Holes found in “study” claiming ultrasounds don’t stop abortion

baby 11 weeks ultrasoundby Kelli

[A recent] study… claimed that the vast majority (over 95%) of women who elected to see the sonogram (they had a choice whether or not to see it) chose to have abortions anyway.

This seems to fly in the face of everything that pro-lifers have experienced….

One of my best friends… once drove [her friend Emily] to [an abortion] clinic and sat with her in the waiting room… [and later] accompanied her for the ultrasound.

“Okay,” said the clinic worker, as they wheeled the big ultrasound machine into the room. “We just have to print out a picture of the pregnancy. Legally, you’re supposed to view it – but don’t worry – we can take care of that.”… [T]hey were careful to turn the screen away from Emily and, as it happened, towards my friend.

What my friend saw on the screen, a fully formed baby at about eleven weeks, horrified her…. She just sat there and watched the unsuspecting child moving her arms around and kicking in Emily’s womb….

[A] clinic worker… came back with Emily’s chart, with the ultrasound printout stapled to a sheet for Emily to sign at the bottom. The clinic worker handed Emily the printed out ultrasound picture – with a big index card taped over the picture of the baby, so that Emily could not see it.

Emily dutifully signed the sheet below the taped-over picture verifying that she had seen the ultrasound and chose to abort anyway…..

I do not know how many abortions were done at that clinic, and how many women signed papers saying that they had seen their baby when, in reality, they had not. Nor do I know whether other abortion clinics have employed the same strategy to avoid laws….

After carefully reading the abstract of the Obstetrics & Gynecology study, it seems that, according to their methodology section, none of the researchers ever actually set foot inside an abortion clinic in conducting research for the study. (And, in fact, all the data was gathered from one, single abortion clinic.) All of their data was collected, not by the researchers themselves, but from records provided directly by one abortion clinic with no oversight of any kind.

~ Sarah Terzo, suggesting that abortion clinic records might not be such a reliable study source, Live Action News, January 27

[Play the video below to see a growing child in utero at 11 weeks of pregnancy, via ehd.org]

[Photo via postabortionwalk.blogspot.com]

11 thoughts on “Holes found in “study” claiming ultrasounds don’t stop abortion”

  1. I am not surprised. If 95% of abortion center clients choose the abortion anyway, then why does Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc.  strongly oppose ultrasound bills? If it makes no difference, then what is all the fuss? They advocate for reproductive rights, but then hide the truth.

    There was also a YouTube video of a woman who got up the nerve to request her medical records from the abortion provider, learned that they had checked the box that she saw the ultrasound when in fact she had not seen the pictures until she got her file.

       12 likes

  2. MoJoanne, I believe that was another secular pro-lifer, Albany Rose, who had that experience with her former abortion clinic.

       7 likes

  3. Why didn’t the friend say something???? What kind of friend withholds that kind of information from you?

       7 likes

  4. “If 95% of abortion center clients choose the abortion anyway, then why does Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc.  strongly oppose ultrasound bills?”
     
    Because its an added expense. But no one wants to  acknowledge that because it would imply that PP isn’t just in it for the money.

       7 likes

  5. One would have to be rather gullible to believe that PP doesn’t pass on the cost of an ultrasound scan to the patient.  Puhlease.
    And we don’t believe PP is just in it for the money.  We believe that they and their wealthiest supporters are in agreement with the eugenic vision of PP’s founder, Margaret Sanger.

       6 likes

  6. “Because its an added expense.”
     
    Nope.  PP already requires ultrasounds for abortions.
    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-abortions-ultrasounds/
    And a study that was done about 10 years ago showed that most NAF member clinics also routinely perform ultrasounds before abortions.  (Can’t locate it right now, maybe someone else can post a link.)  Using ultrasound to determine gestational age and rule out ectopic pregnancy should be standard of care for the safety of women seeking abortion.  The abortion industry doesn’t fight that.   But they fight tooth and nail to avoid having to offer to show the woman the ultrasound.  Clearly not an issue of expense.
     

       5 likes

  7. The author didn’t find holes in the study. She didn’t read the study. Apparently LiveAction would rather pocket donors’ money than actually inform its readers. 

       3 likes

  8. My experience in trying to read entire medical journal articles is that one has to be a subscriber. To become a subscriber costs a hefty sum of money. Scientific and medical journals are not cheap. The alternative is to find someone who has access and ask him/her to get a copy. I’ve asked my personal physician to obtain an article from a neurology journal before, and she struck out. So, I’m not surprised if Live Action hit a brick wall at least initially.

       3 likes

  9. To become a subscriber costs a hefty sum of money.
     
    The journal sells access to individual articles. I don’t know how much it costs because you need to be registered with the site, but I’m sure that an organization that cleared nearly a half-million profit could spring for fifty bucks or so to buy access to the article that their story purports to rebut. Assuming that no one there knows an actual physician who subscribes to the journal.
     
    The alternative is to find someone who has access and ask him/her to get a copy.
    And if that alternative had failed, an actual journalist would have realized that a rambling anecdote about the abortion that a friend of her friend Emily had in a different state thirteen years ago is of absolutely no use in explaining the difference between the conclusion that the author wanted the article that she didn’t read to reach, and the conclusion that the article she didn’t read actually did reach. To her credit, the author does acknowledge that her story “may or may not explain” anything. And it’s not the author’s fault that someone who didn’t bother to read her post thoroughly enough to discover that the author didn’t read the article then reposted it with the title “Holes found in ‘study’ claiming ultrasounds don’t stop abortion.”
     
    But the fact that LiveAction posted the story about the article that the author didn’t read under its “ANALYSIS” rubric is pretty funny.   They’re probably laughing all the way to the bank.

       4 likes

  10. MoJoAnne sez:
    “My experience in trying to read entire medical journal articles is that one has to be a subscriber. To become a subscriber costs a hefty sum of money. Scientific and medical journals are not cheap. The alternative is to find someone who has access and ask him/her to get a copy. I’ve asked my personal physician to obtain an article from a neurology journal before, and she struck out. So, I’m not surprised if Live Action hit a brick wall at least initially. – See more at: http://www.jillstanek.com/2014/01/holes-found-in-study-claiming-ultrasounds-dont-stop-abortion/#comments
    —I have explored this challenge very well.
    ALL published info, including “scientific” articles published in fee-based/subscription-based peer-reviewed articles, can be shared for no fee for educational purposes.
    I am only here to educate. I don’t get paid to comment.
    If any Jill Stanek commenter wants a fee-based/”firewalled” article, let me know. For nine out of ten, I can get the article for you.
    If Jill Stanek is willing to work with me on my terms, I can get the article to you, via Jill Stanek / Jill Stanek blog.
    I also know how to read these articles and decipher what they are saying.
    This is us. This is our society and our biology. In my view, no one has a right to hold information about us, that they have profited from, from us. We provide the data about us, we are entitled to the data.
    A value of “science” is open-ness.
    If anyone wants to claim that they have figured out some scientific knowledge, but they only want to share part, for their career advancement, and won’t share articles, they are not behaving according to the values of “science.”
    Y’all just let me know. I’ll shoot you a pdf.

       2 likes

  11. If Jill Stanek is willing to work with me on my terms, I can get the article to you, via Jill Stanek / Jill Stanek blog.
    I once offered to share an article that is widely cited among wingnuts as the smoking gun proving Planned Parenthood’s population control master plan. Not a single pro-lifer wanted to read it. 
     
    Anyway, Reuters has also reported on the article, and it looks like LiveAction’s claim that the study was gathered from a single clinic is false (the data were collected from 19 PP clinics).
     
    Someone who cared about truth would note the inaccuracy. What do you suppose this blog will do? 
     

       2 likes

Comments are closed.