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

Help us expose Planned Parenthood

$5 helps us reach 1,000 more people with the truth!


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Dr. Miriam Grossman speaks to large audience in Mississauga, Ontario Steve Jalsevac/LifeSite
Lianne Laurence

VIDEO: How DO you to talk to kids about sex? US sex-ed critic gives practical tips

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

MISSISSAUGA, ON, August 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Talking to their children about sex is “anxiety provoking to say the least,” for parents, says American sex-ed expert, Dr. Miriam Grossman.

“Some people just can’t even do it, and that’s okay,” the New York-based psychiatrist told the crowd of 1,000 who packed a Mississauga conference hall August 18 to hear her critique of the Ontario Liberal government’s controversial sex-ed curriculum.

After Grossman explained how the Liberal sex-ed curriculum is dangerously flawed and ideologically driven, she used the question-and-answer session to give parents much appreciated and sometimes humorous practical advice on how to teach their children about “the birds and the bees.”

“If you feel you can’t do it, maybe there’s someone else in the family or in the constellation of people that you know you can trust that could do it,” said Grossman, author of “You’re teaching my child WHAT?” and an internationally sought-after speaker on sex education.

A child, adolescent and adult psychiatrist with 12 years’ clinical experience treating students at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) clinic, Grossman said explaining sexuality and procreation to children is “a process,” that “shouldn’t ideally happen all at once. A child is not a miniature adult, and absorbs…new information differently than adults do.”

And parents need to be sure just what their child wants to know.

To illustrate this, Grossman referred to her earlier story about a father who gave his son every detail on human procreation after the boy asked him, “Dad, where do I come from?”

After the father finished, his son replied, “Well, that’s funny, because Johnny told me that he came from Montreal.”

“Try to find out what your child is really getting at, and, don’t give it all at once,” Grossman said. “You start with a little bit at a time…and you know, there’s so many variables here, and people have their own traditions and their own ways of explaining things, and something that might be right for my family might not be right for your family.”

She also advised that, when confronted with a four, five, six or seven-year-old asking about a pregnant woman, or where babies come, a parent can ask, “What a good question that is. What do you think?”

And parents can also legitimately put off the discussion when appropriate, telling the child, “That’s really not something you need to know about right now.”

“Wow, what a novel idea: Telling a child that they could wait until they’re older to discuss that subject,” Grossman said, adding that parents wouldn’t brook a six- or even fifteen-year-old child asking how much money they made or had in the bank. “Excuse me? Not every subject has to be an open book.”

However, the time will come when a child needs to know “about how her body’s going to change, about reproduction, about how a new life is created.”

That time, Grossman advised, is puberty, or “as puberty is beginning,” and this is especially so for girls, who, if unprepared for the surprise onset of menstruation “might think [they’re] dying.”

“The actual nitty-gritty about the birds and the bees and intercourse” can “be told in bits and pieces, or it can be told all at once, if you feel it’s necessary,” she said, adding that it’s beneficial if the parent acknowledges his or her awkwardness, because the child will think: “This must be such an important subject that my mother or my father is sitting there squirming, but he’s doing it anyway. I’m really loved.”

“And the children need to understand that as you grow up, you change a lot, not only physically but emotionally,” Grossman said, “and what may seem odd or disgusting when you’re ten years old, or whatever age, it becomes something very special and beautiful when you’re older and you’ll understand it later. You don’t have to understand it now.”


Know your child and guard your home

But as an essential foundation for this discussion, parents must both know their children and guard their home from the encroachments of a culture that Grossman described as “very, very sexualized” and “really horrible.”

“Children need parents who are loving but are also firm and authoritative,” she asserted.  “They don’t need best friends. They need us to guide them, to know what they’re doing, to be on top of what they’re doing.

So parents need to be aware of whom their child is “hanging around with, and what kind of movies are they watching…what’s going on with your child.”

“You need to know that anyway, even if it’s not about sex education,” she pointed out. “Try and know your child. Every child is different.”

And Grossman emphasized that it is “extremely important to be careful about what your child is exposed to in the home, in terms of television and Internet, obviously.”

Children need to understand that “just like you have garbage you take out of the house, you put it in the garbage bin, it’s dirty, it smells…there are other things that also don’t belong in the house.”

And children learn quickly what is, and is not, permissible inside the home, Grossman said. “Me, I keep kosher…If I go into a store, my kids know from a very young age, we don’t eat that.”

So they are used to the idea of “the world outside and the inside world, of inside your home, and inside your heart as well.”

Parents can also convey this by telling their children that “the world is an upside-down place, and sometimes the most special, holy subjects are…just thrown in the gutter. And that’s a bad thing. In our family, in our tradition, we don’t do that.”

“Sexuality is one of the subjects that in this upside-down world, it is sometimes just in the gutter,” she said. “And so I want you to tell your child to come to me when you have questions, I will give you the straight story about it.”

Grossman herself is “not even sure,” as she stated in her seminar, that sex education should be in the schools: “I believe sex education should be at home for those parents that want to do it.”

She also noted that parents “can make mistakes. We all make lots of mistakes but it’s okay, you can always come back and do it differently,” adding that this is “another wonderful message for your child. You know what, it’s okay to make mistakes, you can always go back and try and fix it.”

Grossman urged parents to visit her Facebook page, website and blog. “I have so much information you can get there that you’ll find useful,” and added that she will be publishing books for children, and has posted her critique of New York City’s sex-ed curriculum, which is similar to Ontario’s.

The parental backlash to that sex-ed curriculum, set to roll out in the province’s publicly funded schools this September, has been “amazing” Grossman noted.

Grossman’s seminar was sponsored by Mississauga-based HOWA Voice of Change along with the Canadian Families Alliance, an umbrella group representing more than 25 associations and 200,000 Ontarians opposed to the curriculum. The report on her devastating critique of the sex-ed curriculum can be found here, and the video here.

Ontario readers may find information and sign up for a September 2 province-wide protests at MPPs offices here. So far, there are protests planned for 92 of Ontario’s 107 constituencies. The parents’ movement seeking removal of the curriculum is urging all concerned citizens to join this special effort to influence individual Ontario legislators.

See related reports:

Ontario’s dangerous sex-ed is indoctrination not science says U.S. psychiatrist to large audience

Videos: US psychiatrist tells parents “stand firm” against dangerous sex-ed

See the LifeSiteNews feature page on the Ontario sex-ed curriculum containing nearly 100 LifeSite articles related to the issue

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Giulio Napolitano / Shutterstock.com
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

,

Did the pope just endorse a gay children’s book? Of course not, says Vatican

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

ROME, August 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- While mainstream media is gushing with news today that Pope Francis allegedly praised a children’s book that promotes gender theory, the Vatican is decrying what they called the "manipulation" of a cordial letter from an official in the Secretariat of State to suggest that the Vatican is promoting teachings contrary to the Gospel.

Italian children’s author Francesca Pardi was reported by The Guardian to have submitted a parcel of children’s books promoting the acceptance of homosexuality and gender theory to Pope Francis in June after Venice’s mayor Luigi Brugnaro publicly banned the author’s newest book, Piccolo Uovo (Little Egg), from children’s schools. The book was criticized by pro-family leaders for promoting non-natural family structures of two men and two women.

In a letter accompanying the books, Pardi wrote: “Many parishes across the country are in this period sullying our name and telling falsehoods about our work which deeply offends us. We have respect for Catholics. ... A lot of Catholics give back the same respect, why can’t we have the whole hierarchy of the church behind us?”

The Guardian is reporting that Pardi has now “found an unlikely supporter in Pope Francis,” who through his staff has responded to the author and is presented as “praising her work.” It quotes the following from a July 9 letter to Pardi from the Vatican.

“His holiness is grateful for the thoughtful gesture and for the feelings which it evoked, hoping for an always more fruitful activity in the service of young generations and the spread of genuine human and Christian values,” wrote Peter B. Wells, a senior official at the Vatican Secretariat of State, in a the letter The Guardian is reporting it has seen.  

