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.
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!
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!
“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.
So start refuting cranium, and be sure to reference your sources.
Great article! Will keep you in my prayers!
Cranium, I’m dying for you to elaborate on lifestyle and food choices…..I’m trying to hold it together.
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.
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.
Thank you Dr. Nadal for all your pro-life efforts.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
What was the question?
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!
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.
“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?
Cranium,
In a word…Yes.
got some links?
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.
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?
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.
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.
under way, thanks
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?
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.
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
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
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
‘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!)
“Got anything unbiased?”
@cranium, what you really mean is does Dr. Nadal have anything that supports your pov!
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!
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.