The mainstream media is warning us in anxious tones that an “Ohio abortion pill law led to worse health outcomes.” Allow me to briefly describe the new law and show why the case against the law is at best weak, and at worst, dangerously confused.

The drugs mifepristone and misoprostol are sometimes injected into pregnant women to kill the lives inside their wombs. The procedure is called a “medical” or “medication abortion” to distinguish it from other methods of killing the unborn, usually involving sharp objects or vacuums.

In 2000, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a version of the mifepristone + misoprostol method of killing. This version requires medium doses of both drugs to be given at an abortionist’s office on different days. To ease demands on their time, some abortionists instead prefer another, “off-label” combination of these drugs, one not approved by the FDA: a high dose of mifepristone at the office and a low dose of misoprostol self-administered at the would-be mothers’ homes.

The distinction is important because Ohio in February 2011 passed a law requiring abortionists to use only the FDA-approved method. The law was passed in dispute. Some abortionists complained that the work of killing was better using the off-label method.

Apples, Oranges and the Unborn

A group of researchers led by Ushma D. Upadhyay tried to investigate the questions, studying pre-law and post-law abortion data. They published their attempt in “Comparison of Outcomes before and after Ohio’s Law Mandating Use of the FDA-Approved Protocol for Medication Abortion: A Retrospective Cohort Study” in the journal PLOS: Medicine.

The researchers found four abortion sites willing to cooperate with their research. The immediate finding was that the fraction of medication abortions dropped dramatically at all four of the abortion sites after the law passed. The average rate was 22% of all abortions were medication before the law, which dropped to only 5% some time after. One site even discontinued medication abortions for a period of almost two years.

The researchers do not say if the medication abortions that were performed post-law were all the FDA-approved method or if any were the now illegal off-label method. This is not surprising, because admitting to use of the off-label method would be admitting violating the law. Given that the sympathies of the abortionists and the researchers was not with the law, it is possible biases creep in, both in the analyses and in way treatments themselves are administered. Confirmation bias is ever a possibility.

That sort of bias might account for why the researchers did not trouble to report what fraction of FDA-approved medication abortions were performed before the law. All? None? We never learn. And it is a crucial number to know if we are to compare pre-law with post-law adverse events, especially if it is to be asserted that the FDA-approved method causes greater harm to the would-be mothers (both methods, of course, cause ultimate harm to the lives inside their wombs).

Further muddying matters, many of the characteristics of the women given medication abortions changed pre- to post-law. For instance, pre-law only about 15% of would-be mothers had at least a Bachelor’s degree, compared to over 23% post-law. Blacks represented 21% of the pre-law sample but only 16% of the post-law sample. Importantly, only about 27% of the women had private insurance pre-law, jumping to 34% post-law. Better educated women with insurance might be more willing to be checked for adverse effects, which would boost reported rates.

Number of Gestation Days Before Killing

The oddest discrepancy was in the number of gestation days, i.e. number of days the women were pregnant before seeking an abortion. In the pre-law sample, 13.4% of women had medication abortions at 34 gestation days or fewer, contrasted with only 7.2% post-law. Also, 52.2% of women pre-law had abortions between 42 and 49 days, versus 63.6% after. These figures are notable because it has been found that the greater the gestation period before the lives inside the women are killed, the greater the likelihood of an adverse effect upon the women.

Before the law, medication abortions were legal for gestations greater than 49 days. In the new law, all medication abortions had to be performed before 50 days. So the greater number of post-law abortions in the 42-49 day period could be accounted for by women who might have rushed in before the new deadline. But this doesn’t explain why fewer women opted for earlier abortions. Whatever the reasons, the changes imply that the characteristics of the women, or the practice of abortionists, changed after the law.

And there was another questionable maneuver by the researchers. All pre-law medication abortions greater than 49 gestation days were excluded from the researchers’ analysis. Of the rate of adverse events in this important and risky group we therefore never learn. This exclusion really makes it impossible to compare health effects pre- to post-law, as do the other points made above. Nevertheless, the researchers soldiered on.

Medication Abortion: Dangerous Medicine

About those adverse events: these included “acute hemorrhage, or infection.” Nasty business, abortion.

As the authors emphasize, but fail to realize the importance of, post-law women were required under the law to go to the abortion site “a minimum of four visits instead of two,” and so there was greater opportunity post-law to report or discover adverse events (in addition to the other reasons noted above).

Now 4.9% of the pre-law women required “additional interventions,” which were things like aspiration (vacuuming up the remains inside the womb), repeated misoprostol doses, and blood transfusions. These interventions rose to 14.3% post-law. Some 12.6% of pre-law women had “at least one side effect during their medication abortion” compared to 15.6% after. Side effects included nausea, vomiting, pain and so on. These numbers comprise the authors’ main “findings.”

Yet even if it were true, as the authors suggest, that the FDA-approved method is causing the boost in rates of interventions and side effects, the number of women who suffer ill effects caused by medication abortion could still shrink. Why? Because even though the rates of ill effects increase, the number of medication abortions procured fell sharply under the law.

The calculation that could prove this is tough to do because we don’t know about the adverse rates for women with gestations greater than 49 days pre-law (a shocking omission) — nor do we know them for other abortion methods. Plus, for the many reasons given above, we do not know that the FDA-approved method is causing the boost in rates for medication abortions, even though the researchers are anxious to suggest that it is.

Perhaps most interesting is the finding (admission?) that such large percentages of women undergoing medication abortions will require “interventions” or will suffer an adverse effect. That is news worth spreading. (For more from the author of “Dangerously Daft New Study Calls Ohio Abortion Pill Restrictions Dangerous” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A majority of America’s pulpits may be silent on the issue of abortion, but a new movie seeks to change that through a harrowing and inspiring story of forgiveness, courage, and hope. “Voiceless,” an upcoming film from American Hero Movie, LLC. and C3 Studios, tells the story of a man whose bold stance for unborn life nearly costs him not only his job, his freedom, his life, but also the respect and support of his church and his family.

Jesse Dean, superbly portrayed by Rusty Joiner, fits the familiar archetype of a recently discharged combat veteran shouldering the physical and psychological scars of his time overseas. His newfound faith in God drives him to move to work at New Life Fellowship, an old Philadelphia church whose membership is declining.

While Jesse’s focus is initially focused on a boxing ministry outreach geared towards the neighborhood youth, his routine doesn’t last long after he notices the women coming in and out of an abortion clinic located right across the street.

After a distressed woman who comes to him for help decides to abort her child, Jesse sets out to turn his pro-life beliefs into action through sidewalk counseling and local activism. But, long after being discharged, Jesse finds himself trapped in a two-front war on the streets of Philadelphia.

From the outset, Jesse’s struggle is not unknown to those in the pro-life movement or anyone who has ever taken the time to pray silently outside a clinic. Local government cronyism, media slander, and vitriolic insults wear Jesse down as expected. The emotional pain — resulting from rejection and the knowledge that this rejection means a loss of innocent life — contributes to Jesse’s depression: He becomes disheveled, dejected, and slightly erratic by the middle of the film. But what really wears on our hero is a near-complete lack of support, timid silence, and round criticisms by his fellow Christians, specifically his wife, Julia, and his congregation.

Throughout the film, these voices manifest in near constant streams of criticism and concern about what Jesse’s pro-life activities could mean for the church’s image.

This pressure takes the form of pastors and church elders asking him, “Do you know what this sort of thing does to a church?” The sentiment is echoed by fellow members who persistently argue that the church’s focus should stay out of “political” battles and instead focus on more PR-friendly forms of ministry like feeding the hungry.

“You mean with signs?!” asks one member when Jesse brings up the issue of addressing the clinic as a church. “We shouldn’t get political,” says another. “We should be saving souls, not pushing them away,” says yet another church member.

It is in these scenes that the film’s title takes on a second meaning: Not only are the children who are being killed across the street voiceless, but so also are the members of New Life Fellowship.

Art Imitates Real Life, Unfortunately

But the timid, silent leadership of Jesse’s church is more than a phenomenon of fiction. Recent polling suggests that it represents a real and troubling majority of congregations in cities, suburbs, and parishes across the United States.

A recent Pew Poll found that only 29 percent of more than 4,000 adults interviewed said they recently heard about the topic of abortion from the pulpit. Even more despairing for the cause of the preborn is the fact that of the two groups who heard the most — white Evangelicals and Catholics — only 36 percent claimed to have heard the subject touched upon. Furthermore, in an America, where a black child is five times more likely to be killed in the womb than a white child, black Protestant churches have fallen especially silent on the issue of abortion. The study finds that only 16 percent of respondents said that their pastor had openly discussed or preached on the issue.

If Christians aren’t even hearing about this from the pulpit, how can any but the most dedicated ever be expected to take action?

But the film also shows how this sort of “comfortable” public witness is the kind that leaves the body of Christ spiritually starved. The missional poverty of this kind of “comfort” Christianity is the kind of beige thinking satisfied with easy ministry but unwilling to stand against grave injustices like the taking of unborn life.

“I’ve been to enough pot luck dinners,” Miss Elsie, a founding member of the church but who has stopped coming, says to Jessie. Ultimately, however, what brings Miss Elsie back into the fold is not the comfort of self-congratulation but the courage and action required for the beauty of life to prevail against a culture of death.

Yes, “Voiceless” is definitely a film by pro-lifers for pro-lifers, but in this case that’s a good and necessary thing. Unlike other pro-life movies like “Bella” or “October Baby,” this film does not spend too much of its time on pro-life apologetics. Rather, it speaks to an audience, which may see the truth of the life argument and holds up a harsh mirror to those who dare not profess that belief in any meaningful, public way.

This is the sort of message that is meant to remind churches how to seek justice truly in the public square: to drive out timidity from the corners of our hearts and the comfort of our pews, to be courageous, and to defend the defenseless.

After all, “In the end,” reads the famous quotation by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, “we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” (For more from the author of “It’s Not Just the Unborn Who Are ‘Voiceless’ in the Fight for Life” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A recent video shows the chancellor of the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Paul Roth, admitting that one of the university’s summer science programs for high school students dissected baby brains for research.

This confirms what the House Select Panel on Infant Lives exposed in its report when it referred the university to the New Mexico attorney general for criminal charges for possibly violating New Mexico’s Jonathan Spradling Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.

Roth, who is also the dean of the medical school, is shown in a video released by the New Mexico Alliance for Life (NMAFL), admitting that some baby brains were used in research:

The person questioning repeatedly tells him she is videotaping the conversation and asks Roth to repeat what he said earlier about using human remains with high school students. Roth replies on camera:

Yes, we had a faculty member who obtained some tissue, and during one of these summer workshops, uh, dissected I think one or two fetal brains.

(Read more from “University of New Mexico Dept. Head Confirms Aborted Baby Brains Dissected for High School Students” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

On July 5, pro-life pregnancy care center Hand of Hope was ready to become the pro-life neighbor of A Preferred Women’s Health Center in Raleigh, North Carolina — an abortion facility with thousands in regulatory fines under its belt.

Now, it’s suing the City Council for discrimination for not rezoning the lot next to the facility. The non-profit center paid $309,000 for the property, according to the lawsuit, and is suing on behalf of itself and the women and children its services would help.

“The City Council claimed that though it was the City’s plan to rezone the property just as Hand of Hope’s requested, it was premature to do so and that the City did not want to rezone their property,” Noel Sterett, an attorney for Hand of Hope, told The Stream.

“According to councilwoman Kay Crowder … the Council preferred to rezone Hand of Hope’s property at a later date as part of a larger commercial project rather than in a piecemeal fashion with small lots,” continued Sterett in an e-mail. “The City Council’s statement is belied by the fact that the City apparently and separately approved the rezoning of 4 one-to-two acre properties close by Hand of Hope’s property in a piecemeal fashion.”

Approved and Then Denied

Three city agencies approved Hand of Hope request for a rezoning that would allow it to be situated next to the abortion center, Sterett said — the Citizen Advisory Council, the city’s Zoning Staff and the city’s Planning Commission. The latter agency unanimously approved the rezoning after holding a hearing and finding that Hand of Hope’s use “was entirely consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and the surrounding uses and fit into all of the City’s other land use policies or goals.”

The city’s attorney declined to comment to The Stream about the City Council’s decision, saying the city had not yet been served with the suit. But according to the minutes of the July 5, 2016 meeting where the Council’s decision was made, the council voted 7-0 against Hand of Hope because it did not want “lot by lot piecemeal nonresidential development.” The council wanted, in Crowder’s words, a “coordinated approach would produce a more efficient use of the land” producing higher tax value,” and the “Council believes that this dead-end street should be rezoned for such uses when all the properties along Woodsdale Road are rezoned.”

The city did not respond to The Stream’s question about why the abortion business was allowed on the street but Hand of Hope was not.

A Preferred Women’s Health Clinic is one of four facilities in a chain that has two locations in North Carolina and two in Georgia. According to Operation Rescue’s Cheryl Sullenger, “A Preferred Women’s Health Center has been cited by OSHA 13 times for violations categorized as ‘serious’ ones related to health. Fines levied were in excess of $12,000, indicating just how severe the violations actually were.” She told The Stream that the documents don’t give the details of the violations.

Sterett said that the abortion business “actively opposed Hand of Hope’s use,” and that “We are still investigating the relationships or known positions of the City Council members on the issue of abortion.” The abortion center did not respond to The Stream’s request for comment about its involvement in the debate over Hand of Hope’s request.

City Favoritism?

It appears a different city agency — the Raleigh Board of Adjustments — gave a different abortion facility a variance letting them put up a fence higher than the city regulations allowed. The center, according to pro-life testimony, asked for the variance after installing the fence at an illegal height.

According to the minutes of the Board’s May 9, 2016 meeting, approval was granted 4-1, thanks to employees and a volunteer for A Woman’s Choice of Raleigh Inc., who claimed the higher fence provided more privacy and other benefits for women getting abortions, as well as for employees. An opponent of the variance said the height would prevent him from recording legal violations at the facility, and another said he and his wife would be prevented from effectively offering adoption services to women going to and from it.

According to the Board of Adjustments, “The variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.” The Board did say its “decision is subject to review for fraud, material misrepresentation, or other misconduct at the proceeding or for violations on the subject property,” and that “if such a determination is made by the Board, its prior decision may be reversed, modified, or affirmed.” (For more from the author of “Pro-Life Clinic Sues City to Get Next to Abortion Business” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.