While the letter gently calls the author to use her talents to spread “genuine human and Christian values,” The Guardian takes it as the pope’s endorsement of gender theory.

“Pope Francis sends letter praising gay children's book,” the paper’s headline states. “Italian book that explores different family types including same sex was banned by mayor of Venice, but pontiff becomes unlikely supporter,” reads the subtitle.

In a press release that Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi sent to LifeSiteNews on Friday, the vice speaker of the Vatican, Ciro Benedettini, made clear that the friendly reply letter to the author in no way approves of attitudes or positions that are contrary to Catholic teaching and the Gospels.

The Vatican's statement also says that in the original letter from the secretariat of state Wells merely "acknowledged receipt" of the materials sent by Pardi, and also made clear that the letter was private and not meant for publication. 

"In no way does a letter from the Secretary of State intend to endorse behaviors and teachings not in keeping with the Gospel," says the statement, decrying the "manipulation" of the letter.

Benedettini said the blessing of the pope at the end of the letter was meant to be for the author herself, and not to affirm positions concerning gender theory that are contrary to the Church's teaching. Using the letter to this end is erroneous, he said.

Pope Francis has strongly condemned the notion of “gender theory” on numerous occasions, saying that it is an “error of the human mind that leads to so much confusion.”

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Lisa Bourne

,

Poll suggests most US Catholics wrongly believe Pope Francis backs gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

August 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- A considerable majority of U.S. Catholics are in conflict with Church teaching on abortion and marriage, a new study says, and a startling number of those also believe Pope Francis backs homosexual “marriage.”

Despite Church teachings, Catholics in America also closely parallel the general populace in their support for abortion and homosexual “marriage,” falling short in the Biblical call to be “in the world but not of the world.”

The findings suggest what many Catholics have said is a climate of confusion in the midst of the Francis pontificate. Concerns over that confusion prompted a coalition of pro-family groups to respond with an international petition effort asking the pope to reaffirm Church teaching, drawing more than a half-million signatures.

The survey, conducted by Public Religions Research Institute, found that 60 percent of all U.S. Catholics favor legalized homosexual “marriage,” compared to 55 percent of all Americans. Likewise, 51 percent of Catholics think that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, with 53 percent of the general population holding this view.

The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is a sacramental union between one man and one woman, mirroring Christ and the Church respectively as bridegroom and bride.

The Church also teaches that life begins at conception, that each human life possesses dignity as a child of God and is to be afforded protection, making abortion an intrinsic evil.

Catholics, accounting for 22 percent of adults in the U.S. population, have a favorable view of Pope Francis, the study said, but they are very confused about his take on homosexual “marriage.”

Of the Catholics who back homosexual “marriage,” 49-percent also think the leader of the Catholic Church backs it along with them. Fifteen percent of those Catholics who oppose homosexual “marriage” also mistakenly believe Pope Francis supports it.

Pope Francis has made numerous statements in support of life, marriage and family, but the confusion remains.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

"After Ireland and the U.S. Supreme Court both approved same-sex 'marriage,' a strong reaffirmation of Church teaching could save the sacred institution of marriage, strengthen the family and dispel the lies of the homosexual revolution," TFP Student Action Director John Ritchie stated.  "Young Catholics -- even non-Catholics -- look to the Church as a beacon of morality and stability in our Godless culture, but some of our shepherds have issued confusing statements."

TFP Student Action is a part of the lay Catholic organization American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, and is part of the alliance behind the Filial Appeal, the petition asking the Holy Father to reinforce Catholic teaching at the Vatican’s upcoming Synod on the Family in October.

Ritchie explained how the confusion was aiding the Church’s enemies, and warned of the potential consequences.

"This prayerful petition asks Pope Francis to clear up the moral confusion that's been spreading against Natural and Divine Law," he said. "If the enemies of the family continue to chip away at holy matrimony, the future of the family and civilization itself will be in even more serious peril."

At press time more than 500,000 signature had been gathered for the appeal, including five cardinals, 117 bishops and hundreds of well-known civic leaders.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook