The Post-Abortion Review

Vol. 21, No. 1Elliot Institute, PO Box 7348, Springfield, IL 62791 Winter/Spring 2014

How to Recognize a Cover-Up of the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link By Joel Brind, Ph.D.

This article is a follow-up to Dr. Brind’s four-part series is 1. If the number is over 1, there is an increased risk. For example, on abortion and breast cancer that appeared in the last if the relative risk is 1.4, there is a 40 percent increased risk. If the two issues of this publication. Find the series online at relative risk is 0.7, there is a protective effect; a 30 percent reduced www.afterabortion.org/post-abortion-review-index. risk. In case-control studies, the actual statistic used to provide an estimate of relative risk is called the odds ratio (OR). fter researching and publishing on the abortion-breast cancer A (ABC) link for over 20 years, I’ve managed to get the hang When the data are tallied, if there are more women among the of the formulaic manner in which studies come out periodically to breast cancer patients who reported having had an induced “reassure” the public about the “safety” of abortion. Such studies abortion than there are among the cancer-free women, this often come out in the most prominent medical journals, “association” can be interpreted as increased risk, represented by coincidentally on the heels of studies that have reconfirmed the OR>1 (more than 1). reality of the ABC link. Conversely, if more abortions are reported Why? To keep up the mainstream medical among the healthy women, an OR<1 (less journals’ wall of denial. The lay person should than 1) would result, and indicate that be able to learn to spot abortion lowers the risk. Of course, such But one needn’t be an epidemiologist to associations do not prove cause-and- appreciate the way standard these tricks rather easily. effect, but that gets established by the epidemiological (epi) methods are used biology. inappropriately, so as to make the facts of the ABC link disappear. The techniques are remarkably few. Most epi studies are case-control studies, and since most of them With a few real life examples from the ABC literature, the lay person indicate an increased breast cancer risk for women who’ve had an should be able to learn to spot these tricks rather easily. abortion (i.e., that there is an ABC link), what are pro-abortion researchers to do? Case-Control Studies Usually they first seek to discredit the methodology in such studies. First, it is important to understand the two basic types of epi They argue that such studies suffer from a flaw called “reporting study. The most common is the case-control study. In a case- bias” or “response bias.” How does that supposedly work? control study, a group of patients with the disease in question (e.g., breast cancer) is recruited, along with a group of women They declare that women with breast cancer will be more honest without cancer, but who are otherwise similar in age, ethnicity, about their abortion history. Thus if the same number of women and country (or smaller location) of residence. The latter group is without breast cancer as breast cancer patients have had an the “control” group. abortion—but the breast cancer patients are more “honest” and report more of their abortions—it will falsely appear that there is a The researchers then query the women in the two groups, typically “positive association,” i.e., an increased risk for breast cancer by having a trained nurse interviewer go over medical and associated with having an induced abortion. reproductive history with them. Data is entered into a questionnaire that can be processed by a computer. The trouble with this response bias argument is that it has been amply disproven many times. One good example was a 1989 case- One of the reproductive history data is typically “number of control study in upstate New York that was not based on after the induced abortions.” These data are often reduced to the fact interviews with patients v. healthy “control” women. Instead dichotomous form—yes or no, a woman has had or hasn’t had an it was based on medical records from the time of the abortion. induced abortion. That meant the record of who had and did not have an abortion For comparison purposes, the baseline number for “relative risk” was established long before anyone in the study got breast cancer. That study resulted in an OR of 1.9, i.e., a 90 increased risk authors of that study also showed the clear trend of decreasing associated with abortion. ABC link as the prevalence of abortion increased. Though published in a prominent epi journal, mainstream The bottom line is simple. If you are determined not to find a ABC researchers often simply deny that such a study even exists! link, just make sure you choose a study population in which most of the women are post-abortive. It also helps to restrict the study But what about the relative minority of case-control studies that to women who’ve had at least one live birth—as both the Shanghai do not show an ABC link? Good examples of these are a large and Serbian studies did. Why? Because childless post-abortive study on women from Shanghai, China, published in 2001, and a women have a higher breast cancer risk than women who’ve never Serbian study published just last year. been pregnant. In the Shanghai study population, no significant association with abortion was found (OR = 0.9). Note that 66 percent of the women Cohort Studies in the study had had at least one abortion. But if your main argument against the ABC link is that case-control In the Serbian study, there was actually reported a negative (i.e., retrospective) studies are unreliable because of response bias association (i.e., a protective effect, or reduced risk of breast cancer) (whose repeated disproof has not dissuaded most mainstream with abortion (OR = 0.46). Note the prevalence of abortion among pro-abortion researchers from its invocation), then the study you the study population was a whopping conduct needs to be of a type 89 percent. routinely championed to be meth- Mainstream attention and odologically superior. This second Why does the high incidence of major type of epi study is called a abortion in the population make a credibility to the ABC link cohort study (i.e., prospective). large difference in determining whether an ABC link exists? couldn’t be allowed to stand. In a cohort study, you start with a population wherein the fact of As we explained in a letter published abortion is recorded at the time of the in the British Journal of Cancer in 2004, the high prevalence of abortion, and all women are then followed in time to see who gets abortion explained the effect. Essentially, epidemiology can identify breast cancer and who does not. Because it’s not even possible exposures that are associated with a given disease, as long as for such studies to suffer from response bias, cohort studies are those with the disease can be compared with typical members of routinely touted by mainstream pro-abortion researchers to be the population who do not have the exposure in question. superior to case-control studies. However, when the majority of the population has had the exposure They trotted out a number of them in very prominent journals (in this case having had an abortion), the comparison group (those between 1997 and 2008, to “prove” to the world that there was no who did not have an abortion) is no longer typical. In the case of real ABC link. (The reader might remember that in 1996, we breast cancer, where most of the women have had an abortion, the published a worldwide meta-analysis that found a significant ABC women who’ve not had an abortion are generally those who’ve also link among all studies. Our meta-analysis garnered major had fewer children and who started having children at a later age. mainstream attention and credibility to the ABC link—and that But starting to have children when one is older and having fewer could not be allowed to stand.) of them are both risk factors for breast cancer. The comparison The first and the worst (and the largest) of these cohort studies group is really a high-risk group. Hence, the effect of abortion was published in 1997 in the New England Journal of Medicine, disappears when the majority of women are post-abortive. arguably the most influential medical journal in the world. The And if the majority is overwhelming (like the 89 percent in the study was based on the medical records of all 1.5 million women Serbian population), those who’ve had abortions actually show born in Denmark between 1935 and 1978, including over 400,000 up with lower risk—that is, compared to the very small minority of abortions and over 10,000 cases of breast cancer. sub-fertile, high-risk women who have not had any abortions. The Danish study was widely touted as disproving the ABC link. This explanation was reiterated and expanded in the recent meta- analysis of 36 studies from China, published last year. The Chinese continued on page 6

The Post-Abortion Review is the quarterly journal of the Elliot Institute, ISSN 1083-9496. The Elliot Institute was founded in 1988 to perform original research and education on the impact of abortion on women, men, families, and society. The suggested annual donation for a subscription is $20. Contributions to the Elliot Institute, a nonprofit, 501(c)3 corporation, are tax-deductible. For more information, visit www.afterabortion.info.

Publisher: David C. Reardon, Ph.D., Director of the Elliot Institute. Managing Editor: Amy R. Sobie. Relevant submissions will be considered for publication but cannot be returned unless accompanied by a SASE. Submit to: [email protected]. Direct requests for permission to reprint to: Elliot Institute, PO Box 7348, Springfield, IL 62791 or [email protected]. © 2014 Elliot Institute, unless otherwise noted.

Page 2The Post-Abortion Review Vol. 21, No. 1 www.afterabortion.org New Scientific Review Supports Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer

scientific review conducted by Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., and • only comparing childless aborting women with childless never- A Patrick Fagan, Ph.D., found that support for an abortion- pregnant women, instead of making the comparison with breast cancer (ABC) link exists in current knowledge of breast childbearing women (who are at reduced risk for breast cancer); physiology (as it is presented in standard medical texts), as well as • ignoring the effects of highly carcinogenic abortions epidemiological and experimental research. (abortions occurring before first full term pregnancy, before The review, published in Issues in Law and Medicine, is entitled, age 18 or after age 30; abortions among women with a family “Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of history of breast cancer; and second trimester abortions). breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic The National Cancer Institute concluded after its 2003 workshop literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all that abortion is not associated with breast cancer, but Lanfranchi breast cancer risk factors.”1 Lanfranchi is Clinical Assistant and Fagan said the NCI’s conclusion contradicts not only Professor of Surgery at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical epidemiological evidence of a link, but also accepted reproductive School. Fagan is the Director of the Marriage and Religion risks for breast cancer listed in standard texts, including premature Research Institute. birth before 32 weeks gestation, delayed first full-term pregnancy 4 Among 72 epidemiological studies they reviewed, the authors found: and childlessness. ... [T]wenty-one show some positive, statistically signifi- The authors analyzed the evidence in light of the nine criteria that cant relationship. Seven studies show a positive, marginally Sir Austin Bradford Hill recommended in 1965. These guidelines significant link between induced abortion and breast are used to help determine whether a cause-effect relationship cancer. Of three meta-analyses on the subject, two show a exists between a potential risk factor and a disease. After positive, statistically significant link between induced demonstrating that all nine criteria have been met, Lanfranchi and abortion and breast cancer. Two ecological epidemiological Fagan concluded: studies show a relationship between induced abortion and We see that many studies of induced abortion demon- breast cancer. These studies have been conducted over 50 strate significant associations, across multiple cultures years across multiple cultures and countries....”2 and with some apparent specificity of cause (hormone The authors explained that surging pregnancy hormones (mostly exposure). The association manifests itself in the appro- estrogen) stimulate breast growth during the first months of priate order, demonstrates a dose effect, is biologically pregnancy, leaving the breasts with an increase in cancer- plausible and coherent with existing science and has been 5 susceptible Type 1 and Type 2 lobules (where most cancers are demonstrated by analogy.” known to originate). If the mother carries her pregnancy to 32 ABC link critics claim that recall bias is a flaw in research supporting weeks, her risk sharply declines because she has matured a a link, but they conveniently ignore studies that are free of any sufficient number of lobules into permanently cancer-resistant Type possibility of recall bias, including a prospective study on women 4 lobules; and she has acquired 90 percent of the risk reduction in New York and two ecological studies.6-8 Lanfranchi and Fagan associated with a full term pregnancy. called the recall bias hypothesis “unproven.” The authors said this evidence explains why other well-accepted In order to expand knowledge of the link, the authors recommended reproductive risk factors raise risk, including childlessness, the establishment of a tissue bank and the development of a premature birth before 32 weeks and second-trimester research data network located in existing mammography screening miscarriages.3 centers, which would collect standardized data on forms They also identified methods that are being used in gravely flawed concerning women’s reproductive, hormonal and breast histories studies that result in either an underestimate or the elimination of that would include all potential risk factors. the risk: * * * • failure to follow women for a minimum of eight to 10 years The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international after an abortion so that cancers are detectable; women’s organization founded to protect the health and save the • excluding breast cancer patients and women with histories of lives of women through information on abortion as a risk factor breast cancer; for breast cancer. Learn more at www.abortionbreastcancer.com. • excluding consideration of women who died of the disease; • confining their analyses to women in their reproductive years; See Citations on page 6

Winter/Spring 2014 Institute Page 3Elliot www.afterabortion.org From “Back Alley” to Main Street Illegal Abortionists Who Became Legal Abortionists (And Killed Women) After Roe By Christina Dunigan

he abortion-lobby response to the Kermit Gosnell mass murder later, she was dead. Wilma’s family sued, noting that Vuitch and Tdebacle has been to insist that Gosnell was not enabled by his staff had allowed Wilma to lapse into a coma and lie unattended pro-choicers, even though they employed him, referred to him, for 12 hours before transferring her to the hospital. failed to report him, and deliberately turned a blind eye to him. Vuitch administered general anesthesia himself for an abortion he It’s not their fault because, you see, women were “forced” to go to performed on Georgianna English on January 12, 1980, and she Gosnell because the unenforced regulations somehow made it never woke up. When Vuitch was investigated, it was discovered impossible for responsible abortionists to undercut Gosnell’s that he kept patients overnight in his home (an unlicensed facility) supposedly unbeatable discount prices. Gosnell, the abortion which he designated “The Annexe.” Inspectors also noted repeated lobby insists, is only an example of what we would see were violations of medical standards regarding sanitation and abortion to again be criminalized. anesthesia. The abortion lobby seems to forget that Vuitch also admitted during another case first of all, Gosnell arose during the pre- Would women have been that he had lacked hospital admitting Roe days, already being enabled by pro- worse off if Gosnell had privileges since 1963. choice heroes such as Harvey Karman WDVM-TV in Washington, D.C. won the and the Jane abortion ring in Chicago. been arrested in 1972? Peabody Award for its investigation of Had the then-nascent pro-choice Vuitch, uncovering how Vuitch’s practice movement followed the lead of the local feminists — who were had been cited for a multitude of violations, such as: protesting Gosnell’s dangerous experimental “supercoil” abortions and letting the air out of the bus tires outside his clinic — Gosnell • in 1980, for dirty instruments and lab specimens being would have been recognized as the quack he was, imprisoned, refrigerated with food; and stripped of his license, and unable to open up and brazenly • in 1981, for taking patients to Vuitch’s home overnight and operate an abortuary like his Women’s Medical Society. having expired drugs; • in 1982, for unlicensed drug distribution and mixing dirty Would women really have been worse off if Gosnell had been slapped in irons back in 1972? and clean surgical instruments, and for a patient sent home though she was passing red urine and had a catheter still What of other “back-alley butchers?” It turns out that they, like inside her body; and Gosnell, had their enablers, and were able to flourish in the world • in 1983, for having anesthetic drugs “not freshly prepared of “safe-n-legal” abortion. and yellowish in color.”

Milan Vuitch The investigator also noted that despite these violations, the city kept renewing the clinic’s license until 1982, after which Vuitch The most celebrated beneficiary of pro-choice enabling was Dr. just operated without one. In spite of the terrible toll on Vuitch’s Milan Vuitch. He was openly perpetrating abortions in the District patients, he remained a hero to the pro-choice movement and was of Columbia, daring anybody to arrest him so that he could hagiographically eulogized upon his death in 1993. challenge the law. They did, and he did, and although the D.C. abortion law was not Jesse Ketchum struck down, it was reinterpreted so that the state had to prove Less well-known than Vuitch was Dr. Jesse Ketchum. Vuitch was a that the abortion had not been necessary to save the woman’s crusader. Ketchum was just an abortionist. He operated his life, rather than having the onus on the abortionist to prove that it abortion practice alongside a legitimate (if somewhat lawsuit-prone) had been necessary. medical practice. This was in 1969. Vuitch continued his abortion business, though Although Ketchum’s criminal abortion practice wasn’t the best in it wasn’t until after Roe struck the law down entirely (in 1973) that the world, he evidently maintained some standards and protocols he really relaxed, secure in his confidence that the law couldn’t for screening patients. No patient deaths have been attributed to touch him. Ketchum’s criminal practice, which was largely supplied with On June 15, 1974, 17-year-old Wilma Harris of West Virginia went patients via Clergy Consultation Services, an abortion advocacy to Vuitch’s Laurel Clinic for a “safe and legal” abortion. Five days group which, rather than address women’s issues, simply ensured

Page 4The Post-Abortion Review Vol. 21, No. 1 www.afterabortion.org that by hook or by crook (literally, in their referrals to the likes of operated hospital. Jesse Ketchum), women got their abortions. According to the medical board licensee lookup, Ketchum lives in Ketchum was arrested when an undercover policewoman arranged Michigan now. His petitions to restore his medical license, made for him to perform an abortion at a motel in Southfield, Michigan, in 1984 and 1987, were both denied. Nevertheless, despite killing and his case was taken up by abortion advocates who rallied on two women, he remains a free man. his behalf. Benjamin Munson When New York legalized abortion on demand in 1970, Ketchum set up shop in a Buffalo motel suite. For Ketchum, New York must Dr. H. Benjamin Munson performed abortions in Rapid City, South have seemed like the Promised Land. Abortionists were flaunting Dakota. He opened his practice in 1967. He was convicted in 1969 safety standards with impunity. Practices such as injecting patients for performing an abortion on a 19-year-old patient. Munson with saline and then sending them home to abort raised eyebrows, challenged his conviction, winning in circuit court. The state to be sure, but they didn’t get appealed, and the South Dakota anybody thrown in jail. Supreme Court ruled against him. No doubt other erstwhile “back He appealed this decision, which On May 28, 1971, Ketchum was rendered moot by Roe. seriously injured a woman in a alley butchers” have found botched abortion, but no harm legalization to be quite a boon. In 1973, Munson discharged 28- befell him. Ketchum decided to do year-old Linda Padfield after an hysterotomy abortions—which incomplete abortion. She died of involve slicing the uterus open to remove the baby — in his office. sepsis three days later. Munson was charged with manslaughter. Yvonne Mesteth paid with her life when Munson made the same It didn’t take long for this practice to turn deadly. In the second mistake with her that had killed Linda Padfield. half of 1971, Ketchum caught the eyes of the authorities by allowing two hysterotomy patients to bleed to death. Though not as celebrated as Vuitch, Munson was nevertheless considered altogether respect-worthy because of his purported His first victim was 25-year-old Margaret Smith, who had traveled courage in doing abortions. Seventh Circuit Judge Merton Tice, from Ketchum’s home state of Michigan to New York for a “safe Jr., instructed the jury to acquit, saying that the state’s case was and legal” abortion because she had been exposed to rubella. inadequate because prosecutors could not prove that Munson Ketchum performed a vaginal hysterotomy on Margaret at 10:30 intended harm to his patient. Thanks to having a friendly judge, the morning of June 16, 1971. Margaret was then left virtually Munson remained free to continue his practice, even joining the unattended until her boyfriend returned at 2:00. He found Margaret prestigious National Abortion Federation. unresponsive, and begged Ketchum and his staff to do something. Sidney Knight Paramedics were summoned, but they were unable to revive Margaret. She was taken to a hospital across the street from Dr. Sidney Knight was facing a number of criminal abortion charges Ketchum’s office, where she was pronounced dead on arrival. in 1973, when Roe v. Wade made them a moot point. He hung out Margaret’s vagina had been sutured, but a laceration in her uterus his shingle and began performing abortions legally. In March of and cervix had not been repaired. She had bled to death. 1974, Janet Blaum went to Knight’s New Orleans facility for a “safe and legal” abortion. Five days later, on March 11, she was Ketchum was verily astounded when he was charged with dead of brain hemorrhage. Janet’s ex-husband sued Knight on criminally negligent homicide in Margaret Smith’s death. Evidently behalf of the couple’s children, alleging that Knight had he didn’t think the state could possibly succeed in their case. administered a fatal dose of anesthesia while preparing Janet for He kept taking risks with patient’s lives. Before his case even went the abortion. to trial, he performed a similar abortion on 37-year-old Carole Schaner of Ohio on October 20, 1971, who was sent back to her motel to die Others? of injuries similar to those that had killed Margaret Smith. I know there are other “back-alley butchers” who simply started Ketchum was convicted for Margaret’s death on October 26, 1973, advertising and practicing more openly after legalization. despite the fact that Milan Vuitch testified on his behalf. When Roe v. Wade was handed down and assorted criminal abortionists started continue on page 6 getting their old convictions thrown out, Ketchum tried Roe for leverage. He got nowhere. Eventually, he was sentenced to prison. Ketchum served little time, however. He was released after less Keep Up to Date! than a year, and relocated to Florida, where he managed not to kill any of his patients as a staff physician at a VA hospital in Miami, Get the latest news, articles and resources by joining from September of 1976 to November of 1977. It turned out that no our free email list at www.afterabortion.org/joinlist.htm. license was required for a doctor to practice in a government

Winter/Spring 2014 Institute Page 5Elliot www.afterabortion.org Cover-up, continued from page 2 Citations, continued from page 3 It found a relative risk of 1.0; there was no possibility of response bias; and the statistical sample was enormous. 1. Lanfranchi A & Fagan P. Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development As I have written before, the flaws of the Danish study are many and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and and monstrous. However, the most important flaw concerns the proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast question of follow-up time (bear in mind that breast cancer takes cancer risk factors. Issues in Law and Medicine 2014;29(1):1- years to develop). 133. See http://abortionbreastcancer.com/docs/Breast- In a case-control study, one typically starts with older women– cancer-and-induced-abortion-Lanfranchi-Spring-2014.pdf. since they are cancer patients–and so they are mostly diagnosed 2. Ibid, p. 101. many years after the abortion has taken place. This makes sense, 3. Ibid, p. 102. because it takes about 8-10 years for cancer to develop after an 4. Ibid, p. 100. exposure like abortion. 5. Ibid, p. 103. 6. Howe HL, Senie RT, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P. Early abortion But suppose you design your cohort study such that you log and breast cancer risk among women under age 40. Int J both abortions and breast cancer diagnoses during the same time Epidemiol 1989;18:300-304. period. That’s what the Danish study and several influential cohort 7. Remennick L. Reproductive patterns and cancer incidence studies did. So, for example, in the Danish study, both abortions in women: A population-based correlation study in the USSR. and breast cancer diagnoses were collected through 1992. International Journal of Epidemiology 1989;18(3):498-510. Remember that the study included all women born through 1978— 8. Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and i.e., including women as young as 14. So a teenager in Denmark forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." Journal who had an abortion in 1992 is included in the study as a woman of American Physicians and Surgeons Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall who had an abortion but did not develop breast cancer. 2007) 72-78. See http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf. Well of course not—breast cancer takes years to develop! So in fact, the Danish study included a total of 358,000 women under the age of 25—fully one fourth of the study population, who collectively had over 100,000 abortions—yet represented a total Special Contributions of only 8 cases of breast cancer! In memory of So that’s how one stacks the deck of a cohort study with women Msgr. Raymond Boyle who have abortions, but no breast cancer: allow for as little as zero Howard Johnson follow-up time after the abortion. And to make sure the ABC link Mary Provence Kaufmann does not show up, it’s also important to eliminate the type of Gifts can be made to the Elliot Institute to honor or remember loved breast cancer that shows up most quickly following an abortion, ones and will be acknowledged here unless otherwise requested. so-called “in situ” carcinoma. Typically, the cohort studies that do not show an ABC link simply eliminate in situ carcinoma diagnoses from the study.

Now you know the basic tricks for conducting an ABC link study— Back Alley, continued from page 4 whether retrospective (case-control) or prospective (cohort) in design—that does not show the link. Watch for them. Erstwhile criminal abortionist Hipolito Barreiro (who, like Vuitch, Ketchum, Munson, and Knight, had no pre- * * * legalization deaths I’ve been able to find out about) hired Joel Brind, Ph.D. is a professor of biology and endocrinology at some marginal doctors and opened a “safe and legal abortion” Baruch College of the City University of New York and co-founder facility in Miami that killed four abortion patients from 1979 of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. This article is reprinted through 1983. from National Right to Life News Today, www.nrlc.org. I have no doubt that other erstwhile “back-alley butchers” have found legalization to be quite a boon. It’s a shame that women pay with their lives so that abortionists can sleep easier.

Did You Know? * * * Most abortions are unwanted or coerced. Learn more about Christina Dunigan runs the Real Choice blog and the the epidemic of unwanted, coerced and forced abortions. Visit Cemetery of Choice at WikiSpaces, documenting the deaths www.TheUnChoice.com for information, research, personal of women from abortion both pre- and post-Roe. This article stories, free resources to download and share, and more. is reprinted with permission of Christina Dunigan.

Page 6The Post-Abortion Review Vol. 21, No. 1 www.afterabortion.org Judical Bypass, continued from page 8 What’s Happening teenage girls, despite the danger to their physical and emotional safety and well-being. In addition to documented increased at the Elliot Institute? physical risks for teenagers, there is scientific evidence that teens face increased mental health problems after abortion, even when Here are just a few of the projects we’ve been busy with in the pregnancy is unwanted. the past few months: Teens are also especially vulnerable to coerced and unwanted • The medical journal Obstetrics and Gynecology abortions or may be victims of sexual abuse, a situation made published a letter from Dr. Reardon describing major flaws even more disturbing when abortion businesses carry out the in a study by the pro-abortion advocate Julia R. Steinberg. abortion without asking questions or even acting to cover up the The study claimed that abortion has no significant impact abuse. on women’s mental health. Without a mechanism to provide for cross-examination of witnesses • We supplied information used in a brief filed by the and the introduction of witnesses who would testify that the Justice Foundation defending an Arkansas statute that abortion is not in the girl’s best interests, how can judges make an would prohibit most abortions after 12 weeks gestation— informed decision? How can we be sure that the adults seeking due, at least in part, to the negative health impact of permission for the young girl to abort without notifying her parents abortion on women. are not themselves manipulating, pressuring or even forcing her • We are hearing from more women and men who visit our to seek an abortion? web sites looking for help and information on pregnancy and post-abortion issues. Please pray for those who Any judicial bypass laws should require the courts to appoint an contact us and all who are affected by these experiences. attorney to argue the position that (1) the abortion is contrary to the girl’s best interests, (2) she is not mature enough to make this • We held our fourth annual Church Awareness Project, dangerous choice without her parents’ knowledge, and/or (3) there with more than 750 recipients downloading information is no evidence of abuse that would justify excluding the parents to help their pastors and church communities respond from being informed. A further layer of protection would be added to the abortion issue in a truly pro-woman/pro-life way. by making abortionists liable for failing to screen teens and women * * * for coercion and known risk factors that increase her chances of mental health problems after abortion. Become part of our work! Your tax-deductible donation will help support our research and education and outreach Teens should not be put in harm’s way to line the abortion projects such as those mentioned above. To donate, mail industry’s pockets, nor should a flawed system make judges a the form below with your check or call 1-888-412-2676. part of that.

Please Support Our Work

Our research, education, and advocacy efforts are funded solely by the support of people like you. We have a small mailing list, so your donation makes a big difference. Thank you! Also, please check your mailing label to see if there is a “time to renew” notice. To subscribe or renew, simply return the form below or call 1-888-412-2676. Or donate online at www.afterabortion.org/donate. / / Please keep sending me The Post-Abortion Review. I want to support your research and education efforts. Enclosed is my donation of: / / $500 / / $100 / / $75 / / $50 / / $20 / / Other $______. Our Sustaining Partners are a group of donors who support the work of the Elliot Institute through regular donations. You decide how much you want to give and when—and you’ll receive monthly updates on our work. Plus, you’re free to cut back or cancel your donations at any time. / / Please send me information about how I can become a Sustaining Partner by making a pledge for regular donations.

Name: Mail to: The Post-Abortion Review Address: P.O. Box 7348 Springfield, IL 62791 The Many Flaws of Judical Bypass

auren Enriquez of LiveAction News has written about how the recommendation of any “expert” provided by an abortion clinic. L abortion industry uses “judicial bypass” to get around laws The result is that judicial bypass hearings are almost always requiring them to notify parents before performing abortions on “rubber stamp” procedures. Without a process that provides for teenage girls. She notes: cross examination of witnesses and the introduction of testimony from experts who would dispute the girl’s maturity or the benefit The judicial bypass process is essential to ensuring that of abortion to her, judges cannot actually “judge” the evidence. cash flow into the abortion industry does not suffer due to one demographic (minors) not having access to abortion. Instead, the judge’s role has been reduced to simply certifying In fact, to ensure that abortion is accessible to minor girls, that the girl’s or clinic’s attorneys have met the minimum threshold Planned Parenthood and other abortion businesses have requirement of providing an “expert opinion” that the girl is mature sympathetic attorneys on call at all or would benefit from an abortion. times to personally usher young women through the confusing court Judges hear only one Retired judge Joseph Moylan, who resigned system. from the bench after Nebraska passed a law side of the evidence— requiring that the presiding judge “shall” Often, these attorneys bring minor the pro-abortion side. approve of the abortion if the preponderance girls directly to like-minded judges of evidence supported the conclusion that who are the most unlikely to turn the girl is mature or that the abortion would down a petition for judicial bypass. To say “unlikely to be in her best interests, noted in a letter to the Elliot Institute in turn down” is the most accurate term to describe the judge’s 1998: role, because—unbelievably—in states like Texas, the by- pass request is automatically granted if a judge does not It is a shame and quite unfair that these hearings are merely release a decision one way or the other within forty-eight one-sided and give “rubber stamp” approval of the re- hours of the petition being filed. quest for abortion. You mention that the judge must decide whether the girl is mature or that the abortion would be in The “judge-shopping” Enriquez describes is only a part of the her best interests. Actually the judge must also decide problem. Another is the fact that these hearings are non- whether she is capable of giving informed consent. This adversarial. In other words, there is no attorney representing the would require that she know the effects of an abortion and position that abortion is harmful and not in the girl’s best interests. possibly the methods, etc. The system ensures that judges hear only one side of the evidence —the pro-abortion side. If all the evidence is not presented, as Moylan rightly noted, then judicial bypass amounts to a “rubber stamp” for abortions on Since the rulings must be based on the preponderance of evidence presented, judges have very little leeway to refuse the continued on page 7

NON-PROFIT ORG. U.S. Postage PAID Springfield, IL I N S T I T U T E Permit No. 595 Post Office Box 7348 Springfield, IL 62791

Forwarding Service Requested

PAR 21(1)