Editorial promoting telemed abortions in Iowa admits they’re currently being done illegally
In a September 5 editorial promoting the legalization of RU-486 telemed abortions, the Des Moines Register editorial board had to admit Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is currently committing them illegally. Read carefully:
… Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has used telemedicine as it was intended: to expand access to legal health services in rural Iowa. The challenge of that smart approach should prompt state leaders to update laws and policies – to give Iowans increased access to health care, including abortion, through the use of technology.
Now it’s up to Iowa leaders to:
– Re-evaluate outdated abortion laws in this state.
The law requiring physicians to perform abortions made sense when all abortions were surgical procedures. But that requirement is called into question now that women are increasingly choosing to take a drug….
Iowa should take a step forward in fostering 21st century medicine – including using it to give women access to a legal medical procedure.
In touting the need for telemed abortions in rural areas, the editorial board did not present a solution for aborting mothers who encounter emergencies in rural areas.
Instead the editorial board ridiculously relied on unsubstantiated data from the fox guarding the hen house to say the hens are safe:
PP says that of the 1,500 women who have used telemedicine for abortions over the past 2 years, none has reported complications.
Yes, let’s take the word of the megaabortion industry committing these abortions to say all is well.
Are you really that gullible, Des Moines Register? Not one complication of 1,500 telemed abortions committed over the course of 2 years? Not one? Planned Parenthood Federation lists 5 possible complications, which I’m copying and pasting:
an allergic reaction to either of the pills incomplete abortion – part of the pregnancy is left inside the uterus infection undetected ectopic pregnancy very heavy bleeding
(To clarify, by “part of the pregnancy… left inside the uterus,” PP means not to say “part of the baby.”)
So out of 1,500 abortions there has not been one allergic reaction, not one infection, not one ectopic pregnancy found after the fact, and not one case of heavy bleeding? Wow.
I skipped the complication of an “incomplete abortion” because the PP Federation elsewhere states:
Complete abortion will occur in 96–97 percent of women who choose mifepristone. In the small percentage of cases that medication abortion fails, other abortion procedures are required to end the pregnancies.
This means PP of the Heartland, which should have encountered 45-60 incomplete abortions out of 1,500 RU-486 telemed abortions, in actuality encountered not one? Wow again. That’s amazing.
Because if there were any complications or need for surgical abortions in the event of an RU-486 fail, again the question for mothers in rural areas would be, where to go?
Had the Des Moines Register editorial board written this opinion piece for a Journalism 101 class, it would have gotten an F for not checking the obviously biased source of a pretty incredible and unsubstantiated statistic.
And the board had the nerve to call pro-lifers “backward.”
[HT: Is Anybody There? blog]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Not one bad outcome. PP can write this up and publish in their research journal.
Leave it to Planned Parenthood to finally give meaning to what was once a silly, meaningless phrase, “sort-of pregnant.” Next time I hear that phrase, or referring to a woman as “partly pregnant” it means Planned Parenthood attempted a “safe and legal” abortion yet botched the job, again.
Nick, are you really that daft? They are illegal IN IOWA because of the Iowa law regarding the presence of a physician for abortions. How hard is this to understand?
Well, then, someone should clue in the Des Moines Register.
The brain dead MSM strikes again–using the abortion industry’s arguments and statistics to drum up support for increased access to abortion.
This is what passes for journalism:
Make sure the story line is in sync with the major liberal news organizations, pop culture mores, academia, and “progressive” self appointed guardians of civil and individual rights, such as the ACLU.
Do not question whether the statistics might be self-serving.
Do not bother looking at the opposing view.
Do not delve into statistics and studies that show harmful physical and psychological effects of abortion–this especially is a waste of time because it does not fit the story line in the first place.
Do not consider the downside of unattended medical procedures.
Do not poll medical ethicists on the advisablity of this prodedure.
And by all means do not raise the “m” word (morality) when it comes to willful destruction of human life–after all we are way beyond that now and we certainly do not want to impose our morality on others. Of course those who advocate destroying human life via such things as elective abortion and embryonic stem cell research are imposing their morality on their victims and on society as a whole, but that is much, much too deep and hard to comprehend so we won’t even go there!
Jerry, great points!
I have a hard time believing there was absolutely no complications. And what’s the woman to do if there is one? That’s not something I’ve seen reported.
Nick, if you’re going to get that technical, then I’ll go you one further. The doc who prescribes the pill is not doing the abortion; the woman herself is when she takes it. Therefore, your argument is invalid and the spirit of the law (that the doctor would naturally be physically present to do an abortion) is upheld.
You can call the law outdated, but you can’t change it. That’s the legislators job – though I hope they don’t do it…
Nick, There is a lot more to this than simply prescribing the pill. Follow the link at the bottom to my post & then look at the FDA protocols link I included that shows how the FDA says this should be done. Those stricter protocols were put un to ensure the woman’s afety. PP is not following them. & the DM Register’s suggestions drift even further away.
1 of the protocols is that the woman return 2-3 days later for the 2nd drug & take it in the presence of the doctor, not at home.
Be that as it may, Nick, is there no responsibility on the part of the physician to actually do what is right…. legally required or not?
Nick,
Have you forgotten the Hippocratic oath that doctors make? Things like abortion are in violation of that, but that’s been brushed aside. Even if they ignore FDA guidelines and the legalities are a “gray area”, the Hippocratic Oath is not.
Oy. Nick is getting technical again. I’m sure what Mother in Texas meant is that doctors are supposed to go by the spirit of the oath, which is to “do no harm”. Abortions certainly harm the baby, usually harm the mother, and sometimes harm other family members as well. I think it’s safe to say that abortion falls outside the maxim “do no harm”…
Nick,
Actually I’ve read both the classic and the modern Hippocratic Oath and nowhere does it say it’s all right to do abortions. So while it might not be there in black and white like in the classic one, it’s still there in spirit. How? Well, it’s been my experience that doctors are meant to HEAL people NOT harm them and since doctors have admitted that pre-born babies are developing human beings–thus a life–it would stand to reason that it is a violation of their office to perform abortions.
My doc (who used to deliver babies) never once called pre-born babies anything but a life.
Of course, you know, don’t take my word for it. Just go to the Pro-Life Action League’s site look up the doctors there that used to perform abortions and read their stories. They’ll tell you:
Dr. Anthony Levatino: http://prolifeaction.org/providers/levatino.php
Dr. Beverly McMillian: http://prolifeaction.org/providers/mcmillan.php
Dr. MacArthur Hill: http://prolifeaction.org/providers/hill.php
And here:
Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson: http://www.prolife.com/NATHAN.html
Further information: http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0438_Former_Abortionists.html
Pro-Life OB/GYNs: http://www.aaplog.org/
These are doctors in the medical profession who understand why abortion is wrong.
I’ll give you that refusing an abortion does immediate harm to a woman (though it harms her less than an abortion harms a baby), but that refusal may actually prove the best thing she ever did. Most women who choose life don’t regret it. People of great import have come from decisions not to abort – sometimes in the face of logic that would point towards abortion.
So, the question becomes, which does the least harm? Abortion always kills a person (permanent damage) and usually at least emotionally scars another (often permanent damage). Refusing abortion inconveniences a person for at most nine months (temporary damage) and causes that same person physical pain for at most a day or so in total (temporary damage). Seems a no-brainer to me.
Labor and delivery=COULD be major medical /surgical trauma=the delivery of a child=the termination of pregnancy.
I remember quite clearly looking through the book, A Child is Born when I was pregnant after my abortion. I remember GASPING that those were not pictures of clumps of cells!! I remember seeing the ultrasound of my living human child! I cried in joy and unbelief that I did not know! I could not shake the tension that was growing inside of me! I remember being told there was no heartbeat and then going into labor and delivering that tiny, totally formed baby into my hand. I could no longer run from the truth of what abortion was and my part in the killing of my first child!
The truth set me free when I accepted it.
Oh and giving birth to four beautiful children will without a doubt be the most amazing moments of my life!!
Nick,
You are totally invested in the abortion industry with your heart, mind and soul. God help you.
I did answer you, Nick.
I said, “Reading your comments is punishment enough.”
You said, “I am serious.”
I think I ignored you after that.
Nick, you’ve been warned. Back away from Carla.