DIY abortions are safe, MPs told

DIY abortions are safe, MPs told - Telegraph

This report is very much of concern because the MSM is once again pushing the notion that RU-486 is not dangerous to the health of the woman, and that it is safe for a woman to be given the second lot of tablets to take at home. I suppose that it does not matter that there have been close to 10 deaths associated with this drug.

Comments by leading medical associations suggest that laws could be relaxed to allow women to take drugs that induce a miscarriage while at home.

They also conclude that women should no longer have to seek the signatures of two doctors if they want an early abortion, as it can cause unnecessary delay and distress.

The recommendations emerged in evidence to MPs who are conducting an inquiry into abortion legislation, which could be amended later this year.

Women opting for a drug-induced abortion in Britain are given two tablets under medical supervision.

The first, mifepristone, blocks pregnancy hormones and detaches the foetus from the womb. The second, misoprostol, is taken two days later and leads to a miscarriage within a few hours.

Women are currently administered both pills in a hospital or clinic but if the law is changed they may be able to take the second stage of the course at home.

The Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV stated in its evidence that: "It is perfectly safe for the second stage of early medical abortion to be carried out at home within the structure of properly organised services."

However, advisers from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists gave warning that more research was required before any changes were made to the law.

Their report says: "Regarding abortion at home, there is an increasing body of evidence from both developed and developing countries that home use of mifepristone/misoprostol is safe, effective and acceptable to many women.

"More work is needed to assess safety and acceptability in the UK context."

The RCOG and the British Medical Association supports scrapping the rule requiring women to obtain two signatures to get a termination, a move regarded as significant for the college which has not previously challenged current abortion law.

The college concludes that the upper time limit for abortions, of 24 weeks, should not be reduced as the chances of a child surviving before that have not been significantly improved. The opinions bring them into line with the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing.

The evidence will form the centre of debate on the Bill next week, which comes almost 40 years after abortion was first legalised in Britain, and could lead to changes in the law as many MPs have signalled that they will be guided in their decisions by medical opinion.

But not all on the committee will be in support of the two bodies. Dr Bob Spink, the Conservative MP for Castle Point, said: "I am not a Catholic or a black and white anti-abortionist but I think the RCOG and BMA have been overcome by political correctness.

"This is the most important decision a woman can make and she must think carefully before choosing to end the life of her child."

The number of terminations in Britain has reached record levels and one woman in three has an abortion before she is 45.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said there were no plans to change the law to allow women to have abortions at home.

The drugs are not licensed to be used in the home and the second drug can only legally be given by a registered medical professional.

The opinion of the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV can only be called both unreliable and unsafe to follow. This committee is putting forward an opinion that is seen to be politically correct, but not necessarily in the interests of women in general. The problem here is that the truth is not being told about the dangers of taking RU-486 and how many women have suffered the kind of adverse effects that could result in the loss of a woman's life.

Likewise, the Royal College of Obstericians and Gynaecologists are being politically correct in their report, but they are not being honest about the number of women who have suffered adverse effects from taking RU-486, which makes this form of abortion more dangerous than the surgical procedures that are offered in the hospitals. So far there is no long term study on the possibility of the development of hormone related cancers relating to the use of the combined drugs used in RU-486.

The attitude of the British doctors needs a real overhaul because they are making decisions based upon a poor collection of statistics. They have completely ignored the fact that there have been women who have died as a result of having this medical abortion. In the USA the deaths were whitewashed by a member of the FDA who did not conduct a thorough study on why those women died. To claim that it was not related to the medical abortions was utter nonsense, because the infection that they contracted was in fact due to that procedure. The medication itself had nothing to do with the particular infection, thus the whitewash of the true adverse effects of RU-486.

If there must be an abortion, then a surgical procedure in a clean hospital is the best outcome for the woman. However, most abortions are not medically necessary and they really are only for selfish reasons.

Blogged with Flock

Cut-price IVF for the women who donate their eggs for research

Cut-price IVF for the women who donate their eggs for research | the Daily Mail

This is yet another dangerous move. It seems that the powers that be are intent upon research that is in reality a total failure. People are being led to believe that this research will produce cures for various diseases and they do not understand that there are no guarantees that this will be the case because embryonic stem cell research has so far failed to produce anything that is of worth or value.

Now it seems, that women who are desperate to have a baby through IVF are being encouraged to give up some of their harvested eggs for this unethical research. Putting a woman in such a position should in truth be found to be unethical. However, it seems that people are so caught up with the idea that embryonic stem cell research can produce results that they fail to see the inherent dangers for the potential mothers in IVF and the general harvesting of a woman's eggs.

Clear thinking women should not allow their bodies to be used for research in this way, and they should not allow these researchers to take their eggs for unethical research. Women should tell the researchers "Hands off my ovaries"

Blogged with Flock

Daily Mail Pulls Graphic Account of Abortion After Blogger Excerpts It

Daily Mail Pulls Graphic Account of Abortion After Blogger Excerpts It | NewsBusters.org

The Daily Mail had an article on abortion that gives the views of women who have gone through the process. Most of the women had regrets but three of them had no regrets. One of those three women who had no regrets detailed the process of a "chemical" abortion at 15 weeks pregnant.

It is alarming to think that RU-486 is given to women so late in a pregnancy. Even at 15 weeks this is a very dangerous move for the woman. However, what we have from the graphic description of what took place:

By the time I had the abortion, I was 15 weeks and two days pregnant. I went into hospital with my best friend for moral support, and the nurse gave me tablets to bring on labour. Because I was so far into the pregnancy, I had to give birth rather than have a straightforward abortion.

It was horrendous. After two hours the contractions started, and I clung onto the hand of the midwife. Once I felt the baby starting to come, I had to go into the toilet and let it drop onto a stainless steel tray.

"Don't look," said the midwife. "Keep your eyes straight in front of you and walk away immediately." There was no way I could have looked down and seen my baby. I was numb.

This would have to be one of the most callous ways of "getting rid of it" that I have ever seen in print. The midwife alone seems to be someone who lacks compassion or sympathy for the little lives that are being destroyed.

Blogged with Flock

A misleading conclusion has been reached on the long term effects of RU486

Study: Abortion pills don't boost later miscarriage risks - CNN.com

"In the new study, researchers used a national abortion registry to identify all women in Denmark who had abortions between 1999 and 2004, and then got information on later pregnancies from national patient and birth registries.

Denmark is the only country with an abortion registry, said study co-author Dr. Jun "Jim" Zhang of the National Institutes of Health.

They looked at tubal pregnancies, in which a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus -- usually in the fallopian tubes. Such a situation fails to nurture the embryo and endangers the mother.

The new study found tubal pregnancies occurred at the same frequency -- about 2.5 percent of the time -- in both the medical and surgical groups. The rates of miscarriage, early deliveries and low birth weight babies also were similar.

Researchers were unable to take into account mother's history of smoking, previous tubal pregnancies or other factors not detailed in the registries. But they believed it did not affect their results."

The authors of the new study in the New England journal have reached an interesting but misleading conclusion. What the study actually shows is that the risk of a tubal pregnancy after a medical abortion is about the same as that of using another method that is probably a lot safer to the woman's health in the long term. The conclusion is misleading because the study has shown that the risks of low birth rate, miscarriage and early deliveries are the same. What this study shows in truth is that there are no benefits in using RU486 because the no matter what type of abortion a woman's hormones have been messed up as a result of the abortion.

The writer makes some other illogical observations over the alleged convenience of using RU486 and the risk of dying as a result of using this drug is overlooked.

Blogged with Flock

Plan B sales increase - what about STD's

Morning-after pill sales jump as access eases - CNN.com

Since Plan B was allowed to be sold without prescription sales of this drug have increased. These foolish men and women who have decided to risk their health rather than accept responsibility for their actions are being led astray by the likes of Planned Parenthood.

The real question that needs to be answered is:

with the increase in the sales of the morning after pill has there also been an increase in the number of reported STDs ?

and a second question that needs to be answered is:

has there been a sudden increase in the number of teenagers or young women dying suddenly and prematurely as a result of conditions associated with female hormones etc?

has there been a sudden surge in the number of cases of toxic shock syndrome due to mysterious causes?

Blogged with Flock

Hospital will use RU486

Hospital will use RU486 - National - theage.com.au

So the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne intends to use RU486, using women in an experiment that has no known long term effects and has the potential to kill the women who take the drug.

The intended use of this drug is very alarming because the hospital is intending to use it on late term pregnancies. There is sufficient reason to have alarm bells ringing because all caution is being thrown to the wind when it comes to the effort to introduce abortion on demand, to the detriment of our population.

However, wait, there is more to this story than meets the eye, because the new Victorian premier, John Brumby intends to decriminalize abortion. He has to be kidding - right? Wrong. There is no stopping the left wing when it comes to finding ways of legally murdering the population. The unborn are a legitimate target for this form of genocide. Women will be pushed into abortions, when they know that they want to keep the baby.

The introduction of RU486 is something that should be stopped from ever happening. Women will suffer in the long term because no regard is being given to the effect that this will have on their hormones. Pregnancy affects a woman's hormones to the point that some women end up with mental illness as a result of giving birth - post natal depression is due in part to the changes in a woman's hormones during pregnancy and after the birth of the child. How much more of a disruption is there when there is an abortion? Even women who have naturally miscarried have suffered as a result of the hormonal changes.

Wait, there is more. At the same time, the doctors at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne are showing little or no regard for the fact that some women have lost their lives as a result of taking RU486. There has been little research into why the deaths happened in the first place. What we do know is that the women ended up with an infection. Unfortunately, the investigating officer in the USA FDA had his own agenda and came up with a conclusion that RU486 was not to blame, however, I believe that this conclusion is wrong.

Blogged with Flock

Part-human embryos are a chilling step closer as watchdog gives go-ahead for hybrid 'chimeras'

What is the most likely next step when human embryos and human eggs are in short supply? It seems that for scientists in Britain who continue to flog the belief that embryonic stem cell research is worth the waste of money that the answer is to do the research using hybrids. The Daily Mail reports that the scientists involved in stem cell research are applying to be allowed to create their hybrid chimeras, probably out of cow's eggs because there is not a shortage of supply for these eggs.

The whole process of embryonic stem cell research is in fact questionable. So far there has not been any research from embryonic stem cells that has been in any way successful with regards to the objectives of the researchers. Whenever the subject arises in the press there is always the emotive mention of such diseases as Alzheimers and Parkinson's Disease, and both of these diseases affect the brain. In the case of Parkinsons' Disease there is a deficiency in the hormone dopamine. To me it is obvious that the research should be pointing towards why some people end up having a lack of dopamine in the brain, that is, how many people with Alzheimer's Disease and with Parkinsons' Disease have had a history of poor dietary habits. Could these diseases be avoided simply by having a healthy diet? If it is not diet that is a factor then other answers need to be found. I do not believe that playing with embyros, and especially hybrids is going to bring about any answers in the forseeable future.

Blogged with Flock

The World Seen From Rome

The Hopeful Future in BioethicsInterview With Richard DoerflingerWASHINGTON, D.C., AUG. 21, 2007 (Zenit.org).-


 Patience and perseverance will pay off in the battle over bioethics issues, says a U.S. bishops' aide.In this interview with ZENIT, Richard Doerflinger speaks about this battle and how Catholics can stay informed in the midst of rapidly changing realities in the field of bioethics.

Q: With so many scientific advances, staying up to date on the battle between the culture of life and the culture of death can be difficult. What are the best resources for Catholics to stay tuned-in to the debate?
Doerflinger: Two Web sites monitoring these advances from a pro-life perspective, www.stemcellresearch.org and www.cloninginformation.org, are of enormous help in following the science and the public debate. The Pro-Life Secretariat’s page at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, www.usccb.org/prolife also has many fact sheets, letters to Congress, testimonies and articles.These issues also receive increasing attention from good national publications such as Our Sunday Visitor, National Catholic Register, First Things, and -- for a serious, in-depth treatment of the ethical issues -- the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly.

Q: In the United States, many pro-lifers have adopted the strategy of "chipping away" at Roe vs. Wade instead of seeking to overturn it. Is that strategy working?

Doerflinger: I would describe the strategy as chipping away at Roe vs. Wade in order to overturn it. The Supreme Court's recent decision on partial-birth abortion suggests it is effective. In the process of upholding a ban on an especially heinous late-term procedure that kills the mostly born child, the court in a new way has begun honestly confronting the brutal reality of abortion in general, its harmful effects on women, and its role in eroding the ethical integrity of medicine -- and has frankly admitted that past court decisions departed from usual standards of review and evidence to give special protection to this grisly business.The public debate on this procedure has also led many more young people to affirm a pro-life position. But like slavery and racial segregation, abortion is a fundamental evil that will not be eliminated all at once, by a single decision or event. We need to change attitudes and perceptions as well as laws, and this will take time. Our progress may seem agonizingly slow, but this cause deserves our courage and fortitude as well as our patience.

Q: U.S. President George Bush recently released an executive order that promotes research on pluripotent stem cell lines that are not derived from human embryos. What effect will this have on the stem cell debate?

Doerflinger: The president's executive order gives a boost to some of the most creative cutting-edge research being done today, such as new findings on ways to "reprogram" adult cells to have the versatility of embryonic stem cells. He is also calling the bluff of scientists who insist that "pluripotent" stem cells have the greatest medical promise, by saying in effect: Fine, then let's obtain that kind of cell without violating moral norms as well.Other important developments include the enactment in 2005 of a federal law establishing a nationwide public bank for cord blood stem cells, and the recent introduction in Congress of a "Patients First Act" to advance adult and cord blood stem cell avenues that have begun to show clinical promise in early trials. Each of these initiatives takes away another specious argument for claiming that we must destroy human life to have medical progress.

Q: How can we get the battle for life away from semantics, so that people come to see life issues as less about ideology and more about science?

Doerflinger: First, people need to understand that not everything said by a scientist is necessarily "science." Some scientists today are acting more like lobbyists or public relations directors, or even outright frauds like Dr. Hwang of South Korea.A glance at any good embryology textbook will tell you that the life of a human individual begins with that first one-celled embryo -- so when a scientist intones gravely that we have no idea when human life begins, get ready for a fantasy ride. And when a scientist launches into wild and often self-serving claims about the "promise" and "miracle" of embryonic stem cells, far too few non-scientists have the courage simply to ask: "And what's your evidence for that?"The actual evidence for future "miracle cures" from destroying embryos is very slim indeed. It is the scientific method that is showing us more promising and more immediate clinical benefits from adult and cord blood stem cells that pose no moral problem.

Q: What do Catholics in the United States need to be a better force for the defense of life? Are they educated in life issues?

Doerflinger: It is difficult to keep educated when new challenges keep emerging so quickly. But I think that most churchgoing Catholics have the right instincts and the right values when it comes to revering human life -- and thankfully, this is often most clear in our younger generation.We need to inform and develop these attitudes with a better understanding of the Church's teaching as well as of the scientific and medical realities, if we are to be effective advocates for life.Through articles, newsletters, homily suggestions, educational resources, and especially the Respect Life Program that comes to parishes each year on the first Sunday in October, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is working to assist that process.© Innovative Media, Inc.Reprinting ZENIT's articles requires written permission from the editor.

The World Seen From Rome

Blogged with Flock

The abortion industry refuses to acknowledge the real facts about Methotrexate

A search of the Internet provides some interesting information on the legitimate uses of methotrexate, as well as a description of the warnings on side effects. It appears that abortion clinics in the USA have adopted the use of methotrexate, claiming that it is a safe form of abortion. However, that is not the case. One doctor has reported that out of 178 abortions using methotrexate, 75 women required a second dose of misopristone, and several required an abortion via the suction method. In other words, there was no more than an 86 per cent "success" rate, and that is not good enough at all. To be honest, these women would have suffered less if they had an abortion using the suction method alone. This same doctor stated in his report:

"No important side effects or complications were noted."

However, there is something missing in this statement within the report. The doctor has failed to note the side effects that were present. This is a reporting failure and it represents the giving of misinformation regarding the off-label use of Methotrexate. However, that is not the only problem. Since Methotrexate operates to suppress the immune system, and it can cause liver damage, this doctor's claim that there were no important complications needs to be challenged. What has happened to the women who participated in that trial in 1995? How many of those women now have an auto-immune disorder? Were there any alcoholics in the study? Did the administration of Methotrexate to healthy women cause damage to the liver? There are a lot of questions that need to be addressed by the medical community regarding this dangerous use of methotrexate.

Warning on the use of Methotrexate in place of Mifepristone

To date the Australian pharmaceutical companies have refused to import Mifepristone, the major ingredient of RU-486. However, the abortion mills in Sydney have taken matters in their own hands and it turns out that one clinic has started to give women who want an abortion Methotrexate in place of Mifepristone. When the MSM released this news, as part of a push to get a pharmaceutical company to supply the Mifepristone, the reporters stated that the Methotrexate affects the folate, which then brings on an abortion. This is a gross misrepresentation of the properties of Methotrexate, and any woman who is considering an abortion, especially a chemical abortion, has the right to be informed about the long term effects of taking a poison such as Methotrexate.


What is Methotrexate? What are the approved uses of Methotrexate? Methotrexate was introduced as an anti-cancer drug. The on-label uses for Methotrexate are the following:

• severe psoriasis (a skin disease in which red, scaly patches form on some areas of the body) that cannot be controlled by other treatments.
• severe, active rheumatoid arthritis (a condition in which the body attacks its own joints, causing pain, swelling, and loss of function) that cannot be controlled by certain other medications.
• certain cancers that begin in the tissues that form around a fertilized egg in the uterus (womb)
• breast cancer
• certain cancers of the head and neck
• lung cancer
• certain types of lymphomas
• leukemia
• Crohn's Disease and Ankylosing Spondylitis
  

(see www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmaster/a682019.html)

PRESCRIBED FOR: Methotrexate is used for cancer treatment generally in higher doses than for other uses, and is often administered intravenously or intramuscularly. Methotrexate is used to treat psoriasis, an inflammatory skin disease, as well as the arthritis that occurs in 10 percent of these patients (psoriatic arthritis). It is also used to treat active rheumatoid arthritis in adults and children. It is also used to treat other rheumatic diseases, including polymyositis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Methotrexate has been used to induce miscarriage in patients with ectopic pregnancy.

DOSING: May be taken with or without food. For rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, the dose of methotrexate is given WEEKLY, whether by injection or orally. For psoriasis, the weekly dose is often divided into three doses given at 12 hour intervals each week. This has been shown to be more effective, as it relates to the natural growth cycling of the skin.

DRUG INTERACTIONS: Because methotrexate can cause serious liver disease, patients with alcoholism or liver disease should not receive it. Patients should curtail alcohol consumption while taking methotrexate. Methotrexate can suppress the body's immunity. Therefore, any symptoms of infection should be reported to the doctor. Patients with underlying immune deficiency diseases should not receive methotrexate. A dry, non-productive cough can be a result of a rare lung toxicity. Methotrexate can impair fertility, decrease sperm count and cause menstrual dysfunction. Safety and effectiveness has not been established in children.

PREGNANCY: Methotrexate should not be used in pregnancy, as it can be toxic to the embryo and can cause fetal defects and spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). It should be discontinued prior to conception if used in either partner. Male patients should stop taking methotrexate at least 3 months prior to a planned conception and females should discontinue use for at least one ovulatory cycle before conception.

(see www.medicinenet.com/methotrexate/article.htm)

SIDE EFFECTS:

Possible side effects can include anemia, neutropenia, increased risk of bruising, nausea and vomiting, dermatitis and diarrhea. A small percentage of patients develop hepatitis, and there is an increased risk of pulmonary fibrosis.

The higher doses of methotrexate often used in cancer chemotherapy can cause toxic effects to the rapidly-dividing cells of bone marrow and gastrointestinal mucosa. The resulting myelosuppression and mucositis are often prevented (termed methotrexate "rescue") by using folinic acid supplements (not to be confused with folic acid).

Methotrexate is a highly teratogenic drug and categorized in Pregnancy Category X by the FDA. Women must not take the drug during pregnancy, if there is a risk of becoming pregnant, or if they are breastfeeding. Men who are trying to get their partner pregnant must also not take the drug. To engage in any of these activities (after discontinuing the drug), women must wait until the end of a full ovulation cycle and men must wait three months.

There is a risk of a severe adverse reaction if penicillin is prescribed alongside methotrexate.

Methotrexate competitively and reversibly inhibits dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR), an enzyme that is part of the folate synthesis metabolic pathway. The affinity of methotrexate for DHFR is about one thousand-fold that of folate for DHFR. Dihydrofolate reductase catalyses the conversion of dihydrofolate to the active tetrahydrofolate. Folic acid is needed for the de novo synthesis of the nucleoside thymidine, required for DNA synthesis. Methotrexate, therefore, inhibits the synthesis of DNA, RNA, thymidylates, and proteins.

Methotrexate acts specifically during DNA and RNA synthesis, and thus it is cytotoxic during the S-phase of the cell cycle. Logically, it therefore has a greater toxic effect on rapidly dividing cells (such as malignant and myeloid cells, and GI & oral mucosa), which replicate their DNA more frequently, and thus inhibits the growth and proliferation of these non-cancerous cells as well causing side effects listed above.

Lower doses of methotrexate have been shown to be very effective for the management of rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis. In these cases inhibition of dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) is not thought to be the main mechanism, rather the inhibition of enzymes involved in purine metabolism, leading to accumulation of adenosine, or the inhibition of T cell activation and suppression of intercellular adhesion molecule expression by T cells.

(see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methotrexate)

When a healthy woman consumes a drug such as Methotrexate there is a risk that the immune system will be damaged by the consumption of this drug. Playing with a woman's immune system by using this drug can have as yet unknown long term effects. Women who choose to take Methotrexate for the purpose of abortion are not being informed about all of the possible side effects of taking an anti-cancer and anti-RA drug for an off label use. This is a drug that is used as part of a chemotherapy regimen and is extremely toxic.

Promising news on stem cell research and time to stop listening to the rhetoric

Once again we have more proof that the embryonic stem cell research industry has been holding governments to moral ransom by demanding funding for research that has so far produced failure. However, on another front there has been some very promising news regarding the stem cells that are available through amniotic fluid.

With this kind of advance, perhaps it is time that we should spend more checking out the rhetoric that we are being fed by a publicity machine that is keen to put forward only one point of view. There is no better example of how the publicity machine works than the way in which the doctors pushing for the introduction of Mifepristone are pushing their case. Here in Australia one clinic has resorted to the use of Methotrexate, a drug that is used for cancer and arthritis patients in order to bring on a chemical abortion. Women are being informed that this is a safe alternative for their bodies, and they are not being told about the properties of Methotrexate.