from head to rump. With her legs extended, she was over a foot long. She weighed a pound-and-a-half, more than many of the premature babies being saved in incubators in every hospital in the country. But these vital statistics did not mention her most striking trait: She was my daughter. Twisted with agony. Silent and still. Dead.

It seemed like I held her for ten minutes or more, but it was probably only 30 seconds because as soon as the nurses came rushing in, they grabbed her from my hands and threw her–literally threw her–into a bedpan and carried her away.

Having read NancyJo Mann’s story, one can easily see why nurses might not want to assist with these abortions, and why it would be extremely traumatic for the people who have to “clean up” after them. Disposing of fully formed aborted babies is not a job many nurses like to do.

The nursing journal article then makes reference to a bizarre practice:

…  nurses are frequently required to clean and dress the fetus, ensure transfer to an appropriate receptacle if the mother wants to see it, all the while supporting the woman as she goes through this process. This often occurs after a lengthy period when the women and nurses have been intimately connected, working through a range of decisions such as whether the mother wants to see, and perhaps name or photograph the fetus. Consequently, although women undergoing mid-trimester termination are ‘well’, this is a challenging clinical event that requires much from nurses in terms of physiological and psychological skill and expertise. (1)

Yes, some women like to see the baby in order to say goodbye to him or her. These women have come to terms with the fact that they have indeed killed their own children; they are not in any kind of denial and have even given their babies names. In some of these cases, the woman might be terminating a wanted pregnancy – wanted, that is, until it is discovered that the baby will be disabled.

Doctors can sometimes do a good job of convincing a woman that her disabled child will suffer a terrible life and that, therefore, abortion is the kindest choice. Sometimes doctors are affected by elitist beliefs that disabled children do not have lives worth living. Sometimes the coercion to abort can be blatant.
But nothing changes the cold hard fact that these abortions kill a fully developed child. The concept of taking fully formed aborted babies away from their mothers, who have just gone through a grueling process of labor, and either throwing them away like trash or dressing them in little outfits for a macabre ritual (and then throwing them away like trash) is disturbing to anyone who possesses a sense of right and wrong.

The fact that this is a “challenging clinical event” is an understatement. The emotional scars that these nurses must carry, dealing with this day after day, must be beyond belief.

(1) ANNETTE D. HUNTINGTON RGON, BN, PhD “Working with women experiencing mid-trimester termination of pregnancy: the integration of nursing and feminist knowledge in the gynaecological setting” Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2002, 11 273-279

By Sarah Terzo via NRLC

Editor’s note. Sarah Terzo is a pro-life author and creator of the clinicquotes.com website. She is a member of Secular Pro-Life and PLAGAL. This appeared at liveactionnews.org.

Jennifer Garner: Permanent baby bump a testament to my children


“I am not pregnant, but I have had three kids and there is a bump,” said Garner, shooting down speculation that she and husband Ben Affleck were expecting baby No. 4 after paparazzi photos over the summer showed her with a bit of a rounded tummy….

“I get congratulated all the time by people I know. This one woman who had babysat for us said, ‘Oh, my gosh! I can’t wait for No. 4,’ and I thought, ‘What is going on?’ ” Garner said. “So I asked around and apparently I have a baby bump, and I’m here to tell you that I do!”

While Hollywood demands physical perfection, the… star says she’s fine knowing that after three children, her midsection is a little more curvaceous. And people who see her will just have to deal….
“From now on, ladies, I will have a bump, and it will be my baby bump. It’s not going anywhere,” she said. “Its name is VioletSam and Sera.”

People magazine, reporting on 42-yr-old actress Jennifer Garner’sappearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show to quell the rumors, October 8

[HT: reader Denise; photo via eonline.com]

October 8, 2014

‘Saved by the Bell’ star: I would have become a father at 15, but my baby was aborted


Former teen heartthrob Mario Lopez, who skyrocketed to fame in the late '80s and 1990s playing A.C. Slater in Saved by the Bell, has revealed he is a post-abortive father.

In his newly published memoirs Just Between Us, Lopez comes clean about his hypersexual behavior, which began in childhood and cost him a child and a marriage.
Sex became his “drug of choice” early in his life, he wrote.
“I started having sex so young. The day before my 13th birthday” – something he sees as totally warped “now that I'm a dad.” He blames his early sexualization on growing up in a tough area in Southern California. “When you're growing up in the hood, everybody grows up fast.”
Lopez says when he was 15, he impregnated a girl and was ready to work full-time to support his child, but she had an abortion.
“I could have a kid who is 25 years old,” Lopez, who will turn 41 later this month, wrote.
He hit stardom as part of the tween series Saved by the Bell and went on to star in numerous television shows and movies – including performing nude scenes and in drag in the series Nip/Tuck.
His sexual antics assured that Lopez's first marriage ended nearly before it began. He married Ali Landry, a former Miss USA, in 2004, but Landry had the marriage annulled within two weeks after photographs emerged of Lopez cheating on her at his bachelor party. He has since married and had two children, Gia Francesa and Dominic.
Both of Lopez's marriages took place in the Roman Catholic Church.
He has branched out into television interviews, scoring a well-received interview with future President Barack Obama just six days before the 2008 election for Extra TV. “Senator, many voters in the Latino community have conservative values. Why should we vote for you?” he asked.
Sarah Palin told him in a later interview that she believed being a grandmother might change Hillary Clinton's views on abortion.

Lopez told Newsweek he goes to church “every week” but says he is working when the confessional is open.
“I confess every night in my head,” he said, “because if I waited all week, it’d be too much. God would be overwhelmed.”
Source: LifeSiteNews by Ben Johnson

October is Breast Cancer Awareness, But Will Anyone Tell Women of Abortion’s Link?

I wanted to take a few minutes to address all that pink you’ve been seeing in stores, on athletes and on your TV screen. October is Breast Cancer Awareness month and it has never hit home harder for me than this year.

“We did find cancer cells in your breast biopsy,” said the doctor matter-of-factly.
Cancer!!! I was stunned, shocked senseless with words I never thought I would hear!
gayleatteburyCancer happens to other people, not to me! The doctor’s words were droning on: ”…we need to start treatment right away; do you have a surgeon, or would you like me to recommend one?” Treatment! Am I going to die? My mind raced.

The thought of heaven was a peaceful one in this sin-filled, trouble-wracked world. But am I ready to leave my family just now? How could I find someone to take my job quickly? My mind darted to all of the things I needed to do before I die. The doctor’s voice was assuring me that she would have the surgeon call and set up an appointment quickly. I hung up the phone.

My mind bounced from thought to thought, but before much time elapsed, anger welled up inside of me…anger at abortion! While I knew that abortion was not the cause of my cancer (ten years of hormonal replacement therapy is a likely culprit), it is a fact that women choosing abortion have a significantly higher chance of abortion than women who do not. My anger grew as I next thought of Planned Parenthood, who vehemently denies the abortion-breast cancer link, all the while pocketing millions of dollars annually as the nation’s largest abortion-provider.

My mind focused next on a gentleman who sat in front of my desk two years previously as a result of an article I wrote condemning the Susan G. Komen Foundation for giving donations to Planned Parenthood affiliates around the nation. As head of the Oregon affiliate of the Komen Foundation, he was asking me to relent of my words.

Even though the Oregon affiliate had not given to Planned Parenthood, he could give me no promise, no policy, no principle, that would prevent it from giving to Planned Parenthood in the future. He even attempted to defend the practice. I told him I found it unconscionable that an organization whose sole purpose was to find a cure for breast cancer would donate to an organization whose main action was one that could cause the cancer they were trying to heal.
breastcancerOver 60 epidemiological studies conducted in countries throughout the world show an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions. Patrick Caroll, Director of Research for the UK Pension and Population Research Institute, says“legally induced abortion is found to be the best predictor of British breast cancer trends.”

Dr. Janet Daling, pro-choice researcher with Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle found in a 1994 study that “among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women.” Daling also found that “teenagers under age 18 and women over 29 years of age who procure an abortion increase their breast cancer risk by more than 100%.”

Her most alarming find was that “teenagers with a family history of breast cancer who procure an abortion face a risk of breast cancer that is incalculably high. All 12 women in her study with this history were diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 45″. [Janet R. Daling et al., “Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion,” 86 Journal of the National Cancer Institute; (1994);1584]

My breast surgery in late September revealed the cancer has spread. Fear, uncertainty, chemo treatments. I do not wish these things on any woman. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women. Over 232,000 women are expected to be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 2014, and 40,000 women are projected to die of it. Many factors put women at risk for breast cancer, most of which women are beginning to be made aware of. However, the abortion-breast cancer link is the one risk factor that is covered over for “politically correct” reasons. It must be added to list so that women choosing abortion will have full knowledge ahead of time. Women who have had abortions must be more alert and diligent to get regular mammograms.

Abortion has become a “sacred right,” protected by abortion advocacy groups who would rather protect abortion rights than the women they claim to represent. Women are suffering a tremendous disservice in order to protect the pocket books of abortion providers. We are living in an age proud of its “full disclosure” for every decision. Shouldn’t every woman contemplating an abortion be given all the information she needs to make an informed choice? We certainly owe her that much.

Consider making a donation to help towards the end breast cancer to: The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. Please, schedule your mammogram appointment today! For more information on the ABC link, see www.abortionbreastcancer.com.

LifeNews Note: Gayle Atteberry is the Executive Director of Oregon Right to Life

The abortion industry’s looming RU-486 legal crisis

RU-486 mifepristone abortion pillPolitico article today about new abortion cases that could reach the Supreme Court gave bare mention of its potential review of RU-486 regulation.

But due a circuit court split on laws regulating the administration of RU-486, such a review looks likely - and promising for the pro-life side.

Quick history of RU-486

In an unprecedented move the FDA approved the abortion pill RU-486 (now known as mifepristone/mifeprex) in 2000 to sell in the U.S. using a fast-track process reserved only for drugs to combat life-threatening diseases, like AIDS.

RU-486 abortion pill NOW mifepristoneIt seemed obvious at the time, and was later confirmed, that “the Clintonadministration pushed the abortion pill through the approval process to appease the abortion lobby,” reported Judicial Watch in 2006 after reviewing newly released documents that showed “the RU-486 approval process was infected by raw politics.”

But pro-lifers have recently begun turning the abortion industry’s political ploy on itself.

Importantly, with the FDA’s fast-track approval came “restricted use,” meaning the agency discourages “off-label” administration of RU-486.

In 14 years the FDA has never deviated from its recommended protocol for RU-486, which requires three doctor visits and specific dosages and routes of administration, all within 49 days from the beginning of a pregnant mother’s last period:
  • Day 1: administer three 200 mg tablets (600 mg total) of RU-486 orally to kill the baby
  • Day 3: administer two 200 mcg tablets (400 mcg total) of Cytotec (misoprostol) orally to expel the baby
  • Day 14: check-up to ensure the abortion was completed

Violating FDA protocol at every step

But abortion clinics violate FDA protocol in every possible way. A survey of National Abortion Federationmembers showed only 4% follow FDA guidelines, and Planned Parenthood is the biggest culprit. It owns158 of 175, or 90%, of all known chemical abortion facilities in the U.S.
Telemed abortion of RU-486 mifepristoneAccording to court documents, Planned Parenthood commits RU-486 abortions up to 63 days from the first day of a pregnant mother’s last period.

It gives only one 200 mg tablet orally at the abortion clinic, then instructs the woman to take one 200 mcg Cytotec at home by letting it dissolve under her tongue (getting into the system faster than if swallowed).

Worse, Planned Parenthood has lately been trying to do all this via telemed – dispensing chemical abortion drugs via remote computer, so the abortionist never comes in contact with the patient.

The pro-abortion claim that “off-label” use of drugs is commonplace is disingenuous, because the pathway by which RU-486 was approved placed it in a restricted category.

Abortion industry’s cash cow

RU-486 is the abortion industry’s new cash cow business model, as verified by the surge of Planned Parenthood’s chemical abortion business. A 2014 Guttmacher report indicated that while abortion dropped 13% in 2011, the percentage of chemical abortions increased by 20% from three years earlier, to account for 22.6% of all abortions.

Abortion clinics are obviously trying to cut corners. And safety be damned because, as Americans United for Life attorney Mailee Smith noted:
Eight. That’s the number of women who have died from a severe bacterial infection following use of RU-486. In all eight cases, the women were instructed to use the abortion drugs in a way that has not been approved by the FDA.
Zero. That’s the number of women who have died from a severe bacterial infection after using RU-486 in the way approved by the FDA.
AUL has written model legislation that forces abortion clinics to comply with FDA protocol on RU-486 drug administration.

Four states have thus far passed legislation based on AUL’s language: ArizonaNorth DakotaOhio, andOklahoma.

The abortion industry has sued to block all four laws. To date the federal 5th and 6th Circuit Court of Appeals have both ruled in our favor, and the 9th Circuit has ruled in the other side’s favor.
This gives us a “circuit split,” making it more likely the Supreme Court will weigh in.

Supreme Court precedent satisfied

Smith cited three reasons AUL is “confident” the language AUL has encouraged states to adopt falls well within Supreme Court precedent for both the Casey and Gonzales decisions:
  1. The first so-called right at issue is the right of a woman to make the ultimate decision to have an abortion, and the regulation of chemical abortion does not interfere with that.
     
  2. The court has said state legislatures are given wide discretion to legislate when there is medical uncertainty over a procedure or regulation. Here we know the unapproved use of RU-486 regimen has been tied to eight deaths. The other side argues that the off-label use did not cause those deaths. What’s important here is the cause is unknown. That is what creates the medical uncertainty.
     
  3. In Gonzeles the court upheld the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban in part because there were other commonly used methods still available. If the regulation of chemical abortion means a woman cannot have one because she’s past gestational dates, she still has the option of surgical abortion. Surgical abortion is the most common method, and there is peer-reviewed evidence it’s safer than chemical abortion.
Were SCOTUS to uphold chemical abortion regulations, more state legislatures would be encouraged to regulate them, making abortions harder for the industry to commit.

[Screenshot of telemed abortion in Iowa via LifeSiteNews.com]

October 7, 2014

IFRL PAC Announces its Endorsements for the Illinois 2014 General Election


Illinois Federation for Right to Life PAC
Endorsements for the 2014 General Election

United States Senator
James “Jim” Oberweis (R)

Attorney General
Paul M. Schimpf (R)

Congressional Races
Eric Wallace (R) CD2
Daniel Lipinski (D) CD3
Peter Roskam (R) CD6
Larry Kaifesh (R) CD8
Susanne Atanus (R) CD9
Darlene Senger (R) CD11
Mike Bost (R) CD12
Rodney Davis (R) CD13
Randall M. Hultgren (R) CD14
John M. Shimkus (R) CD15
Adam Kinzinger (R) CD16
Bobby Schilling (R) CD17
Aaron Schock (R) CD18

State Senate
Shaun Colin Murphy (R) LD18
Michael G. Connelly (R) LD21
Chris Nybo (R) LD24
Matt Murphy (R) LD27
Karen McConnaughay (R) LD33
Neil Anderson (R) LD36
Tim Bivins (R) LD45
Linda Little (R) LD48
Chapin Rose (R) LD51
Kyle McCarter (R) LD54

State House
Mark Calonder (R)  HD10
Michael P. McAuliffe (R) HD20
Mark Ekhoff (R) HD34
Victor C. Horne (R) HD35
Margo McDermed (R) HD37
Heidi Holan (R) HD46
Patricia R. Bellock (R) HD47
Peter Breen (R) HD48
Keith Wheeler (R) HD50
David McSweeney (R) HD52
David Harris (R) HD53
Tom Morrison (R) HD54
Bill Grossi (R) HD57
Keith Turner (I) HD60
Sheri Jesiel (R) HD61
Rod Drobinski (R) HD62
Steven Reick (R) HD63
Barbara Wheeler (R) HD64
Steven A. Andersson (R) HD65
Michael W. Tryon (R) HD66
John Cabello (R) HD68
Joe Sosnowski (R) HD69
Robert W. Pritchard (R) HD70
Jim Wozniak (R) HD71
Donald L. Moffitt (R) HD74
Jerry Long (R) HD76
Katherine Cloonen (D) HD79
Jim Durkin (R) HD82
Krishna Bansal (R) HD84
Diane Harris (R) HD86
Rich Brauer (R) HD87
Keith Sommer (R) HD88
Tom Demmer (R) HD90
Michael D. Unes (R) HD91
Norine K. Hammond HD93
Randy E. Frese (R) HD94
Wayne  Rosenthal (R) HD95
Sue Scherer (D) HD96
Mark Batinick (R) HD97
Yvonne Bolton (R) HD98
Raymond Poe (R) HD99
Christopher Davidsmeyer (R) HD100
Bill Mitchell (R) HD101
Adam Brown (R) HD102
Chad Hays (R) HD104
Dan Brady (R) HD105
John Cavaletto (R) HD107
Charlie Meier (R) HD108
David Reis (R) HD109
Reginald Phillips (R) HD110
Daniel V. Beiser (D) HD111
Dwight Kay (R) HD112
Melinda Hult (R) HD113
Terri Bryant (R) HD115
Jerry Costello II (D) HD116
John Bradley (D) HD117
Brandon Phelps (D) HD118


Local Races
Mark Curran, Jr. for Lake County Sherriff

This ad is paid for by the IFRL-PAC, connected with the Illinois Federation for Right to Life, Inc. and was not authorized by any of the candidates. Joe Behnken Treasurer. A copy of our report is on file and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C., and the Illinois State Board of Elections, Springfield, IL.

October 6, 2014

Students Create Unbelievable Works of Art for National Pro-Life Chalk Day

Yesterday, Students for Life of America (SFLA) and other pro-life groups participated in National Pro-Life Chalk Day at junior high, high school and college campuses across the country.

Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life, said SFLA has encouraged sidewalk chalking on college campuses and public places in the past because its one of the cheapest, most creative and effective ways of getting your pro-life message out to as many people as there is foot traffic.

Hawkins said, “Sidewalk chalking pro-life messages on campus is a critical tool to educate students in schools across the country. With a few pieces of chalk and pro-life slogans, you can leave a lasting impression on hundreds or even thousands of people. With National Pro-Life Chalk Day, we are uniting students from across the country as they make an impact on their campus and their communities.”

As it turns out, pro-lifers are pretty artistic! See some of their artwork below!
prolifechalkday
prolifechalkday2
prolifechalkday3
prolifechalkday4
prolifechalkday5
LifeNews.com by Sarah Zagorski