Evidence presented at World Health Assembly that health care, not abortion, will solve maternal mortality

(Left to right) Patrick Buckley (SPUC), Jeanne Head (NRLC), Mary Langlois (HLI) and Scott Fischbach (MCCL GO) 

Note: The following was published yesterday at NRL News Today.

By Paul Stark

Evidence that legalizing abortion does not reduce maternal mortality was presented this week at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland.

Scott Fischbach, executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Global Outreach (MCCL GO), and Jeanne Head, R.N., U.N. representative and vice-president for international affairs at the National Right to Life Committee, launched an updated analysis published by both organizations.

Despite a worldwide decline in recent years, maternal mortality remains a serious problem in developing nations. "We have known for decades that most maternal deaths can be prevented with adequate nutrition, basic health care, and good obstetric care throughout pregnancy, at delivery, and postpartum," says Head. "Yet some in the international community have focused their resources primarily on legalizing abortion at the expense of women's lives."

The new analysis, "Women's Health & Abortion," explains that maternal mortality fell dramatically in developed nations as a result of mid-20th century improvements in health care—well before the widespread legalization of abortion. Today Ireland and Poland, which prohibit most abortions, boast among the world's lowest rates of maternal death.

"Maternal mortality is determined by the quality of maternal health care, not the legal status of abortion," notes Fischbach. "Pushing for legal abortion in developing countries does nothing to solve the problem. It only leads to more abortions."

The analysis highlights a peer-reviewed study of maternal mortality in Chile published on May 4. The researchers, led by Dr. Elard Koch of the University of Chile, show that maternal mortality declined significantly even after Chile prohibited abortion in 1989. Maternal deaths due specifically to abortion also dropped after abortion was made illegal.

Koch, et al., cite various factors to explain the decrease, including a significant increase in education level, utilization of maternal health facilities, and improvements in the sanitary system. The researchers conclude that "making abortion illegal is not necessarily equivalent to promoting unsafe abortion, especially in terms of maternal morbidity and mortality. ... Our study indicates that improvements in maternal health and a dramatic decrease in the [maternal mortality ratio] occurred without legalization of abortion."

Chile's success contrasts with the recent record of the United States, which permits abortion on demand and has seen its maternal mortality rate climb upward over the last two decades. The U.S. maternal mortality ratio (the number of deaths per 100,000 live births) increased from 10.3 in 1999 to 23.2 in 2009. Over the same period, Chile's ratio decreased from 23.6 to 16.9.

A report issued this month by the World Health Organization and other U.N. agencies estimates that maternal deaths worldwide dropped 47 percent from 1990 to 2010. The report offers further proof that women’s lives can be saved through improved health conditions.

"We urge the World Health Assembly to adopt measures to significantly reduce maternal mortality in the developing world by improving women's health care," Fischbach adds. "We call upon the WHA to save lives, not expend endless energy and resources advocating the legalization of abortion in countries that protect their unborn children."

New analysis of maternal mortality confirms health care, not abortion, key to saving lives

The following was released today, May 21.

GENEVA, Switzerland — Improved medical care, not abortion, is the solution to the problem of maternal deaths in the developing world, according to a new analysis of research from Chile and other sources. The analysis was released today at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Global Outreach (MCCL GO) and National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund (NRLC), an NGO based in Washington, D.C. Leaders of both organizations called for a renewed emphasis on improving health care for women as the only sure means of reducing maternal mortality.

"We have known for decades that most maternal deaths can be prevented with adequate nutrition, basic health care, and good obstetric care throughout pregnancy, at delivery, and postpartum," said Jeanne Head, R.N., National Right to Life vice-president for international affairs and U.N. representative. "Yet some in the international community have focused their resources primarily on legalizing abortion at the expense of women's lives."

"Our analysis presents clear, factual evidence to repudiate the claim that legalized abortion reduces maternal mortality," said MCCL GO Executive Director Scott Fischbach.

The analysis, "Women's Health & Abortion," compares the impact of improved medical care and legalized abortion on maternal mortality rates in several countries. Maternal deaths declined sharply in the United States through the 1930s and 1940s, for example, coinciding with advancements in maternal health care, obstetric techniques, antibiotics and in the general health status of women. This occurred long before the widespread legalization of abortion.

Chile offers the most striking proof that maternal mortality is unrelated to the legal status of abortion. Chile sharply reduced its maternal mortality rate even after its prohibition of abortion in 1989, and now has the lowest maternal mortality rate in Latin America. Even maternal deaths due specifically to abortion declined—from 10.78 abortion deaths per 100,000 live births in 1989 to 0.83 in 2007, a reduction of 92.3 percent after abortion was made illegal.

In the developing world, the danger of legalized abortion is profound, the analysis found. Ms. Head explains: "Women generally at risk because they lack access to a doctor, hospital, or antibiotics before abortion's legalization will face those same circumstances after legalization. And if legalization triggers a higher demand for abortion, as it has in most countries, more injured women will compete for those scarce medical resources. The number of abortion-related maternal deaths may actually increase."

MCCL GO and National Right to Life called upon the WHA to focus its resources on the improvement of women's health care in the developing world.

"We urge the World Health Assembly to adopt measures to significantly reduce maternal mortality in the developing world by improving women's health care," Mr. Fischbach added. "We call upon the WHA to save lives, not expend endless energy and resources in areas where there is profound disagreement, such as the legalization of abortion."

MCCL GO is a pro-life global outreach program of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Education Fund with one goal: to save as many innocent lives as possible from the destruction of abortion. Learn more at www.mccl-go.org.

Organ donor awareness: Know your risks

The following was released today, May 15.

A shocking article in this month's Discover magazine has renewed concern over end-of-life treatment for those willing to donate their organs after death. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life is calling attention to the issue on behalf of donors and recipients.

"One of the pro-life movement's guiding principles is that every human being, regardless of their strong or weak physical state, has an inalienable right to life and that right cannot be infringed upon by others," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach.

The Discover article explains how, in 1968, a group of doctors established an entirely new definition of death: the loss of "personhood." This subjective, philosophical determination of "brain death" is now the standard which enables physicians to declare a person to be dead, and then keep the "beating-heart cadaver" warm, pink and breathing until transplant procedures can be performed. Dr. Michael DeVita of the University of Pittsburgh's Medical Center describes this new category of humanity as only "pretty dead."

In 1971, a Minnesota team observed reflexes in moribund patients that looked like signs of life, and pregnant women declared brain-dead have gestated their babies for weeks—in one case, for 107 days. Transplant physicians are reluctant to discuss the possibility that a "brain-dead" organ donor can feel pain.

The cover of this month's Discover offers an ire-and-dire quote: "The organ harvest proceeded over the objections of the anesthesiologist, who saw the brain-dead donor react to the scalpel ..."

"Being a 'donor' means different things to different people. Caution is advised and education is the key for any donor," Fischbach added. "A donor's compassion and generosity represent pro-life ideals—donating blood, plasma, bone marrow and even a kidney can result in little to no impact on the donor's health. We just want them to be well informed when they give their consent."

Knowledge of current health care directive laws is crucial. In Minnesota, health care providers are required to follow a patient's advance care directive (living will, etc.). A patient cannot be denied nutrition and hydration, even at the end of life.

"Nobody knows what, if anything, brain-dead patients experience, and none of them could plausibly return to consciousness to tell us," wrote Discover Editor-in-Chief Corey Powell. "All we can do is read on and take one more step toward an information-based ethics—one that respects death while giving primacy to life."

New Chilean study shows banning abortion does not increase maternal mortality

A new study analyzes the incidence of maternal mortality in Chile and demonstrates that it is "not related to the legal status of abortion," contrary to the claims of international abortion advocates who use maternal deaths as an argument for the legalization of abortion. The study, led by Dr. Elard Koch of the University of Chile, was published May 4 in the peer-reviewed scholarly journal PLoS ONE.

Over a span of 50 years (1957 to 2007), the researchers note, the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) in Chile declined dramatically -- from 293.7 to 18.2 deaths per 100,000 live births, a decrease of 93.8 percent. (It dropped to 16.5 in 2008.) Abortion was banned in Chile in 1989, and the MMR continued to decline significantly and at the same pace. "After abortion was prohibited, the MMR decreased from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 live births (−69.2%)," explain the authors. "The slope of the MMR did not appear to be altered by the change in abortion law." Even maternal deaths due specifically to abortion declined -- from 10.78 abortion deaths per 100,000 live births in 1989 to 0.83 in 2007, a reduction of 92.3 percent after abortion was banned. The abortion mortality ratio plummeted 99.1 percent from 1961 to 2007.

Thus Chile, which prohibits abortion, now has the lowest MMR in Latin America and the second lowest in all of North and South America. And maternal death due specifically to (illegal) abortion is now "practically null."

Yet many in the international community, and groups like the International Planned Parenthood Federation, contend that prohibiting abortion leads to increased maternal mortality, and legalizing abortion leads to decreased maternal mortality. That was not true in Chile, and there is no reason to think it is true anywhere else. Koch, et al., write (notes omitted):

The validity of this assumption depends on whether the legal status of abortion is causally associated with the prevalence of illegal abortion, the safety of the abortive procedure, and maternal morbidity and mortality exhibited in general. Nevertheless, no direct evidence testing this causal assumption in developing countries currently exists. Furthermore, the lowest MMRs observed in European countries such as Ireland, Malta and Poland, where abortion is severely restricted by law, suggest that this assumption may be untrue.

After 1989, Chile is recognised as one of the countries with the most restrictive abortion laws in the world and has been criticised because of the purported possible deleterious consequences on maternal health. Nevertheless, the present study provides counterintuitive evidence showing that making abortion illegal is not necessarily equivalent to promoting unsafe abortion, especially in terms of maternal morbidity and mortality. Chile's abortion prohibition in 1989 did not cause an increase in the MMR in this country. On the contrary, after abortion prohibition, the MMR decreased from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 live births -- a decrease of 69.2% in fourteen years. Excluding ectopic pregnancy, the absolute risk of death due to unspecified abortion is one in two million women at fertile age. Our study indicates that improvements in maternal health and a dramatic decrease in the MMR occurred without legalization of abortion. This does not imply that there are no illegal or clandestine abortions in Chile. Rather, current abortion mortality ratio and recent epidemiologic studies of abortion rates in this country suggest that clandestine abortion may have been reduced in parallel with maternal mortality and may have currently reached a steady state based on stable ratios between live births and hospitalizations by abortion.

What does affect maternal mortality? The Koch study cites various factors in Chile, such as a significant increase in education level, "access and utilization of maternal health facilities" (including "early prenatal care, delivery by skilled birth attendants, postnatal care, availability of emergency obstetric units and specialized obstetric care") and "improvements of the sanitary system." We should work in the developing world to improve basic maternal health care. Deaths can be dramatically reduced just as they were in Chile and in the developed world, including the United States (where maternal mortality rates dropped well before abortion was legalized). Abortion has nothing to do with it.

Nations that prohibit abortion should not be bullied into legalizing the practice on the grounds that doing so is necessary for women's health. As the Chilean example shows, that's simply not true.

U of M pursuing ethical stem cell research with hopeful results

The following was released today, May 8.

MINNEAPOLIS — Stem cell research by the University of Minnesota has shown promise in treating muscular dystrophy without the destruction of human embryos. Published May 3 in Cell Stem Cell, the ethical research is being praised by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

"It is encouraging to see the U of M explore the amazing potential of non-embryonic stem cells in developing a treatment for muscular dystrophy," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "We look forward to further ethical stem cell discoveries from U of M researchers."

The research involves the use of iPS (induced pluripotent stem) cells derived from human skin cells. The skin cells are reprogrammed to become pluripotent, or able to express the properties of embryonic stem cells. The U of M admits in its press release that "iPS cells have all of the potential of embryonic stem (ES) cells." These iPS cells have the added advantage of guarding against rejection, because the patient’s own cells are used rather than cells derived from a human embryo.

Other researchers have used ethical adult stem cells to develop treatments for more than 70 diseases and conditions, including cerebral palsy, Parkinson's disease, leukemia, multiple sclerosis, cancers, anemias and autoimmune disorders. Thousands of people are alive today because of treatments developed from adult stem cells.

"Adult stem cell research offers great promise for those suffering from debilitating diseases and conditions," Fischbach added. "The U of M is smart to draw from this rich source in its development of cell-based therapies."

MN taxpayers forced to pay for 3,700 abortions in 2010

The following was released today, May 2.

ST. PAUL — After 15 years of taxpayer-funded abortions, Minnesotans have funded more than 58,000 abortions at a cost of $18 million, according to a just-released report from the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). Nearly all of these abortions have been elective.

Since its successful 1995 challenge to Minnesota's law which prohibited funding of most abortions, the state's abortion industry has steadily increased its taxpayer-funded procedure numbers and revenue by marketing taxpayer-funded abortions to low-income women. Taxpayers now pay for 32.7 percent of all abortions performed in the state — the highest percentage ever.

"Economically vulnerable women represent guaranteed revenue for the state's abortion centers," said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). "It is time to end abortionists' money grab at the expense of poor women and their unborn children."

Minnesota taxpayers have been required to fund elective abortions since the Minnesota Supreme Court’s 1995 Doe v. Gomez ruling. In that decision, the Court created a state "right" to abortion on demand and obligated all taxpayers to fund abortions.

Since the Doe v. Gomez ruling, taxpayers have paid $18,692,827 for a total of 58,552 abortion procedure claims. The 2010 numbers are $1,405,741 paid for 3,757 abortions. Prior to the court decision, taxpayers were charged about $7,000 per year for about 23 abortions in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.

Planned Parenthood posted big gains once again. Its abortion center in St. Paul increased its taxpayer funded abortions by 3.2 percent in 2010, the largest increase of any provider. Planned Parenthood's abortion marketing efforts to low-income and minority women have yielded a staggering 163 percent increase in its publicly funded abortions since 2000.

"Polls continue to show that most Minnesotans and most Americans are opposed to taxpayer funded abortions, yet they continue to be forced to pay for them," Fischbach said.

The state also pays for the cost of "treatment of incomplete induced abortions"; the 2010 total was $11,970. This amount is expected to continue to increase, according to DHS, due in part to the increased promotion of RU486 chemical abortions, which have a failure rate of up to 5 percent. Planned Parenthood began offering RU486 "webcam abortions" in Rochester in 2010, in which a doctor in St. Paul administers the drugs remotely via video teleconference. The doctor never examines the woman prior to prescribing the drugs, increasing the risks to the woman.

MCCL helped to pass a ban on taxpayer funded abortion during the 2011 legislative session; it was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton. The measure would have ended the forced funding by taxpayers of this mistreatment of poor women and the killing of unborn children.

Video: Squinting, grasping 8 weeks after conception

Dayton kills ban on dangerous ‘webcam abortions’

The following was released today, April 30.

ST. PAUL — Legislation to ban "webcam abortions" was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton today. The women's safety measure had the strong support of the Legislature and Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

"Once again, Gov. Dayton has come to the defense of the abortion industry at the expense of women's safety," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "This is the seventh pro-life initiative that would protect women and unborn children that has been vetoed. The Dayton record is now clear: he is no friend of women or their babies."

H.F. 2341, authored by Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, and Rep. Joyce Peppin, R-Rogers, would have stopped dangerous webcam abortions by requiring that a physician be physically present when administering the drugs for a chemical abortion. Webcam abortions involve the RU486 abortion drug, administered via video conference with an abortion provider in another location. The doctor talks with the woman, and then presses a button which opens a drawer to remotely dispense the drug.

The doctor is never physically present in a webcam abortion to examine the woman for a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy or any other condition or factor that would make this abortion procedure especially dangerous for her. Planned Parenthood began offering webcam abortions last year at its Rochester facility; women consult with a doctor in St. Paul. The webcam abortion method is cost-effective for Planned Parenthood, allowing it to forgo a surgical center and on-site physician.

"This legislation focuses primarily on the life of the mother," Gazelka said during floor debate. "A doctor will do the exam to make sure the woman is a proper patient for this. So this is certainly looking out for the best interest of the mother but not the best interest of the abortion provider."

The risks of RU486 can be severe: 14 women are known to have died in the U.S. after taking the drugs, according to the Food and Drug Administration. At least six states, including North Dakota and Wisconsin, have already enacted webcam abortion bans, and other states are currently working to pass legislation to the same effect. Canada does not permit use of RU486 due to safety concerns.

"This is a very serious and dangerous drug and we just don't want to take this lightly," Peppin said during floor debate. "The FDA requires a physician to administer this drug."

Planned Parenthood introduced webcam abortions in Iowa in 2008 at one location; now it promotes them at nearly all of its 17 Iowa locations. Planned Parenthood has 18 locations in Minnesota and could greatly expand availability of this dangerous abortion method.

MMA sides with abortion industry

Two MCCL-supported bills recently passed by the Legislature (one has already been vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton) would help ensure the health and safety of pregnant women. In a letter that was publicized yesterday, the Minnesota Medical Association (MMA) urges the governor to veto both bills, calling them "unnecessary restrictions on legal medical procedures."

This is very unfortunate. The MMA -- which is supposed to represent physicians across Minnesota -- is going out of its way to oppose commonsense safety requirements and to protect an unfettered abortion industry. And this is not the first time. The MMA actively opposed the Woman's Right to Know informed consent law, for example, which ensures that pregnant women are aware of basic facts before undergoing abortion.

One of the bills, vetoed yesterday by the governor, would require that abortion facilities be licensed to ensure minimal health standards and prevent the kind of dangerous practices uncovered elsewhere. The MMA says it "objected to a procedure-based approach to licensing." But the reason abortion centers are specified in the legislation is that they currently are effectively exempted (due to loopholes in the law) from the licensing requirements that govern other outpatient surgical centers. The bill simply corrects that gap in government oversight by treating abortion facilities (which perform common and invasive surgical procedures) the same as similar surgical centers. Regrettably, the MMA has sided with Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers who demand special treatment.

The second bill would require a physician to be physically present when prescribing the RU486 abortion drug, thus preventing "webcam abortions" in which RU486 is dispensed remotely after a conversation with the pregnant woman via videoconference. The MMA says: "Bill supporters have said that the legislation has been introduced ... to ensure a physician's presence in case the drug has an adverse effect on her [but] the greatest risk ... comes from sepsis and does not occur when the drug is initially taken but rather over the following two weeks." Actually, bill supporters argue that a doctor should be present to physically examine the woman for any risk factors prior to administering the chemical abortion. For instance, a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy can go undetected (and has, in at least two U.S. cases that resulted in death) because its symptoms mirror the expected side effects of RU486.

The MMA worries about the legislation's "implication for the use of telemedicine in Minnesota." But the bill's advocates have not criticized telemedicine itself or in general -- it can be and is used to extend legitimate health care to many people who need it. Administering RU486 via telemedicine is simply a misuse of this technology. RU486 is an elective abortion method, not health care; it does not treat any medical condition. And it carries serious risks to the health of women that are exacerbated when a doctor is not present.

The MMA complains that "these pieces of legislation inappropriately intrude on the practice of medicine in the state of Minnesota." They intrude on a largely profit-driven abortion industry by implementing certain safety requirements deemed important by the state Legislature, representing the people of Minnesota. That is the Legislature's business.

Dayton blocks licensing of abortion facilities

The following was released today, April 26.

ST. PAUL — Legislation to institute minimal safety standards at abortion facilities was vetoed today by Gov. Mark Dayton. The veto of the women's safety measure follows its overwhelming bipartisan approval by the Legislature with the backing of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).

"This veto highlights Gov. Dayton's commitment to protecting the abortion industry, even when it results in putting women's health at risk," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures in Minnesota, and there is no way for women to know if they are going to be in a safe or clean facility."

S.F. 1921 was authored by Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, and Sen. Claire Robling, R-Jordan, who sought to bring the state's six surgical abortion facilities in line with the state's other outpatient surgical centers. The bill would have required facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed, and authorized the state department of health to perform inspections of abortion facilities. In 2010, a total of 11,505 abortions were performed in the state.

"Women need to know that the Department of Health has zero oversight of abortion facilities and cannot ensure their safety, because Gov. Dayton has forbidden it," Fischbach continued.

Abortion facilities have been granted special exemption from licensing that governs other outpatient surgical centers in the state. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU testified against the bill in committee hearings, arguing that abortion facilities should remain unlicensed and uninspected. However, state lawmakers agreed that this exemption cannot be justified when it comes to safeguarding women.

In a letter to Dayton after the bill was approved by the Legislature, Holberg and Robling defended the requirements as reasonable and sensible.

"Prior to the legalization of abortion in 1973, supporters of abortion often argued that the procedure should be brought out of the back rooms in order to protect the well-being of women. Without state licensing and inspections, there is no guarantee that women's health is being protected," they wrote. "This proposed regulation is to provide protection before a dangerous situation develops."

Legislature expands safety net for newborn babies

The following news release was issued today, April 25.

ST. PAUL — Legislation expanding options for mothers at risk of harming their newborn babies was signed into law on Apr. 23. The lifesaving efforts of the bill's authors and the Legislature were praised by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

"This is common-sense, compassionate legislation that will actually save precious lives, and we applaud the Legislature for passing it almost unanimously," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach.

The legislation was authored by Sen. Michelle Benson, R-Ham Lake, and Rep. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka. MCCL worked closely with the Minnesota Ambulance Association, which also provided significant leadership in drafting the changes. MCCL, the Minnesota Ambulance Association and others plan to publicize the law's new provisions.

A handful of women are vulnerable to abandoning or harming their newborn children in cases of severe stress or mental instability. Several newborn babies have been found in recent years after being drowned in the Mississippi River near Red Wing, for example.

Minnesota's Safe Place for Newborns law (Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 145.902) originally provided a woman, after giving birth, a three-day window in which she is allowed to place her newborn baby at a hospital and walk away, no questions asked. The newborn must be unharmed. Several babies have been presented at hospitals under the Safe Place for Newborns law.

The 2012 "Give Life a Chance" legislation widens the options for mothers of newborns under the state's Safe Place for Newborns law. A newborn may now be placed at a hospital, urgent care provider or with ambulance personnel (by calling 911) by the mother or a person with the mother’s permission. The law expands the relinquishment time period to seven days from birth.

"Give Life a Chance will save more lives, thanks to these greater accommodations for mothers who are at risk," Fischbach added. "No newborn baby in Minnesota should ever be harmed because the mother is not able to provide care."

Senate approves 'webcam abortion' ban, 39-25

The following is a news release issued today, April 24.

ST. PAUL — Legislation to ban "webcam abortions" was approved 39-25 by the Minnesota Senate late yesterday. The women's safety measure has the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

H.F. 2341, authored by Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, would stop dangerous webcam abortions by requiring that a physician be physically present when administering the drugs for a chemical abortion. Webcam abortions involve the RU486 abortion drug, administered via video conference with an abortion provider in another location. The doctor talks with the woman, then presses a button which opens a drawer to remotely dispense the drug.

The doctor is never physically present in a webcam abortion to examine the woman for any problems, such as a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy or any other condition or factor, that would make this abortion procedure especially dangerous for her. Planned Parenthood began offering webcam abortions last year at its Rochester facility; women consult with a doctor in St. Paul.

"This legislation focuses primarily on the life of the mother," Gazelka said during the floor debate. "Currently in Minnesota, some chemical abortions are being performed without a physician physically present. Instead, the physician is watching via webcam from a different city or location."

The risks of RU486 can be severe: 14 women are known to have died in the U.S. after taking the drugs, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Last month, an Australian agency disclosed that a woman there died from an infection after taking RU486. A prominent gynecologist and advocate of the drug has called for a review of the drug's protocol.

At least six states, including North Dakota and Wisconsin, have already enacted webcam abortion bans, and other states are currently working to pass legislation to the same effect. Canada does not permit use of RU486 due to safety concerns.

"RU486 is not an aspirin; it's not a prescription. It's dangerous," Gazelka added. "This [requiring a physician to be present] may not be the most cost-effective way for Planned Parenthood to deliver abortions, but it certainly considers the life of the mother."

A companion bill was approved in the House on Apr. 18 on a vote of 80-48. The women's safety measure is expected to be sent to Gov. Mark Dayton soon.

"Governor Dayton should recognize that such a serious and life-altering procedure as abortion deserves the presence of a physician," said MCCL Legislative Associate Jordan Harris. "His veto would greatly increase the health risks to women who are administered this abortion method remotely without being examined by a physician."

Fact-checking the MPR fact-checkers on RU486 abortions

By Jordan Marie Harris

This week, the Minnesota House of Representatives took up a commonsense measure that would require a doctor to be physically present when administering the dangerous abortion drug RU486 (mifepristone). This would afford women the dignity of a physical exam and evaluation by a physician—to ensure that she is a good candidate for taking this drug—before undergoing the chemical abortion.

RU486 in the United States has resulted in more than 2,200 "adverse events," or serious complications, including the deaths of at least 14 women, according to the FDA. Planned Parenthood recently began using a dispensation scheme in which women in Rochester speak with an abortionist located in St. Paul via video conferencing, and are then remotely administered the drug.

During floor debate, Rep. Joyce Peppin, chief author of the bill to require physicians to be physically present when administering RU486, emphasized safety concerns and made this claim: "The drug is so dangerous that it was banned in places like Canada and China, places that are very liberal on abortion policies in general."

MPR's "PoliGraph," the news outlet's political fact-checking service, concludes that Rep. Peppin's statement "leans toward false." However, MPR misses some key facts about RU486 and abortion in these countries.

While other drugs can be used for chemical abortions in Canada, RU486 has never been approved, legalized, or made available—even though abortion in general is legal for any reason throughout all of pregnancy. The commercial importation into Canada of RU486 (an unauthorized drug) is illegal under the Food and Drugs Act.

A 2005 National Review of Medicine article explains some of the back-story: "In 2001, the only Canadian trial of mifepristone ... was suspended after the death of a woman from toxic shock brought on by a bacterial infection related to her abortion." The story of that young woman's death is told here. Canadians for Choice, a pro-choice group, acknowledges: "Unfortunately, RU-486 is not legal in Canada. Many opponents raised concerns about its safety because of the possibility to cause Clostridium sordellii infections and septic shock."

Rep. Peppin's comment about Canada is justifiable for the simple reason that RU486 is illegal there—it is not permitted under the law.

China is known for very liberal abortion policies and a coercive one-child law that often leads to sex-selection abortion and infanticide, in which female babies are killed simply because they are female. In 2001, China outlawed all pharmaceutical sales of RU486. This fact is the basis for Rep. Peppin's remark, yet it is never mentioned by MPR.

The State Drug Administration, charged with the oversight of drugs in China, explained the decision: "In order to guarantee patients' safety and protect their health, it is decided that no matter whether patients have a doctor's prescription or not, retail drug stores are forbidden to sell mifepristone tablets." This was reported under the headline "China Bans RU 486 Abortion Drug" in the Oct. 9, 2001, Beijing Morning Post. The story cited the fact that hospitals were left treating RU486 complications as a reason for the new policy. Admittedly, the ban only applied to drug stores.

It is clear that the health dangers of RU486 have not gone unnoticed by other countries, and they shouldn't be ignored in Minnesota, either. The risks inherent in RU486 are exacerbated when a physician is not physically present. Rep. Peppin's legislation is a reasonable attempt to safeguard the health of women from a risky practice introduced only recently by the state's leading performer and promoter of abortion, Planned Parenthood.

'October Baby' argument: Each of us was once a fetus

In October Baby, the main character, Hannah, learns that she was born after a failed abortion attempt. Now consider the following.

(1) Hannah is the same being who, at an earlier stage of life, was almost killed by abortion and was subsequently born prematurely and adopted by loving parents. Like all of us, she was once an embryo and a fetus, just as she was an infant, toddler and adolescent. This is precisely the reason for Hannah's distress upon learning the circumstances of her birth, and the distress (two decades later) of her birth mother. To have killed that fetus by abortion would have been to kill Hannah.

(2) Hannah ought to be loved and "wanted" simply because she is Hannah. Her adoptive parents don't love her for her health (which is imperfect and requires serious attention), intelligence, personality or accomplishments, nor for her age or independence. They love her irrespective of these things. They love her for her own sake.

(3) Because the fetal Hannah was Hannah (1), she deserved to be loved as such (2). And since the above two points are not particular to Hannah (each of us was once a fetus; each of us is valuable simply by virtue of who we are), we can extend this conclusion to all fetuses. They are valuable because they are human beings who as human beings deserve to be wanted and loved, regardless of age, size, dependency or any other morally trivial characteristic.

This argument, I suggest, is implicit in October Baby. And it's a good one (go here for more about this kind of argument). Every life is beautiful.

House approves licensing of abortion facilities; bill now headed to Gov. Dayton

The following news release was issued today, April 20.

ST. PAUL — Legislation to require licensure of abortion facilities was approved by the Minnesota House today on a bipartisan 80-47 vote. The vote on the measure seeking women's safety followed its approval by the Senate on Apr. 18; the bill has the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).

S.F. 1921, authored by Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, would require facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed. The legislation would apply existing licensing requirements of outpatient surgical centers to abortion facilities. The bill also authorizes the state commissioner of health to perform inspections of abortion facilities, with no prior notice required.

"This common-sense legislation has been recognized by both the House and Senate as important for the safety of women," said MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau. "There is no reason for abortion facilities to be given special exemption from licensing that governs other outpatient surgical centers in the state."

The need for the measure was brought to light by filthy conditions found at an abortion facility in Pennsylvania, which did not license or inspect abortion facilities. At least two women died, others contracted venereal diseases from unsanitary equipment, and babies born alive were killed by severing their spinal cords. Once discovered, the facility was called a "house of horrors" by grand jury investigators. S.F. 1921 would protect women from such dangers.

The requirement would apply to the state's six abortion facilities, which together perform the vast majority of all abortions in Minnesota. In 2010, a total of 11,505 abortions were performed in the state.

Planned Parenthood is the state's largest abortion provider. In 2010, it performed more than 4,000 abortions, or more than 75 per week. Ambulances have been called to Planned Parenthood's St. Paul abortion facility twice in recent months, bringing to light the need for inspection and licensing of such facilities.

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU testified against the bill in committee hearings, arguing that abortion facilities should remain unlicensed and uninspected.

The measure to license abortion facilities as other outpatient surgical centers now goes to Gov. Dayton for his consideration.

"The people of Minnesota have agreed that the Minnesota Department of Health should establish licensure of abortion facilities, and MCCL calls on Gov. Dayton to sign the bill," Rau added.

Senate approves abortion clinic licensing; House passes 'webcam abortion' ban

Today the Minnesota Senate approved the MCCL-backed bill to license and inspect abortion facilities on a bipartisan 43-23 vote. It will soon be heard in the House. Learn more in the MCCL news release here. (All news releases are listed here.)

Also today, on an 80-48 vote, the House passed the MCCL-backed bill to prohibit "webcam abortions" by requiring a physician to be physically present when administering an RU486 chemical abortion. A vote is expected soon in the Senate. Read the news release here.

One clarification should be made. In response to the webcam abortion ban, WCCO reporter Pat Kessler tweeted: "MN House passes bill to require MD to be in the room when a woman takes emergency contraceptive." Others have also tweeted or re-tweeted this claim.

No, that's false. Kessler and the others are confusing RU486 (mifepristone) with contraception. (Kessler's tweet has since been corrected.) Contraception prevents conception (hence the name); RU486 is a nonsurgical method of abortion used through the first nine weeks of gestation (the FDA has only approved it for use through seven weeks, but Planned Parenthood administers it later than that). We are not talking about a contraceptive pill. We are talking about an abortion drug that causes the death of a rapidly-developing unborn human being; a second drug, misoprostol, is taken about two days later to induce contractions that expel the dead child.

More information about RU486 -- and how its health risks are exacerbated when it is dispensed via telemedicine -- is included in our brochure, available online here.

Abortion facility licensing bill approved in final House hearing

The following news release was issued today, April 17.

ST. PAUL— Legislation to require licensure of abortion facilities was approved by the Minnesota House Ways and Means committee late yesterday. The vote on the measure seeking women's safety completed the hearing process for the bill, which has the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).

H.F. 2340 (S.F. 1921), authored by Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, would require facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed. The legislation would apply licensing requirements of outpatient surgical centers to abortion providers, which are unlicensed and uninspected. The bill also authorizes the state commissioner of health to perform inspections of abortion facilities, with no prior notice required.

"House committee members have acknowledged that requiring abortion facilities to be licensed is entirely reasonable for the safety of women," said MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau. "MCCL calls on Gov. Dayton to sign this much-needed legislation when it reaches his desk."

The need for the measure was brought to light by filthy conditions found at an abortion facility in Pennsylvania, which did not license or inspect abortion facilities. At least two women died, others contracted venereal diseases from unsanitary equipment, and babies born alive were killed by cutting their spinal cords. Once discovered, the clinic was called a "house of horrors" by grand jury investigators. H.F. 2340 would protect women from such dangers.

The requirement would apply to the state's seven abortion facilities, which together perform more than 98 percent of all abortions in Minnesota. In 2010, a total of 11,505 abortions were performed in the state.

The legislation originally directed the Minnesota Department of Health to establish licensing requirements for abortion facilities. The bill was amended to apply existing requirements of outpatient surgical centers to abortion facilities.

The abortion facilities licensing bill will now be heard on the floor of the House.

'October Baby' is testament to power of forgiveness

The low-budget indie film October Baby opened nationwide the same day as The Hunger Games and managed to finish in the top 10 at the box office. The New York Times calls it a "quiet hit" that is "making a dent at theaters across the country." Last weekend it expanded to more than 500 theaters, including eight in Minnesota, five of them in the Twin Cities metro area.

The movie follows Hannah (Rachel Hendrix, easily giving Jennifer Lawrence a run for her money), a college student who learns the unsettling truth about the circumstances of her birth and sets out to find answers. Filmmakers Jon and Andrew Erwin were inspired by the real-life story of Gianna Jessen, who survived a saline abortion and lives with cerebral palsy as a result (Gianna actually sings on the film's soundtrack).

October Baby is an impressive production, well-acted and emotionally satisfying, with surprising bits of humor mixed in -- "a film whose poignancy is hard to deny whatever side of the abortion debate you fall on," notes the Los Angeles Times. It is, more importantly, a moving testament to the value of every person and the liberating power of forgiveness. And 10 percent of the film's profits will go to the Every Life is Beautiful Fund to support "frontline organizations helping women facing crisis pregnancies, life-affirming adoption agencies, and those caring for orphans," according to the movie's website.

Those who have not seen October Baby should go -- and bring others. Go for both the entertainment value and the abortion-exposing, soul-healing, heart-softening message. And be sure to stay during the credits.

Maternal love as an argument against abortion

Countless pregnant women love (or grow to love) their unborn children. But we do not generally use this fact in any argument against abortion. (Abortion is wrong because it unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being who deserves respect and protection regardless of how others think or feel about her.) Consider, however, the following argument from Baylor University philosopher Alexander Pruss.

Many unborn children are loved as if they bear the kind of intrinsic value that would make killing them wrong. If those unborn children do not have such value, then those who love them are loving irrationally (or are otherwise mistaken or confused); but it is implausible to say that pregnant women are loving irrationally. Therefore (via modus tollens), those unborn children really do have intrinsic value that precludes killing them, and since there are no morally relevant differences between unborn children who are loved and those who are not (the opinion of others cannot determine their moral status), it follows that all unborn children are valuable and ought not be killed. So abortion is wrong.

The decisive premise, it seems to me, is that mothers are not mistaken when they love their unborn offspring. This intuition is so strong that I doubt many pro-choice advocates would deny it, and many have loved their own unborn children and surely thought themselves reasonable in doing so. Pruss writes:

It seems not only a sociologically natural kind of love, but a perfectly rational love. It would be implausible to suppose that the loving mother is in the throes of some conceptual confusion or is ignorant of some relevant fact. But if the love is perfectly rational and not ignorant, then the object of the love has at least the kind of value that it is loved as if it had. Therefore, plausibly, the fetus has the kind of value which justifies the mother's love. But the amount of value which the mother in her love predicates of the child is such as would make killing the child prima facie wrong. Hence, abortion is prima facie wrong.

Pruss goes on to answer a number of objections to this argument. The bottom line is that the apparent reasonableness of maternal love for unborn children is significant evidence that abortion is morally impermissible. To say that abortion is permissible, on the other hand, one would have to hold that perhaps a majority of pregnant women (by loving their unborn children as individuals who really matter) are behaving irrationally or out of ignorance or confusion!

Video: The prenatal eye 7 weeks after conception