Abortion pill reversal

young woman - face

Sharing article from Live Action

Rebekah Buell got pregnant and gave birth to her son Elias when she was a 17-year-old high school student. After leaving an abusive marriage and moving back in with her parents, Rebekah realized that she was pregnant again. Scared for herself and Elias, she began to consider abortion. She visited a Planned Parenthood, where she decided to undergo a medication abortion.

But almost immediately after taking the first abortion pill, Rebekah desperately regretted her decision. She decided to take her chances with an abortion reversal. The reversal was successful, and Rebekah, now 23, has another son, a healthy three-year-old boy named Zechariah. She has since become an outspoken advocate for abortion reversal, and the abortion industry is not happy about it.

In sharing her experience, Rebekah explains that she took the first of the abortion pills in the Planned Parenthood clinic and then walked to her car with her second dose, to be taken later. Yet she soon knew she couldn’t go through with it. “As soon as I got to my car I knew it wasn’t the right decision,” she explained. “Everything just hit me. … I just felt like, ‘I can’t believe I just did that.’”

Right there, in Planned Parenthood’s parking lot, Rebekah began searching online for abortion reversal, and she eventually came across AbortionPillReversal.com. She called the hotline number on the website, 1-877-558-0333 (staffed 24/7 with nurses), and was referred to a doctor, who was willing to help her try to save her baby.
Planned Parenthood was not the least bit supportive of Rebekah’s choice to attempt to reverse her abortion. The office staff called her several times, wanting to know why she had not returned for her follow-up appointment to ensure that the abortion was completed.

Follow-up is understandable, but when Rebekah explained that she had changed her mind, she said that the staffers were furious. They told her it was pointless to try to save her baby, and that if he did survive, he would be deformed. Planned Parenthood put pressure on Rebekah to finish the abortion of her son.

“It wasn’t like I owed them any money and yet they were so angry,” Rebekah said. “I don’t know if they were so misinformed or if they were just lying.” As other parents have discovered, this is a common reaction from Planned Parenthood when mothers choose abortion reversal, or even when they simply want information about it.

Zechariah is not deformed, and Rebekah does not regret her decision to save his life. Even the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have directly stated that there is no evidence that taking the first abortion pill (mifepristone) will result in deformities. Additionally, there is no evidence that progesterone — the treatment generally used to reverse abortion — causes deformities either. Progesterone has a record of being safely and successfully used during pregnancy to prevent and stop miscarriage, and has been used in infertility treatments for decades.

Rebekah shares that her decision to have an abortion was one made out of fear and desperation after leaving an abusive relationship. Yet, she says that the desperation after starting an abortion was even worse:

“I’ve never felt more desperate and hurt than I did after taking that pill,” she said. “There was no other feeling, no worse of a situation I could have been in right then and there, thinking I’d made the biggest mistake of my life.”

The abortion reversal treatment was pioneered by Dr. George Delgado, and it works by giving the mother progesterone shots to counteract the mifepristone pill. Delgado explained to The Sacramento Bee that the option of abortion reversal gives women more choices. “Women who take mifepristone sometimes change their minds,” Delgado said. “If they change their minds, they have the right to a second chance at choice.”

But the abortion industry does not support this option for women to have more choices — despite labeling themselves as “pro-choice.”

Jessica Dieseldorff, a nurse practitioner at Planned Parenthood, said that recommending the treatment to patients who regretted their decision would be “unethical.” “There’s just not enough information to know if it made a difference,” she said. “There isn’t evidence showing it’s safe or effective. I wouldn’t consider it to be very ethical to be offering patients treatments that don’t have an evidence base.”

Amy Everitt, state director of NARAL Pro-Choice California, went even further, saying it was just another way to shame women.

“(Reversal therapy) is another vehicle for putting pressure and shame on women,” Everitt said. “What you’re saying is ‘You probably haven’t thought about this enough, so there’s an option halfway through to rethink.’ That disrespects women’s decision-making processes.” But for an organization that bills itself as “pro-choice”, the idea that giving women more options would somehow be wrong shows that this isn’t about science or evidence — it’s about ideology. “I don’t know why there’s controversy and criticism,” Delgado said. “It seems like a no-brainer. If these women change their minds, they should know that this exists.”

And while pro-abortion advocates have long been claiming that abortion reversal is “quackery,” and not well studied, the success of Delgado’s treatment, used by hundreds of doctors, proves them wrong. Delgado estimates that he has a success rate of between 60% and 70%, with a team of over 270 doctors around the world willing to help women who have changed their minds.

But what about the science? A common argument from pro-abortion advocates is that if women just didn’t take the second dosage — the misoprostol — the abortion wouldn’t be completed anyway. But Karen Poehailos, a doctor who has successfully completed an abortion reversal, explains that this is not accurate.

First, it’s important to know how the pill method for abortion works. The mifepristone blocks progesterone, which causes the placenta to break down, starving the baby of blood and nutrients. The second pill, the misoprostol, is taken 24-48 hours later to induce contractions, so the woman expels the body of her child. For Poehailos’ patient, the mifepristone was already beginning to take effect.

“The first ultrasound showed an area of hemorrhage inside the placenta, and she did have some bleeding, but the ultrasound showed the baby was alive,” she explained. “Over the next couple of shots through the next couple of days, that area disappeared. The progesterone was able to counteract the mifepristone and allow the placenta to heal itself. I think if we hadn’t given her that… well, she may not have completed the abortion on her own, but she was bleeding and the placenta was breaking down, and we saw it on the ultrasound. It wasn’t medical theater; it was reality.”

Abortion reversal has science behind it, and it gives women more choices. There should be no reason for so-called “pro-choice” advocates like NARAL and Planned Parenthood to fight it… except that these are not organization who want real choices for women. They want abortions for women. If it was really about choice, they would be cheering abortion reversal as a viable option for women who change their mind.

For her part, Buell will not stop talking about her experience. She will continue to advocate abortion reversal as an option for all women. “It’s so important for me to speak out,” she said. “For women to know they’re not alone, that they’re not crazy for making a decision of fear and then changing their mind.”

This article was originally published on Live Action News and was written by Cassy Fiano .

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Abortion | Leave a comment

The Euthanasia deception

Thee Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is screening its 52 minute documentary The Euthanasia Deception, featuring powerful testimonies from Belgium and Canada exposing the deception used by the euthanasia lobby.

The screening takes place on Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at 131 Queen street, Ottawa, room 7-52, two blocks south of parliament Hill.

“The Euthanasia deception exposes three main deceptions. First that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a form of compassion. Second, the myth of autonomy; that decisions made between doctor and patient operate in a vacuum. Finally, can ‘safeguards’ protect the vulnerable?

Save the date. You will leave informed about the practice of euthanasia in Belgium and beyond, and of lives devastated by the false ideology of ‘mercy killing’. You can view the trailer at www.VulnerableFilm.com.

 

 

All are welcome to attend.

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment

The shocking reality of abortion

 

In this video by the Centre for Medical Progress, you hear startling and horrific details about how abortions are done. These comments were filmed at a secret annual meeting for those involved in the abortion business. Amongst themselves abortion advocates acknowledge the grizzly ways in which abortions are done and what happens to the unborn child  in the process. It is so very sad.

Here’s more from Lifenews.com in an article written by Steven Ertelt on May 25th.

“…The new undercover video shows Planned Parenthood executives and other top abortion advocates making shocking comments about abortions.

Several attendees made jokes about eyeballs from aborted babies and other aborted baby body parts “rolling down into their laps.”

Talcott Camp, a top pro-abortion attorney for the ACLU jokes: “I’m like — Oh my God! I get it! When the skull is broken, that’s really sharp! I get it! I understand why people are talking about getting that skull out, that calvarium.”

Dr. Ann Schutt-Aine, a Planned Parenthood abortionist, is shown describing abortions this way: “If I’m doing a procedure, and I’m seeing that I’m in fear that it’s about to come to the umbilicus [navel], I might ask for a second set of forceps to hold the body at the cervix and pull off a leg or two, so it’s not PBA [partial-birth abortion].”

Meanwhile, Lisa Harris, the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of Michigan, admits the unborn baby is a person: “Let’s just give them all the violence, it’s a person, it’s killing, let’s just give them all that.”

And Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical services for the abortion giant, talks about getting brains from aborted babies.

“You know, sometimes she’ll tell me she wants brain, and we’ll, you know, leave the calvarium in till last, and then try to basically take it, or actually, you know, catch everything and keep it separate from the rest of the tissue so it doesn’t get lost,” she says.

The expose’ videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all twelve:

In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.

In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.

In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”

In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”

In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”

In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”

In the eighth video: StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits Planned Parenthood sells “a lot of” fully intact aborted babies.

The ninth video: catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.

The 10th video: catches the nation’s biggest abortion business selling specific body parts — including the heart, eyes and “gonads” of unborn babies. The video also shows the shocking ways in which Planned Parenthood officials admit that they are breaking federal law by selling aborted baby body parts for profit.

Unreleased Videos: Unreleased videos from CMP show Deb Vanderhei of Planned Parenthood caught on tape talking about how Planned Parenthood abortion business affiliates may “want to increase revenue [from selling baby parts] but we can’t stop them…” Another video has a woman talking about the “financial incentives” of selling aborted baby body parts.

The 11th video: catches a Texas Planned Parenthood abortionist planning to sell the intact heads of aborted babies for research. Amna Dermish is caught on tape describing an illegal partial-birth abortion procedure to terminate living, late-term unborn babies which she hopes will yield intact fetal heads for brain harvesting.

The 12th video in the series shows new footage of Jennefer Russo, medical director at Planned Parenthood in Orange County, California, describing to undercover investigators how her abortion business tries to harvest intact aborted babies’ bodies for a local for-profit biotech company and changes the abortion procedure to do so.

The 13th video: exposes a Planned Parenthood medical director admitting that babies born alive after abortion are sometimes killed.”

Share this story.

Planned Parenthood in Canada does not run abortion clinics. Abortions are done in hospitals or in private clinics and paid for by public funds. To read more about abortion methods, please visit our website.

Posted in Abortion | Leave a comment

Adoption, a loving option

If you don't want him someone else

Posted in Abortion, Adoption | Leave a comment

150 years of Confederation finds respect for life in Canada at a low point

Canada@150 marks the official anniversary of Confederation, the founding of the Dominion of Canada on July 1, 1867.  We have reached a milestone of 150 years of Confederation but where does respect for life stand at this point in the history of our country? The child in the womb has lost legal protection and euthanasia is now legal as well.

Abortion@150

Abortion kills a human being.
There is no constitutional right to abortion in Canada.
There are no legal restrictions on abortion in Canada.
Since the Criminal Code was amended in 1969, at least 4 million unborn children have been aborted in our country.

Euthanasia@150

Medical assistance in dying is a euphemism for euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is the killing of a human being.
Since its legalization in June 2016 to December 2016, 784 Canadians have died by euthanasia and assisted suicide.
There are better options for supporting persons with illness, disability and loneliness.

Canada, let’s make the next 150 years pro-life!

Posted in Abortion, Abortion Stats, Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment

It’s a baby!

12670211_10153309020557927_1994455702450659204_n

Posted in Abortion, Prenatal Development | Leave a comment

Safe space

15698047_10154401818353822_282186152042567498_nThe womb: the original safe space for an unborn child.

Sharing meme from the Radiance Foundation.

Posted in Abortion, Prenatal Development | Leave a comment

Action Life sent this submission to a committee of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario considering Bill 84 – An Act to amend various Acts with respect to medical assistance in dying.

March 29, 2017
Committee of the Ontario Legislature
Bill 84- Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act
Mr. Eric Rennie
Clerk of the Committee

Good Morning:
Action Life Ottawa is a non-denominational, non-profit organization promoting respect for human life at all stages from conception to natural death through education. Our organization counts approximately 4,000 supporters in the Ottawa region. We are profoundly concerned about the lack of conscience rights protection in Bill 84 for physicians and other healthcare workers.

Action Life holds that an amendment must be made to the bill to include conscience protection. A policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) on Professional Obligations and Human Rights requires that physicians, who have a conscientious objection to a procedure, in this case, euthanasia and assisted suicide, make an “effective referral” to a willing and accessible physician. The policy of the College even stipulates that in some emergency situations, the objecting physician might have to provide this “care or intervention” even if this goes against his or her conscience. This forced participation, whether by referral or actually performing the procedure is a violation of the freedom of religion and conscience rights contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Physicians should not be expected to refer or provide services to which they are opposed for reasons of conscience and religion. Conscientiously objecting physicians will face investigation and disciplinary measures by the CPSO for refusing to participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide. Will they in time lose their licence to practise medicine? Many physicians do not wish to be involved in facilitating the suicide and euthanasia deaths of their patients. Some believe effective referrals make them complicit in causing such deaths. We fear that if conscience protection is not included in the bill, many physicians will be left unable to continue to care for and serve their patients.

To force physicians to act against their conscience or religious beliefs would constitute coercion and discrimination. An amendment to Bill 84 providing conscience protection for healthcare workers (physicians, nurse practitioners, pharmacists) would prevent such discrimination against conscientious objectors. The Ontario Medical Association, in response to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s draft policy in 2008 stated:
“It is the OMA’s position that physicians maintain a right to exercise their own moral judgment and freedom of choice in making decisions regarding medical care and that the CPSO not insert itself into the interpretation of human rights statutes.”

We agree with the Ontario Medical Association that “…it should never be professional misconduct for an Ontario physician to act in accordance with his or her religious or moral beliefs.”

Action Life respectfully requests that an amendment be made to Bill 84 to ensure the rights of physicians to practise medicine in accordance with their conscience or religious beliefs.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment

Conscience protection for physicians

 

This video features Dr. Jodie Wang testifying in support of conscience rights for physicians before the Committee on Bill 84 in Ontario. Bill 84 will amend provincial laws so that they are in conformity with federal law on euthanasia and assisted suicide. Bill 84, an Act to amend various Acts with respect to medical assistance in dying, contains no conscience protection for healthcare workers.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario requires that objecting physicians make an “effective referral” to another willing and accessible physician. In short, physicians who do not wish to be involved in killing patients are being asked to send their patients to someone else willing to do so.

Dr. Phillipe Violette appearing before the committee said that “Coercion can only result in a mono-culture of doctors with the same ideologies and many physicians discriminated against and forced to leave the practice of medicine.”

Dr. Rachel Forman of the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) said: “The OMA believes that it is possible to reconcile patient access with physician rights, and we urge you to fill this regulatory gap by introducing an amendment in support of conscientious objection.”

Barb LeBlanc of the OMA in reply to a question concerning an amendment to Bill 84 replied: “To acknowledge that conscientious objection should be recognized and respected, and that it should supersede any regulatory college requirement.”

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment

Medical assisted suicide is disability discrimination

markpic1

This article written by Mark Pickup was first published on his blog on April 2, 2017. Mark blogs at Human life matters. http://www.humanlifematters.org/2017/04/medical-assisted-suicide-is-disability.html

by Mark Pickup
In 2015, Canada’s Supreme Court struck down the nation’s laws against assisted suicide. It sent shock waves across the country: People opposed to legalization of assisted suicide were appalled the high court would do such a thing; advocates of assisted suicide were shocked that the court went so far – even beyond their fondest dreams. The foundation beneath the high court’s ruling was the new high ideal of personal autonomy. Apparently, in Canada, people now have a right to assisted suicide if they have a “grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.”

The Supreme Court said that self-defined grievous and irremediable medical condition ”does not require the patient to undertake treatments that are not acceptable to the individual.” Everything hinges on the patient’s perceptions and feelings — and they need not take treatments they don’t like.

Something significant happened to shake the historical taboo of killing the sick and disabled. More than 700 years of Common Law, that discouraged, prohibited or otherwise punished assisting someone’s suicide was brushed aside by one judicial decree.[1] How did this happen?

If the Supreme Court was to rule in favour of assisted suicide they had to confront a problem: The Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms – which acts as a constitution in Canada – states in Section 7 that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person …”. The judges’ had to suppress the ‘right to life’ and accentuate a false notion of liberty and emphasise ‘security of the person’. The problem with trying to suppress the right to life is that all other rights depend upon it. Liberty and security of the person become tenuous if the right to life is not guaranteed. Self-destruction eliminates liberty and assisting in a suicide is license, not liberty.
The Supremes paid obligatory but shallow homage to the concept of the sanctity of human life, then discounted the right to life in one paragraph. They wrote:

“…[W]e do not agree that the existential formulation of the right to life requires an absolute prohibition on assistance in dying, or that individuals cannot “waive” their right to life. This would create a “duty to live”, rather than a “right to life”, . . . The sanctity of life is one of our most fundamental societal values. Section 7 [of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms] is rooted in a profound respect for the value of human life. But Section 7 also encompasses life, liberty and security of the person during the passage to death. It is for this reason that the sanctity of life “is no longer seen to require all human life be preserved at all costs.”

Continuing in their cleaver distortion, the judges wrote:

“Underlying both these rights [liberty and security of the person] is a concern for the protection of individual autonomy and dignity.”

I do not believe the architects of the Canadian Charter envisioned a vehicle to autonomy and dignity included a right to suicide. The right to death is not mentioned in the Charter – the right to life is. Do you see how they were twisting things? They went on to say:

“The law has long protected patient autonomy in medical decision making.”

Granted, but Canadian law has only recently sanctioned medical killing by assisted suicide or euthanasia.

The dramatic departure from legal and moral traditions went from the court to the Canadian Parliament and assisted suicide became legal in June 2016. The legislation (bill C-14) was enacted under the euphemistic and deceptive title “medical assistance in dying”. I used the words ‘deceptive’ because those who are eligible for ‘medical assistance in dying’ do not have to be dying. The odious new law defines grievous and irremediable medical conditions eligible for medical killing:

“A person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition only if they meet all of the following criteria:

(a) they have a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability;
(b) they are in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capacity;
(c) that illness, disease or disability or that state of decline causes them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and cannot be relieved under circumstances they consider acceptable; and
(d) their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all their medical circumstances, without a prognosis having been made as to the specific length of time that they have remaining.”

In the first 6 months after the law passed, at least 744 Canadians received “medical assistance in dying”. There’s that deceptive euphemism again! Not all recipients were dying. According to Canadian reporter, Graham Slaughter, (what an apt name!) most of the patients have cancer, ALS or multiple sclerosis.[2] Multiple sclerosis is rarely terminal. Life expectancy for people with MS is only 7 years shorter than normal life expectancy. I have had MS for over 32 years. I use an electric wheelchair but I’m hardly dying. Medical assistance in dying becomes medical killing.

It should be noted that in 2012 Canada’s Parliament gave UNANIMOUS support to the idea of developing a National Suicide Prevention Strategy. In 2016 they legalised assisted suicide for people who are sick or disabled. So let me get this straight: Healthy and abled-bodied Canadians who become suicidal get suicide prevention support, sick and disabled suicidal Canadians get help killing themselves? Yup.

Disability advocates have fought to advance equality and inclusion for over 40 years. Canada’s assisted suicide legislation caused a severe setback to those goals. This did not go unnoticed in America. Many American disability groups oppose legalization of assisted suicide, including the American Association of People with Disabilities, the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, and Not Dead Yet, just to mention a few. Diane Coleman and Stephen Drake of Not Dead Yet commented on the Canada’s Supreme Court Decision:

“The Canadian Supreme Court ruling openly targets people with non-terminal disabilities … The Canadian high court’s holding is a shockingly blatant mandate of lethal discrimination based on disability and should be rejected outright by any human society.” [4]

Is the Canadian situation Supreme Court decision a harbinger of things to come across America? Medically assisted suicide (MAS) has been legalised in 6 states under various parameters. Someone may say that the disabled are not eligible for MAS in most states. Proponents of MAS refuse to acknowledge almost all the people dying under these laws are disabled.
Not Dead Yet asserts

“assisted suicide violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by establishing a system of unlawful discrimination whereby most suicidal people, those who reveal their intentions, receive suicide prevention services, while old, ill and disabled people receive suicide assistance instead.”

They’re right.

Old prejudices against the disabled have appeared again under the guise of death with dignity. Can you hear a chorus calling out from a multitude of disabled people, “Must we die to find dignity?” I hope not.

If there is dignity to be found, it is found in life.

Mark Pickup
____________________________________
[1] Paraphrase of Chief Justice William Rehnquist on assisted suicide, Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S.702(1997). http://www1.law.umkc.edu/academic/Spring2011/assignments/Washington%20v%20Glucksberg.pdf . Canadian and American law and legal traditions have deep roots in British Common Law, which dates back to the Middle Ages.

[2] Graham Slaughter, “At least 744 assisted deaths in Canada since law passed: CTV News analysis,” CTVNews.ca, 28 December 2016 (http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/at-least-744-assisted-deaths-in-canada-since-law-passed-ctv-news-analysis-1.3220382)

]3] See National Multiple Sclerosis Society website (http://www.nationalmssociety.org/About-the-Society/News/Study-Shows-Life-Expectancy-for-People-with-MS-Inc)

[4] Diane Coleman and Stephen Drake, “Statement of Not Dead Yet (USA) to Canadian Panel on Carter Case Decision”, 14 October 2015, (http://notdeadyet.org/statement-of-not-dead-yet-usa-to-canadian-panel-on-carter-case-decision)

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia | Leave a comment