Heartbeat International - Public Policy Report

	Lobbying Information \| U.S. Supreme Court Public Policy Report \| Public Policy Links

Abortion Proponents Continue Smear Campaign Against Pregnancy Centers
Heartbeat International - July 19, 2006

The most recent attack comes in the form of a “report” issued by pro-abortion Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) accusing pregnancy resource centers of providing false information on the risks and complications associated with abortion.

“It’s a shame that taxpayer money is being used to support the abortion lobby, and to hinder and smear the good work of life-affirming, faith-based pregnancy centers,” said Heartbeat President Peggy Hartshorn, Ph.D. “The report politicizes crucial women’s health issues and minimizes the pain and suffering many women experience as a result of abortion.”

The methodology used in this “report” is not scientific. There is no indication that it was ever reviewed by any group of health experts and it does not conform to generally-accepted standards of research and evaluation.

Waxman claims there is a consensus that abortion is not connected to adverse physical and emotional effects including an increase in breast cancer. Many medical researchers have come to different conclusions regarding the effects of abortion.

“Until there is required reporting of all abortions in the U.S. and all negative health effects suffered by women are linked back to these abortions, U.S. studies will be suspect,” said Peggy.

Additional Information:

The report indicates that there is a medical “consensus” that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. In fact, several medical groups recognize the abortion/breast cancer link.
This report also alleges that pregnancy resource centers were providing false and misleading information when they shared with women the effects that induced abortion could have on their future fertility. In fact, induced abortion does have an effect on future fertility.
The report alleges that pregnancy resource centers provide false and misleading information about the mental health effects of abortion, and minimizes the depth of regret and emotional hurt that many women have testified to as a result of their abortion experience.
Post abortion syndrome and physical complications of abortion are routinely dismissed by supposed experts, primarily for political reasons.
Waxman’s report itself admits that no centers have received direct federal funding for counseling services. The 30 million federal dollars mentioned as going to pregnancy centers is primarily for abstinence education: not counseling.
Millions of dollars provided directly to abortion providers are not being examined in the same way. As just one example, the 2004-2005 Annual Report of Planned Parenthood Federation of America reports over 272 million in state and federal funding.

What professionals are saying: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/272006e.asp

***************************************************************************************************

The report indicates that there is a medical “consensus” that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. In fact, several medical groups recognize the abortion/breast cancer link:
As noted in Heartbeat International’s manual, Talking About Abortion, 28 out of 37 studies show that having an induced abortion increases a risk of developing breast cancer. Women who were under eighteen or over 30 when they had an abortion showed the highest risk (more than double) for breast cancer, according to pro-choice researcher Dr. Janet Daling, who did a study for the National Cancer Institute.
In addition, according to the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer “16 out of 17 statistically significant studies in the worldwide medical literature report risk elevations. Statistical significance is a technical term which means that scientists are at least 95% certain that the results obtained were not due to error or chance. Seven studies report more than a twofold increase in risk. Thirteen out of sixteen studies report increased risk. Most studies were funded at least partially by the U.S. National Cancer Institute.”

Because so many studies show a link, we believe that women have a right to know of these studies so that they can make an informed decision.

Women also have the right to know that there is consensus in the medical community that carrying her first child to term provides the woman with a “protective effect” and decreases her risk of getting breast cancer (compared to a woman who never conceives and bears a child) Obviously, if she terminates the pregnancy and has an abortion, she loses the protection a full-term pregnancy would’ve given her.
This report also alleges that pregnancy resource centers were providing false and misleading information when they shared with women the effects that induced abortion could have on their future fertility. Again, women have the right to know that:

Scarring or injury during an abortion may prevent or place at risk future wanted pregnancies. Women who have an abortion, have a greater risk of miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies. In addition, a woman with a history of induced abortion has between a 28 and 1400 percent increased chance of having a later pregnancy complicated by placenta previa.

Cervical and uterine damage from abortion can cause problems in later pregnancies such as risk of premature delivery and labor complications, which are leading causes of handicaps among newborns.

Endometritis (inflammation of the endometruim) is a post-abortion risk for all women, but especially for teenagers, who are two and a half times more likely than women 20-29 to acquire endometritis following abortion.

One possible outcome of abortion-related infections is sterility. Researchers have reported that 3-5% of women who have abortions are left sterile.

Another study showed that the fertility of women who had an induced abortion had a 6% lower fertility than women who didn’t.
The report alleges that pregnancy resource centers provide false and misleading information about the mental health effects of abortion, and minimizes the depth of regret and emotional hurt that many women have testified to as a result of their abortion experience.

David C. Reardon, Ph.D., director of the Elliot Institute , is widely recognized as one of the leading experts on the after-effects of abortion on women, a field in which he has specialized since 1983. He is the author of numerous books (including Aborted Women Silent No More) and scholarly articles on this topic. Many studies on the psychological aftermath of abortion are discussed at www.afterabortion.org.

Heartbeat International has also published a Fact Sheet on the emotional effects that women may experience after abortion. This is available on our website under “For Affiliates only.”

To hear from the women themselves, go to www.silentnomoreawareness.org. Their voices should not be ignored. Their pain should not be minimized. Many women suffer greatly after an induced abortion. In fact, the rate of attempted suicide increased ten-fold for teenagers who had abortions in the previous six months.

And in a large study in Scandinavia (involving almost 600,000 women), they found that the suicide rate of women within twelve months after an abortion was six times greater than the suicide rate of women who had given birth.
Post abortion syndrome and physical complications of abortion are routinely dismissed by supposed experts, primarily for political reasons.
Waxman’s report itself admits that no centers have received direct federal funding for counseling services. The 30 million federal dollars mentioned as going to pregnancy centers is primarily for abstinence education: not counseling.
Millions of dollars provided directly to abortion providers are not being examined in the same way. As just one example, the 2004-2005 Annual Report of Planned Parenthood Federation of America reports over 272 million in state and federal funding.

1. www.abortionbreastcancer.com accessed on February 16, 2006.

2. Dr. Janet Daling, lead author of a study specifically commissioned by the National Cancer Institute to investigate the link between abortion and breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1994; 86:1584-1592, cited in “Abortion raises Breast Cancer risk” published by the coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, www.abortionbreastcancer.com.

3. www.abortionbreastcancer.com (accessed on July 8, 2004).

4. "Induced abortion by vacuum aspiration is associated with an increased risk of first trimester miscarriage in the subsequent pregnancy." Sun Y; Che Y; et al, “Induced Abortion and Risk of Subsequent Miscarriage,” International Journal of Epidemiology. 2003; 32(3):449-54.)

5. Ian Gentles, “Women’s Health after Abortion: Your Right to Know the Risks,” The Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life (New York, NY), © 2004, page 7-8 citing Taylor VM, Kramer MD, Vaughan TL and Peacock S. “Placental Previa in Relation to Induced and Spontaneous Abortion: a Population-Based Study.” Obstetrics & Gynecology 1993 July; 82(1); 88-91; p. 91. Barrett JM, Bo ehm FH and Killam AP, “Induced Abortion: a Risk Factor for Placenta Previa.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1981 December 1; 141(7); 769-72.

6. See, also, Another Abortion Risk: Preterm Birth by Dr. Byron Calhoun, MD, FACOG, FACS, MBA

7. Burkman, et al., “Morbidity Risk Among Young Adolescents Undergoing Elective Abortion” Contraception, 30:99-105 (1984); “Post-Abortal Endometritis and Isolation of Chlamydia Trachomatis,” Ostetrics and Gynecology 68(5):668-690, (1986).

8. Concerned Women for America Press Release , U.S. Newswire, March 29, 2001 . Reardon, Aborted Women-Silent No More, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), page 21. See, also, Wynn and Wynn, "Some Consequences of Induced Abortion to Children Bo rn Subsequently", British Medical Journal (March 3, 1973), and Foundation for Education and Research in Child Bearing ( London , 1972).\

9. Ian Gentles, “Women’s Health after Abortion: Your Right to Know the Risks,” The Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life (New York, NY), © 2004, page 10, citing Frank P, McNamee R, Hannaford PC, Kay CR and Hirsch S. “The Effects of Induced Abortion on Subsequent Fertility.” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1993 June; 100(6): 575-80.

10. B. Gartinkle, H. Hoberman, J. Parsons, and J. Walker. “Stress, Depression, and Suicide: A Study of Adolescents in Minnesota .” (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Extension Service, 1986).

11. Gentles, Ian, “Women’s Health after Abortion: Your Right to Know the Risks,” The Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life ( New York , NY ), © 2004, page 11, citing Gissler M., Hemminki E., and Lonnqvist J. “Suicides after Pregnancy in Finland , 1987-94; Register Linkage Study.” British Medical Journal 1996 December 7; 313 (7070): 1431-4).

See Archived Reports