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

Red alert! Last call.

Please support fearless pro-life and pro-family reporting. Donate to our summer campaign today.


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
John-Henry Westen / LifeSiteNews.com
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

Pope tells Girl Scouts to oppose ‘ideologies’ against God’s design for marriage

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

ROME, June 30, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis told Girl Scout and Girl Guide leaders from across the globe last week that it is essential they promote respect for marriage and family according to God’s design.

The pope’s remarks came as both the international organization, World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, and Girl Scouts USA face criticism over support for abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, and contraception.

"It is very important today that a woman be adequately appreciated, and that she be able to take up fully the place that corresponds to her, be it in the Church, be it in society,” Pope Francis said in his address on the morning of June 26, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision imposing same-sex “marriage” on the country.

In the face of ideologies that seek to destroy the truths about marriage and family, he said, the formation of girls through Guiding "is absolutely determinant for the future."

"We are in a world in which the most contrary ideologies are spreading to the nature and design of God on the family and on marriage. Therefore, it is a question of educating girls not only to the beauty and grandeur of their vocation of women, in a just and differentiated relation between man and woman, but also to assume important responsibilities in the Church and in society," Pope Francis said.

The pope spoke during a private audience at the world meeting of the International Conference of Catholic Guides (ICCG), which took place in Rome from June 25-30.

Stressing that among educational movements Guiding has played a pivotal role in the faith formation of young women, the pope said, "Education is, in fact, the indispensable means to enable girls to become active and responsible women, proud and happy of their faith in Christ lived in every day life. Thus they will participate in the building of a world permeated by the Gospel."

“To Live the Joy of the Gospel as a Guide” was the theme for the ICCG meeting in Rome, with the stated purpose of reaffirming and strengthening the organization's 50-year-old history within the Catholic Church.

Among the participants at the ICCG meeting in Rome were Girl Scouts USA (GSUSA) CEO Anna Maria Chávez and National President Kathy Hopinkah Hannan.

In a statement, Chavez maintained that faith is “at the heart of Girl Scouts, and is woven into everything the organization does to inspire girls to take action to make the world a better place.”

However, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has cautioned that some aspects of the Girl Scouts pedagogy go against Catholic teaching and doctrine.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

A report by the USCCB focused on three issues:

  1. GSUSA's relationship with groups like Planned Parenthood and international affiliate World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGS);
  2. GSUSA's views on issues related "to human sexuality, contraception, and abortion";
  3. and various materials and resources GSUSA has that have "inappropriate content."

With regard to WAGGGS, the report notes that while this group claims it does not formally back abortion and "reproductive rights," language on its website leaves no doubt that such support exists, as well as support for contraceptive use.

Numerous pro-life and pro-family groups have organized boycotts of Girl Guide cookies in protest of the organization's embrace of feminist politics and activism.

The pope's address to the ICCG meeting, translated into English by Zenit, is available on the Zenit website here.

Advertisement
Featured Image
St. Peter Damian
Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve

St. Peter Damien (1049): what Church MUST do in response to rampant homosexuality among clergy

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve
By Steve Jalsevac

June 29, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The rise of the power and influence of homosexual priests, bishops and cardinals, as well as influential laity, has been a major factor in the growing chaos within Catholicism over the past 60 years. This disorder within the Catholic Church has had a negative impact on the entire world because of the resulting decline in the positive influences that Catholicism has had on civilization for many centuries.

To think that what is happening now is new, however, betrays an ignorance of history. In 1049, when St. Peter Damien wrote his treatise, Book of Gomorrah (Liber Gomorrhianus), to Pope Leo IX, homosexuality and sexual perversion in general were far more openly rampant within the clergy than today.  This horrendous state of affairs is what the Saint addressed in his appeal to the Pope for urgently needed reforms.

We often hear from sleepy, comfortable, cowardly, timid or cultural Catholics, and especially from clergy who are directly implicated in homosexuality, that we should never criticize priests, bishops and especially the Pope. Supposedly, that is a greater sin than that of the heretics and sexual perverts facilitating great personal suffering and sending souls to Hell without anyone doing what is necessary to either convert or stop them.

St. Peter Damien was not so foolish as to listen to such nonsense denying God His justice at a time when the Church appeared to be in its death throes. He understood the grave duty to be blunt about the dangers and sinfulness, to not minimize the catastrophe that would come if strong actions were not quickly taken and to demand corrective actions. And yet, he also emphasized that all of this must be done with charity and Christian hope for the persons involved in the moral corruption. Their conversion was above all hoped and prayed for, rather than their condemnation for eternity.

An Italian translated version of the Book of Gomorrah has recently been published. An English version carefully translated by one of our LifeSite journalists will also soon become available.

On Feb. 11 of this year the Rorate Caeli website published excerpts from the introduction by Professor Roberto de Mattei to the Italian version.

Following are some paragraphs from that introduction that I hope will jar awake some of the faithful, especially considering what is going on now in the United States as a result of the mad Supreme Court decision and the moral chaos around the Synod on the Family regarding Church sexual teachings.
 

Excerpts from the Introduction:

St. Peter Damien (1007-1072) Abbot of the Fonte Avellana Monastery and subsequently Cardinal/Bishop of Ostia, was one of the most outstanding figures of Catholic reform in the XI century. His Liber Gomorrhianus, appeared around 1049, in an age when corruption was widely spread, even in the highest ranks of the ecclesiastical world.

In this writing, addressed to Pope Leo IX, Peter Damien condemns the perverted habits of his time in a language that knows no false mercy or compromises. He is convinced that of all the sins, the gravest is sodomy, a term which includes all the acts against nature and which want to satisfy sexual pleasure by separating it from procreation. “If this absolutely ignominious and abominable vice is not immediately stopped with an iron fist – he writes – the sword of Divine wrath will fall upon us, bringing ruin to many.”

There have been times in (the Church’s) history when sanctity pervades Her and others when the defection of Her members cause Her to collapse into darkness, appearing almost as if the Divinity has abandoned Her.

Peter Damien’s voice resounds today, as it did yesterday, with encouragement and comfort for those, like him, who have fought, suffered, cried and hoped, throughout the course of history.

He did not moderate his language, but kept it fiery to show his indignation. He was fearless in voicing an uncompromising hatred for sin and it was precisely this hatred that rendered his love burning for the Truth and the Good.

Today, at the beginning of the third millennium of Christ’s birth, priests, bishops and Episcopal conferences are arguing for married priests; they are placing in doubt the indissolubility of the marriage bond between man and woman and at the same time, accepting the introduction of laws for homosexual pseudo-marriage. Sodomy is not being thought of as a sin that cries to God for vengeance but is diffused in seminaries, colleges, ecclesiastical universities and even inside the Sacred Walls of the Vatican itself.

Liber Gomorrhianus reminds us that there is something worse than moral vice practiced and theorized. It is the silence that should speak, the abstention that should intervene, the bond of complicity that is established among the wicked and of those, who with the pretext of avoiding scandal are silent, and, by being silent, consent.  

Graver still, is the acceptance of homosexuality by churchmen, thought of as a “positive” tension towards the good, worthy of pastoral care and juridical protection and not as an abominable sin. In the summary Relatio post disceptationem of the first week’s work in the Synod of Bishops in October 2014, a paragraph affirmed that:   “homosexual persons have gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community”, with an invitation to the Bishops “…are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing them a fraternal space in our communities?”

This scandalous statement was removed from the final report, but some bishops and cardinals, inside and outside the Synod Hall, insisted on the appeal to look for the positive aspects of a union against nature, going as far as hoping for “a way to describe the rights of people living in same-sex unions.”

St. Peter Damian as a simple monk, and with greater reason as a cardinal, did not hesitate in accusing even the Popes of that time for their scandalous omissions. Will the reading of the book Liber Gomorrhianus instill the spirit of St. Peter Damien in the hearts of some prelates or laypeople, by shaking them out of their torpor and force them to speak and act?

Even if abysmally far from the holiness and prophetic spirit of St. Peter Damien, let us make his indignation against evil, ours, and with the words that conclude his treatise we turn to the Vicar of Christ, His Holiness, Pope Francis, presently reigning, so that he may intervene and bring an end to these doctrinal and moral scandals: “May the Almighty Lord assist us, Most Reverend Father, so that during the time of Your Apostolate, all of the monstrosity of this vice be destroyed and the state of the Church, presently supine, may wholly rise up again in all its vigour.”

The book can be found in Italian here. 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Phil Lawler

So now is it ‘hate speech’ to deplore the Obergefell decision?

Phil Lawler
By Phil Lawler

June 30, 2015 (CatholicCulture.org) - The ink was barely dry on last week’s Supreme Court ruling when Father James Martin, SJ, began scolding Catholics who were, from his decorous perspective, too strident in denouncing the decision.

”No issue brings out so much hatred from so many Catholics as homosexuality,” Father Martin told his Facebook followers. He repeated the same message several times throughout the day, warning commenters that they must not indulge in “homophobia” and suggesting that someone who questioned whether we were all expected to sing “Kumbaya” was illustrating his point. So is sarcasm now prima facie evidence of hatred?

In my own surfing through the internet, reading scores of posts on the Obergefell decision, I can honestly say that I did not see a single message, a single comment, that struck me as hate-filled. Perhaps Father Martin’s email traffic is qualitatively different from mine. Or perhaps—far more likely, I’m afraid—he sees “hatred” where I see only vehement disagreement.

Is it possible to be angry about the Obergefell decision, to consider it a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the Constitution, without being viewed as a hater? Wait; let’s turn that question upside-down. Is it possible to see all serious disagreement with the decision as hate-speech, without celebrating the outcome of the Obergefell case?

I ask the latter question, you see, because if Father Martin was upset by the Supreme Court ruling, his dismay did not show through on his Twitter feed. He recommended three columns reacting to the decision: one by a fellow Jesuit, recounting how his grandmother could not marry her lesbian partner; another by the gay New York Times columnist Frank Bruni, celebrating the decision; the third by the gay activist/blogger Andrew Sullivan, also celebrating.

The recommendation for Andrew Sullivan’s piece was particularly striking because of the title: “It Is Accomplished”—an explicit reference to the words of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Father Martin, who was horrified by so much of what he read on Friday afternoon, let that blasphemous headline pass without comment. His demand for the use of temperate language, and for avoiding comments that others would find offensive, was applied to only one side of the post-Obergefell debate.

And that’s likely to be the party line for politically-correct Catholics in the wake of this momentous decision. We are allowed to disagree with the Supreme Court, politely, but not too forcefully. Any strident denunciation of the ruling or its logic might be interpreted as hate-speech, which of course is unacceptable. As the secular left clamps down on religious expression—and we’ve already been served notice that the crackdown is coming-- the Catholic left will worry aloud that, yes, some strong public expressions of religious beliefs are distasteful.

The influence of this approach, with its keen anxiety to avoid provocation, has already been evident in the statements released by some American bishops in response to the ruling. Archbishop Gregory says that he disagrees with the Court, but if you don’t know why he disagrees before you read his statement, you’re not likely to be any better informed when you’re finished. Cardinal Wuerl reminds us that we must hate the sin but love the sinner; he neglects to mention what the sin is. And Archbishop Cupich gives no indication at all that he disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling.

We have a long uphill struggle facing us as we seek to restore a proper understanding of marriage, to revive appreciation for the natural law, and to undo this wretched judicial decision. We cannot expect success if we go into the battle unarmed. If we begin the debate by saying that we must not offend our adversaries—even after our adversaries have declared our most fundamental beliefs to be offensive—we are doomed to failure.

We already know how the battle will unfold, because the campaign to crush resistance to same-sex marriage is already underway. The militant left will choose vulnerable targets—a pizza-parlor here, a baker there—and vilify them as “haters.” People who been trained to see “hatred” in any firm disagreement will nod in solemn approval as the alleged offenses are harshly punished. And so juggernaut will keep rolling, gaining momentum, until it reaches us.

There is an alternative. We can speak the truth. Yes, certainly we should avoid making unduly provocative statements. But since we are trying to provoke reactions, we cannot pull all our punches.

More to the point, if we’re going into battle—and we are—we need to know who’s on our side, and who’s working against us.

This article was originally published on CatholicCulture.org and is re-published with permission.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook