WASHINGTON, D.C., October 16, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – A majority of states may soon use tax dollars to pay for the implantation of dangerous, abortion-inducing IUDs in women immediately after childbirth.
The journal Contraception reports that Medicaid now pays for IUDs to be inserted into women following delivery in 19 states.
Eight more states are poised to follow suit.
Not one state used taxpayer money for IUDs before the Obama administration took office.
Within 10 minutes of delivery, doctors are implanting either copper IUDs or chemical-releasing IUDs in women.
But potential health complications for the mother are magnified when IUDs are implanted at a new mother's childbirth.
“Uterine walls can be softer than usual in postpartum women, increasing the risk of uterine perforation and even resultant IUD migration to other parts of the body, which can cause additional internal injuries,” Rita Diller, an expert on the subject, told LifeSiteNews.
In 2010, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews found that four times as many women who get an IUD implanted at childbirth expel the device, compared with those placed later.
“Abnormal bleeding, one of the signs of uterine perforation, could be missed in the days following delivery, since women are already bleeding at that point,” Diller added.
Besides the inherent dangers of timing the surgical implantation of IUDs at childbirth, IUDs are themselves a dangerous form of birth control.
“IUDs increase the risk of ectopic pregnancies and contribute to infections like pelvic inflammatory disease. More than 70,000 Mirena IUD complications have been reported to the FDA since 2000,” Diller elaborated. “In New York and New Jersey alone, there are over 1,000 lawsuits on file for IUD injuries.”
Further controversy surrounds whether the government should use tax dollars for abortifacients. An IUD is not “contraception” but, often, a method of abortion. IUDs inflame the lining of the uterus, making implantation of a newly conceived child impossible, inducing abortion.
The IUD stops implantation of the already conceived baby up to 95 percent of the time, according to the Life Issue Institute, based in Cincinnati.
The Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services has admitted that intrauterine devices cause early abortions. Brian Clowes of Human Life International told LifeSiteNews, “All of the longer-acting methods sometimes act as abortifacients…which will actually lead to an increase, not a decrease, in total abortions.”
Some object to the use of taxpayer dollars for the program, period. “I thought the Left wanted to keep the government out of women's bodies,” Seton Motley of Less Government commented to LifeSiteNews. “Unless women want something 'free.' Then, of course, the government's allowed in.”
Those who support the program say they are meeting an existing demand for long-term contraception. Dr. Michelle Moniz, a gynecologist in the wealthy Detroit suburb of Brighton, Michigan, says implantation at childbirth is good because women intend to obtain birth control, but do not follow through. “It's a lack of transportation, a lack of child care, unstable insurance, the inability to get time off work.”
But eerily reminiscent of the eugenics movement, the article in Contraception stated, “Reducing the number of children born to these mothers would significantly reduce the number of children born into poverty.”
Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!
The Washington Post agrees that the reason for the growing trend is that an IUD “is far cheaper” to the state “than the costs of an unplanned pregnancy.”
IUD use has more than doubled in recent years, helped along by promotion from the Obama administration. The CDC has suggested the use of the abortifacients as a means of reducing abortion due to unwanted pregnancies.
President Obama's Science Czar, John P. Holdren, once suggested the use of compulsory abortion for American women in order to meet strict population control levels set by a world government.
