Archive for the ‘Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice’ Category


by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke




In discussing abortion, and abortion for the mother’s health, it is absolutely crucial to know what “health” means, legally and in practice, regarding abortion. “Health” was defined in detail by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court said that abortion could be performed: “. . . in the light of all factors — physical, emotion-al, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.” Roe vs. Wade, January 22, 1973

And in its companion decision, “Maternity or additional offspring may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by childcare. There is also the distress for all concerned associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically or otherwise, to care for it.”  Doe vs. Bolton, January 22, 1973 44

In a concurring opinion, Justice Douglas further elaborated what “health” meant when, in law, it related to abortion. He detailed if she had to: “endure the discomforts of pregnancy; to incur the pain, higher mortality rate, and aftereffects of childbirth; to abandon educational plans; to sustain loss of income; to forego the satisfactions of careers; to tax further mental and physical health in providing childcare, and in some cases, to bear the lifelong stigma of unwed motherhood.” Roe vs. Wade, January 22, 1973

This definition of “health” has been adopted internationally. As a result, in any nation, if abortion is al-lowed for the woman’s “health,” that country permits abortion on demand unless other aspects of its laws add restrictions.

The World Health Organization of the United Nations defined it as including social, emotional and economic well being of the woman as defined by the woman herself.

Let’s narrow it down to mental health, in the psychological sense, and ask–are there mental health reasons for abortion?

No! The woman with mental health problems is far more likely to experience post-abortion emotional and psychological problems than a more stable woman.

Four classic references here are these: “Women with a history of psychiatric disturbance were three times as likely to have some psychiatric disturbance” after an abortion as others who had no such history.”   E. Greenglass, “Abortion & Psychiatric Disturbance,” Canadian Psych. Assn. Jour., vol. 21, no. 7, Nov. 1976, pp. 453-459

Dr. Charles Ford and his associates at UCLA reported the same finding. “The more serious the psychiatric diagnosis, the less beneficial was the abortion.”  C. Ford et al., “Abortion, Is It a Therapeutic Procedure in Psychiatry?” JAMA, vol. 218, no. 8, Nov. 22, 1971, pp. 1173-1178

“The more severely ill the psychiatric patient, the worse is her post-abortion psychiatric state.”    E. Sandberg, “Psychology of Abortion” InComprehensive Handbook of Psychiatry, 3rd ed. Kaplan & Friedman Publishers, 1980

All of these support the original official statement of the World Health Organization in 1970: “Serious mental disorders arise more often in women with previous mental problems. Thus, the very women for whom legal abortion is considered justified on psychiatric grounds are the ones who have the highest risk of post-abortion psychiatric disorders.”

Then “mental illness” as a reason for abortion is just an excuse?


What about psychological problems after abortion?

When your authors wrote Handbook on Abortion in 1971, there were a few murmurings about post-abortion problems, but little was known. We then saw the negatives as mostly physical.

When we wrote Abortion: Questions & Answers in 1985, physical damage, while still a major problem, was given less emphasis, and negative psychological aftermath was being seriously investigated. With the publication of this book, far more is known about what is now called Post Abortion Syndrome which clearly is a post traumatic stress syndrome.

A Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome?

Yes. This type of problem was first seen in large numbers in Vietnam veterans, but did not manifest it-self until a decade after they returned. The same ten-year delay has been evident with abortion. T. Keane, Vietnam Vets Trauma disorder level at 15%, Am. Med. News, L. Abraham, Dec. 2, 1988, p. 2

What is Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS)?

Many women are very ambivalent about getting aborted but do go ahead. Those around her told her (and she told herself) that it wouldn’t bother her. When symptoms occur, she tells herself it can’t be the abortion causing them, and then into play come her two major psychological defense mechanisms:

Repression and Denial.

For some this works successfully. For others it shades off to manageable distress, to severe and life-changing upset and even to suicide.

There is a delay?

Yes! Her initial response in most cases is a feeling of relief. Then, with repression and denial, she avoids the problem, usually for years —5 years is common, 10 or 20 not unusual.

