http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS09_TheBasics.pdf, some things everyone should know before sounding off

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/loveboth/chapter27.html article disputes NARAL exaggerations of death and risk prior to legalizing abortion

http://www.afterabortion.info/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html article documenting Finnish study refuting abortion safer than giving birth (1987-1994)

http://www.afterabortion.info/PAR/V8/n2/abortiondeaths.html, accuses CDC and states of deliberately underreporting abortion deaths and complications to make abortion seem the safer option; caution – inflammatory end remarks

http://www.afterabortion.info/PAR/V8/n2/berning.html, article by ER doctor calling abortion an irresponsible practice lacking accountability

http://www.mdrtl.org/Abortion_MarylandStats.aspx, lack of accountability protected in most (if not all states) by regulations that make reporting discretionary

At the same time, many states now make referral to an abortion clinic automatic. For example, a 1991 Maryland law removed protection from healthcare workers who conscientiously objected to making elective abortion referrals; effectively forcing them to refer pregnant women to abortion clinics, regardless of their own feelings in the matter (i.e., belief it is unnecessary or not in the best interest or health of the mother). This law specifically subjects healthcare providers and hospitals to law suits, disciplinary action, or other recriminatory action for refusing to make ‘elective’ abortion referrals if it is claimed that failure to refer is “the cause of serious long-lasting injury” and is “contrary to the standards of medical care.” Under the law, “serious long-lasting injury” means any claimed adverse impact, including “anxiety” or “emotional distress.” “Standards of medical care” means those standards set by abortion providers, whose guidelines call for elective abortion referrals regardless of the moral convictions of other health care professionals.

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/air_vol13no2_19991.html, “Pregnancy-Related Death of African Women (I), Background and Risk Factors, Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change, Vol. 13, No. 2 January/February, 1999, Thomas W. Strahan, J.D.” Argues the introduction of abortion in undeveloped countries will not lower morbidity or mortality, which are related more to other health considerations (anemia, infection, lack of post-natal care, exposure to STDs in hospitals, insufficient blood transfusions & transfusion cause infections, resistance to antibiotics, malaria, lack of diagnostic equipment for the detection of ectopic pregnancies, delayed abortion, prior uterine injury, and unqualified/demoralized staff) in places where good health care is unavailable and poor lifestyle practices the norm. The article is not anti-abortion, per se, but is against it in the context of applicability. The article, nonetheless, supports the contention that pre-1950 U.S. pregnancy/abortion mortality/morbidity rates were a function of the state of medicine generally (some of which were similar to conditions now facing African health workers) than ‘back alley’ practices.

http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/1999_Sept_Oct/article_10.html accuses WHO of database diddling and misreporting abortion as safer than giving birth

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/safe_abortion/safe_abortion.pdf – As of 2003, WHO still reported abortion 7-times safer than giving-birth by creating a separate category of ‘safe’ abortions (versus unsafe) to disguise earlier database diddling. “…a ratio of one unsafe abortion for every seven live births” – Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems, World Health Organization, 2003 ISBN 92-4-159034-3

Taken together, plus the information unearthed above, a picture emerges of an organization that has abortion as its agenda far more than it does women’s health or rights generally. If PP’s primary mission is “women’s reproductive healthcare”, why is it so invested in abortion and contraception while relatively disinterested in adoption, discouraging teen promiscuity, post-abortion counseling, follow-on services, fertility, &c? If PP’s concern is the health of the mother and not her ‘right’ to make life-terminating choices without the consent or counsel of family, boyfriend, or priest, why is it so involved in court battles to prevent interference by anyone who might counsel her to reconsider? If PP’s mission is the health of women, why the crusade to make everyone else toe the abortion line? Why is it so dead-set against any kind of compromise or revisiting the issue? Why would PP have such high and uncritical praise of the Roe and Doe decisions if its agenda were women’s health first and not abortion specifically? Regardless of PP’s ethical conduct or claims, its incentive is to perform as many abortions as it can for as long as it can.

Abortion was a hot topic, though, when I was in high school; and you had to favor it if you considered yourself ‘liberal’. So, I asked my father why he was so dead-set against it. He made me look around our living room at my four brothers and one sister, and replied: “There were times we could not afford another mouth to feed. You lived through some of those hard years, and I distinctly remember you saying you wished you hadn’t so many brothers. Where should we have stopped? Which one of you shouldn’t we have had? Should we have stopped: our youngest, your sister, your brother, … you?” My family was staring at me, even my mom, waiting to hear my answer. I had no answer and can’t begin to describe how stupid I felt. Since, then, I grew up, got married, tried having children of our own, lost our only baby in the second trimester, adopted and raised our son, helped him through many troubles, felt pain at his girl-friends’ ‘choices’, and found life too precious to waste each time things get too tough.

Finally, Mr. Koltys’ quote which he attributes to aborting mothers “I don’t believe in abortion, but …” proves the opposite of what he intends. He means to imply, by it, that those who avail themselves of PP’s services while lamenting they are against abortion are hypocritical, i.e., they can’t be both for and against a thing they engage in. In fact, it only proves the desperation they are under and the lack of support they find for the other options; a point Mr. Koltys should well appreciate. If a young pregnant girl says such a thing while being counseled to have an abortion, it can only be she wants absolution for something she believes damnably wrong. She has been raised in a culture that informs her it is entirely her choice and is above reproach; yet, when it comes to the crunch, all eyes are on her. He must expect them to reason as philosophers instead of the irresponsible, frightened, abandoned, abortion-is-okay permeated kids they most often are.

I do agree we should discourage the behavior and not the person, except in cases where abortion is willfully used as contraception. I do not believe throwing more money at the problem is an answer for these women; not because I am one more ‘cheap conservative’, but because there is never enough money when it is badly spent. We need to change the paradigm surrounding abortion to something that promotes life over the cult of death. Mr. Koltys is right these girls are often stigmatized, and it is often at the hands of those to whom they are closest or trust most to give them good advice; and that includes Planned Parenthood. But this is a cultural problem which is not cured by money nor is it cured by sweeping the unborn under a rug.

Where Mr. Koltys says “All you abortion opponents who also want to eliminate sex ed…the result is more pregnancies and abortions, not less.” is patently false. The percentage of unplanned pregnancy and abortion has more than doubled since Roe v. Wade and since PP set up shop. It has grown almost every year since abortion became legal and publicly funded. For most women who fall prey to it, it seems their last option; but, clearly, for a growing number it has become a substitute for abstinence. Sex education has not only failed to deter promiscuity among the young (its original intent); it has resulted in a minor epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/466354_side2), a great deal of misinformation regarding the dependability of contraception, co-opted to promote gay lifestyles, and demoted marriage as a cultural value. Proponents no longer even claim that is one of its purposes; and pretend we never acquiesced to it solely on that basis. I was just out of high school when it was introduced there, and I distinctly remember sex-education’s advocates promising it was going to drastically cut down the number of pregnancies. When that failed to materialize, it was decided we had to start younger … and younger. Now, it is being introduced in kindergarten and still the count rises. Sex-educators now only claim its purpose is to make kids safer, not less promiscuous. Yet, as disease and abortion statistics prove, that too is a gross failure. What will be the next excuse for keeping it up?

I am sure it will offend Mr. Koltys that I introduce a catholic source of information, but there aren’t that many willing to challenge the education establishment on the value or fitness of sex-education. What this source (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0091.html) shows is that there is a great deal of deliberate and dangerous misinformation being taught our kids, and that PP is one of the prime (if not ‘the’) instigators of it. Compound this with the fact that your average public school teacher hardly qualifies to teach sex appropriately and cannot give each student she/he imparts this information to the kind of follow on surveillance it warrants, and you have a clear formula for disaster.

Mr. Koltys is correct there is no contradiction in Hillary Clinton’s statement. However, that is because the statement is a deliberate non-sequitur, a non-statement that implies she has met no one unsupportive of abortion precisely because there is no one who does not support abortion. This is patently absurd on its face because there would be no occasion, then, for saying it; nor would we be here contradicting her.

I do agree with Mr. Koltys regarding Mr. Grimes assessment of men generally and fathers specifically. Yes, there are a lot of men, especially young men, who behave irresponsibly. But, there are far more of us who behave decently and care deeply. We too are hurt and damaged by abortion, and we too grieve. There is a hierarchy of damage here, and Ms. Girard presents but one tier of it. Count fathers, grandparents, sisters and brothers in the carnage of maimed souls. Ultimately, she asks the wrong question and the correct one is: Aren’t our unborn worth more? The damage to women is secondary only to this; while the damage to men and their families – shut out and ignored – is not all that much less.

I once reviewed a book written by a young man in his early twenties purporting to speak for his generation. His gentle comment stung me deeply when he asked, “Where are all my brothers?” relating that 1 in every four of his generation are absent from their ranks. One in four! Now, there’s a statistic! I checked into his claim and found it to be substantially accurate. How must it feel to look around and wonder who of us is missing? Who is not here who might have made a great mark? Did his own mother consider not having him? Were there almost-siblings she never mentions? The questions arising from this one statistic are endless and staggering. They are questions I never considered because abortion was not yet an ‘option’ when I was growing up, and my parents, products of an earlier culture, were convinced of the sanctity of life. It simply did not apply to me.

(cont.)

‘Puff piece’ is an article or op-ed that avoids controversial subjects, spins its subject positively, or deliberately hides its flaws; things this article clearly hasn’t done.

He next states “its primary mission … is women’s reproductive health care, including preventing pregnancies.” The problem with that is PP has done nothing in 30 years that significantly improves a woman’s health. Whatever improvement we have seen is due to improvements in medicine generally, not to ‘abortion research’ specifically; which is all but nonexistent. PP does not redirect any of its funding to medical research; only to policy research (social science, public education, and policy analysis), which is self-serving.

Abortion as a medical procedure has no positive impact on a woman’s reproductive health other than in the rare case of abnormal pregnancy or life-threatening complication. Having an abortion risks compromising her reproductive system by the very procedures employed. There is no possibility having an abortion will enhance her pregnancies later. This leaves mental health as the only other capacity in which PP plays a role; a role this article contends PP has failed at.

Koltys says it is a “… standard part of Planned Parenthood practice to counsel pregnant women on all available options …” Ms. Girard’s article does not accuse PP of not having ‘counseled’ clients or left options out. She said the spin PP puts on said counsel discourages choosing those other options. She also gives some insight into how PP does this. Therefore, if you disagree, you must challenge her assertion PP is discouraging live-birth options.

PP’s counseling and adoption placements are a function of its funding sources. It gets most of its funding from government, and it is government that dictates counseling of adoption and parenting as a precondition for getting funding, not PP doing so from its conviction.

A quick visit to PP’s website should convince anyone that PP pays scant attention to the adoption and parenting options. I am an adoptive parent who has worked with agencies; and PP is not representative of the type of advocacy expected of an adoption service. For comparison see Catholic Charities, AdoptionServices.org or Adoption.com. Adoption agencies have tons of links to adoption resources, pictures of smiling babies and families, preparation materials, contacts, legal & funding advice, glowing adoption stories, support groups, &c. By contrast PP’s single, short adoption page is as sterile as it gets. PP has page after page dedicated to prevention and abortion options that emphasize the negatives of giving birth, and even more pages dedicated to defending abortion and turf. As Ms. Girard points out, if abortion is so wonderful, why still so much need to defend it after 30 years of holding the political high ground.

Why is it absurd implying PP “might improperly use Title X funding”? It is a dictum in politics and policy to ‘follow the money’. We might not be able to show PP has broken any technical ‘rules’, but that is not the same as recognizing they have an agenda, are unethical in their methods, or will push the envelop of those rules to satisfy their (and not the public’s) objectives. They also have a conflict of interest in lobbying to maintain a service built on public funds. If their grant of funding is based on remaining strictly neutral whenever presenting options to young, distraught, and easily persuaded women, and they ‘spin’ those options to favor but one outcome, then they have violated the terms of the agreement. This is difficult to prove and PP has a strong ally in government protecting it from accusations. Otherwise, it would now be up to its neck in lawsuits from those whose trust it most abuses: women pressured to chose abortion over the imperatives of the womb. Very likely, PP feels their answer is the only answer, and that has led them to break some rules. However, it is not their place to decide the rules or whether they are justified in breaking them. Nor is it the place of nine men in robes. It is a question for the nation as a whole. If they receive public monies to perform a public service, then they are in a position of trust and any significant violation of that trust is cause for de-funding.

(cont.)

I am grateful to be alive, but I don’t think that anybody should have to go through the pain that this naive girl endured.

Incidentally, my biological father had hitchhiked to her with a ring and asked her to marry him, but having been drafted, he had to leave for boot camp. Time being of the essence, it couldn’t happen soon enough, and her family made sure it never did. So much for your theory about fathers, Mr. Grimes. Or was the Vietnam War also a convenient way for them to escape their responsibilities?

My biological mother was a good Catholic girl who never had any sex education and had no idea about birth control. This ignorance didn’t prevent her from getting pregnant with a man she truly loved at the time. Nature will take its course, even with the good girls. All you abortion opponents who also want to eliminate sex ed…the result is more pregnancies and abortions, not less.

Planned Parenthood counseling presents ALL the options and their consequences: giving birth and keeping the baby, giving the baby up for adoption, and aborting the pregnancy. Depending on the circumstances, the sad truth for many women is that the first two options are either two expensive or emotionally painful. Unless there are some major changes in the way society, this will remain the sad truth.

If you really want to reduce abortions, then increase long-term financial and other support (education, health care, etc.) for single mothers instead of stigmatizing them, and actively promote birth control. Unfortunately, the taxpayer cost of the former is unpalatable to your conservative Republican compatriots, and the latter means increasing that Title X funding for, you guessed it, Planned Parenthood.

Mr. Koltys, those words, “I don’t believe in abortion, but..” are usually followed by “I feel like I have to do this.”

Rather than a true decision on the part of the woman, abortion is too often seen as the *only* choice precisely because it is presented as such a “normal” solution to the “problem”. Planned Parenthood, with their rhetoric about “the most common surgical procedure in America”, does nothing to discourage the sense that abortion is inevitable.

When abortion is promoted as so “common” and “natural”, women are made to feel like there is something wrong with them if they don’t want to “take care of it”by termination.

I’d say that is largely due to the men in our society who use abortion as a convenient escape from responsibility to deal with children or accommodate working mothers.

I wrote an article when I was a junior in college about that issue that I hope you find edifying:

“Why Men Love Abortion”
http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2003/02/05/UndefinedSection/Why-Men.Love.Abortion-1481770.shtml

Jack Grimes

I always wonder why some folks get so adamant about how great PP is.

I pray that Mr. Koltys heals from whatever wounds he suffers from.

While we’re at it, we need to remember that many of those women that are staffing Planned Parenthood clinics around the globe are wounded themselves. Many of them are suffering from the undiagnosed “emotional cancer” of a previous abortion; only instead of seeking “medical” attention they are rooting for that same “cancer” in the lives of other women…. Every abortion they sell or perform validates that their abortion was “okay”, so they sell them with gusto….

Keep reporting the truth, Clare. Don’t let the negative comments get to you. I would wager that Ray has been wounded by an abortion himself…either the abortion of his own child or grandchild, or someone else close to him. Why else would he have such a high stake in this controversy? (Unless he’s profiting financially from abortion…) My hope is that he will come to grips with his loss and grieve the child that was taken through abortion.

Abortion doesn’t help women. It hurts them. Abortion hurts everyone it touches.