This is default featured slide 1 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 2 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 3 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 4 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 5 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

Monday, December 28, 2015

Abortion Abortion

Introduction


An abortion is the medical process of ending a pregnancy so it does not result in the birth of a baby.

It is also sometimes known as a 'termination' or a 'termination of pregnancy'.

Depending on how many weeks you have been pregnant, the pregnancy is ended either by taking medication or by having a surgical procedure.

Read more about how an abortion is performed.

An abortion is not the same as a miscarriage, which is where the pregnancy is lost or ends naturally. The loss starts without medical intervention, although medical or surgical treatment may be needed after a miscarriage has started to help empty the womb.

Why an abortion may be needed


There are many reasons why a woman might decide to have an abortion, including:

    personal circumstances – including risk to the wellbeing of existing children
    a health risk to the mother
    a high chance the baby will have a serious abnormality – either genetic or physical

Read more about why an abortion may be necessary.

When an abortion can be carried out


Under UK law, an abortion can usually only be carried out during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy as long as certain criteria are met (see below).

The Abortion Act 1967 covers England, Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland, and states:

    abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic
    two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy

There are also a number of rarer situations when the law states an abortion may be carried out after 24 weeks. These include:

    if it's necessary to save the woman's life
    to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
    if there is substantial risk that the child would be born with serious physical or mental disabilities

Generally, an abortion should be carried out as early in the pregnancy as possible, usually before 12 weeks and ideally before 9 weeks where possible.

Read more about when an abortion is carried out.

NHS abortions


If you want to have an abortion through the NHS, you'll usually need to be referred to a specialist service that deals with abortion.

You can ask your GP to refer you or you can go to your local family planning clinic or genito-urinary medicine (GUM) clinic. Use the post code search facility to find your nearest sexual health clinic.

The law states that any doctor with a moral objection doesn't have to certify a woman for an abortion. But they must recommend another doctor who is willing to help.

Before an abortion can proceed, two doctors must ensure that the requirements of the Abortion Act are fulfilled, and they must both sign the relevant certificate.

This will often – but not always – be your GP and the doctor at the clinic where the abortion will take place.

Although it's often very helpful to talk through the options with your GP or a family planning nurse before being referred, it's possible to refer yourself for an NHS abortion in some parts of the country.

You can self-refer for an NHS-funded abortion by contacting:

    the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) on 03457 30 40 30 – or email them at info@bpas.org
    Marie Stopes UK on 0345 300 8090 (open 24 hours) or request a confidential call back via their online form
    the Pregnancy Advisory Service on 0845 359 6666 – alternatively, individual clinics also have their own local numbers you can call, or you can fill in a confidential enquiry form on the PAS website.

Please note that these telephone numbers are not necessarily free to call and can be particularly expensive if called from a mobile.

Funding of NHS abortion services differs in various parts of the country. The level of NHS provision ranges from more than 90% of local demand to less than 60%.

In some areas, the NHS will pay for abortions at private clinics, but in other areas you may need to pay to have an abortion at a private clinic.

Private abortions


You can contact a private abortion clinic without being referred by a doctor. However, the NHS will not usually pay for this, and the agreement of two doctors is still required. The clinic will make the arrangements.

Costs for abortions in private clinics vary and will depend on:

    the stage of pregnancy (earlier abortions are usually less expensive)
    whether an overnight stay is needed
    the method of abortion used

If you are considering having an abortion, it is important to talk to somebody about it as soon as possible.

Risks


No clinical procedure is entirely risk free, but abortion poses few risks to a woman's physical health, particularly when carried out as early as possible in the pregnancy (preferably during the first 12 weeks).

Having an abortion will not usually affect your chances of becoming pregnant and having normal pregnancies in future.

The risk of problems occurring during an abortion is low. However, there are more likely to be problems if an abortion is carried out later in a pregnancy.

The risks associated with abortions are:

    haemorrhage (excessive bleeding) – occurs in about one in every 1,000 abortions
    damage to the cervix (the entrance of the womb) – occurs in no more than 10 in every 1,000 abortions
    damage to the womb – occurs in up to four in every 1,000 abortions during surgical abortion, and less than one in 1,000 medical abortions that are carried out at 12-24 weeks

Read more about the risks of abortion.


 There are many reasons why a woman might decide to have an abortion, including personal circumstances or a health risk to the mother or baby 
Post-abortion counselling

Women vary greatly in their emotional response to having an abortion. You may experience a number of different feelings and emotions.

If you need to discuss how you are feeling, you can contact a post-abortion counselling service such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), Marie Stopes UK, or find NHS counselling services near you.
Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/oxyqsca

Termination of Pregnancy

Epidemiology

Incidence


In Europe, 30% of all pregnancies are terminated.[2] In 2011, according to Department of Health statistics:[3]

    The total number of abortions was 189,931.
    The age-standardised abortion rate was 17.5 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44.
    The abortion rate was highest at 33 per 1,000, for women age 20.
    The under-16 abortion rate was 3.4 and the under-18 rate was 15.0 per 1,000 women.
    96% of abortions were funded by the NHS; of these, over 61% were in the independent sector under NHS contract.
    91% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks of gestation; 78% were at under 10 weeks.
    Medical abortions accounted for 47% of the total.
    2,307 abortions (1%) were under ground E - risk that the child would be born handicapped.

NEW - log your activity

    Notes
    Add notes to any clinical page and create a reflective diary
    Track
    Automatically track and log every page you have viewed
    Print
    Print and export a summary to use in your appraisal

Click to find out more »

Legal requirements


The 1967 Abortion Act allows termination before 24 weeks of gestation if it:

    reduces the risk to a woman's life; or
    reduces the risk to her physical or mental health; or
    reduces the risk to physical or mental health of her existing children; or
    if the baby is at substantial risk of being seriously mentally or physically handicapped.

Most terminations are performed under the second of these criteria. There is a general debate in political and public circles currently that the upper gestational age limit ought to be reduced from 24 weeks to 22 or 20. This is due to the realisation that advances in neonatal care are improving the survival rates of some premature infants born around this time, setting up an environment of moral concern that babies that could survive are having their lives ended. 4-dimensional ultrasound also appears to show 20-week gestation fetuses displaying complex behaviours, prompting a call for a shift from viability as the main criterion, towards sentience.[4] Currently, the British Medical Association (BMA) does not favour a reduction in the gestational age limit for TOP.[5]

There is no upper limit on gestational time if there is:

    Risk to the mother's life.
    Risk of grave, permanent injury to the mother's physical/mental health (allowing for reasonably foreseeable circumstances).
    Substantial risk that, if the child were born, it would suffer such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. Such TOPs must be conducted in an NHS hospital.

<1% of TOPs are performed after 20 weeks. This is usually following amniocentesis, or in very young girls who have concealed or not recognised the pregnancy

Abortion in girls under 16 years


In girls aged under 16 years, form HSA1 must be signed by two doctors. GMC guidelines are that girls <16 years may be able to reach an informed decision depending on their capacity to comprehend everything involved in the procedure. However, in those cases where a competent underage girl refuses termination, it may be possible for a parent or guardian to authorise termination if it is in the girl's best interests - see separate article Consent to Treatment in Children (Mental Capacity and Mental Health Legislation). In Scotland, parental consent cannot be given if a competent girl has refused termination. In girls <16 years deemed unable to reach an informed decision, a parent or guardian may give consent to, or refuse, termination. However, you may ask a court to overrule if you believe that it is not in the child's best interests to consent to, or refuse, treatment.[1]
It is strongly recommended that you seek medico-legal advice from your medical indemnity organisation regarding your statutory and ethical duties, and the rights of patients and/or their parents, regarding TOP in girls aged <16 if you have any uncertainty.

Before termination


    Confirm the patient is pregnant.
    Counsel to help her reach the decision she will least regret.
    Ask her to consider the alternatives (eg, adoption); ask about her partner (but note that the partner cannot consent to, or refuse, termination).
    Ideally, allow time for her to consider and bring her decision to a further consultation. However, remember that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) guidelines state that 'the earlier in pregnancy an abortion is performed, the lower the risk of complications. Services should therefore offer arrangements that minimise delay'.

If she chooses termination:

    Screen for chlamydia (25% postoperative salpingitis if untreated).
    Discuss future contraceptive needs (start the pill next day or insert an intrauterine contraceptive device (IUCD).
    Check rhesus (Rh) status - if negative, anti-D is needed.
    Offer follow-up - there may be problems around the time she would otherwise have delivered.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines[6]


    All women should have access to a clinical assessment.
    There should be a pathway to tertiary medical care for women with significant medical conditions.
    There should be arrangements to minimise delay - eg, direct access from referral sources other than GPs.
    Women who decide to continue their pregnancy should be referred for antenatal care immediately.
    All women should be offered an assessment appointment within five working days of referral.
    All women should undergo an abortion within five working days of the decision to proceed.
    No woman should wait longer than three weeks from initial referral to the time of her abortion.

Blood tests


Pre-abortion assessment should include:

    Measurement of haemoglobin level.
    Determination of ABO and Rh blood groups.
    Screening for other conditions as clinically indicated - eg, haemoglobinopathies, hepatitis B virus, HIV.
    Cervical screening.

Ultrasound scanning


All services must have access to scanning, as it can be a necessary part of pre-abortion assessment, particularly where gestation is in doubt or where extrauterine pregnancy is suspected. When ultrasound scanning is undertaken, it should be in a setting and manner sensitive to the woman's situation. It is inappropriate for pre-abortion scanning to be undertaken in an antenatal department alongside women with wanted pregnancies.

However, ultrasound scanning is no longer considered to be an essential prerequisite of abortion in all cases.[6] This is because medical TOP is now used at all gestations, so accurate dating of the pregnancy within the first trimester is no longer essential.

The abortion procedure


Ideally, services should offer a choice of methods for the relevant gestational age.

Antibiotic prophylaxis and/or infection screening with treatment should be offered. Regimens include metronidazole 1 g rectally at the time of abortion, plus doxycycline 100 mg bd for seven days starting post-abortion, or metronidazole 1 g rectally at the time of abortion plus azithromycin 1 g orally on the day of abortion.[6]

At under 7 weeks of gestation


    Avoid conventional suction termination.
    Medical abortion using mifepristone plus prostaglandin is appropriate - eg, mifepristone 200 mg orally followed 36-48 hours later by misoprostol 800 micrograms vaginally buccally or sublingually.
    A further dose of misoprostol (the dose varies with gestation) may be given, if required, after four hours.
    This has been found to be safe, effective and with no adverse outcomes for subsequent pregnancies.[7]
    Early surgical abortion using rigorous published protocol (to include visual inspection of tissue) may be appropriate.

At 7-15 weeks of gestation


    Medical abortion is now considered appropriate at any gestation. The regime is initially as outlined above. Repeat doses of misoprostol (400 micrograms) are given, if required at 3- to 4-hourly intervals.
    Conventional suction termination is appropriate at 7-15 weeks, although medical abortion may be preferable above 12 weeks.
    The uterus should only be emptied with suction cannula and blunt forceps.
    Local anaesthesia for suction termination may be safer than general anaesthesia.
    Cervical priming should be considered in all cases having surgical procedure, but should be routinely used where gestation is >10 weeks or the woman is under 18 years of age. Mifepristone can be used, but osmotic dilators are superior after 14 weeks of gestation.
    Surgical evacuation of the uterus is only necessary if there is clinical evidence of incomplete abortion.

Terminations at greater than 15 weeks of gestation


    Dilatation and evacuation, preceded by preparation, are safe and effective when undertaken by expert hands.
    Medical abortion may be a preferable alternative using mifepristone 200 mg orally followed 36-48 hours later by misoprostol 800 micrograms vaginally every three hours to maximum of four further doses.
    Feticide should be performed before medical abortion after 21 weeks and 6 days of gestation.

Aftercare

Medical


Anti-D IgG to all non-sensitised RhD-negative women. Discuss contraception and supply if accepted.

Written


Provide a list of possible symptoms, highlighting those that need urgent medical attention, with a 24-hour number where it can be obtained. Also, a letter with enough details to allow another doctor to be able to deal with any complications. Arrange a follow-up appointment for within two weeks and further counselling for the small number of women who experience long-term distress.

Complications of abortion


The most common complications are:

    Infection: up to 10% of terminations are reduced by prophylactic antibiotics or pre-procedure screening for infection.
    Cervical trauma: 1%, lower when termination is performed early.

Uncommon complications are:[6]

    Haemorrhage (severe requiring transfusion) - 1/1,000 (1st trimester) - 4/1,000 (beyond 20 weeks).
    Perforation of uterus - 1-4/1,000.
    Failed termination - 2.3/1,000 surgical, 6/1,000 medical.

There is no clear evidence to link abortion and breast cancer, preterm delivery or subsequent infertility.
Psychological effects

Only a small proportion of women experience long-term adverse psychological sequelae. Although early distress is common, it is usually a continuation of the symptoms present before the abortion. There is also evidence of the negative effects on both the mother and the child where abortion has been denied.

Monday, December 21, 2015

Barriers to abortion create stress, financial strain for Island women: advocates

Women take part in a protest as pro-choice demonstrators rally at the New Brunswick legislature in Fredericton on Thursday, April 17, 2014. Barriers to abortion are creating stress and financial strain for Prince Edward Island women according to advocates. THE CANADIAN PRESS/David Smith

It was when Sarah was getting instructions on finding the unit at the New Brunswick hospital where she would undergo an abortion that she realized the lengths women from P.E.I. have to go to obtain the procedure.

The young woman, who didn't want to use her real name, was on the phone for more than an hour as a nurse explained how to navigate the hospital's maze of hallways, and what would happen once she arrived.

She made the call discreetly, not wanting her boss to know she would take a day off to make the two-hour trip to the Moncton Hospital to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Upset and nervous, the 26-year-old secretly lined up a drive with a friend and arranged to stay in a hotel in Moncton so she would be on time for her 6 a.m. appointment.

"That's when it hit me what I was going through," she said in an interview.

"You feel isolated and shunned — it hurts your feelings and it just doesn't make sense in this day and age. It just seems like, why wouldn't you help women here?"

It is a ritual that plays out routinely for women in the only province in Canada that does not provide surgical abortions within its borders, and one that pro-choice advocates say remains fraught with challenges despite pledges by the provincial government to remove barriers to abortion access.

Liberal Premier Wade MacLaughlan announced soon after his election in May that women from P.E.I. would be able to get surgical abortions in Moncton without the need for a doctor's referral, a measure that received guarded praise from pro-choice advocates.

Under the arrangement, women who are less than 14 weeks pregnant can call a toll-free line for an appointment and have everything done in one day, when possible.

Previously, women needed a doctor's approval and had to have blood and diagnostic work done on the Island before travelling almost four hours to Halifax for the operation. Or they could go to a private clinic and pay upwards of $700 for the procedure.

Abortion rights advocates say both are costly and stressful options for women, who rely on volunteers to do everything from finding people to accompany them to the hospital to arranging childcare.

Becka Viau of the Abortion Rights Network helps women figure out requirements for bloodwork and pinpoint how far along they are in their pregnancy, as well as line up drivers, babysitters and meals while raising funds to cover things like the $45 bridge toll, phone cards and lost wages.

"The pressure on the community to carry the safety of Island woman is ridiculous," she said. "You can only look at the facts for so long to see the kind of harm that's being done to women in this province by not having access."

Still, for some MacLauchlan's announcement was a significant change for a province that has fought for decades to keep abortions out of its jurisdiction, with some seeing it as the beginning of the end of the restrictive policy.

Some say opposition to abortion access is quietly waning on the Island, where it is not uncommon to see pro-choice rallies and political candidates.

Colleen MacQuarrie, a psychology professor at the University of Prince Edward Island who has studied the issue for years, said the Moncton plan had been discussed with former premier Robert Ghiz and was considered a first step toward making abortions available in the province.

But a month after those discussions, Ghiz resigned. Reached at his home, he refused to comment on the talks but said everything was on the table.

"We've created the evidence and we've gotten community support," said MacQuarrie, who published a report in 2014 that chronicled the experiences of women who got abortions off Island.

"It has gotten better, but better is not enough. We need to have local access."

Rev. John Moses, a United Church minister in Charlottetown, published a sermon that condemned abortion opponents for not respecting a woman's right to control her health and called on politicians to "stop ducking the issue."

"To tell people that they can't or to make it as difficult as we possibly can for them to gain access to that service strikes me as a kind of patriarchal control of women's bodies," he said in an interview.

"It's a cheap form of righteousness."

Holly Pierlot, president of the P.E.I. Right to Life Association, says she's concerned about the easing of restrictions and plans to respond with education campaigns aimed specifically at youth.

"Politically, we've certainly got a bit of a problem," she said. "We were disappointed by the new policies brought in by the provincial government and we are concerned by the federal move to increase access to abortion."

Horizon Health in New Brunswick says the Moncton clinic saw 61 women from P.E.I. from July through to Nov. 30.

P.E.I. Health Minister Doug Currie did not agree to an interview, but a department spokeswoman says that from April to October the province covered 44 abortions in Halifax and 33 in Moncton.

"The government made a commitment to address the barriers to access and they acted very quickly on it," Jean Doherty said.

It's not clear whether that will be enough to satisfy the new federal Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who told the Charlottetown Guardian in September that "it's important that every Canadian across this country has access to a full range of health services, including full reproductive services, in every province."

The party also passed a resolution in 2012 to financially penalize provinces that do not ensure access to abortion services.

In an interview, Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott would only say the issue is on her radar.

"This is something I am aware of, that I will be looking into and discussing with my team here and with my provincial and territorial counterparts," she said.

Successive provincial governments have argued that the small province cannot provide every medical service on the Island or that there are no doctors willing to perform abortions, something pro-choice activist Josie Baker says is untrue.

"We're tired of being given the run around when it comes to a really basic medical service that should have been solved 30 years ago," she said.

"The most vulnerable people in our society are the ones that are suffering the most from it. There's no reason for it other than lack of political will."
Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/hhz82sb

Abortion in Tennessee Factsheet

Abortion stigma is a shared belief that abortion is morally wrong and/or socially unacceptable. Abortion stigma has disastrous consequences. People seeking abortions are bullied, shamed, marginalized, and sometimes even prevented by law or intimidation from seeking safe health care services. Abortion providers are harassed, dehumanized and targeted by regulation and anti-abortion advocates. Stigma leads to the social, medical, and legal marginalization of abortion care around the world and is a barrier to access to high quality, safe abortion care. http://seachangeprogram.org/whats-new

In 2011, 16,720 women obtained abortions in Tennessee, producing a rate of 13.1 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. The rate decreased 15% since 2008, when it was 15.3 abortions per 1,000 women 15-44. Abortions in Tennessee represent 1.6% of all abortions in the United States. (Source: Guttmacher Institute)

In 2011, 113,900 TN women became pregnant; 70% of these pregnancies resulted in live births, 15% in induced abortion. This is below the national average which was 67% live births and 18% in abortions. (Source: Guttmacher Institute)

In Tennessee, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect prior to Amendment 1 as of November 1, 2014:

    Health plans offered in the state’s Affordable Care Act health exchange may not provide coverage for abortion.
    Public/government funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
    The use of telemedicine or the remote prescription of abortion medication is prohibited, i.e. abortion must be performed in the physical presence of the woman.
    At least one parent of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
    Abortion facilities must clearly post signs in 40 point Ariel font indicating that a woman cannot be “pressured, forced or coerced” to have an abortion against her will (TN Freedom from Coercion Act, passed 2010) http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/SB3812.pdf
    Only a physician licensed or certified by the state, not a nurse or physician’s assistant, may perform an abortion.
    The Life Defense Act of 2012 requires clinics to report detailed demographic data on doctors and patients to the TN state government. http://data.rhrealitycheck.org/law/tennessee-life-defense-act-of-2012-hb-3808/
    Life Defense Act of 2012 requires doctors performing abortions at clinics to have hospital admitting privileges no further than an adjacent county away.

As of Dec 1, 2015 there were 7 abortion clinics in Tenneessee:

    Planned Parenthood – Nashville
    The Women’s Center – Nashville
    Bristol Regional Women’s Center – Bristol, TN
    Knoxville Center for Reproductive Health – Knoxville, TN
    Planned Parenthood – Knoxville, TN*
    CHOICES Memphis Center for Reproductive Health – Memphis, TN
    Planned Parenthood – Memphis, TN

*The Knoxville Planned Parenthood doesn’t do surgical abortions, but they do offer induced/medical abortions i.e. abortion induced with medication, which is most effective for first trimester abortions (9 weeks or earlier).

3 of the 7 clinics are run by Planned Parenthood. The Bristol Regional Women’s Center and The Women’s Center in Nashville are run by the same provider and are not clinics, just doctors offices, which makes them more vulnerable to regulation. CHOICES is an independently run nonprofit.

The total number of abortion providers in TN is down from 14 in 2011. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/pdf/tennessee.pdf

In 2011, 96% of Tennessee counties had no abortion clinic. 63% of Tennessee women lived in these counties. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/pdf/tennessee.pdf

How to self induce an abortion with the abortion pill and what to expect, see: Women on Waves. This is not legal in Tennessee. If you self induce and you need to seek medical assistance due to complications from the procedure, do not tell anyone that you tried to induce an abortion or you could be subject to criminal charges of attempted murder or murder.

pregnancies are calculated from the date of your last period, meaning on average 2 weeks of pre-conception time (in which there was factually no pregnancy) are included in the count. Everyone needs to be advised to never give a health provider their LMP (last menstrual period) but rather an estimated conception date and vague references to periods being irregular. This buys vital time for those deciding whether to keep a pregnancy, and protects those who do want to carry to term from unnecessary induced labor.

Tennessee provides funding to pregnancy resource centers (also called “abortion alternatives” or “crisis pregnancy centers”) through a Choose Life specialty license plate program. A license plate supporting women’s right to choose is not available. http://www.tn.gov/revenue/vehicle/licenseplates/miscellaneous/miscellaneous.shtml and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/us/28bar.html and has been opposed by the TN legislature in the past.

If you are considering an abortion, do not visit a crisis pregnancy resource center. They will not give you accurate information about abortion services and will try to talk you into choosing another option. They may also lie to you about the risks of abortion in order to dissuade you from obtaining one. (Source: NARAL) Moreover, they will try and delay you.  Their delay tactics cost precious weeks of decision making. If you wait too long, you will not be able to access an abortion legally in TN because abortion is illegal after viability (20-24 weeks).

Pregnancies are calculated from the date of your last period, meaning on average 2 weeks of pre-conception time (in which there was factually no pregnancy) are included in the count. Everyone needs to be advised to never give a health provider their LMP (last menstrual period) but rather an estimated conception date and vague references to periods being irregular. This buys vital time for those deciding whether to keep a pregnancy, and protects those who do want to carry to term from unnecessary induced labor.

The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion in the U.S. The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live babies was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. (Source: US National Institutes of Health)

An abortion-related death is defined as a death resulting from a direct complication of an abortion (legal or illegal), an indirect complication caused by a chain of events initiated by an abortion, or an aggravation of a preexisting condition by the physiologic or psychological effects of abortion.

Screen Shot 2015-12-18 at 1.50.30 PM
(Source: CDC; 2009 is most recent data available)

Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/hzrxouh

Texas Abortion Case Isn't About Abortion, But The Rule Of Law

Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, the Texas abortion case that is now before the Supreme Court, is really about the rule of law and how federal judges maintain it by holding states to external standards. The case follows Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, which forbade states from using the desire to protect women’s health as a pretext for curtailing their access to abortion services. But how is a judge to distinguish a pretext from a genuine concern for patient safety?

Casey seemed to say that unless all possible connections between a regulation and patients’ wellbeing can be ruled out completely, a state’s proffered reason is bona fide. That’s far too weak a standard, and later cases seemed to confirm it by saying that states don’t have to show that their laws will actually protect women from documented perils. Seeing this, Texas and other pro-life states have done exactly what Casey forbids. They’ve enacted laws that shut down abortion clinics while shouting “Women are in danger! Women are in danger!” The issue in Cole is whether states must prove that access-impeding laws address real safety problems. If the Court says no, Casey will be a dead letter.

It should be plain to everyone that lawmakers won’t respect constitutional limitations on their own. Politics is a brass-knuckles world. The people who thrive in it aren’t rule-followers by nature, and their incentives are terrible. When they can gain by doing something, they will, the Constitution be damned. That’s where judges come in. They’re supposed to keep lawmakers in line by delivering swift kicks to their posteriors when they violate the Constitution.

If you own a gun, attend church, express opinions on Islam, read books, browse the internet, use birth control, listen to hip-hop, play violent video games, watch movies, oppose America’s foreign wars, or exercise any other civil liberty, you should want judges to apply their boots as needed. Millions of Americans would love to curtail your freedoms. Lucky for you that there’s a line beyond which the will of the people cannot reach, and that judges enforce it.

Cole asks about the need for an enforcer in the context of abortion. Must courts “consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government’s interest in promoting health?” Of course! The Constitution protects a personal space into which a state may not stick its nose without a good reason. But a state cannot have a good reason unless the policy it wants to enact will do what it claims. Here, Texas says it wants to protect women from conditions that endanger their health. If this is true, Texas should be able to identify documented risks and show that its law will reduce them.

As obvious as this may seem, courts have generally allowed states to handle safety as they see fit. Consider Roe v. Wade, the decision that identified a protected right of access to abortion services during the first trimester. It recognized that a state “has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient,” and it added that this “interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise.” Roe v. Wade cemented the propriety of public micro-management of the delivery of health care for the purpose of protecting patients.
 Roe’s reference to “maximum safety” empowers states to do all sorts of mischief. Nobody wants “maximum safety” because it costs too much. Who would spend $1 million to reduce the risk of a post-abortion infection by .00001%? But by allowing states to require “maximum safety,” Roe enables them to say: “Pay the $1 million or forego the procedure.”

That’s what Texas did. Its 2013 statute is a cost-magnifying, job-killing work of art—but Texas Republicans don’t care because the jobs belong to abortionists. The law subjects abortion clinics to the same building requirements that apply to ambulatory surgical centers. Knowing that their patients can’t afford the prices they’d have to charge to cover the cost of reconstruction, many clinics closed. Others succumbed because the doctors who staff them couldn’t obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, which Texas’ new law also requires. Similar regulations closed all but one of Missouri’s abortion facilities, and would have closed all of Cincinnati’s clinics had Ohio’s health department not granted a last-minute exemption.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton thinks it’s just fine to saddle abortion clinics with high costs. “The advancement of the abortion industry’s bottom line shouldn’t take precedence over women’s health,” he contends. What a clever gambit. To put abortionists out of business, Texas’ lawmakers need only declare that women deserve the finest health care money can buy. Who but a misogynist would quarrel with that?
Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/huxwwtp

Let's talk about abortion

The Green Party recently proposed that abortion be available on demand up to 20 weeks’ gestation, and up to birth where there is risk to the mother’s mental health or a foetal abnormality. These changes would significantly liberalise New Zealand law and were met with strong opposition. Given that abortion rates in New Zealand have reduced in the past decade and that more than 98 per cent of abortions are approved on grounds of maternal mental health, there was little support for a law change.

The Green’s policy posed another important challenge overlooked in the abortion debate: the need to protect a woman’s choice to continue a pregnancy and to be supported to do so. The Greens said they would do this by making more counselling and income support available. But there are deeper questions for those who would see abortion rates reduce even further. Do we understand why women consider terminating their pregnancy, and are we satisfied that they have real alternatives available?

Abortion is legal in New Zealand only when two certifying consultants agree that continuing the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the woman’s mental or physical health or that the baby would have a serious disability. The consultants may also consider the woman’s age and whether the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. If a decision is made to permit an abortion to proceed, counselling is offered before the woman makes her final decision.

We have seen a real decrease in the rate of abortion in New Zealand in recent years. In 2012, there were 14,745 abortions performed (or 16.1 abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years). This was the lowest number since 1995 (13,652). Women aged 20–24 years accounted for 30 per cent of abortions in any year over that period, but this dropped from a peak of 41 abortions per 1000 in 2003, to 29 in 2012. There has also been a notable decrease in the abortion rate for women aged 15–19 years—down from 27 per 1000 in 2007, to 16 in 2012.

But a significant number are still choosing to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. In more than a third of cases, women have chosen to terminate a second pregnancy, and a third of that group have chosen to do so a third time.

The Salvation Army believes life is a gift from God and that we are answerable to God for the taking of life. We, like many other churches, accept the moment of fertilisation as the start of human life. We believe society has a responsibility to care for others, and especially to protect and promote the welfare of vulnerable people, including unborn children. This responsibility also extends to those women faced with unwanted pregnancy who may consider abortion—they are also vulnerable and need our care and support.

Our statistics with respect to child and family vulnerability are troubling. An estimated 285,000 children live in poverty in New Zealand. An estimated 20–30,000 children are at risk of maltreatment, abuse or neglect, and 4000 come under CYF care annually after substantiated findings of maltreatment. Before we condemn decisions to abort, we need to understand that adding another vulnerable child to these statistics may be the alternative unless something practical is done to support a different outcome.

The Salvation Army has supported women who found value in choosing not to abort when this at first seemed to be the only option. The following personal stories are real, and shared with permission (names have been changed for privacy reasons).

Moira came into a Salvation Army centre seeking food parcel assistance. She was struggling to cope with the day-to-day demands of managing on a limited budget. Moira had a strained relationship with a young man, who was not the father of her children. She became pregnant and was overwhelmed with the prospect of another child to look after with no real support. Abortion seemed the only option and one that was easy to obtain.

Moira joined a Salvation Army ‘life skills group’ for young mums and came to its weekly ‘home group’—a meal and Bible study one night per week. As she began to feel better supported, Moira decided that abortion was just not for her. She went on to have the baby, who was adopted out to a couple with fertility problems. Moira has continued to flourish and sees her adopted-out baby occasionally.

Jan had twin daughters. When they were three, her relationship with their father broke up. After this, she got into several unhealthy relationships, eventually becoming pregnant to a man with a number of other children to several women, who was not contributing to the care of any of them. Jan saw that his promises to care for her were shallow and hollow and decided that abortion was the only way out.

Some months after aborting the pregnancy, Jan suffered a severe emotional and mental breakdown. She attempted suicide and was hospitalised for several weeks. This was followed by sessions with a psychiatrist and ongoing counselling from The Salvation Army.

Jan made good progress and then became pregnant again, this time to a young man who wasn’t able to commit to any sort of relationship. She hadn’t been into the Salvation Army centre for some time and felt embarrassed to come back, but after much encouragement was helped to explore the options for her baby. Jan desperately wanted this baby (a boy) to grow up with a father. Her daughters had regular visits with their dad and she felt it vital that her son have this as well, yet she knew she couldn’t be in a relationship with his father.

Jan came to the decision that adoption was the best way forward. She had her baby, who was placed with a couple in an open adoption. The Salvation Army provided family therapy to help Jan’s girls understand what was happening, and counselling to help Jan work through the adoption process. Jan went on to find a stable relationship. She has since married and has another little boy.

The Salvation Army is successful in supporting women to pursue choices other than abortion, with positive outcomes for mother and child. Sometimes we provide continued support when people take paths we may not have wished for them. It is not our role to judge, but we can provide real options that assure life and wellbeing for mother and baby.

Abortion is an issue that will continue to spark public debate. What will Salvationists do to respond? Our beliefs need to be seen in action if we hope to influence people’s choices. We can: 

    show love, compassion and fellowship, not judgement, to those we meet who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy
    be prepared to journey in love with all those affected, recognising the decision to terminate a pregnancy carries emotional and physical implications for many years, often damaging relationships and personal self-worth
    provide practical support to address poverty or family dysfunction, which may be a factor in deciding to terminate a pregnancy 
    advocate for a society that promotes wholeness, freedom, quality of life and the development of every person’s potential.
Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/hstppmj

"I Felt Set Up": Why More Women Seeking Abortions Are Ending Up at Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers"I Felt Set Up": Why More Women Seeking Abortions Are Ending Up at Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers


After she felt nauseated frying eggs for her kids, a 26-year-old named Alison took a pregnancy test. Then she drove straight to Pregnancy Decision Health Center, located in a strip mall near her home on the west side of Columbus, Ohio. The positive test didn't make sense to her, since she was on the Pill. Alison (who asked Cosmopolitan not to publish her last name) didn't yet know a course of antibiotics had interfered with her birth control. But did she know she wanted an abortion as soon as possible.

Alison had visited the Pregnancy Decision center multiple times during her first two pregnancies, when kindly staff had given her referrals to aid agencies and a basket of baby clothes. She hadn't received any indication the center was an anti-abortion organization, she says—the place looked like a regular medical office, staff performed ultrasounds, and no one made any mention of God.

This time when she arrived at Pregnancy Decision, Alison told a counselor that she and her then-boyfriend—working hard to get off welfare—couldn't afford another baby. "I was really scared," says Alison, who describes herself as very emotional person. "I assumed she'd say, 'This is why we're here.'" Instead, staff told her that the Bible forbids abortion.
In fact, Pregnancy Decision was co-founded by Peggy Hartshorn, who went on to become president of Heartbeat International, which describes itself as the world's largest anti-abortion pregnancy center organization. Heartbeat's network includes 1,800 affiliated nonprofit centers worldwide, including several Pregnancy Decision locations. Throughout the country, at least 3,000 crisis pregnancy centers offer free pregnancy tests and "options counseling." And increasingly these anti-abortion centers are being positioned as healthcare providers. It's a trend I witnessed during a year of interviews with dozens of pregnancy center workers, volunteers, physicians, and anti-abortion activists. Confronted with criticism that they are running deceptive fake clinics, pregnancy center directors have begun acquiring medical equipment and affiliating with doctors and nurses who share their ideological message.

Last year I attended Heartbeat International's annual conference in Charleston, South Carolina, where roughly 1,000 crisis pregnancy center staff and anti-abortion leaders gathered for training and networking. There, I heard movement leaders directly instruct pregnancy center workers to "compete with the abortion industry" by concealing their religiously motivated anti-contraception and anti-abortion mandates. Suggested tactics included operating multiple websites with different messaging, choosing pro-choice seeming names like "pregnancy options," removing religious paraphernalia from waiting rooms, and advertising free medical services and counseling.

Ohio, like other states, has increased funding for crisis pregnancy centers while moving to restrict funding for providers like Planned Parenthood that provide a full range of reproductive health care. In Ohio, as in many other states, the use of public funds for abortion has been restricted for decades, but this fall its legislature voted to defund Planned Parenthood's other services, including ob-gyn care, domestic violence counseling, HIV-AIDS programming, and more the nonprofit provides low-income women. Republican Governor John Kasich, a candidate for president, will most likely to sign the bill into law. Meanwhile, in its most recent budget, Ohio allotted crisis pregnancy centers $1 million for the next two years.

The day Alison came in for her appointment, knowing already that she wanted an abortion, Pregnancy Decision staff treated her very differently than when she'd arrived excited to be pregnant. A counselor, nurse, and ultrasound technician read Alison Bible passages, as she cried, and urged her to carry the pregnancy to term. She remembers the women saying, "Being a single mom is the toughest thing you can do, and you already did it. God won't give you anything you can't handle."

"It was almost like bullying," Alison says. "I felt set up. The name is Pregnancy Decision. I didn't know they were against abortion. It was intimidating. They tried to make me feel extremely wrong, like I was sinning."

For Alison, a churchgoer and self-described "God-fearing woman," that message was especially upsetting. But she stayed at Pregnancy Decision to get an ultrasound, which she assumed would indicate how advanced her pregnancy was.

It was an urgent question for her, as it is for many women. A woman's stage of pregnancy affects which kind of abortion is available. Alison knew she wanted to use the abortion pill, which usually can be taken up to about nine weeks; after that, doctors usually recommend surgical procedures.

At Pregnancy Decision, the sonogram technician said she couldn't find anything on the screen. The nurse said Alison might miscarry naturally. Alison hoped so. (At the Heartbeat conference I attended, I heard staff people say that presenting miscarriage rates could help persuade a woman she didn't need to "rush into" having an abortion.)

When her ultrasound wasn't conclusive, Pregnancy Decision staff did not refer her to a physician or another provider, Alison says. Instead, they scheduled her for a second appointment the following week. She says she didn't know anywhere else she could walk in, be given an immediate appointment, and get a free ultrasound.

Alison came back for two more appointments, until she says center staff told her the fetus was older than they had first anticipated. In the ultrasound image Pregnancy Decision gave her, two arrows point to the fetus, which is labeled "Baby." She says the Pregnancy Decision staff gave her a packet of pamphlets on fetal development at her stage of pregnancy, and leaflets with Bible verses. When she scheduled an appointment with an abortion clinic, staff told her she was too far along to take the abortion pill at home. She would need to have a surgical procedure, which must be done in a clinic and is usually more expensive. (Pregnancy Decision Health Centers director of operations, Julie Moore, said the organization would not to comment for this article.)
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

    Share
    Tweet
    Pin
    E-mail

*

As they push to discredit and defund Planned Parenthood, leading Republicans, including GOP Presidential candidates, have presented crisis pregnancy centers as worthy, even preferable, alternatives for public funding and support. Carly Fiorina— who gave the keynote address at the 40th anniversary gala for Americans United for Life, arguably the country's most powerful anti-abortion organization— has been especially vocal in maligning Planned Parenthood and was photographed in a South Carolina pregnancy center's ultrasound room. Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker, all took turns campaigning at the Carolina Pregnancy Center in Spartanburg, South Carolina. There and elsewhere, Bush has emphasized his "most pro-life" record by making the false claim that under his leadership, Florida was the only state to sponsor crisis pregnancy centers. (In reality, Pennsylvania began funding them in the early 1990s, under Bob Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat who opposed public funding for contraception.)
Marco Rubio—who has said repeatedly that he does not believe women should have abortions even when their lives are endangered—told Fox News that he wants Planned Parenthood's funding transferred to other healthcare centers "that don't do what Planned Parenthood does, but do provide women's healthcare, which is important." For decades, anti-choice leaders have been savvy about shape-shifting their movement. As Kimberly Kelly, associate professor of sociology at Mississippi State University, has documented, the very idea of promoting pregnancy centers originated as response to the criticism that pro-lifers care more about fetuses than pregnant women. In the 80's and 90's, anti-abortion legal strategists recommended legislators push for "abortion alternatives" programs alongside mandatory waiting periods and parental consent laws. "Going medical," as pregnancy center counselors say, is the latest way they are staying a step ahead of pro-choice critics.

Heartbeat International's "Pregnancy Help" database, now lists over 1,000 pregnancy centers that offer "medical services"—which means they can provide ultrasounds, according to Heartbeat's website—scattered across the country. Their spread has dovetailed with laws in 13 states that now require ultrasounds before abortions, regulations pushed by anti-abortion lobbyists and legislators. At the Heartbeat Conference I attended, speakers described how they wanted affiliated centers to be "abortion-minded" women's first option for services. Staff discussed how they consider ultrasound images an unparalleled tool for showing a woman that—as they see it—the fetus is a living person who deserves to be born. Research suggests the tactic doesn't dissuade women. About 98 percent of women who looked at ultrasound images proceeded with scheduled abortions, according to a study published in 2014 in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology.

"Going medical" also allows centers to market themselves as a trusted source for health advice. Pregnancy centers routinely counsel women and distribute materials about the supposed health risks of abortion, including debunked claims that abortion increases the risk for domestic violence, despair, infertility, breast cancer, and more. Anti-abortion groups that provide materials to pregnancy centers cite fringe reports that abortion procedures themselves are risky. In reality, complications from abortions performed by qualified medical personnel are extremely rare, according to multiple studies, including a 2014 report published in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Another Obstetrics and Gynecology study, published in 2012 and based on Centers for Disease Control data, showed that a woman is 14 times more likely to die from childbirth than during a legal abortion.

Crisis pregnancy centers disproportionately interfere with young and low-income women's access to accurate information and care, says Joanne Rosen, associate director of the Clinic for Public Health Law and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "In some states—for example, Texas and Mississippi—restrictions have dramatically reduced the number of abortion clinics and have severely impaired women's access to timely abortion procedures. Against this backdrop, the strategies employed by CPCs may constitute an even greater threat to a woman's ability to obtain an abortion."

*

"We can look like a medical clinic because we are," explains Lori Szala, executive director of Pregnancy Resource Center, in the South Hills, a suburb of Pittsburgh. "We're not doing anything deceptive there at all."

Pregnancy Resource Center shares a brown brick medical complex with dentists and infectious disease specialists. On its sign facing the road, the pregnancy center advertises, "Free Pregnancy & STD testing." On its website, the center offers "Pre-Abortion Counseling and Education," with trained ultrasound technicians and nurses. Women in lab coats smile; Christian imagery is absent. Inside, a receptionist sits behind a window adjacent a waiting area with stuffed couches. A pine door is marked "Ultrasound Room."

Pregnancy Resource Center belongs to Care Net, an evangelical organization that prohibits its 1,160 affiliated centers from providing or referring for contraception or abortion. And deep-pocketed and politically connected anti-abortion organizations are working behind the scenes to make medical pregnancy centers like this one possible. Focus on the Family, an organization whose mission is "nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide," has funded 676 grants for ultrasound machines or sonography training in all 50 states. Americans United for Life, a legal organization that works with legislators to write abortion restrictions, has helped Heartbeat and Care Net to advance their political strategy. When I requested to visit Pregnancy Resource Center, Gavin Rhoades, a public relations representative affiliated with the anti-abortion organization Online for Life—funded by Texas billionaire Farris Wilks—arranged my visit and then flew from Texas to chaperon my conversation with Szala.
Szala referred to the center interchangeably as a "clinic" and "ministry," and said her goal was to "walk beside" women with unplanned pregnancies and show them compassion. She said, "Success for us would be that [a woman] chooses life, of course." She doesn't believe abortion is ever the best option and explained that her staff counsels women on abortion's "risks."

Before I arrived, a local physician, Colleen Krajewski, had told me that her patients sometimes tell her they've visited nearby pregnancy centers. "I can't know what the centers tell them, but I know patients come in believing myths," she said. In one especially stark case, a patient told Dr. Krajewski she'd had an ultrasound at Pregnancy Resource Center. Dr. Krajewski says the patient cried that she didn't want to become infertile or "hear the baby splash in a puddle of blood," and that she worried for her children—she believed there was a ten percent chance she'd die during an abortion. "Some patients are embarrassed to admit that they were at a pregnancy center—what they heard was just so shameful," Dr. Krajewski says.
"I don't think anybody here would quote a percentage, because we don't know that for sure, and wouldn't tell her that she's going to die," Szala said, when I told her about what Dr. Krajewksi had said about her patient. She stressed that her staff presents health risks simply as possibilities and that she defers medical questions to the nurse, whom I was told was not available to speak to me. "I'm not medical," Szala said.

Yet when we spoke Szala had been working with women at Pregnancy Resource Center for 14 years. The center's website notes she leads a team of full and part-time center and medical staff, and is also governed by a board of directors and an advisory board overseen by a local medical professional. Medical pregnancy centers often operate under the direction of unlicensed staff like Szala and the license of a physician who doesn't actually see clients at the center. Nurses and technicians usually report to that physician. Generally, pregnancy centers only offer "limited ultrasounds," meaning they can only confirm a pregnancy, not diagnose any problems.

Szala said that roughly half of Pregnancy Resource Center's clients "might come in considering abortion as their No. 1 option." She explained, "I think a lot of people are looking for free services, so even if somebody is calling around just looking for a place to go and … you offer something for free, [making an appointment] might be the first step that they take before they go to pay for a procedure."

I explained that I couldn't find indications that the center did not provide abortions on its website and asked Szala whether she'd ever considered putting Christian imagery on the site, to make the center's mission clear. "We are a Christian ministry," she said, but added about the imagery, "I don't know that we need to have that there." She explained that staff simply offers their Christian perspective as an option when a client brings up questions of faith. Later that day, Rhoades emailed me directions and I found the abortion disclaimer on one of the site's pages.

It is not uncommon for women who arrive at crisis pregnancy centers to believe they going to abortion providers, according to staff who spoke at the Heartbeat International conference I attended. And, says Dr. Krajewski, "some are angry because of the delay." She emphasizes how time-sensitive abortion is. In Pennsylvania, like many states, abortion is prohibited after viability—at about 24 weeks. In other states, abortion is restricted after 20 weeks. As states pass increasing restrictions on abortion providers, the number of clinics is dwindling in many states—which means longer waits for an appointment and longer drives to get there. The cost of an abortion tends to increase after the twelfth week of gestation. Not to mention that many women count their stage of pregnancy as a factor when they're weighing whether to have an abortion at all. If a "medical center" turns out to be a Christian ministry and a woman needs to wait weeks to secure another appointment at a full-service healthcare provider like Planned Parenthood she could pass the gestational limit for certain—or all legal— procedures.

*

Alison called me right when she got home from her abortion. For several nights she'd had trouble sleeping. "I caught myself looking at the ultrasound pictures when my kids were asleep," she said. "I'm strong-willed, but I worried I was going to be a murderer, I was going to lose my relationship with God. Their words kept repeating in my head. I felt like I had to choose between my unborn child and my children." Shaken, she visited her pastor, who told her that no one who judges or shames speaks for God.

In November 2014, the very month Alison spent waiting for a conclusive ultrasound report from Pregnancy Decision, the Ohio House of Representatives passed a resolution commending pregnancy centers, saying the sites "provide comprehensive care" to meet women's "physical, psychological, emotional, financial, career, and spiritual needs," and recommending that the state and federal governments should better support crisis pregnancy centers. Similar resolutions have passed across the country, all based, seemingly word for word, on a model law drafted by Americans United for Life. Heartbeat International and Care Net sent the language to their affiliated centers, calling the resolution a "preemptive strike" against critics and including instructions on how to present it to local officials.

Meanwhile, since Kasich took office in 2011, he has signed a raft of anti-abortion laws, and the number of abortion clinics in the state has dropped from 16 to nine.

"I think it's BS. It's heartless," Alison says of Ohio's praise of pregnancy centers. "[Pregnancy centers] make everything about religion. They make everything about how you're killing your baby instead of making anything about the wishes of the mother. They say, 'You don't know God's will.' I know I don't."
Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/zq5xbre

Groups concerned about Walgreens health clinics’ ties to Catholic hospital

 SEATTLE — Nineteen groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter Monday to drugstore chain Walgreens expressing concerns about the company’s plans for a Catholic hospital to run its in-store health clinics in Washington and Oregon.

In the letter, the organizations asked if the clinics would allow access to contraception, abortion drugs and prescriptions to help terminally ill patients end their own lives, which is legal in both states.

The groups note that other health organizations have stopped providing abortions after partnering with Providence Health, the Catholic hospital.

“In our states, we have consistently seen that when secular entities join with religious health systems, the services, information or referrals provided at the secular entity become limited by religious doctrine,” the letter said.

When Swedish Medical Center in Seattle partnered with Providence Health in 2012, it stopped offering elective abortion services, the groups say.

Organizations, including NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Compassion & Choices and several gay-rights organizations, signed the letter.

It also asked whether Walgreens would continue to serve all customers equally, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It questioned whether transgender men or women will be able to receive a prescription for hormone therapy at one of the clinics.

Walgreens has announced that Providence Health will be opening 25 health clinics.

The Catholic hospital said it did not expect services at its Express Care clinics to go beyond treatment of minor illnesses, from colds and sprains to skin infections, and testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Other issues will be referred to primary or specialty care providers, spokeswoman Colleen Wadden said.

She promised that all patients, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, would be treated with the same respect, care and compassion.

The Providence spokeswoman did not mention contraceptive services, but Walgreens said those services are offered at the more than 400 health clinic locations it manages and would continue to be offered.
View next article in Local/State
Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/hxn3uk8

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Op-Ed In California, free speech meets abortion

Is merely requiring clinics to inform women of the availability of free or low-cost abortions an unconstitutional infringement of religious liberty? That seems to be the latest contention in the reproductive culture wars.

Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed into law the Reproductive FACT Act, which is quite straightforward: Licensed healthcare facilities must post or distribute a notice that states,"California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number]." That's it.

An unlicensed facility, meanwhile, must disseminate a notice to all clients acknowledging that it is not licensed as a medical facility by the state of California.

The law goes into effect Jan. 1. But now two religious nonprofits — so-called crisis pregnancy centers in Marysville and Redding — are claiming the law violates their 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, and are seeking an injunction against it.

Their argument has no merit.

No doctor, other healthcare professional or facility is required to provide contraceptives or abortions, or even provide referrals for these services. The new law simply ensures that clinics expose their patients to additional, accurate information.
The [Reproductive FACT Act] simply ensures that clinics expose their patients to additional, accurate information. - 

In the preamble to the bill, the Legislature noted that more than 700,000 California women become pregnant each year, and that one-half of these pregnancies are unintended. The Legislature adopted the act because many women are not aware of the services available to them — and if they happen into a crisis pregnancy center, they'll exit none the wiser.

Crisis pregnancy centers have been known to spread false medical information and use scare tactics to dissuade their clients from seeking abortions. For instance, centers have told pregnant women that their chances of getting breast cancer increase after an abortion. They have also warned clients that abortions are high-risk procedures that could well result in infection and death. Neither of these claims is true.

Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/zo6l5tu

California governor signs bill requiring pregnancy centers to provide abortion information

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Crisis pregnancy centers that discourage women from getting abortions in California will be required to provide information about abortions and other services under legislation Gov. Jerry Brown has approved.

The measure imposes the first such statewide rule, after local communities around the country have tried similar efforts.

Pregnancy crisis centers often are operated by abortion opponents, and critics say workers imply the facilities provide a range of medical care and have credentials they do not possess.

Under the new law, the centers will be required to offer information about affordable contraception, abortion and prenatal care. Those that are unlicensed also must inform clients of their status.

Backers of the measure include the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice California.

The law's supporters say the California measure was specifically crafted to address concerns raised by courts elsewhere, which have blocked some local attempts to require centers to disclose information about whether they provide referrals for abortion, emergency contraception or prenatal care.

NARAL estimates there are more than 4,000 pregnancy crisis centers, or pregnancy help centers, operating in the U.S., offering services such as pregnancy and STD testing, ultrasounds and counseling.

Critics say center employees imply the facilities provide a range of medical care and have credentials they do not possess, existing merely to coerce women into continuing their pregnancies. They say the clinics provide false information, including making unproven claims about health risks associated with using birth control or having an abortion.

Under the California measure, the centers must offer information about affordable contraception, abortion and prenatal care. Unlicensed facilities must inform clients of their status.

The legislation by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, and Assemblywoman Autumn Burke, D-Los Angeles, was sponsored by NARAL Pro-Choice California and Black Women for Wellness, and supported by Attorney General Kamala Harris, a candidate for U.S. Senate. The groups said women need access to health information that is free from coercion.

"A growing and alarming movement is working to mislead women in order to achieve their political ideology," Chiu said in a statement.

Critics such as Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, said the bill forces clinics against their will to pay for and distribute abortion referral information.

"Does the government have a right to tell a newspaper what to write, a preacher what to preach, a private school what to teach? Of course not," Grove said in arguing against the bill. "So why is it OK for the government to force prolife pregnancy centers against their will to advertise and promote government abortion services?"

The proposal came to the Legislature after San Francisco passed a local ordinance prohibiting advertising it deemed misleading by crisis pregnancy centers. A federal judge upheld the ban.

Brown also signed a bill this session by Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles, requiring health clinics that provide abortions or birthing services to apply for waivers from mandatory hospital transfer agreements. Gomez says such clinics are the only ones not allowed to obtain waivers, restricting access for women who live in areas without hospitals. That bill was sponsored by Planned Parenthood.

Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/hreoqwp

One State Finally Cracked Down on Deceptive Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers

A crisis pregnancy center in Minnesota Ben Garvin/AP

California on Friday became the only state to target anti-abortion pregnancy centers with a law cracking down on deceptive practices some have used to prevent or dissuade women from having an abortion.

The new law, which forces some crisis pregnancy centers to offer information about public assistance for reproductive services and others to notify patients that there are no medical professionals on staff, passed the California state assembly with a large majority in late May. Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed the bill on Friday night.

It is the first time reproductive rights groups have succeeded in pushing regulations on crisis pregnancy centers across an entire state; only a handful of cities or counties have passed similar laws. Shortly before the act became law, Amy Everitt, the director of NARAL Pro-Choice California, a reproductive rights group that helped draft the bill, said in an interview, "There is more to come."

But the new law may represent the outer limit of what legislatures can do to regulate crisis pregnancy centers. The measure, called AB 775, almost certainly faces the same fraught legal battles that stalled similar regulations in cities including Baltimore, New York, and Austin. Those battles forced NARAL and its allies to be conservative in crafting the new regulations. For instance, the law cannot force unlicensed centers to inform women that the state health department encourages women to visit licensed medical providers for prenatal care. A new court fight could erode their options even further.
Many patients who transfer from crisis pregnancy centers to the clinics she oversees come without prenatal records or lab reports. Patients typically transfer at a point when they are too far along in their pregnancy to obtain an abortion.

Reproductive rights advocates and public health officials have long sought to raise alarms about crisis pregnancy centers. Run by anti-abortion groups, crisis pregnancy centers sometimes provide pregnant women with misleading medical information in order to discourage them from ending their pregnancies. Others are ambiguous about whether they perform abortions or not in order to get women through the door. According to an investigation by NARAL, almost half of California's crisis pregnancy centers promulgate the popular anti-abortion myth that terminating a pregnancy is linked to a patient’s chances of developing breast cancer. At the same time, NARAL claims, a majority of the state's crisis pregnancy centers present themselves as neutral on the issue of abortion.

Abortion foes deny that crisis pregnancy centers engage in such subterfuge. "A woman knows her options," says Sandra Palacios, a government relations executive with the California Catholic Conference, which opposed the law. "Women are smart. They know where they’re walking into—a safe place where they can get all the information about abortion alternatives."

But as AB 775 was debated in the general assembly, many California medical professionals complained that crisis pregnancy centers offered their patients health care of dubious quality. In a letter to the legislature, Therese McCluskey, the perinatal services coordinator for the Alameda County Public Health Department, said many patients who transfer from crisis pregnancy centers to the clinics she oversees come without prenatal records, lab reports, or the pregnancy verification form that entitles them to pregnancy-related health care. Patients typically transfer at the point when they are too far along in their pregnancy to obtain an abortion.

At a Senate hearing on the bill, one OB-GYN testified that crisis pregnancy centers can pose a risk even for women who wanted to be pregnant and planned to carry their pregnancies full term. Sally Greenwald, of the University of California—San Francisco, is an OB-GYN and recalled taking over the care of a pregnant diabetic woman from a pro-life center. The crisis pregnancy center had failed to treat the woman's alarming blood sugar levels. "The fetus was exposed to lifelong risks, such as cardiac malformations, brain anomalies, and spine deformations," says Greenwald. "We could have lowered the sugar in her blood and we could have had better outcomes both for mom and for baby."

There are nearly 170 crisis pregnancy centers in California. At least 40 percent of them are licensed by the state as medical providers. Unlicensed clinics are prohibited from providing medical advice. For instance, an unlicensed clinic could conduct an ultrasound for a woman, but it could not use the results to determine gestational age.

California’s new law places two types of restrictions on crisis pregnancy centers. It requires pregnancy-related service providers that are not medically licensed to disclose that fact to patients. For reproductive health clinics, including crisis pregnancy centers, that are licensed, the law requires that they provide patients with information about California’s financial assistance for family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion.

"This bill is sort of a lessons-learned bill from all the previous efforts," says Everitt, of NARAL. As the group and its allies crafted the bill, she adds, they were "acutely aware" of how other bills to regulate crisis pregnancy centers—including some NARAL helped author—had failed in the past.

At the center of those past failures is a feud over whether abortion is a political or a health issue. Abortion foes claim that regulating crisis pregnancy centers is a violation of their right to express opposition to abortion. Reproductive rights advocates counter that the regulations are permissible because states have some latitude to regulate speech that is deceptive or coming from professionals licensed by the state. What is at stake is more than semantics: Supreme Court decisions have set a high bar for regulating political speech, but a low bar when it comes to individuals who are speaking as licensed professionals.

Regulating crisis pregnancy centers, even in blue states, has proved an elusive goal. Federal courts have struck down several laws forcing crisis pregnancy centers to make certain disclosures, such as informing women that they do not offer abortions, birth control, or referrals for those services.

Local officials in Baltimore, New York City, Austin, Maryland's Montgomery County, and San Francisco have all attempted to regulate crisis pregnancy centers with mixed degrees of success. Federal courts are split over several laws forcing crisis pregnancy centers to disclose up front that they are not medically licensed or do not refer for abortion, and to specify which medical services they do or do not provide.
"We wish we could get crisis pregnancy centers to stop spreading scientifically unsound messages."

Attempting to avoid a similar outcome in California, Everitt says, NARAL enlisted the office of Democratic Attorney General Kamala Harris. Harris' office helped draft the bill from its inception with an eye toward eliminating openings for a First Amendment challenge—although a spokeswoman for Harris cautioned that the state's involvement was no guarantee of success. Harris vocally backed the new law.

Their track record in federal court forced the drafters to leave what they saw as large holes in the new law. "We wish we could get crisis pregnancy centers to stop spreading scientifically unsound messages," Everitt says, but such a law would likely be struck down in court.

Palacios said the California Catholic Conference intends to sue to block the law. A representative for a coalition of crisis pregnancy centers opposed to the bill did not respond to requests for an interview.

Everitt is confident the law would survive a court challenge. Her group was instrumental in drafting the San Francisco measure, passed in 2011, which has so far survived a legal onslaught. The law allowed the city to fine crisis pregnancy centers each time they falsely implied that they offered abortion services or referrals.

Just as she did in 2011, Everitt hopes the new law will become a national model, especially now that the umbrella organizations behind many crisis pregnancy centers push their affiliates to seek more medical licensing. Crisis pregnancy centers say it is a move to provide better care to women.

NARAL sees crisis pregnancy centers' push for more licensing as a grab for legitimacy—and a tactical error. "The more there's a relationship with the state, the more you have leeway to regulate crisis pregnancy centers," says Rebecca Griffin, an assistant director for NARAL in California. "It's an opportunity for us."
Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/qdwcbml

Government-Mandated Speech: Jerry Brown Signs Law Forcing Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortion

(CNSNews.com) – Gov. Jerry Brown (D.-Calif.) signed a law on Friday mandating that all licensed pregnancy centers in the state “disseminate to clients” a message promoting public programs with “free or low-cost access” to abortion and contraceptive services.

The new law makes no exception for pro-life and faith-based crisis pregnancy centers.

Critics of the law say that it violates the right to freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

AB 775, known in the state legislature as The Reproductive FACT Act, requires all pregnancy centers that are licensed as clinics to post the following notice:

“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”

According to the legislation, pregnancy centers that fail to disseminate this message “are liable for a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500) for a first offense and one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each subsequent offense.”

Assembly member David Chiu (D-San Francisco), the bill’s primary author, argued in the legislature that "a growing and alarming movement is working to mislead women in order to achieve their political ideology. We have a responsibility as lawmakers to make sure that the information given to women who are making their own healthcare decisions is accurate and timely.”


Collect by :http://tinyurl.com/hemlnhj

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

HPV immunisation rates lower in anti-vax areas


Rural regions with high rates of child vaccine refusal are also lagging in terms of adolescent HPV immunisation rates, a report shows. In areas such as the Blue Mountains and Northern NSW, fewer than 65% of 15-year-old girls are fully immunised against HPV, compared with around 90% in other Primary Health Networks areas, according to the report by the National Health Performance Authority. HPV vaccination rates in the Blue Mountains, Darwin and outback NT fell by about 10% between 2012 and 2013, the figures reveal. However, the findings should be "taken with a grain of salt", said Dr Julia Brotherton, medical director of the National HPV Vaccination Program Register. "The problem with looking at small-area data is that there are reasonably small populations in...

Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/zgrfffr

Most AEDs should be continued in pregnancy: study


Most epilepsy drugs should not be stopped in pregnancy because the loss of seizure control outweighs the risk of fetal malformations for most drugs, an Australian study shows. Analysis of data from 148 women with epilepsy who went untreated during pregnancy found they faced a high risk of seizures but showed no reduction in fetal malformation rates. And figures derived from more than 1700 women in the Australian Register of Anti-Epilepsy Drugs in Pregnancy showed that fetal malformation rates were similar for pregnancies of treated and untreated women when the teratogens valproate and topiramate were excluded. Untreated women had 20% higher rates of seizure of any type during pregnancy compared with treated women, according to the study in the journal Seizure. Lead author...

Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/j4j8vqq

Scheme overcoming GP obstetrics crisis


The crisis in rural GP obstetrics can be averted by tackling concerns about isolation, work-life balance and patient safety, a program in Victoria demonstrates. A training and support program run for GP obstetricians by Southern GP Training has reversed the decline in GP obstetricians, with numbers increasing from 31 in 2007 to 39 in 2014, according to a report in the Medical Journal of Australia. A survey of GPs involved in the Gippsland program showed one of the main challenges to recruitment was professional isolation, with fears that distance from specialist services and access to assistance would impair their ability to manage difficult situations. Another factor in GPs' decision to practise rural obstetrics was safety, largely based around concerns about having the competence and...

Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/hu87spz

Phone abortion service popular with rural women

A new telephone abortion service that allows women to bypass their GP has been inundated with requests, particularly from women in rural areas. The Tabbot Foundation received more than 2500 enquiries in the first two days after launching in September, says medical director Dr Paul Hyland. And the service continues to receive about 50 enquiries a day, with the number steadily growing. The foundation, which mails out mifepristone (RU486) and misoprostol to eligible women, has been clamouring to hire more staff in order to respond to the demand. "We just couldn't cope at first," Dr Hyland told Rural Doctor. Initially, some women had to be turned away and redirected to their nearest bricks-and-mortar abortion provider, he said. "We're able to cope now, not because the enquiries...

Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/ztllspn

Counseling

There are many options when facing an unexpected  pregnancy. It may be helpful to understand those options and full range of your choices and their intended and unintended consequences.

Come in and speak to one of our genuinely caring, licensed professional counselors before you make a choice that will affect you mentally, emotionally, spiritually and possibly physically, for the rest of your life. Ultimately the choice is yours – we just want you to make an informed choice.

The counselor will give you ALL the facts and ALL the options. You may find what you considered insurmountable obstacles can be resolved and that your range of options is broader than you think. We are good at this – this is what we do—and we want to help.

Our counselors have the education and experience to help you with the many questions that are may be going through your head:

    I had a positive pregnancy test. What do I do? How can I afford another baby right now?
    My daughter is pregnant and her boyfriend wants her to have an abortion. What can I do and how can you help?
    I don’t have insurance, there’s no way to find medical help, right?
    I’m not ready to parent, what real choice do I have?
    I went to another agency and they suggested I have an abortion. I just don’t feel right about it but don’t know what else to do?
    What will my parents, friends and family think?
    I took the morning after pill but I don’t know if it worked.
    How far along can I be and still have an abortion?
    If I consider adoption, will I ever see my baby?

Counseling is often offered on an individual basis but you can invite another family member, the father, a friend – whomever you choose, to a counseling appointment. You may use this opportunity to address family issues that may arise with the unplanned pregnancy. Many times, the counselor is able to mediate conflict, address concerns or stressors of the family members or others, clarify choices and options and educate on community resources, for example. Sometimes it’s just comforting to make sense of this situation with another supportive person in the room. The way the free, confidential counseling is provided is determined by you and your counselor.
Collect by: http://tinyurl.com/jdzcx52