Blog Post

Why Prohibit Late Term Abortions

Introduction

Late abortions (after 24 weeks gestational age) are extreme by any national and international comparison. Just seven of the 50 States in the US permit unrestricted abortion after 24 weeks.1 Internationally, only five of the 198 countries, independent states, and semi-autonomous regions with populations exceeding 1 million permit abortion after 24 weeks.2 Three of the five nations that permit late abortion are notorious human rights abusers: China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Colorado should not aspire to join the ranks of the few states and countries that dehumanize the late term fetus and permit the killing of these most vulnerable human beings. Colorado should also not jeopardize the health of Colorado women by allowing the unregulated out-patient practice of late abortion which is known to pose serious risks to the health and life of the woman.3

Late abortion is predicated on the notion that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus’ right to life. Both prolife and prochoice advocates would agree that a woman’s autonomy is an extremely important value; however, both sides differ on whether autonomy supersedes another human being’s fundamental right to life. These competing rights are why proponents of access to late abortion go to extreme lengths to minimize the humanity of the fetus. They refer to “terminating the pregnancy” as if the termination could occur without killing a vital, developing human being. Orwellian language is utilized to refer to the crushed and dismembered fetus as “products of conception” or simply “POC”. A recent series on abortion rights by the Editorial Board of The New York Times refers to the developing human merely as a “cluster of cells” as if her brain, heart, circulatory system, appendages, hands/feet and nervous system were immaterial.3 Even the preferred term “fetus” is an attempt to dehumanize the developing human. OB-GYN physicians commonly refer to the “baby” during a woman’s wanted pregnancy, but abortionists will rarely refer to the “fetus”, much less use the term “baby”, when counseling a woman on abortion.

There is little doubt that there is a bipartisan consensus that late abortions should be regulated. According to a 2018 Gallup poll, only 18% of Democrats, 13% of Independents, and 6% of Republicans believe that third trimester abortions should be legal.5 The polling presumably reflects the public’s widespread recognition that late abortion kills a human being not materially different than a newborn infant and that late abortion represents a substantial medical risk to the pregnant woman.


Is the 24 week fetus a human being?

Human embryology has long attested to the fact that human life begins at fertilization and that human development is a seamless, continuous process that continues for years past birth. A primordial heart develops in the human embryo by the third week (post fertilization) and begins to pump blood by the fourth week.6 Rapid development of the brain occurs in the fifth week. By the eighth week, the embryo has distinctly human characteristics, developed the beginnings of all major organ systems, and demonstrates purposeful limb movements. During the 17th week, the mother can feel the fetal movements.

Fetal surgeries, in which the fetus is operated on by specially trained fetal surgeons and anesthesiologists, have been pursued as early as the 19th- week gestation (post last menstrual period).7-8 Fetuses have been born in the 21st-week gestation with excellent neurodevelopmental outcomes.9 Based on studies performed on infants born at 24 weeks gestation between 2004 and 2011, 58-77% survive with active treatment.10-11

While there is considerable debate concerning when the fetus can experience pain, it is very likely that a 24-week-old fetus can experience pain – perhaps more intensely than an infant or adult. Some researchers argue that a functional mesodiencephalon is all that is required and that a fetus as young as 15 weeks gestation can perceive pain.12 Because inhibitory descending serotonin pathways in the nociceptive system mature only after birth, the fetus might be even more sensitive to pain than infants or adults. Other researchers insist that functional thalamocortical circuitry is required for conscious perception of pain.13 However, even for these latter researchers, there is good evidence that the thalamic pain fibers reach the cortex on or near the 24th week. Thalamic projections reach the visual subplate at 20-22 weeks, the visual cortex at 23-27 weeks, and the auditory cortical plate at 24-28 weeks.13-14 Given these findings, it should be assumed that the 24-week-old fetus could feel pain.

Besides neuroanatomy, there are other observations that support the notion that a fetus can experience pain. As early as 18 weeks gestation the fetus exhibits pituitary-adrenal, sympathoadrenal, and circulatory stress responses to noxious stimuli.14 Even more provocative is the observation from 4-D ultrasounds that fetuses as young as 24 weeks exhibit facial expressions consistent with pain or distress.15-16 Furthermore, preterm infants at the lowest limit of viability have “profound, acute adverse reactions” to major painful stimuli.17

Late second trimester and third trimester fetuses display a number of other advanced cortical functions. The fetus’ sensorimotor behavior demonstrates the same characteristics later observed in the child’s behavior.18 They show curiosity or intrinsic motivation to explore their body and environment, perform repetitive actions to elicit sensations, react to sensory inputs, display intentionality, and demonstrate goal directed movements.18 It has also long been recognized that the fetus can respond to sound as early as 19 weeks.19 The fetus specifically responds to her/his mother’s voice. At 25 weeks fetuses have been observed to mimic their mother’s resuscitation of a nursery rhyme by opening and closing their mouths.18 Furthermore, a newborn human shows preference for her/his mother’s voice and for musical pieces to which she/he were previously exposed, which confirms a capacity for a fetus to learn in utero.20 Studies have shown that prenatally acquired acoustical memory can persist at least as long as 6 weeks.21

Fetuses in utero with gestational ages of 24 weeks or greater are biologically indistinguishable from infants born at 24 weeks. They have developed all the essential organ systems, they can perceive pain, they can demonstrate sophisticated behaviors, they can respond to and learn from familiar sounds, and they can undergo curative operative therapies as independent patients. The only difference is location. Location should not be the determinant of human value. A human’s inalienable right to life, proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence, has not, and should not be, contingent on location.

Who chooses late abortion and how common is the practice?

There is very limited information available in the United States regarding who pursues very late abortions. Most studies suggest women have late abortions for similar reasons that they have early abortions with several caveats.22-24 Age and educational level were not associated with abortions after 16 weeks but black women and women with higher incomes were more likely to have late abortions in one Guttmacher sponsored study.22 Another study which was based on the baseline Turnaway data concluded that “among women without fetal anomalies, reasons for seeking abortion are not different whether women sought abortion early or late in pregnancy.”23 They did not find a statistically significant difference between early and late second trimester abortions based on finances, parity, timing of pregnancy, degree of interference with future opportunities, emotional/mental preparedness, health related reasons, prospects for the baby, level of independence/maturity, influences from family/friends or the inability to contemplate adoption. A second study based on the Turnaway data suggested statistically significant differences in the age of the woman (younger patients, later abortions OR 2.7) and time that pregnancy was recognized (before 8 weeks, earlier abortions OR 0.1).24 They also found that women who had late abortions faced more logistical delays (finding a provider, raising funds, and travel costs). Both Turnaway studies excluded abortions for fetal anomalies or life endangerment.

Many people are under the impression that most late term abortions are necessitated by terrible fetal anomalies or life endangering conditions. Hillary Clinton famously made this assertion during a debate with candidate Donald Trump. This assertion was widely debunked by fact checkers.24-25 Diana Foster, Professor at the University of California San Francisco’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health stated that “there aren’t good data on how often later abortions are for medical reasons”. Her opinion, based on the limited research and discussions with fellow researchers in the field, was that abortion for fetal anomalies “make up a small minority of later abortions”.25 There are other sources including investigations, blog posts, interviews and documentaries that suggest it is not hard to schedule a late abortion or uncommon to abort an entirely normal fetus after 24 weeks gestation.26-29 In Colorado, the Boulder Abortion Clinic advertises elective abortions (for any reason) to 26 weeks and then to 36 weeks for “medically indicated terminations”.30 (Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Boulder Abortion Clinic is willing to consider later abortions for normal fetuses).26,29,31 For those women who do have fetuses with likely life-limiting genetic or congenital abnormalities, perinatal hospice offers a holistic, humane, and compassionate alternative to late abortion.32

There is no mandatory reporting for abortion numbers, indications or complications in the United States. Consequently, it is difficult to objectively assess the practices of late term abortionists and the patients they serve. It is also uncommon for an independent expert to review late abortionists’ practices. In a rare move that resulted in significant controversy/litigation, Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline had Dr. Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, review redacted records of prominent third-trimester abortionist, George Tiller. Dr. McHugh reported that he found instances where abortions were obtained for “trivial reasons” (like a desire to play sports) and for psychiatric reasons (such as adjustment disorder, anxiety, and depression) that could have been more appropriately remedied without resorting to late abortion.33

To obtain Colorado-specific abortion data is extremely difficult. The Colorado Department of Health collects an (admittedly) incomplete survey of abortion providers (since it is not mandatory and there is no enforcement mechanism). In their 2017 Report of Induced Terminations of Pregnancy, 285 abortions were performed after 21 weeks gestation in Colorado.34 The Guttmacher Institute pegs the rate approximately 24% higher (based on previous data).35 Assuming the CDPHE underestimation is uniformly distributed amongst all gestational ages, this would translate into approximately 353 abortions after 21 weeks in the last reporting year.

Few Colorado abortionists admit performing late/third trimester abortions. The exception is Dr. Warren Hern from the Boulder Abortion Clinic. In a number of newspaper and magazine stories, the impression is given that he only performs late abortions for fatal fetal anomalies and life-endangering conditions of the mother.36-37 However, Dr. Hern has admitted that 70% of his abortion practice is for normal fetuses.38 In those 30% of abortions performed for fetal anomaly, he reports that Down Syndrome is his most common indication (24%). Potentially treatable structural anomalies are included in his series (such as spina bifida, aortic stenosis, abdominal wall abnormalities, urinary obstruction, extra digits, fused digits, deformed hands or feet, scoliosis, and cleft lip/palate).38

How often is it medically necessary to abort a fetus to preserve the life or health of the mother? Dr. Diane Foster from the University of California San Francisco states that the number is very hard to characterize.25 Although there is almost no literature on the subject, one Maternal-Fetal Medicine expert concludes that this is an exceedingly rare event, perhaps encompassing as few as 4 extremely uncommon conditions: pulmonary hypertension (primary or Eisenmenger’s syndrome), Marfan’s syndrome with aortic root involvement, complicated coarctation of the aorta, and peripartum cardiomyopathy with residual dysfunction.39 These would all likely be adjudicated long before 24 weeks gestation. Dr. Hern has said that he is unaware of a situation where abortion was necessary (as opposed to delivery) to save the life of a mother in the third trimester.40

Late abortions are performed for the same reasons that early abortions are performed. There may be more abortions for fetal anomalies late in pregnancy, but this is still likely a small proportion overall. Late abortions occur commonly in Colorado, but figures are inaccurate and lack some demographic and medical detail. Abortions to preserve the life of the mother are a very rarely, if ever, indicated in late abortion. Perinatal hospice offers an alternative to late abortion for families confronting a fetus with a likely terminal diagnosis.32


How are late abortions performed?

There are many different abortion techniques and remarkable procedure variability among physicians performing late second trimester and third trimester abortions. This reflects the lack of consensus in the abortion community.

Generally, beginning at 16 weeks gestation, Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) replaces sharp curettage and suction curettage as the surgical abortion procedure of choice.41 During D&E, cervical dilation is achieved over one or more days by osmotic dilators and misoprostol to facilitate the subsequent mechanical destruction and dismemberment of the fetus. Parts of the fetus grasped/torn from her/his torso are then easily removed through the dilated cervix. A large-bore vacuum curette is used to remove the placenta and remaining tissue. Administration of a pre-procedure feticide such as intraamniotic/intrafetal digoxin, intracardiac potassium chloride or transection of the umbilical cord sometimes proceeds the D&E.

Dilation and Extraction (D&X) is similar to the D&E procedure except that a suction cannula is utilized to evacuate the brain after delivery of the fetal body/legs through the dilated cervix.40 The ensuing collapse of the head facilitates its passage through the cervical canal. In the popular vernacular this procedure is referred to as “Partial-Birth Abortion”. In order to comply with the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, fetal demise must be ensured prior to the procedure. This is accomplished using a pre-procedure feticide or by transection of the umbilical cord.

During an Induction Abortion, labor is induced using mechanical means and/or by chemical means .40 The fetus is then delivered intact. To remain within the framework of the law, fetal demise is achieved prior to delivery using a feticide.

Abortion proponents make the claim that fetal death during abortion is more compassionate and painless than natural fetal/infant death in instances where the fetus has a terminal diagnosis. However, there are no published studies comparing the pain/suffering induced during abortion vs. natural fetal/infant death.

During D&E, there are estimates that only one half of fetuses are killed prior to the dismemberment procedure.42-43 It is hard to imagine that dismemberment would be less painful than natural death in conjunction with advanced perinatal hospice/palliative care services.

Even for those fetuses who are killed before they are dismembered or delivered, there could be substantial suffering. A highly concentrated potassium infusion can cause intense intravascular burning in normal patients.44 Even though an intracardiac infusion of potassium can kill a fetus within 2 minutes, It’s impossible to ascertain whether the fetus experiences intense pain prior to its demise.45 Intraamniotic or intrafetal digoxin is the more commonly used poison to achieve fetal demise.46 A digoxin overdose in older humans causes intense nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, visual disturbances and delirium.47-49 Digoxin kills by causing severe bradycardia culminating in asystole, but it does not kill quickly. It can take up to 4 hours for intrafetal and up to 24 hours for intraamniotic digoxin to achieve asystole.50-51 Women are routinely told to anticipate “kicks” for hours after the feticide is administered.52 The visual, gastrointestinal, neurological and cardiac manifestations of digoxin toxicity could arguably represent fetal cruelty. Indeed, if this same methodology was utilized in a death penalty case, it would be considered “cruel and unusual punishment”.

In more candid moments, even abortion advocates sometimes characterize late abortion procedures on fetuses as “morally abhorrent”.53 It is a form of intimate human violence which is unparalleled in medicine. The only reason that it persists is that the violence is hidden within the confines of the uterus. When the mother (and the broader public) are shielded from the reality of the carnage that is being inflicted on the fetus, it is easier to rationalize its utility. Since there are no studies on the pain associated with late fetal abortion, to regard this as a painless, humane procedure is either wishful thinking or horribly misguided.

What is the risk to the woman undergoing a late abortion?

Late abortion is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The precise magnitude of the risk associated with abortion can’t be reliably gleaned from the CDC or state databases because reporting abortion numbers and related complications is not consistently state mandated and never federally mandated. Furthermore, abortion procedures in the US are not linked to other sources of health data such as birth or death certificates making meaningful estimates of mortality rates nearly impossible. Since the system is voluntary and physicians are reluctant to disclose serious complications (including death), underreporting is also a major problem.54 There have been multiple instances documented where abortion related deaths were not captured by the official state/federal databases.54

Even using the admittedly inadequate medical claims/surveillance data, late abortion poses a substantial risk compared to early abortion in both relative and absolute terms. Using California Medicaid billing data, Emergency Department visits and complications were 2.5 times more likely following a second trimester abortion compared to a first trimester abortion.55 Data from the national Abortion Surveillance System indicate that while the overall risk of death from abortion was 0.7/100000 induced abortions, the risk of death increased exponentially (by 38%) for each additional week of gestation.56 CDC researchers found that gestational age was the strongest predictor of abortion-related-mortality.3 In absolute terms, the risk goes from 0.1 deaths/100000 for surgical abortions < 9 weeks to 8.9 deaths/100000 at > 20 weeks.57 To put this in perspective, the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities (AAAASF) compiled a 5/12 year database of over 1 million out-patient surgeries performed in ambulatory surgery centers.58 The death rate was 2/100000 for patients that were, on average, significantly older than patients undergoing late abortion. This is only 22% of the mortality rate seen in late abortion. The Canadian counterpart, the Canadian Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgical Centers (CAAASF), conducted a survey that pointed to a death rate of approximately 1/100000 which represents only 11% of the risk of late abortion.59 The risk must be viewed in the context of strict oversight of ambulatory surgical centers in Colorado and the absence of oversight or regulations pertaining to abortion facilities in Colorado.60 Media Trackers reported that “while standard healthcare and out-patient surgical clinics in the state fall under the authority of the Health Facilities division of the Colorado Department of Health and Environment for regular licensing and regulation, Planned Parenthood (and other abortion providers) are not held to the same standard”. Not only does late abortion represent a significant mortality risk to women but the lack of health/safety oversight potentially compounds that risk.

Mortality studies that are based on countries with linked birth, pregnancy, abortion and death registries give an even more stark view of the risk from abortion. In Denmark, the 180-day mortality associated with late abortion (>12 weeks) was 55/100000.61 This is far worse than US surveillance data would suggest and places it in a league with neurosurgery (lumbar discectomy 60/100000), and abdominal surgery (laparoscopic appendectomy, inguinal herniorrhaphy 20/100000, laparoscopic cholecystectomy 200/100000).62-65 While this study is not adjusted for socioeconomic factors, marital status or psychological history, they suggest that mortality risk for women undergoing late abortion might be substantially underestimated in the US.

Some have tried to claim that a legal induced abortion is much safer than childbirth.66 However, others have pointed out that these studies are inherently biased and plagued with differences in ascertainment of deaths, duration of susceptibility to mortality, lack of accounting for gestational age and inappropriate comparators.54 The relative risk of pregnancy associated death between delivery and abortion may be better assessed by looking at countries with linked birth/medical/death databases. A systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that based on 11 studies from three such countries, termination of pregnancy is a marker for reduced life expectancy.67 They found that within a year of their pregnancy outcomes, women experiencing pregnancy loss (from either abortion or natural loss) were twice as likely to die compared to women giving birth. In Denmark this adverse mortality rate persisted for 10 years.61 While there could be confounding variables complicating this analysis, the notion that abortion leads to better health outcomes is unlikely (and certainly speculative without more rigorous research).

The morbidity associated with abortion also increases with gestational age.68 A large retrospective study from the University of California San Francisco suggested that the complication rate for second trimester abortions was 9.8% (including cervical laceration, hemorrhage, uterine atony, anesthesia complications, uterine perforation, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and retained products of conception). Major life-threatening complications (complications requiring hospitalization, transfusion, or further surgical intervention) occurred in 1.7% of patients. Any of these complications increased with each additional week of gestation beyond 20 weeks. Unfortunately, there are no published studies specifically addressing the likely extremely high morbidity/mortality associated with third trimester abortions.

Long-Term health effects of abortion are controversial.3 Retrospective studies suggested a correlation of abortion with breast cancer. Better, case control studies suggested no correlation. There appears to be an association of abortion with postpartum hemorrhage in later pregnancies, but the mechanism is undefined. Late abortions may result in an increased risk for premature birth in subsequent pregnancies (aOR= 1.13, 99% CI 0.91-1.4). This trend becomes statistically significant for women who have had multiple abortions. Researchers have found a dose-response relationship between the number of prior abortions and the risk for extreme premature birth. Since black women have, on average, more late abortions and more multiple abortions, one might speculate that the scourge of increased infant mortality (tied largely to premature birth and low birth weight infants) in the black community could be partially caused by abortion.

The adverse effects of abortion on mental health is particularly controversial. Recent reviews cited by abortion proponents rely heavily on the methodologically flawed Turnaway study to conclude that abortion is not associated with new mental health disorders.3 However, a more balanced review of the literature suggests several consensus opinions regarding the nexus between abortion and mental health: “1) abortion is consistently associated with elevated rates of mental illness compared to women without a history of abortion, 2) the abortion experience directly contributes to mental health problems for at least some women, 3) there are risk factors, such as pre-existing mental illness, that identify women at greatest risk of mental health problems after an abortion.”69 The reason that this is a particularly urgent issue is that studies suggesting high long-term mortality outcomes from abortion point to markedly increased rates of suicide, accidents, and homicide. 61 ,67, 70

Conclusions:

Late abortion is extreme by any measure and should be prohibited. Very few countries in the world permit abortion after 24 weeks. Most Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, feel that abortion should be illegal in the third trimester. There is irrefutable scientific evidence that a 24-week fetus demonstrates all the fundamental characteristics of more developed humans, including the ability to perceive pain and perform sophisticated sensorimotor behaviors. The reasons women choose late abortions are similar to the reasons that women choose early abortion. Most late abortions are probably performed on normal fetuses. For those tragic situations where a fetus has a life-limiting prognosis because of genetic or congenital fetal abnormality, perinatal hospice offers a compassionate, life-affirming alternative to abortion. Late abortions are violent procedures that commonly involve the crushing and dismemberment of the fetus. Late abortions pose a substantial morbidity and mortality risk to the pregnant woman, which is further exacerbated by the lack of regulatory oversight. Long term sequelae of abortion include the risk for future premature birth and adverse future pregnancy outcomes. There appears to be a substantially increased risk of early mortality in women who have abortion compared to women who deliver babies. This may be related to worse long-term mental health outcomes for women who choose abortion.


References:

1.State Policies on Later Abortions. (2019, January 1). Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions. January 10, 2019

2.Lee, M. Y. H. (2017, October 9). Is the United States one of seven countries that ‘allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy?’. The Washington Post.

3.Committee on Reproductive Health Services. The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States. Washington DC: The National Academy Press, 2018.

4.The Editorial Board of the New York Times. (2018, December 28). A Woman’s Rights. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/28/opinion/abortion-murder-charge.html. January 10, 2019.

5.Trimesters Still Key to Abortion Views. (2018, June 13). Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx. January 10, 2019.

6.Moore, KL, Persaud, TVN, and M Torchia. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 2013. Elsevier Saunders. Print.

7.Moldenhauer JS and Adzick NS. Fetal Surgery for myelomeningocele: After the Management of Myelomeningocele Study (MOMS). Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2017; 22: 360-366.

8.Graves CE, Harrison MR, and Padilla BE. Minimally Invasive Fetal Surgery. Clin Perinatol 2017; 44: 729-751.

9.Ahmad KA, Frey CS, Fierro MA, Kenton AB, and Placencia FX. Two-Year Neurodevelopmental Outcome of an Infant Born at 21 Weeks’ 4 Days’ Gestation. Pediatrics 2017; 140(6): e20170103.

10.Rysavy MA, et. al. Between Hospital Variation in Treatment and Outcomes in Extremely Preterm Infants. NEJM 2015; 372: 1801-1811.

11.Sharp M, French N, McMichael J and Campbell C. Survival and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Extremely Preterm Infants 22-24 weeks of gestation born in Western Australia. J Paediatr Child Health 2018; 54(2): 188-193.

12.Sekulic S, et.al. Appearance of fetal pain could be associated with maturation of the mesodiencephalic structures. Journal of Pain Research 2016; 9: 1031-1038.

13.Lee SJ, et.al. Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence. JAMA 2005; 294(8): 947-954.

14.Ferschl M, et.al. Anesthesia for In Utero Repair of Myelomeningocele. Anesthesiology 2013; 118(5): 1211-1223.

15.Reissland N, Francis B, Mason, J. Can Healthy Fetuses show Facial Expressions of “Pain” or “Distress”. PLoS ONE 2013; 8(6): e65530. Doi:10/1371/journal.pone.0065530.

16.Bernardes S, et.al. On the feasibility of accessing acute pain-related facial expressions in the human fetus and its potential implications: a case report. Pain Reports 2018; 3: e673

17.McPherson C, Inder T. Perinatal and neonatal use of sedation and analgesia. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 2017; 22: 314-320.

18.Fagard J, et.al. Fetal Origin of Sensorimotor Behavior. Frontiers in Neruorobotics 2018; 12:23.doi:10.3389/fnbot.2018.00023.

19.Hepper PG, Shahidullah BS. Development of Hearing. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1994; 71: F81-F87.

20.Gerhardt KJ, Abrams RM. Fetal exposures to sound and vibroacoustic stimulation. J Perinatol 2000; 20 (8 Pt2): S21-30.

21.Granier-Deferre C, et.al. A Melodic Contour Repeatedly Experienced by Human Near-Term Fetuses Elicits a Profound Cardiac Reaction One Month after Birth. PLoS one 2011; 6(2)L e17304. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017304.

22.Biggs MA, Gould H, and Foster DG. Understanding why women seek abortions in the US. BMC Women’s Health 2013; 13: 29.

23.Pappas S. (2011, December 16). Study Reveals Who Gets Late-Term Abortions. Live Science. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/17529-trimester-abortions.html , on January 10, 2019.

24.Foster DG and Kimport K. Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 weeks. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2013; 45(4): 210-218.

25.Llevitan D. (2015, September 29). Clinton Off on Late-Term Abortions. Fact Check.Org. Retrieved from https://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/clinton-off-on-late-term-abortions/. On January 10. 2019.

26.Pavone, F. (2019, February 4). LISTEN: Undercover Call Catches Abortion Clinic Offering to Kill Baby at 32 Weeks. Retrieved from https://www.lifenews.com/2019/02/04/listen-undercover-call-catches-abortion-clinic-offering-to-kill-baby-at-32-weeks/. Retrieved February 4, 2019.

27.Vial, B. (2019, February 8). What It Was Like to Get a Later Abortion. Retrieved from https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-it-was-like-to-get-a-later-abortion. Retrieved February 8, 2019.

28.Tolentino, J. (2013, September 20). Interview with Dr. Retrieved from https://www.thehairpin.com/2013/09/interview-with-dr/. Retrieved February 10, 2019.

29.Shane, M and Wilson, L. (Producers) & Shane M and Wilson, L (Directors). 2013. After Tiller (Documentary). USA. Roco Distributors.

30.Boulder Abortion Clinic Abortion Services Overview. Retrieved from http://drhern.com/en/abortion-services/abortion-procedures-overview.html. Retrieved February 10, 2019

31.Kirchoff, C. (2019, February 19). Undercover: Late Term Abortion Clinics Exposed. Retrieved from https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/undercover-late-term-abortion-clinics-exposed/. Retrieved February 19, 2019.

32.Perinatal Hospice & Palliative Care. Retrieved from https://www.perinatalhospice.org/. Retrieved January 10, 2019.

33.Barstow D. (2009, July 25). An Abortion Battle, Fought to Death. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/us/26tiller.html. January 10, 2019.

34.Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 2017 Report on Induced Terminations of Pregnancy.

35.Guttmacher Institute. State Facts About Abortion Colorado. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/factsheet/sfaa-co.pdf. January 10, 2019

36.Richardson JH. (2009, August 5). The Last Abortion Doctor. Esquire. Retrieved from https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a6117/abortion-doctor-warren-hern-0909/. January 10, 2019.

37.The Editorial Board of the New York Times. (2018, December 28). Women’s Rights Part 3: The Cost of Complacency About Roe. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/28/opinion/pregnancy-women-pro-life-abortion.html?module=inline. January 10, 2019.

38.Hern WM. Fetal diagnostic indications for second and third trimester outpatient pregnancy termination. Prenatal Diagnosis 2014; 34: 438-444.

39.Goodwin TM. Medicalizing Abortion Decisions. First Things. Retrieved from https://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/003-medicalizing-abortion-decisions. Retrieved on January 10, 2019.

40.Hern WM. September 9, 2015. Personal Communication.

41.Cunningham, FG et. al., Williams Obstetrics. McGraw Hill. 2014. Print.

42.Denny, CC. Induction of fetal demise before pregnancy termination: Practices of Family Planning Providers. Contraception 2015; 92(3): 241-245.

43.White, KO et.al., Second-trimester surgical abortion practices in the United States. Contraception 2018; 98(2): 95-99.

44.FDA. Potassium Chloride Injection. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/019904s014lbl.pdf. Retrieved January 10, 2019.

45.Ovender L, Moodley J. Late termination of pregnancy by intracardiac potassium chloride injection: 5 years’ experience at a tertiary referral centre. S Afr Med J. 2012; 103(1): 47-51.

46.Society of Family Planning Clinical Guidelines. Induction of fetal demise before abortion. Contraception 2010; 81: 462-473.

47.Pincus, M. Management of digoxin toxicity. Australian Prescriber 2016; 39: 18-20.

48.Yang, EH, Shah, S and Criley, JM. Digitalis toxicity: A fading but crucial complication to recognize. The American Journal of Medicine 2012; 125(4): 337-343.

49.Moffett, BS, et.al., Serum digoxin concentrations and clinical signs and symptoms of digoxin toxicity in the pediatric population. Cardiol Young 2016; 26(3): 493-498.

50.Nucatola, D. Roth, N, and Gatter, M. A randomized pilot study of the effectiveness and side effects of two doses of digoxin as fetocide when administered intraamniotically or intrafetally prior to second-trimester surgical abortion. Contraception 2010; 81: 67-74.

51.Borgatta, L. et., al., Relationship of intraamniotic digoxin to fetal demise. Contraception 2010; 81: 328-330.

52.Finn, M. (2017, February 7). I had a Late-Term Abortion. President Trump and Pro-lifers have no Right to call me a Murderer. Slate. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/019904s014lbl.pdf. Retrieved February 7, 2019.

53.Douthat, R, Goldberg, M, and Leonhardt D. (2019, February 7) The New York Times - The Argument: The Abortion Debate [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/the-argument-abortion-medicare-for-all.html?emc=edit_ty_20190207&nl=opinion-today&nlid=6448792420190207&te=1. Retrieved February 7, 2019.

54.Thorp, JM. Public Health Impact of Legal Termination of Pregnancy in the US: 40 Years Later. Scientifica 2012; Article ID 980812.

55.Upadhyay, UD et.al., Incidence of Emergency Department Visits and Complications after abortion. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2015; 125(1): 175-183.

56.Bartlett, LA, et.al., Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103(4): 729-737.

57.World Health Organization, Safe Abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems . 2012.

58.Keyes, GR et.al., Mortality in Outpatient Surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122: 245-250.

59.Ahmad, J. et.al., Assessing patient safety in Canadian ambulatory surgery facilities: A national survey. Plast Surg 2014; 22(1): 34-38.

60.Media Trackers Colorado. Planned Parenthood Clinics Not Regulated by Colorado Health and Medical Standards. March 18, 2013. Retrieved from https://www.redstate.com/diary/pwatson/2013/03/18/colorado-planned-parenthood-clinics-not-regulated-by-standard-state-health-and-medical-guidelines/. Retrieved on February 16, 2019.

61.Reardon, DC and Coleman, PK. Short and long term mortality rates associated with first pregnancy outcome: Population register based study for Denmark 1980-2004. Med Sci Monit 2012; 18(9): PH71-76.

62.Pugely, AJ, et.al., Outpatient Surgery reduces Short-Term Complications in Lumbar Discectomy. Spine 2013; 38(3): 264-271.

63.Frazee, RC et.al., Outpatient Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Is it Time to End the Discussion? J Am Coll Surg 2016; 1-5.

64.Saleh, F et.al., Safety of laparoscopic and open approaches for repair of the unilateral primary inguinal hernia: an analysis of short term outcomes. The American Journal of Surgery 2014; 208: 195-201.

65.Rao, A, et.al., Safety of Outpatient Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in the Elederly: Analysis of 15,248 Patients Using the NSQUIP Database. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 217: 1038-1043.

66.Raymond, EG and Grimes, DA. The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012; 119(2): 215-219.

67.Reardon, DC and Thorp, JM. Pregnancy associated death in record linkage studies relative to delivery, termination of pregnancy, and natural losses: A systematic review with a narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. Sage Open Medicine 2017; 5: 1-17.

68.Ledeerie, L et.al., Obesity as a Risk Factor for Complications after Second Trimester Abortion by Dilation and Evacuation. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126(3): 585-592.

69.Reardon, DC. The abortion and mental health controversy: A comprehensive literature review of common ground agreements, disagreements, actionable recommendations, and research opportunities. AAGE Open Medicine 2018; 6: 1-38.

70.Jalanko, E. et.al., Increased risk of premature death following teenage abortion and childbirth – a longitudinal study. Eur J Public Health 2017; 27(5): 845-849.

October 29, 2024
It is becoming more common for ideologues to gaslight the American public to promote their agenda. The latest example is the abortion industry’s attempt to have Coloradoans suspend their common sense, human decency and compassion to place Amendment 79 into the Colorado constitution. State law already protects access to abortion, but they would have us believe it is “progressive” to endorse this constitutional amendment. Amendment would enshrine unrestricted, taxpayer funded abortion into the state constitution. It would prohibit the government from “denying, impeding or discriminating” against the right to abortion. This goes far beyond Roe which was overturned by the Dobbs decision. Roe permitted regulation of abortion in the second trimester to ensure the health and safety of women and allowed states to recognize their compelling interest in protecting the life of a viable baby in the third trimester. Amendment has neither of these important features. If abortion is considered a fundamental constitutional right (unlike any other medical procedure), then a fetus, wanted or unwanted, has no constitutional rights under Amendment 79. Nobody could infringe on the exercise of abortion – no matter the circumstances. Late abortions are common in Colorado. While abortions after the limit of fetal viability only represent 3.2-3.4% of abortions each year, they account for hundreds of abortions. And we know that approximately 70% of these late abortions are performed on healthy women with healthy babies. Amendment 79 would prevent legislators from ever curtailing abortion late in pregnancy for social and economic reasons. The amendment does nothing to address the real needs of women facing financial challenges that forces them to consider late abortion. It leaves them only one regrettable choice. Is it progressive to focus solely on abortion access and forego the hard work necessary to make pregnancy more equitable for low-income women? The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment licenses, regulates, and inspects thousands of health care facilities in the state to ensure public health and safety. The striking exception is second and third trimester abortion clinics. Abortion extremists pejoratively refer to any laws that regulate abortion clinics as TRAP laws. In their worldview the only motivation for such laws is to impede abortion access. They ignore the fact that second trimester abortions have a 10% complication rate and pose a 1.7% risk of life-threatening complications. While first trimester abortions are relatively safe procedures, the risk of dying from abortion increases by 38% for every additional week of gestation beyond 8 weeks. You would think we would have learned the danger of unregulated/uninspected abortion clinics from the Gosnell tragedy. Dr. Kermit Gosnell was responsible for the injury and death of countless women spanning decades because of the lack of governmental oversight at his Philadelphia abortion clinic. If Amendment 79 passes, legislators will be precluded from instituting prudent health/safety regulations for abortion clinics in Colorado. There would be nothing preventing a Gosnell-like horror in our state. Is it progressive to prioritize abortion access over the lives of women? A 22-week baby born prematurely enjoys all the rights and benefits of other Colorado citizens. Yet, a 22-week, pain-capable fetus in utero can be literally torn apart limb by limb during the D&E procedure favored by most abortionists in Colorado. Later in the second trimester and during the third trimester that fetus can be killed by poisoning before it is extracted during a D&X procedure. Digoxin is commonly utilized. Digoxin can cause hours of agonizing nausea, vomiting, and delirium before eliciting death. Is it progressive to define a human’s value and dignity based solely on their location or to sanction such excruciating deaths? Parental notification prior to a minor’s abortion is current law in Colorado. Guttmacher and other abortion advocacy organizations consider parental notification laws as impediments to abortion access. Amendment would eliminate this. The adolescent brain is still developing prefrontal connections that help modulate their subcortical emotional and impulsive responses to stressful situations, such as unplanned pregnancies. Without parental notification, our teen daughters may face these challenges with more input from their peers, teachers, or counselors than from the parents who love and know them best. And if parental notification is eliminated, sex traffickers will have an easier time eluding law enforcement as they coerce their young victims to have abortions. Is it progressive to remove parents from the most consequential decisions in their daughter’s lives or enable human traffickers? With Amendment 79 in the state constitution, abortions for any reason would be legal. Studies from the US and other countries document the extent that sex selection abortions occur, A Colorado late abortionist recently admitted that he has performed sex selection abortions. Is it progressive to allow abortion for blatantly sexist reasons? We know the answer. No, it is not progressive to promote unrestricted, unregulated abortion in Colorado. Abortion access is already ensured in Colorado. Amendment 79 is unnecessary, inhumane and potentially dangerous. Frances Rossi and Tom Perille MD - Founding members of Democrats for Life of Colorado
October 22, 2024
This piece was originally published in the Colorado Springs and Denver Gazette Perspective Column September 22, 2024 by Tom Perille MD (DFLCO President) and Wendy Smith What would it mean if the only medical intervention that is recognized in the Colorado Constitution’s Bill of Rights was abortion? And what would it mean if abortion was the only medical intervention that couldn’t be constitutionally excluded in private and public health insurance? Not access to basic medical care. Not pregnancy care. Not life-saving cancer treatments. Not mental health treatment. Not care for those addicted. Not affordable pharmaceuticals. Only abortion. That is what those who are pushing Amendment 79 (“Right to Abortion”) hope to accomplish. Not only would abortion at any time in pregnancy for any reason using any method become a fundamental right, but anything that “impeded” or “discriminated” against access to abortion would be prohibited. The people of Colorado have a right to know the profound and dangerous implications of such a measure which won’t be reflected in the Blue Book language. In a poll conducted in July by the Strategy Group, 71% of Colorado voters were unaware that abortion is currently legal under all circumstances in our state. Abortion access is guaranteed in Colorado law. Amendment 79 would do nothing to change that reality. Coloradoans have the right to know that with the amendment in the constitution, the people of Colorado and those working for them in the legislature could do nothing to regulate or restrict abortion in the future– even if those changes represented the overwhelming consensus of Coloradoans and protected the health and safety of women. There were between 468-486 late abortions after the limit of fetal viability (21 weeks) reported to the CDPHE in 2022 and 2023. Guttmacher estimates that there were 71% more abortions in 2023 than CDPHE reported making 500 a conservative estimate of the total number of post-viability abortions each year in Colorado. These babies can “kick” their mother, respond to her voice/touch, acquire her taste preferences, and feel pain while in the uterus. They can survive if born prematurely. Babies born at 22-weeks and later can be found lovingly cared for in neonatal intensive care units and nurseries across the state. Based on research from Boulder abortionist, Dr. Warren Hern, 70% of his late abortions are performed on healthy women with healthy babies. That translates into an estimated 350 healthy babies aborted late in pregnancy each year in Colorado for financial and social reasons. Coloradoans have the right to know that Amendment 79 does nothing to address the real needs of these women and simply streamlines access to one, tragic and regrettable choice. With Amendment 79 in place, legislators would be unable to restrict even the most extreme abortions on healthy women with healthy babies in the third trimester. Colorado parents are currently notified at least 48 hours in advance of their minor teen’s pending abortion. The abortion industry, their research allies (Guttmacher), and aligned medical professional organizations (ACOG) all consider parental notification before a minor teen’s abortion to be an impediment to abortion access. Coloradoans have the right to know that banning parental notification would be one of the most immediate consequences of Amendment 79. In practical terms, this means that the people that know and love the teen the most may be unaware of their pending abortion and unable to support their daughter. Even worse, teens may be pressured by peers or an abortion clinic counselor to pursue an action that is inconsistent with their wishes and core values. Parents may be blindsided by the potentially severe physical and mental health consequences of their teen’s abortion. And sex traffickers would be able to hide their nefarious trade by pursuing abortions for their teenage victims without the safeguard of parental notification. Trafficking is a multi-million-dollar criminal enterprise in Colorado. Victims rarely self-identify. Anyone who works with domestic minor sex trafficking knows that the very definition of trafficking involves force, fraud and/or coercion. It is also well known that girls who are trafficked often view their trafficker as their “boyfriend”, lacking the maturity and discernment to know they are being trafficked and in danger. If they refuse to do what the trafficker wants, they are often subject to physical and mental abuse until they submit. There is a growing concern over forced abortion, especially with the availability of medication and telehealth abortions. These girls are not free to choose. Without the safeguard of parental notification, minors may be exposed to continued risk. Keep in mind, minors can be brought across state borders by anyone for abortion, just to be released back to the trafficker/perpetrator. For this reason, parents have a right to know when their daughter is considering abortion so that they can seek help and intervene. Most states have regulations that pertain to abortion clinics and promote the health and safety of women. Colorado is not one of them. The abortion industry pejoratively refers to any regulation that specifically applies to abortion providers as TRAP laws. They view them as impediments to abortion access. Even though thousands of medical facilities and agencies are licensed, regulated and inspected by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, second and third trimester abortion clinics are the glaring exception. This omission is especially perplexing since second trimester abortions have a 10% overall complication rate and 1.7% life-threatening complication rate. The risk of having a complication increases for each additional week of gestation. Furthermore, the risk of dying from an abortion increases 38% for each week of gestation beyond 8 weeks. We should heed the lesson from other states that have tragically witnessed the maiming and death of women when government oversight is lax or non-existent – such as Pennsylvania and Dr. Gosnell. Coloradoans have a right to know that if Amendment 79 passes, the state will be unable to impose prudent health and safety regulations for abortion clinics which may jeopardize women’s health and lives. Another goal of Amendment 79 is to facilitate publicly funded abortions. Currently, Colorado Medicaid only pays for abortions in circumstances of rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother. If Amendment 79 passes, the prohibition against public funding in the constitution will be removed and the state will be able to underwrite elective abortions for Medicaid patients. In states where public funding for abortion is already law, they spend millions of dollars subsidizing abortion for in-state and out-of-state women. Coloradoans have the right to know that this may take precious tax dollars away from other medical priorities like pregnancy services and mental health. It may even divert money from non-medical budgets for education, affordable housing, and the environment. There is already inadequate private and public support for pregnant women in our state. One of the few shining exceptions is the 58 pregnancy resource centers. They provide millions of dollars of uncompensated care to women during and after challenging pregnancies. However, because they typically don’t offer abortion services or refer for abortions, the abortion industry has been targeting these charitable organizations. Coloradoans have the right to know that the ability of pregnancy resource centers to assist pregnant women in need may be jeopardized by the passage of Amendment 79. Under Amendment 79, the right to abortion would become absolute. Coloradoans have the right to know the implications of such an extreme position. It would strip all rights and protections from the developing fetus, even those that are wanted. The legislature couldn’t proscribe abortion methods that are especially cruel such as second trimester D&E (dismemberment) abortions on pain capable fetuses. It would jeopardize the conscious rights of medical professionals across the state who maintain medical/scientific, moral or religious objections to elective induced abortions. Since the amendment forbids “discriminating” against a woman’s desire for an abortion, even physicians and nurse practitioners who perform abortions would be unable to refuse abortions for reasons they may view as morally repugnant – such as aborting a fetus solely because of their sex (which is already occurring) or because of the ethnicity/race of their father. Abortion access is already guaranteed in Colorado law. Making the right to abortion the only medical procedure recognized in our constitution is extreme and ties the hands of Colorado citizens and legislators. It goes far beyond the abortion rights promulgated in the Roe decision. Coloradoans have the right to know that Amendment 79 would have these many unintended consequences. Given the facts, we hope that Coloradoans reject Amendment 79.
By Thomas Perille March 1, 2024
By Tom Perille January 31, 2024
We should recognize ideological conflicts of interest in clinical research just as we recognize financial conflicts of interest in clinical research. It doesn't negate the studies, but tells us about potential biases and requires us to look more closely at the methodology and reporting.
By Tom Perille MD January 23, 2024
Cobalt and other proabortion organizations are currently circulating petitions to have Initiative 89 appear on Colorado 2024 ballot. They have the money to pay circulators to get the necessary signatures so there is little doubt it will be on the ballot in November. The ballot initiative is deceptively drafted to make it appear that the primary issue is correcting an “unintended consequence” of Amendment 3. Colorado constitutional Amendment 3 narrowly passed in 1984. It prohibited the use of state public funds for induced abortions unless the life of the mother was in jeopardy. Initiative 89 backers are highlighting the lack of funding for state employees for abortions in cases of rape, incest, issues that “gravely endangers the patient’s health” or when there is a “fatal fetal condition”. They also point out the lack of an exception for state Medicaid funding for issues that “gravely endangers a patient’s health” or for a “fatal fetal condition”. What are they not saying? There already is an exception for the pregnant woman’s life which would encompass anything that “gravely endangers the patient’s health”. They are trying to blur the line between an exception for a condition that jeopardizes a woman’s life and any complication that requires treatment during pregnancy but does not threaten her life. Similarly, Medicaid already offers reimbursement for abortions related to rape or to save the mother’s life. It does not have an exception for the nebulously defined “health” of the mother, which can be treated in the normal course of obstetric practice, or for fetal conditions. A “fatal fetal condition” is a pejorative phrase with little resemblance to reality. For instance, Trisomy 18 is often referred to in this manner. The problem arises because the condition may be as much as 90% survivable if treated with standard interventions (employed on infants without Trisomy 18 diagnoses). It doesn’t mean that there aren’t life threatening fetal conditions or that some infants will have significant disabilities but describing these fetuses as “fatal” is a way to dehumanize them and justify the abortion decision. If they were really motivated to remove the barriers to the < 4% of abortions that occur for reasons of rape, incest, life of the mother, and life-limiting fetal conditions, why doesn’t Initiative 89 simply ask Coloradans add these exceptions to Amendment 3s language? The answer is clear. They want to evoke an emotional response which will override Coloradans’ qualms about unrestricted abortion. Their arguments gloss over the main purpose of Initiative 89 – to make abortion access a constitutional right without any gestational limits for any reason and to use public funding to subsidize it. They would like the public to be unaware of the fact that hundreds of healthy viable (>21 weeks) fetuses gestating in healthy women are currently aborted in Colorado. And that at least one late term abortionist (Warren Hern) has publicly acknowledged that he does abortions for absolutely any reason – including for sex selection. If the public had an inkling of the magnitude of the slaughter of prenatal humans purely for social and economic reasons, they would be appalled. There are so many other legislative initiatives that could be undertaken to provide support for pregnant women and their families so that they don’t feel compelled to consider abortion. Why don’t we focus our efforts on these life-affirming alternatives to the violence of abortion? DFLCO will be participating with Pro-Life Colorado, the state-wide umbrella organization uniting prolife groups, to defeat Initiative 89. DFLCO members should begin talking to their prochoice friends and writing letters to the editor of local media shedding light on the deceptive nature of Initiative 89 and the Trojan horse it represents for constitutionally protected unrestricted abortion. If your contacts don’t recoil at the reality that hundreds of healthy viable fetuses are being aborted for reasons as abhorrent as sex selection, then Colorado is in worse shape than any of us recognize. Initiative 89 should have no place in Colorado.
By Tom Perille MD January 10, 2024
Cobalt and other proabortion organizations are currently circulating petitions to have Initiative 89 appear on Colorado 2024 ballot. They have the money to pay circulators to get the necessary signatures so there is little doubt it will be on the ballot in November. The ballot initiative is deceptively drafted to make it appear that the primary issue is correcting an “unintended consequence” of Amendment 3. Colorado constitutional Amendment 3 narrowly passed in 1984. It prohibited the use of state public funds for induced abortions unless the life of the mother was in jeopardy. Initiative 89 backers are highlighting the lack of funding for state employees for abortions in cases of rape, incest, issues that “gravely endangers the patient’s health” or when there is a “fatal fetal condition”. They also point out the lack of an exception for state Medicaid funding for issues that “gravely endangers a patient’s health” or for a “fatal fetal condition”. What are they not saying? There already is an exception for the pregnant woman’s life which would encompass anything that “gravely endangers the patient’s health”. They are trying to blur the line between an exception for a condition that jeopardizes a woman’s life and any complication that requires treatment during pregnancy but does not threaten her life. Similarly, Medicaid already offers reimbursement for abortions related to rape or to save the mother’s life. It does not have an exception for the nebulously defined “health” of the mother, which can be treated in the normal course of obstetric practice, or for fetal conditions. A “fatal fetal condition” is a pejorative phrase with little resemblance to reality. For instance, Trisomy 18 is often referred to in this manner. The problem arises because the condition may be as much as 90% survivable if treated with standard interventions (employed on infants without Trisomy 18 diagnoses). It doesn’t mean that there aren’t life threatening fetal conditions or that some infants will have significant disabilities but describing these fetuses as “fatal” is a way to dehumanize them and justify the abortion decision. If they were really motivated to remove the barriers to the < 4% of abortions that occur for reasons of rape, incest, life of the mother, and life-limiting fetal conditions, why doesn’t Initiative 89 simply ask Coloradans add these exceptions to Amendment 3s language? The answer is clear. They want to evoke an emotional response which will override Coloradans’ qualms about unrestricted abortion. Their arguments gloss over the main purpose of Initiative 89 – to make abortion access a constitutional right without any gestational limits for any reason and to use public funding to subsidize it. They would like the public to be unaware of the fact that hundreds of healthy viable (>21 weeks) fetuses gestating in healthy women are currently aborted in Colorado. And that at least one late term abortionist (Warren Hern) has publicly acknowledged that he does abortions for absolutely any reason – including for sex selection. If the public had an inkling of the magnitude of the slaughter of prenatal humans purely for social and economic reasons, they would be appalled. There are so many other legislative initiatives that could be undertaken to provide support for pregnant women and their families so that they don’t feel compelled to consider abortion. Why don’t we focus our efforts on these life-affirming alternatives to the violence of abortion? DFLCO will be participating with Pro-Life Colorado, the state-wide umbrella organization uniting prolife groups, to defeat Initiative 89. DFLCO members should begin talking to their prochoice friends and writing letters to the editor of local media shedding light on the deceptive nature of Initiative 89 and the Trojan horse it represents for constitutionally protected unrestricted abortion. If your contacts don’t recoil at the reality that hundreds of healthy viable fetuses are being aborted for reasons as abhorrent as sex selection, then Colorado is in worse shape than any of us recognize. Initiative 89 should have no place in Colorado.
By Tom Perille MD December 13, 2023
The pregnancy of Kate Cox, the Dallas-area women who sought an abortion in Texas because her fetus was diagnosed with Trisomy 18, raises numerous emotionally charged issues. She is 31 years old and has had two previous C-section deliveries and two healthy children. Texas has enacted abortion restrictions which prompted her to sue the state to procure an abortion after 20 weeks gestation. This is a tragedy for Ms. Cox and her family. it is incredibly painful when a family first learns that their dreams for a healthy child are dashed. However, it doesn’t mean that their pain is diminished by access to abortion. And it doesn’t mean that their lives won’t be enriched by their child -even if their child’s life is abbreviated. It is worth reviewing some of the more prominent media distortions pertaining to the Cox pregnancy/baby that prejudice the public’s response to this tragedy: 1) Trisomy 18 has a poor prognosis. It is true that there is a high probability for a fetus with Trisomy 18 to be stillborn. However, the prognosis is not as bad as portrayed in the media. According to a recent systematic review, a baby born with Trisomy 18 in 2020 has a 13% 10-year survival rate. 2) A Trisomy 18 baby may face challenges, but their lives can be a source of great strength and inspiration for a family. Senator Risk Santorum’s baby, Bella , is a case in point. 3) For those families who choose comfort care (perinatal palliative care and/or perinatal hospice ) for their baby with Trisomy 18, the experience is described by many families as deeply moving and life-affirming. These families don’t try to extinguish the memory of their child, but instead, celebrate their short life. A team of professionals walks with the family during the pregnancy, at birth, and post-partum. They provide support to the mother and baby and ensure that when the baby dies it is without discomfort and surrounded by loving family. This can contribute tremendously to healing for the grieving family. The healing is impeded for those families that choose abortion since they will never forget their complicity in their child’s violent death. 4) At 21 weeks, the D&E procedure that was recommended to the Cox family is associated with substantial risk to the mother. This is omitted from mainstream media stories. The risk of dying from an abortion increases by 38% for each week of gestation after 8 weeks. Even without factoring in her increased risk for uterine rupture by virtue of her previous C-sections, the risk for an induced abortion is substantially greater than the risk of natural childbirth based on evidence from national record linkage studies. If the Cox baby needs a C-section rather than vaginal delivery, the risks are higher, but C-section is not an inevitability. If Ms. Cox had two previous low-transverse cesarean deliveries, she would be a candidate for a trial of labor after C-section (TOLAC). 5) The recommended D&E abortion procedure is often performed without administering a feticide- a chemical/drug that kills the fetus prior to the surgical abortion. One review reported that only 52% of abortion providers inject a feticide before proceeding with a second trimester D&E abortion. The D&E entails the systematic dismemberment of the living fetus which is pain capable by the gestational age of the Cox baby. Imagine for a moment the excruciating suffering elicited in the living fetus as its limbs are literally torn off. Some abortion advocates mistakenly view this as the “compassionate” choice. 6) Even in those cases where an abortionist chooses to administer a feticide prior to the procedure, the fetus will endure incredible suffering. The most common feticide, digoxin, takes up to 4 hours to kill the fetus if it is injected directly into the fetus and up to 24 hours if it is injected into the amniotic fluid surrounding the fetus. Digoxin overdose is associated with intense nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and delirium before it slows the heart and induces death. This can aptly be described as fetal torture. 7) The media suggests that Kate Cox’s life is in jeopardy if she continues the pregnancy. However, there is nothing in the lawsuit that corroborates this assertion. Ms. Cox visited the Emergency Department for cramps and diarrhea, but this is not a concerning symptom for her health or life. During a second Emergency Department visit she was reported to have some unidentified fluid from her vagina – suggesting the possibility of leaking amniotic fluid. This would be a more significant concern, but the Emergency Department commonly visualizes the cervix to make this diagnosis. They can also perform ultrasounds and several forms of tests on the vaginal fluid to establish this diagnosis (including pH-based tests, a fern test, and placenta alpha-1 globulin protein). The fact that none of this was mentioned in the lawsuit leads one to believe that Ms. Cox was not manifesting Premature Rupture of Membranes (PROM) and leaking amniotic fluid. The lawsuit mentions an elevated prenatal blood sugar, but gestational diabetes can be managed with a very low risk of morbidity/mortality. Translation - there was nothing in the lawsuit suggesting her life was at risk. 8) The media uncritically reports that future fertility is at risk if she continues her pregnancy. In the lawsuit, Ms. Cox indicates that she would like to have another child. It is true that if she had a C-section to deliver her child with Trisomy 18, there would be increased risk from a 4th C-section with a future child. The risk of uterine dehiscence (which means the partial opening of the uterus at the previous C-section scar) goes from 6.6% with her third C-section to 10.3% with her fourth C-section. This is a concern, but the absolute risk remains low. Furthermore, she is at increased risk with a future child regardless of her abortion decision by virtue of her C-section history. As indicated previously, it is not certain that a repeat C-section would be required and if she has a vaginal delivery of her Trisomy 18 child, there is little additional risk incurred with her future pregnancy. 9) Surgical abortions in general, and late abortions in particular, are associated with premature birth in subsequent pregnancies. Induced abortions are associated with cervical damage . This means that if Kate Cox obtains a late abortion, she may be putting her own and her future baby’s life at risk. Preterm delivery is associated with long term mortality for the mother and is the biggest driver of infant mortality for the child. 10) If any of the facts reviewed above miss some of the salient clinical features omitted from the lawsuit or if Kate Cox’s condition deteriorates, the Texas Supreme Court has made it clear that abortion is an option if her bodily functions or life are at risk. Furthermore, the court explicitly stated that her life does not need to be in “imminent” danger to pursue abortion in those circumstances. Her attending physicians simply need to make that determination based on reasonable medical judgement and the Texas Supreme court says it does not need to be reviewed by the judiciary. The Cox family have our sympathy and we all wish them well. However, their decision should be based on all the facts and not the selective narrative of abortion providers. It is unfortunate that families with life-threatening fetal anomalies are often given no hope and coerced into pursuing an abortion that they later regret.
By Tom Perille November 9, 2023
There are some things I have a hard time understanding. Why do people who profess a Christian worldview support a presidential candidate who is crude, cruel, vindictive, misogynistic, narcissistic, and does not pretend to know, much less follow, basic Christian moral teachings? When the prenatal human rights movement becomes associated with such figures, we lose moral credibility and ultimately, electoral power. And why do people who are otherwise loving and compassionate fail to demonstrate any love or compassion for the preborn human being before they are killed in elective abortions? Why is it either the mother or the preborn baby and not both? Why do people go out of the way to knock down perceived barriers to abortion access, but seem disinterested in eliminating the socioeconomic barriers to giving birth and parenting? Why do people feel the only way to achieve equity between the sexes is to deny the biological realities of the sexes? Why do we primarily deal with the asymmetric burdens of human reproduction by promoting abortion? Why can’t we honor a woman’s different role by making social and economic accommodations for women so that their education and careers are prioritized during their reproductive years? Why is it that many of the same people who characterize themselves as “anti-racist” fail to recognize the systemic issues and underlying racism that result in many more preborn babies of color being aborted than White preborn babies? I don’t profess to have all the answers. But what I do know is why I am prolife. I am a physician. In medical school, I studied embryology and marveled at the remarkable and seamless journey from zygote to human birth. My textbook unequivocally stated that “development begins at fertilization, when a sperm fuses with an ovum to form a zygote; this cell is the beginning of a new human being”. Any attempt to distinguish a human being from a human person is philosophically and scientifically arbitrary. As part of my educational training at medical school, I had the terrifying experience of viewing a recently aborted second trimester baby at the bottom of a surgical bucket. You can’t unsee that. As a medical student, I witnessed an OB/GYN attending physician flaunt her wealth by driving a Rolls Royce – only to learn her wealth was predicated on a very lucrative abortion clinic practice. I know that during the most common second trimester abortion procedure, an abortionist literally dismembers the fetus without the benefit of any anesthesia. I know that during abortions after fetal viability (22 weeks), the fetus is commonly injected with a drug, digoxin, which I have witnessed causing nausea, retching, abdominal pain, and delirium at toxic levels in my adult patients. It can take up to 4 hours to kill a fetus if the drug is injected directly into the body and up to 24 hours if it is injected into the amniotic fluid surrounding the fetus. That is up to 24 hours of fetal torture/anguish. Because I am a physician, I understand that there is no connection between abortion restrictions and the medical management of a miscarriage. Because I am a physician, I know that abortion restrictions never prevent a physician from responding to a medical emergency in a pregnant patient. I know that for rare medical complications during pregnancy, a physician must deliver a baby prematurely – even if delivering the baby will foreseeably result in the death of the baby. Because I am a physician, I know that the scare tactics employed by abortion advocates are just that – scare tactics. If a woman must go to another state for urgent/emergent complications of her pregnancy, it is because of malpractice, not because of abortion restrictions. I have had men and women yell and swear at me because of my prolife position who ultimately break down in tears, and admit they were angry because they aborted their child and knew it was wrong. I have had an elderly woman come up to me outside an abortion clinic where I was offering help to abortion vulnerable women and thank me as she cried and said that if I had been there 50 years ago, she many have not made the worst decision of her life and had an abortion. I have had a woman stop her car in the middle of the street outside an abortion clinic and smile from ear to ear, explaining that because I was there two years ago, her little boy was now two years old. I know that abortion hurts women and men alike. I know that many women feel coerced by their financial situation or partners, but there is help and we won't let them stand alone. I know that sanctioning violence in the wound leads to increasing violence in our culture. I know that when we start dividing human beings into those that are worthy of rights/protections and those that are unworthy of rights/protections we undermine our own human dignity/value. So why is a majority of the electorate voting against abortion restrictions? It is true that if the mainstream media would cover the issue objectively, more could discern the truth about the reality of abortion. I also believe that if more could see what I see, they would vote to protect innocent human life in the womb. And I know that I will fight to protect the dignity and value of every human being until the day I take my last breath. I hope more of you join me. Thomas J. Perille MD
By Tom Perille November 6, 2023
Krista Kafer nailed it. A small faction of abortion rights extremists strong-armed the Democratic caucus and pushed through SB23-190 which punitively targeted Pregnancy Resource Centers which are commonly affiliated with religious organizations. Not only did they blatantly challenge the first amendment rights of these centers, but they also didn’t hide their animus in hours of testimony at the state capitol. The bill also sought to ban the use of progesterone to mitigate the abortifacient effects of mifepristone – the first pill in the two-drug medication abortion regimen. Eliminating this option has nothing to do with improving abortion access but rather is all about denying a woman’s agency and removing her choices. Opposition to abortion pill reversal was never about the science since there is low-level, but multifaceted and compelling evidence to support the practice. Instead, their true motivations were revealed in testimony from ACOG to the Medical Board – they didn’t want to acknowledge that women change their minds about abortion since it would contradict their preferred narrative and lead to “abortion stigma”. They cared little about the desperate woman in their exam room who believed she made a tragic mistake and wanted to save her baby. I hope my fellow Democrats take the judge’s decision as a wake-up call. It is past time to look beyond a narrow proabortion focus and support all attempts to serve women who face a challenging pregnancy. Thomas J. Perille MD President, Democrats for Life of Colorado
By Tom Perille October 18, 2023
Excerpts from Democrats for Life of Colorado's President, Thomas Perille MD, to the Colorado Medical, Nursing and Pharmacy Boards which walks through the evidence in support of abortion pill reversal: Members of the Colorado Medical Board, Board of Nursing and Board of Pharmacy, With the signature of SB23-190 into law by Governor Polis, you have been asked to evaluate a specific medical intervention to determine if it is a “generally accepted standard of practice”. As someone who has reviewed several cases for the Medical Board to determine if a provider deviated from accepted community standards, I would like to provide my perspective based on a careful review of the evidence. So called “abortion pill reversal” (APR) protocols were developed in response to the rare situation in which a woman pursuing a medication abortion regrets her choice after taking the first pill, mifepristone, but before taking the second drug, misoprostol, in the two-drug regimen. The purpose of APR is to mitigate the abortifacient effects of mifepristone and increase the odds of a continuing pregnancy. It should be no surprise that some women harbor significant ambivalence about their abortion decision. The Turnaway Study (page 126) reported that within one week of being denied an abortion, 35% of women no longer wished to have an abortion. In 2022, 31 Colorado women (approximately 0.4% of medication abortion patients) sought to pursue APR through the most prominent organization dedicated to APR – Heartbeat International . As a matter of principle, clinicians routinely honor a patient’s right to withdraw consent from any medical or surgical intervention. Therefore, addressing the needs of women who change their mind about their medication abortion should not be controversial. Mifepristone was developed in the 1980s as a progesterone antagonist. It is one drug in a whole class of Selective Progesterone Receptor Modulators (SPRMs). The drug binds progesterone receptors twice as avidly as progesterone. In the early 1990s it was studied primarily as a means to terminate early pregnancy . APR is based on the premise that mifepristone competition for the progesterone receptors is a dynamic process. By flooding the receptors with natural progesterone, one could theoretically overcome the binding of mifepristone to progesterone receptors and reduce its abortifacient effects. Some abortion researchers have questioned the potential for high dose progesterone to significantly impact mifepristone’s binding to progesterone receptors. They cite the observation that women treated with mifepristone for abortion have high progesterone levels and therefore it would seem implausible that more progesterone would make any difference. They also point to a study of the very potent progestin contraceptive implant, etonogestrel. When it was administered immediately after the ingestion of mifepristone, it did not reduce the percentage of successful medication abortions. There are animal and human data to counter these arguments. Early in the research on mifepristone it was recognized that its binding to the progesterone receptor could be reduced by increasing progesterone levels. In a study in pregnant rats, those that received mifepristone only had 33% of pups survive. In contrast, those that were given progesterone with mifepristone, 100% of pups survived. A second study in rats demonstrated a clear progesterone mediated reversal of mifepristone induced pregnancy termination in a rat model. As early as 1991, a medical review of mifepristone use in medication abortions recognized that the mifepristone binding to the progesterone receptor could be reversed by adding progesterone. Collectively, these provide proof of principle for APR. The fact that progestin can interfere with the action of a SPRM in humans is a documented concern outside of mifepristone use for medication abortion. The FDA recommends that progesterone containing hormonal contraceptives not be administered within 5 days of taking the SPRM, ulipristal, so as not to reduce its effectiveness as a form of emergency contraception. Compelling evidence that a progestin can specifically interfere with a mifepristone (and misoprostol) in a medication abortion was found during a large, randomized, multinational study of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate use as a post-abortive contraceptive. In this study, the administration of medroxyprogesterone in conjunction with the ingestion of mifepristone (Quickstart) was associated with a 400% increase in the odds of a continuing pregnancy compared to delaying the administration of medroxyprogesterone after a mifepristone/misoprostol abortion (Afterstart). While the absolute difference was small (0.9% to 3.6%), the results were statistically significant. Some researchers speculated that depot medroxyprogesterone acetate differs from other progestins, such as etonogestrel, because of its potency and rapid achievement of peak levels. The first known use of high dose progesterone to mitigate the effects of mifepristone during the course of a medication abortion was in 2006 by Dr. Matthew Harrison. A desperate woman who immediately regretted her medication abortion decision sought his help. Based on the known mechanism of action and the record of safety using progesterone to treat miscarriages, he initiated a course of high dose parenteral progesterone. This resulted in the delivery of a healthy baby girl. I would argue that even this early adoption of the APR concept met the criteria for a “generally accepted standard of practice” as defined by the Colorado Medical Board. The strategy was plausible based on the known mechanism of action of mifepristone – competitive inhibition of the progesterone receptor. Animal research supported the approach. The intervention was deemed safe in analogous OB indications (miscarriage prevention) at the time. And most importantly, the potential benefit - a life saved- justified an unproven intervention. The only alternative course of action was expectant management which would be anticipated to result in only a 20-40% chance of embryonic survival based on WHO data from 1997. In 2012, the first case series utilizing progesterone to block the abortifacient effects of mifepristone was published. Four of six (66%) women who were administered parenteral progesterone after taking mifepristone carried their pregnancies to term. A second small case series in 2017 also demonstrated a 66% continuing pregnancy rate after administration of progesterone following mifepristone. This compares to a historical rate of >>risk). The only alternative – expectant management – is associated with a much poorer outcomes and potentially worse safety - twice the embryo/fetus mortality and a possible greater risk of hemorrhage for the woman. Thank you for your consideration. Thomas J. Perille MD FACP FHM President, Democrats for Life of Colorado
Show More
Share by: