Whose Choice Is It?

Recently New York State celebrated adding new laws to its state constitution which supposedly help protect women and ensure their choice in matters of pregnancy. I believe the laws do the opposite and will both harm women and decrease choice.

Abortion activists often led by Planned Parenthood, have argued against any restrictions on abortion. After the fall out from Kermit Gosnell’s Philadelphia House of Horrors, made possible by lack of regulation, politicians in some states attempted to tighten laws regarding inspections, safety rules for the facilities, and qualifications for doctors performing abortions, all to ensure the safety of women in abortion clinics. Abortion activists blanketly labeled these ‘TRAP’ laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) and ascribed the motive of attempting to limit access rather than caring about safety. Texas was one state that attempted increased regulation with HB2. Following the Gosnell murder conviction, Houston late term abortionist Douglas Karpen was being investigated after being accused by former employees of twisting the necks, snipping the spinal cords, or stabbing the heads of babies born alive. (1) Texas officials feared a lack of regulation could lead to a second House of Horrors. Planned Parenthood fought HB2 all the way to the Supreme Court and abortion activists and naive Americans cheered when it was determined to be unconstitutional because it made abortions more difficult to obtain. TRAP laws would never ensure women’s safety in abortion clinics again. Access over safety. Getting an abortion was to be considered safer than all other medical procedures, getting a tattoo, or even eating pizza, at least as far as the inspections required for facilities performing these operations was concerned–none in some states including New York. (2) Evidence of the dangers to women at unregulated or poorly regulated abortion clinics is easily found at CheckMyClinic. org. (3) This Supreme Court ruling should not have been cheered by women, but mourned as an attack on women’s safety and a setback for women’s healthcare.

The new New York abortion law adds further danger to women by allowing non-physicians to perform abortions. This decision was not made by informed medical groups in the interest of women’s safety but by agenda-driven politicians inspired by profit driven abortion lobbyists to improve abortion access at the expense of safety. It’s hard to find doctors willing to do late term abortions because it is a grizzly procedure that tears apart or delivers whole a viable baby. Abortionists have never been fooled by the rhetoric they use to fool (or soothe?) their patients. It’s a baby they are killing, not tissue they are removing and not just a pregnancy they are terminating. They are responsible for counting the body parts removed and most physicians in good standing want no part of it. Many third trimester abortionists have previously lost their licenses due to malpractice or other criminal behavior and abortion clinics are a lucrative place to land. (4) These and others sometimes travel across states to spend a day here or there performing a series of late term abortions on women they meet first in stirrups never to see again as after care belongs to clinic staff or local hospitals when things go wrong. Abby Johnson, a Planned Parenthood clinic director turned pro-life activist, whose story will fascinate you in the movie Unplanned premiering March 29, 2019, now runs an organization called And Then There Were None. They assist the many abortion workers who flee this horrifying business when they ‘just can’t’ anymore or when they finally realize, like Abby, what they are actually aborting. So the NY law addresses this by allowing a new army of abortionists unencumbered by the physician’s Hippocratic Oath, unable to make as much money as physicians can elsewhere, and unaffected by the horror of killing viable babies.

The new New York law also harms women and assists the abortion industry by decriminalizing the death of a fetus. This will protect practitioners who perform botched abortions and partners who pummel women to cause an abortion. It will prevent women with unwanted pregnancies from collecting damages due to negligence by abortionists and women with wanted pregnancies from collecting damages when their babies are killed in the womb. This hurts women. Nothing about it helps women. The combination of no regulation of abortion clinics or practitioners, the addition of non- physician abortionists, and the elimination of criminal penalties will lead to back-alley level of care as the abortion standard. Back-alley abortions were not done in the alleys themselves but in hidden clinics with no regulation by questionably trained abortionists. Like New York allows except they don’t have to be hidden because they are both legal and above the law.

The new New York law allows abortion until birth for both the life and health of the mother. Honestly this is not new. Abortion clinics have been considering any reason a woman gives as good enough for years and nobody checks this. It would fall under doctor patient confidentiality if anybody else asked and the women are mortified by their decision if they wind up regretting it and would never take legal action to question the need for the abortion they chose. But perhaps one day a class action suit might be brought by a group of brave women arguing that they were never appropriately consented for the procedure because nobody ever told them that it was a baby being aborted, or that there were organizations to support them medically, emotionally, and financially if they chose not to abort, or that they they might have devastating physical or mental health consequences from their abortions. So New York added protection for abortionists because ‘health’ is a very broad term which covers physical, mental, emotional, and even financial health. Now the abortionist is always safer than the women from consequences.

Many people support abortion during early pregnancy, but up until now very few supported it throughout pregnancy. Now it has become a politicized issue, part of the Democratic platform. The millions of dollars of our taxpayer money that Planned Parenthood used to help elect each Democrat have come home to roost. Planned Parenthood keeps a political scorecard and politicians lose points for supporting any abortion restrictions-even a law to prevent sex-selective abortion. Every law is labeled a TRAP law, no protections are ever justified for the protection of women, because the opposition might be pushing for limits on access. Politicians have no choice but to support even the most extreme laws without question.

It should be clear now how the new New York abortion laws hurt women from a safety standpoint. But do they increase a woman’s right to choose? I have already argued that previous laws allowed women to get abortions through birth for any reason. If you are naive enough to think a discussion with the abortionist would include any words that might discourage a woman from abortion think again. Abortion clinic workers from the front desk to the procedure room are trained to help women to make a difficult decision easier. If a woman feels she has no choice but abortion, the supportive abortionist assures her she is right. Laws that require no parental consent for teenagers and no waiting period encourage a woman to make a vulnerable decision based on the input of just a ‘never say no’ abortionist.

Many women feel pressured to get an abortion by somebody else or by their fear of somebody else. Some are even bullied into abortion. This is because unplanned pregnancies can be very inconvenient for traffickers and pimps, sexual abusers, not ready to commit boyfriends, financially burdened partners, employers, and Me Too rapists, among others. If a woman actually might want to keep the baby, she used to have the choice to hide the pregnancy for a few months then declare that it was too late for an abortion. That choice is now gone in New York.

Women are also sometimes coerced by others prejudiced against the baby’s possible disability, its sex, or even its race. Physicians might pressure women to be tested for chromosomal abnormalities and paint a bleak picture for the child and the whole family should she make the ‘wrong’ choice and not abort. The ratios of boy babies to girls in certain communities suggest that sex selection abortion has come to the United States. (5) The decision, typically to abort a girl, is often made by the father or their patriarchal culture. Racial discrimination in abortion is even more evident in the United States with black women 3.5 times more likely to have an abortion in 2015 than white women according to the CDC. Equally tragic is the statistic that for every 1000 black babies born in New York City, 1039 are aborted. (6) Some might argue poverty is the main reason for this but Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger believed in eugenics, spoke at a KKK meeting, and was invited back. (7)

A nurse in an inner city adolescent clinic with predominantly African American patients asked me how a pro-life physician could justify caring for those patients if she did not like the ‘choice’ of abortion. I turned the question around on her and she admitted that she did not offer adoption as an option for her patients because their ‘culture’ did not ‘believe in adoption.’ I told her many of the teenagers had told me that their mothers would help them raise the babies which they were eager to have. The nurse said the girls were just eager to get the welfare benefits that being pregnant granted them and that they would never graduate or work and would receive welfare for their whole lives. I asked her if she thought any of the teens should choose not to abort and she said “No.’ Once in the door of a clinic where abortions are done, it is questionable how much choice the patient has or feels she has.

In Florida, crisis pregnancy clinics have shown that offering real choices to women results in as many as 90% of abortion vulnerable women choosing to have their babies. (8) (Planned Parenthood consistently refers less than 1% of its pregnant women for adoption.) At these Florida crisis pregnancy clinics women who had positive pregnancy tests were counseled about parenting and adoption options and about abortion as well. In addition to pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, the clinics offered material help, education, and qualified referral services for housing, drug treatment, and other needs. The abortion rate in their community fell as a result. Planned Parenthood has performed roughly the same number of abortions annually for a decade despite the introduction of, followed by the over the counter availability of, Plan B during that time. The slogan for abortion activists and their political allies evolved from ‘Safe, Legal, and Rare’ to ‘Safe and Legal’ to ‘Legal.’ Abortions are now legal in New York through birth. They are nowhere near rare, representing the outcome of one third of pregnancies in the state. Now because of the new law they will be even less safe, while placing more women at risk for coercion to abort. Whose choice was that?

  1. watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fhyJItGPko

2. new-york-abortion-clinics-inspected-less-than-pizzerias

3. /https://checkmyclinic.org

4. Link for stories of a handful of criminal abortionists: notorious

5. sex-selection-abortion-the-real-war-on-women

6. more-black-babies-in-new-york-city-are-killed-in-abortions-than-born-alive

7. “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

8. what-these-florida-crisis-pregnancy-clinics-rejoiced-when-their-number-of-s

For the Record

Sometimes Planned Parenthood clinics break the law and sometimes they are just incredibly careless. During the U.S. House of Representatives investigation of Planned Parenthood’s alleged sale of fetal organs, it was discovered that certain PP clinics violated HIPAA laws on numerous occasions by sharing private patient information including patient names, birthdates, addresses, social security numbers, and medical information with employees from the tissue procurement company Stem Express. Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific, and Family Planning Specialists Medical Group clinics provided Stem Express ‘uncovered’ employees with information about abortions scheduled for the next day, allowed them access to individual patients’ medical files, allowed them access to the “patient terminal” inside the abortion clinic, and permitted them to interview patients about personal information. We will see whether Planned Parenthood is held accountable for these systemic violations of HIPAA laws. Here is a link to the letter sent to the Department of Health and Human Services notifying them of the violations and requesting full investigation.

Click to access 20160603HIPAA.pdf

Two weeks ago Planned Parenthood of the Heartland clinic in Dubuque, which had closed in April, finally notified 2506 patients that it had inadvertently left their medical records behind at the building it had sold. In a press release it informed patients that it “has secured the data and has taken every possible measure to ensure that patient confidentiality is protected” by which it apparently meant leaving the records in copy paper boxes in an unlocked closet, failing to retrieve the records for 10 days after being notified by the realtor, and waiting two months before informing the patients. Patients were sent letters in July stating that the privacy of the following information may have been compromised: patients’ full name, date of birth, mailing address, insurance information, social security number, medical record number, diagnosis, treatment, and lab results. A Planned Parenthood spokesperson also stated that, “In anyone’s institutional memory, we cannot remember seeing a breach of this scale in decades at Planned Parenthood of the Heartland,” which makes it appear that this is not the only one, just the biggest.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2016/07/06/records-left-behind-at-closed-dubuque-planned-parenthood-center/86771526/

Whatever the reasons Planned Parenthood has violated the patient confidentiality of so many patients, my conclusion is the same as the one I arrived at after investigating Planned Parenthood’s numerous other violations – Planned Parenthood clinics are not a reasonable choice for healthcare. Nobody should utilize their services or let friends or family go there if they have any other options.

Planned Parenthood’s Priorities

Spoiler Alert: Safety is Not on the List

One can often determine a corporation’s priorities by where it spends its money. Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report is eye-opening in this regard. These numbers are in millions (see note at top left.)

Screen Shot 2016-06-20 at 7.16.51 AM

Planned Parenthood “expenses” include the following listed under “Program Services”

$39.3 million for public policy...to make sure it doesn’t have to spend any money upgrading facilities to meet safety standards.

$22.8 million to ‘engage communities’…I am not sure what that means, but it sounds like advertising, and it is apparently very expensive and more important than upgrading to meet safety standards.

$78.4 million to ‘increase access’… scratch “legal, safe, and rare” rhetoric. Replace with “legal and accessible.”

$23.7 million to ‘build advocacy capacity’… again advocate for access, not safety. Any regulations, I repeat ANY, are referred to as TRAP laws. But please don’t fall into the trap of thinking that just because Planned Parenthood never advocates for safety in its clinics, that anybody who does is trying to take away choice.

$3.5 million to ‘renew leadership’… whatever that means. I am certain no other ‘health care’ organization has $3.5 million for whatever the heck this is.

$3.8 million to ‘refresh our brand’…more advertising at taxpayer expense. I would love it if even that ‘piddly’ amount of their $1.2 billion yearly budget were spent on addressing safety violations.

Under “Supporting Services” are:

$164.4 million for management and general

$67.7 million for fundraising…yikes!

Finally “Other Expenses”:

$2.2 million in ‘payments to related organizations’…this is down from 19.1 million the previous year. I will research this.

$1 million “non-program related”…again, who knows. More research soon.

That is a lot of ‘expenses,’ none of which are designated to improve the safety of Planned Parenthood clinics. Because Planned Parenthood does not consider safety a priority. If you think Planned Parenthood clinics are safe enough, please read my other blog entries linked below and those I am about to write. Trust me, this could be a full time job.

One of the most shocking indictments against Planned Parenthood’s priorities is revealed in its bottom line:

Excess revenue over expenses in 2015 of $61.2 million and

Net assets at the end of the June 2015 of 1,484.8 million,  that is over 1.48 billion!

Planned Parenthood’s claims that increased safety standards would be an undue burden on women or close down Texas clinics was simply an attempt by a greedy corporation to protect its immense profits. Shame on all who allowed it to succeed.

https://lifelinessite.com/2015/10/12/its-a-trap-planned-parenthood-opposes-all-safety-laws-for-patients/

https://lifelinessite.com/2015/09/28/back-alley-abortions-planned-parenthood-style/

https://lifelinessite.com/2015/10/07/unlicensed-uninspected-unreported-planned-parenthood-in-illinois-is-a-risky-business/

https://lifelinessite.com/2015/10/13/f-the-fda-how-planned-parenthood-policy-endangers-patients-to-protect-profit/

 

 

 

I Will Always Have the Backs of Child Rape Victims

If I told you that Hillary Clinton would always have Brock Turner’s back… or Jerry Sandusky’s back… would you cheer? How about if I told you that she will always have Planned Parenthood’s back? Because that’s what she just said. Planned Parenthood has a free ticket from the potential president no matter what it has done or will do in the future. When Brock Turner raped an unconscious woman, the entire country rushed to condemn him, then to condemn his parents who tried to defend his character, then the judge who gave him a lenient sentence, then a friend who tried to stand up for him amidst the furor, then the friend’s band which lost gigs due to its association with her. When Jerry Sandusky was accused of raping boys, the entire country rushed to condemn him, to condemn the witness who didn’t do more than report a possible crime, then Joe Paterno for not doing more than reporting the witness’ story to his supervisor and the police chief, then the supervisor, the police chief, and the president for not investigating further, then the football program because it was seen as a possible reason for not investigating, then the athletes, because they were part of the program, then the whole Penn State community for defending Joe Paterno, who died before he could defend himself. Most people don’t know that the particular incident reported by Paterno was not one for which Sandusky was ultimately convicted, but the outrage continues today for anyone even remotely associated with Sandusky because he raped boys. Our outrage over rape, leniency for rapists, or possible cover-up of rape can never be too great.

 

That brings me to Planned Parenthood. On NUMEROUS occasions Planned Parenthood has failed to report the rape of young girls. Reporting suspicion of these heinous crimes is required by law for health care providers, and is required by conscience for all decent human beings. In several instances Planned Parenthood performed abortions for money (PP is a business after all) then returned these innocent, violated children into the hands of their rapists to be raped for months or years until in some cases Planned Parenthood had a second opportunity to help these poor girls and again did nothing. Actually, Planned Parenthood did worse than nothing and treated these ravaged, defenseless children as satisfied return customers, providing them with their second abortions and even providing long acting birth control (for a fee, because PP is a business.) Then Planned Parenthood returned them to their rapists again until somebody else finally caught them. Here are some summaries of cases that eventually made it to criminal court in spite of Planned Parenthood’s illegal, immoral protection of the rapists. The rapists were sent to jail. Planned Parenthood, who facilitated and covered up for the rapists,  quietly settled any civil cases against it with its immense financial resources. Read these cases if you care about women and young girls. I will show you the first two:

 

A Planned Parenthood affiliate in Mobile, Alabama failed to properly report the suspected sexual abuse of a 14-year-old girl. The girl was a mother of two and received two abortions from the clinic within a 6-month time frame. 

 

A 12-year-old girl in foster care was impregnated by her 23-year-old foster brother. He took the girl to Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona for an abortion. Planned Parenthood failed to report the abuse, which continued, until six months later, after he brought the girl back to Planned Parenthood for another abortion.

https://adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2015/09/08/new-adf-report-details-planned-parenthood’s-history-of-failure-to-report-rape-of-young-girls

 

Why are we not outraged?? Why are there no indictments for these criminal acts? The reasons are clear. Planned Parenthood has wisely politicized its position. It has donated to the political campaigns of its allies and against those who fail to give it unconditional support. It gives out report cards to ensure complete support for all its desired legislation, much of which is aimed at preventing any future culpability for crimes. If there are no inspections, there can be no violations, if there is no need to report statutory rape or suspected child abuse there can be no criminal negligence, if abortion is allowed at any time for any reason then there can be no accusations of breaking any laws, because there are no laws. Planned Parenthood recently backed a bill to prevent undercover investigations of its clinics, probably because it has been ‘stung’ numerous times for assisting sex traffickers, giving dangerous and illegal ‘sex education’ advice, assisting with sex selection abortion, accepting race targeted donations, and of course recently being filmed discussing how abortion procedures could be changed and profits made (for a Lamborghini or to offset costs) by donating/selling fetal tissue. One undercover investigation gave video evidence of Planned Parenthood’s willingness to break laws to cover up child sexual abuse of a 13 year old by a 31 year old. Here’s the first of eight undercover videos. http://liveaction.org/monalisa/bloomington-in/

 

Planned Parenthood and its supporters, assisted by a high-priced PR firm, have used rhetoric to suggest that any ‘attack’ on Planned Parenthood’s crimes, real crimes might lead to attacks on Planned Parenthood clinics or abortionists, so these crimes should be, must be, ignored. Compare this to the Brock Turner case, where arguments by his father that jail could be a death sentence or by the judge that a long jail sentence might cause him harm were met with derision because he committed an abominable crime- he raped a woman. For the record, Planned Parenthood’s recent campaign to put a positive spin on the abortion experience (# shout your abortion) could just as easily be seen as responsible for violence against women who refuse to have an abortion. There are numerous cases of women being threatened, beaten, or murdered for refusing to abort. Here’s one of the more recent murders. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/18/pregnant-woman-executed-because-she-refused-an-abortion-family-says/

 

I have numerous reasons why I believe that Planned Parenthood is bad for women, some of which I have written about previously, but the top of my list is Planned Parenthood’s callous disregard for child rape victims. You can Google the cases above and find the actual evidence and you will be as horrified as I am. The short summaries are true and provide sufficient reason for the Planned Parenthood Federation to be defunded, disbanded, and prosecuted for crimes committed. The financial and political power it has acquired makes it above the law and a danger to women even, especially really, women who support abortion. I would never recommend going to Planned Parenthood for any reason. Many of its clinics are never inspected, while others have been cited for numerous dangerous violations. Many of its physicians are doctors who previously lost their licenses to practice. And do you really want to support an organization that assists and covers up for child rapists?

 

I know the catch…if you’re liberal, progressive, or a Democrat you believe that Planned Parenthood is your ‘baby,’ and must be protected from conservatives, Republicans, or Christians trying to abort it. You are afraid that defunding Planned Parenthood might tip the 50-50 balance for abortion rights or the 50-50 balance in some political races. Please don’t let these fears make you feel that you have no choice. These fears are the reasons health care organizations should never be politicized. A corrupt business enterprise like Planned Parenthood should not be the face of women’s health, or of the Democratic Party, or even of abortion rights. We can evolve on this in a way that protects both choice and women’s health, but only after we remove the incredible financial and political power from this despicable supporter of child rape.

RU Kidding Me?

The FDA recently caved to pressure from Planned Parenthood and revised its research-based recommendations for the use of the medical abortion regimen known as RU 486 or the abortion pill. In a previous blog entitled “F the FDA,” I described all the reasons this regimen is harmful to women. So why would Planned Parenthood intentionally choose a regimen that hurts women and why would the FDA approve it? The answer to Planned Parenthood’s decision to use this dangerous regimen and protocol is clear. Profit. I will blog soon about what PP does with its incredible amounts of profit (it had excess assets of 1.5 billion in June 2015.) Spoiler alert: None of it is used to increase safety for women.

When RU 486 was first approved in the US in 2000, Planned Parenthood flouted the initial FDA guidelines and chose a less expensive regimen and more convenient method of administration both causing more risk to women’s safety.

1) PP chose a lower dose of the more effective, more expensive drug in the two drug regimen and allowed women to take the second medicine at home rather than having it administered by a doctor at the clinic. Initially PP chose a vaginal route for its patient- administered step, but changed the route to buccal (dissolved in the cheek) when the vaginal route was suspected of causing several fatal infections.

2) PP also allowed use of RU 486 up to 9 weeks instead of the 7 weeks initially recommended by the FDA even though PP knew that the research showed a significant drop in effectiveness after the 7 week mark. One out of five of those patients fail to abort and must endure a follow-up surgical abortion. The unsuccessful medical abortion can manifest itself by severe hemorrhage or infection due to the retained fetus. This is very bad for women, but very good for PP’s bottom line. Planned Parenthood charges more than the cost of the medical and surgical abortion combined, $800 at one clinic, for the medical abortion (medicines cost $100). If a patient needs a surgical abortion to finish what the medical abortion started, there’s no extra fee, but PP has already guaranteed a profit even when both are needed. When the medical abortion works, PP makes a huge profit, or if the hemorrhaging, feverish patient goes to an emergency room instead of back to the PP clinic when the medical abortion fails, then PP pockets the profit in those cases as well.

3) PP has pressed and been successful in some states in allowing RU 486 to be administered by a non-physician, or by telephone, where a physician who has never met or examined the patient remotely unlocks a drawer to deliver the medicine to the patient.

The new 2016 FDA guidelines allow for the cheaper less effective regimen (which Planned Parenthood has been using since RU 486’s US approval in 2000) and for use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. Why?

One reason is supposedly to align itself with “standard medical practice,” in other words, to what PP has been doing anyway. Most studies conducted on RU 486 since 2000, have been done by Planned Parenthood on itself. First PP studied its own disastrous vaginal route of administration compared to the buccal route to say both were equally effective and somehow managed to get positive headlines out of its fatal mistake. It then studied the efficacy of its regimen by lumping together all users, rather than separating out the 7-9 week pregnancies, and did not include 20% of patients who were lost to follow-up. This is horrible science! All 20% could have represented patients with failed abortions who required emergency treatment at hospitals,…or even died. And the overall 97% number it reported, already FALSE due to the lack of inclusion of 20% of patients, could still mean 1/5, or more, failed in the over 7 week group, but the average remained high. I say more because the FDA unbiased study prior to 2000 used the more effective drug regimen and still had 1/5 failures from 7-9 weeks.

A second reason for FDA changed guidelines is to increase “access” to medical abortions. When you hear the rhetoric of “increased access” you should always read it as” decreased safety,” “increased profit,” or both.  Planned Parenthood will now be able to offer the more profitable medical abortion to patients up to 10 weeks, which will result in even more failures. But there is still profit built into the failures,  and immense profit if an ER cleans up the mess or if the medical abortion is successful. PP is already making plans to flout, or at least intentionally misinterpret, the new FDA guidelines to increase profit further. According to the NY Times,  “The label still requires a “follow-up with the health care provider,” but some abortion rights advocates said that could be interpreted as a lab test or something that did not require a visit to a doctor.” It seems to me that Planned Parenthood is fighting for a do-it-yourself abortion, for which PP is only responsible for collecting the money and performing any surgical redo’s.

A third reason for the FDA changes is political, to help Planned Parenthood, who politically supports its supporters. The one thing Planned Parenthood is good at protecting is its profit margin. While abortions have dropped in the US in recent years, PP’s market share has increased, so its overall number per year has remained steady. Also, lest you credit PP with any education or contraceptive success on the decreased abortion numbers, make note that it distributed (for money) 932,000 emergency contraceptive Plan B kits last year (in the second year that drug was available) to patients who thought they might be pregnant. The old FDA requirements were easy for PP to ignore until Texas, for example, decided to pass a law requiring clinics to follow the FDA protocol. According to one clinic quoted in the NY Times article, women choosing medical abortions dropped from 40% to 5%. That could hurt profits. Surgical abortions are not nearly as profitable. PP always pushes medical abortions. PP’s research buddy, the Guttmacher Institute whom they fund, suggests women prefer medical abortions, but less biased research disagrees. Medical abortions are a worse choice for women and with the new FDA guidelines they are more dangerous than ever.

The only thing safe about these changes is Planned Parenthood’s profit.

 

Cancer (smoke) Screening: Part One: Mammograms

In 2009, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), organized to try to curb health care expenses, called for these dramatic changes to mammogram breast cancer screening guidelines:

  1. Routine mammograms for average-risk women starting at age 50 instead of 40.
  2. Routine screening to end at age 70.
  3. Screening mammograms every two years instead of one.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) initially argued that delaying mammograms would lead to more deaths and since age is the biggest risk factor for breast cancer, it makes no sense to stop screening relatively healthy women at 70. The ACS also argued that the task force guidelines would lead to insurance changes and increase economic disparity in breast cancer screening. But yesterday, while reaffirming in their update review in JAMA that regular mammograms in women aged 40 to 69 did reduce the number of breast cancer deaths, the ACS backed down somewhat and issued new mammogram guidelines:

  1. Women should undergo regular screening mammography starting at age 45.
  2. Women 45 to 54 years of age should be screened annually.
  3. Women 55 years and older should transition to biennial screening or have the opportunity to continue screening annually.
  4. Women should have the opportunity to begin annual screening between the ages of 40 and 44 years.
  5. Women should continue screening mammography as long as their overall health is good and they have a life expectancy of 10 years or longer.

“The society picked age 45 as the start date for screening because that’s when a woman’s risk of breast cancer begins to spike,” said Richard Wender,  ACS chief cancer control officer. (The USPSTF apparently didn’t consider this spike with their choice of 50.) The last two ACS guidelines appear to battle against “death panel” type policies which might actually deny women the opportunity to screen at certain ages.

So, how do you sell increasing the risk of ‘death’ to American women? With rhetoric and politics. Here’s some of the rhetoric. Screening is “harmful” because false positives could lead to additional testing with “more radiation exposure” causing “anxiety” and “unnecessary biopsies.”  Also, push an “anti-shame” message. Thirty years ago the ACS had an advertisement, “If you haven’t had a mammogram, you need more than your breasts examined.” Today’s rhetoric emphasizes a woman’s right to choose not to get a mammogram without being considered “irresponsible.”

Honestly,  this rhetoric by itself would probably stop many women from getting mammograms because mammograms are not comfortable. I delayed mine a couple times until my first “positive” result. Sure I was anxious, but I did not mind getting additional tests and a biopsy to confirm that I did not have cancer. Because if I had had cancer, it was tiny and detected early enough to most likely cure it! And early detection not only saves lives, but can prevent the need for a major operation, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy. That’s why screening is so important! I know women diagnosed in their 40’s alive today because of a mammogram. Unfortunately, rhetoric will scare many away from this lifesaving screening test.

Now about the politics. No woman was ever forced to get a mammogram at 40, but at least insurance paid for it. The new guidelines will change insurance reimbursement. The “old” guidelines, those recommended by the American Cancer Society until yesterday, were intended to save the most lives. The USPSTF guidelines are intended to save the most money. By starting mammogram screening at 50 instead of 40, more young women will die from breast cancer,  but the numbers will be small compared to the 40,300 expected to die this year. Also, some women might be lucky enough to find the lump in time and some who don’t will survive until 50 and not need to be counted in the new statistics. So the task force will dodge a PR bullet.

If you think this is cynical, look at the wording for the over 70 women. The task force noted that “breast cancer is a leading cause of death in older women, which might suggest that the benefits of screening could be important at this age.” However, the USPSTF also concluded that the benefits of screening are probably not as great for older women because they tend to have breast cancers that respond well to treatment and have a higher risk of dying from other causes. Again, the government is counting on some women surviving even after finding the lump much later than a mammogram would. And that those dying (from/with) breast cancer will have other age related causes to which their deaths can be attributed instead of the breast cancer. Sort of a death panel, but you can imagine that as long as the death numbers are held in check, they can spin this.

In the JAMA article, the authors mourn “the contentious nature of debates surrounding breast cancer screening” and advise that “given the weight of the evidence that mammography screening is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of dying from breast cancer after age 40 years, a more productive discussion would be focused on how to improve the performance of mammography screening.” Decisions based on subjective differences in perception of “harm” including that for some women, being recalled for additional imaging could result in “persistent adverse effects” could be decreased by more education about false positives and improved testing to decrease false positives, rather than avoiding screening.

In the news, you will see lots of confusing quotes. Like in USA Today: “Mammograms reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer by as little as 15% to as much as 40%” and “Although mammograms can save lives, their benefits are much more modest than many women assume. They also carry risks.” (The risks of further tests, biopsies, and treating a cancer that might not have been fatal.) The American College of Radiology’s breast imaging commission still recommends women get annual mammograms beginning at 40 saying that if you want to save the most lives, that’s the recommendation that will do it.

I conclude from all that I have read that mammograms save the lives of women and should continue to be done starting at 40. Unfortunately, soon you will likely have to pay for your own mammogram possibly until age 50 and after 70.  Unless the anti-mammogram rhetoric convinces you to avoid the cost…

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2463262#Discussion

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/10/20/american-cancer-society-say-women-should-start-mammograms-45/74232470/

“F” the FDA: How Planned Parenthood Policy Endangers Patients to Protect Profit

The moment that medical abortion (AKA RU486 or the “abortion pill”) was approved in the US in 2000, I mean immediately, Planned Parenthood ignored the FDA approved regimen and determined its own alternative. While off-label use of medicines is not illegal, Planned Parenthood’s ‘choice’ to flout the FDA protocol resulted in deaths and continues to mislead and endanger many patients.

Planned Parenthood’s deviations from the approved FDA regimen include 1) a lower dose of the first pill mifepristone (the really expensive one), 2) a higher dose of misoprostol (the really cheap pill), 3) allowing the misoprostol to be administered by the patient at home (Instead of by the physician on a 2nd visit,) and 4) allowing the regimen to be used through 9 weeks rather than 7 weeks as the FDA had approved. All of these are bad ‘choices’ for women.

Planned Parenthood used its standard rhetoric to justify the changes. “It’s more private” taking the second medicine at home, and “It’s more convenient” to not have to come back for a doctor to administer the second medicine or to never even see a doctor at all in the case of ‘telemedicine abortions’ (which PP is currently lobbying to federally approve.) These Planned Parenthood ‘choices’ threaten the safety and health of women. Very few women would choose a little convenience over safety and nobody would choose a little convenience over death.

The FDA study, based on a protocol used in France found that the regimen became significantly less effective with considerably more side effects after 7 weeks gestation. In fact, 1/5 of patients failed to abort between 8-9 weeks, requiring a followup surgical abortion. The Planned Parenthood regimen is based on one used by the poorest countries in the world, where patients couldn’t afford the $83 pill for Mifepristone, but could afford to increase the Misoprostol ($1 a pill.) Why did Planned Parenthood choose the Third World regimen for women in America? It charges up to $800 for a medical abortion, so one has to wonder!

Screen Shot 2015-10-13 at 8.29.27 AM

Planned Parenthood also eliminated the second visit to the clinic for the physician to administer the misoprostol as prescribed by the FDA protocol, a cost saving measure for PP no doubt, disguised as caring about convenience for patients. PP initially instructed patients to take the misoprostol vaginally at home, but after 11 women using the vaginal regimen died, some clearly from bacterial sepsis (an overwhelming infection), PP changed the administration route to having patients place the misoprostol inside their cheeks to dissolve. PP also began to prescribe prophylactic antibiotics despite the FDA not having determined an appropriate antibiotic regimen or whether prophylactic antibiotics were even called for after PP abandoned its disastrous vaginal self-administration protocol. If you listen to the news, you know that prophylactic antibiotics can stimulate the growth of “superbugs” resistant to most antibiotics and their use must be carefully studied and recommended by the FDA, which is not the case here. Mifepristone is teratogenic, causing significant birth defects if the pregnancy is not terminated. Giving only 200 mg of it will cause significantly fewer successful abortions if the medication is not followed by the higher dose misoprostol, the medicine patients are entrusted with taking themselves. Since about 20% of patients were lost to follow up in Planned Parenthood’s study, one can only guess at how many actually took it, and also how many had severe consequences as a result of taking it.

Planned Parenthood misleads women in several ways regarding its version of medical abortion. It misleads patients as to what to expect with medical abortion. On several clinic sites and articles, it downplays and describes the medical abortion experience anywhere from like an early miscarriage to like a heavy period suggesting it will be over in a few hours though spotting might last for several weeks. The FDA study found women bled for an average of 16 days and I read that most women were much less satisfied with the medical abortion experience than a surgical abortion. PP suggests most would recommend medical abortion to a friend, but that is not how Abby Johnson who was a previous director of a Planned Parenthood clinic felt. You can read about her experience here-http://abortionpillrisks.org/real-stories/abby-johnsons-story/?doing_wp_cron=1444751517.4947569370269775390625.

In its “scientific” studies, investigating its own successes, Planned Parenthood first compared its vaginal administration of Misoprostol to its buccal admisinstration (neither FDA approved protocols) and claimed them equally effective, which resulted in ridiculous media acclaim. The same amount of medicine works if you administer it in a safer way than we originally chose….that’s not newsworthy unless you are the media’s favorite child.  PP has also lumped data to hide the worsening results later in pregnancy. It combines its data and eliminates the patients lost to follow-up from its analysis (dishonest research technique) then claims as high as a 97% success rate. Every one of those patients lost to followup could have wound up in an emergency room with a complication or in need of surgery. It does not tell its patients that medical abortion is less successful after 7 weeks. If it doesn’t work, PP simply does a surgical abortion to complete the process. Patients are required to agree to a surgical abortion in the “unlikely case” that the medical one fails. The $800 fee, almost double the price of an early surgical abortion, more than covers the cost of the PP version of a medical abortion (less than $100 for the medication) and a surgical ‘redo.”

PP prefers to do medical abortions because more of its clinics can do them, they have a better profit margin, and if PP wins its telemedicine battles, they can be done without the need for a physician on site. Every change PP made to the FDA approved regimen benefits Planned Parenthood’s bottom line. Every change PP made to the FDA approved regimen potentially endangers women. It is clear that the FDA protocol is safer and more effective. PP tries to claim its regimen is as safe and effective, but its study on this was done by PP itself and done poorly (omitting the large number of patients lost to followup). Here’s an example of the rhetoric you will see-“Other recent anti-choice legislation seized upon enforcing an outdated FDA-approved regimen for administering mifepristone, which requires patients make three or more office visits instead of only two. Under the evidence-based regimen, women can bring home the misoprostol they’re supposed to take two days after the mifepristone, while the FDA regimen requires an additional trip be made to take that misoprostol in front of a doctor…”Even for the most privileged of women, making four trips to a doctor’s office to terminate one pregnancy is a huge burden.” http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/25/9174769/abortion-pill-shot-surgery-medical-women-healthcare.

Just like with TRAP laws (see my last post), Planned Parenthood has used politics to rally people against laws, or in this case FDA approved regimens, which are intended to protect women. The FDA regimen recommends 3 (not 4 as exaggerated) visits to the clinic, while Planned Parenthood’s requires 2. The extra visit ensures the second medicine is taken correctly which is to the patient’s advantage. PP also has no good answer for changing to the cheaper (poorly tested) medical regimen or for allowing medical abortion through 9 weeks instead of 7 (even though less effective and with more side effects.)  These choices are not safe for women and Planned Parenthood clinics, particularly those in states which allow telemedicine abortions, should be avoided by any patient concerned about safety.

It’s a TRAP! Planned Parenthood opposes all safety laws for patients.

Planned Parenthood is more interested in protecting its market share in the abortion business than it is in protecting women’s health and safety. It has fought any legislation that regulates abortions in its free-standing clinics, labeling these legislative efforts TRAP laws, to stand for targeted restrictions on abortion providers, when it should stand for Tricky Rhetoric And Politics. My research, some of which I have presented in previous posts, shows that without these restrictions, Planned Parenthood clinics have become some of the most dangerous places for women to have procedures or seek health care. Abortion clinics are regulated less than tanning salons or pizza parlors in states such as New York. (http://nypost.com/2014/04/07/health-department-fails-to-regularly-inspect-abortion-clinics/.) Some states with Democratic leadership, such as California, continue to lower the bar on women’s health standards by allowing non-physicians to do abortions in clinics. Several states allow clinics to be located greater than half an hour from hospital backup, with no licensing, inspections, regulations, or reporting required. Anti-TRAP legislation allows “back alley” level abortion clinics to qualify as acceptable, such as the Philadelphia clinic of convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell, where unsafe, unsanitary abortions by unlicensed staff went undetected until a drug bust unveiled the horrors.

Attacks on “TRAP” laws usually begin with an attack on the legislators proposing them, who are almost always Republican and pro-life. The reason for this is unfortunate. Any Democrat who wants to get reelected cannot afford to oppose Planned Parenthood. Not only would that politician risk losing the considerable campaign funds that Planned Parenthood’s political arm provides, but a media attack by Planned Parenthood against a candidate has proven fatal to many campaigns. Planned Parenthood sends reminders to politicians that it is watching and will consider any support for any abortion restrictions as a black mark on its ‘score card’ for that politician. Note specifically, that PP sees any restriction on abortion as “not protecting women’s health”, but “simply limiting access to reproductive health care.” Honestly, it surprises me every time I read one of these cases, that Planned Parenthood is not arguing FOR these protections for women instead of against them. The only reason is to avoid the expense of quality health care. That’s it.

PP letter re TRAP laws

Failing to regulate abortion clinics hurts women. This should not be a political issue!

1) Building codes matter! PP poo poo’s requirements about the width of corridors and doorways, but there have been cases where abortion patients have died because ambulance personnel could not navigate hallways with a stretcher. One might argue this is a rare occurrence, but it is not rare enough that any woman should endanger her health by choosing an unregulated PP or other free-standing abortion clinic over the much safer choice of a hospital or outpatient surgical clinic. PP had a $127,000,000 surplus last year, so it should use some of that money to upgrade its building standards if it cares about women’s health.

Screen Shot 2015-10-12 at 3.12.40 PM

It also owns a lot of property.

Screen Shot 2015-10-12 at 3.05.44 PM

2) Inspections matter! Numerous violations of health codes found when states have inspected PP clinics include unsanitary operating rooms, unsterilized equipment, expired medications, personnel untrained in CPR, and incomplete medical records sent with patients to the hospital, all of which directly threaten the health of patients. (See my previous post “Back-Alley Abortions-Planned Parenthood Style”)

3) Failure to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, or a relationship with a physician who does, matters! As does location of clinics close to a hospital! Though it is rare for women to die as a result of abortion, one need only Google “Planned Parenthood” and “ambulance” to see that medical emergencies happen with some frequency. Therefore women should avoid clinics that are distant from a hospital. As far as credentialing is concerned, it is possible that a hospital might choose not to allow privileges to an abortion provider due to an “anti-choice” stance or competition for patients, though I highly doubt this. More likely is that the hospital is refusing privileges due to the malpractice history of the physician. PP wants this law changed to allow the least qualified abortion practitioners to do abortions including non-physicians.

TRAP laws have been successfully battled even to the Supreme Court where the typical “political” 5:4 split has defeated them. The reason is that abortion access trumps quality care in the minds of Planned Parenthood and with just a little help from rhetoric and a lot of politics,  America agrees. But as a patient, go someplace else for your procedure or your health care. Inconvenience, including travel or expense to go to a hospital clinic, is worth it for the sake of your safety or that of a friend or family member. Planned Parenthood could run safe clinics, but it chooses not to in order to maximize profit. It has not lowered its safety bar as low as it is willing yet either. It continues to push for federal approval of Telemed abortions where patients will never even be seen by a physician. That will be the topic of my next post.

Unlicensed, Uninspected, Unreported: Planned Parenthood in Illinois is a Risky Business

In 2011, after Pennsylvania’s Kermit Gosnell and his disgusting and dangerous “House of Horrors” abortion clinic first came to national attention due to a drug raid, some states felt compelled to look at their own abortion facilities. In the case of Illinois, what they found was complete and utter neglect. When Illinois decided to inspect its licensed abortion clinics between 2011 and 2014, it discovered that 40% of them had gone 14 and 17 years without health inspections, 26.7% 9-13 years, and 20% 5-7 years. Its five Planned Parenthood clinics were unlicensed and therefore not required to be inspected.

The Illinois inspections found 193 code violations in 13 of 14 clinics. Two clinics were shut down on an emergency basis. One of these clinics, the Women’s Aid Clinic had multiple violations including unsanitary conditions in the operating areas, expired medications on the anesthesia cart, no supervising registered nurse, failure to perform CPR on a woman who later died after her abortion, and the storage of 8 aborted fetuses, medications, and 3 frozen TV dinners all in the same refrigerator. Co-owner Larissa Rowansky complained that this surprise inspection after 15 years was unfair. She also claimed that the patient didn’t need CPR because she was speaking to emergency workers when she was taken to a hospital after her abortion. The patient “lied about her condition,” Rowansky added, saying the woman had bronchial pneumonia and was too ill to have an abortion. One would expect a qualified doctor, or a registered nurse (none was present,) to have noticed the pneumonia prior to the procedure, but certainly qualified doctors or nurses would not have treated her post-procedure symptoms, difficulty breathing and coughing up blood and fluid, by having her breathe into a paper bag. The patient’s estate was awarded $555,500 in the lawsuit that followed. Rowansky refused to pay the $36,000 in inspection citation fines, declared bankruptcy, and reopened a ‘new’ clinic soon after under the slightly changed name Women’s Aid Center, which somehow allowed her to pay only $77 of the original fines.

As I pointed out, Planned Parenthood continued to avoid inspections by remaining unlicensed. However, some insight into the lack of safety of Illinois PP clinics can be found in these reports of malpractice.

In 1/3/13, Illinois Planned Parenthood unlicensed abortion provider was sued for medical malpractice following the death of a 24-year-old woman after an abortion. Court documents state the clinic failed to transport this hemorrhaging woman to the hospital until 5 hours after her abortion where she died 11 hours after her scheduled abortion as a result of a torn uterus. She left behind a one-year-old son. On 1/24/14, a settlement agreement was reached for $2 million.

On 2/13/09, Illinois Planned Parenthood unlicensed abortion provider was sued for medical malpractice. The lawsuit charged the patient died as a result of a torn uterus during the abortion procedure. On 1/23/12, a settlement was reached for $245,000.

On 4/3/08, Illinois Planned Parenthood unlicensed abortion provider was sued for medical malpractice. On 3/11/10, an undisclosed settlement was reached.

On 5/18/04, Illinois Planned Parenthood unlicensed abortion provider was sued for medical malpractice. The lawsuit charged the patient suffered a ruptured uterus requiring a subtotal hysterectomy. On 4/14/09, an undisclosed settlement was reached.

On 12/17/02, Illinois Planned Parenthood unlicensed abortion provider was sued for medical malpractice following the death of a female patient. The lawsuit charges the clinic failed to remove all fetal parts from the patient’s uterus causing severe pain and death. On 12/08/06, a settlement agreement was reached for $4 million.

On 11/13/00, Illinois Planned Parenthood unlicensed abortion provider was sued for medical malpractice. The lawsuit charges surgical tools were improperly used, tearing the right uterine artery. As a result, the female patient suffered amputation of the uterus and cervix and permanent loss of reproductive capabilities. On 5/15/01, an undisclosed settlement was reached.

Another warning sign of the risks of the abortion business in Illinois is the egregious underreporting of the number of abortions, the number and type of complications, and even an accounting of abortion providers themselves. The Chicago Tribune investigated poor reporting of abortions and complications in Illinois and found state regulators had documented between 7,000 and 17,000 fewer abortions a year than an abortion rights research group called the Guttmacher Institute counted. Almost 4,000 reports of abortion complications involving Illinois residents in 2009 were missing the required description. Also, regulators collect reports from only 26 providers, but the Guttmacher Institute has identified 37 providers in the state.

Health care providers who intentionally fail to submit accurate and complete reports are committing a criminal act, and a failure to report abortion complications is grounds for revoking their licenses, but the Department of Public Health has never sought disciplinary action against any provider. Stanley Henshaw, a Guttmacher researcher, has explored abortion reporting problems and “lax enforcement” across the country and theorizes it is the shoddiest operators who are not reporting the abortions they perform.” I theorize that it is also possible that even the best of these providers fail to report their worst outcomes. Maurice Stevenson, whose wife died in 2002 from infection following an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago was outraged, saying, “These procedures, complications and deaths should be public record.” Planned Parenthood claimed that it was diligent in complying, but was unable to confirm whether it had reported Stevenson’s wife’s death because its records were in storage. (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-16/news/ct-met-abortion-reporting-20110615_1_abortion-providers-fewer-abortions-national-abortion-federation)

The combination of being unlicensed and uninspected, along with the unanswered question of the degree of underreporting of complications or even deaths, makes Planned Parenthood of Illinois a risky choice for women. Go someplace else for your healthcare or procedure and recommend that others do the same for their own safety.