Planned Parenthood

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).

Alaska Parental Notice Law Upheld, Minors Finally Protected After 15-Year Battle

Tuesday, October 9th, 2012

After 15 years of protracted legal wrangling, Alaska’s parental notice law has been upheld and Planned Parenthood has failed in its attempt to place its financial bottom line and radical political ideology over the health and welfare of minor girls and their families.

In Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest v. State of Alaska, the Superior Court for the State of Alaska ruled that the parental notification law, which requires an abortion provider to give notice to a parent or guardian before performing an abortion on a minor, does not violate the state’s constitution. The court also upheld provisions requiring that the parent or guardian provide valid identification and providing for criminal penalties for those who violate the law.

While the case is likely to be appealed, this decision represents a major victory for the people of Alaska, who have worked tirelessly to adopt and enforce protections for minors seeking abortion. In 1997, the state legislature enacted a parental consent statute, but that law was ultimately struck down under the auspices of the state constitution’s “right-to-privacy,” with the state supreme court holding that the state privacy right confers a broader “right” to abortion than the U.S. Constitution.

But the people of Alaska were undeterred. In 2010, Alaskans passed a ballot initiative requiring that abortion providers notify a parent or guardian before a minor’s abortion. Of course, Planned Parenthood immediately filed suit. Shortly thereafter, Alaskans won their first victory—the state trial court refused to enjoin most of the new law, and the law went into effect while the litigation continued.

While this decision is a tremendous victory, not all of the court’s factual findings were entirely accurate. For example, the court concluded that abortion carries no risk of pre-term birth or psychological harm—risks which are actually well-documented in the medical literature.

But overall, pro-life advocates should be encouraged by this decision. AUL attorneys have been actively involved in the fight to protect minors and parental rights in Alaska. AUL has repeatedly consulted with legislators, attorneys, and other allies in Alaska, filed a brief in the Alaska Supreme Court in defense of the 1997 parental consent law, helped to prepare the attorney who argued in defense of the parental consent law, and vetted the language of the 2010 parental involvement ballot initiative.

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.

Major Win for Conscience in Washington State has National Implications

Friday, February 24th, 2012

Following a 12 day trial, a district court in the state of Washington has issued a resounding decision supporting the conscience rights of pharmacists and pharmacies. The case, Stormans v. Selecky, began after the Washington Board of Pharmacy (“Board”) issued new regulations requiring pharmacies to dispense life-ending “emergency contraception” (both Plan B and ella) regardless of religious beliefs or moral objections.

The case has been ongoing since 2007, but yesterday the court issued a detailed opinion holding that the regulations violate the First (free exercise) and Fourteenth (equal protection) Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The detailed 48-page opinion was accompanied by 97 pages of findings and conclusions of law.

These findings contain excellent analysis and affirmations of the importance of conscience. For example, the Court found that the Board’s regulations have been aimed at conscientious objectors from their inception; that the goal of the Board, Governor Christine Gregoire, and “advocacy groups” was to eliminate conscientious objection; that “literally all of the evidence demonstrates that the 2007 rulemaking was undertaken primarily (if not solely) to ensure that religious objectors would be required to stock and dispense Plan B”; and that the design of the regulations was to accomplish a “religious gerrymander.”

But perhaps even more interesting from a national perspective are the following: 1) the court’s detailed outline of the Governor’s relationship with Planned Parenthood, and their overt partnership in maliciously attacking people of religious belief; 2) the court’s finding that there is no problem of access to Plan B; and 3) the affirmation that the right to “refrain from taking human life” is deeply rooted in our nation’s history.

1) Planned Parenthood’s bullying

The court goes back to 2005 to explain that the impetus for this case actually began shortly after Governor Rod Blagojevich (Illinois) issued an emergency rule forcing pharmacists in that state to dispense Plan B (a rule which the court points out has since been held unconstitutional). At that time, Planned Parenthood and Northwest Women’s Law Center (“NWWLC”) contacted Governor Gregoire’s office regarding conscientious objections to “emergency contraception.” At that point, both Governor Gregoire and Planned Parenthood began pressuring the Washington Board of Pharmacy to address the issue.

At first, the Board expressed support for the right of conscience. But as we have witnessed over the years (and most recently, in the vicious attacks on the Susan G. Komen Foundation), Planned Parenthood does not take “no” for an answer.

And thus, the bullying commenced. With Governor Gregoire in their pocket, Planned Parenthood manipulated and distorted the system in an attempt to ensure that conscience rights were obliterated in the state of Washington. Importantly, the court detailed this malicious campaign in its findings of fact—meaning it is part of the legal record. Among its findings were:

Within hours of the Board’s initial vote to protect conscience, “the Governor and Planned Parenthood set in motion a plan to reverse the Board’s decision.”
“Seeking to increase pressure on the Board, the Governor’s office urged Planned Parenthood to work together with the Human Rights Commission (HRC).” The HRC “followed up with a letter threatening Board members with personal liability if they passed a regulation allowing for conscientious objection.”
“Planned Parenthood reviewed drafts and helped shape the message of this inter-governmental warning, which was obviously intended to intimidate the Board.”
“The Governor publicly threatened to replace members of the Board, and the Governor, based on the unprecedented participation of Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice advocates in the Board review process, did, in fact, refuse to reappoint [the Board chair].”
The Governor personally called the Board chair to pressure him, after she had advised her staff that calling Board members was unlawful. When he resisted, she replaced him with appointees recommended by Planned Parenthood.
“[T]he Governor … took another unprecedented step: She involved her ‘advocates’—Planned Parenthood, NWWLC and NARAL—in the process of interviewing candidates for the Board.”
The Governor then selected two new candidates recommended by Planned Parenthood.
When the plaintiff pharmacy’s views on Plan B became public, “pro-choice groups” organized ongoing protests against the pharmacy, with protestors standing in the streets and yelling at customers—causing the plaintiff to have to hire security to patrol the grounds.

The Court also detailed numerous other communications as well as statements made by witnesses during the trial. The creation of the regulations was “a highly political affair, driven largely by the Governor and Planned Parenthood—both outspoken opponents of conscientious objection to Plan B.”

All of this “religious gerrymandering” led to one result: the Board’s approval of regulations that force pharmacists and pharmacies to dispense “emergency contraception,” regardless of religious belief. Indeed that was the point. The Governor and Planned Parenthood were targeting pharmacists of a certain religious belief.

2) There is no problem of access to Plan B

The court bolstered its decision with the fact that “the evidence at trial revealed no problem of access to Plan B or any other drug before, during, or after the rulemaking process.” In fact, the Board commissioned a survey which “confirm[ed] that Plan B is widely available, and religious objections do not pose a barrier to access.”

This was the case even in rural areas—those areas that Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates claim are underserved. The Court found, “no Board witness, or any other witness, was able to identify any particular community in Washington—rural or otherwise—that lacked timely access to emergency contraceptives or any other time-sensitive medication.”

In the “absence of general, empirical, or systematic evidence of an access problem,” the state introduced into evidence “refusal stories”—attempts to show actual situations where women were refused access to Plan B. But the court blew enormous holes through this “evidence.” Many of the refusals were “inaccurately reported,” “unsubstantiated,” or involved “mere hypotheticals.” Importantly, the court acknowledged that many of the stories were “manufactured” by Planned Parenthood and other activists.

3) There is a deeply rooted right to “refrain from taking human life”

Finally, the court acknowledged that “the right to refrain from taking human life” is a right “deeply rooted in our nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices.’” Citing a law review article by Catholic University Professor and AUL ally Mark Rienzi, the court stated that this right was first protected in the colonial era, is widely recognized in the U.S. medical community, and is recognized in foreign and international law.

National Implications

Much to the chagrin of Planned Parenthood, this decision comes right at a time when it believes it has been victorious in the conscience battle. Just when the Obama Administration is trying to force religious institutions to provide coverage of life-ending drugs to their employees, a federal district court has ruled that such coercive action targeted toward religious persons is unconstitutional.

Two courts have now held that this type of coercion violates the very core of the Constitution. In Illinois, a state court held in 2011 that the Illinois rule instigated by then-Governor Blagojevich violates a host of state laws, as well as the First Amendment. Now, a federal district court in Washington—yet another more “liberal” state—has ruled the same.

Moreover, the court’s finding that there is no access problem to Plan B—even in “rural areas—is substantial. It guts the very heart of Planned Parenthood’s “access” arguments. And the court’s refusal to allow Planned Parenthood to “manufacture” evidence highlights the organization’s typical modus operandi: if you don’t have the facts on your side, lie. Thankfully, this court saw through the bullying and the lies.

The message is clear: Planned Parenthood can puppet governors and presidents into trying to violate the consciences of the American people, but the law is on our side.

Abortion contract: If we mess up, you are contractually bound to come back to us for a second abortion

Thursday, June 23rd, 2011

Just when you think that the abortion industry could not possibly get any slimier, you find something like this, from the Bronx Planned Parenthood web page…

Here’s what you need to know about abortion services at this health center:

Abortion Pill (Medication Abortion)

Abortion pill (medication abortion) is offered up to 9 weeks after the start of your last menstrual period. If your last menstrual period was more than 9 weeks ago, read about our in-clinic abortion services below.

Abortion pill (medication abortion) services are available by appointment only.

Plan to be at the health center for 2-3 hour(s) for your entire abortion pill visit (medication abortion).

During the abortion pill (medication abortion) visit, you must agree—before you start—that you will have an in-clinic abortion if the abortion pill does not work.

After your abortion visit, you will need access to a telephone, transportation, and backup medical care available to you once you are home.

Let’s break this down.

The abortion pill (RU-496) is “offered up to 9 weeks after the start of your last menstrual period.” That’s 63 days. As AUL has reported many times before, the FDA only approved RU-486 up to 49 days after a woman’s last menstrual period. At 63 days, the RU-486 regimen is 23 percent ineffective; women must then go in for a second surgical abortion. So Planned Parenthood is offering RU-486 in a way that is ineffective 23 percent of the time—and when it fails, Planned Parenthood gets paid for two abortions on the same woman.

“Plan to be at the health center for 2-3 hour(s) for your entire abortion pill visit.” The FDA approved RU-486—which requires doses three days apart—for administration by and under the supervision of a physician. Then the woman is to come back approximately 14 days later for a follow-up appointment. If a woman is only in the clinic for 2-3 hours on the first day of administration, then clearly Planned Parenthood is not following the safety protocol approved by the FDA.

“After your abortion pill visit, you will need access to … backup medical care available to you once you are home.” In other words, Planned Parenthood will do her abortion, but don’t expect its staff to help with any complications.

Now here is the real kicker: “you must agree—before you start—that you will have an in-clinic abortion if the abortion pill does not work.” A woman must agree—before her procedure starts—that if it fails, she will let Planned Parenthood do a second abortion.

What if, in the interim, a woman decides she doesn’t want to abort after all? Or, what if the woman decides she would rather be seen and treated by her own primary care physician or OB/GYN? What about “choice”?

From a legal perspective, the required agreement is totally bogus. A woman cannot contract away her emergency health care or her right to carry a pregnancy to term. But would the average woman know this? In the midst of an emotional and confusing time, a woman may want to keep her baby, or may not trust the clinic that botched her first abortion—but may think she is contractually bound to go back.

It’s just another example of the abortion industry placing profit above safety and bullying women into aborting their own children.

Ohio Court: Planned Parenthood Violated the Law

Thursday, December 9th, 2010

In a ruling that may be the first of its kind, a state trial court ruled on Tuesday that an Ohio Planned Parenthood clinic violated state law by not abiding by the state’s mandatory 24-hour reflection period before a woman can obtain an abortion.

Adding to the drama of this case is the fact that the woman in question was a minor at the time of her abortion. As AUL has reported in the past, the minor, unnamed in the case in the interest of confidentiality, was taken to the clinic by her 22-year-old “boyfriend” (her soccer coach), and obtained the abortion without either her parents’ consent or notification. In 2004 the “boyfriend” was convicted of sexual battery and spent three years in prison—despite Planned Parenthood’s apparent efforts to keep the pregnancy and abortion a secret.

The state’s informed consent law is not the only law violated by Planned Parenthood in this case; still before the court is the issue of parental involvement (i.e., whether Planned Parenthood violated state law by not informing the parents of the planned abortion or getting their consent). Further, the minor’s pregnancy and boyfriend’s involvement in her abortion should have incited Planned Parenthood’s employees—mandatory reporters under Ohio law—to report her sexual abuse/statutory rape to the proper authorities. They did not.

AUL has been involved in this case since 2008, providing legal assistance to lead attorney Brian Hurley of Ohio. In May 2008, AUL filed an amicus curiae brief before the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that Planned Parenthood’s actions and refusal to hand over pertinent records threatened the state’s protection of minors by undermining the parental involvement and statutory rape laws. That brief, filed on behalf of members of Ohio’s Congressional delegation including Speaker-designate John Boehner, is available here.

We hope that this case is only the first of many; we hope it will encourage women to step forward and demonstrate that Planned Parenthood has injured thousands and thousands of women—both physically and psychologically—by pushing their radical, abortion-on-demand agenda and ignoring state and federal laws. Planned Parenthood needs to be held accountable.

Planned Parenthood “encouraged” by abortion decrease? Not likely

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010

Recently, the Associated Press reported that the number of abortions in Ohio continues to decline. In response, Tara Broderick, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Northeast Ohio, stated, “The trend is encouraging news,” and “We would like to think that we contribute to this.”

It is hard to believe that Planned Parenthood—the largest abortion provider in the nation—is encouraged by a decrease in abortion. After all, fewer abortions mean fewer dollars pouring into the billion dollar industry.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous that Planned Parenthood would claim any part in an abortion decrease in any state. In fact, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards has indicated the organization’s goal is actually to provide more abortions to more women through a “telemed” abortion scheme; in other words, providing medical (RU-486) abortions to women without ever physically examining them.

Rather, it is abortion-regulating legislation (which is always vehemently opposed by Planned Parenthood) that truly reduces the abortion rate. For example, in an upcoming article in State Politics and Policy Quarterly (the top state political journal in the country), Dr. Michael New reports that parental involvement laws cause the in-state minor abortion rate to decrease by 13 percent. Ohio—like 35 other states—currently has a parental involvement (specifically, consent) law.

This latest statement by Planned Parenthood reveals its necessary strategy to appear credible in our society. With support for abortion decreasing, and with Democrat-held seats predicted to dwindle nationally in November, Planned Parenthood is simply trying to appeal to an increasing majority of the American public that may finally be catching on to its true motivation: money.

Alaska Voters Approve Parental Notification

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

Yesterday Alaska became the 37th state to require parental involvement before abortion. By a margin of 55% to 45%, voters approved Ballot Measure 2, an initiative sponsored by Alaskans for Parental Rights and requiring that abortionists notify a parent or guardian before performing an abortion on a minor.

Earlier this year, Planned Parenthood filed a legal challenge against the initiative in an effort to keep it off the ballot. However, in June, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled against the abortion provider. In the wake of yesterday’s results, Planned Parenthood is expected to launch a second legal challenge.

The battle to protect minors in the state of Alaska has been hard-fought, and AUL has a long history of involvement. In 2004, AUL attorneys filed an amicus brief in the Alaska Supreme Court in support of an earlier parental consent law that was ultimately struck down. Later, AUL provided information and counsel to allies supporting Ballot Measure 2.

Contrary to claims by Planned Parenthood, there is no reason to believe that the law will in any way endanger the health of minors. To the contrary, studies reveal that minors are even more at risk from the harms of abortion than adults. For example, minors are up to twice as likely as adults to experience cervical lacerations during abortion, and they are also at greater risk for post-abortion infections, such as pelvic inflammatory disease and endometritis. Notifying a parent of a minor’s abortion helps ensure that a minor will get adequate medical treatment if such complications arise.

Furthermore, the law provides for a court waiver (“judicial bypass”) when notifying a parent is not in the minor’s best interest. There is also a provision waiving the law if there is a medical emergency.