Welcome to The Pro Life Campaign Blogspot

Thank you for visiting our blog. We want this to be a rich and informative discussion forum and look forward to your participation. You can visit our website at www.prolifecampaign.ie or email us on info@prolifecampaign.ie







Showing posts with label abortion statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion statistics. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

New 60-year review of Irish maternal deaths show no suicides because of pregnancy

No evidence that suicide is a treatment for pregnant suicidal women - Government must not mislead women that abortion prevents suicide


A new and groundbreaking study of every maternal death that occurred in Dublin's three maternity hospitals between 1950 and 2011 has found that no woman died by suicide because she was pregnant.
The study, on suicide in pregnancy, examined the Mater's Reports relating to over 1 million pregnant women linked to the three Dublin maternity hospitals.
It shows that in total there were 394 maternal deaths. Of these, 5 died by suicide - one died during pregnancy (at 30 weeks gestation), while four died shortly after giving birth.
Vitally and crucially, the data, obtained from these reports, shows that the five women who died by suicide did NOT do so because of their pregnancy but because of problems external to it such as mental illness.
Importantly in the context of the present debate, the records cover a period that begins almost 20 years before the liberalisation of the British abortion laws in 1967.
This makes it much harder to claim that suicidal pregnant women in the first part of the period under examination were going to Britain for abortions.



The study was carried out by Professor Patricia Casey, of UCD and the Mater Misericoradiae University hospital. She is an internationally recognised researcher and clinical practitioner in the area of suicide and self-harm. 

Prof Casey said: "It demonstrates that suicide in pregnancy is extremely rare and suicide as a result of the pregnancy itself, as distinct from some other social or health problem that preceded the pregnancy or developed during the pregnancy, is unheard of."

"It is thus misleading to suggest that abortion is necessary to prevent suicide in pregnancy, a view that was confirmed by the perinatal psychiatrists at the Heath Committee hearings on abortion in January. They confirmed that they had never seen a case where abortion was the only intervention to treat a pregnant suicidal woman,” Prof Casey said.
She also pointed to the written submission of St. Patrick's Hospital to the Committee, which also stated that there is no evidence supporting the view that abortion is a treatment for any mental health problem or behaviour.

Professor Casey also drew attention to the written submission of Professor Kevin Malone, Professor of Psychiatry at UCD and St. Vincent's Hospital, and a leading international researcher in the field of suicide risk and prediction, who wrote that suicide cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy that would satisfy a legislative test.

He also expressed concern that legislating for abortion on the grounds of suicide risk “inexplicably legitimizes and normalizes "suicidality" under certain conditions - for women only”. This, he said, would have the unintended consequence of exacerbating the risk of suicide among men.
Professor Casey said that the Government, by its laws, must not ask psychiatry to mislead women in believing that abortion prevents suicide.

“It is imperative that any decision on the resolution of the Government’s issue in relation to the X case must be based on medical research and evidence. The clinical facts and international experience clearly show that legislation, no matter how limited, actually promotes widespread abortion.

“As a doctor with many years of experience of health services in Ireland and the UK, I know that, for any given service, the volume of any treatment provided is most closely correlated with its availability. Once the service is available, it will be used,” she said.

Read a report about the study in today's Irish Independent here

Thursday, July 12, 2012

English health service regulator finds 14 NHS abortion clinics flouting rules of Abortion Act 1967.



The Care Quality Commission in Britain has found 14 abortion clinics on the National Health Service breaking rules and also found "irregularities" at some clinics.
According to the Care Quality Commission, the 14 clinics were found breaking rules by allowing doctors to pre-sign forms authorising abortions, which does not comply to The Abortion Act 1967. The Abortion Act 1967 requires a form (HSA1) certifying that the requirements for a termination have been met to be signed by two doctors before the procedure takes place. The practice in the 14 abortion clinics meant that in reality only one doctor was making the decision.
The Care Quality Commission was instructed by the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley to investigate the practice of pre-signed HSA1 forms. The inspections were unannounced and took place in March 2012. 
The inspections follow private investigations by The Telegraph in February 2012, which also showed doctors to pre-sign HSA1 forms. The Telegraph’s investigation also found abortion clinics were flouting the law by allowing women to terminate their pregnancies on the basis of the unborn child’s gender.
The 14 abortion clinics found to be in breach of the law are now complying with the Abortion Act, the Care Quality Commission says. All have now taken steps including internal audits and staff training to ensure continued compliance. 

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Pro Life Campaign welcomes reduction in abortion rate

The latest Irish abortion figures released today by the British Department of Health* show another reduction in the number of Irish women travelling to Britain for abortion.


In 2009, 4,422 Irish women travelled to Britain for abortions, down from 4,600 for the previous year. It is the eighth consecutive year that Irish abortions have declined after more than a decade of upward trends.

Commenting on the latest figures, Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro-Life Campaign said:

The Pro-Life Campaign welcomes the downward trend in Ireland's abortion rate.

Some have suggested the reduction in abortions may be as a result of more Irish women opting for abortions in other European countries. But this is purely anecdotal as there is no statistical evidence to back up these claims. Holland is often mentioned as a country where more Irish women may increasingly travel for abortions but the official Dutch figures in recent years show little or no change in the number of abortions on foreign nationals.


Groups advocating abortion in Ireland claim that we need to introduce abortion here to “confront the reality of crisis pregnancy.” This attitude completely ignores the humanity of the unborn child and the latest peer reviewed research showing the negative consequences of abortion for women. Rather than seek to have abortion introduced in Ireland, we should see the latest reduction in the abortion rate as very encouraging and work together to ensure this downward trend continues.

Ireland’s abortion rate is now 4.4 per 1,000 female residents aged 15-44 where Britain’s is 17.5.

*Statistical Bulletin, Summary Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2009 (Published 25/05/10)

Friday, March 12, 2010

Marie Stopes - yet another misleading abortion poll in Ireland

When it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. Abortion-provider Marie Stopes’ YouGov poll on abortion, released earlier this week, scored high on quackery.

If you ask a loaded question, you get a loaded and so worthless answer. Loaded with what? Loaded with false presuppositions that are never spelt out to the respondent.

The latest Marie Stopes poll claims three quarters of the Irish public support abortion in certain circumstances. The poll makes no distinction between necessary medical interventions in pregnancy and induced abortion, where the life of the unborn baby is directly targeted.

When a poll asks misleading questions, the answers measure how far the questioner has misled the respondents. If your question implies that women’s lives and health are at risk because abortion is not available, then you are inviting the answer, ‘Of course, abortion should be available to save those women’s lives.’ But that’s a loaded question. It is loaded with a false presupposition.

The truth is that Ireland is the safest country on planet earth for a woman having a baby. We have the best, the best, maternal safety for the lives of mothers having babies in the world.

Opinion polls are supposed to be snapshots of public opinion not tools of ideological propaganda. When the public are asked straightforward not misleading questions on abortion the answer is overwhelmingly pro-life. In a 2009 IMS/Millward Brown poll commissioned by the Pro-Life Campaign, 63% of the public supported a prohibition on abortion while ensuring the continuation of existing practice of intervention to save a mother’s life. Only 16% said they were opposed to such a prohibition on abortion.

The pro-life community needs to understand what Marie Stopes and similar abortion advocacy groups are working at. The fact that their polls are misleading doesn’t seem to bother them. The fact also that a sizable chunk of the media is prepared to run with these type of polls without asking the tough questions makes it easier for Marie Stopes and others to create a public expectation that abortion legislation is inevitable. This highlights the necessity for groups like the Pro-Life Campaign to avail of every opportunity to set the record straight with the public.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Medical care not abortion improves maternal mortality rates in developing countries

Since the late 1960s deaths of mothers having children have fallen dramatically -- “current rates for developed countries are between one-fortieth and one-fiftieth of the rates that prevailed 60 years ago”, a peer reviewed article by Irvine Loudon published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found.[1]

What brought about this ‘dramatic’ improvement in the safety of mothers in pregnancy and birth? Was it permissive abortion laws? Loudon’s survey of the relevant factors concludes, “The main factors that led to thisdecline seem to have been successive improvements in maternalcare rather than higher standards of living.”

This suggests that the way to improve safety for mothers and their children during pregnancy and birth is not the introduction of permissive abortion laws, but improving the availability and quality of care and education for mothers having children.

This is confirmed by preliminary findings presented by Chilean epidemiologist, Dr Elard Koch, of the University of Chile faculty of medicine. He was addressing the inaugural meeting of the International Group for Global Women’s Health Research in Washington DC last month.[2]

Maternal mortality in Chile fell from 275 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1960 to 18.7 in 2000, the largest fall in any Latin American country. What caused this dramatic improvement?

Dr Koch said, ‘From 1960 onwards, there has been a breakthrough in the public health system and primary care’ in Chile. Resources, he added, were put into the development of ‘highly trained personnel, the construction of many primary health centres and the increase of schooling of the population.’

Chile protects unborn life in its constitution and laws - the improvement in maternal safety was not brought about by legalising abortion.

In Latin America, Chile which has pro-life legislation also has the lowest maternal mortality rate, while Guyana which brought in more liberal abortion laws in the mid-1990s putatively because of high maternal mortality rates, has the highest maternal rates, suggesting that they are applying the wrong solution to the problem, wider abortion instead of improving maternal care and education.

While International Planned Parenthood, the international abortion advocacy multinational, recently noted ‘a huge surge in maternal deaths’ in South Africa between 2007 and 2007 .[3]

They quoted the South African Report, ‘Saving Mothers 2005 – 2007’ which accepted a 20% increase in maternal deaths over the period, and acknowledged that nearly 4 out of every 10 of these deaths ‘were clearly avoidable within the health care system’.

Also mentioned in the report are ‘deaths due to complications of abortion’. South Africa has a permissive abortion legislation so it is not unreasonable to see in here a wrong solution becoming part of the problem.

It is becoming clearer by the day that the way to improve maternal mortality rates in developing countries is to improve the availability and quality of maternal care and education, and that legalising abortion in developing countries is part of the problem not part of the solution.
________________

[1] Maternal mortality in the past and its relevance to developing countries today’ American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 72, No. 1, 241S-246s, July 2000
[2] Friday Fax, the C-Fam Institute, Vol. 13, No. 9, 11th February 2010, http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1571/pub_detail.asp, accessed on 23rd February 2010.)
[3] http://www.ippf.org/en/News/Intl+news/South+Africa+Huge+surge+in+maternal+deaths.htm

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Who's behind the push for Abortion in Ireland?

IFPA and Irish Examiner helps Human Rights Watch push for abortion in Ireland

Human Rights Watch is a renowned abortion advocacy group so the news that it recently issued another document giving out about another country not having introduced a liberal abortion regime is yawnfully predictable.

This time it’s Ireland’s turn. Imagine the surprise on reading that a pro-abortion lobby group thinks it’s awful we don’t have abortion!

It does, however, have one interesting fact. A note on page 53 states, ‘Human Rights Watch is particularly grateful for the information, support, expertise and feedback provided by many staff members of the Irish Family Planning Association.’

Another disappointment and something which must be addressed is the way the Irish Examiner newspaper gave the story top billing two days running and failed to report a single word from the Pro Life Campaign taking issue with the report. The decision of the Irish Examiner to give the story such prominence lacks all credibility and highlights its strong ideological bias in favour of a pro-abortion position.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Honest debate necessary to address real issues sorrounding Abortion in Ireland

The way in which the Irish Examiner presented the result of a RED C online survey on abortion published on 21st January was misleading and did not make an honest contribution to the debate on abortion in Ireland.

The poll claiming that 60% of 18-35 year olds support legalised abortion in Ireland was presented by the Irish Examiner in a misleading way on its front page on

Given the question posed, the results were not at all surprising. The survey made no distinction between necessary medical treatments in pregnancy and induced abortion, (where the life of the unborn child is directly targeted). This in effect renders the findings meaningless and sheds no new light on public attitudes to abortion.

Polls, including one in 2009, that distinguish between standard medical treatments and induced abortion consistently show majority opposition to legal abortion according to Millward Brown IMS market research 2005-2009. and 2009

The Red C survey confined its interviews to 18-35 year olds. Clearly then the findings are not representative of the general population. Also, only 36% of the 18-35 year olds interviewed 'strongly' approve of legal abortion and not 60% as the Irish Examiner claimed.

The report also failed to draw attention to the known fact that 18-35 year olds start to increasingly identify with the pro-life position as they get older. This is borne out in all surveys on the issue.

All things considered, it was extremely misleading for the paper to run with today's front page headline declaring: 60% In Favour of Legal Abortion

The abortion debate is a very serious one and deserves more objective treatment than it received in the Irish Examiner.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Human Rights Watch Ireland Abortion Report Ridiculous

The New York based advocacy group Human Rights Watch released a document on 28th January entitled 'A State of Isolation: Access to Abortion for Women in Ireland'.

Among other things, it claims that Ireland is in breach of its international human rights obligations for not allowing legalised abortion in this country.
Human Rights Watch cannot credibly claim to be a human rights organisation while at the same time denying the rights of unborn children throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. Any authentic vision of human rights has to include the right to life. Otherwise it is meaningless.

Human Rights Watch may talk a lot about the issue but it does not have a monopoly on concern for women's health. Ireland without abortion is a recognised world leader in providing medical care for women during pregnancy. Human Rights Watch and likeminded abortion advocacy groups need to reflect on this reality instead of creating unnecessary fears about women's health simply to have abortion imposed on Ireland.

Human Rights Watch is also in complete denial regarding the latest peer reviewed studies showing the extremely damaging psychological effects of abortion on women. Women deserve better from an organisation claiming to serve its best interests.

It is ridiculous to claim that Ireland is in breach of its international human rights obligations because it respects the right to life of unborn children. It is embarrassingly obvious from today's publication that Human Rights Watch has little or no knowledge of the situation in Ireland. As an abortion advocacy group, it may see a political value in using over the top terms to describe Ireland's abortion laws but this approach does nothing to serve the cause of informed and reasoned debate.

Seeking to protect both mother and baby during pregnancy is not a violation of any human right. In fact it is the complete opposite. Abortion is legal up to birth in some countries. Human Rights Watch supports these barbaric laws. As a group, it even opposes laws prohibiting sex-selection abortions, specifically targeting female unborn children. This alone completely undermines its claim to be a defender of women's rights.

Rather than discriminating against certain categories of human beings, we need to work together to build a more welcoming society where the value and dignity of every human life, born and unborn, is respected