Kristi Burton Brown

Three things that may happen to you during an abortion

Kristi Burton Brown
By Kristi Burton Brown

December 5, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - When women consider abortion, it’s important that they’re aware of the hard stuff, too – not just the easy things that abortion clinic counselors often tell them. There are always two sides to every story, and it’s vital that women hear this other side.

Abortion is not just an easy procedure that takes care of all their problems. Abortion doesn’t just wipe the slate clean. Sure, there are a few women out there who will stick to that claim. But for the vast majority of women and girls, abortion is a difficult, heart-rending tragedy. From an article on the Huffington Post:

Abortion is a tragedy in and of itself, regardless of whether or not we, as individuals or as a society, feel that it is so.

It’s not an easy thing to end the life of a child, especially your own. It’s not an easy thing to pretend you were never a mother when you know, deep in your heart, that you still are. And abortion is even harder and more tragic for women when they are uninformed and when they’ve never been presented with the real truth and the real risks. I’m going to be blunt and to the point, so here goes.

1) You may lose your life or be permanently injured.

While the majority of women do not die from their abortions, it is definitely a risk that abortion clinics rarely admit. Abortion is not just a safe, simple procedure. Some abortionists are more concerned with efficiency and money than the lives of women, and it shows in the deaths of women under their care. The Real Choice blog tells the stories of hundreds of women and teens who died or were severely injured from their abortions – from causes such as cardiac arrest, bleeding, choking to death on vomit, and embolism. Ladies, abortion is not a walk in the park. You need to realize that you may die from this procedure.

There are many risks involved with teen abortion. To begin with death can occur because of teen abortion. It is reported that legal abortion is the fifth leading cause of maternal death in the United States. These deaths are caused by infection, embolism, hemorrhage, anesthesia, and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies. The actual figure of deaths caused by legal abortion is probably much higher than reported since many of the maternal deaths reported are not recorded as being caused by legal abortion.

RU-486, an abortion drug (a medical abortion rather than a surgical abortion) also risks women’s lives. In 2009, it was reported that 29 women had died from the use of RU-486, nine more had had their lives endangered, and 120 had received blood transfusions, while over 200 were hospitalized. Despite FDA approval, this is not a safe drug for women, especially when abortion clinics continue to disregard the standard procedure for giving the drug to women and thus endanger their lives.

One of the most concerning things that women need to realize is that injuries and deaths at abortion clinics across the country are on the rise.

2) You may lose your motherhood entirely.

Some women believe that their abortions will allow them to postpone motherhood until they believe they are ready. However, all too often, these women never get another chance. In yet another example of nondisclosure by abortion clinics, women are rarely properly informed that an abortion – and especially multiple abortions – may cost them their fertility.

While this article first seems to almost deny the claim that women can lose their fertility in abortion, the end section admits the risks that are present and which all women should be aware of:

The most serious problems occur in those rare instances when a post-operative infection develops. But if a woman has had a significant number of abortions, scar tissue might develop at the top of the cervix or inside the uterus. If this interferes with later attempts to get pregnant, it is often possible to repair this medically. A woman who has had more than one abortion may also have a weakened cervix, due to repeated dilations during the earlier procedures; this could cause difficulty sustaining a pregnancy later on, as the cervix could dilate (open) prematurely. In many cases a weakened or incompetent cervix can be sutured closed for the duration of a pregnancy.

Additionally, an abortion can be an emotionally challenging experience for a woman, and this in turn might have an indirect effect on fertility, if she retreats from sexual contact out of feelings of guilt or conflict.

Women should not only be advised of risks that are common or widespread. They ought to be told all of the risks so that they are fully informed. No one can guarantee a woman or a girl that her abortion will not come at the price of her future fertility. Her abortion may take the life of her first, last, and only child.

Miscarriage is also a risk after an abortion. One expert explains the risks:

Yes, having an abortion during the first trimester does increase the chances of a miscarriage later, by about 400%. The literature is not telling you the truth. But in your case, since you had an abortion so late, it would be even higher. When they force open the cervix in order to do an abortion, they damage it. There will be many tiny tears in the flesh, and this weakens it so that it can’t hold the weight of a full term baby. And yes, this damage also happens in abortions done during the first trimester. Scarring on the surface of the uterus can also be a problem, because if the placenta is trying to grow over scars, it won’t be able to grow there, so this could restrict the size and effectiveness of the placenta. Placenta previa is also a risk. This is due to scarring as well. When they do a surgical abortion, they have to cut away the placenta, and they scrape the surface. This is why scars form.

3) You may pay – both literally and emotionally – to end the life of your child.

After abortion, many women experience post-traumatic stress disorder. (There is help for you if you’re in a spot like this.) Many realize, all too late, that their unborn children were unique, helpless individuals who needed a chance at life that only their mothers could have given them. Abortion clinics specialize in giving women inaccurate information about an unborn child’s development, often leaving out the true facts about when a baby’s heart begins to beat (22 days), when brain waves can be measured (about six weeks), and when a baby’s organs are present and functioning (eight weeks for all but the lungs; they follow at 11-12 weeks). At five weeks, all four heart chambers are functioning. At eight to ten weeks, a baby can suck her thumb.

One of the most surprising things about fetal development is that nothing significantly new happens after 12 weeks after conception – the child simply gets bigger and matures. Nearly 90 percent of abortions are done before the twelfth week, when the child is supposedly ‘blood clots’ (Mifeprex [mifepristone] pamphlet) or ‘pregnancy tissue’ (Planned Parenthood document).

There is evidence that a mother’s connection to her child begins almost immediately and is basically beyond her control. Almost as soon as a child begins to exist, a psychological and biological relationship begins like no other. Multiple studies “demonstrate that a mother’s bond with her child (and the child’s attachment to her) begins during pregnancy and even at its early stages.” Experts conclude:

[T]he attachment between mother and child begins almost immediately after conception and the basis of maternal attachment is both psychological and physical, and this process, and the natural protective urges of maternal attachment, often form irrespective of whether the pregnancy was intended or wanted.

Simply put, abortion hurts a woman and takes the life of her defenseless child. Listen to the stories of other women, realize the risks, and please, choose life.

Want more info on abortion, the risks, and the realities? Check out this article, this site, and this awesome paper.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
A Planned Parenthood facility in Denver, Colorado
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

,

Colorado judge tosses suit alleging Planned Parenthood used state funds to pay for abortions

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

Alliance Defending Freedom "will likely appeal" a Monday court decision dismissing their suit alleging Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains illegally used state funds to pay for abortions, an ADF lawyer told LifeSiteNews.

The ADF lawsuit claims that $1.4 million went from state government agencies to a Planned Parenthood abortion affiliate through Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

Denver County District Court Judge Andrew McCallin dismissed the case on the basis that ADF could not prove the funds paid for abortions. But ADF maintains that funding an abortion facility is indirectly paying for abortions, which violates state law.

ADF senior counsel Michael Norton -- whose wife, former Colorado Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton, filed the lawsuit – told LifeSiteNews that "no one is above the law, including Colorado politicians who are violating our state’s constitution by continuing to fund Planned Parenthood’s abortion business with state taxpayer dollars."

"The State of Colorado even acknowledges that about $1.4 million of state taxpayer dollars flowed from Colorado government agencies through Planned Parenthood to its abortion affiliate. The Denver court seems to have agreed with that fact and yet granted motions to dismiss based on a technicality," said Norton.

According to Colorado law, "no public funds shall be used by the State of Colorado, its agencies or political subdivisions to pay or otherwise reimburse, either directly or indirectly, any person, agency or facility for the performance of any induced abortion." There is a stipulation that allows for "the General Assembly, by specific bill, [to] authorize and appropriate funds to be used for those medical services necessary to prevent the death of either a pregnant woman or her unborn child under circumstances where every reasonable effort is made to preserve the life of each."

According to court documents, the Colorado law was affirmed by state voters in 1984, with an appeal attempt rejected two years later. In 2001, an outside legal firm hired by Jane Norton -- who was lieutenant governor at the time -- found that Planned Parenthood was "subsidizing rent" and otherwise providing financial assistance to Planned Parenthood Services Corporation, an abortion affiliate. After the report came out, and Planned Parenthood refused to disassociate itself from the abortion affiliate, the state government stopped funding Planned Parenthood.

Since 2009, however, that has changed, which is why the lawsuit is filed against Planned Parenthood, and multiple government officials, including Democratic Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.

According to ADF legal counsel Natalie Decker, the fact that Planned Parenthood sent funds to the abortion affiliate should have convinced McCallin of the merits of the case. "The State of Colorado and the Denver court acknowledged that about $1.4 million of state taxpayer dollars, in addition to millions of 'federal' tax dollars, flowed from Colorado government agencies through Planned Parenthood to its abortion affiliate," said Decker.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

"Without even having the facts of the case developed, the Denver court seems to have granted motions to dismiss filed by the State of Colorado and Planned Parenthood on grounds the term 'indirectly' could not mean what Ms. Norton and Governor Owens said it meant in 2002 when they defunded Planned Parenthood."

"That, of course, is the plain meaning of Colo. Const., Art. V, § 50 which was implemented by the citizens of Colorado, and the reason for Ms. Norton’s lawsuit."

Decker told LifeSiteNews that "Colorado law is very clear," and that the state law "prohibits Colorado tax dollars from being used to directly or indirectly pay for induced abortions."

She says her client "has been denied the opportunity to fully develop the facts of the case and demonstrate exactly what the Colorado tax dollars have been used for." Similarly, says Decker, it is not known "exactly what those funds were used for. At this time, there is simply no way to conclude that tax dollars have not been used to directly pay for abortions or abortion inducing drugs and devices."

"What we do know is that millions of Colorado tax dollars have flowed through Planned Parenthood to its abortion affiliate, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that those tax dollars are being used to indirectly pay for abortions."

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains did not return multiple requests for comment about the lawsuit.

The dismissal comes as Planned Parenthood fights an investigation by the state's Republican attorney general over a video by Live Action, as well as a lawsuit by a mother whose 13-year old daughter had an abortion in 2012 that she alleges was covered up by Planned Parenthood. The girl, who was being abused by her stepfather, was abused for months after the abortion.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Courtesy of Online for Life
Steve Weatherbe

,

High-tech pro-life group marks 2,000 babies saved

Steve Weatherbe
By
Image

Online for Life, the Dallas-based pro-life marketing agency, saved its two-thousandth unborn baby earlier this year and is well on its way to saving its three thousandth by 2015.

“We are getting better all the time at what we do,” says founder Brian Fisher. “It used to be one baby saved every four to six weeks and now its two or three a day.”

But the most significant save? “It was the very first one,” he says, recalling the phone call from a crisis centre a month after OFL’s 2012 startup.  “And for me personally it was just a massive turning point … because [of] all the work and the money and testing and the volunteers and everything that led up to that moment. All the frustration of that was washed away in an instant because a child had been rescued that was about to be killed.”

Though increasing market savvy has led Online for Life to expand offline, the core of the non-profit, donor-financed operation remains SEO -- search engine optimization -- targeting young women who have just discovered they are pregnant and gone onto the Web to find the nearest abortion clinic.

Instead, they find the nearest crisis pregnancy center at the top of their results page. Since OFL went online it has linked with a network of 41 such centers, including two of its own it started this year, in a positive feedback loop that reinforces effective messaging first at the level of the Web, then at the first telephone call between the clinic and the pregnant woman, and finally at the first face-to-face meeting.

“Testing is crucial,” says Fisher. “We test everything we do.” Early on, Online for Life insisted the clinics it served have an ultrasound machine, because the prevailing wisdom in the prolife movement was that “once they saw their baby on ultrasound, they would drop the idea of having an abortion.” While the organization still insists on the ultrasound, its own testing and feedback from the CPCs indicates that three quarters of the women they see already have children. “They’ve already seen their own children on ultrasound and are still planning to abort.” So ultrasound images have lost their punch.

OFL has had to move offline to reach a significant minority who have neither computers, tablets, or cell phones.  Traditional electronic media spots as well as bus ads and billboards carry the message to them.

As well, says Fisher, “unwanted pregnancy used to be a high-school age problem; now that’s gone down in numbers and the average age of women seeking abortion has gone up to 24.” By that age, he says, they are “thoroughly conditioned by the abortion culture. Even before they got pregnant, they have already decided they would have an abortion if they did get pregnant.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

What they need—and fast, in the first two minutes of the first phone call—is sympathy, support, and a complete absence of judgement. Online for Life is always gathering information from its network on what responses are most effective—and this can vary city to city. The organization offers training to clinic volunteers and staff that stresses a thorough knowledge of the services on tap. “Any major city has all sorts of services—housing, education, health—available,” says Fisher.

The problem that OFL was designed to address was the crisis pregnancy centers’ market penetration. Three percent of women with unwanted pregnancies were reaching out to the CPCs, and seven per cent of those who did reach out were having their babies. “So about 2.1 children were being saved for every 1,000 unwanted pregnancies,” says Fisher. “That’s not nearly enough.”

So Fisher and two fellow volunteers dreamed of applying online marketing techniques to the problem in 2009. Three years later Fisher was ready to leave his executive position at an online marketing agency to go full-time with the life-saving agency. Now they have 63 employees, most of them devoted to optimizing the penetration in each of the markets served by their participating crisis centers.

The results speak for themselves. Where OFL has applied its techniques, especially with its own clinics, as many as 15-18 percent of the targeted population of women seeking abortions get directed to nearby crisis pregnancy centers. “It depends on the centres’ budgets and on how many volunteers they have to be on the phones through the day and night,” he says. “But we are going to push it higher. We hope to save our 2,500th child by the end of the year.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Shock: UK mom abandons disabled daughter, keeps healthy son after twin surrogacy

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

A UK woman who is the biological mother of twins born from a surrogate mom, has allegedly abandoned one of the children because she was born with a severe muscular condition, while taking the girl's healthy sibling home with her.

The surrogate mother, also from the UK — referred to as "Jenny" to protect her identity — revealed to The Sun the phone conversation that took place between herself and the biological mother over the fate of the disabled girl.

“I remember her saying to me, “She’d be a f****** dribbling cabbage! Who would want to adopt her? No one would want to adopt a disabled child,’” she said.

Jenny, who has children of her own, said she decided to become a surrogate to “help a mother who couldn’t have children.” She agreed to have two embryos implanted in her womb and to give birth for £12,000 ($20,000 USD).

With just six weeks to the due date, doctors told Jenny she needed an emergency caesarean to save the babies. It was not until a few weeks after the premature births that the twin girl was diagnosed with congenital myotonic dystrophy.

When Jenny phoned the biological mother to tell her of the girl’s condition, the mother rejected the girl.

Jenny has decided along with her partner to raise the girl. They have called her Amy.

“I was stunned when I heard her reject Amy,” Jenny said. “She had basically told me that she didn’t want a disabled child.”

Jenny said she felt “very angry” towards the girl’s biological parents. "I hate them for what they did.”

The twins are now legally separated. A Children and Family Court has awarded the healthy boy to the biological mother and the disabled girl to her surrogate.

The story comes about two weeks after an Australian couple allegedly abandoned their surrogate son in Thailand after he was born with Down syndrome, while taking the healthy twin girl back with them to Australia.

Rickard Newman, director of Family Life, Pro-Life & Child and Youth Protection in the Diocese of Lake Charles, called the Australian story a “tragedy” that “results from a marketplace that buys and sells children.”

“Third-party reproduction is a prism for violations against humanity. IVF and the sperm trade launched a wicked industry that now includes abortion, eugenics, human trafficking, and deliberate family fragmentation,” he said. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook