• Home
  • About
  • BIO
  • Conferences
  • Contact
  • Follow Gerard on FB & Twitter
  • Speaking

Coming Home

Dr. Gerard M. Nadal: Science in Service of the Pro-Life Movement

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Invitation to an Advent Day of Recollection with Dr. Scott Hahn
Cardinal Albino Luciani, the Future Pope John Paul I, on In Vitro Fertilization »

Medical Science and Truth on Trial in New York City

November 11, 2010 by Gerard M. Nadal

My article in today’s Headline Bistro.

Next week I will join other doctors and concerned citizens and give testimony before the New York City Council on the truth of abortion’s myriad effects on women’s physical and mental health, future fertility and pregnancies.

The City Council is proposing legislation that will severely restrict the ability of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) and Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs) in their outreach to women contemplating abortion. (Read the particulars here). Council members have swallowed the lies from Planned Parenthood and NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) about the safety and efficacy of contraceptives and abortions, as well as the assertion that CPCs and PRCs speak of these issues with no medical expertise and are driven by “medieval doctrines,” according to one Council member.

At the center of this storm is the president and founder of Expectant Mother Care Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Chris Slattery, who operates twelve centers in New York City. Surrounding Slattery are Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the entire registry of over 250 New York City abortionists, and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

Chris Slattery

Chris Slattery’s success has raised their ire. This past October, Expectant Mother Care turned twenty-five. Under Slattery, they have served over 100,000 women with over 32,000 documented saves of children from abortion. At a national average of $425 for abortions (many being much more expensive in New York), that means EMC has deprived the abortion industry of at least 13.6 million dollars. Therein lies the real issue.

New York City is the abortion capital of the United States. While we rejoice with Kansans, who last week announced that there are only three abortion centers left in their state, the absolute number of abortionists in just this city alone is nothing short of mind-boggling. Abortion is big money here in this city, and with big money comes big distortions of the truth.

Chief among the many distortions is the notion that PRCs don’t speak with medical expertise. In truth, Slattery retains medical directors for his chain of PRCs, which use ultrasound technology in their counseling of clients. (In this, I am proud of the role played by my brother Knights of Columbus in our Ultrasound Initiative, where we pay for half of the machine and require the oversight of a medical doctor).

PRCs counsel using medical information from top-tier medical journals. They reported at the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

• By 2008, at least 59 studies had demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature birth or low birth weight risk in women with prior induced abortions.

• (According to an Institute of Medicine Report) “African-American women deliver their infants before 37 weeks of gestation twice as often as women of other races, and deliver their infants before 32 weeks of gestation three times as often as white women. . .”

• African-American women have three times as many abortions as white women, which accounts for the increases seen in premature African-American births.

• In a 14-year study conducted in Finland, of over 1.2 million pregnancy events, women who chose to abort their pregnancy died of ALL CAUSES combined (disease, suicide, accident, homicide) within a year at a rate 3X higher than women who chose to deliver.
• “According to the research, a minimum of 20-30% of women experience adverse, prolonged post-abortion psychological reactions. The results of the four largest, record-based studies in the world have shown abortion is associated with increased risk for mental health problems.”—Priscilla Coleman, Ph.D. Bowling Green State University

• John Thorp, M.D., of University of North Carolina School of Medicine analyzed three studies and found in women who had a previous induced abortion a 30% increase in placenta previa rates compared to women with no abortion history. Thorp also noted a meta-analysis by Anath et. al., which found a 70% increase in placenta previa rates in women with a previous abortion compared to women with no abortion history (OB GYN Survey, Vol 58, No. 1, 2002).

• 50% increased risk of breast cancer in women having abortions before a first full term pregnancy.

And those are just the highlights. Somewhere along the way the right to an abortion has given way to a mandate to have an abortion, especially in minorities. Ostensibly this is supposed to relieve poverty and increase opportunity. According to that logic, with blacks and Hispanics combined representing 25% of the U.S. population and having 52% (25 million since 1973) of all abortions, Harlem and Detroit ought now resemble Scarsdale and Beverly Hills. The tragic fact is that the inner city is more squalid and desperate than ever before.

Since 1960, there have been over 1.8 billion abortions worldwide – most in the name of relieving poverty, the poverty New York’s misguided City legislators believe abortion can attenuate.

So on Tuesday, Nov. 16, several of us will go into the City Council chambers and meet with certain ridicule as we fight to protect our CPCs and PRCs – centers whose sonograms, in their experience, convince 90% of women to keep their babies. We don’t fear the ridicule. We accept it as evidence of the opposition’s fear of our effectiveness. What we fear is that an illegitimate constitutional “right” is now being transmogrified into an imperative through pending legislation aimed at scaring away pregnant women before they come through our doors. Such legislation will herd thousands more each year to their slaughter.

In the weeks to come, we will be lobbying legislators with the truth as we deliver packets of medical journal articles. As we do so, we invoke the protections of our Blessed Mother and Saint Gerard Majella, patron saint of expectant mothers.

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Abortion, Birth Control, Planned Parenthood | Tagged American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Christine Quinn, Crisis Pregnancy Centers, New York City Council, Planned Parenthood, Pregnancy Resource Centers | 34 Comments

34 Responses

  1. on November 11, 2010 at 10:34 PM Theresa

    I think it is important to remember while Chris does great work and has the most CPC’s in NYC, this legislation impacts ALL the CPC’s in NYC..every one of them. The Sisters of Life, Carenet, Midtown Pregnancy Support, Good Counsel, Heartbeat, Pregnancy Care Center etc etc etc and I am sure it is just the beginning of a nationwide effort by NARAL.

    Glad to hear you are joining us on Tuesday ! See you then!


  2. on November 11, 2010 at 11:55 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    Theresa,

    I meant no slight to the many other centers, but am working on length restrictions at HB. I’ll see you on Tuesday! God Bless!


  3. on November 12, 2010 at 1:14 AM cranium

    “African-American women have three times as many abortions as white women, which accounts for the increases seen in premature African-American births.” – were lifestyle and other factors such as diet and economic stress accounted for in these studies?

    On the basis of the available data which would be considered pertinent you may actually find it harmful to your case if you claim “50% increased risk of breast cancer in women having abortions before a first full term pregnancy’. It’s too easily refuted.


  4. on November 12, 2010 at 1:17 AM Gerard M. Nadal

    So start refuting cranium, and be sure to reference your sources.


  5. on November 12, 2010 at 11:05 AM Nicole

    Great article! Will keep you in my prayers!


  6. on November 12, 2010 at 11:05 AM Nicole

    Cranium, I’m dying for you to elaborate on lifestyle and food choices…..I’m trying to hold it together.


  7. on November 12, 2010 at 11:23 AM Lois Welch

    Perhaps abortion clinics should be required to post the following disclosures at their doors:
    1. We will not share with you the many documented studies showing the long-term psychological and physical risks of abortion.
    2. We will not assist you if you decide to continue your pregnancy.
    3. We will not show you the ultrasound pictures of “the contects of your uterus” unless you ask.
    4. We will not follow up with you if you have complications after the abortion.
    5. We will not refund your up-front payment for the abortion if you change your mind.


  8. on November 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM California Yankee

    Though I am most definitely pro-choice, I am probably one of your more conservative pro-choice readers in that I am a long-time supporter of a woman’s right to choose an abortion, but AFTER she has been informed regarding the physical, mental and emotional risks, and after she has been given a sonogram.

    Good luck sharing your ideas with our friends in the NYC Council, a group of people whom I’m sure extol the virtues of DIVERSITY! I work in academia, where DIVERSITY! is the mantra (hence my sarcasm in spelling it in all upper caps, and with an !) and is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. There is precious little DIVERSITY! in thought and practice in academia, and among those whom you will be meeting.


  9. on November 12, 2010 at 3:44 PM astran

    Thank you Dr. Nadal for all your pro-life efforts.


  10. on November 12, 2010 at 4:08 PM Pati Adams

    You know when I hear and talk to pro-choice people most of them say that there is no problem with women after abortion.
    Last night a group of students protested in front of the center I work in and one of the papers that they were handing out it said:

    Don’t get Tricked! Fact or Fiction:

    FICTION: Abortion is dangerous and can lead to sterility.
    FACT: Medical research shows that abortion does NOT increase risk of complications in the future.

    FICTION: Abortion is psychologically damaging, causing
    “Post Abortion Syndrome”.
    FACT: The American Psychological Association found that a women who chooses abortion is at NO GREATER RISK for mental-health problems than if she carries a pregnancy to term.
    FICTION: Condoms & other methods of birth control are not effective, only abstinence is reliable.
    FACT: Condoms and other birth control, when used correctly are over 98% EFFECTIVE
    DEMAND MEDICALLY ACCURATE INFORMATION

    This is one of the papers that they were giving out to people. The sad part of this is, there is millions of men and women out there that are hurting, so that is telling them that what they are feeling and hurting from is nothing at all, so they are being validated all over again. Some may say,”we’ll maybe it is just me and maybe they are right.”

    I had many serious problems after my 3 abortions. First, my ob-gyn never told me all the facts, he told me it was just a blood mass and in 10 minutes I would be back to normal, so he lied to me(did you ever think your doctor would lie to you?), he perforated my uterus, I almost bled to death, I had to go back to the hospital to remove the remain of the baby in me, that followed by nightmares, drugs and alcohol to drown the pain, broken marriage, broken children, self destructive life style, suicidal. So I ask, Would this effect anyone? or is this just a small matter in my head? I challenge people to go to Operation Outcry or Silent No More and see the women that have had abortions and see their stories.

    I thank my Lord and Savior for saving me and healing me from the pain that I endured many years ago, so saying that:

    They silenced us years ago, but now this women will not remain silent any more


  11. on November 12, 2010 at 6:40 PM cranium

    It was a question Nicole, not a criticism or negation.

    Whilst I would relish the opportunity to ‘amend’ Lois’s suggested disclosure poster, I shall resist.

    Dr. Nadal, it’s not me you have to worry about. The courtroom has a tendency to devalue all the evidence from someone if it is found that their claims are exaggerated.


  12. on November 12, 2010 at 7:48 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    Cranium,

    I use top-tier medical journals and demographic data from CDC, NIH, NIMH, FDA, and bureaus of vital statistics. Those who frequent this blog know that I link only to the finest data available. The exaggeration is in your mind, unless of course you wish to suggest that you know better than the experts in the field, the peer reviewers, and the journal editors.


  13. on November 12, 2010 at 7:52 PM cranium

    Yep, I know how you operate Dr. Nadal. I’m not here to argue the ABC link on this occasion. Just pointing out that you do need to be careful if presenting ‘evidence’.

    Do you have an answer for the actual question I asked?


  14. on November 12, 2010 at 8:46 PM Mary Catherine

    I believe that one of the things Crisis Pregnancy Centers should do is make sure that their staff are professional beyond reproach. These people should be highly trained in specific areas.
    What a shame though if this legislation is successful and it comes to pass that these sources of help and support for pregnant women are restricted or shut down.

    I will pray not only that you all speak with eloquence but that the hearts of the NY City Council are opened to the truth – abortion kills babies and hurts women.


  15. on November 12, 2010 at 11:32 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    What was the question?


  16. on November 13, 2010 at 9:31 AM Theresa

    I know you were not slighting them Gerard, but some people I have spoken to think it is only EMC and it is important that they know it is ALL CPC’s.

    I love your points Lois!


  17. on November 13, 2010 at 10:52 AM Mary Catherine

    perhaps people who situate themselves outside abortion clinis could summarize these points on signs or hand out pamphlets to people, and verbally tell the women this.

    They don’t care about you. They care about money.

    How else could they abort women who are crying and who are forcibly let to clinics.


  18. on November 14, 2010 at 6:29 PM cranium

    “African-American women have three times as many abortions as white women, which accounts for the increases seen in premature African-American births.” – were lifestyle and other factors such as diet and economic stress accounted for in these studies?


  19. on November 14, 2010 at 8:06 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    Cranium,

    In a word…Yes.


  20. on November 14, 2010 at 9:34 PM cranium

    got some links?


  21. on November 14, 2010 at 9:44 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    Cranium,

    Start reading the papers I’ve written about. The stats are arrived at by using CONTROL subjects.

    The nature of a CONTROL is to account, or CONTROL, for all other variables aside from the one in question.

    That’s why the CONTROL group is usually much larger than the case group.

    I’ve written about all of this Cranium. I’m not chewing your food for you. Fair warning, cut the troll crap or I’ll ban you. This is a blog for people who read and think, who are serious and respectful.


  22. on November 14, 2010 at 10:11 PM Mary Catherine

    Cranium, there are literally tons of posts here by Dr. Nadal citing study after study.
    You need to do your homework. How can you discuss anything if you haven’t read the posts?


  23. on November 14, 2010 at 10:51 PM cranium

    I’m a recent visitor to this site so I just thought that rather than leaving me to troll through all Dr. Nadal’s old posts, he could just link a couple for me to peruse.

    I do and will read and think. But if I come to a different conclusion to you that does not mean I am not serious. Far from it.


  24. on November 14, 2010 at 10:57 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    Understood Cranium, and I’m not looking for disciples here. I prefer readers with their own unique perspectives. I have a link to the American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYN’s in the “Great Pro-Life Sites” Panel. Go to AAPLOG and start working your way through their site, the articles and references.


  25. on November 14, 2010 at 11:29 PM cranium

    under way, thanks


  26. on November 15, 2010 at 9:10 PM cranium

    Not good Dr. Nadal, as their title might suggest, I found their reports to be both selective in the data presented and ‘nuanced’ in how it was attributed to outcomes.

    Got anything unbiased?


  27. on November 15, 2010 at 11:10 PM Paul Terry

    Here is an interesting pooled data analysis that should get more discussion, at least I think it should. Does it answer all the questions? Of course not. But I’d be interested to hear what you all think of it, particular the science-minded cranium and Dr. Nadal.

    Lancet. 2004 Mar 27;363(9414):1007-16.
    Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83?000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries.
    Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G; Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer.
    Abstract
    BACKGROUND: The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer has brought together the worldwide epidemiological evidence on the possible relation between breast cancer and previous spontaneous and induced abortions.
    METHODS: Data on individual women from 53 studies undertaken in 16 countries with liberal abortion laws were checked and analysed centrally. Relative risks of breast cancer–comparing the effects of having had a pregnancy that ended as an abortion with those of never having had that pregnancy–were calculated, stratified by study, age at diagnosis, parity, and age at first birth. Because the extent of under-reporting of past induced abortions might be influenced by whether or not women had been diagnosed with breast cancer, results of the studies–including a total of 44000 women with breast cancer–that used prospective information on abortion (ie, information that had been recorded before the diagnosis of breast cancer) were considered separately from results of the studies–including 39000 women with the disease–that used retrospective information (recorded after the diagnosis of breast cancer).
    FINDINGS: The overall relative risk of breast cancer, comparing women with a prospective record of having had one or more pregnancies that ended as a spontaneous abortion versus women with no such record, was 0.98 (95% CI 0.92-1.04, p=0.5). The corresponding relative risk for induced abortion was 0.93 (0.89-0.96, p=0.0002). Among women with a prospective record of having had a spontaneous or an induced abortion, the risk of breast cancer did not differ significantly according to the number or timing of either type of abortion. Published results on induced abortion from the few studies with prospectively recorded information that were not available for inclusion here are consistent with these findings. Overall results for induced abortion differed substantially between studies with prospective and those with retrospective information on abortion (test for heterogeneity between relative risks: chi2(1) =33.1, p<0.0001).
    INTERPRETATION: Pregnancies that end as a spontaneous or induced abortion do not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. Collectively, the studies of breast cancer with retrospective recording of induced abortion yielded misleading results, possibly because women who had developed breast cancer were, on average, more likely than other women to disclose previous induced abortions.


  28. on November 15, 2010 at 11:38 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    Hi Paul,

    I’ve been really ill lately, which explains the month-long departure from the intensive ABC treatment on the blog. I had more tests last week and today which ruled out cancer (praise God), but have me on a significant climb back to full health.

    I PROMISE that I’ll address the Beral study by week’s end. For now, Here is Dr. Joel Brind’s response to Beral. I’ve discussed this all with Brind and concur with his analysis.

    http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL05/abortion_and_breast_cancer.htm

    Best,

    Gerry


  29. on November 16, 2010 at 1:18 AM Paul Terry

    Thanks Gerry. I do hope you find the cause of your illness, and that it is fully addressable, and that your health returns 100%. When you’re feeling better, it would be interesting to discuss that Beral study. Dr. Brind makes some good points, but I’m not totally in agreement with several of his statements. Dr. Brind is extremely determined, at least — among other things, he flew to Brisbane Australia to go to the university library and look up the dissertation of a colleague of mine to find evidence for the ABC link. As to whether he found it or not remains the subject of disagreement. Anyway, not too many investigators would go to those lengths! That in itself makes Dr. Brind an interesting phenomenon. If you could arrange something, Gerry, I would like to speak with him one day. Ah, but most importantly, I wish you well with your recovery. With you in mind, I am nursing a glass of Jonesy Australian port (which is the strongest stuff I could get because my wife hid the key to my liquor cabinet)…. so, here’s to your health!

    paul


  30. on November 16, 2010 at 2:58 AM Gerard M. Nadal

    Thanks Paul,

    I’ve become something of a Port and Madeira lover. I’ll join you soon enough. When you make plans to come up, let me know and we can get together with Joel for some lunch or dinner. I’m on the mend and should be back in fighting trim in a few weeks.

    Have another glass for me!

    Gerry


  31. on November 16, 2010 at 1:54 PM Mary Catherine

    ‘I had more tests last week and today which ruled out cancer (praise God), but have me on a significant climb back to full health.”

    You will be in my prayers for a speedy recovery! God Bless!

    And to Paul, you have my deepest sympathies (re: the liquor cabinet key!)


  32. on November 16, 2010 at 1:55 PM Mary Catherine

    “Got anything unbiased?”

    @cranium, what you really mean is does Dr. Nadal have anything that supports your pov!


  33. on November 16, 2010 at 5:53 PM Rebecca Curtis

    Dr. Nadal

    I sincerely hope that your health begins a steady and full climb back to full vigor and vitality. So sorry you have been so ill.

    Will be very interested to hear the outcome of the New York City Council hearing.

    God Bless!


  34. on November 16, 2010 at 10:08 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    Rebecca,

    Thanks so much. I summoned all of my Brooklyn moxy today and let them have it between the eyes. New Post in one hour. I just got home.

    Cranium,

    You don’t sit at someone’s table and trash them. This is my blog, and on it I only use mainstream scientific data. If you can’t get that, then get lost. I don’t want you here. I deleted your comment about biased sources. I’m not going through endless repetitions of the most fundamentals (especially about my competence) with a troll.

    Grow up or get lost. Last chance.



Comments are closed.

  • Archives

    • January 2021 (7)
    • November 2020 (1)
    • May 2020 (2)
    • September 2019 (1)
    • May 2019 (2)
    • April 2019 (1)
    • February 2019 (1)
    • April 2018 (2)
    • January 2017 (1)
    • December 2016 (1)
    • November 2016 (1)
    • October 2016 (10)
    • July 2016 (2)
    • June 2016 (1)
    • May 2016 (1)
    • April 2016 (1)
    • March 2016 (1)
    • February 2016 (3)
    • December 2015 (1)
    • November 2015 (2)
    • October 2015 (1)
    • September 2015 (1)
    • August 2015 (3)
    • April 2015 (1)
    • February 2015 (1)
    • December 2014 (3)
    • November 2014 (1)
    • October 2014 (4)
    • September 2014 (15)
    • August 2014 (6)
    • June 2014 (5)
    • May 2014 (1)
    • April 2014 (2)
    • March 2014 (2)
    • February 2014 (1)
    • January 2014 (3)
    • December 2013 (17)
    • November 2013 (9)
    • October 2013 (12)
    • September 2013 (4)
    • July 2013 (2)
    • June 2013 (5)
    • May 2013 (2)
    • April 2013 (3)
    • March 2013 (6)
    • February 2013 (2)
    • January 2013 (1)
    • December 2012 (18)
    • November 2012 (6)
    • October 2012 (13)
    • September 2012 (1)
    • July 2012 (10)
    • June 2012 (13)
    • May 2012 (8)
    • April 2012 (1)
    • March 2012 (11)
    • February 2012 (21)
    • January 2012 (5)
    • December 2011 (18)
    • November 2011 (3)
    • October 2011 (23)
    • September 2011 (24)
    • August 2011 (22)
    • July 2011 (22)
    • June 2011 (29)
    • May 2011 (8)
    • April 2011 (11)
    • March 2011 (18)
    • February 2011 (42)
    • January 2011 (26)
    • December 2010 (30)
    • November 2010 (34)
    • October 2010 (33)
    • September 2010 (16)
    • August 2010 (15)
    • July 2010 (7)
    • June 2010 (21)
    • May 2010 (33)
    • April 2010 (14)
    • March 2010 (41)
    • February 2010 (36)
    • January 2010 (59)
    • December 2009 (59)
  • Categories

    • Abortion (258)
    • Advent (26)
    • Biomedical Ethics (82)
    • Birth Control (51)
    • Bishops (87)
    • Black History Month (10)
    • Breast Cancer (65)
    • Christmas (26)
    • Cloning (4)
    • Condoms (16)
    • COVID-19 (1)
    • Darwin (2)
    • Development (6)
    • Dignity (119)
    • Divine Mercy Novenas (10)
    • DNA (3)
    • Embryo Adoption (2)
    • Embryonic Stem Cell Research (6)
    • Eugenics (29)
    • Euthanasia (8)
    • Family (44)
    • Fathers of the Church (11)
    • Fortnight for Freedom (1)
    • Golden Coconut Award (3)
    • Health Care (14)
    • HIV/AIDS (5)
    • Infant Mortality (2)
    • IVF (4)
    • Joseph (6)
    • Lent (17)
    • Margaret Sanger (19)
    • Marriage (6)
    • Maternal Mortality (2)
    • Motherhood (12)
    • Neonates (1)
    • Personhood (20)
    • Physician Assisted Suicide (4)
    • Planned Parenthood (64)
    • Priests (50)
    • Pro-Life Academy (23)
    • Quotes (10)
    • Radio Interviews (3)
    • Right to Life (34)
    • Roots (1)
    • Sex Education (25)
    • Sexually Transmitted Disease (12)
    • Stem Cell Therapy (7)
    • Transgender (1)
    • Uncategorized (205)
  • Pages

    • About
    • BIO
    • Conferences
    • Contact
    • Follow Gerard on FB & Twitter
    • Speaking

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Cancel
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: