Legal abortions have led to an increase of medical problems for women, including cancer, infertility, and death. Abortion is under regulated and women are ignorant of the dangers from what is essentially a medically unnecessary procedure. Women are being lied to. Despite it's intent, Roe v. Wade has caused more deaths and damage to women. by Amy Kelly
(libertarian)
Friday, March 5, 2010
ABORTION: What They Don't Tell You
In 1973, it was deemed by the United States Supreme Court that it was unconstitutional to prevent physicians from providing abortions as a "health" service to women because it was believed that modern science made them "relatively safe". Every federal, state, and local law regulating or restricting abortion was struck down.
1.5 million abortions are performed in the US per year, making it the most common surgery in the nation. Many studies have been conducted since this ruling regarding the physical complications of abortion and it’s effect on a woman’s short term and long-term health. National statistics show that 10% of women who have had induced abortions suffer from immediate complications. 2% of them, or 30,000 women, fall under the category of major. Immediate major complications include infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock. And last but not least, death.
But what about the long-term effects of abortion, the dangers that exist months, even years, after the abortion is performed? In the 30 plus years since abortion was made legal in the United States, a multitude of studies have shown distressing dangers. There have been a number of links between abortion and several cancers including breast, cervical, ovarian and liver. Due to uterine perforations and cervical lacerations, many women who’ve had induced abortions have difficult carrying future pregnancy’s to term and have trouble during labor. 23% of women who have chlamydia at the time of their elective abortions and 5% of those who do not develop Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) within 4 weeks. And all of these risks increase with multiple abortions, and for those obtaining abortions in later trimesters. Another danger on the abortion forefront is the use of the FDA approved mifepristone, better known as RU-486, in conjunction with misoprostol.
THE DANGERS OF RU-486/MISOPROSTOL
What is RU-486? According to RU-486facts.org:
RU-486 is the name commonly used for an artificial steroid that blocks progesterone, a hormone needed to continue a pregnancy... When taken alone, RU-486 causes a complete abortion only about 60% of the time. A second drug, a prostaglandin, is given 48 hours later to increase its effectiveness. The prostaglandin causes uterine contractions to help expel the embryo. Misoprostol (brand name Cytotec) is the prostaglandin used with RU-486 in the U.S.
In August 2000 Michael Cullen, MD, Medical Director at Searle, the manufacturer of Cytotec, wrote a letter to the FDA. In it, Dr. Cullen reminded the FDA "Cytotec was not approved for the induction of labor or abortion." He goes on to say: "Serious adverse events reported following off-label use of Cytotec in pregnant women include maternal or fetal death; uterine hyperstimulation, rupture or perforation requiring uterine surgical repair, hysterectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy; amniotic fluid embolism; severe vaginal bleeding, retained placenta, shock, fetal bradycardia and pelvic pain. " He establishes that Searle cannot "provide complete risk information" since the drug was not intended to be used for abortion purposes.
Despite this warning, on September 28, 2000, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), due to strong arm tactics by CA Senator Barbara Boxer, approved mifepristone, and the accompanying drug misoprostol, under an accelerated drug-approval process normally intended for drugs as treatments for life-threatening illnesses such as HIV/AIDS. As of July 2008, at least thirteen women have died from this combination. According to Life Issues.org,:
"Concerned Women for America, a pro-life women’s group under the Freedom of Information Act, receive public documents from the FDA. These list over 600 adverse effects by women taking this drug. These included 220 cases of hemorrhage that were either life threatening or extremely serious, 71 of which required blood transfusions. In addition, 392 reports indicated women requiring surgery to repair damage resulting from the abortion including many under emergency conditions."
In US trials 99% of women who have used RU-486 have had at least one adverse effect ranging from abdominal pains, headaches, dizziness, viral infections, and uterine hemorrhaging, just to name a few. Of those, 23% were judged to be severe.
These dangers are unknown by unsuspecting women due to the lack of requirements by the FDA. Unlike in France, where there is a required week after an initial visit before a woman is prescribed the pills, a return to the physicians office 48 hours later for misoprostol, and a follow up visit, the FDA only requires that a woman is "counseled" and sign forms, and that she is given medical phone numbers in case of complications. That is simply irresponsible, and unnecessarily dangerous.
THE ABORTION-BREAST CANCER LINK
29 studies published worldwide (70%), 13 out of 16 in the United States (81%), report an increased risk in breast cancer among women with a history of induced abortion. A study funded by the US National Cancer Institute found induced abortion alone could increase the risk of breast cancer in women; for women with a family history of breast cancer that risk increased to 80%. In this study of 1800 women, family history of breast cancer in conjunction with an induced abortion before the age of 18 GUARANTEED the onset of breast cancer; 12 out of 12 women developed breast cancer before the age of 45. As the THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PROLIFE OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS were quoted as saying: "This subgroup is too small to be "statistically significant," but surely it is "SIGNIFICANT" if you are an abortion-minded 17 year-old pregnant teenager with a family history of breast cancer!"
There are two indisputable factors for breast cancer. The first has to do with a woman’s exposure to estrogen and the second are the types of lobules, and their maturation, present in a woman’s breast. Immature Type 1 (prepubescent) and 2 (pubescent) lobules are where cancer cells are formed. These lobules are more susceptible to cancer by the presence of estrogen. When a woman carries a pregnancy to full term (32 weeks or more) these lobules mature to Type 3 (reproductive) and then Type 4 (lactation), which are resistant to carcinogens. This maturation protects a woman and lowers her risk of breast cancer.
Within a few days of conception a woman’s estrogen level rises; by the end of the first trimester her levels have increased by 2000%. This, in turn, increases the amount of Type 1 and 2 lobules. Unless a pregnancy continues past 32 weeks, the increased number of immature lobules will not mature into Type 3 and 4.
A study in 1970, widely accepted in the medical world, notes that an early first term pregnancy can greatly reduce the risk of breast cancer. This is because the earlier the lobules mature into Type 3 and 4, the less chance there is for Types 1 and 2 to become cancerous. Abortion affects this process in many ways. When a woman ends a pregnancy before the maturation of her breasts take place, she is left with an increased number of Type 1 and 2 lobules, which are in turn exposed to more estrogen through future menstrual cycles. In addition, the pregnancy itself increases the level of estrogen present in her body, making these lobules more susceptible to the formation of cancer cells.
It is important that physicians inform a woman contemplating abortion about the risk factors in regard to breast cancer. First, she is removing the positive effects of a first full term pregnancy, which matures the lobules in the breast thus helping to prevent breast cancer in the future. Second, she is increasing her chances of cancer cells forming, possibly by 50-100% depending on her age and family history.
It amazes me that with all the good intentions we have out there, such as breast cancer walks, breast cancer awareness month, and so on, women are denied the knowledge of this simple form of prevention. Most abortions are not necessary, yet women have no idea that this choice can directly lead to devastating cancer years later. With a nation hell bent on preventative care, this information is ignored because it doesn’t quite fit with the desires of the people promoting prevention. Simply put, because the people fighting breast cancer either don’t want to get involved with the politics of abortion or are strong supporters of the pro abortion movement, they ignore this simple preventative measure that could save thousands of lives and help eraticate a devastating disease due to the fact that they just don’t like that particular preventative measure.
What greatly concerns me is that women have been lied to for the past 37 years when it comes to the so-called benefits of Roe v. Wade. The mantra of the pro-abortion side has been "Keep abortion safe, legal, and rare". With over a million and a half elective abortions a year, it’s hardly rare. And my research has concluded that abortion is far from safe. The idea that Roe would protect women from dying or suffering due to illegal abortions has proven to be a red herring. In fact, the legalization of abortion has led to MORE women dying and suffering long term health effects due directly from a surgical procedure that is not medically necessary. So basically, women were told legalizing abortion would save lives and in turn, more women get abortions and more women die. That’s the lie that’s perpetrated by the pro-abortion movement.
In conclusion, my research has shown that one of the biggest dangers facing women who have an elective abortion is her lack of knowledge. The government has very few requirements and regulations when it comes to informing women of the immediate and long-term dangers. While many clinics offering abortion services do counsel and inform, as well as suggest and promote follow up visits, they do so by their own conscience. Regulations insure the health and safety of those who are receiving surgery, in all manners of medicine. Why is abortion under separate rules? My research suggests that partisan politics and fear of anti-abortion legislation leading to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade clouds the minds of those who are elected to help and protect women. There is no excuse for sacrificing our health. Especially in cases like RU-486, where there are a lack of FDA regulations, or in the medical community, where many have turned a blind eye to the 29 studies that show a direct link between Abortion and Breast Cancer. Americans must stand up and demand equal treatment in ALL medical procedures, abortion included. Only then can abortion be deemed "relatively safe."
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 56
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Amy Kelly only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Amy Kelly is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You post links to obviously pro-life , anti-abortion sites, who claim the creators of the drug disagree with it's use. But when you to to the actual FDA site, no such document can be found.
Indeed, when I go to the FDA looking for Cytotec, I find this:
Which has not one jot of the language listed in your article , specifically NONE of the below can be found AT ALL:
"Searle regards the administration of misoprostol, either alone or in combination with other drugs to interfere with the course of pregnancy, as misuse of the product. ... We strongly condemn misuse of the product"
Â
Please , in the future, try to completely do your homework before posting. I don't like abortion either, but posting dead end links from prolife sites when the actual documentation says something else wil not win you any support.
In Sept. 2004, the FDA had this letter on their website. I know this because that's when I wrote the majority of this article. (I've updated the numbers and links for the years in between.) However, the fact that multiple websites link directly to this letter, a letter that I read myself, and now those links are dead, leads me to believe that the FDA has ulterior motives for removing said letter. I included the words of Dr. Cullen because there are multiple sources linking to this letter that is no longer available.
I have to take offense to your statement that my links are to "obviously pro-life, anti-abortion sites" . Of course a good deal of my information will come from anti abortion sites, but that does not make them less credible. THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PROLIFE OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS is a highly respected group, and the scientific studies it references are non-partisan. I beg to differ that my links are only pro-life sites. Please do YOUR homework. I've listed a number of sources that are non-partisan such as the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. And they link to obviously non-partisan sources as well. The bill that was brought forward by Reps. DeMint, Bartlett and Sen. Brownback is an authentic piece of legislation. "technically known as the "RU-486 Suspension and Review Act of 2003." Just because I linked from a pro-life group to the article about the bill again doesn't make it any less credible.
OF course, you would say the FDA has ulterior motives for saying this.
I didn't really want to do this, but since you're going rely on site that have been caught lying before...
Here is the text of the letter.
http://www.cytoteccase.com/Doctors%20v%20FDA.htm
You certainly will find the phrase "Searle has not conducted research concerning the use of Cytotec for cervical ripening prior to termination of pregnancy or for induction of labor, nor does Searle intend to study or support these uses." However, you will note, the thrust of his letter was to deliveries IMPROPERLY using the drug to try to speed deliveries of babies. A wikipedia article is here:
Additionally, you mention 13 deaths from the combination of this drug and another. Did you mention how many times the drug had been issued in combination? Over 300,000.
My opposition to abortion stems from religous beliefs. I don't need anyone making up untruths to convince me of that, and I am sorry you have been taken in, ma'am.
The link you provide is NOT the text of the letter. In fact, it is from an obviously pro-abortion group that is trying to spin the information and cover their butts.
Dr. Cullen wrote the letter because the makers of the drug did not intend for it to be used as an abortion aid. The miscarry of a fetus was a side effect of the drug when used correctly. Scientific study took advantage of this side effect and devleoped RU-486. The letter in question was an attempt by the original manufactures to ask the FDA to NOT use the drug in this manner. They noted that not only did women miscarry their baby, but they had terricle side effects in addition as I mention in my article. The significance of the letter is that they sompany was used by the pro-abortion movement to devlop a drug that would make abortions easier to have yet they disregarded the side effects it had on the women, including 13 women who are now dead beacause they bled to death.
I wonder why you have taken to harping on the semantics of this issue as opposed to commenting on the significant facts listsed in my article. It's clear that women have been lied to and are suffering from what they expected to be a simple procedure with little after effects. Why does this not interest you I wonder?
I visited the links you provided and was appalled at their incredible partisan politics and outright lies. You provided links that prey on the ignorance of women, and one article even espouses what a hero and lover of children Dr. Tiller was, painting him as a modern day Jesus, helping women and those in need.
Obviously, Logical Premise is not to be trusted as the links provided are incredibly slanted and biased towards the pro-abort movement while my links are from credible sources that have a paper trail documenting their conclusions. No pro-life person would use these sites as a form of information. So you obviously have come here to falsely misdirect my readers under the pretense of being a "pro-lifer
To piggyback on Amy's article informing readers of the stunning mistreatment of women by the abortion industry, one of the most common surgical abortion procedures, vacuum aspiration, violates the Nuremberg Code of ethics on human research and experimentation because vacuum aspiration abortions have never been shown to be safe in animal studies. Use of a procedure that has not been shown to be safe is a violation of Principle 3 of the 1947 Nuremberg Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code).  There exactly zero peer-reviewed medical journal animal studies to validate the safety of vacuum aspiration abortion.   How many abortion consent forms do you think inform women that the procedure they are consenting to has never been shown to be safe in animal trials.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
