Archive for September, 2012
By Steven Ertelt
Twelve years ago today, the Clinton administration approved the dangerous abortion drug RU 486 and it has left thousands of injured women and more than a dozen women dead in the years following.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute notes that 13 percent of all abortions involve mifepristone, as of 2008. At that time, drug maker Danco indicated that 840,000 women in the United States have had abortions with its dangerous drug. With the increased reliance on the drug as opposed to surgical abortions, the number of unborn children who have lost their lives since its approval very well could have doubled to 1.7. million.
And when it comes to how the abortion drug has affected women, the FDA has been slow to provide the public with updates on its safety.
Last April, the Food and Drug Administration quietly released a report about the deaths of and injuries to women from the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug and the Obama administration did nothing to make the information available to women. The report indicates 14 women in the United States alone have died from using the mifepristone abortion drug and 2,207 women have been injured by it.
Of the women experiencing medical and physical problems resulting from the abortion drug, 612 women required hospitalizations, 339 experienced blood loss significant enough to require a transfusion, 256 experienced infections and 48 women experienced what the FDA labeled as “severe infections.” Given that the RU 486 abortion drug caused sepsis, a potentially lethal infection that resulted in the deaths of women from around the world, the “serious infections” were very likely life-threatening situations.
“Severe infections generally involve death or hospitalization for at least 2-3 days, intravenous antibiotics for at least 24 hours, total antibiotic usage for at least 3 days, and any other physical or clinical findings, laboratory data or surgery that suggest a severe infection,” the FDA report stated.
Women developing infections from usage of the RU 486 abortion drug experienced endometritis (involving the lining of the womb), pelvic inflammatory disease (involving the nearby reproductive organs such as the fallopian tubes or ovaries), and pelvic infections with sepsis (a serious systemic infection that has spread beyond the reproductive organs).
The FDA figures also revealed abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood are still misusing the abortion drug.
Despite the FDA indicating, “Administration of mifepristone and misoprostol is contraindicated in patients with confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy (a pregnancy outside the uterus,” the abortion drug was given to women in 58 cases where they had an ectopic pregnancy.
Father Shenan Boquet, the director of the pro-life group Human Life International, talked about the anniversary of the abortion drug and the anniversary today:
Like other abortion methods, where a child is killed and the mother physically, emotionally and spiritually harmed, RU-486 is considered to be “safe” by the promoters of an ideology who have actually almost succeeded in changing the meaning of the word “health.” More on this troubling trend in a minute.
A new study led by Marie Stopes International, the world’s largest abortion provider, came to the conclusion, not surprisingly, that the abortion pill is “safe” despite the fact that one woman died in the study, 3.5 percent of the procedures failed and there were four cases of known infections and 21 suspected cases. The results of the study appeared last month just a day after the Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) approved the drug’s registration in Australia.
A recent examination of several other studies on RU-486 highlighted the drug’s deadly consequences for women, especially women in the developing world:
[T]he pill fails; medical abortions are being attempting in settings with inadequate backup to care for complications; and hemorrhaging, a common side-effect of RU-486 abortions, is harder to control in third world environments. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to disregard such problems by enthusiastic abortion advocates, eager to expand abortion use in these countries.
Despite the harm, Planned Parenthood is currently pushing for “telemed abortions” were they can do remote abortions over the web by prescribing RU-486 to women so they can self-abort.
Now back to the question of what the champions of “reproductive health” really mean by “health.” One would think that a drug that harms this many women would find enemies among the champions of “women’s health.” You would think that if the goal was to protect women, advocates for women’s health would be all over the airwaves condemning this drug, calling for its removal from the market, and championing lawsuits against its producer.
Rather, what we see are women and men singing the praises of the results of the drugs and of abortion, and attacking anyone who tries to raise the issue of actual women’s health in opposition. This is ideological blindness. When otherwise intelligent people not only refuse to consider contrary evidence, but attack those who insist that all evidence be considered, we should not be surprised when their preferred “solutions” come at the price of millions of lives.
So when the promoters of contraception and abortion say “reproductive health,” “women’s health,” and importantly, “health care reform,” we have to realize that they are not talking primarily about healing people of illness and disability. To be fair, they also would support this healing in many cases, but that’s not what their movement is about, since no one would oppose this. They are talking about an assault on human life, lowering our population and getting rid of the weak, unwanted and “unfit.” They manipulate good-willed people who still think “health” is about healing and well-functioning physicality by sneaking in health-destructive practices and then insisting it is all about health, and insisting that we not connect the dots when cancer rates increase, maternal mortality does not improve and birth rates plunge, bringing social and economic unrest.
The culture of death requires a culture of ignorance to thrive, and this ignorance is greatly increased when our language is gutted of a true shared meaning of important words, like “health.”
Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow.com
September 26, 2012
Given the president’s recent statement on religious freedom, one legal group finds it ironic that the DOJ has appealed a Denver federal judge’s decision to uphold a business owner’s religious freedom to decline the government mandate requiring him to provide insurance coverage for abortifacient drugs.
Hercules Industries now comes under the scrutiny of a federal appeals court because the owners are standing firm on their convictions.
Attorney Matt Bowman of Alliance Defending Freedom tells OneNewsNow, “Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith.”
“The Obama administration claims it has unwavering support for religious freedom, but the only thing unwavering in the administration is its tenacious opposition to religious freedom,” the attorney asserts.
The mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception under threat of heavy penalties.
“The cost of religious freedom for this family could be millions of dollars per year in fines and lawsuits from the federal government to cripple their business and potentially destroy jobs,” Bowman warns. “In filing its appeal, the administration sent a clear message that it wants to force families to abandon their faith in order to earn a living. That’s the opposite of religious freedom.”
The administration argues that people of faith forfeit their religious liberty once they engage in business.
By Elise Hilton, Acton Institute, September 25, 2012
It is alarmingly clear that so-called “Obamacare” has troubling implications for parents and children, not just employers with religious convictions regarding artificial birth control and abortion. According to an article in the National Catholic Register, Matt Bowman, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, Obamacare
“tramples parental rights” because it requires them to “pay for and sponsor coverage of abortifacients, sterilization, contraception and education in favor of the same for their own children.”
To date, 26 states and the District of Columbia allow children 12 and older access to contraceptives without parental consent or notification. The state of Oregon currently allows children 15 and older to consent to sterilization.
Bowman pointed out the role of Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute (the former research branch of Planned Parenthood) in this part of the Obamacare mandate:
…the Guttmacher Institute and other abortion advocates explicitly advocated for this mandated coverage of minors so that access without parental involvement might be able to increase.”
The Guttmacher Institute, in a Sept. 1 briefing on state policies, said that an increase in minors’ access to reproductive health care over the last 30 years shows a broader recognition that “while parental involvement in minors’ health-care decisions is desirable, many minors will not avail themselves of important services if they are forced to involve their parents.”
In Michigan, according to the National Conference of State Legislature, the law
[p]rohibits anyone from either tattooing or performing a piercing on a minor without the prior written, informed consent of the minor’s parent or legal guardian. Requires the parent or legal guardian to execute the consent in the presence of either the person performing the body piercing or tattooing on the minor or in the presence of an employee or agent of the individual.
In fact, 38 states prohibit minors from this type of procedure without parental consent. Yet, Obamacare will allow children to make the radical choice of sterilization at an age when most can’t make up their mind as to what to wear to school the next day.
Gloria Purvis, policy director at a major financial services company and a board member for the Northwest Pregnancy Center and Maternity Home, noted the damage this mandate will do in an interview with EWNT, “These things are not a cure for our social ills,” she said. “If anything, it makes it worse because it’s promoting the disintegration of the family…”
By Doug Bandow
The American Spectator
President Obama spoke via satellite to the AARP “Life@50+” convention last Friday morning and I was foolish enough to turn on my patented BS Detector during the event. Unlike the “fact checkers” employed by the MSM, its special BUNK software was written such that it could recognize White House talking points and separate such input from actual facts. It turns out, however, to have had a fatal design flaw. Although I had successfully tested it on several pathological liars, and even a couple of lawyers, it simply didn’t have the capacity to process the volume of BS contained in a typical Obama speech. The machine was a smoking hulk by the time the President finished answering the final question from the AARP audience.
I probably should have turned it off after observing its reaction to Obama’s first claim about Obamacare’s positive effect on Medicare: “We’ve added years to the life of the program by getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to insurance companies that weren’t making people healthier …” This preposterous assertion, an attempt to put a positive spin on Obamacare’s $200 billion in cuts to the popular Medicare Advantage (MA) program, caused the device to whistle, buzz, and hop around like R2D2 on steroids. And when the President made the additional claim that, “over the next 10 years, we expect the average Medicare beneficiary to save nearly $5,000 as a result of this law,” the machine began to make an odd whimpering noise.
It should have been no surprise that the device responded thus to Obama’s Medicare Advantage lie. As David Hogberg reports at Investor’s Business Daily, “ObamaCare imposes major cuts on the popular Medicare Advantage program, and while the Obama administration has largely delayed them until after the election, enrollees will lose an average $515 in benefits in 2013, according to an IBD analysis.” MA is, of course, a program that allows Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in plans run by private insurance companies. They are very popular, particularly among lower income and minority seniors, because of their flexibility and lower out-of-pocket expenses. Nonetheless, “ObamaCare will cut MA by at least $7.4 billion in 2013.”
Hogberg’s allusion to a delay in these massive cuts until after the election involves a legally dubious Obama administration tactic that I wrote about last April. As the election approached, the President’s re-election team realized the seniors most likely to be affected by the cuts were due to find out about them just weeks before Election Day. Knowing that this would undoubtedly produce a lot of votes for Mitt Romney, they began casting about for a plan to prevent this disaster. HHS Commissar Sebelius came to the rescue with an $8.3 billion “demonstration project” that would temporarily restore MA funds so that seniors in key states wouldn’t begin losing their MA benefits just before it was time to vote.
My BS detection device didn’t actually begin to smoke until Obama started talking about the mythical Medicare trust fund: “We lengthened the life of the trust fund by eight years.” This lie not only caused serious damage to my machine’s internal circuitry, it was too much even for the administration’s lickspittles over atPolitico. Recognizing this as Obamacare’s notorious double-counting scam, David Nather points out that the chief actuary of CMS says it is “not possible to count the Medicare cuts as paying for the health care law and extending the trust fund at the same time. ‘In practice, the improved HI financing cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund.'”
Paul Ryan reiteratedthe same point during his own speech to Friday’s AARP audience, “You can’t spend the same dollar twice… You don’t have to take my word for it. Ask the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.” This is why Ryan continues to hammer home the point that Obamacare raids Medicare for $716 billion. It is this huge amount of money that Obama and his accomplices claim that they can use to extend the life of Medicare while simultaneously using it to pay for part of Obamacare. Ryan wrapped up his commentary on that topic as follows: “If anyone tries to tell you that ObamaCare strengthened Medicare, just ask them, ‘Where’s the other $716 billion?'”
Sadly, it was the President’s claims about Ryan’s bipartisan plan to save Medicare that precipitated the final meltdown of my BS Detector. Ignoring the fact that every health policy expert worthy of the name has debunked the claim, Obama told the convention’s attendees that Ryan and Mitt Romney want to turn Medicare into a voucher system: “Now, my opponents have pledged to repeal [ObamaCare]… which means billions in new profits for insurance companies, but also would mean immediately increased costs for seniors and would bankrupt the Medicare trust fund in just four years. And what would they replace it with? Their plan replaces guaranteed Medicare benefits with a voucher that wouldn’t keep up with costs.”
This is a brazen lie, and the President knows it. Factcheck.org, an outfit that is by no means biased in the direction of the GOP,confirms that the plan involves no vouchers: ‘Under Ryan’s plan the federal government would pay insurance companies directly, just as it now pays for most of the cost of health insurance for millions of federal workers and retirees.” So, why did the President repeat this stretcher? During the question-and-answer period following his speech, Ryan matter-of-factly explained why Obama and other Democrats keep repeating it: “Voucher is a poll-tested word basically designed to scare today’s seniors.… A voucher is when you go to your mail boxes, you get a check and you are on your own. No one is proposing that.”
Ryan went on to explain that the GOP formula for saving Medicare would merely turn the program into one similar to that which is enjoyed by federal employees, while introducing free market reforms that have already been shown to work under Medicare Part D. He also reminded the audience that no one currently in the Medicare program would be affected in any way by the plan. Such candor from a politician who actually understands health care was refreshing. But it was too late to save my new BS Detector from the tsunami of manure poured on the AARP convention by Obama. Its smoldering remains sit there, a silent rebuke for my rash decision to submit it to such a trial. I will now give it a decent burial.