Report: Women misled on abortion risks

G

Guest

Guest
Report: Women misled on abortion risks

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060717/ap_on_he_me/abortion_counseling_centers


By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer 29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Women who consult with pregnancy resource centers often get misleading information about the health risks associated with having an abortion, according to a report issued Monday by Democrats on the
House Government Reform Committee.

Congressional aides, posing as pregnant 17-year-olds, called 25 pregnancy centers that have received some federal funding over the past five years.

The aides were routinely told of increased risk for cancer, infertility and stress disorders, said the report, which was prepared for Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

Only a small fraction of the more than 4,000 pregnancy clinics nationwide get any federal funding, mostly for promoting sexual abstinence.

With a few exceptions, the federal government doesn't give money specifically for the counseling operations, but Waxman's staff said 25 centers got "capacity building grants." Thus, Waxman said, they should be held accountable for the information they dispense.

Of the 25 centers called, two could not be reached. Eight told the caller that abortion leads to a greater risk of breast cancer, the report said.

Care Net, an umbrella group for evangelical pregnancy centers across the country, instructs its affiliates to tell callers there is a possibility that abortion can lead to greater risk of breast cancer, according to Molly Ford, an official with the organization. She said there have been several studies that say it does, and several that say it doesn't.

"I know the report is wanting to say that it's conclusive, but it isn't," Ford said.

None of the pregnancy centers the committee staff called was identified, and it could not be determined if any were linked to Care Net, which has helped about a quarter of the nation's pregnancy centers begin operations.

One pregnancy center told a congressional aide the risk of cancer after an abortion could be 80 percent higher, the report noted. Ford said she doubted a pregnancy center would go that far, but the Web site for a pregnancy center in Albuquerque says the risk for cancer after an abortion is 50 percent or greater.

In February 2003, a National Cancer Institute workshop concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.


The report from the Democratic aides also said the pregnancy resource centers provided false information about the mental health effects of abortion, telling the aides that it could cause severe long-term emotional harm.

However, an American Psychological Association panel said, "Severe negative reactions are rare."

But Ford said that pregnancy center counselors don't need statistics to tell them that many women undergoing an abortion experience severe emotional trauma.

"This isn't about a medical statistic to us. We do post-abortion counseling every day," Ford said.

The Administration for Children and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services funds the abstinence programs overseen by some of the pregnancy centers. Aides referred questions about the report to Wade Horn, a Health and Human Services assistant secretary, who did not want to comment until he read the report.

Waxman said that Americans are divided on the issue of abortion, but no one should support misleading teenagers about basic medical facts.

"It's wrong to pour millions of federal dollars into organizations that are providing false health information to vulnerable teenagers," Waxman said.




Unbelievable.
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
Unbelievable.

I find it quite believable, and am not surprised in the least. Can you think of a better way for the self righteous, bastard, Bible thumpers to prevent women from having abortions than from within the system itself? If you feed the people lies and propaganda from a source they trust, then you can get them to believe anything you want them to. Most girls who call such a place would probably believe it if they were told, by the center, that 65% of all women who have an abortion attempt suicide within the first year after the procedure, and that 40% of them succeed. I’m not saying that I think the girls are stupid or gullible, but the info is being received from what should be a credible source. It’s only natural that they ought to believe what the clinic tells them.
 
This is nothing new. I saw an article 4 years ago the claimed both the Scientologists and Anti-Abortion groups were setting phony abortion clinics to scare girls out of abortions.

They have no idea the dis-service they performed.

I hate the do-gooder groups that are out to save me whether I want to be saved or not.
 
This is SERIOUS business. Like the guy said, whatever your politics, false medical science is a major case of medical malpractice. Let the lawsuits begin. This time, I'll actually be rooting for the legal sharks, too.
 
Jenny_Jackson said:
This is nothing new. I saw an article 4 years ago the claimed both the Scientologists and Anti-Abortion groups were setting phony abortion clinics to scare girls out of abortions.

They have no idea the dis-service they performed.

I hate the do-gooder groups that are out to save me whether I want to be saved or not.
I'm fed up with all these religious pricks sticking their noses into my damned business. It's none of their business if I get an abortion, or suck a dick, or let some guy ass fuck me. It's not their concern if I decide I want to live with a woman in a domestic capacity, or if I get stoned out of my mind every Friday night. What does it have to do with them if I dress up like the Santa and severely “punish” my SO for being “naughty”, or any other damned thing that I take it into my head to do, so long as what I'm doing isn't hurting anyone who doesn't want to get hurt. In the case of abortion, I don't consider that anyone's being hurt because it's not actually a person yet. Until it's capable of sustaining its own life outside of its host, it's just a parasite with the potential for one day becoming a person, but that's a whole other subject...lol

You don't wanna do something? Fine with me, I won't try to make you, but you've got no call to be trying to force your “moral standards” onto me. These fuck twits have the right to live free of religious persecution. Well, I should have the right to live my life free religious domination.
 
[threadjack]
Tom Collins said:
What does it have to do with them if I dress up like the Santa and severely “punish” my SO for being “naughty”
So when's this story going to be posted?[/threadjack]
 
Some studies have shown that reading the Bible causes cancer.

No wait, i'm sorry... it's brain tumors.

Of course, the study is not conclusive... it could just be natural selection.

Sincerely,
ElSol
 
Tom Collins said:
I'm fed up with all these religious pricks sticking their noses into my damned business. It's none of their business if I get an abortion, or suck a dick, or let some guy ass fuck me. It's not their concern if I decide I want to live with a woman in a domestic capacity, or if I get stoned out of my mind every Friday night. What does it have to do with them if I dress up like the Santa and severely “punish” my SO for being “naughty”, or any other damned thing that I take it into my head to do, so long as what I'm doing isn't hurting anyone who doesn't want to get hurt. In the case of abortion, I don't consider that anyone's being hurt because it's not actually a person yet. Until it's capable of sustaining its own life outside of its host, it's just a parasite with the potential for one day becoming a person, but that's a whole other subject...lol

You don't wanna do something? Fine with me, I won't try to make you, but you've got no call to be trying to force your “moral standards” onto me. These fuck twits have the right to live free of religious persecution. Well, I should have the right to live my life free religious domination.

Be careful who you say that to, darling. I'm always amazed at the number of people who think they have the right to control my reproductive processes.
 
And when they do it around me I am sorely tempted to interfere with their reproductive processes by removing the equipment involved.

Bare handed.

And without anesthesia.

However, that would make me as bad as them, so I don't.
 
rgraham666 said:
And when they do it around me I am sorely tempted to interfere with their reproductive processes by removing the equipment involved.

Bare handed.

And without anesthesia.

However, that would make me as bad as them, so I don't.

Rob, I love you.

Now I'm going to go finish getting slightly smashed and collapse into something useful like writing porn.
 
a foot note, sweet sub

:rose:

one might add that the campaign against condoms has been going on for some time, spreading mis information.

most notably, that the AIDs virus passes through.

more recently that HPV is not controlled by condom use.

the US foreign aid funds are marked to that receiving entities may not promote condom use over abstinence.
 
I'm not anti abortion, not anti birth control, I believe in having the choice.

Anyhow, the lady asked said they were told to say that because several studies concluded it did and several that itdid not. What has this got to do with being anti-abortion. In this world of being sued for well, anything the person can manage to blame someone else for, surely this is just these folks covering their arses?

What if someone has an abortion, gets breast cancer, reads one of the studies that concludes that having abortion does increse your risk (and googling, you find a few of'em. ) then decides to sue the clinic for not warning of this risk? Now please, don't tell me you can't see that happening, in this society today.


And also, where is the assumption that all the people saying this are Christians? I see one mention of evangelical -thats it.

Honestly, to me, it looks like people covering their backs in just the way a packet of pills has a list of possible side effects.
 
English Lady said:
I'm not anti abortion, not anti birth control, I believe in having the choice.

Anyhow, the lady asked said they were told to say that because several studies concluded it did and several that itdid not. What has this got to do with being anti-abortion. In this world of being sued for well, anything the person can manage to blame someone else for, surely this is just these folks covering their arses?

What if someone has an abortion, gets breast cancer, reads one of the studies that concludes that having abortion does increse your risk (and googling, you find a few of'em. ) then decides to sue the clinic for not warning of this risk? Now please, don't tell me you can't see that happening, in this society today.


And also, where is the assumption that all the people saying this are Christians? I see one mention of evangelical -thats it.

Honestly, to me, it looks like people covering their backs in just the way a packet of pills has a list of possible side effects.
I'm sure that someone will now sue them for having a baby because they were talked out of it by a clinic that told them they'd get breast cancer if they did...lol...you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, EL.

BTW, I didn't say anything about Christians. I said Bible thumpers, and that covers everyone, reguardless of your sect, who feels it's ok to force their particular brand of morality onto other people. You, dearest :heart:EL:rose:, are not counted among such vermin. :kiss:
 
Tom Collins said:
I'm sure that someone will now sue them for having a baby because they were talked out of it by a clinic that told them they'd get breast cancer if they did...lol...you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, EL.

BTW, I didn't say anything about Christians. I said Bible thumpers, and that covers everyone, reguardless of your sect, who feels it's ok to force their particular brand of morality onto other people. You, dearest :heart:EL:rose:, are not counted among such vermin. :kiss:


As much as sometimes I wish I wasn't, I have to climb in the boat with the bible thumpers. We're all brothers and sisters, we do things differently, certainly but at the core we all profess to believe the same thing. So I'msorry if I go on the defensive, I just don't like ill being said of my family. (though i'm tempted to say ill myself sometimes, no, alot of times realy*L*)
 
English Lady said:
I'm not anti abortion, not anti birth control, I believe in having the choice.

Anyhow, the lady asked said they were told to say that because several studies concluded it did and several that itdid not. What has this got to do with being anti-abortion. In this world of being sued for well, anything the person can manage to blame someone else for, surely this is just these folks covering their arses?

What if someone has an abortion, gets breast cancer, reads one of the studies that concludes that having abortion does increse your risk (and googling, you find a few of'em. ) then decides to sue the clinic for not warning of this risk? Now please, don't tell me you can't see that happening, in this society today.


And also, where is the assumption that all the people saying this are Christians? I see one mention of evangelical -thats it.

Honestly, to me, it looks like people covering their backs in just the way a packet of pills has a list of possible side effects.

It is forced morality, EL. Forced governmental morality, in the guise of unbiased medical information and procedure.
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
It is forced morality, EL. Forced governmental morality, in the guise of unbiased medical information and procedure.

To me, it doesn't look like that, but I am an outsider, but to me it looks like covering ass. Like the daft messages on irons telling you not to use whilst clothes are being worn and the other things like that born of this compensation culture.

It doesn't seem to me to be about morality at all.


I think I must be the otherside of the coin :)
 
English Lady said:
To me, it doesn't look like that, but I am an outsider, but to me it looks like covering ass. Like the daft messages on irons telling you not to use whilst clothes are being worn and the other things like that born of this compensation culture.

It doesn't seem to me to be about morality at all.

I think I must be the otherside of the coin :)

It breaks my heart to read these disclosures, actually.

I think of a young uneducated woman who attends one of these clinics (that receives governmental funding) and is told, by a seemingly kind, well-informed nurse, that she has an 80% more chance of breast cancer if she has an abortion.

How much more anguish shall we dump on her?

edited to add: EL, if they wished to cover their asses, they could write this information up in a handy pamphlet and give it to every patient. But they haven't done that - it would show proof that they've been deliberately misinforming the masses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
English Lady said:
To me, it doesn't look like that, but I am an outsider, but to me it looks like covering ass. Like the daft messages on irons telling you not to use whilst clothes are being worn and the other things like that born of this compensation culture.

It doesn't seem to me to be about morality at all.


I think I must be the otherside of the coin :)

If they are just covering their asses, they should give ALL the facts and let girls or women or others involved make up their minds. I've never been pregnant but I have had a few scares. I would have had an abortion if they had turned out to be real.
 
Wow...

This opens up a whole can of worms, Sarahh,

Like the anti-abortion crowd who bomb abortion clinics, killing and injuring medical personnel in their blind march to save the unborn, rants from half the pulpets in America spewing anti-abortion venom and so on.

But the bigger problem lies with the current Federal Administration and their ties to the far right wing "moral majority". Bush suckered them into supporting him based on his "born again" status and now they want payback. The invoice they handed Bush included, "friendly" supreme court appointements, denial of basic human rites for indegents, lower standards for "tax free" exemptions and other things, directly aimed at promoting their own self-centered aims.

Somehow, I don't buy it. But then I'm really an anarchist at heart anyway :)
 
Jenny_Jackson said:
This opens up a whole can of worms, Sarahh,

Like the anti-abortion crowd who bomb abortion clinics, killing and injuring medical personnel in their blind march to save the unborn, rants from half the pulpets in America spewing anti-abortion venom and so on.

But the bigger problem lies with the current Federal Administration and their ties to the far right wing "moral majority". Bush suckered them into supporting him based on his "born again" status and now they want payback. The invoice they handed Bush included, "friendly" supreme court appointements, denial of basic human rites for indegents, lower standards for "tax free" exemptions and other things, directly aimed at promoting their own self-centered aims.

Somehow, I don't buy it. But then I'm really an anarchist at heart anyway :)

I think these guys are worse in a way. The bombers are haters and we know that. They do a lot of damage but we can try to avoid them. These others are sneaky. They pretend to be our friends but lie to us and give us advice that they know is against our best interests. I don't know if you could call them traitors or not but they are certainly fifth columnists.
 
Ah, the "you risk your health if you do what you want" argument! Don't we just love it?

In the 1800, women were warned that if they chose to study instead of getting married, their uteruses could break off and start wandering around inside the body.

In 2000, we're told that removing tissue from your uterus can cause your breasts to grow tumours.

What will we be told in 2200?
 
Svenskaflicka said:
Ah, the "you risk your health if you do what you want" argument! Don't we just love it?

In the 1800, women were warned that if they chose to study instead of getting married, their uteruses could break off and start wandering around inside the body.

In 2000, we're told that removing tissue from your uterus can cause your breasts to grow tumours.

What will we be told in 2200?

If we masturbate we'll go blind?

Oh wait....they already tried that one. ;)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Svenskaflicka
Ah, the "you risk your health if you do what you want" argument! Don't we just love it?

In the 1800, women were warned that if they chose to study instead of getting married, their uteruses could break off and start wandering around inside the body.

In 2000, we're told that removing tissue from your uterus can cause your breasts to grow tumours.

What will we be told in 2200?


cloudy said:
If we masturbate we'll go blind?

Oh wait....they already tried that one. ;)

Maybe they will tell us that if we masturbate, our hands will get hairy.
 
Back
Top