Tonight: National Webcast on “The Future of Medicine Under the Affordable Care Act”

Please join us for tonight’s National Webcast on “The Future of Medicine Under the Affordable Care Act” with Dr. C.L. Gray, MD at 9:00PM EST.

How will the new Affordable Care Act effect your decisions on issues of Life as a health care professional? This is a great concern for many med students as rights of conscience and medical ethics are under attack and the future of medicine is changing.  That is why we are inviting you to attend this very important webcast.

The webcast will be joined by Dr. C.L. Gray and he will discuss what you, as a med student, can expect under the new healthcare law and what to prepare for as you chart your course as a physician.  Dr. C. L. Gray is a nationally known writer, speaker, and board certified physician practicing hospital-based medicine in North Carolina. In 2006 he founded Physicians for Reform, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving patient-centered healthcare. Now in its second printing, Gray’s book, The Battle for America’s Soul, resulted from a decade spent in research and analysis of the history and philosophy of medical ethics. This book presents findings that link America’s present cultural divide with the practice of Post-Hippocratic medicine.
This webcast is open to all med students and health care professionals.  So, please join me on October 30th at 9:00pm ET!

Join by phone: 206-402-0100, caller ID 402116#

Join online:

Please don’t miss this exciting opportunity to gain the tools and understanding to chart your course as a pro-life medical professional.

What is it about informed consent?

What is it about informed consent that frightens abortion advocates?

Barbara Kay | Oct 4, 2012 11:02 AM ET Website

I think we’re going about this abortion debate the wrong way. We all know when life begins in the DNA sense: It begins at conception. The only people who have a bulletproof logical position on abortion are those for whom it is never ever permissible, because it is murder at any stage of gestation.

But that’s not most of us. Most of us believe abortion is admissible under certain conditions. But very few of us believe abortion should be permissible at any time before actual delivery of a live baby.

The honest amongst us do not call the fetus a wad of tissue. We know that even an embryonic baby is still a human being-in-waiting. Now we have to convince ourselves that it is okay to kill this homunculus before it gets to a stage where its resemblance to us begins to gnaw too painfully at our conscience to go through with the killing.

Everyone has a different reason for killing her unwanted fetus. Reminding them of when life begins is not going to change their minds, even those who are killing them for gender reasons.

I think we need another approach. We should not be looking at regulations over women’s bodies, but at regulations over their minds. By that I mean we should consider imposing a set of regulations to ensure that when abortions take place, they are occurring in the light of informed consent. And we need an abortion registry to gather data. Almost everyone in this abortion debate is ridiculously under-informed.

At the moment, women are hardly informed of anything about abortion before they give consent. As I have written previously, more than one previous induced abortion (IA) is a well-known risk for a premature birth in a future pregnancy. This is not a hypothesis. It is settled science. Premature birth is associated with a host of potential physical and mental deficits, the most dreaded being Cerebral Palsy. It would be interesting to have research done on all the cases of Cerebral Palsy in Canada to find out how many of them are linked to more than one previous abortion.

Risk of death also increases with each abortion. A 2012 Danish study (Priscilla Coleman, Bowling Green University) found that “Increased risks of death were 45%, 114% and 191% for 1, 2 and 3 abortions, respectively, compared to no abortions after controlling for other reproductive outcomes and last pregnancy age…”. The subjects for this study were Danish women. Since 1973 Denmark has had a national induced abortion registry. So it was not necessary to actually interview women in order to ascertain their IA history.

Read more here

What a Great Start to our SFLA Fall Med Tour!

We are over a quarter of the way through our 2012 Fall Med Tour and already we have provided pro-life medical lectures at North Texas University, UC Davis, Texas A&M, Dartmouth, University of Minneapolis and Jefferson College.

To date, over 400 med students from across the country have heard a pro-life medical lecture in the last two weeks. We have seen hearts changed and medical students taking a new interest in caring for both mother and preborn baby as patients. We are serious about changing the dialogue on med school campuses to help bring the field of medicine to a patient centered focus, where life is affirmed and valued.  Over time these lectures will result in a dynamic shift towards life on Medical school campuses.

Special thanks to Dr. Anita Showalter, Dr. Maureen Condic, Dr. Bill Toffler and Dr. Byron Calhoun (pictured above) for being our guest lecturers. Without your willingness to travel, those 400 students would have never been reached. And thank you to our financial supporters, who have generously supported this tour so far, we are blessed to partner with you.

State Board of Health passes regulations on abortion clinics

Mon., Sept., 17, 2012; 10:53 PM by Mallory Noe-Payne, news editor, Collegiate Times

The Virginia State Board of Health voted last Friday to adopt regulations requiring existing clinics that provide abortions to follow the same building regulations as hospitals.

Abortion rights supporters have described the regulations as unnecessary and cumbersome, and a political tactic for minimizing access to abortion clinics.

In a 13-2 vote, members of the board reversed an earlier decision, which would have exempted existing buildings from the regulations previously applied only to new construction.

Anti-abortion defendants have applauded the board’s decision, although some board members deny the rules have any political agenda, instead saying regulations are only for ensuring health and safety.

“The primary purpose of the regulations is to ensure there is a safe, clean, healthy environment in which these procedures are performed for these women.” said Bruce Edwards, Chair of the Virginia State Board of Health.

The regulations require Virginia clinics that provide five or more abortions a month upgrade their facilities to meet hospital standards. These upgrades would include wider hallways and larger operating rooms, now the norm for new construction. Additionally, it affects the number of parking spaces available.

Olivia Babis, the southwest Virginia field coordinator for Planned Parenthood, said while Planned Parenthood is by no means anti-regulation, these particular rules are purposefully onerous, having “absolutely nothing to do with patient safety.”

“It is designed to shut down facilities performing abortions, there are no other purposes to it,” Babis said. Edwards, who is also the representative on the Board for Emergency Medical Services, disagrees.

“It is aimed at ensuring that things are sized properly so that good care can be provided to these patients,” Edwards said. “It’s important for me to be able to get all the way around the patient.

“I’ve been in small examining rooms… it’s often times difficult to get in there, particularly if the patient is not doing well.”

Blacksburg’s Planned Parenthood provides medical abortions during the first trimester, meaning it prescribes an oral medication inducing a miscarriage. Despite not performing any surgical


procedures, the facility will be subject to these new regulations.

Planned Parenthood in Blacksburg provided 160 medical abortions in 2011. Planned Parenthood in Roanoke, which provides surgical abortions as well as medical, provided 846 abortions in 2011.

Unconscionable Abortion Doctors Compare Themselves to Life Giving Doctors

Conscience is not relative. Conscience is not subject to feelings, but is rooted in intellect capable of differentiating right from wrong. For a doctor to espouse conscience as a reason to terminate an innocent life is nothing short of unconscionable. A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on Sept 13th quoted Lisa Harris, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan Health System, “doctors can be “conscientious” providers of abortion.”

Dr. Harris highlights both historical and contemporary evidence that conscience motivates abortion provision. She cites sociologist Carole Joffe’s study that shows skilled mainstream doctors offered safe, compassionate care before Roe v. Wade, risking fines, imprisonment and loss of medical license. “They did so because the beliefs that mattered most to them compelled it. They saw women die from self-inducted abortion and from abortions performed by unskilled providers,”

Now, the NEJM is a well-respected journal, which provides valuable medical information to physicians around the world. But I must say this article is suspect – if not borderline unethical. Point in case:

In the article, Dr. Harris writes, “Certainly, if abortion providers’ conscience-based claims require scrutiny, so do conscience-based refusals, to ensure that refusals are indeed motivated by conscience and not by political beliefs, stigma, habit erroneous understanding of medical evidence or other factors.

For Dr. Harris to talk about “medical evidence” as an abortion advocate is laughable. Most every embryology text book in most every medical school gives us this definition for the word ‘life’: “From the earliest stages of development, the preborn are distinct, living, whole, human beings. They are immature and yet to grow.” Possibly the most scary thing is that she knows this, yet still espouses the termination of viable pregnancies. She refuses to accept the medical evidence in order to advance her eugenics based medicine.

There is nothing courageous or ethical about a physician bound by the Hippocratic Oath willing to take the life of a pre born patient, no matter the circumstance.

Read more.

More information: New England Journal of Medicine, N ENGL J MED 367; 11

Journal reference: New England Journal of Medicine Provided by University of Michigan Health System 

New Studies Report Higher Death Rates After Abortion in U.S., Finland, and Denmark

By Elliot Institute

Published: Wednesday, Sep. 5, 2012 – 5:44 am

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., Sept. 5, 2012 –/PRNewswire/ — A new study of the medical records for nearly half a million women in Denmark reveals significantly higher maternaldeath rates following abortion compared to delivery. This finding has confirmed similar population studies conducted in Finland and the United States, but contradicts the widely held belief that abortion is safer than childbirth.

By linking records from Denmark’s fertility and abortion registries to death registry records, the researchers examined death rates following the first pregnancy outcome of all women of reproductive age in Denmark over a 30-year period, charting death rates at 180 days, 1 year, and in each of 10 subsequent years following each woman’s first pregnancy outcome. Significantly, higher rates of death were observed among women who aborted in every time period examined. (Graph:

Overall, the study found that women who had first-trimester abortions had an 89 percent higher risk of death within the first year and an 80 percent higher risk of death over the full study period.

Published in the Medical Science Monitor, this is the first record linkage study of maternalmortality rates associated with abortion to be published using Denmark’s centralized health data. Record linkage studies of the population of Finland and of low-income women in California have also found elevated death rates associated with abortion.

Record Linkage Studies Eliminate Reporting Errors

The findings of these record linkage studies from three different countries contradict the conclusion that abortion is safer than childbirth. That view has traditionally been based on death certificates alone or on voluntary reporting to government agencies. For example, a recent study published in the February 2012 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology using the latter method concluded that thedeath rate associated with childbirth is 14 times higher than that associated with abortion.

According to Dr. David Reardon, an author of the new Danish record linkage study, the study published in February was an “apples versus oranges” comparison of two very incomplete and incomparable data sets.

“Doctors and other officials completing death certificates almost never know if the deceased had a history of abortion,” said Reardon, who directs the Elliot Institute. “Record linkage, such as we have done, is the only way to objectively identify and compare death rates associated with pregnancy outcome using the same yardstick.”

Arrange Interviews: Amy Sobie,  217-525-8202,

Studies Mentioned:

Reardon, et al. 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.

Gissler M, et al. Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000. Am J Ob Gyn 2004; 190:422-427.

Reardon, et al. Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. South Med J 2002 Aug; 95(8):834-41.

Raymond, et al. The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2012; 119:215-219.

This press release was issued through eReleases® Press Release Distribution. For more information, visit

SOURCE Elliot Institute

Read more here:


A Handful of Texas Doctors Balk at Abortion Regulations

September 3, 2012

Doctors Fear “Gag Rule” Under New State Program For Women’s Health

by: Carrie Feibel, 88.7FM KUHF

Texas officials are putting together a new health program for low-income women to get reproductive services, one that will exclude Planned Parenthood. But as the politically-charged program takes shape, doctor’s groups say the new rules interfere with their first amendment rights.

Recently, legal battles have consumed the Women’s Health Program. It provides birth control and disease screening to poor women in Texas.

Texas wanted to exclude all Planned Parenthood clinics, even ones that don’t provide abortions, and in response the federal government withdrew most of the funding.

Now Texas is putting together state money for the program, and rewriting the rules.

Dr. Celia Neavel works at the People’s Community Clinic in Austin.

Her clinic currently takes part in the program, but she wonders about the new rules.

“So there were two things that the Texas Women’s Health Program wants to ensure. One is that you’re not an abortion provider – which my and most clinics are not – but the other thing that got tricky is that you cannot ‘promote’ abortion. That’s the part that’s been very concerning, is what does the word ‘promote’ mean.”

Neavel and other doctors wonder if they’ll get in trouble for even discussing abortion with a patient, or if a colleague in a different part of the clinic discusses it or hands out a brochure about it.

Dr. Michael Speer is president of the Texas Medical Association.

He says what the state proposes amounts to a gag rule on a doctor’s right to free speech.

“It’s the ability of the patient to discuss anything that patient wishes to discuss with her physician. And we don’t think it’s appropriate for a governmental entity to tell us what we can and cannot discuss with our patients.”

Stephanie Goodman of the state Health and Human Services Commission says the doctors’ fears are overblown.

“We’re not trying to get in the middle of that doctor-patient relationship, and we understand they have a professional standard they have to uphold. So I think that’s probably an area where we need to do some work on the wording of the rules to make it much clearer about what we were really trying to achieve there.”

Last fiscal year, Planned Parenthood served about 50,000 Texas women under the program – and many now question if the state will be able to sign up enough new doctors to fill the gap.

Even Dr. Neavel wonders if her clinic will continue to take part.

“And honestly, I signed initially to be part of this, because again we do not promote abortion but if it means we can’t discuss it when it comes up, if it means we can’t give a handout for services (about) where’s a legal place to go get further care within the community, then we’ll have to decide whether we want to accept this program. But that really breaks my heart because I like the patients and the kind of service they’re able to get through the program.”

Tomorrow in Austin, there will be a public hearing, and then the state expects to finalize the new rules in the next few weeks.


MedSFLA National Webcast: Conscience Rights in America’s Medical Schools

Please join us this Tuesday, August 28th from 9pm – 9:45pm EST for a MedSFLA National Webcast: Conscience Rights in America’s Medical Schools.

Medical students at public colleges or universities have established constitutional rights to speak, associate, and exercise religious beliefs freely—rights that for too many are restricted, violated, or denied by universities. Compelled participation of students and faculty in advocacy of views and participation in procedures, both in and out of the classroom, that are contrary to their beliefs is unconstitutional.

Medical students have conscience rights to protect religious beliefs during med school, residency, and beyond, yet there remains so much confusion of what these rights are exactly.  That is why, MedSFLA is are offering a free, live webcast featuring Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney, Matt Bowman, on August 28th!  Mr. Bowman is going lay out the case for your conscience rights in medical school, the protections these rights offer, and what to do if these rights are violated.

To listen to the replay of this event: