Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D, NRL-ETF Director of Education & Research

‘Pro-choice’ woman describes ‘nightmare’ chemical abortion at Planned Parenthood

Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D, NRL-ETF Director of Education & Research
By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D, NRL-ETF Director of Education & Research

September 16, 2013 (NRLC) - There have been a rash of articles in media of late pushing the line that informed consent laws, laws limiting chemical abortions, and challenges to so-called “web-cam abortions” are totally unnecessary, just pro-life ploys to put more obstacles in the way of women getting the “reproductive health care” they want and need.

They say that chemical abortions are safe, rather simple, sort of like a “heavy period,” that women get all the medical attention they need, that they are glad to be able to abort in the privacy of their own homes.

Try telling that to “Kay,” a married, “pro-choice” doctoral student in her late twenties who went through a horrific chemical abortion earlier this year courtesy of her area Planned Parenthood.

Kay’s story is featured on abortionpillrisks.org, the website founded and maintained by Monty Patterson. Since losing his daughter Holly to an infection connected with her chemical abortion in 2003, Mr. Patterson has devoted much of the last ten years to collecting and publicizing medical data and personal stories about RU-486 abortions

(RU-486 abortions employ at least two drugs. Mifepristone shuts down the unborn baby’s life support system, and misoprostol, a prostaglandin, which initiates powerful uterine contractions to expel the emaciated corpse.)

September 17th marks the 10th anniversary of Holly Patterson’s death.

Kay survived her chemical abortion, but said, “The whole ordeal was awful.” She described a nightmare from the moment she showed up at Planned Parenthood through the next several weeks.

Arriving at her appointment, Planned Parenthood made her husband stay in the waiting room while they brought her back for what Kay described as “an invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound that took nearly 45 minutes.” Yes, that would be the same “invasive” trans-vaginal ultrasound that allies of Planned Parenthood have likened to rape in other contexts. As we have noted on many occasions (and verified by Kay’s account), the use of such ultrasounds appears to be standard procedure at Planned Parenthood.

She was then directed to watch a video on the abortion pill which, according to Kay, “described the process very superficially” and compared it to a “heavy period.”

Kay had questions she wanted to ask the abortionist, but he had little time for her.

“In less than two minutes the physician covered the four medicines he was giving me [the abortifacient mifepristone, the prostaglandin misoprostol to induce contractions, plus drugs for pain and nausea]…, the procedure, and what I ought to expect.”

When he finished and she began to ask questions, “he handed me a one-page printout with drawn diagrams and said, ‘This will cover everything you need to know’.” When Kay pressed him, the doctor told her

“Don’t be so anal about this. The hardest part, getting here, is over. Just follow the directions on the printout. All the information you need is there.”

When Kay pointed out that one instruction he had given her personally — not to take anything with aspirin, which is a blood thinner — was not on the page he handed her, the abortionist told her, “If you have any problems call the number on the handout and don’t put anything in you vagina – fingers, crayons, etc. – for three weeks.”

Kay notes “That was the end of our ‘consultation.’” It lasted ten minutes.

She took the RU-486 there in the office and took the other pills home in a brown paper bag.

She took the prostaglandin misoprostol two days later, “follow[ing] the directions exactly,” and sat in a warm bath, waiting for the drugs to take effect.

Within 15 minutes of the pills dissolving, she felt heavy pressure in her lower abdomen and “uncontrollable cramping.” She felt so much pain she says she nearly fainted.

She was in such pain, she called her husband and says she “told him I was dying.” In her words, the pain was “unimaginable,” “indescribable,” “the worst pain I have ever felt.” Kay says “With every cramp I felt my heart race and my blood pressure plummet.” She says she felt “nauseated, dizzy and lightheaded.”

By the time her husband got home, “the water in the tub was colored red by blood and our dog was barking like mad in-between my screams.”

When her husband called the emergency number given to them by the clinic and described the situation, the people on the other end of the phone labeled this as “normal” and said she did not need to go to the hospital.

They suggested she take some more pain pills if she was “uncomfortable.”

Kay said it was also then that they told her husband that she should not be in the tub because an infection could enter the uterus [such infections killed Holly Patterson and at least seven other chemical abortion patients]. This instruction, Kay noted, was yet one more not on the information sheet she’d received.

Her husband got her out of the tub, and into the bed. She took more pain pills, totaling four hydrocodones in less than an hour and a half, but these “barely cut the pain.” Kay says, “I faded in and out, shivering and sweating.”

It was then, with her husband lying next to her, that Kay says, “I went through the worst experience of my life.”

“After two hours of this,” Kay says, “I felt a rush of blood and a large lemon-sized clot came out. I assume that was the pregnancy. I was horrified. Why hadn’t anyone told me that it would be like this?”

Her husband cleaned the blood off her, cleaned up the towels, changed the sheets, dressed her because she was too weak from the pain. She took two more pain pills and finally slept.

A follow-up trans-vaginal ultrasound at three weeks confirmed that the abortion had occurred and that there were no signs of infection.

But the process was far from over.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Kay says, “I still bled for the next five weeks. Sometimes it would just be spotting, but at other times there would be gushes of blood.”

She mentions one particular afternoon, a month or so later, when she was getting out of the car and felt a gush. She thought she had simply had a sudden loss of bladder control, but when she stood up, she found the seat of the car “was covered in blood.”

“There was blood everywhere – on the seat, on the floor of the car, on the back of my skirt, down my legs (and completely soaked through the mega-pad that Planned Parenthood had recommended.”

When her husband called the emergency number again, he was again informed that this was “normal.” And once again, he was told that she didn’t need to go to the hospital – unless this was happening continuously.

There were other occasions when she bled through her pad and her pants during meetings. “Embarrassed,” Kay says, “I spent most of my time depressed and hiding at home.”

One should keep in mind that, to Planned Parenthood, Kay’s experience was “normal.” As far as they are concerned, she experienced no reportable complication and is likely to be counted as one more successful chemical abortion.”

Kay, though, saw her ordeal as “awful,” as “traumatic.” She was not happy with Planned Parenthood or the way they treated her.

“I was angry that I hadn’t been sufficiently told or warned about the potential dangers and side effects of the medical [chemical] abortion.”

She told this to a friend who suggested that “Planned Parenthood probably didn’t want to ‘scare me away from having an abortion.’”

Kay, unrepentant about her abortion and still “pro-choice” to the core, still says efforts to “help women make the difficult choice to end their pregnancy” should not “come at the expense of fully informing them.” If she had been given all the information, Kay says she would have opted for the surgical procedure.

Kay says, “I cannot imagine what it would have been like to be a teenager or even a young woman going through that experience.” She had her husband with her, but says “What I keep thinking about is, ‘What if I had been alone?’”

The trouble is, of course, that many women, including many teenagers, do go through these traumatic abortions all alone. Some, in places where Planned Parenthood does webcam abortions, never even spend time in the same room as a doctor, much less even ten minutes.

And all a woman gets with her pills is a handout with limited information and maybe a scrap of paper with a phone number on it to call in an emergency. Note that turning a bath tub red with her blood or bleeding all over her car apparently does not qualify!

The new chemical abortion methods aren’t safer, aren’t easier, and they certainly aren’t almost painless. And the only reason women might think otherwise is because someone hasn’t shared the whole truth with them, the truth about what these abortions are like and what they do to women and to their unborn children.

And as result, those women have been exploited, traumatized, and injured.

That’s why these laws are needed.

Even a “pro-choicer” like Kay will tell you that women are not being given the whole story.

Reprinted with permission from NRLC

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, , , ,

The first pro-abortion Republican enters the 2016 presidential race

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

EXETER, NH, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The large and expanding field of would-be Republican presidential candidates grew by one today, as George Pataki became the first GOP presidential hopeful this election season to openly support abortion-on-demand.

The 69-year-old long-shot candidate also has a history of supporting homosexual legislative causes.

In the weeks leading up to his formal announcement, George Pataki took out TV ads asking Republicans to refrain from talking about abortion and gay “marriage,” branding them “distractions.”

“In 12 years [as governor], I don’t think I talked about that issue twice,” he once said of abortion.

On same-sex “marriage,” he says, “I think, leave it to the states. I don’t think it’s a role in Washington.”

However, Pataki has a long history of enacting the homosexual political agenda as governor of New York from 1994-2006. He signed a “hate crimes” law that added the words “gay” and “lesbian” to New York state law for the first time.

He signed the Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Act (SONDA), which prohibits business owners from “discriminating” against homosexuals in housing or hiring, with an exemption only for religious institutions.

He also added sexual orientation to state civil rights laws, alongside such immutable characteristics as race and sex, in an apparent quid pro quo for a gay activist group's endorsement in his last run for governor. The New York Times reported that, under pressure from Pataki, then then-Senate Majority Leader “shifted his position on the bill as part of what is tacitly acknowledged, even by Senator [Joseph] Bruno's senior aides, to have been a deal to win an endorsement for Governor Pataki from the state's largest gay rights group, the Empire State Pride Agenda.”

After the LGBT activist group endorsed Pataki in 2002, citing a long list of his service to the homosexual political cause, Pataki personally lobbied senators for the bill's passage, then signed it into law that December.

Coupled with his stance on gun control, environmentalism, and other issues, he stands well to the left of the Republican mainstream.

The three-term governor of New York, who belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, took his own advice by largely avoiding social issues today. The closest he came was his vow, “I'd repeal oppressive laws like ObamaCare and end Common Core.”

He added that he would “fire every current IRS employee abusing government power to discriminate on the basis of politics or religion. That is not America!”

Otherwise, Pataki's announcement speech hewed to stand pat Republican issues like reducing taxes, shrinking the number of federal employees, increasing military spending, and supporting entrepreneurship.

He began by thanking his supporters, in English and Spanish.

Smiling, his head pivoting between twin teleprompters, he said, “Let me tell you some of the things I'd do right away to get oppressive government off the backs of Americans.”

He would institute a lifetime ban on congressmen acting as lobbyists after they leave office. “If you ever served one day in Congress, you will never be a lobbyist,” he said. He favors forcing Congress to live under the laws it passes, so there will be “no special rules for the powerful.”

He cited his history of cutting taxes, reducing welfare rolls, and leaving his state with billions of dollars in surplus. “That's what our policies can do,” he said. “I know we can do the same thing for the United States.”

In recent weeks, he has called for a more interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. Today, he reminded his audience that he was governor of New York in 9/11. “I will not fear the lesson of September 11,” he said. “To protect us, first we must protect the border,” he said – an unexpected phrase, as Pataki supports amnesty for the at least 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States.

“We will stand with our ally, Israel, a democracy on the front lines of terror and barbarism,” he said.

Like former Sen. Rick Santorum, who announced he is running for president yesterday, Pataki agreed that “if necessary, American forces will be used to actually defeat and destroy ISIS on the ground – although he promised not to become “the world's policeman.”

Some of his campaign promises drew skepticism, such as seeking to develop self-driving cars and to cure Alzheimer's disease and cancer within the next decade.

The speech's venue was chosen deliberately by Pataki, who considered entering the presidential race in 2000, 2008, and 2012. The town of Exeter, New Hampshire, claims to be the founding place of the Republican Party. (Ripon, Wisconsin, makes a similar claim.)

More importantly, the first-in-the-nation primary skews more libertarian on social issues than evangelical-dominated Iowa and South Carolina, so Pataki has essentially staked his candidacy on doing well in New Hampshire. Fellow pro-abortion Republican Rudy Giuliani made a similar bet in 2008, banking on a good showing among transplanted New Yorkers in the Florida primary. He left the race after finishing a distant third.

Short of a stunning upset in the Granite State, Pataki has little chance of breaking through the pack this year. A Fox News poll ranks him dead last among 16 announced and potential candidates. Holly Bailey of Yahoo! News said, “George Pataki would never say this, but you do have to wonder if he's sort of, maybe, gaming for vice president.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Pataki is not the first “pro-choice” Republican to run for president.  Giuliani (who supported partial birth abortion) and Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore (another potential 2016 candidate, who supports abortion during the first trimester) ran in 2008. Twelve years earlier, both California Gov. Pete Wilson and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter supported abortion-on-demand. Arlen Specter later left the party and became a Democrat.

In 1988, General Alexander Haig opposed a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So did Texas Gov. John Connally in 1980.

George H.W. Bush supported abortion and voted for Planned Parenthood funding early in his career but changed his position by the time he ran for president the second time, in 1988.

President Gerald Ford was the last Republican nominee to proclaim himself “pro-choice.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Steve Jalsevac / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, , , ,

Ireland ‘defied God’ by voting for gay ‘marriage’: Cardinal Burke

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

OXFORD, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Cardinal Raymond Burke lamented how formerly Catholic Ireland has gone further than the pagans in the pre-Christian days of old and “defied God” by calling homosexual behavior “marriage” in the referendum last week.

“I mean, this is a defiance of God. It’s just incredible. Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behaviours, they never dared to say this was marriage,” he told the Newman Society, Oxford University’s Catholic organization, in an address Wednesday about the intellectual heritage of Pope Benedict XVI. The Tablet, Britain’s liberal Catholic newspaper, reported his remarks.

On Friday, 1.2 million Irish people voted to amend the country’s constitution to say: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” A little over 734,000 people voted against the proposal. 

Burke said that he could not understand “any nation redefining marriage.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

The cardinal also emphasized the important role that parents play in protecting their children in a culture increasingly hostile to God’s laws. “The culture is thoroughly corrupted, if I may say so, and the children are being exposed to this, especially through the internet,” he said. One practical piece of advice that he offered families was to put computers in public areas to prevent children from “imbib[ing] this poison that’s out there.”

During the same Oxford visit, but during a homily at a Mass the day before, Burke called marriage between a man and woman a “fundamental truth” that has been “ignored, defied, and violated.”

Burke warned during the homily of the dangers of “various ideological currents” and of “human deception and trickery which strives to lead us into error.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
John Stonestreet

,

Why young Christians can’t grasp our arguments against gay ‘marriage’

John Stonestreet
By John Stonestreet

May 28, 2015 (BreakPoint.org) -- For five years, Dr. Abigail Rine has been teaching a course on gender theory at George Fox University, an evangelical school in the Quaker tradition.

At the beginning of the semester, she tells her students that “they are guaranteed to read something they will find disagreeable, probably even offensive.”

Writing at FirstThings.com recently, she related how five years ago it was easy to find readings that challenged and even offended the evangelical college students “considering the secular bent of contemporary gender studies.”

But today, things are different. “Students now,” she says, “arrive in my class thoroughly versed in the language and categories of identity politics; they are reticent to disagree with anything for fear of seeming intolerant—except, of course, what they perceive to be intolerant.”

And what do they find “intolerant”? Well, in her class, an essay entitled “What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson, which was the beginning of the book “What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense.”

In their article, Girgis, George, and Anderson defend what they call the conjugal view of marriage. “Marriage,” they write, “is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other … that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together.” They defend this view against what they call the “revisionist view” of marriage, which redefines marriage to include, among other things, same-sex couples.

“My students hate it,” Dr. Rine wrote. They “lambast the article.” “They also,” she adds, “seem unable to fully understand the argument.” And again, these are evangelical students at an evangelical school.

The only argument for conjugal marriage they’ve ever encountered has been the wooden proof-texting from the Bible. And besides, wrote Rine, “What the article names as a ‘revisionist’ idea of marriage—marriage as an emotional, romantic, sexual bond between two people—does not seem ‘new’ to my students at all, because this is the view of marriage they were raised with, albeit with a scriptural, heterosexual gloss.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

As Rine points out “the redefinition of marriage began decades ago” when “the link between sexuality and procreation was severed in our cultural imagination.”

And if marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction,” then it seems mean-spirited to Rine’s students to argue that marriage by its very nature excludes same-sex couples.

And where do students get the idea that marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction”? Well, everywhere—television, church, school, their homes, in youth groups.

Rine writes, “As I consider my own upbringing and the various ‘sex talks’ I encountered in evangelical church settings over the past twenty years, I realize that the view of marital sex presented there was primarily revisionist.”

In other words, once you say, “I do,” you get “the gift” of sex which is presented as “a ‘gift’ largely due to its [erotic], unitive properties, rather than its intrinsic capacity to create life.” Even in the Church, children have become an optional add-on to married life rather than its primary purpose.

What can we do to win back our children, our churches, and the culture? In our recent book “Same Sex Marriage,” Sean McDowell and I lay out a game plan. We offer strategies for the short-term and the long-term, with the ultimate goal: re-shaping the cultural imagination towards what God intended marriage to be, starting with the church. Come to BreakPoint.org to pick up your copy.

As Chuck Colson once said in a BreakPoint commentary about marriage, “We Christians are very good at saying ‘No.’ But we’ve got to get better at saying ‘Yes’: showing how God’s plan for humanity is a blessing. That His ways, including faithful, life-giving marriage between one man and one woman, lead to human flourishing physically, emotionally, and spiritually.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Reprinted with permission from Break Point.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook