Medical Risks

Planned Parenthood’s latest “study” proves nothing about the “safety” of RU-486

Monday, January 14th, 2013

Eight. That’s the number of women who have died from a severe bacterial infection following use of RU-486 (also known as Mifeprex). In all eight cases, the women were instructed to use the abortion drugs in a way that has not been approved by the FDA.[1]

Zero. That’s the number of women who have died from a severe bacterial infection after using RU-486 in the way approved by the FDA.

And yet all over the country, Planned Parenthood clinics instruct women to use RU-486 in a way that is not deemed safe by the FDA.

Moreover, Planned Parenthood is going out of its way to make sure it can continue this misuse. For example, since 2004, the abortion giant has been fighting an Ohio law that requires it to follow FDA guidelines when administering RU-486.

And most recently, Planned Parenthood collaborated with the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) to publish a “study” purportedly showing that the unapproved use of RU-486 is “safe” for women. Yet, an important fact—missed by some—completely undercuts Planned Parenthood’s intended conclusion: the ACOG study did not differentiate between patients who have used the drugs according to the FDA protocol and those who have been instructed to use the drugs in an unapproved manner.

In order to fully understand the many flaws in this study, a little background is in order. The standard method of chemical abortion in the United States is the combined use of mifepristone and misoprostol. Together, mifepristone and misoprostol make up the drug regimen people commonly refer to as “RU-486.”

When the FDA approved RU-486, it did so under a special code section that is used for drugs that “can be safely used only if distribution or use is restricted.”[2] In other words, the FDA recognized the danger inherent RU-486 and approved it with restrictions on use.[3]

The drug label required by the FDA includes the following statements:

Treatment with [mifepristone] and misoprostol for the termination of pregnancy requires three office visits by the patient.
[RU-486] should be prescribed only in a clinic, medical office, or hospital, by or under the supervision of a physician, able to assess the gestational age of an embryo and to diagnose ectopic pregnancies.
Mifepristone [the first drug in the RU-486 regimen] is indicated for use in the termination of pregnancy (through 49 days’ pregnancy) and has no other approved indication for use during pregnancy.
Day One: Three 200 mg tablets (600 mg) of [mifepristone] are taken in a single dose.
Day Three: The patient returns to the health care provider two days after ingesting [mifepristone]. Unless abortion has occurred … the patient takes two 200 µg tables (400 µg) of misoprostol orally.[4]

So in sum, the FDA-approved protocol for the administration of RU-486 includes three office visits. The drugs are to be administered at the clinic and at least under the supervision (if not in the presence) of a physician. The drugs are to be used only until 49 days gestation, and they are to be administered orally.

However, Planned Parenthood does not follow this protocol and instead uses its own protocol for administration. Instead of following the FDA’s 49-day restriction, Planned Parenthood offers RU-486 through 63 days gestation. Instead of administering RU-486 in a clinic or office setting, Planned Parenthood sends women away to take the second dose (misoprostol) at home and potentially alone. And instead of instructing women to take misoprostol orally—as instructed in the label—Planned Parenthood instructs women to take misoprostol buccally (allowed to dissolve in the mouth).

At least one woman has died from bacterial infection following buccal use of misoprostol. And yet this is the unapproved use of RU-486 that Planned Parenthood is fighting for. The need for protective legislation restricting the administration of RU-486 to the manner approved by the FDA could not be more clear.

And now Planned Parenthood is on the defense. In 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Ohio’s law requiring physicians to administer RU-486 according to the FDA-approved protocol. Other states have passed or are considering similar legislation.

And Planned Parenthood is scrambling, trying to keep the public from realizing the truth about its dangerous use of RU-486. In what appears to be a direct response to the success of AUL’s educational and legislative campaign on the need for strict regulations on the administration of RU-486, Planned Parenthood released the ACOG study in late 2012. This study, as referenced above, is full of flaws.

Flaw: The study does not make any distinctions between misuse and FDA-approved use of RU-486

The authors of the study claim that their “evidence” does not support legislation “restricting abortion providers to use of the FDA-approved regimen.” But nowhere in the study do the authors compare the rates of complications between women who misuse the drug and those who use the drug according to the FDA-approved protocol. Instead, all adverse events are grouped together.

For example, the authors report that, in 2010, there were 23 cases of infection following a medical abortion. But the question remains: how many of these 23 women used the FDA-approved protocol, and how many were instructed to misuse the drugs?

This study simply cannot be used to make a safety comparison between misuse of RU-486 and the FDA-approved protocol. It is possible that all 23 women who reportedly suffered from infection following RU-486 abortions at Planned Parenthood used the drugs in a manner not approved by the FDA.

Flaw: The study did not take gestational age into account

One of the provisions in the FDA-approved protocol limits use of RU-486 through 49 days gestation. As gestational age increases, RU-486 becomes less effective and potentially more dangerous. However, the study’s authors did not analyze the reported complications according to gestational age. It is possible that most or all of the complications reported occurred outside the 49-day time limit approved by the FDA. Without knowing, it is impossible to say that Planned Parenthood’s misuse of RU-486 (past 49 days gestation) is safer than the 49-day FDA-approved limit.

Flaw: The study did not include information on all patients who had incomplete abortions following use of RU-486

One recognized complication of RU-486 is the “failure” of the drugs to actually terminate the pregnancy. The authors of the ACOG study set out to show that RU-486 has a low failure rate. While the authors report that the “most common significant outcome was ongoing intrauterine pregnancy,” they conclude that the outcome only occurred in 1,158 cases (in 2009 and 2010)—or 0.5 percent of the cases.

However, the authors report that Planned Parenthood’s Manual of Medical Standards calls for a repeat chemical abortion if the first abortion does not terminate pregnancy. So if RU-486 fails to terminate a woman’s pregnancy, she is given another round of RU-486 (i.e., two chemical abortions).

But the number reported by the study’s authors— 1,158 women—does not include women who were given repeat rounds of RU-486. Thus, the number of women who experienced an incomplete abortion following the use of RU-486 is actually higher than that reported by the authors.

Flaw: Only complications treated at Planned Parenthood clinics were considered

Because the ACOG study only included reports of complications that were treated by Planned Parenthood clinics, it does not include any complications treated by an emergency room or physician unaffiliated with Planned Parenthood. For example, a woman who experienced severe bleeding following an RU-486 abortion and treated by emergency room personnel was not be included in the study.

The study also failed to include any women who did not report back for follow-up appointments. Any complications faced by those women are not included.

The study is, therefore, inherently under-inclusive and does not provide an accurate accounting of the number of complications arising after RU-486 abortions.

Flaw: The FDA does not encourage off-label use of RU-486

The study claims that the FDA “allows and encourages” off-label use of drugs. That might be true with most drugs. But RU-486 is not in a category with most drugs. Unlike most drugs, it was approved with restrictions. Leading a woman to believe that the FDA allows and encourages off-label use of RU-486 is disingenuous—and potentially dangerous.

Flaw: Studying “efficacy” of a drug does not mean that it is safe

One point raised by the study’s authors is that the “efficacy” rate of the FDA-approved regimen is lower than the efficacy rate of off-label regimens. However, efficacy should not be confused with safety. Simply because a drug regimen is more effective at terminating a pregnancy does not mean that it is safer.

Instead, the study shows that, in 2009 and 2010, Planned Parenthood provided 233,805 chemical abortions. “Significant adverse events or outcomes were reported in 1,530 cases.” That means more than two women each day faced a “significant adverse event or outcome” following chemical abortions.

On the other hand, studies have shown that surgical abortion is a safer alternative. For example, one study has shown that women are more likely to be admitted and require surgical intervention after first-trimester chemical abortions than following surgical abortions.[5] Another study revealed that the overall incidence of immediate adverse events is fourfold higher for chemical abortions than for surgical abortions.[6] In particular, hemorrhage and incomplete abortion (or failed abortion) are more common after chemical abortions.[7]

And, significant here, there is also a greater risk of severe infection following chemical abortion than following surgical abortion.[8]

[1] FDA, Mifepristone U.S. Postmarketing Adverse Events Summary Through 04/30/11 (July 2011), available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/UCM263353.pdf (last visited Jan. 7, 2013).

[2] 21 C.F.R. § 314.520.

[3] FDA, Sept. 2000 Approval Letter.

[4] Mifeprex Final Printed Labeling (FPL), available at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2005/020687s013lbl.pdf (last visited Jan. 4, 2013).

[5] E. Mulligan & H. Messenger, Mifepristone in South Australia: The First 1343 Tablets, Australian Family Physician 40(5):342, 344 (May 2011).

[6] M. Niinimaki et al., Immediate Complications after Medical compared with Surgical Termination of Pregnancy, Obstet. Gynecol. 114:795 (Oct. 2009).

[7] Id.

[8] See M. Fisher et al., Fatal Toxic Shock Syndrome Associated with Clostridium sordelli after Medical Abortion, N.E. J.M. 353:2352-60 (2005); M. Greene, Fatal Infections Associated with Mifepristone-Induced Abortion, N.E.J.M. 353:2317-18 (2005).

Eighth Circuit accepts argument advanced in AUL amicus brief and upholds South Dakota’s “suicide advisory”

Tuesday, July 24th, 2012

Today in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, the Eighth Circuit upheld South Dakota’s “suicide advisory”—that portion of its informed consent law requiring that women be informed that there is an increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide following abortion.

AUL filed an amicus brief twice—once before the original Eighth Circuit panel, and then again when the full Eighth Circuit panel requested copies of the brief—arguing that such an advisory is not an “undue burden” on women seeking abortion. Rather, AUL argued, the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart (in upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban) explicitly held that state and federal legislatures are given “wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.” And there is substantial medical evidence demonstrating an association between abortion and suicide to support the South Dakota law’s advisory.

Based upon this standard in Gonzales, AUL argued that Planned Parenthood, who was challenging the law, had a very high burden of proof:

[Planned Parenthood] must demonstrate that there is no medical or scientific uncertainty regarding the increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide following induced abortion. In other words, they must claim and prove that there is zero evidence demonstrating a link between abortion and suicide. This they cannot do.

In its opinion today, after citing the same language from Gonzales, the Eighth Circuit explained in similar language that Planned Parenthood failed to meet this high burden of proof:

Instead, Planned Parenthood would have to show that any “medical and scientific uncertainty” has been resolved into a certainty against a causal role for abortion. In other words, in order to render the suicide advisory unconstitutionally misleading or irrelevant, Planned Parenthood would have to show that abortion has been ruled out, to a degree of scientifically accepted certainty, as a statistically significant causal factor in post-abortion suicides. An examination of Planned Parenthood’s evidence reveals that it has not met this burden.

The Court’s acceptance of this logical extension of the Supreme Court’s Gonzales decision is potentially ground-breaking as it applies to other cases and other abortion regulations. For example, states should be encouraged under this reasoning to regulate the off-label use of RU-486 (Mifeprex), which has been demonstrated to be unsafe in medical literature and has been deemed “unapproved” by the FDA. Even if plaintiffs like Planned Parenthood challenge such regulations, they will not be able to fulfill such a high burden: under Gonzales and today’s Eighth Circuit opinion, those who challenge such a common sense regulation would have to show there is no medical evidence that RU-486 can cause significant harm when used inappropriately.

Also significant is the Court’s overwhelming acceptance of the medical literature demonstrating a link between abortion and suicide. The Court stated that the studies submitted by South Dakota “are sufficiently reliable to support the truth of the proposition that the relative risk of suicide and suicide ideation is higher for women who abort their pregnancies compared to women who give birth or have not become pregnant,” and that this risk is “generally ‘known.’” No longer can Planned Parenthood ignore the plethora of medical evidence mounting against it.

Similarly, the Court also acknowledged that the standard medical practice is to recognize a strongly correlated adverse effect as a “risk” while further studies are conducted to clarify whether various underlying factors play causal roles. This turned Planned Parenthood’s practice on its head; typically, Planned Parenthood argues for courts to take the opposite approach and not consider anything a “risk” of abortion unless “proven” by Planned Parenthood-approved sources. The Court also described at length the potential methodological flaws in a report by the American Psychological Association, which illegitimately refuted the link between abortion and suicide.

Overall, the opinion contains a wealth of significant holdings which will work to protect women in South Dakota, the Eighth Circuit, and potentially beyond. The Eighth Circuit has started to pull the veil off the abortion industry’s dirty little secret: that abortion harms women.

Planned Parenthood disregards ALL women’s health

Thursday, May 31st, 2012

This morning Live Action released their second video in the series, “Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America.” This time, the video reveals an employee at Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Center (New York City)—one of the organization’s largest clinics—scheduling a sex-selection abortion for a patient.

As we stated earlier this week, it is reprehensible that Planned Parenthood would unflinchingly discuss and schedule a sex-selection abortion. A prohibition on this deadly, discriminatory practice is supported by 77 percent of Americans. Later today, the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on PRENDA, which would criminalize Planned Parenthood’s actions of killing baby girls just because they are baby girls.

Additionally, it is apparent from these videos that Planned Parenthood has no regard for the health of the mother, either. Consider this discussion from the video: the patient asks whether there are fewer complications with an earlier abortion. The Planned Parenthood employee states that an abortion up to 24 weeks is considered a “safe procedure”:

“[T]he biggest difference is that after 16 weeks, the procedure becomes a 2-day procedure, rather than a procedure that’s done just on one day. So it’s not that it’s unsafe or that there’s a lot more risk involved, it’s just there’s more steps involved and it’s just a little more complicated….”

This information—from one of Planned Parenthood’s star clinics—is patently false.

Again, it is undisputed that the risks of abortion are exponentially greater at later gestations. Consider the risk of maternal death at later gestations:

1 death per 1,000,000 abortions before 8 weeks gestation
1 death per 29,000 abortions at 16 weeks gestation
1 death per 11,000 abortions at 21 or more weeks.

Abortion at a later gestation is not “just a little more complicated.” There is a significant increase in the risk of death.

When Planned Parenthood did an advance public relations campaign in expectation of the release of these videos, it stated the following: “We expect that the materials eventually released will focus on Planned Parenthood’s nonjudgmental discussions with the various women who posed as possible patients [seeking sex-selection abortions].” Yet these “nonjudgmental” discussions are far from the only problem in these videos. Lying to women about the risks of abortion is a major problem, too.

Planned Parenthood is confirming what we have known all along—it doesn’t care about the health of women, inside or outside of the womb.

Live Action Video reveals Planned Parenthood’s true agenda: Abortion for any reason, at any time, no matter the risks to the woman

Tuesday, May 29th, 2012

Today, Live Action released its first video in a series entitled “Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America.” Consistent with Planned Parenthood’s pattern of abuse and habitual disregard for the health and safety of women, the video reveals Planned Parenthood willing to help a woman kill her later-term, unborn child if an ultrasound reveals the child is a girl.

The callousness and flippancy of the Planned Parenthood employee is breathtaking, as she laughs about having four children and aborting two others. She tells the woman that she can have other children if she aborts a daughter, “So just continue and try again”—as if later term abortions are trivial, a game to be played until you get the sex you want.

But what the video reveals about Planned Parenthood’s radical agenda is especially significant. Forget the mantra, “Safe, Legal, and Rare.” Planned Parenthood will do abortions for any reason, at any time, and without regard to the woman’s health and safety.

First, Planned Parenthood will do abortions for any reason. In the video, the woman states that she will seek an abortion if her unborn child is a girl. The Planned Parenthood employee details how the woman can get an ultrasound and come back to Planned Parenthood for an abortion if the child is a girl. Planned Parenthood claims to care about women—but obviously that concern does not extend to women in the womb. Taking a life simply because it belongs to a girl is the ultimate form of sex discrimination.

Second, Planned Parenthood will do abortions at any time. The Planned Parenthood employee describes an unborn child at 20-23 weeks, “The brain is already developed, a lot… Pretty much everything’s already developed.” In addition to “pretty much everything” already being developed, medical evidence demonstrates that an unborn child can feel pain at 20 weeks. But that doesn’t stop Planned Parenthood. The only thing standing in the way of its agenda of providing abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy is a state law prohibiting later-term abortion.

Finally, Planned Parenthood will perform late-term abortions without medical reason, thereby endangering the health and lives of women. In the video, the Planned Parenthood employee has no qualms about providing a late-term abortion for the woman, even though there is no medical reason for the abortion. Yet, it is undisputed that abortion poses a higher medical risk to the woman when the procedure is performed later in pregnancy. Compared to an abortion at eight weeks of gestation or earlier, the relative risk increases exponentially at longer gestations. The incidence of major complications is highest after 20 weeks gestation—the time at which the Planned Parenthood employee acknowledges the woman will first learn her baby’s sex, and can come back to Planned Parenthood if she wants to abort once she knows if the baby is a girl.

It is nothing but medically irresponsible to perform an unnecessary procedure, for a deadly discriminatory reason, which will kill one female and put the other at extreme medical risk (including death).

The video highlights the need for state and federal legislation prohibiting sex-selection abortion and abortions at and after 20 weeks gestation. AUL’s model bills, the Sex Selective and Genetic Abnormality Ban Act (sex selection ban) and the Women’s Health Defense Act (late-term abortion ban), are available here. To date, only 4 states prohibit sex-selection abortions (AZ, IL, OK, and PA), and 11 states prohibit abortion at or after 20 weeks (AL, AZ, DE, GA, ID, IN, KS, NE, NC, OH, and OK). In May, AUL’s President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest testified before a Missouri House subcommittee hearing on HB 1933, the Abortion Ban for Sex Selection and Genetic Abnormalities Act of 2012, based on AUL’s model. AUL’s Staff Counsel Mailee Smith filed written legal testimony supporting the same bill.

On the federal front, the House of Representatives is currently considering H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2012 (PRENDA). H.R. 3541 would prohibit sex discrimination against an unborn child by proscribing the killing of the child based on his or her sex. Passage of PRENDA is vital to prevent sex-based violence and to ensure that women are treated with respect and dignity. Americans United for Life Action is urging Members to vote for PRENDA and will be scoring the vote on H.R. 3541.

Planned Parenthood’s true agenda—to provide abortion for any reason, at any time, no matter the risks—stands in stark contrast to the views of the majority of Americans. A recent poll revealed that 77 percent of Americans support bans on sex-selection abortions.

Live Action’s video drives home the point that Planned Parenthood is an enemy of the American people, and particularly women.

Study confirms that RU-486 abortions are convenient for abortion providers, but dangerous and less desirable for women

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

Earlier this week, a pro-life group out of London highlighted a study confirming that abortion drugs are more painful and less preferred by women than standard surgical abortions. That study, originally pubished in late 2010, is particularly important now as the issues of health care, the defunding of abortion providers, and the limiting of “telemed abortions” are debated across the United States.

Specifically, researchers found the following:

Women preferred surgical abortion to medical abortion (i.e., abortion caused by drugs)
Women who had medical abortions experienced more pain on the day of the procedure (43 percent, compared to 23 percent)
Women who had medical abortions experienced more bleeding (37 percent, compared to just 4 percent)
Almost half of the women in the medical abortion group indicated that they would not choose medical abortion again, but none of women in the surgical group who were available for follow-up indicated that they would opt for a different procedure
Almost half of the women in the medical abortion group stated that the procedure was worse than they expected, while none of the women in the surgical group indicated that that the surgical procedure was worse than expected.

While the study focused on women in their second trimester, it confirms other reports that RU-486 causes more bleeding and cramping tha surgical abortion methods.

The researchers acknowledged that it was hard to find women willing to participate in the study, because women have such strong preferences for one abortion method over another—and in this study, that preference was clearly for surgical abortion.

Significantly, the “study also produced evidence that the surgical method is associated with better short term psychological outcome….”

So all of this begs the question: If abortion drugs are more painful and cause more bleeding than surgical abortions, why do abortion providers push them on women so frequently?

Predictably, the answer is money. Abortion-inducing drugs are more convenient for abortion providers, especially given the fact that providers in the U.S. admittedly administer the drugs in a manner not approved by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). For example, the drugs are given to women past the gestational age approved by the FDA, and women are instructed to take the second dose at home (and not under direct physician supervision). This allows providers to give the drugs to more women in a day than they could otherwise see. And obviously, abortion providers can provide more women with medical abortion than they can provide with surgical procedures.

Sadly, abortion advocates claim a “need” for medical abortion for women in rural areas, who might not have access to providers of surgical abortion. So what this means is that women without adequate health care are given a medication that causes more pain and more bleeding than a surgical abortion, and are sent home to deal with it by themselves and outside of a physician’s supervision. This is not health care, and it is not compassionate. Plain and simple, abortion providers are looking to profit—otherwise, providers would be more concerned for the physical and psychological complications that follow medical abortion.

But abortion is not about women’s health. It is all about money.

Gonzales v. Carhart: One Year Later

Monday, April 21st, 2008

Gonzales v. Carhart: One Year Later
Letting the People Decide

By Denise M. Burke
Vice President & Legal Director, Americans United for Life

One year ago, the public debate over abortion was irrevocably altered. In the landmark Gonzales v. Carhart decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and, more importantly, abdicated, at least in part, its role as the “National Abortion Control Board.”

In its decision, the Court signaled an increasing willingness to blunt attempts by abortion extremists to use the courts to unilaterally impose their radical agenda on the American public, and an increasing willingness to let the people decide abortion policy. The immediate reaction of activists, state legislators, and the public confirmed this critical shift.

While abortion extremists hastily recycled the hyperbolic rhetoric of the 1970s, legislators and the public increasingly considered prudent responses to the mounting evidence of the negative impact of abortion on women. [more]

Just Posted at AUL.org: The Truth Behind Abortion Health Claims

Tuesday, March 4th, 2008

by Clarke Forsythe and Dr. Donna Harrison

From the March 2, 2008 Our Sunday Visitor:

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade, women still do not know all of its health risks. The reasons for this are varied — a seriously inadequate abortion-reporting program at both the state and federal levels; obstruction by state and federal courts, as well as by abortion supporters such as Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights; and political resistance or indifference at the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at state health departments.

These obstacles make it difficult for researchers to obtain data in the United States, but this has been offset in recent years by medical studies from countries that do a better job of tracking data. Looking at the U.S. and international data combined show several well-documented medical risks from abortion. However, a January report by the Guttmacher Institute, formerly the research arm of Planned Parenthood, denies any significant health risk from abortion.

The article examines four of the report’s claims that don’t tell the whole story.

Read it at AUL.org

Schedule for AUL Legal Institute Announced. Save the Dates June 23-26, 2008

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

AUL Legal Institute — June 23-26, 2008

Preliminary Schedule (subject to change)
Registration Coming Soon

Monday, June 23

9:00 — 9:15 am	Welcome Daniel McConchie, M.A., Vice President & Executive Director, Americans United for Life

9:15 — 10:30 am	Abortion: The Ultimate Abuser of Women TBD

10:45 — 12:00 pm	RU486 and the Coming Chemical Abortion Revolution TBD

12:15 — 1:15 pm	Lunch with morning speaker (TBD)

1:30 — 3:00 pm	Roe v. Wade: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? Clarke Forsythe, J.D., M.A., President, Americans United for Life

3:15 — 4:30 pm	*Emerging Issues in the Cause for Life* Denise M. Burke, J.D., Vice President & Legal Director, Americans United for Life

Tuesday, June 24

9:00 — 10:15 am	Making Roe Meaningless: AUL’s Step-by-Step Approach to Abortion Minimization Mailee Smith, J.D., Staff Counsel, Americans United for Life

10:30 — 11:45 am	*Prudence vs. All-or-Nothing: Lessons from Lincoln and Wilberforce on the Morality of Imperfect Legislation* Mr. Forsythe

12:00 — 1:15 pm	Lunch with Mr. Forsythe, Ms. Burke, and Mr. Manion

1:30 — 3:00 pm	Impact of Gonzales v. Carhart: 2008 State Legislative Sessions in Review Maggie Datiles, J.D., Staff Counsel, Americans United for Life

3:15 — 4:30 pm	*Protecting the Right of Conscience: Healthcare Providers and Discrimination* Frank Manion, Senior Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice

Wednesday, June 25

9:00 — 10:15 am	Ethics, Law, and Life: An Overview of Bioethics Mr. McConchie

10:30 — 12:00 pm	The Quest for Cures: Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research David Prentice, Ph.D., Senior Fellow for Life Sciences, Family Research Council

12:00 — 1:15 pm	Lunch with Dr. Prentice

1:15 — 3:00 pm	*The Reproductive Revolution: IVF, Donor Egg & Sperm, and Other Innovative Ways to Conceive* Dr. Prentice

3:15 — 4:30 pm	*Future Tech: Ethical Issues in the Pipeline* Matthew Eppinette, M.B.A., M.A., Communications Director, Americans United for Life

Thursday, June 26

9:00am — 12:00 pm	Mercy Killing & the Courts: Today’s Challenges at the End of Life Professor Robert A. Destro, Columbus School of Law — Catholic University of America

12:15 — 1:15 pm	Lunch with Professor Destro

1:30 — 2:15 pm	The Battle for Hearts and Minds: Messaging and the Media Mr. McConchie

2:30 — 4:30 pm	How to Use the Media as a Tool in Two Minutes or Less Teri Goudie, President, Goudie Media Services (includes hands on media training)

Studies Relating to Long-Term Health Consequences of Abortion

Thursday, January 24th, 2008

As we noted in the press release on the 35th anniversary of Roe, the five most well-documented medical risks from abortion are:

A heightened risk of pre-term birth in future pregnancy
An increased incidence of alcohol and drug abuse
An increased risk of suicide
A heightened risk of placenta previa in future pregnancies
The loss of protective effect against breast cancer from a first full-term pregnancy

This post is the first in a series of posts that will highlight the studies documenting these risks.

Heightened Risk of Pre-Term Birth (PTB)

Calhoun, Shadigian, and Rooney, “Cost Consequences of Induced Abortion as an Attributable Risk for Preterm Birth and Impact on Informed Consent,” 52 J. Repro. Medicine 929 (2007).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the human and monetary cost consequences of preterm delivery as related to induced abortion (IA), with its impact on informed consent and medical malpractice.

STUDY DESIGN: A review of the literature in English was performed to assess the effect of IA on preterm delivery rates from 24 to 316/7 weeks to assess the risk for preterm birth attributable to IA. After calculating preterm birth risk, the increased initial neonatal hospital costs and cerebral palsy (CP) risks related to IA were calculated.

RESULTS: IA increased the early preterm delivery rate by 31.5%, with a yearly increase in initial neonatal hospital costs related to IA of >$1.2 billion. The yearly human cost includes 22,917 excess early preterm births (EPB) (<32 weeks) and 1,096 excess CP cases in very-low-birth-weight newborns, <1,500 g.

CONCLUSION: IA contributes to significantly increased neonatal health costs by causing 31.5% of EPB. Providers of obstetric care and abortion should be aware of the risk of preterm birth attributable to induced abortion, with its significant increase in initial neonatal hospital costs and CP cases. (J Reprod Med 2007;52:929-937)