Abortion

Be Alert For Ectopic Pregnancy After Self-Managed Abortion

Posted by

0


It’s “important that clinicians know what’s normal after medication abortion,” expert says

A computer rendering of an ectopic pregnancy

Clinicians in the emergency department (ED) and primary care settings should be prepared to spot complications of self-managed abortion, according to a case report.

A patient who had attempted self-managed abortion presented to the ED with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy that went undetected, reported Isabel Beshar, MD, of Stanford University in California, and colleagues.

They explained in a correspondence to the New England Journal of Medicineopens in a new tab or window that the 22-year-old patient was just over 5 weeks pregnant when she presented to the ED with severe abdominal pain 6 days after taking the abortion medications mifepristone (Mifeprex) and misoprostol. The patient had no prior births.

ED physicians initially performed a pelvic ultrasound, which showed that the patient had an empty uterus and small-volume intra-abdominal bleeding. Because of the patient’s history of medication abortion, clinicians presumed that the pregnancy was terminated and that the patient’s condition was due to a hemorrhagic cyst rupture.

But another 6 days later, the patient returned to the ED with even more pain. A diagnostic laparoscopy revealed that the patient had a ruptured right tubal ectopic pregnancy that was removed without further complications.

Many states have restricted abortion since the Supreme Court ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationopens in a new tab or window, with at least 13 states banning most of the procedures entirelyopens in a new tab or window. Increased abortion restrictions are pushing many patients to self-managed abortion, Beshar told MedPage Today.

Initial evidence shows that self-managed abortion, defined as any action taken to end a pregnancy outside of the formal healthcare system and including the use of abortion medications, has become more common since the Dobbs decision. Daily requests to Aid Access — an online abortion pill provider — jumped from an average of 80 requests a day before the Supreme Court ruling to more than 200 after the decisionopens in a new tab or window came down last Juneopens in a new tab or window, a recent study found.

“Looking ahead, more people will opt to manage their pregnancies outside of the formal medical system,” Beshar said in an email. “The healthcare system has not yet adjusted to this paradigm shift, and this case reflects the current uncertainty around management.”

Beshar added that some people in states that restrict abortion care may not feel comfortable revealing their decision to self-manage, due to “legitimate fear of criminalization.” She said that providers should consider obtaining an ultrasound and assess beta human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels for women presenting with a history of medication abortion, or even those with a positive pregnancy test and pain. “Above all, providers should maintain patient confidentiality and trust,” she added.

Beshar and colleagues stated in the report that clinicians should have increased concerns of ectopic pregnancy in patients with a recent medical abortion who:

  • Do not have prior confirmation of intrauterine pregnancy
  • Do not have a previous ectopic pregnancy or tubal surgery
  • Do not have an intrauterine device
  • Do not have an ultrasound showing abdominal free fluid

Daniel Grossman, MD, director of the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, was not involved with this case report, but told MedPage Today that as patients present for follow-up care in EDs and primary care settings after attempting to end their pregnancies, it’s “important that clinicians know what’s normal after medication abortion.”

Symptoms such as severe abdominal pain days after a termination can be a red flag for clinicians that patients may need follow-up care, including hCG tests to confirm termination, Grossman said.

“We always have to be alert to someone having an ectopic pregnancy if they have not had a prior confirmation of intrauterine pregnancy,” he added. Grossman encouraged providers to ask patients who present with abnormal symptoms if they’ve had a prior ultrasound to confirm their pregnancy.

Ectopic pregnancy is a “rare, but very serious complication” of pregnancy that is not limited to patients seeking abortion care, Grossman said. The incidence of ectopic pregnancy among patients seeking abortion care is very low, approximately 0.07 per 1,000, Beshar’s group noted. But they added that despite the low risk, ruptured ectopic pregnancy remains an important cause of pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality that clinicians should be aware about.

“While self-managed abortion has been shown to be safe and effective, it does not include some of the same safety checks for rare, but potentially serious, complications such as ectopic pregnancy,” Beshar said. “Healthcare providers caring for people after a self-managed abortion should keep in mind these small risks.”

Abortion restrictions could impact isotretinoin prescriptions

Posted by

0


A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision sending abortion rights back to the states could have serious implications for patients on isotretinoin and other dermatologic drugs.

“There are serious ethical, moral and emotional consequences to this Supreme Court decision for patients taking medications that are prescribed to them that could hurt their developing fetus,” Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD, FAAD, vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology, pathology and pediatrics at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine and Health Center, told Healio.

DERM0822Grant_Graphic_01
The recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade could have lasting implications for many patients on acne medications.

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision on June 24 effectively overruled the Roe v. Wade decision of 1972, which had declared abortion a constitutional right. With this new decision, the matter of abortion was sent back to the states, where several had “trigger laws” in place to immediately outlaw the practice and, for many others, legislation is now pending to do the same.

Grant-Kels, who is also the founding director of the cutaneous oncology center and melanoma program and associate director of the University of Connecticut School of Medicine and Health’s dermatology residency program, is one of a group of dermatologists speaking out about how practices may have to change their approach to certain medications due to this decision.

Isotretinoin, commonly prescribed for severe acne, is teratogenic, meaning it can cause serious malformations to a fetus. There is a 20% to 35% risk for congenital abnormalities in pregnant patients on isotretinoin, according to Grant-Kels and colleagues. The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision affects a host of other dermatological medications; however, isotretinoin is one most often prescribed in the dermatology world that will be affected by this ruling.

Patients of childbearing age are counseled throughout isotretinoin use to use regular birth control and are required to take monthly pregnancy tests. However, with no form of birth control being 100% effective except for complete abstinence, pregnancies do still occur. If a patient does become pregnant while on isotretinoin, termination is often recommended due to the risks to the fetus, according to Grant-Kels and colleagues.

“In those states where abortion is not an option, if a young girl on isotretinoin for acne gets pregnant, she will not have a local option for an abortion to terminate her pregnancy,” Grant-Kels said. “This is going to alter in certain states the medications we choose to use or not use. It also takes autonomy, or the right to have control over your own health care, away from these women.”

Isotretinoin is efficacious in treating severe, scarring acne, according to Grant-Kels and colleagues. Without abortion available, many dermatologists may stop prescribing it to women of childbearing age, leaving these patients with lifelong scars.

“If you take isotretinoin out of my toolbox, there are women who are going to walk around with permanent scars from acne for the rest of their lives. And if you have a child with fetal abnormalities, it can mean financial and emotional turmoil for a family,” Grant-Kels said.

In light of this decision, dermatologists need to find a new algorithm for acne treatment in the states where abortion is not available. Many dermatologists may choose not to prescribe isotretinoin if abortion access is limited, meaning patients will have to rely on other less effective medications or treatments, Grant-Kels and colleagues wrote.

These options could include long-term antibiotics, which could lead to antibiotic resistance; topical medications or cosmetic treatments such as pulsed dye lasers, radiofrequency devices or intense pulsed light sources; and photodynamic therapy.

Since many of these products are not covered by insurance, a disparity arises between those who can afford these treatments out-of-pocket and those who cannot.

“I think we need to have very long discussions with patients now,” Grant-Kels said. “There’s a whole list of medications, most of which could be lifesaving and certainly life altering, and to remove them from our toolbox, which this law does, takes away physician autonomy and patient autonomy.”

Pregnant Mom Diagnosed With Cancer Rejects Abortion, After Birth Now She’s Cancer-Free

Posted by

0


A Detroit, Michigan pro-life advocate refused to give up hope when she found out she had terminal breast cancer while pregnant with her youngest son.

Jessica Hanna told EWTN News that she has been passionate about the pro-life issue ever since she was young, and her pregnancy last year challenged her to put her beliefs into action.

“It was just a journey of, ‘Wow. Now you’ve talked the talk, the pro-life talk. Now, you’ve become the woman everybody uses in their arguments: What if the woman’s life is in danger?’” Hanna said. “And now it’s time for me to walk the walk.”

Even though several doctors advised her to have an abortion, Hanna chose life. A Catholic, she prayed – and asked people on social media to pray, too – and eventually was healed of cancer, according to the report.

Before getting pregnant with her son, Hanna said she noticed a dent in her breast and went to the doctor. However, the doctor misdiagnosed it, saying the abnormality was benign, according to the report.

Less then a month went by and Hanna discovered she was pregnant. At an appointment with her OB-GYN, she said she asked the doctor to look at the dent again and the doctor determined that it was cancerous.

At 14 weeks of pregnancy, Hanna said she learned that she likely had terminal cancer; her tumor was 13 centimeters and doctors believed the cancer probably was spreading to other parts of her body. She said she sought opinions from approximately 10 different doctors, and more than one advised her to have an abortion.

But “it was not necessary at all. My prognosis didn’t change. My treatment plan did not change — pregnant or not pregnant,” she continued. “Many people are not aware chemotherapy can be actually quite safe during pregnancy. I chose the middle road that I would do some chemotherapy with some modifications …”

While she underwent chemotherapy, Hanna prayed for healing regularly at the tomb of Blessed Father Solanus Casey, according to EWTN. She and her husband later named their son Thomas Solanus after him.

“I prayed at his tomb for me to be miraculously healed and for my son to come out beautiful and healthy,” she said.

Hoping to encourage others struggling with difficult pregnancies, Hanna also set up a social media page to share her story and ask people to pray.

“I thought no suffering should ever go to waste,” Hanna told EWTN. “I don’t know where God is taking me. Is he going to take me to the path where I need to show people how to die gracefully, with his grace and mercy? Or is he going to show a miracle?”

Hanna gave birth to a healthy baby boy – the first miracle. Then, doctors discovered that the chemotherapy had worked, and she was in remission – another miracle, she told EWTN.

And if not for her son, Thomas, Hanna said she might not be alive.

“He’s the one that actually saved my life because if it wasn’t for me getting pregnant, I wouldn’t have double checked it,” she continued.

Hanna encouraged women who are struggling to trust in God and remember that they are not alone, because Christ also suffered. By sharing her story, she said she hopes to encourage others to hope in times of trouble.

“I decided to use the social media that no matter what you think is going to happen, it’s trust in God that is the most important … That you are going to abandon your own desires and wants and you’re going to leave it at the foot of the cross and let him take care of it,” she said.

The best response to US criminalisation of abortion is decriminalisation elsewhere

Posted by

0


In 2008, 4.4 million abortions were performed in Latin America, 95% of which were “unsafe.”1 By 2015, the region recorded the highest number of maternal deaths per head. Women’s rights groups catalysed legal and social mobilisation–“the green wave”–to decriminalise abortion. Their success, to which Mexico was central, can be measured by the fact that three of the region’s four most populous nations have decriminalised abortion. The green wave movement had looked to women’s rights in the United States for inspiration. Now, with the US Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade, sexual and reproductive rights are under threat globally.23

The US is polarised on abortion, but criminalising abortion, as many states in the US are now doing,4 is harmful and costs lives.5 It disproportionately affects the poorest, most marginalised, and most vulnerable. The ripple effects of the decision taken by the US Supreme Court will sweep through America and across the world. It will manifest in political, legal, religious, financial, and civil society action against women seeking abortion, the groups that support them, and health professionals providing abortion services and requiring education and training.6 In these circumstances, how is criminalising abortion moral or ethical? It isn’t evidence based.

The global picture, however, is complex. For the many countries that are decriminalising abortion in Latin America, some–notably Brazil–remain opposed. Despite many US states following the Supreme Court ruling, the Republican state of Kansas recently voted to allow abortion.7 In the UK, although the public and politicians are supportive of abortion, it remains a criminal act under certain circumstances.8 Only Northern Ireland in the UK has decriminalised abortion, but that sea change in law is not yet matched by provision of services. Abortion laws, then, are not entirely driven by preconceptions about political leanings or religious orthodoxy.

Abortion, of course, isn’t the only medical issue where the voice of the evidence is lost amid populist clamour and political opportunism. This week’s examples are the “zombie policy” of user charges for missed appointments 9 and introducing prostate cancer screening under the guise of “case finding.”10 Isolating the evidence signals from the noise–whether it is about the safety of covid vaccines in pregnancy,11 the new clinical features of monkeypox,1213 or how best to limit sitting time in office based work 14–is as much a responsibility of policy and law makers as it is of clinicians.

The signal about abortion is clear: decriminalising abortion is best for women’s health and rights. If there is a global response to the US turning back time and endangering health, it needs to be that the green wave of decriminalisation in Latin America becomes a Mexican wave around the globe.

Travel distance to facility represents barrier to abortion care in US

Posted by

0


Women who lived farther from an abortion facility were more likely to experience delays in obtaining abortion care or were unable to access it, according to data published in JAMA Network Open.

The findings have added significance if abortion access in the United States becomes even more restricted in the future, leaving women to travel greater distances to receive care.

“Our findings highlight that travel distance to reach a clinic is already a substantial barrier to abortion access in the U.S.” Elizabeth A. Pleasants, MPH

“Previous studies that examined barriers to abortion have frequently been done by interviewing patients at abortion clinics,” Elizabeth A. Pleasants, MPH, a doctoral candidate at the University of California School of Public Health in Berkeley, California, told Healio. “However, this study design excludes people with the greatest barriers to abortion — those who never made it to the clinic. This study was initiated to better understand the barriers people face by interviewing people seeking an abortion provider much earlier in the process — at the point of their search for abortion resources on Google.”

Defining the cohort, outcomes

Pleasants and colleagues analyzed data from the prospective Google Ads Abortion Access study, which used advertisements to recruit pregnant people in all 50 states and Washington, D.C, who were considering abortion — based on their internet search histories — between August 2017 and May 2018.

In total, 856 participants were eligible for analyses based on their responses in surveys at baseline and 4 weeks. The researchers reviewed survey responses to evaluate whether participants had an abortion, were still seeking an abortion or had decided to continue with pregnancy. They also reviewed participants’ responses regarding eight distance-related barriers to abortion care, which included:

  • gathering funds for travel expenses;
  • keeping the abortion secret;
  • taking time off work/school;
  • arranging for transportation;
  • making multiple clinic visits;
  • arranging for child care or care for another family member;
  • distance; and
  • not knowing where to get an abortion.

Prevalence, impact of barriers

The cohort mainly consisted of participants aged 25 to 34 years (51.8%) who were white (54.8%), had some college education (55.5%), had public health insurance (52.1%) and lived in states with restricted abortion access (60.2%).

“We found that overall, less than half (48%) of participants obtained their desired abortion 4 weeks later,” Pleasants said.

Most participants (89.1%) reported at least one distance-related barrier to abortion, and a mean of 3.3 barriers (95% CI, 3.2-3.5) were reported by the entire cohort. Participants living 25 to 49 miles or 50 miles or more from an abortion clinic were significantly more likely to report all distance-related barriers — excluding taking time off from work/school — compared with participants living less than 5 miles from a clinic.

Adjusted modeling showed that participants living 50 or more miles from an abortion facility were significantly more likely to still be pregnant and seeking an abortion (adjusted OR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.35-3.17) or planning to continue with their pregnancy (aOR = 1.96; 95% CI, 1.06-3.63, respectively) compared with those living within 5 miles of a facility.

“Our findings highlight that travel distance to reach a clinic is already a substantial barrier to abortion access in the U.S.,” Pleasants said. “As abortion becomes even more restricted, travel distance will only become more of a barrier to abortion care. Innovative approaches to abortion provision — such as telehealth provision and effective support for self-managed medication abortion — can mitigate the harmful effects of long travel distance to reach an abortion clinic.”

In light of the upcoming Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Pleasants said more research on the impact of distance on abortion access is necessary.

PERSPECTIVE

 Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH)

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH

Abortion is essential, time-sensitive health care. However, patients seeking abortion care face significant barriers to obtaining these services, including cost, stigma and, in some cases, significant travel distances to reach an abortion provider.

This study examined the association between travel distance to the nearest facility providing abortions and pregnancy outcome — whether an individual obtained an abortion, was still seeking an abortion or planned to continue the pregnancy — in a cohort of 856 participants seeking information about abortion services.

The study found that the mean distance to an abortion facility is 28.3 miles, and that participants living 50 miles or more from a facility had approximately twice the odds of still being pregnant and seeking an abortion or planning to continue the pregnancy compared with participants living within 5 miles.

Rigorous research from the Turnaway Study tells us that when people who want abortions can’t obtain them, they are more likely to have health complications and other problems throughout their lives. While the study described above is not nationally representative, it suggests that there will be significant implications of greater travel distance to abortion providers — a problem that will substantially escalate as states ban or restrict abortion in the coming months and travel distances increase.

If Roe vs Wade is overturned, abortion pills may become the new debate.

Posted by

0


https://www.wionews.com/world/if-roe-vs-wade-is-overturned-abortion-pills-may-become-the-new-debate-476763?utm_source=izooto&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=US:%20Abortion%20pills%20to%20become%20new%20debate?

With INFANTICIDE now a core “value” of Democrats, all decent, life-loving human beings must denounce the Democrat party

Posted by

0


Image: With INFANTICIDE now a core “value” of Democrats, all decent, life-loving human beings must denounce the Democrat party

There’s no two ways about it anymore: the Democrat Party is evil beyond words. And with the Democrats’ recent voting down of a bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, that would have protected the lives of newly-born children from being murdered alive by abortionists, it’s now undeniably evident that there’s no possible way for decent human beings who support human rights and life in general to, in any way, identify as Democrats.

As if their love for abortion wasn’t already bad enough, today’s Democrats see nothing wrong with delivering the child victims of failed abortions and allowing them to die on the delivery table, all in the name of “reproductive rights” and “choice.” This newfound adoption of infanticide, a.k.a. baby murder, as one of their core “values” proves once and for all that Democrats hate human life, and openly embrace the “progressive” policy of murdering babies after they’ve already left the womb.

We might as well start referring to the Democrat Party as the Death Party – the party that will “cry” over the deaths of children whenever it suits their agenda of trying to scrap the Second Amendment, but that hoots, hollers, cheers, and claps when legislation is passed and signed that allows newborn babies to be chopped into bits and trashed as “medical waste” upon breathing their first breath of air.

There’s certainly no place for real Christians in the Democrat Party, which embraces pretty much every evil thing that the Bible condemns. Whether it’s brainwashing innocent children into believing that there are unlimited genders, or silencing free speech about the dangers of vaccines, the Democrat Party wants to destroy all that is good and wholesome, and replace it with every type of vice and wickedness.

Sponsored solution from the Health Ranger Store: The Big Berkey water filter removes almost 100% of all contaminants using only the power of gravity (no electricity needed, works completely off-grid). Widely consider the ultimate “survival” water filter, the Big Berkey is made of stainless steel and has been laboratory verified for high-efficiency removal of heavy metals by CWC Labs, with tests personally conducted by Mike Adams. Explore more here.

For more related news about the evil agenda of the Democrat Party and its army of “resistance” Leftists, be sure to check out LiberalMob.com and Libtards.news.

https://www.brighteon.com/embed/6003973369001

Things have taken a major turn for the worse since 2002, when a bipartisan Senate UNANIMOUSLY affirmed that born-alive children are human beings deserving of life

Believe it or not, it wasn’t that long ago that Democrats, or at least some of them, still had some level of conscience within their beings. Back in 2002, in fact, Democrats in the Senate unanimously, along with Republicans, voted to pass the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This bill recognized all born children as “human persons,” affording them the same rights and protections as all other humans.

But somehow over the years, the Democrat Party decided that granting human life status to newborn babies infringed upon “women’s rights,” and here we are today.

“In just over a decade and a half, Democrats have gone from ‘safe, legal, and rare abortions’ to ‘kill ’em all and don’t stop when they’re born,’” writes Matt Walsh for The Daily Wire. “Many of us warned that the first slogan would lead eventually to the second. We take no pleasure in our vindication.”

As you may recall, it was the Republican Party that had to step up to the plate in the past to stamp out another evil known as slavery, which was openly embraced by the Democrat Party. And it’s now up to Republicans once again to intervene on behalf of society’s most vulnerable, unborn and newborn babies, to protect them from the Democrat Party death cult.

“It is probably not a coincidence that the Democrat Party, through its long and sordid history, has supported both of those peculiar institutions,” Walsh adds about the Democrats’ support for both slavery and baby murder.

“What a force for evil it has been. But what amazing consistency – to always fall on the wrong side of every human rights issue.”

U.S. Isolated at U.N. Over Its Concerns About Abortion, Refugees

Posted by

0


The United States found itself isolated in the 193-member United Nations General Assembly on Monday over Washington’s concerns about the promotion of abortion and a voluntary plan to address the global refugee crisis.

Only Hungary backed the United States and voted against an annual resolution on the work of the U.N. refugee agency, while 181 countries voted in favor and three abstained. The resolution has generally been approved by consensus for more than 60 years.

However, this year the resolution included approval of a compact on refugees, which was produced by U.N. refugee chief Filippo Grandi after it was requested by the General Assembly in 2016. The resolution calls on countries to implement the plan.

The United States was the only country to oppose the draft resolution last month when it was first negotiated and agreed by the General Assembly human rights committee. It said elements of the text ran counter to its sovereign interests, citing the global approach to refugees and migrants.

General Assembly resolutions are non-binding but can carry political weight. U.S. President Donald Trump used his annual address to world leaders at the United Nations in September to tout protection of U.S. sovereignty.

The United States also failed in a campaign, which started last month during negotiations on several draft resolutions in the General Assembly human rights committee, against references to “sexual and reproductive health” and “sexual and reproductive health-care services.”

It has said the language has “accumulated connotations that suggest the promotion of abortion or a right to abortion that are unacceptable to our administration.”

On Monday, Washington unsuccessfully tried to remove two paragraphs from a General Assembly resolution on preventing violence and sexual harassment of women and girls. It was the only country to vote against the language, while 131 countries voted to keep it in the resolution and 31 abstained.

The United States also failed in trying to remove similar language in another resolution on child, early and forced marriage on Monday, saying: “We do not recognize abortion as a method of family planning, nor do we support abortion in our reproductive health assistance.”

Only Nauru backed Washington in voting against the language, while 134 countries voted to keep it in the resolution and 32 abstained.

When Trump came to power last year he reinstated the so-called Mexico City Policy that withholds U.S. funding for international organizations that perform abortions or provide information about abortion.

Reuse, Reduce, Reproductive Rights: How Abortion Can Help Save the Planet

Posted by

0


Reuse, Reduce, Reproductive Rights: How Abortion Can Help Save the Planet

On Friday, the UN released its list of sustainability goals for the next 15 years, and achieving gender equality and empowering women and girls was number five on the list. According to experts like Allison Doody, an international advocacy associate, there’s no way we can do that without access to safe abortions.

VICE is supporting the launch of the Global Goals for sustainable development. In the next fifteen years, these initiatives want to achieve three massive tasks: end extreme poverty, fight inequality and injustice, and fix climate change.

On Friday, the UN released its list of sustainability goals (SDGs) for the next 15 years, and achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls was number five on the list. Of the 16 other interrelated goals, issues around climate change featured prominently. As the regional director of Planned Parenthood, Carmen Barroso, urged in her New York Times op-ed, one way to combat gender inequality along with promoting environmental sustainability is to support women’s right to abortion and contraception. This year, a report by the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health concluded that improving access to family planning services is the most cost-effective way to address population growth, food insecurity, and climate change. The report estimated that a $9.4 billion annual investment in reproductive health would prevent 52 million unintended pregnancies every year and provide 16 to 29 percent of the needed emissions reductions to slow global climate change. And while the ancillary environmental effects are great, we can’t forget that there are 225 million women in the world who want to use contraception but don’t have access.

To find out more about how access to contraception and safe abortions could save the planet, Broadly spoke to Allison Doody, an International Advocacy Associate at PAI, an organization that aims to put women in charge of their sexual health. PAI is currently working to end US policies—like the Global Gag Rule and the Helms Amendment, which prevents the foreign aid from supporting abortion as a method of family planning—that block both American women and women overseas from exercising their reproductive rights. They also work with local advocates in India, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Pakistan to protect these human rights.

BROADLY: Is reproductive health an important aspect of environmental sustainability?
Allison Doody: Reproductive health and rights are an important aspect of environmental sustainability. Today, progress on sustainable development is increasingly being threatened by destructive extraction of natural resources, weak health systems, and the inability of women to make their own choices about their fertility. The resulting high rates of disease, maternal and child death, and destruction of natural environments undermine efforts to create healthy and thriving communities. The urgency and the interconnected nature of these challenges require integrated solutions that improve access to sexual and reproductive health services in hard-to-reach and underserved areas, while empowering communities with the knowledge and tools needed to manage their natural resources in ways that conserve critical ecosystems, contribute to better health outcomes, and expand livelihoods—all key components of the SDGs.

Access to safe abortion is a right, a moral imperative, and a matter of public health.

In your opinion, are the UN goals emphasizing the importance of family planning enough?
While there is always room for improvement, the newly adopted Agenda 2030 and the SDGs are a step in the right direction. They go beyond what was included in the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) by including targets on achieving universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, including family planning. Reproductive health was specifically called out as one of the MDGs that is most off-track and in need of increased attention. There is an entire goal devoted to achieving gender equality, and a recognition that achieving gender equality is needed to meet all the goals and targets.

Still, we need to make sure that the SDGs—particularly those that directly address sexual and reproductive health, reproductive rights, and family planning—are prioritized. We must ensure that indicators are in place to measure progress on policies that respect and protect the reproductive rights of all people. Governments need to meet the goals and targets to which they have agreed. They also need to work in partnership with civil society, especially women and girls, to develop policies that fulfill human and sexual and reproductive rights.

 It’s clear that reproductive health is not necessarily a priority in our own government. We almost defunded Planned Parenthood last week, and we still have laws like the Helms Amendment in place. How can we make sure that the UN’s sustainability goals prioritize all forms of reproductive control, including abortion?
As advocates, our task is clear. To ensure the SDGs prioritize all forms of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, we must do as the preamble of the Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development says. We must “pledge that no one will be left behind.”

Not only must we make sure that every intervention is of high quality, including sexual and reproductive health education, information, and services, but we must also support women when they demand their right to access safe abortion. We cannot reach Target 3.1, which calls on us to “reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births” by 2030, without talking about access to safe abortion. Access to safe abortion is a right, a moral imperative, and a matter of public health. While we have nearly halved maternal mortality over the past two and a half decades, nearly 290,000 women worldwide still die each year as a result of pregnancy and childbirth—13 percent of which result from unsafe abortion. It’s clear that unsafe abortion is a factor in increased maternal mortality. How can we not talk about access to safe abortion?

If women have access to quality family planning and reproductive health, that will have positive impacts in all aspects of their lives.

Contraception helps lower U.S. abortion rate.

Posted by

0


If opponents of reproductive rights are eager to see a drop in the national abortion rate, the movement should be pleased with the recent progress.

Image: US-POLITICS-ABORTION-FILES

The abortion rate and the number of abortions has fallen 13%, with just 1.1 million abortions in 2011, according to a new study by the Guttmacher Institute.
Just 16.9 per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 got an abortion in 2011.
It’s the lowest rate since the year the Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide, 1973. Guttmacher has been periodically surveying abortion providers since the 1970s and surveyed four years for the current study, looking at abortion from 2008 to 2011.
The entirety of the 12-page Guttmacher Institute report is online here (pdf). Note that similar data for 2012 and 2013 is not yet available, so we can’t say with confidence whether or not the trend is continuing.
Because the sharp drop in the abortion rate occurred after the 2010 midterms, when conservative lawmakers at the state level launched an unprecedented campaign to restrict women’s access to abortion services, it may be tempting the plunge is directly related to new state policies. In other words, opponents of abortion rights were elected; they immediately got to work on new restrictions; and the drop in the abortion rate is proof their efforts succeeded in their intended goal.
But that’s not what the researchers found. “With abortion rates falling in almost all states, our study did not find evidence that the national decline in abortions during this period was the result of new state abortion restrictions. We also found no evidence that the decline was linked to a drop in the number of abortion providers during this period,” says Rachel Jones, lead author of the study.
In fact, in states with fewer abortion restrictions, the rate dropped just as much, if not more, than in states imposing new restrictions.
So what explains the sharp reduction?
Guttmacher Institute researchers pointed in part to the weak economic recovery, which drove the overall birth rate down, but also stressed access to contraception.
Jane Timm’s report added, “[C]ontraceptives themselves may be lowering the rate of abortion, due to the availability of highly effective long-term contraceptive, like the IUD. During the four years of the study, long-term contraceptive use rose from 4 to 11%.”
Given results like these, it’s curious that so many conservative lawmakers have been so aggressive in trying to limit access to contraception, with support for litigation and legislation intended to empower religious employers to cut off employees’ access to birth control.
If the goal is to reduce unwanted pregnancies and lower the abortion rate, it would seem the right would want more access to contraception, not less.