Blog Post

Vote Yes on 115 to restrict abortion after 22 weeks in Colorado

Introduction

Late abortions (after 22 weeks gestational age) are extreme by any national and international comparison. Just seven of the 50 States in the US permit abortion after 25 weeks.1 Most (38) prohibit abortion at 22 weeks or less. Internationally, only five of the 198 countries, independent states, and semi-autonomous regions with populations exceeding 1 million permit elective 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 developing 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 human 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. 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.4 Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains characterizes the dismemberment of late second trimester fetus during a Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion as removing “pregnancy tissue”.5 Orwellian language is utilized to refer to the crushed and dismembered human fetus as “products of conception” or simply “POC”. 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.6 In 2020, the Marist Poll found that 70% of Americans felt that abortion should be restricted to the first 3 months of pregnancy or less.7 The Marist poll also revealed that 41% of self-identified prochoice voters were more inclined to vote for a candidate who supported abortion restrictions. 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 22 week fetus a human being?

Human embryology has long established the fact that human life begins at fertilization and that human development is a seamless process that continues for years after birth. It should not be surprising that 96% of 5577 biology scientists who were recently surveyed agreed that human life begins at fertilization.8-9 No matter how hard abortion rights activists try to obfuscate, human zygotes, embryos and fetuses are biological human beings.

A primordial heart develops in the human embryo by the fifth week (post last menstrual period) and begins to pump blood by the sixth week.10 Rapid development of the brain occurs in the seventh week. By the 10th week, the embryo has distinctly human characteristics, developed the beginnings of all major organ systems, and demonstrates purposeful limb movements. During the 19th week, the mother can feel the fetal movements and by 22-weeks the fetus can respond to her mother’s touch. Fetal surgeries, in which the human fetus is operated on by specially trained fetal surgeons and anesthesiologists, have been pursued as early as the 19th- week gestation.11-12

Human fetuses have been born in the 21st-week gestation with excellent neurodevelopmental outcomes.13 Based on one national study performed on infants born at 22 weeks gestation between 2006 and 2011, 23% survived with active treatment.14 However, more recent data from the University of Iowa encompassing outcomes between 2006 and 2015, suggest a much more robust 70% survival.15 The majority had no or mild neurodevelopmental impairments.

While there is considerable debate concerning when the human fetus can experience pain, it is very likely that a 22-week-old human fetus can experience pain – likely, more intensely than an infant or adult.16 The experience of pain in humans is characterized by two neurological functions: nociception which involves the transmission of painful stimuli to the central nervous system and perception which entails the organization, identification, and interpretation of the painful sensory information. Nociception occurs early in fetal life, but perception occurs later. In a systematic multidisciplinary review published in 2005, researchers (who opposed abortion restrictions) argued that the processing of painful stimuli can only occur once the brain cortex is fully functional – not before the third trimester.17 However, the majority of contemporary fetal medicine specialists now consider the evidence that a 22-24 week fetus experiences pain compelling.16,18-22 Some believe a fetus as young as 13 weeks able to experience pain, albeit without the capacity for self-reflection.23 They cite the adequacy of nociceptive pathways, the presence of a working thalamus (which relays painful stimuli), the development of the subplate (which is an active, albeit transient, layer of the human brain cortex), documented periods of wakefulness/arousability, hormonal stress/pain responses, and fetal behavioral correlates of pain. This conclusion is reinforced by measurements of nociception-specific brain activity using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), electroencephalography (EEG), and functional MRI.24-26 More sophisticated 4D ultrasound technology has also enhanced our ability to use facial expression to assess fetal pain.27-28 Because inhibitory descending pathways, which down-regulate pain perception, mature only after birth, the human fetus may be much more sensitive to pain than infants or adults.18,20-21 Clinicians have long observed that preterm infants at the lowest limit of viability have “profound, acute adverse reactions” to major painful stimuli.29 Physicians and nurses in neonatal intensive care units witness this every day and utilize multiple different pain assessment tools to help measure and mitigate the pain.19

Ultrasound using 4D technology has revealed a surprising diversity of fetal movements and added to our knowledge of the fetal central nervous system and neurobehavior.30-31 By the 11th week of gestation, the fetus demonstrates head flexion/rotation, isolated arm/leg movements, stretching, sucking, swallowing, hiccups, jaw opening and yawning.32 By the 22 weeks gestation the fetus can blink, repetitively open/close their mouth, extrude their tongue, smile, and grimace.33-34 Fetuses have been observed to cry in utero.30 These observations attest to the sophistication of the fetal brain at 22 weeks and suggest a nascent fetal emotional response.

The human fetus develops the ability to detect other sensory stimuli such as tastes and smells.35-36 Researchers have demonstrated that specific foods and flavors in the maternal diet during pregnancy can transfer to and flavor the amniotic fluid. These flavors are in turn tasted by the fetus and result in post-natal food preferences. This is how culture-specific flavor preferences are learned by the fetus and initiated early in life.

It has also long been recognized that the human fetus can respond to sound as early as 19 weeks.37-38 The human fetus specifically responds to her/his mother’s voice.39 At 25 weeks human fetuses have been observed to mimic their mother’s resuscitation of a nursery rhyme by opening and closing their mouths.40 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. Studies have shown that prenatally acquired acoustical memory can persist at least 6 weeks after birth.41

Late second trimester and third trimester human fetuses display a number of other advanced cortical functions. The human fetus’ sensorimotor behavior demonstrates the same characteristics later observed in the child’s behavior.40 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.

Human fetuses in utero with gestational ages of 22 weeks or greater are biologically indistinguishable from infants born at 22 weeks – they are vital human beings. They have developed all the essential organ systems, they can perceive pain, they can demonstrate sophisticated behaviors including nascent emotion, they can respond to and learn from familiar tastes and 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 Constitution has not, and should not be, contingent on location.


Why do women choose late abortion, how common is the practice, and what are the alternatives?

There is very limited information available in the United States regarding who pursues very late abortions. Most studies suggest women have later abortions for similar reasons that they have early abortions with several caveats.42-44 Age and educational level were not associated with abortions after 16 weeks in one Guttmacher sponsored study.42 Black women were twice as likely to have late abortions. Another study which was based on the baseline Turnaway data concluded that “reasons for seeking abortion are not different whether women sought abortion early or late in pregnancy.”43 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).44 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 abortions are necessitated by terrible fetal anomalies or life endangering conditions. Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion providers, famously admitted that he lied to Congress and the public when he stated that late abortions are rare and performed primarily to save the lives of women and to prevent them the burden of bearing severely deformed babies.45-46 He stated that late abortion is performed much more commonly than acknowledged and generally on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses. He feared the truth would hurt the cause of abortion rights. This sentiment is echoed by Frances Kissling, president of the Center for Health, Ethics and Social Polity who admitted that “our talking point is, most of these procedures are on women who discover abnormalities late in the pregnancy” even though “we don’t know if that is true”.47 Late abortionists have admitted doing thousands of late abortion procedures annually and only a “minuscule amount” on abnormal fetuses.45 Hillary Clinton famously repeated the false spin that late abortions “are because of medical necessity” during a debate with candidate Donald Trump. This assertion was widely debunked by fact checkers.48 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”.48 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.49-53 One of the few mandatory state databases that confidentially tracks late abortions in Arizona, reported that 80% of abortions after 21 weeks were performed on normal fetuses in 2018.54


There is no mandatory reporting for number of abortions, indications for abortions or complications from abortions in the United States. Consequently, it is difficult to independently 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.55 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. He indicated that from his review of the records “anybody could have gotten an (third trimester) abortion if they wanted one”.

In Colorado, the Boulder Abortion Clinic advertises elective abortions, (for any reason) to 26 weeks and then to 36 weeks for “medically indicated terminations”.56 Few Colorado abortionists publicly admit performing late/third trimester abortions and Dr. Warren Hern from the Boulder Abortion Clinic is the exception. 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.57-58 However, anecdotal reports and a scientific publication suggests that the Boulder Abortion Clinic is willing to consider later abortions for normal human fetuses.49, 52, 56, 59 Dr. Hern has admitted that 70% of his abortion practice is for normal human fetuses.59 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).59

To obtain Colorado-specific abortion data is extremely difficult. The Colorado Department of Health (CDPHE) collects an (admittedly) incomplete survey of abortion providers (since it is anonymous, not mandated, and there is no enforcement mechanism). In their 2018 Report of Induced Terminations of Pregnancy, 323 abortions were performed after 21 weeks gestation in Colorado (which represents 3.6% of the total abortions performed).60 The corresponding figure for 2019 was 169 or 1.9%.61 The Guttmacher Institute pegs the abortion rate in Colorado approximately 40% higher (based on 2017 data)62 Assuming the CDPHE underestimation persists and is uniformly distributed amongst all gestational ages, this would translate into approximately 452 abortions after 21 weeks in 2018 and 237 in 2019.

