Planned Parenthood, Women's Health Issues, Nurses could rule the US

Nurses Activism

Published

With more than 3,000,000 nurses, yes that is 3 MILLION PLUS nurses in the US why aren't we ruling? Just think if every nurse emailed their representatives in government and told them to stop trying to block access to contraceptives, sexual education, and attempting to squash Planned Parenthood. Or donated 1, 10, or 100 dollars to the ANA PAC? Nurses votes ALONE could determine who is President. Even more important nurses can play a huge role in local politics, what are a few deciding for all at local school board meetings?

Doesn't it bother anyone else that the whole health care system was set up to benefit Drs and Hospitals, nurses were put in the bed charge because at the time when insurance companies and hospitals were developing nurses didn't matter and had no power. Why nursing care is not paid for directly (which would also make nursing the most revenue producer in a hospital rather than a revenue drain) Why chronic disease management by RN's is not reimburseable even though research shows its extremely effective. Blah blah blah, honestly after going on 27 years in nursing I feel like nothing has changed at all. Isn't it time we had a revolution?

Specializes in Oncology/Haemetology/HIV.
Also, I don't support Planned Parenthood in any way already, just because they lie to many women about the embryo growing inside them. I'm not trying to start an argument on abortion, but I am saying I don't support PP because they promote the killing of human beings.
I, too, would like to know what lies that you personally have witnessed PP say.I have been to PP a number of times, and neither seen them lie about pregnancy nor have I seen them promote death. From what I have seen, they promote balanced information without a religious bias. I have also accompanied friends to religious based "clinics" that have promoted disproven "facts" such as a link between abortion and breast cancer.I despise abortion, but refuse to bar others choices. But I dislike groups using information to undercut another group more. And an irony: If OB/women's care clinics were required to educate women about the dangers of child birth, the longterm effects, the psychological illness that frequently occurs....... How many women, especially young ones, might, horror of horrors, choose abortion? If we held the religious based "clinics" to the exact same standards of say PP for evidence based education, and discussion of risks, how few would obey or meet those standards? Given that by most statistical measures, abortion is still safer for women than giving birth, how many will be upfront with THAT data.
Specializes in Psych , Peds ,Nicu.

I think the OP's point is that if nurses acted together they could achieve their goals , unfortunately in this case the goal is politically devisive , which also shows that nurses are made up of a cross section of our society and rarely find anything upon which all can agree .

Well said Professor_Mike. The political bullying happens at the national level and misinformation is usually the reason why. Everyone should donate money according to their own conscience including organizations who donate millions of their own donations to other organizations. SGK did not just change their rules to stop giving to PP. Anyone who believes in SGK's mission will still fund them. Those who don't wont, just like those who don't donate to PP because they don't believe in what they do. They didn't change their mission either. Let's get this straight, they said their policy, no matter the organization, is that if someone they donate to is under investigation that they will withhold funding. End of story. It became political because it wsa specifically cutting funding to PP, the purveyor of not only women's care for breast health but abortions too. Anything that threatens organizations that provide abortion services gets blown way out of proportion because of the abortion lobby. SGK was going to fund other organizations who have the same mission serving the underserved population in the same areas as PP. PP was only concerned because their own clientele would drop from their clinic services and go to another clinic. It would opened new funding streams for other organizations who provide the same services. As a matter of fact it may have provided a small clinic with better funding to increase services to the same population. The other myth is that PP actually does the screenings. They provide educate about breast care and point their clients to resources so that they can go get screened elsewhere. Right on their own website they state, "Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses teach patients about breast care, connect patients to resources to help them get vital biopsies, ultrasounds, and mammograms, and follow up to make sure patients are cared for with the attention they need and deserve." This service can be done at any local clinic. PP is not the only organization who can hand someone a list of places to get a free mammogram, etc. and educate women to self-examine. The QIO in every state does this already for free.

Not political you say? PP on their website under their relationship with SGK is saying that "anti-women's health political organizations" bullied SGK to stop funding PP. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Let's get this straight, they said their policy, no matter the organization, is that if someone they donate to is under investigation that they will withhold funding.

Besides all the supposedly trusted sources within SGK that said the rule was specifically to defund PP, SGK was funding other organizations that are under investigation. Like Penn State.

I've always seen value in PP ever since my father, who had been cheating on my mother with multiple women, left and left us with no money. My mother was able to seek healthcare services from PP.

I had never given money to PP in the past but had given money to SGK in the past. The SGK to me makes no sense to me as an individual contributor and as a result I gave money to PP and plan to give money to other organizations that support cancer research, preventative care and treatment.

Again, SGK can do whatever they want but PP can also do whatever they want as well. SGK only reversed their decision when they realized that it would cost them donation dollars.

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 2]People, historically, are known to accept as factual that which is not.

If they hear something repeated often enough, and forcefully enough, many people tend to accept it at face value.

Consequently, propaganda, prejudices, and old wives' tales have far more impact than they should. Thus, medical wisdom should lead us to discover how & where so-called "facts" developed, before we accept them as truth.

In the summer of 1971, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) filed a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court asserting that "the medical procedure of induced abortion is potentially 23.3 times as safe as the process of going through ordinary childbirth." 1

A couple of years later, in considering its Roe v. Wadedecision, the Court "took as 'established medical fact' the contention that in the first 3 months of pregnancy 'mortality in abortion is less than mortality in normal childbirth'."2 Realizing that 'safety' in childbirth can be evaluated in terms of morbidity (complications) and/or mortality (death), we will direct our attention to evaluating'safety' in terms of maternal mortality (maternal death) in this article.

The claim of the relative safety of abortion over pregnancy and childbirth has become one of the rallying cries for pro-abortion forces and is still supported by organizations such as the American Medical Association. In the April 5, 1989 edition of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, the AMA continued to state, "The medical risks to a woman of childbirth are greater than the risks of abortion." But how much truth is there to this claim?

To separate fact from fraud, one must first find out how comparisons are made between maternal mortality rates for childbirth and for abortion.

In 1983, the Maternal Mortality Collaborative, a special interest group of ACOG, began monitoring maternal deaths from 19 reporting areas between 1980-1985. It defines such mortality as: "the death of any woman that was caused or contributed by pregnancy, occurring during pregnancy or within one year of the termination of the pregnancy."3

These deaths are sub-categorized as directly resulting from complications of childbirth, indirectly resulting from pre-existing health problems, and resulting from "non-maternal" causes which were accidental or incidental to the pregnancy.

Another major source of mortality figures for various studies is the National Center for Health Statistics. They define maternal mortality to include deaths up to 42 days after the termination of pregnancy. All state health departments forward information from death certificates to this national source where figures are analyzed, coded and computerized.

State regulations regarding the death certificates themselves vary. For example, according to the Georgia Vital Records Department, the funeral home receiving the body is responsible for the completion of such forms. A doctor (either M.D. or D.O.) or coroner fills out the medical portion, which includes three lines for direct or contributing causes of death. Unfortunately, these forms are often left incomplete.

It is clear that there is no consistent standard or definition by which these statistics are gathered and reported. Therefore, even at the basic level of these mortality statistics, there are inherent differences and potential problems.

Abortion-related mortality is defined as those deaths resulting directly or indirectly from abortion complications whether they be physical or emotional.

Statistics Flawed

When comparing overall maternal mortality rates with abortion-related death rates, researchers generally calculate the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, versus abortion-related deaths per 100,000 abortions performed.4 This method of comparison has several inherent flaws:

**Though abortion deaths are measured per case, overall maternal mortality is measured per live births:

Abortion deaths Maternal deaths

# of abortions # of live births

The equation on the left only includes abortion deaths per number of abortion procedures.

The equation on the right includes all maternal deaths (including stillbirths, miscarriages, abortions, and ectopic pregnancies) in the numerator.

The denominator eliminates these "cases of pregnancy" since they do not result in a live birth, thus, "inflating" the number of maternal deaths. (Statistically, there would be about 120,000 "cases of pregnancy" for every 100,000 live births, resulting in a much lower mortality ratio.)

** Maternal death rates actually include all abortion-related deaths - the very data to which they are compared.

** Maternal mortality figures also include deaths from ectopic pregnancies. However, in 1979, ectopic pregnancy deaths were excluded from the abortion mortality ratio even though between 1972-1981, 21 deaths resulted from ectopic pregnancies that occurred soon after an attempted legal abortion.5

** Deaths from causes completely unrelated to the pregnancy, such as auto accidents, physical abuse, homicide, etc. are usually included in maternal mortality figures.

** Studies compare the isolated procedure of abortion with maternal deaths which include deaths over the entire 9 months of pregnancy and several months to a year post-partum. No attempt is made to compare "apples with apples", i.e. deaths occurring from abortions performed within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, compared to maternal deaths occurring during this same period.6

In addition to these flaws, figures and statistics quoted are frequently a decade our of date. Medical advances in obstetrics and gynecology have greatly reduced the "risks" of pregnancy in the last couple of decades.

Professor Kenneth Ryan [Chairman, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School] has suggested "that ours is the safest of all times for a woman to have a baby", and attributes this to "the vanishingly low level of maternal mortality and the remarkable achievements of neonatal medicine".7

Those pointing to the danger of childbirth need to look at the current statistics.

Current Maternal Deaths

Even with all the flaws mentioned above, the mortality rate from one study during 1980-85 was only 10 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births which is a significant reduction from 50/100,000 live births in the 1950s. 8

The Maternal Mortality Collaborative findings, published in July, 1988, record that of the 712 maternal deaths documented from 1980 to 1985, 111 deaths were due to causes in no way related to the pregnancy (accidents, homicides, unrelated diseases, etc.).

From 1980-85, the main causes for these deaths were embolism (which can also easily occur in an abortion) and non-obstetric injuries. Further down the list of causes come hypertensive diseases of pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy (which an abortion cannot prevent), obstetric hemorrhage, cerebrovascular accidents, and anesthesia complications.9

Similarly, a study conducted in Massachusetts from 1980-85 found that the leading causes of maternal death in that state were trauma (suicides, homicides, and auto accidents) and pulmonary embolism.10

This MA study also contended that one-third to one-half of the deaths were preventable.

Many experts believe that prenatal care, simple precautions and abstention from alcohol and drugs during pregnancy could lower maternal mortality drastically.

Another major culprit in existing deaths appears to be the alarming rise in Caesarean-section deliveries. In 1985, this procedure accounted for about 22.7% of deliveries. The relative risk of maternal death is 10 times higher in a C-section than in lady partsl delivery.11

"The challenge is to be able to identify the one woman in a thousand who need help, without intervening inappropriately in too many cases in which the woman would otherwise do fine," asserts Professor Ryan. 12

A final interesting factor in current studies indicates that mortality rates increase with age; they are significantly higher for women 30 years and older, and are lowest among women under 20 years of age.13 Current trends indicate that women are delaying childbirth to make way for careers and other interests.

Despite these two trends which would indicate an increase in maternal mortality, the mortality rate is actually decreasing.

But what of the dangers of abortion? Recent reports also have shed new light on abortion-related deaths.

Abortion Safer?

To a large extent the premise on which the pro-abortion faction operates is the belief that legal abortion makes life better and safer for women. They contend that legal abortion saves lives of women that would die from illegal, unsafe abortions. They claim that 5,000-10,000 women died of illegal abortions each year prior to Roe v. Wade, and yet there is absolutely no factual data to support this claim.14

In 1972, only 39 deaths related to criminal abortion were recorded.

Regardless of the truth or fallacy of these numbers, one fact is clear: women are still dying from abortions.

RELATIVE RISK IN FIRST 20 WEEKS

OF NATURAL PREGNANCY VERSUS INDUCED ABORTION:

COMPARATIVE DATA FOR 1972-1977 INCLUSIVE

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Entity Death-to-Case Rate(1) Relative Risk(2)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Spontaneous Abortion (NCHS) 1.0 1.0

Spontaneous Abortion (CDC) 2.2 2.2

Induced Abortion ≤ 20 Weeks 2.4 (3) 2.4

Ectopic Pregnancy 202.3 202.3

--------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Expressed as the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 cases in each category or classification.

2. Based on the index rate of 1.0 for the death rate associated with adjusted maternal causes.

3. Based on 12 maternal deaths in 58,642 abortions performed during the second 20 weeks of pregnancy, reported for the years 1972-1977 by the Abortion Surveillance Branch of the Center for Disease Control, Atlanta.

RELATIVE RISK IN SECOND 20 WEEKS AND BEYOND

OF NATURAL PREGNANCY VERSUS INDUCED ABORTION:

COMPARATIVE DATA FOR 1972-1977 INCLUSIVE

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Entity Death-to-Case Rate(1) Relative Risk(2)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Adjusted Maternal Causes 11.5 1.0

Induced Abortion ≥ 21 Weeks 20.5 (3) 1.8

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Expressed as the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 cases in each category or classification.

2. Based on the index rate of 1.0 for the death rate associated with adjusted maternal causes.

3. Based on 12 maternal deaths in 58,642 abortions performed during the second 20 weeks of pregnancy, reported for the years 1972-1977 by the Abortion Surveillance Branch of the Center for Disease Control, Atlanta.

The National Department for Health Statistics lists abortion as the direct or contributing cause for 13 deaths in 1986, it most recently tabulated year.

However, there is no way of insuring that deaths caused by abortion are actually listed that way on death certificates.

It is believed that deaths from abortions are greatly under-reported.

The leading causes of death in abortion-related maternal mortality include infection, hemorrhage, general anesthesia complications and pulmonary or amniotic fluid embolism.

The type of procedure used is one factor associated with abortion deaths. A study on abortion mortality from 1972-1981 listed a death-to-case ratio of 4.9 per 100,000 abortions for dilatation and evacuation, 9.6/100,000 for installation methods, and over 60/100,000 for hysterectomy and hysterotomy.15

An increasingly high proportion of these deaths were due to general anesthesia complications. Only 7.7% of abortion-related deaths were due to anesthesia from 1972-75; the percentage had inflated to 29.4% from 1980-85. 16

Certain general anesthesia methods are more dangerous for some pregnant women. Pregnancy can increase sensitivity to the respiratory depressant effects of some narcotics, tranquilizers and inhalation drugs. 17

The increasing gestational age of the fetus directly relates to abortion deaths. For each additional two weeks gestation at which an abortion is performed, the risk of uterine perforation is 1.4 times higher. 18 Uterine tears occur in 2 of every 1000 abortion procedures, effecting 2,500 women each year. The risk of dying for these women increases one hundred-fold. 19

Long term physical and psychological problems from abortion are ignored in current statistical information. Post Abortion Syndrome, now recognized by the psychiatric profession as a mental disorder, may account for later deaths. Years after their abortions, countless women suffer from the depression and self-abuse of this condition. "No less than 90 percent of aborted women experience moderate to severe emotional and psychiatric stress following an abortion. In addition, aborted women face a suicide risk nine times greater than that of non-aborted women." 20 Yet deaths from suicide and self-destruction are seldom related on the death certificates to abortions.

Physical complications from an abortion can also manifest themselves in later pregnancies. Uterine scarring or weakness from earlier abortion can result in premature delivery, stillbirth, hemorrhage, and other problems which can cause maternal deaths.

Ectopic pregnancies increased more than 4-fold from 1970 until 1975, for no discernible reason. 21 But it is possible that this, too, is abortion related. If scar tissue from an abortion prevents an egg from leaving the Fallopian Tube, it may very well result in the ectopic pregnancy.

In the Maternal Mortality Collaborative study mentioned previously, of the women who died, 3.3% had abortions, 10.6% had ectopic pregnancies, 10.1% had stillbirths and 19.3% had premature live births. 22 It would be interesting to know which of the women with the last 3 situations had experienced earlier abortions. These deaths, 43.3% of those reported, may actually have been abortion-related [because all these conditions are exacerbated by abortion].

In the book, New Perspective on Human Abortion, Thomas Hilgers, M.D. and Dennis O'Hare performed a study comparing maternal mortality rates for abortion and natural pregnancy. They considered the errors made in previous studies and adjusted their comparison to give a more accurate view. They found pregnancy to be slightly safer than abortion during the first 20 weeks of gestation, and nearly twice as safe in the second 20 weeks (see charts, p.6). 23

In conclusion, the pro-abortion stand that abortion is safer than childbirth has not withstood the scrutiny of detailed evaluation. Because of flaws, inconsistencies and misinformation in reporting maternal deaths, an accurate picture of the relative safety of abortion vs. childbirth cannot be determined.

However, it is apparent that pregnancy and childbirth have become safer each year. Furthermore, one could argue that safety is not even a factor; women abort for reasons of convenience, not for reasons of safety.

REFERENCES

1. Thomas W. Hilgers, M.D. and Dennis O'Hare, "Abortion Related Maternal Mortality: An In-Depth Analysis," New Perspectives on Human Abortion, Frederick, MD: Univ Publications of America Inc, 1981, p.69.

2. Ibid, p.69.

3. R, Rochar, L. Koonin, H Arrash, and J. Jewett, "Maternal Mortality in the United States: Report from the Maternal Mortality Collaborative", Obstetrics & Gynecology, 72:1, July 1988, p. 92

4. Hilgers, op.cit., p.69.

5. CDC Abortion Surveillance, November 1985, p.9.

6. Ibid, p.69-91.

7. Kenneth J. Ryan, "Giving Birth in America, 1988", Family Planning Perspectives, 20:6, Dec, 1988, p.298.

8. Rochat et al, op,cit., p.91.

9. B. Sachs, D. Brown, S. Driscoll, E. Schulman, D. Acker, B.Ransil and J. Jewett, "Hemorrhage, Infection, Toxemia, and Cardiac Disease, 1954-85: Causes for Their Declining Role in Maternal Mortality", American Journal of Public Health, 78:6, June 1988, p. 671.

10. Ibid.

11. Rochat et al, op.cit., p.95

12. Ryan, op.cit., p.300.

13. A.Kaunitz, J. Hughes, D. Grimes, J. Smith, R. Rochat, and M. Kaffrissen, "Causes of Maternal Mortality in the United States," Obstetrics and Gynecology, 65:5, May 1985, p. 607.

14. Hilgers, op.cit., p.80.

15. D. Grimes and K. Schulz, "Morbidity and Mortality from Second Trimester Abortions," Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 30:7, July 1985, p. 505.

16. H. Atrash, T. Cheek, and C. Hogue, "Legal Abortion Mortality and General Anesthesia," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 158:2, Feb. 1988, p.421.

17. H. Atrash, H. Mackay, M. Binkin, and C. Hogue, "Legal Abortion Mortality in the United States: 1972-1982," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 156:3, March 1987, p. 609.

18. Digest: "Abortion Fatalities could be Prevented by Earlier Diagnosis of Hemorrhage," Family Planning Perspectives, 16:6, Nov/Dec 1984, p.284.

19. "Dilating Sponges Can Help Curb Perforation Risk With Abortions," OB GYN News, Rockville MD, 15March1988.

20. David Reardon. Aborted Women, Silent No More, Loyola University Press, 1987, xxiv.

21. H. Lawson, H. atrash, A. saftlas, A. Franks, E. Finch, and J. Hughes, "Ectopic Pregnancy Surveillance, United States, 1970-1985," CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 37:SS-5, Dec. 1988, p. 10.

22. L. Koonin, H. Atrash, R. Rochat, and J. Smith, "Maternal Mortality Surveillance, United States, 1980-1985," CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 37:SS-5, Dec. 1988, P.22

23. Hilgers, op.cit., p. 88-89.

[excerpted from Life Support, Summer 1989, GNLI]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

The difference there is that PP is being investigated related to it's potential use of taxpayer funding for abortion and it's actual service delivery, billing and administrative policies. The Milton Hershey Medical Center that Komen funds at Penn is not being investigated for anything of the kind and the grant was from 2008.

The grants with PP were existing grants as well and the policy seemed to say 'under investigation' not on its merits. If SGK wanted to tell PP specifically that they didn't want to fund them because of concerns, they should've just said that.

The difference there is that PP is being investigated related to it's potential use of taxpayer funding for abortion and it's actual service delivery, billing and administrative policies. The Milton Hershey Medical Center that Komen funds at Penn is not being investigated for anything of the kind and the grant was from 2008.

What evidence was there that PP was misusing funds in the first place? This is a tired argument that has been used for a long time to try and stop all funding that goes to PP.

im a nure and dont believe in obamas policies. dont assume we all think alike.

There isn't any evidence that Planned Parenthood was misusing funds. The investigation is a partisan witch hunt initiated by anti-choice Republican Rep Cliff Stearns, R-Fl., chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations within the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Under these rules, if you want to create a controversy that will lead Komen to defund an organization, all you have to do is open an investigation. That's what happened to Planned Parenthood. On Sept. 15, Rep Cliff Stearns, R-Fl., chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations within the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, sent Planned Parenthood a letter announcing that the committee was investigating Planned Parenthood's "use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion." Under the rules articulated three months later by Komen, this letter instantly made Planned Parenthood ineligible for any Komen grant.

Stearns' letter was sent on the official stationery of the energy and commerce committee, with the name of the committee's ranking Democratic member, Henry Waxman, D-Calif., displayed in the upper right-hand corner as an imprimatur. But Waxman didn't sign the letter. In fact, two weeks later, Waxman and Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, sent Stearns a letter denouncing his investigation as a partisan sham. "This year, House Republicans have voted twice to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding," they observed. "You strongly supported these efforts, stating that 'defunding Planned Parenthood should be a fiscal and moral priority for Congress.' "

In sum, the investigation was created by one man. Using his committee stationery, he converted his politics into a controversy, triggering Komen's grant-refusal criteria.

Brinker is beginning to understand the problem. In her statement on Friday, she wrote, "We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/02/komen_s_planned_parenthood_controversy_rule_was_politics_by_another_name_.html

"...if every nurse emailed their representatives in government and told them to stop trying to block access to contraceptives, sexual education, and attempting to squash Planned Parenthood...."

Karen, what makes you think ALL nurses support Planned Parenthood? PP is indeed self-sustaining and will never go away. You think they do all those abortions for free? Check out for yourself what physicians and support staff are paid per abortion.

But the real issue here, as brought up in your letter, is nurse unity. You are right; if we all agree on something, we could be a force for change. The ANA has long been an ineffective figurehead for nurse unity. I cannot remember a single issue they have brought up to the administration that significantly improved our working environment. That is why I support the National Nurses United, a union first formed in California which has spread throughout the country. They are addressing real issues, such as the need for reasonable, safe nurse:patient ratios. And those ratios are determined not by hospital administrators, but by third-party researchers who have found that patients thrive with adequate nurses on board. (Which always makes me think "Duh.") The NNU was started by nurses who are not too far from direct patient care to remember what it's like to live through a nurse's workday.

I bet every nurse reading this letter agrees that short-staffing nurses is unsafe for patients and makes for a miserable work environment for nurses. To stop this, we will have to stand up to the hospital and health insurance industries. And we cannot do it alone. It will take all of us standing together to effect change. I'm ready.

Nurses are no different than the general population and a great many of us are not in favor of federal funds going to planned parenthood, governmental intrusion into religious institutions or abortion on demand. On the surface, your idea sounds interesting but upon further reflection, I find it flawed and probably not realistic.

DanB

Tampa, FL

+ Add a Comment