Just How Big A Discrepancy Is There In The “Official Figures” For Complications Following Abortion...?

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Marie Stopes International are not the only groups in this country who seem to ignore the facts regarding possible sequelae following abortion. The Department of Health and the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists are even worse, considering they have a duty to protect the health of the nation including women.

Nonetheless, it is not all bad news – as we can see from the Abortion Statistics for 2010. Thankfully, these indicate that an increasing number of young gynaecologists continue to refuse to perform abortions. This is very encouraging.

It began at around the Millennium when the Young Doctors Division of the BMA revolted. They were led by a young atheist and they put forward a Motion at the BMA Annual Conference requiring that hospitals should respect the conscience clause in the Abortion Act. The common situation at that time was that consultant gynaecologists would agree to abortions virtually on demand – and then require their juniors to carry out the operations! Our young atheist doctor had witnessed all too often the pressure brought to bear on colleagues with a conscientious objection to abortions being forced to do them; if they refused their careers in obstetrics and gynaecology ended.

However, the Motion at the BMA Annual Conference was passed with a huge majority. As a result, BMA officers who were anything but pro-life were compelled to demand that the Department of Health (DoH) should circulate all NHS hospitals telling them that they had to implement the conscience clause in the Abortion Act. Consultants either had to carry out the abortions themselves or make alternative arrangements.

This resulted in NHS-funded abortions being carried out in the private sector (or Independent Sector as classified by the DoH). It was followed by a gradual increase of young men and women entering obstetrics and gynaecology who had a conscientious objection to abortion. It also led to an increase in NHS-funded abortions being carried out by the BPAS and Marie Stopes Clinics. In the year 2000, only 29% of NHS abortions were done in Independent Clinics. By 2005, this had increased to 44% and in 2010, it had gone up to 59%. Only 37% were being done in NHS hospitals.

Tragically, this is not good news for the unborn baby: s/he can still be killed on demand. However, it is otherwise good news in that gradually we have very much more caring doctors serving our women and their babies. Muslim women – I am glad to say – are far more forthright in demanding to be cared for by a doctor of their own faith or by a Christian. The ones who are very slow in coming forward are the Christians. We should do everything we can to encourage Christian women (and others who are pro-life) to demand that they and their babies should be cared for by doctors who do not do abortions. This is possible under NHS Patients’ Rights.

Come to that, I know a considerable number of agnostic women who would not want to be manhandled by some gynaecologist who has just killed a few infants – albeit that they were unborn. You don’t have to be a believer to object.

Moreover, it is not all that easy for Marie Stopes and BPAS to hire doctors to operate their surgical programmes. That is why they are so keen on medical abortions such as RU486.

Marie Stopes’ witnesses actually had the nerve to complain to one Parliamentary Select Committee about the refusal of young doctors to do abortions and the problems it created. It also explains the drive at European and world-level to get Motions passed denying the right of nurses and doctors to conscientious objections in being involved in abortions.

One can also see quite clearly why we are faced with the drive to have abortions carried out in General Practitioners’ surgeries on the approval of only one doctor. And they are not sticking at doctors being in charge. They are playing safe and trying to get the law changed so that nurses can carry out the medical abortion procedure.

The claim that they are doing this for the sake of speed and the care of women is utter bunkum. Even the inadequate figures provided in the NHS abortion statistics show that medical abortions are more dangerous than surgical abortions. The NHS claims that total complications from abortions in 2010 amounted to 287 with 122 from surgical abortions and 165 from medical abortions. This, despite the fact, that only 43% (81,512) are medical procedures  as compared with 57% (108,062) of surgical cases.

Moreover, this is by no means the least of the DoH sins against women. In “Abortion Statistics for 2010”, at the bottom of the page showing complication rates by procedure and gestation, there is a footnote telling us “complications include: haemorrhage, uterine perforation and/or sepsis and are those reported up to the time of discharge from the place of termination”.

This is ludicrous. To my mind it amounts to criminal negligence in view of the fact that an increasing number of patients are discharged on the day of termination and a majority of others remain in the hospital/clinic for only two or three days at the most.

The Abortion Act requires notification forms (which includes complications) to be returned within seven days of the abortion taking place. However, when the law first came into force patients stayed in hospital for at least two or three days. Even then, responsible gynaecologists thought this was far too short a period to allow for the discovery of complications.

Quite often infections are not evident for days or even a week or more after termination; haemorrhages may not occur until a week or so (one doctor told me that a patient was admitted to his hospital haemorrhaging a full month after she had been aborted in a “charity clinic”).  Only last week, a woman contacted me saying that she was finally admitted to hospital for corrective surgery six months after her abortion in an “independent place” and, again, two months later for a further minor procedure.

Uterine perforation may consist of only a tiny “track” (like a “pin prick”) which does not become evident for some time – and may not be discovered until the woman’s womb ruptures during a further pregnancy. This also applies to weakening of the cervix which may not become evident until in a further pregnancy it is found that the neck of the womb is unable to contain the pregnancy to full term.

Furthermore, although all hospitals are supposed to check for Chlamydia in abortion patients, only 84% report having “offered” it to patients. The spread of Chlamydia in the body caused by abortion can result in horrendous complications leaving a woman infertile and suffering intense pain at periods throughout her life unless she has a complete hysterectomy. (I have known personally several women who were so afflicted. One of the girls to whom I was very close had started on a series of affairs following sexual abuse by her father from the age of 7).

When I look at the so-called number of complications following abortions I cannot help but recall that when the House of Lords Select Committee on the Assisted Dying For the Terminally Ill Bill visited Oregon they were informed repeatedly by medical witnesses that with more than 200 assisted suicide deaths there had been no complications. Professor The Lord McColl of Dulwich (Professor of Surgery, Guy’s Hospital, London) commented that if any surgeon or physician had said he did 200 procedures without any complications he would know there was something amiss.

“We come here and I am told there are no complications. There is something strange going on here.” [House of Lord Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill {HL}.Volume II: Evidence. Apr 4, 2005. p.334, Q.956.]

Looking at the DoH Abortion Statistics for 2010 the figures show a total of 287 complications from 189,574 abortions. That makes one complication for every 660 procedures, well over three times the number queried by Professor Lord McColl.

I reckon there is something even stranger going on in our neck of the woods, with the DoH and the rest of the pro-abortion lobby. However, it is no good us thinking that we will leave the protesting to the women who have suffered. Every one of us can do something. At the least we should protest to our MPs (and in letters to newspapers) about the total lack of care shown by the DoH in reporting only complications resulting from abortion up to the time of discharge from the place of termination. And I think we can also safely query – without looking foolish – just how many complications are overlooked at the time of discharge!

As I have already said, it is criminal negligence. No wonder they can claim such a low rate of complications.

BPAS and Marie Stopes: The Reality Behind the Rhetoric

Today,  and over the next few posts, let’s take a look at the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) and Marie Stopes International (MSI). We can begin with a brief consideration of their claims regarding the ‘counselling’ services they provide, and those of Pro-Life organisations.

For a start, BPAS should change its name. It does not ‘advise’ on pregnancy any more than the Mafia advises on “how to grow old gracefully”. It tells you how to get an abortion and where – largely directing you to the nearest BPAS or other abortion related service and almost nowhere else. Moreover, they tell you that their advice is non-directional, at the same time leaving out half the story – all the uncomfortable bits that might put women off the abortion.

They claim that pro-life counsellors lie about any possible sequelae following abortion, including psychological and physical, such as damage to the cervix leading to prematurity in a subsequent pregnancy, infection resulting in infertility, scarring of the lining of the womb which can cause subsequent prematurity, and the possible long-term increased risk of breast cancer. There is an abundance of evidence – but all is denied by pro-abortion groups such as BPAS and Marie Stopes International.

Both organisations also put forward the dream-scene that they do not encourage abortion. They put forward the facts, they say, so that women can make their choice... what is “right for them”!

Among others, I called Margaret Cuthill, who runs ARCH (Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline) to get an update on girls who call them for help and support following an abortion. Margaret has quite a personal history. She had two abortions and understands how women feel when faced with an unplanned pregnancy they definitely do not want... and what they experience after an abortion. She also understands how they feel after giving birth to a baby who was “unplanned”.

Her second abortion involved twins – when they killed one and accidentally left the other, a little girl, whom she named Pamela. It was when she saw the scan of Pamela that Margaret rejected the offer of another abortion to clear up the “problem”. It was also then that she fully realised exactly what abortion involved; “it” was not a “blob” (or some equivalent) as counsellors assured her and as they still assure women today.

Pamela (see right, on her Wedding Day, with Margaret) was most definitely an “abortion survivor”. She and Margaret had to face many difficulties and together they worked to overcome the abortion trauma from which they both suffered.

It is a well-known fact that the death of a twin, even in early pregnancy – whether from natural causes or by abortion – can have a devastating effect on the survivor. It can cause serious psychological problems including unresolved grieving. There is also a 20 per cent increase in the risk of cerebral palsy. For more information on this issue, see The Psychology of Twinship by Ricardo Ainslie – (preferably 1st edition – University of Nebraska Pres: Lincoln and London; 1985 or 2nd edition Northvale, New Jersey, U.S.A. Jason Aronson Inc.; 1997). See also The Lone Twin: Understanding Twin Bereavement and Loss by Joan Woodward (Free Association Books LTD; 1998), The Grief Recovery Handbook: The Action Program for Moving Beyond Death Divorce, and Other Losses by John W. James and Russell Friedman (Harper Paperbacks; 1998), “Lonesome Crowd: Loss of a Twin”, Chapter 9 from Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell Us About Human Behavior  by Dr. Nancy Segal (Plume; 2000), and Living Without Your Twin by Betty Jean Case (Tibbutt Publishing Company, Inc, Portland, OR; 2001).

Margaret has been counselling girls suffering from post abortion problems for over twenty years now. When I asked about the latest image of their counselling put forward by BPAS and MSI, she subsequently wrote to me saying, “... of the women who come to ARCH for one-to-one counselling or those who phone the helpline for support, ALL say they did not receive any explorative counselling to identify their problems... to go into their personal emotional history... why they wanted an abortion... information on other options available to them than abortion...”  as well as the many other aspects which should be discussed.

She wrote further: “Very recently I spoke to a woman on the ARCH Helpline who had been ‘counselled’ over the phone. She said they asked brief questions, the first being can you cope? She said ‘no’ and they then spoke about the abortion, what methods she could have and what would be the quickest. Of course it was the medical abortion, so from telephone call to abortion it was only a matter of days and she couldn’t believe it was over... and then questioned herself, ‘What have I done?’”

Yet, BPAS claims: “… the charity does not exist to encourage abortion as LIFE encourages motherhood; BPAS exists to promote and enable a women’s choice. It’s all a matter of providing the information, and the space, to allow her to make the decision that is right for her at this time.”

How they must wish we all suffered from amnesia! 

I can assure you that when BPAS was launched they made it abundantly clear that their aim was to promote the availability of abortion to girls. It was unlawful (as it is still) for clinics to advertise to the public – so BPAS was set up “as a charity counselling service” to fill the gap. If abortion clinics had been able to advertise to the public, there would have been no need for BPAS – and very soon BPAS set up their own clinics so they could do the abortions for women who came.

Moreover, if today we offered prizes to girls for their stories, I do not think my front door would be broken down by girls or students clutching babies to their bosoms (or with good-sized bumps in front) to tell us how they had gone ahead with the pregnancy, taken their GCSE or degree, all because the counsellors from BPAS or Marie Stopes had told them how to arrange  for special tutorials or how to obtain grants... or housing... or which pregnancy advisory services (I mean real pregnancy advisory services) would provide the best layette. (Wouldn’t it be just too lovely to see BPAS referring girls to the Cardinal Winning Initiative so they could be guaranteed help and support!)

Instead they deride pro-life counselling services (no matter how impartial) claiming – as they have about LIFE – that “they tell lurid stories, show terrifying films about abortion” which is quite incorrect. As I have said before, LIFE in fact provides quality Relationship and Sexual Education, in addition to its work supplying BAPC-accredited non-directional counselling for women in crisis pregnancy and post-abortion, amongst a host of other services.

However, what BPAS and MSI most certainly do not do is to explain to girls – even if they ask about the development of the human foetus – the simple straightforward biological facts. And from my own experience (and from the experience of the many other people I know helping women through their distress after an abortion – sometimes many years afterwards) the fact which causes them the greatest grief is recognising the humanity of the infant they had aborted. Sometimes the realisation strikes them when they are expecting another child, sometimes it develops after seeing pictures, sometimes it is when they are unable to conceive or carry another child to term, sometimes there is simply no knowing what causes them to think of the child they felt they could not keep.

The Bigotry of the Abortion Lobby

The Guardian headline said it all:

Anti-abortion group drafted in as sexual health adviser to Government 

Coalition appoints pro-abstinence charity LIFE to key sexual health forum while omitting British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS)”

The story related to the appointment of LIFE to the Department of Health’s Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV.

Within a very short time there were rising 800 comments the great majority of them backing the Guardian and BPAS. You could see that many of the contributors were almost foaming at the mouth.

I decided to add my “pen’orth” and send in a comment. I wrote:

‘Reading the story (with its slant) and wading through the comments confirms my long- held view that the Guardian and its readers are made up of the biggest bigots in history’. “Agree with all we say or shut up and get out!”’

However, the next day, (Thursday May 26) the Guardian had a change of heart, and Deborah Orr, a pro-abortion feminist (there are Pro-Life Feminists), wrote a column urging that feminists should not “try to stifle debates about abortion”.

Sadly, however, she blotted her copy-book by claiming:

“LIFE will never win the argument, because it is anti-choice. Logic is on the pro-choice side, let alone practicality. A long history of desperation, squalor and tragedy illustrates how dangerous it is to deny women access to simple medical procedures that offer us control of our lives, our bodies and the planning of our family.”

Obviously, she just repeated the usual pro-abortion mantra without doing her homework.  For years, the pro-abortion lobby has got away with blatant lies about the threat of so-called back- street abortions (a very high number of which – before the Abortion Act – were carried out in private clinics which are still operating today on the “front streets”). Invariably they refer to “coat-hanger abortions” – although I have yet to discover a woman so stupid as not to recognise how dangerous such a procedure would be!

The anti-life lobby use this technique to frighten people about what could happen if the abortion law were changed. The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson (see right), who originally led the pro-abortion movement in the USA and later became pro-life, exposed their tactics. In this country, you only have to check the mortality figures to see they are talking absolute nonsense.

However, when it comes to abortion, contraception and euthanasia, the Guardian, like the BBC, rarely allow research and the facts get in the way of a nice frightening claim! For example, on March 21, 2007 the Guardian carried an item on abortion in Poland (where strong abortion restrictions were put in place in 1993). The article claimed:

“illegal abortion… is thriving… Polish NGOs (Non-Government Organisations) estimate some 200,000 women are having back street abortions every year”.

That is by no means the only time that the Guardian has made such claims. However, one only has to examine the official Health figures to show they are talking nonsense. With illegal acts, there are no official figures to prove whether any such claims are right or wrong. Nonetheless, there are other ways of measuring the truth:

Hospital admissions for incomplete abortion or miscarriage is one way.

Maternal deaths is another.

It is easy enough to check the figures in the Council of Europe Demographic Year Book. From this you can see that in Poland the number of miscarriages dropped from 46,970 in 1994 to 41,381 in 2003. There is no way there would be such a drop if women were having back- street abortions.

One can also see that deaths due to pregnancy and child-birth dropped from 36 in 1994, to 23 in 2003. This hardly suggests a huge increase of 200,000 in illegal abortions.

I am well aware that the pro-abortion lobby will claim that Polish doctors will register back-street abortion deaths under some other category. However, yet again, one needs only to check on total deaths in women in their main child-bearing years (15-49) to see that this is utterly untrue. The Poles, God bless them, do bury their dead! If back street abortion deaths were reported under other categories, there would still be an increase in total reported deaths in women in their main child-bearing years from 1994 – 2003 and onwards.

You will find (just as I found when checking on back street abortion deaths in England and Wales) that the facts do not substantiate the claims. In fact, they make their claims without a scrap of evidence.

Moreover, there are two other countries which show the nonsense of pro-abortion claims:  

Some years ago, Chile changed its legislation, outlawing all abortions and giving the unborn child equal protection with his/her mother. The result? Chile now has the lowest maternal mortality rate of any country in South America (see pg. 25) – with the result that other countries in that region of the world are now considering laws to follow their example.

The Republic of Ireland is another country which makes the anti-life lobby froth at the mouth. Like Chile – they have an absolute law against abortion... zero tolerance for destruction of the unborn child. And they have the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world (see pg. 24). The maternal death rate in Ireland is 1 per 100,000 compared with 8 per 100,000 for the United Kingdom (see pg. 27)... with all our liberal laws!

It seems that the kind of medicine which inspires protection for the unborn child also inspires greater protection for the mother.