There is reason to believe that late abortions are significantly under-reported In Colorado. The precipitous drop in late abortion in 2019 is not credible. Abortions dropped from 277 between 22-24 weeks gestation in 2018 to 123 in 2019.60-61 There is no plausible explanation for this drop other than a decrease in clinic(s) reporting late abortions. The notion of under-reporting is further reinforced by the observation that the Boulder Abortion Clinic can’t be reporting their figures. Dr. Hern’s own published research suggests that he was performing approximately 250 abortions per year with 70% after 22 weeks, and 40% after 26 weeks.59 The 2018 and 2019 CDPHE reports only indicate 12 and 13 abortions were performed after 25 weeks – instead of the estimated 100 abortions performed by Dr. Hern after 26 weeks alone.

How often is it medically necessary to abort a human 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.48 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.63 These would all likely be adjudicated long before 22 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.64 When a mother has a true medical emergency after 22 weeks gestation, abortion is never the safest approach. Emergent delivery of the baby via cesarean section is considered the medically appropriate option. To pursue a multi-day abortion procedure would be widely perceived to be medical malpractice.

Some women may feel the need to abort their fetus if they discover chromosomal or structural abnormalities. Prenatal screening tests can confirm fetal abnormalities by 18-20 weeks using currently recommended national screening guidelines – first trimester screen or quadruple marker screen, or integrated stepwise sequential/contingent screening, or cell free DNA screening and mid-trimester ultrasound.65 These women who choose to abort these fetuses should not be impeded by a prohibition on abortion after 22 weeks gestation. Similarly, women who have fetuses conceived in rape and choose abortion need not be affected by late abortion restrictions.

There is no question that woman contemplating late abortion make heart-wrenching decisions. They often feel that abortion is their only choice because of lack of support from family/friends. They may be unaware of life-affirming alternatives. Women need to know that in Colorado there are many private and governmental organizations that can provide medical, financial, housing, educational, employment, adoption, emotional and spiritual support to them and their families. They should also be made aware of the many compassionate services that Perinatal hospice offers.

Perinatal loss is one of the most devastating events a family will ever experience. Tragically, many families are unaware that perinatal hospice offers a compassionate, loving, and life-affirming alternative to late abortion for fetuses with life-limiting genetic or congenital abnormalities. Perinatal hospice can improve the mother’s and family’s experience when confronted with a fatal fetal diagnosis.65-67 Perinatal hospice involves a multidisciplinary team that includes obstetricians, perinatologists, labor & delivery nurses, neonatologists, clergy, social workers, midwives and hospice professionals. Together they accompany the family through the pregnancy and birth allowing them to fully embrace and celebrate the abbreviated life of their baby. The baby receives palliative symptom management to ensure a natural and comfortable passing. The family is afforded precious time to hold, feed, bathe, and love their baby. Perinatal hospice provides ongoing bereavement services for a year or more. None of these services are typically provided with a late abortion – families are left on their own to navigate the emotionally wrenching reality of their babies illness and death – in which they were complicit.


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. Late abortions to preserve the life of the mother are a very rarely, if ever, indicated. Perinatal hospice offers a compassionate, life-affirming alternative to late abortion for families struggling with a fatal fetal diagnosis. Late abortion restrictions need not affect the choices for women with chromosomally or structurally abnormal fetuses and those suffering from rape.


How are late abortions performed and are they “humane”?

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.69 During D&E, cervical dilation is achieved over one or more days by osmotic dilators (+/- adjuvant misoprostol) to facilitate the subsequent mechanical destruction and dismemberment of the fetus. Parts of the human 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/intra-fetal digoxin, intracardiac potassium chloride or transection of the umbilical cord sometimes proceeds the D&E.

Dilation and Extraction (D&X) or Intact D&E is similar to the D&E procedure except that a suction cannula is utilized to evacuate the brain after delivery of the fetal human body/legs through the dilated cervix.69 The ensuing collapse of the head facilitates its passage through the cervical canal. In the popular vernacular this procedure is sometimes 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 after several days of osmotic dilators.69 The human fetus is usually delivered intact. To remain within the framework of the law, fetal demise is achieved prior to delivery using a feticide. This is the method used in third trimester abortions.

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, only 30-50% of human fetuses are routinely killed prior to the dismemberment procedure in second trimester abortions.70-71 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 human fetuses who are killed before they are dismembered or delivered in second and third trimester abortions, there may be substantial suffering. A recent post-mortem MRI study of fetuses who have been administered a feticide indicate secondary pneumothorax – collapsed lung (23%), hemothorax – hemorrhage in lung (42%), pneumopericardium – air around the heart (31%), and hemopericardium – hemorrhage around the heart (35%).72 These fetuses also had higher intraabdominal injuries. This suggests that just the process of injecting the feticide may inflict substantial pain. Furthermore, a highly concentrated potassium infusion can cause intense intravascular burning in normal patients.73 Even though an intracardiac infusion of potassium can kill a fetus within 2 minutes, It’s impossible to ascertain whether the human fetus experiences intense pain prior to its demise.74 Intraamniotic or intra-fetal digoxin is the more commonly used poison to achieve fetal demise.75 A digoxin overdose in older humans causes intense nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, visual disturbances and delirium.76-78 Digoxin kills by causing severe bradycardia (slow heart rate) culminating in asystole (heart stopping), but it does not kill quickly. It can take up to 4 hours for intra-fetal and up to 24 hours for intraamniotic digoxin to achieve asystole.79-80 Women are routinely told to anticipate “kicks” for hours after the feticide is administered.81 The visual, gastrointestinal, neurological and cardiac manifestations of digoxin toxicity could arguably represent fetal human 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 human fetuses as “morally abhorrent”.82 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 human 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), under-reporting is also a major problem.83 There have been multiple instances documented where abortion related morbidity and mortality were not captured by the official state/federal databases. Since Colorado does not have require any oversight of abortion clinics (other than low-bar licensing requirements for their nursing/physician employees), there is substantial risk that maiming and death of affected women may go unreported. The Gosnell grand jury report in Pennsylvania should serve as a sober reminder that assuming major injuries and deaths from abortion are reported to and acted upon by civil authorities or medical boards is extremely naïve.84

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.85 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.86 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.86-87 To put this in perspective, the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities (AAAASF) compiled a 5 1/2 year database of over 1 million out-patient surgeries performed in ambulatory surgery centers.88 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.89 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.90 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 55/100000.91 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).92-95 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.96 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.83 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.97 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.91 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. 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.98 Any of these complications increased with each additional week of gestation beyond 20 weeks. Another study observed that for each one-week increase in gestational age, there was a 7.1% increase in estimated blood loss.99 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.3 Researchers have found a dose-response relationship between the number of prior abortions and the risk for extreme premature birth. The correlation between late abortion and/or multiple abortions with extremely premature birth and very low birth weight was more recently corroborated by a large Finnish national registry study.100 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 Better studies from Denmark utilizing national health registries suggest that abortion is a powerful marker for, rather than a cause of, affective disorders and suicide attempts.101-102 Other recent studies from America, China, and Korea suggest adverse mental health outcomes related to abortion.103-106

A balanced synthesis 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.”107

The risk of affective disorder and suicide ideation may be even more pronounced after the abortion of a wanted pregnancy – such as for fetal anomaly or maternal indications.108 Adverse mental health associations or effects may be tied with increased mortality in women having induced abortion.91, 97, 109

Conclusions:

Late abortion is extreme by any measure and should be prohibited. Passing Proposition 115(formerly Initiative 120) is not only medically/morally correct, it is consistent with the views of a majority of Coloradans. Very few countries in the world permit abortion after 20 weeks. Most Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, feel that abortion should be illegal late in pregnancy. A 22-week fetus in biologically indistinguishable from a baby born at 22 weeks. There is scientific evidence that a 22-week human fetus demonstrates all the fundamental characteristics of more developed humans, including the ability to perceive pain and perform sophisticated behaviors. The reasons women choose late abortion are similar to the reasons that women choose early abortion. Most late abortions are performed on normal human fetuses. For those tragic situations where a human fetus has a life-limiting prognosis because of a genetic or congenital fetal abnormality, perinatal hospice offers a compassionate, life-affirming alternative to late abortion. Late abortions are violent procedures that commonly involve the crushing and dismemberment of the human 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 may be an increased risk of early mortality in women who have abortion compared to women who deliver babies. This may be related to antecedent poor mental health in women who choose abortion and possibly adverse long-term mental health outcomes from abortion.


Thomas J. Perille MD

Head, Medical Advisory Team, Coalition for Women and Children

Democrats for Life of Colorado

Revised June 2020



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.

  1. Planned Parenthood. “What happens during an in-clinic abortion”. Retrieved from https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures/what-happens-during-an-in-clinic-abortion January 4, 2020.

  2. Trimesters Still Key to Abortion Views. (2018, June 13). Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx. January 04, 2020.

  3. Americans’ Opinions on Abortion. (2020, January). Retrieved from http://www.kofc.org/en/news/polls.html#/ June 17, 2020

  4. Jacobs, S (2019) I asked thousands of biologists when life begins. The answer wasn’t popular. Quillette. Retrieved January 8, 2020 at https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/?fbclid=IwAR0selWLvSvGon-YRh2SVHr62dWQkGZmNNSg-vkDYLJM2v61QHI17QlSJN0.

  5. Jacobs, SA. (June 2019). Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the US Abortion Debate. (Doctoral Thesis, University of Chicago, USA). Retrieved January 8, 2010 at https://knowledge.uchicago.edu/record/1883.

  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. Watkins PL, et.al., Outcomes at 18-22 Months of Corrected Age for Infants Born at 22 to 25 weeks of Gestation in a Center Practicing Active Management. J Pediatr; October 9, 2019. pii: S0022-3476(19)31086-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.08.028.

  12. Bellieni CV et. al., New insights into fetal pain. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Aug;24(4):101001. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2019.04.001. Epub 2019 Apr 6.

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

  14. 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.

  15. Boyle EM. Measuring and managing pain in the fetus and neonate – A new era and new challenges. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2019 Aug;24(4):101018. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2019.101018. Epub 2019 Jul 3

  16. Maxwell LG et. al., Assessment of Pain in the Newborn: An Update. Clin Perinatol. 2019 Dec;46(4):693-707. doi: 10.1016/j.clp.2019.08.005. Epub 2019 Aug 19

  17. Ranger M and Grunau RE, Early repetitive pain in preterm infants in relation to the developing brain. Pain Manag 2014; 4(1): 57-67.

  18. Vinall J and Grunau RE, Impact of repeated procedural pain-related stress in infants born very preterm. Pediatr Res. 2014: 75(5): 584-587.

  19. Derbyshire SWG and Bockmann JC. Reconsidering fetal pain. J Med Ethics 2020; 46:3-6.

  20. Field T, Preterm newborn pain research review. Infant Behavior and Development 2017; 49: 141-150.

  21. Roue JM et.al., Multi-modal pain assessment: are near-infrared spectroscopy, skin conductance, salivary cortisol, physiologic parameters, and Neonatal Facial Coding System interrelated during venipuncture in healthy term neonates? Journal of Pain Research 2018; 11: 2257-2267.

  22. Relland LM, et.al., Behavioral and Physiological Signs for Pain Assessment in Preterm and Term Neonates During a Nociception-specific Response: A Systematic Review. Pediatr Neurology 2019; 20: 13-23.

  23. 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.

  24. 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

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

  26. Neto RM and Porovic S. Clinical study of fetal neurobehavior by the KANET test. J. Perinatal. Med 2018; 46(6): 631-639.

  27. Kurjak A et.al., Is four-dimensional ultrasound Entering a new field of fetal psychiatry? Psychiatria Danubina 2019; 31(2): 133-140.

  28. Kurjak A et.al., Fetal behavior assessed in all three trimesters of normal pregnancy by four-dimensional ultrasonography 2005; 46(5): 772-780.

  29. Sato M, et.al., 4D ultrasound study of fetal facial expressions at 20-24 weeks. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2014; 126: 275-279.

  30. Lebit FD and Vladareanu R, The role of 4D ultrasound in the assessment of fetal behavior. Medica 2011; 6(2): 120-127

  31. Mennella JA, Jagnow CP and Beauchamp GK, Prenatal and Postnatal Flavor Learning by Huan Infants. Pediatrics 2001; 107(6): E88

  32. Spahn JM et.al., Influence of maternal diet on flavor tranfer to amniotic fluid and breast milk and children’s responses: as systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr 2019; 109(Suppl): 1003S-1026S.

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

  34. Johnson Chacko L et.al., Growth and cellular patterning during fetal human inner ear development studied by a correlative imaging approach. BMC Developmental Biology 2019; 11: 1-14.

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

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

  37. 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.

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

  39. Jones RK and Finer LB, Who has second-trimester abortions in the United States? Contraception 2012; 85: 544-551.

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

  41. Gianelli DM (1997, March 3). Medicine adds to debate on late-term abortion. American Medical News, 1-56

  42. Rivenburg, R. (1997, April 2). Partial Truths. Los Angeles Times

  43. Goldberg M. (2019, February 1). Fake News About Abortion in Virginia. New York Times.

  44. 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 8, 2020.

  45. 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 January 8, 2020.

  46. 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 January 8, 2020.

  47. Tolentino, J. (2013, September 20). Interview with Dr. Retrieved from https://www.thehairpin.com/2013/09/interview-with-dr/. Retrieved January 8, 2020.

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

  49. Kirchoff, C. (2019, February 19). Undercover: Late Term Abortion Clinics Exposed. Retrieved from https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/undercover-late-term-abortion-clinics-exposed/. Retrieved January 8, 2020.

  50. Abortions in Arizona, 2018 Abortion Report. Retrieved on June 20 from https://azdhs.gov/documents/preparedness/public-health-statistics/abortions/2018-arizona-abortion-report.pdf.

  51. 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 8, 2020.

  52. Boulder Abortion Clinic Abortion Services Overview. Retrieved from http://drhern.com/en/abortion-services/abortion-procedures-overview.html. Retrieved January 8, 2020.

  53. 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 8, 2020.

  54. 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 8, 2020.

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

  56. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 2018 Report on Induced Terminations of Pregnancy.

  57. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 2019 Report on Induced Terminations of Pregnancy.

  58. Guttmacher Institute. State Facts About Abortion Colorado. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-colorado. Retrieved on January 8, 2020

  59. Goodwin TM. Medicalizing Abortion Decisions. First Things. Retrieved from https://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/003-medicalizing-abortion-decisions. Retrieved on January 8, 2020.

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

  61. Carlson LM and Vora NL. Prenatal Diagnosis: Screening and Diagnostic Tools. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2017; 44(2): 245-256.

  62. Perinatal Hospice & Palliative Care. Retrieved from https://www.perinatalhospice.org/. Retrieved January 8, 2020.

  63. Cobb AD, Acknowledged Dependence and the Virtues of Perinatal Hospice. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2016; 41: 25-40.

  64. Wood C and Catlin A, Perinatal bereavement and palliative care offered throughout the healthcare system. Annals of Palliative Medicine 2019; 8(Suppl 1): 522-529.

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

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

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

  68. Shelmerdine SC et.al., Post-mortem Magnetic Resonance Imaging appearances of feticide in perinatal deaths. Fetal Diagn Ther 2019; 45(4): 221-229.

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

  70. 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.

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

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

  73. 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.

  74. 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.

  75. 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.

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

  77. 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.

  78. 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.

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

  80. Williams RS, Report of the Grand Jury in Re: Misc. No. 0009901-2008 County Investigating Grand Jury XXIII. Retrieved on January 8, 2020 from https://cdn.cnsnews.com/documents/Gosnell,%20Grand%20Jury%20Report.pdf.

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

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

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

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

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

  86. 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.

  87. 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.

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

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

  90. 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.

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

  92. 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.

  93. 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.

  94. 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.

  95. Bridges KH et.al., Maternal and procedural factors associated with estimated blood loss in second trimester surgical uterine evacuation: A restrospective cohort analysis. Int J Obstetst Anesth 2020; 6: S0959-289X(20)30032-7

  96. Situ KC et.al., The duration of gestation at previous induced abortion and its impacts on subsequent births: A nationwide registry-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2020: 99: 651-659.

  97. Steinberg JR et. al., Examining the Association of Antidepressant Prescriptions with First Abortion and First Childbirth. JAMA Psychiatry 2018; 75(8): 828-834

  98. Steinberg JR et. al., The association between first abortion and first-time non-fatal suicide attempt: a longitudinal cohort study of Danish population registries. Lancet Psychiatry 2019; 6: 1031-1038.

  99. Sullins DP, Abortion, substance abuse and mental health in early adulthood: Thirteen-year longitudinal evidence from the United States. SAGE Open Medicine 2016; 4: 1-11.

  100. Weng S-C et. al., Do stillbirth, miscarriage, and termination of pregnancy increase risks of attempted suicide within a year? A population-based nested case-control study. BJOG 2018; 125: 983-990.

  101. Luo M et. al., Association between induced abortion and suicidal ideation among unmarried female migrant workers in three metropolitan cities in China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2018; 18: 625.

  102. Wie JH et. al., The association between abortion experience and postmenopausal suicidal ideation and mental health: Results from the 5th Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES V). Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 58(1): 153-158.

  103. 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.

  104. Sullins DP, Affective and Substance Abuse Disorders following Abortion by Pregnancy Intention in the United States: A longitudinal cohort study. Medicina 2019; 55: 741.

  105. 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: