Here are comments by the AAPLOG doctor involved with passage of the bill:

Georgia, after a lengthy, bloody battle, passed legislation this year prohibiting the termination of a pregnancy beyond 20 weeks after fertilization (22 weeks), except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger (not psychological). Unfortunately, it required a compromise to allow for lethal anomalies in the baby to have it pass. It is estimated that 1300 abortions are being done beyond this gestational age in Georgia each year. The Georgia Ob-Gyn Society sent out such distorted misinterpretations of the bill, that I scarcely recognized the bill in their comments to members.

It was difficult to pull out the resources to testify for this bill. I would like to share this info with you, as well as the arguments on each side, because this is another major blow in bringing down abortion in this country. Planned Parenthood has yet to take this law to court in the other six states where it has passed. Don’t be afraid to help with the passage of this type legislation, it is irrefutable – and it was President Reagan who first raised the issue of fetal pain in the 80′s.

The first website contains all the scientific articles on fetal pain since the mid-80′s as well as the testimony before Congress of Dr. Jean Wright, a pediatric anesthesiologist.

http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/abortion-bill-fosters-safety-1422423.html#.T5HAQrZEhjc.email

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/state-guards-babies-in-1408404.html#.T5G-DNOhU0w.email

http://www.aaplog.org/perinatal-hospice/

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=32691#.T5G–Sk8OSM.email

http://www.georgiaobgyn.org/communications/HB%20954,%20SB%20434,%20438,Update%203.1.pdf

AAPLOG strongly supports legislation which decreases the intentional killing of innocent unborn children. It would be wonderful if a law were passed eliminating all killing of innocent unborn children. Until that time, doing what can be done is a great deal more valuable and courageous than doing nothing.

Monday we sent you a very limited summary of the outstanding and potentially revolutionary study by Elard Koch, et al, on the progress in Chile over the past 50 years in decreasing Maternal Mortality. This is a truly pro-life, pro-women’s health message. Become familiar with it.

Note: on the U.N. and international level, loud voices cry that unlimited access to “safe” abortion is a vital answer to maternal mortality. AAPLOG suggests that education of women, plus initiatives to deal with the main killers of new mothers–hemorrhage, infection, and toxemia/ecclampsia– is the logical point of attack on the problem of maternal mortality-and it is a really horrible problem.

Please find a more complete statement on the study by the study’s author at: http://www.aaplog.org/complications-of-induced-abortion/induced-abortion-and-maternal-mortality/women%E2%80%99s-education-level-maternal-health-facilities-abortion-legislation-and-maternal-deaths-a-natural-experiment-in-chile-from-1957-to-2007/

Conclusion by Elard Koch, the main author:

Taken together, the Chilean natural experiment over the last fifty years suggests that the progress on maternal health in developing countries is a function of the following factors: an increase in the educational level of women, complementary nutrition for pregnant women and their children in the primary care network and schools, universal access to improved maternal health facilities (early prenatal care, delivery by skilled birth attendants, postnatal care, availability of emergency obstetric units and specialized obstetric care); changes in women’s reproductive behaviour enabling them to control their own fertility; and improvements in the sanitary system ―i.e. clean water supply and sanitary sewer access. Furthermore, it is confirmed that women’s educational level appears to have an important modulating effect on other variables, especially promoting the utilization of maternal health facilities and modifying the reproductive behaviour. Consequently, it is proposed that these strategies outlined in different MDGs and implemented in different countries may act synergistically and rapidly to decrease maternal deaths in the developing world.

For several years there has been a very urgent plea from international agencies and “authorities” for world wide easy access to legal (called “safe”) induced abortion, on the grounds that this will result in a marked decrease in maternal mortality (and all of us agree that maternal mortality world-wide must be aggressively confronted). Here is a new study from Chile that confirms that increased access to abortion is NOT the answer to decreasing the MMR. Education of women IS one very important answer. Do not let the importance of this study escape your notice!! It is a landmark!

Study Finds Education, not Abortion, Reduces Maternal Mortality

Concepción, Chile, May 5 – A scientific analysis of 50 years of maternal mortality data from Chile has found that the most important factor in reducing maternal mortality is the educational level of women. “Educating women enhances women’s ability to access existing health care resources, including skilled attendants for childbirth, and directly leads to a reduction in her risk of dying during pregnancy and childbirth,” according to Dr Elard Koch, epidemiologist and leading author of the study.

The research entitled “Women’s Education Level, Maternal Health Facilities, Abortion Legislation and Maternal Deaths: a Natural Experiment in Chile from 1957 to 2007” was conducted on behalf of the Chilean Maternal Mortality Research Initiative (CMMRI) and published in the Friday, May 4 issue of PLoS ONE. (http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036613).

Using 50 years of official data from Chile’s National Institute of Statistics (1957-2007), the authors looked at factors likely to affect maternal mortality, such as years of education, per capita income, total fertility rate, birth order, clean water supply, sanitary sewer, and childbirth delivery by skilled attendants. They also analyze the effect of historical educational and maternal health policies, including legislation that has prohibited abortion in Chile since 1989, on maternal mortality.

During the fifty-year study period, the overall Maternal Mortality Ratio or MMR (the number of maternal deaths related to childbearing divided by the number of live births) dramatically declined by 93.8%, from 270.7 to 18.2 deaths per 100,000 live births between 1957 and 2007, making Chile a paragon for maternal health in other countries. “In fact, during 2008, the overall MMR declined again, to 16.5 per 100,000 live births, positioning Chile as the country with the second lowest ratio in the American continent after Canada and with at least two points lower MMR than United States” said Koch.

One of the most significant findings is that, contrary to widely-held assumptions, making abortion illegal in Chile did not result in an increase in maternal mortality. In fact, after abortion was made illegal in 1989, the MMR continued to decrease from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 live births (69.2% reduction). “Definitively, the legal prohibition of abortion is unrelated to overall maternal mortality rates” emphasized Koch.

The variables affecting this decrease included the predictable factors of delivery by skilled attendants, complementary nutrition for pregnant women and their children in the primary care clinics and schools, clean facilities, and fertility. But the most important factor, and the one which increased the effect of all others, was the educational level of women. For every additional year of maternal education there was a corresponding decrease in the MMR of 29.3 per 100,000 live births.

The picture for Chile includes a transition of leading causes of death along with an accelerated decline of fertility and delayed motherhood. Koch explained that direct causes –those directly attributable to pregnancy condition– were the rule before 1980, but from then, indirect causes –i.e. non-obstetric chronic conditions such as hypertension and diabetes among others– rise as the most prevalent, hindering the decline on maternal mortality.

“This study uncovers an ongoing ‘fertility paradox’ in maternal health: education is the major modulator that has helped Chile to reach one of the safest motherhood records in the world, but also contributes to decreased fertility, excessively delaying motherhood and putting mothers at risk because of their older age.” Thus, an emerging problem nowadays “is not a question of how many children a mother has, but a question of when a mother has her children, specially the first of them” concluded Koch.

UCSC

Executive Summary:

Koch et al. article PLoS ONE 2012, May 4 Available in http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036613

A thorough analysis of over 50 years of excellent maternal mortality data from the nation of Chile has revealed that the most important factor in reducing maternal mortality is the educational level of women. Educating women enhances a woman’s ability to access existing health care resources and directly leads to a reduction in her risk of dying during pregnancy and childbirth.

The research was conducted on behalf of the Chilean Maternal Mortality Research Initiative (CMMRI), which is an independent collaborative study conducted by researchers from the Department of Family Medicine at University of Chile; Institute of Molecular Epidemiology (MELISA) from the Center of Embryonic Medicine and Maternal Health at Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción (UCSC); and the Women’s Health Research Project at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. The study was directed by Dr Elard Koch, epidemiologist and director of the CMMRI and professor from University of Chile and UCSC.

The most controversial and important finding is that making abortion illegal in Chile did not result in an increase in maternal mortality. Chile is recognized as one of the countries with the most restrictive abortion laws in the world and has been criticized because of the purported possible deleterious consequences on maternal health. Moreover, three initiatives for legalizing abortion based on this argument were rejected last month by the Chilean parliament. In this controversial scenario, the recently published study at PLoS ONE this week, demonstrates clearly that prohibition of abortion did not increase maternal mortality and situates to Chile with one of the lowest maternal and abortion mortality rates in the world. Indeed, making abortion illegal in Chile was followed by a further reduction in maternal mortality.

The authors analyzed official data from the National Institute of Statistics, from 1957-2007. They also simultaneously analyzed factors likely to influence maternal mortality, such as education years, income per capita, total fertility rate, birth order, clean water, sanitary sewer, and delivery by skilled attendants. And finally they included in their analysis pertinent educational and maternal health policies implemented in 1965, and legislation that prohibited abortion in 1989 to assess the effects of these policies on maternal mortality.

Extremely accurate vital statistics and socioeconomic data available in Chile spanning the past 60 years offers a unique opportunity to evaluate each of these factors and their effect on reducing maternal mortality. Thus Chile serves as a natural experiment to investigate the effects of policy changes before and after the interventions were implemented.

During the study period, overall maternal mortality ratio (MMR, the number of maternal deaths related to childbearing divided by the number of live births) dramatically declined by 93.8%, from 293.7 deaths per 100,000 live births decreasing to 18.2 deaths per 100,000 live births, making Chile a model for maternal health in the world. The factors affecting this decrease included the predictable factors of delivery by skilled attendants, clean facilities and fertility. But the most important factor, and the one which increased the effect of all other factors was the educational level of women. For every additional year of maternal education there was a corresponding decrease in the MMR of 29.3/100,000 live births.

One of the most interesting and controversial findings was that contrary to what has been claimed prior to this publication, making abortion illegal did not result in an increase in maternal mortality. The highest maternal mortality rate was observed in 1961, during a time when therapeutic abortion was legal. When abortion was made illegal in 1989, the MMR decreased from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 live births (-69.2%). The data from Chile clearly demonstrate that making abortion illegal does not result in an increase of deaths from abortion. On the contrary, deaths directly attributable to abortion declined dramatically after abortion was prohibited by law. Abortion deaths decreased from 95.1 per 100,000 live births in 1961 to 0.83 per 100,000 live births in 2007. This represented an accumulated reduction of 99.1% on this indicator. Moreover, the accumulated decrease on abortion mortality for the period between 1989 and 2007 was -9.95 deaths per 100,000 live births. Thus, Chile has reached one of the lowest abortion mortality rates in the world. Additional evidence was provided that the overall number of elective abortions similarly declined. This analysis of the effect of abortion legislation on maternal mortality is the first evidence-based publication in the medical literature which demonstrates the real effect of making elective abortion illegal on the health of women. The lack of correlation between high maternal mortality and prohibition of abortion observed in this study also confirms circumstantial observations made in Europe. The lowest MMRs in Europe are in countries such as Ireland, Malta and Poland, in which elective abortion is illegal. Considering Chile has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, this analysis of Chilean maternal mortality statistics provides a model for other countries seeking a successful model for decreasing maternal mortality, and provides evidence that legalization of abortion is unnecessary to decrease maternal mortality.

This analysis also confirmed the consensus of the scientific community that delivery by skilled birth attendants is a key factor in reducing maternal mortality. The increase in skilled birth attendants should be one of the key strategies in improving maternal health. In Chile a decrease of -2.41 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births for each 1% increment in the number of deliveries performed by skilled attendants was observed; taking into account the parallel effect of the increasing women’s education level, a decrease of -4.58 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births for each 1% increment in the number of deliveries performed by skilled attendants was observed. This finding confirms that increasing the educational levels of mothers, other key variables are favourably influenced such as access to early prenatal control and the subsequent delivery by skilled personnel.

Another key factor in decreasing maternal mortality is the accessibility of maternal healthcare services. Nutrition programs for mother and child, coupled with the distribution of fortified milk at primary care clinics created new opportunities of prenatal, prenatal and postnatal care for both mother and child. This strategy practically eradicated malnutrition, increased birth weight and contributed to the noteworthy reduction in infant mortality observed in Chile, 3.1/1000 live births for infants 28 days to 1 year of age.

An interesting finding of this study was the presence of a “fertility paradox”. Although a strong correlation did exist between the decline on the MMR and the reduction on total fertility rate (i.e. the average number of children that would have been born to a woman over her reproductive lifetime), the increase in the number of first pregnancies at advanced ages was directly associated with an increase on maternal deaths. For every 1% increment in primiparous women giving birth older than 30 years of age, an increase of 30 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births was estimated. Thus, when the total fertility decreases and produces a delayed motherhood it can also provoke a deleterious effect on maternal health via an increase of the obstetric risk associated with childbearing at advanced ages.

The Chilean natural experiment over the last 50 years translates into a dynamic and ongoing phenomenon of “aging pregnancy”, or “fertility paradox”, which is today and will be tomorrow’s leading cause of death for mothers. The picture for Chile includes a transition of leading causes of death. Direct causes –those directly attributable to pregnancy condition– were the rule before 1980, but from then, indirect causes –those attributable to underlying non-obstetric pre-existing chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity among others– rise as the most prevalent. This is certainly a paradox: education is the major modulator that has helped Chile to reach one of the safest motherhood in the world, but also contributes to decrease fertility, delaying motherhood and puts mothers on risk because of their older age. Thus, an emergent problem nowadays, it is not a matter of how many children a mother has, but a matter of when. Legalization of abortion is not an appropriate strategy to decrease maternal deaths either. Improvements in maternal health and a dramatic decrease in maternal mortality occurred without legalization of abortion in Chile. The overall improvement is not attributable to its legal or illegal status, but to education increase of women as the major modulator of access to high quality maternal health services and reproductive behaviour.

Finally, Koch et al. note that recent global estimates on maternal mortality continue to be underestimating the progress on maternal health in several Latin American countries. In a direct comparison of the MMR estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO) technical report with available full official domestic data in eight countries of the American continent in 2008, an important percent of overestimation was observed in WHO estimates for these countries (e.g. 35.4% for Colombia, 48.6% for Mexico, 57.6% for Chile and 76.3% for Argentina).

Conclusions

Taken together, the Chilean natural experiment over the last fifty years suggests that the progress on maternal health in developing countries is a function of the following factors: an increase in the educational level of women, complementary nutrition for pregnant women and their children in the primary care network and schools, universal access to improved maternal health facilities (early prenatal care, delivery by skilled birth attendants, postnatal care, availability of emergency obstetric units and specialized obstetric care); changes in women’s reproductive behaviour enabling them to control their own fertility; and improvements in the sanitary system ―i.e. clean water supply and sanitary sewer access. Furthermore, it is confirmed that women’s educational level appears to have an important modulating effect on other variables, especially promoting the utilization of maternal health facilities and modifying the reproductive behaviour. Consequently, it is proposed that these strategies outlined in different MDGs and implemented in different countries may act synergistically and rapidly to decrease maternal deaths in the developing world.

Koch et al. article PLoS ONE 2012, May 4 Available in http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036613

A thorough analysis of over 50 years of excellent maternal mortality data from the nation of Chile has revealed that the most important factor in reducing maternal mortality is the educational level of women. Educating women enhances a woman’s ability to access existing health care resources and directly leads to a reduction in her risk of dying during pregnancy and childbirth.

The research was conducted on behalf of the Chilean Maternal Mortality Research Initiative (CMMRI), which is an independent collaborative study conducted by researchers from the Department of Family Medicine at University of Chile; Institute of Molecular Epidemiology (MELISA) from the Center of Embryonic Medicine and Maternal Health at Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción (UCSC); and the Women’s Health Research Project at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. The study was directed by Dr Elard Koch, epidemiologist and director of the CMMRI and professor from University of Chile and UCSC.

The most controversial and important finding is that making abortion illegal in Chile did not result in an increase in maternal mortality. Chile is recognized as one of the countries with the most restrictive abortion laws in the world and has been criticized because of the purported possible deleterious consequences on maternal health. Moreover, three initiatives for legalizing abortion based on this argument were rejected last month by the Chilean parliament. In this controversial scenario, the recently published study at PLoS ONE this week, demonstrates clearly that prohibition of abortion did not increase maternal mortality and situates to Chile with one of the lowest maternal and abortion mortality rates in the world. Indeed, making abortion illegal in Chile was followed by a further reduction in maternal mortality.

The authors analyzed official data from the National Institute of Statistics, from 1957-2007. They also simultaneously analyzed factors likely to influence maternal mortality, such as education years, income per capita, total fertility rate, birth order, clean water, sanitary sewer, and delivery by skilled attendants. And finally they included in their analysis pertinent educational and maternal health policies implemented in 1965, and legislation that prohibited abortion in 1989 to assess the effects of these policies on maternal mortality.

Extremely accurate vital statistics and socioeconomic data available in Chile spanning the past 60 years offers a unique opportunity to evaluate each of these factors and their effect on reducing maternal mortality. Thus Chile serves as a natural experiment to investigate the effects of policy changes before and after the interventions were implemented.

During the study period, overall maternal mortality ratio (MMR, the number of maternal deaths related to childbearing divided by the number of live births) dramatically declined by 93.8%, from 293.7 deaths per 100,000 live births decreasing to 18.2 deaths per 100,000 live births, making Chile a model for maternal health in the world. The factors affecting this decrease included the predictable factors of delivery by skilled attendants, clean facilities and fertility. But the most important factor, and the one which increased the effect of all other factors was the educational level of women. For every additional year of maternal education there was a corresponding decrease in the MMR of 29.3/100,000 live births.

One of the most interesting and controversial findings was that contrary to what has been claimed prior to this publication, making abortion illegal did not result in an increase in maternal mortality. The highest maternal mortality rate was observed in 1961, during a time when therapeutic abortion was legal. When abortion was made illegal in 1989, the MMR decreased from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 live births (-69.2%). The data from Chile clearly demonstrate that making abortion illegal does not result in an increase of deaths from abortion. On the contrary, deaths directly attributable to abortion declined dramatically after abortion was prohibited by law. Abortion deaths decreased from 95.1 per 100,000 live births in 1961 to 0.83 per 100,000 live births in 2007. This represented an accumulated reduction of 99.1% on this indicator. Moreover, the accumulated decrease on abortion mortality for the period between 1989 and 2007 was -9.95 deaths per 100,000 live births. Thus, Chile has reached one of the lowest abortion mortality rates in the world. Additional evidence was provided that the overall number of elective abortions similarly declined. This analysis of the effect of abortion legislation on maternal mortality is the first evidence-based publication in the medical literature which demonstrates the real effect of making elective abortion illegal on the health of women. The lack of correlation between high maternal mortality and prohibition of abortion observed in this study also confirms circumstantial observations made in Europe. The lowest MMRs in Europe are in countries such as Ireland, Malta and Poland, in which elective abortion is illegal. Considering Chile has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, this analysis of Chilean maternal mortality statistics provides a model for other countries seeking a successful model for decreasing maternal mortality, and provides evidence that legalization of abortion is unnecessary to decrease maternal mortality.

This analysis also confirmed the consensus of the scientific community that delivery by skilled birth attendants is a key factor in reducing maternal mortality. The increase in skilled birth attendants should be one of the key strategies in improving maternal health. In Chile a decrease of -2.41 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births for each 1% increment in the number of deliveries performed by skilled attendants was observed; taking into account the parallel effect of the increasing women’s education level, a decrease of -4.58 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births for each 1% increment in the number of deliveries performed by skilled attendants was observed. This finding confirms that increasing the educational levels of mothers, other key variables are favourably influenced such as access to early prenatal control and the subsequent delivery by skilled personnel.

Another key factor in decreasing maternal mortality is the accessibility of maternal healthcare services. Nutrition programs for mother and child, coupled with the distribution of fortified milk at primary care clinics created new opportunities of prenatal, prenatal and postnatal care for both mother and child. This strategy practically eradicated malnutrition, increased birth weight and contributed to the noteworthy reduction in infant mortality observed in Chile, 3.1/1000 live births for infants 28 days to 1 year of age.

An interesting finding of this study was the presence of a “fertility paradox”. Although a strong correlation did exist between the decline on the MMR and the reduction on total fertility rate (i.e. the average number of children that would have been born to a woman over her reproductive lifetime), the increase in the number of first pregnancies at advanced ages was directly associated with an increase on maternal deaths. For every 1% increment in primiparous women giving birth older than 30 years of age, an increase of 30 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births was estimated. Thus, when the total fertility decreases and produces a delayed motherhood it can also provoke a deleterious effect on maternal health via an increase of the obstetric risk associated with childbearing at advanced ages.

The Chilean natural experiment over the last 50 years translates into a dynamic and ongoing phenomenon of “aging pregnancy”, or “fertility paradox”, which is today and will be tomorrow’s leading cause of death for mothers. The picture for Chile includes a transition of leading causes of death. Direct causes –those directly attributable to pregnancy condition– were the rule before 1980, but from then, indirect causes –those attributable to underlying non-obstetric pre-existing chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity among others– rise as the most prevalent. This is certainly a paradox: education is the major modulator that has helped Chile to reach one of the safest motherhood in the world, but also contributes to decrease fertility, delaying motherhood and puts mothers on risk because of their older age. Thus, an emergent problem nowadays, it is not a matter of how many children a mother has, but a matter of when. Legalization of abortion is not an appropriate strategy to decrease maternal deaths either. Improvements in maternal health and a dramatic decrease in maternal mortality occurred without legalization of abortion in Chile. The overall improvement is not attributable to its legal or illegal status, but to education increase of women as the major modulator of access to high quality maternal health services and reproductive behaviour.

Finally, Koch et al. note that recent global estimates on maternal mortality continue to be underestimating the progress on maternal health in several Latin American countries. In a direct comparison of the MMR estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO) technical report with available full official domestic data in eight countries of the American continent in 2008, an important percent of overestimation was observed in WHO estimates for these countries (e.g. 35.4% for Colombia, 48.6% for Mexico, 57.6% for Chile and 76.3% for Argentina).

Conclusions

Taken together, the Chilean natural experiment over the last fifty years suggests that the progress on maternal health in developing countries is a function of the following factors: an increase in the educational level of women, complementary nutrition for pregnant women and their children in the primary care network and schools, universal access to improved maternal health facilities (early prenatal care, delivery by skilled birth attendants, postnatal care, availability of emergency obstetric units and specialized obstetric care); changes in women’s reproductive behaviour enabling them to control their own fertility; and improvements in the sanitary system ―i.e. clean water supply and sanitary sewer access. Furthermore, it is confirmed that women’s educational level appears to have an important modulating effect on other variables, especially promoting the utilization of maternal health facilities and modifying the reproductive behaviour. Consequently, it is proposed that these strategies outlined in different MDGs and implemented in different countries may act synergistically and rapidly to decrease maternal deaths in the developing world.

Pro-life and pro-woman medical principles are essential to emphasize in the struggle to oppose the killing of the unborn and the exploitation of their mothers. Last week we mentioned victories in Arizona and Alabama. This week it is Mississippi. One step at a time. From LifeNews.com:

Mississippi Gov. Signs Bill That Could Make it Abortion Free

The governor of Mississippi has signed a bill that would make the state the first in the nation to be without an active abortion business if the only one in the state can’t comply with the sensible new law he signed.

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant on Monday signed a bill putting new requirements on the books for abortion practitioners who operate in the state. They would have to be certified in the state as an obstetrician-gynecologist with admitting privileges at a local hospital in case a botched abortion requires a woman to be immediately hospitalized.

“This legislation is an important step in strengthening abortion regulations and protecting the health and safety of women,” Bryant said in a statement. “As governor, I will continue to work to make Mississippi abortion-free.”

Gov. Bryant added: “I believe that all human life is precious, and as governor, I will work to ensure that the lives of the born and unborn are protected in Mississippi. This bill requires all physicians associated with an abortion clinic in Mississippi to be board-certified or eligible in obstetrics and gynecology. To further protect patient safety in the event of a complication during the procedure, this bill also requires the physician to have staff and admitting privileges at a local hospital.”

The ability of pro-life laws to reduce the number of abortions and abortion clinics in a state is longstanding and some states like South Carolina, Missouri, Michigan and others have seen abortions drop to historic lows thanks to a variety of pro-life legislation stopping abortions, protecting women and protecting teen girls and parental rights. Mississippi is one such state and its laws have helped close all but one abortion center.

The new measure has the potential to make it so the final abortion business may have trouble securing an abortion practitioner with such privileges.

Diane Derzis, owner of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion facility, has said she will challenge the bill in court if it becomes law. She told Reuters that only one of the three abortion practitioners it employs has admitting privileges at a local hospital because many hospitals refuse to provide admitting privileges to abortion practitioners.

A new initiative to help underserved pregnant women is being developed starting in the N.C, VA, and TN area. It is called The Morning Center, and at the start involves mobile clinic units seeking to geographically and medically serve pregnant women who would otherwise probably not get crisis pregnancy counseling or needed prenatal care. Maternity care for these needy women is part of the future planning. This is a distinctly Christian ministry, and has some quite unique approaches. Below are 3 informational/fundraising events scheduled for this May. See their excellent website at www.morningcenter.org and their facebook page at www.facebook.com/morningcenter

The Morning Center is looking to connect with Doctors and other medical providers seeking advice and input as we launch our mobile care units in to urban and underserved areas. To connect with the Morning Center’s director, James Lansberry, please email: elysse@morningcenter.org.

For info on the Charlotte Fundraiser, go to http://morningcenter.org/charlotte-fundraiser-2012/

For info on Memphis fundraiser, go to http://morningcenter.org/memphis-fundraiser-2012/

For info on Lynchburg fundraiser, go to: http://www.facebook.com/events/370599649651458/

The Morning Center Director will value any input or help from interested physicians or other interested persons.

It would be nice if children would be allowed to live, and the whole induced abortion would just go away. But it won’t. But we don’t have to do nothing. Here are people doing something. One step at a time.

In Arizona:

The Arizona state House today followed the state Senate in approving legislation to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy after it received strong support from pro-life organizations.

House members passed the bill by a 37-22 vote and abortions after that time period would not be allowed except in very rare cases of medical emergency. The bill also requires abortion facilities to allow women to have an ultrasound of their unborn baby at least 24 hours prior to having the abortion. In many cases women change their minds about a planned abortion after seeing the images of their developing child.
The governor is expected to sign the bill on Monday. Read the story at:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/04/10/arizona-house-oks-bill-to-ban-abortions-after-20-weeks/

In Alabama: (news release from Friday):

Professional staff of the Bureau of Health Provider Standards, Alabama Department of Public Health, have performed a comprehensive investigation of New Woman All Women Health Care in Birmingham in response to a complaint received in January 2012.

This investigation revealed significant failures in maintaining compliance with the Rules of the Alabama State Board of Health for the safe and effective provision of care.

Based on these findings (which are available for public view on the department’s website adph.org in the How Do I section: Review Health Care Facility Deficiencies at http://adphnotes.state.al.us/hcfweb.nsf), a license revocation hearing had been scheduled for April 19. However, a settlement has been reached that requires the current operator to relinquish the license on or before May 18, 2012.

AAPLOG applauds these states for caring enough about women’s health to do something about it. (And we’re sure babies will appreciate not being killed.) We encourage other states to follow their example.

Dr. John Bruchalski, M.D. (aka Dr. B) recently kicked off our 27-Stop Spring 2012 National Medical Students for Life Tour to speak to pro-life and pro-choice medical students about his experiences as a former abortion provider and discussing conscience protections, health care reform, and patient-center medicine for medical students and physicians.

Here is Dr. B’s schedule:

Thursday, April 19th

12:00 pm, Wayne State University School of Medicine;Richard J. Mazurek, M.D. Medical Education Commons

Everyone is welcome! Bring a friend!!

To RSVP, send an email to aweaver@studentsforlife.org

Dr. B is the founder of the Tepeyac Family Center in Fairfax, Virginia which is one of the only all pro-life OB/GYN health care practices in the nation. He is a dynamic and engaging speaker whose story and style reaches people on all sides of the culture battle and shows them the value of an evidence-based approach to medicine and the value of treating the whole person.

Please pray that Dr. Bruchalski can reach the hearts and minds of the many pro-choice medical students he will meet. If Dr. B can change just one heart of a future abortionist, tens of thousands of lives will be saved!

Thank you so much for all of your prayers and support.

Kristan Hawkins, SFL

A major journal (OB & GYN, Feb 12) prints what AAPLOG considers highly controversial article (termed “original research”). by very high-profile authors (Raymond & Grimes) asserting that “abortion is safer than childbirth.” How do you answer this assertion? You need to have an answer of some kind. We’re addressed this for you in previous letters: Go To : http://www.aaplog.org/get-involved/letters-to-members/abortion-is-safer-than-childbirth/

And http://afterabortion.org/2012/re-hash-of-abortion-safety-claim-ignores-all-inconvenient-evidence-to-the-contrary/

And

http://www.wecareexperts.org/content/serious-misrepresentation-relative-safety-induced-abortion-compared-childbirth-published-l-0

But what if you are the author of a major article in a peer reviewed journal that disagreed with the contention that abortion is safer than childbirth, and you write a letter of objection to the editor of “Obstetrics and Gynecology?’ Does your letter get printed? Of course not. There isn’t room. See below: The author is David Reardon.

Dear Editor,

The comparison of abortion and childbirth mortality rates conducted by Raymond and Grimes(1) uses an “apples versus oranges” comparison which has long been discredited.(2)(3) Indeed, the CDC acknowledges its abortion associated death totals are not only incomplete but are also “conceptually different” than maternal mortality rates.(4)

Fortunately, several high quality record linkage studies, which apply a consistent and uniform standard for identifying and comparing deaths associated with different pregnancy outcomes,(2) have been conducted both in the United States(5) and in a series of studies in Finland.(3)

These studies have consistently shown higher rates of death associated with abortion compared to (a) childbirth, (b) miscarriage, and (c) not being pregnant. While a large portion of increased mortality risk is attributable to elevated rates of suicide and deaths attributed to accidents, abortion is also associated with significantly higher mortality rates for death from natural causes.(2)(5)

That these record linkage studies were completely omitted from this purported “review”(1) is inexcusably dishonest. This “apples versus oranges” retread appears to be nothing more than a publicity stunt designed to generate misleading headlines about abortion being “safer” than childbirth.

(1) Raymond, Elizabeth G.; Grimes, David A. The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 119(2, Part 1):215-219, February 2012.

(2) Reardon DC, Strahan TW, Thorp JM, Shuping MW. Deaths associated with abortion compared to childbirth: a review of new and old data and the medical and legal implications. The Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy 2004; 20(2):279〓327.

(3) Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier〓Colle MH, Buekens P. Methods for identifying pregnancy〓associated deaths: population〓based data from Finland 1987〓2000. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2004 Nov;18(6):448〓55.

(4) Elliot Institute. New Study Finds Women Are Three Times More Likely To Die After An Abortion: CDC Admits Its Abortion and Childbirth Mortality Statistics

Are Not Comparable. Sept 9, 2005 Afterabortion.org http://afterabortion.org/?p=2493 Accessed, February 8, 2012.

(5) Reardon DC, Ney PG , Scheuren FJ, Cougle JR, Coleman, PK, Strahan T. “Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women.” Southern Medical Journal, August 2002, 95(8):834-841.

David C. Reardon, Ph.D.

The basic answer he received from the Green Journal was:”Your Letter to the Editor has been evaluated. We regret to inform you that we were not able to accept it for publication. It was declined on the basis of priority. Other letters were received on this manuscript and we only have limited space. Unfortunately, we can only publish a fraction of the letters received.”

To which Dr. Reardon replied:

“I understand the limitation of space. Can you assure me that the other, better written, letters address this review’s failure to identify and discuss the six to eight record based studies out of Finland and the United States which demonstrate that abortion is associated with an elevated risk of maternal deaths compared to delivery?

Or is my letter being rejected to cover up the failure of your journal and peer reviewers to hold this “review” accountable for suppressing evidence which runs counter to “abortion is safe” mantra?

I am especially amazed that the record based studies of STAKES, the statistical analysis unit of Finland’s National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health, are being systematically ignored even though their findings have been confirmed in an American population in our own study.”

Dr. David Reardon

Note: Dr. Reardon’s letter was not printed in the March “letters” in OB & GYN. No letters referable to the Raymod/Grimes article were printed. Still possible to get in the April edition. We’ll watch with you.

AAPLOG