The "Early Pregnancy Care" abortion project

by Carder

Lila Rose is not the only whistleblower out of CA. Enter State Sen. Sam Aanestad who has blown the cover off the inaptly named "Early Pregnancy Care" project.

aaenstead.jpg

He writes in The American Thinker today:

The purpose of this experiment? "Demonstrate the role of advanced practice clinicians in expanding early pregnancy care."

That's Orwellian for "training non-physicians to perform first trimester abortions."

In the pilot project, approved in 2006 without legislative oversight, Planned Parenthood sites in three CA cities suspended state regulations to use Nurse Midwives, Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants to perform surgical abortions by suction aspiration.

Never mind committing abortions by nonphysicians is prohibted by one CA professional code and the Nursing and Medical Boards of CA. Planners hijacked a 30-year-old pilot project to combat the aging workforce by asserting, according to Aanestad, that "the access to early abortion services is an important public health goal."...

Predictably, the guinea pigs are minority women. Rest assured, Planned Parenthood's fangs are firmly embedded:

... [T]the program sponsor at the University of CA admits that the goal of the pilot project is to expand abortion practice and access, "particularly in underserved areas."...

Funding is provided by UC San Francisco, Kaiser Permanente of Northern CA, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA, The David and Lucille Packard Foundation, The John Merck Fund and The Educational Foundation of America.

The taxpayers of CA also foot the bill through the grant approval process and oversight provided by the state's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Professional license fees paid by doctors and nurses to the Board of Registered Nursing, the Medical Board of CA and the American College of OB/Gyns also fund project review and site visits.

Read the entire commentary here, noting this kicker:

And the ultimate goal of the project couldn't be clearer: "Disseminate our abortion training and utilization model to other faculties and states interested in expanding the pool of primary care abortion providers."

The good news is that funding for this triple decade stealth program has to be re-approved. March 9 is the date of scrutiny. The good senator has suggested we contact Dr. David Carlisle, director of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, at 916-326-3600.

Listen to State Senator Aamestad's interview with KMJ radio host Inga Barks here. (Scroll to bottom for link.) Notice her incredulousness over the whole affair.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, "The number of U.S. abortion providers declined by 2% between 2000 and 2005 (from 1,819 to 1,787)."

Certainly this project's organizers are trying to surmount the lack of abortionists.


Comments:

"early pregnancy care...That's Orwellian for "training non-physicians to perform first trimester abortions.""

My, they have no shame when it comes to their euphemisms, do they?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 10, 2009 3:18 PM


None at all, Bobby..... none at all.

Posted by: Doyle at February 10, 2009 3:54 PM


lanners hijacked a 30-year-old pilot project to combat the aging workforce by asserting, according to Aanestad, that "the access to early abortion services is an important public health goal."...


Huh? Excuse me, "combat the aging workforce" by killing young people? !

It's absolutely insane!

Posted by: hippie at February 10, 2009 4:09 PM


No the the Dead Babies r Us crowd and the death lobbby have no shame, but that does not mean that they are immune to the inhibition that comes from having their outrageous behavior publicly exposed.

'No child left behind' takes on a whole new meaning with these humanist barbarians.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at February 10, 2009 4:37 PM


PAs and NPs are competent professionals and operate under licenses. Having a procedure done by them is most likely comparable to physician care. In the case of PAs, they are licensed professionals that work underneath a licensed physician, so I don't quite see the point in making this a big deal. Especially since they are doing a first term abortion- a procedure with low risks in its own right.

I can understand the concern with making abortion more accessible by letting other professionals do it, however, there is nothing to assume that they can't do their job just as well as a physician doing the same procedure.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 10, 2009 5:13 PM


I agree with PiP. Whether or not anyone here is implying the opposite to be true, it is important to remind ourselves that doctors are nothing special, really. Experience does much more for understanding healthcare than a few extra years of abstract schooling.

Posted by: Oliver at February 10, 2009 6:00 PM


Why does it creep me out so much, the idea of a nurse or a midwife doing an abortion? I guess it's the idea that nursing and midwifery are supposed to be about care and nurturing, that there's a motherly element to it -- then they turn around and do what they KNOW is killing the baby.

If you want to kill, become an executioner, for the love of all that is decent, and don't take up killing children under the guise of a nurturing profession.

Posted by: Christina at February 10, 2009 6:51 PM


"The purpose of this experiment? "Demonstrate the role of advanced practice clinicians in expanding early pregnancy care."

"expanding early pregnancy care"?

wow, these people have alot of nerve.

Posted by: Jasper at February 10, 2009 7:36 PM


Let the creeps legalize back alley abortions. Why not a book on Abortion for Dummies 101

Actually even a D&C is dangerous. It also come after some spontaneous abortions and needs dilitation of the cervix. Actually it is more profitable to not use docs. Just about volume and money.

Posted by: xppc at February 10, 2009 8:14 PM


xppc, every surgical procedure has risks, but many PAs and NPs assist or perform minor surgeries. I don't know the laws but I believe most consider D&C a minor surgery.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 10, 2009 8:50 PM


Hey PIP,

Just for a minute, why dont you check out Christina's blog.

D&C's can be deadly minor surgeries...more often than you may realize.

Imagine being any of those women listed.

Peace,
a

Posted by: Angele at February 10, 2009 9:33 PM


No surprises here. The marketing of death necessarily employs deceptive methodologies so as to cloak the reality of that which the are selling. "Early pregnancy care", "reproductive health care", "death with dignity", "persistent vegetative state", and more...all cuts of the same cloth.

It really is a battle for the soul of America, a battle between the culture of death and those forces that reverence the dignity and sacredness of life.

Posted by: Jerry at February 10, 2009 10:44 PM


I am bummed. The David and Lucille Packard foundation is funded by the Packards of Hewlett Packard electronics fame. I will be making it known to them with a personal e-mail that I will not be buying HP computer equiptment unless they discontinue their funding of abortion.

Posted by: truthseeker at February 10, 2009 11:04 PM


And once again, why are we surprised by any of this ?

Posted by: Mike at February 10, 2009 11:18 PM


"Expanding early pregnancy care" sounds like an appropriate title for a program which expands and advocates early maternal/prenatal care.

Posted by: Rachael C. at February 11, 2009 12:22 AM


Angele, although I want to in no way diminish the pain of the families of those that died of D&C complications, it is still true that it is considered a 'minor' surgery. Minor does not mean that there are no risks, no side effects, or anything like that. 'Minor' doesn't mean that it's perfectly safe. But generally early term abortions are much less risky (statistically) than childbirth or even C-section (I did the research- PAs can do D&Cs, as well as biopsies, deliveries, and most other OB/GYN functions but on C-sections, they assist).
I am against abortion, but we should be against it for ethical reasons, because on the 'risky' grounds, childbirth has early abortion beat, easily. Furthermore, there are a lot of complications from other 'elective' surgery far more "risky" than abortion (liposuction etc), and it is still legal. However, we should always work to make sure that women are well taken care of; No woman should die from a preventable complication.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 11, 2009 1:11 AM


I am against abortion, but we should be against it for ethical reasons, because on the 'risky' grounds, childbirth has early abortion beat, easily.
Posted by: pip at February 11, 2009 1:11 AM

It's not safer for the woman pip, cause she is selling her soul to the dark side and death.

Posted by: truthseeker at February 11, 2009 2:14 AM


Pro choice?

Does the woman get to choose if it is a PA or a Doc? No?

Of course most of us in medicine know abortion docs are the bottom end of capability. They are no good. They specialize in mangling and have never been able to repair. reconstruct and do special poredures.

Posted by: xppc at February 11, 2009 9:24 AM


There are some issues with the comparison of abortion mortality and maternal mortality rates. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control report for pregnancy-related mortality rates: "In this report, a woman's death was classified as pregnancy-related if it occurred during pregnancy or within 1 year of pregnancy and resulted from 1) complications of the pregnancy, 2) a chain of events that was initiated by the pregnancy, or 3) the aggravation of an unrelated condition by the physiologic effects of the pregnancy or its management" (3). This means pregnancy-related mortality rates are broadly defined to included the following: aggravation of a maternal pre-existing, non-pregnancy-related medical condition, pregnancy-induced maternal medical condition, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, still birth, post-partum complications, and includes induced abortion. Therfore we are not comparing with the pregnancy mortality rate alone. In addition, regarding the CDC and AGI reports for Induced Abortions, mortalities resulting from induced abortion are typically under-reported as such. One reason is that a medical examiner may code the underlying cause of death on the autopsy report as the complication alone, i.e. embolism, septsis, hemorrhage, or anesthesia complications, rather than correctly as a legally induced abortion with specified complication. A good explination of this can be found here Therefore it is misleading to compare pregnancy-related mortality rates to abortion mortality rates to obtain the conclusion that abortion is safer than childbirth.

Posted by: Rachael C. at February 11, 2009 9:31 AM


There are some issues with the comparison of abortion mortality and maternal mortality rates. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control report for pregnancy-related mortality rates: "In this report, a woman's death was classified as pregnancy-related if it occurred during pregnancy or within 1 year of pregnancy and resulted from 1) complications of the pregnancy, 2) a chain of events that was initiated by the pregnancy, or 3) the aggravation of an unrelated condition by the physiologic effects of the pregnancy or its management" (3). This means pregnancy-related mortality rates are broadly defined to included the following: aggravation of a maternal pre-existing, non-pregnancy-related medical condition, pregnancy-induced maternal medical condition, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, still birth, post-partum complications, and includes induced abortion. Therfore we are not comparing with the pregnancy mortality rate alone. In addition, regarding the CDC and AGI reports for Induced Abortions, mortalities resulting from induced abortion are typically under-reported as such. One reason is that a medical examiner may code the underlying cause of death on the autopsy report as the complication alone, i.e. embolism, septsis, hemorrhage, or anesthesia complications, rather than correctly as a legally induced abortion with specified complication. A good explination of this can be found here Therefore it is misleading to compare pregnancy-related mortality rates to abortion mortality rates to obtain the conclusion that abortion is safer than childbirth.

3)Ellerbrock TV, Atrash HK, Hogue CJR, Smith JC. Pregnancy mortality surveillance: a new initiative.
Contemporary Ob Gyn 1988;31:23--34.
CITED IN
US. Centers for Disease Control: Pregnancy-Related Mortality Surveillance
United States, 1991--1999
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5202a1.htm

Posted by: Rachael C. at February 11, 2009 9:32 AM


"Does the woman get to choose if it is a PA or a Doc"
Pretty sure. Noone forces their services- any patient is welcome to switch should they want to.

"It's not safer for the woman pip, cause she is selling her soul to the dark side and death."
That would probably fall under and ethical/religious issue

So Rachael, what is the ratio, then?

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 11, 2009 9:53 AM


I think the point is that we don't know for sure what the ratio is... there is no way of knowing that given the current reporting standards.

Posted by: Elisabeth at February 11, 2009 10:43 AM


pip, you don't need religion or morals to suffer physical or spiritual death from killing your unborn. Just cause the death isn't immediate doesn't make it less real.

Posted by: truthseeker at February 11, 2009 10:44 AM


I own a HP printer, I feel all dirty now. I will be letting them know also, truthseeker. I had no idea.

Posted by: Andy at February 11, 2009 12:14 PM


I have one email address for the David and Lucille Packard Foundation:

inquiries@packard.org

and two addresses for the product I bought, if anyone wants them:

email.support@hp.com
Hewlett-Packard@us.newsgram.hp.com

I told them I would not be buying any more products from them and I would inform others.

Posted by: Andy at February 11, 2009 12:37 PM


xppc 8:14PM

I have seen my share of D&Cs and post miscarriage D&Cs. You are correct that these are not procedures that are to be regarded as risk free or minor.

I saw one woman end up in Intensive Care after massive bleeding during her post miscarriage D&C. Another woman lost almost 2 liters of blood, very rapidly.

Thankfully the worse that happened is I aged about 10 years on each case.

Yes, PAs and NPs are excellent and skilled practitioners, who assist in surgery as well as performing various important functions such as physical exams. As much as I respect the ones I work with and have observed, I would never want them operating on me.

Posted by: Mary at February 11, 2009 1:40 PM


xppc 9:24am

I've heard about Medical Students For Choice and their "hundreds" of members.

Certainly there shouldn't be any issue here. There's "hundreds" of doctors just waiting at the starting gate to perform abortions.

Posted by: Mary at February 11, 2009 1:45 PM


Yes, PAs and NPs are excellent and skilled practitioners, who assist in surgery as well as performing various important functions such as physical exams. As much as I respect the ones I work with and have observed, I would never want them operating on me.

Posted by: Mary at February 11, 2009 1:40 PM

Agreed... and if FOCA gets passed I will definitely not continue on to get my NP because I can see refusing to perform these procedures becoming a criminal charge.

Posted by: Elisabeth at February 11, 2009 4:32 PM


Elizabeth, My wife feels the same way. I wonder what will happen when Obama achieves the national health care agenda. Where will all the nurses and doctors come from, especially when there are multiples abandoning the job because of the moral implications.

Posted by: Oliver at February 11, 2009 8:20 PM


"As much as I respect the ones I work with and have observed, I would never want them operating on me."

Because they only perform relatively minor surgeries, I think you'll survive. It's not like they are going in on your kidney or anything.

Do you think someone who got their doctorate in mathematics is necessarily more skilled at teaching introductory calculus than someone who got a master's degree? Same principle applies. It is the difference in a few years of education (and PAs have to practice under a doctor). I find that the PAs and NPs I meet generally have better people skills than doctors and practice comparable care.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 11, 2009 10:38 PM


I find that the PAs and NPs I meet generally have better people skills than doctors and practice comparable care.

Posted by: pip at February 11, 2009 10:38 PM

There is NO such a thing as a doctor or a nurse or a nurse practioner who kills babie. They are all a lt like thatt freaking Hialeah abortion clinic owner Belkis Gonzalez. They are all hired killers.

Posted by: truthseeker at February 12, 2009 1:04 AM


Really people, you put too much faith in your doctors. Experience is more important than a degree. An LVN with 30 years of experience could probably better diagnose a problem than a doctor with 2 years of experience under his belt. Doctors are nothing special, please remember that. Dont feed their egos.

(PiP, I would take it a step further. I would argue that having any level of degree in Mathematics is in no way sufficient to grant the ability to TEACH math. We've turned down PhDs multiple times where I work simply because they dont know how to explain what they know.)

Posted by: Oliver at February 12, 2009 1:07 AM


PIP,

The discussion was on D&Cs and the argument was these can be fairly minor and be safely performed by a PA or NP. I'm arguing that's not the case.
Yes, fairly minor office procedures can be done by a PA or NP, like suturing a wound or mole removal. I would have no problem with a PA or NP under these circumstances.
I do not feel that early trimester abortions are in that category. These are surgical procedures and as I pointed out earlier, can have very serious and unexpected complications. If I needed a D&C, I would only want a surgeon doing it.

I agree PA and NPs may well have better people skills. These aren't the skills that will enable one to perform surgery or handle a surgical crisis.

No PIP(10:38PM) same principles do not apply. The surgeon must have served a residency in his/her surgical specialty. PAs and NP may well perform physicals,pelvics, pap smears, minor office procedures, assist in surgery, etc. but surgical procedures such as D&Cs are another story.

Posted by: Mary at February 12, 2009 9:18 AM


Oliver,

I knew an old time obstetrical nurse, prior to all the use of fetal monitors,etc. who could just look at a patient and determine everything she needed to know, position of the baby, how far her labor was, developing fetal complications, etc. She was almost supernatural.
Any patient would want her for their nurse, every doctor would want her for their patient.

However, I wouldn't want her doing my D&C. I would prefer the surgeon a few years out of an OB/GYN or surgical residency.

Posted by: Mary at February 12, 2009 9:24 AM


I understand that Mary, and you are unfortunately putting too much faith in doctors. I help teach the people who go on to medical school, they arent that smart or talented. Theyre normal human beings. New doctors are death-machines honestly.

Posted by: Oliver at February 12, 2009 10:00 AM


Oliver,

No, I've been around the medical area longer than you think to put too much faith in anyone.
In fact, an OB nurse delivered my husband 56 years ago because the doctor was too inebriated.

Posted by: Mary at February 12, 2009 10:37 AM


Abortion providers are not doctors or nurses. Abortion providers are scumbags and hired killers.

Posted by: truthseekers at February 12, 2009 11:09 AM


Abortion providers are not doctors or nurses. Abortion providers are scumbags and hired killers.
Posted by: truthseekers at February 12, 2009 11:09 AM

How about Doctors and Nurses who provide abortions. Not all abortions take place in "clinics," some in normal doctors' offices by normal OB/GYN's.

Posted by: Hal at February 12, 2009 1:08 PM


Mary,

PAs also do residencies, and yes, that includes residencies in OB/GYN or surgery.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 12, 2009 5:00 PM


PIP,

I'm aware of that. What I meant is the surgeon will do a three year residency specializing in a particular area, such as plastic, OB/GYN, or general.

We have OBs who have their PAs assisting on practically every surgery as well as doing office exams, etc. However they do not perform surgery of any kind, either in the office or in the hospital. They are not trained surgeons.
They may do minor office procedures such as wound suturing, mole removal, etc.
They are credentialled at our hospital to only assist the surgeon.

Posted by: Mary at February 12, 2009 6:27 PM


Mary, it depends on the laws of the state. The site for Association of Physician Assistants in Obstetrics and Gynecology says this:

"The most frequently performed procedures were ultrasound, colposcopy (including endocervical curretage, LEEP and cryosurgery) and endometrial biopsy, but other procedures also listed included IUD and Norplant insertion and removal, artificial insemination, vulvar/cervical/breast biopsy, pessary fitting, vaginal delivery, abortion, D & C, hysteroscopy, laminar inserts and circumcision."

I'm sure that anyone who puts a PA in a position to do these procedures makes sure they are competent at their job and will have a physician on hand should any complications or questions regarding the procedure occur.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 12, 2009 11:34 PM


PIP,

It likely would go by state.

Much of what you describe would be routine non surgical office procedures, including physicals, pelvics, and pap smears, as well as surgical procedures which would be fairly minor, requiring only local anesthesia if any. In fact I've had a few of these done by a PA in the office myself and much preferred having her!

Others may need to be done in a hospital and that's where a surgeon may be required to perform them, again depending on the laws of the state and the rules of the hospital.
I know they cannot do any procedures such as D&C, breast biopsy, or hysteroscopy at the hospitals I've worked at in two different states, only surgeons. What they are considered capable of doing and what they actually are permitted do may be two different things.
Also, a private medical practice may be more lenient than a hospital or state with what they permit the PA to do in the office.

Certified midwives are allowed to deliver babies at our hospital, though. Of course an OB is available for emergencies.

Posted by: Mary at February 13, 2009 10:05 AM


PIP,

I'm afraid I overlooked the most obvious. PAs and NPs are also able to write prescriptions.
I have prescriptive authority but again, depending on the hospital I'm at, I either am not permitted to use it or I'm given some leniency, or more extensive leeway.
All is done in the confines of state law, professional organization requirements, yada, yada, yada, ad nauseum.

The hospitals are permitted to set their standards as to what will be done to what extent and by whom in accordance with state law. A professional organization may think a practitioner is competent to do a procedure, a hospital, physician, or state law may choose not to permit it.
I also restrict myself to what I know I can safely and knowledgably prescribe, though legally I can prescribe much more. Other NPs may feel more comfortable doing more extensive prescribing.

As such a PA, as well as an NP, may be permitted far more leeway, all within the confines of the law and professional standards, in certain hospitals and offices, but not in others.

Posted by: Mary at February 13, 2009 11:24 AM