But then, for some, the negative feelings bubble up and break through. Often the precipitating event is: she has a baby, or a close friend or relative has a baby that she has close contact with. She finds out she is sterile, or other life-changing events.

What are the symptoms of PAS?

Guilt is ever present in many guises, along with regret, remorse, shame, lowered self-esteem, insomnia, dreams and nightmares, flash backs, anniversary reactions. There often is hostility, and even hatred, toward men. This can include her husband, and she may be-come sexually dysfunctional. Crying, despair and depression are usual, even at times with suicide attempts.

Recourse to alcohol or drugs to mask the pain is frequent, sometimes leading to sexual promiscuity. There is also a numbing and coldness in place of more normal warmth and maternal tenderness.

Is this due to religious guilt feelings?

Perhaps in some it is a factor, but most women re-ported on in the early studies were unchurched at the time.

Perhaps they had seen pictures of fetuses?

Again, not most. Most did not know “it” was a “baby” when they aborted.

But I’ve heard that the American Psychological Association says that PAS doesn’t exist.

This group has been strongly pro-abortion, and this definitely colors its thinking. But during the past decade or more, there have been dozens of national conferences on PAS. There are many professional articles and about 15 books adding more and more authentication to its existence and knowledge about it. Further, every one of the almost 4,000 pro-life pregnancy help centers in the U.S. now has found that an increasing percentage of their time is now devoted to treating PAS women.

But so many studies deny PAS.

True, and most are invalid for two reasons:

(1) Timing: Most studies have investigated feelings for only a few weeks or months post abortion when she is still feeling relief that her problem is gone. Since the delay before PAS symptoms intrude is often 5 years or more, these studies are invalid.

(2) Superficiality: Her repression and denial push this deep into her subconsciousness. If the survey is done by questionnaire or single interview, she routinely denies problems. These studies are invalid. Only by lengthy psychological testing and counseling can she often admit to some symptoms, much less tie them to the abortion she so desperately wants to forget.

You mean most studies miss PAS?

But most polls show few emotional problems — only a sense of relief! Yes, but “What women really feel at the deepest level about abortion is very different from what they say in reply to questionnaires.” A Canadian study polled a group of women who had previously completed a questionnaire in which they denied having problems from an abortion. One half of this group was randomly chosen for in-depth psychotherapy.” What emerged from psychotherapy was in sharp contrast [to the questionnaires], even when the woman had rationally considered abortion to be inevitable, the only course of action.” It was demonstrated that the conscious, rationalized decision for an abortion can co-exist with profound rejection of it at the deepest level. Despite surface appearances, abortion leaves behind deeper feelings “invariably of intense pain, involving bereavement and a sense of identification with the foetus.” I. Kent et al., “Emotional Sequelae of Elective Abortion,” British College of Med. Jour., vol. 20, no. 4, April 1978 I. Kent, “Abortion Has Profound Impact,” Family Practice News, June 1980, p. 80

Are there valid studies?

Yes, and two meta-analyses: James Rogers, who carefully examined over 400 published studies, pointed to the almost universal use of “poor methodology and research design” and “grossly substandard power characteristics.” He concluded that “the question of psychological sequelae of abortion is not closed.” J. Rogers et al., “Validity of Existing Controlled Studies Examining the Psychological Sequelae of Abortion,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, vol. 39, no. 1, Mar. 1987, pp. 20-29 49

Another concurred that existing research is methodologically flawed and that women who abort show more negative outcomes than those who deliver their babies. E. Posavac et al., “Some Problems . . . Psychological Effects of Abortion,” Psychology & Health, 5, 13-23

How about specific studies?

An excellent study thoroughly explaining and documenting PAS by the team that named this entity is:

A. Speckhard & V. Rue, Post. Ab. Syndrome: An Emerging Public Health Concern, J. of Soc. Issues, vol. 48, no. 3, 1992 andE.J. Angelo, Psych. Sequelae of Abortion, Linacre Quart. vol. 59:2, May 1992 and P. Ney et al., Mental Health & Abortion, Psychiat. Jour., U. of Ottawa, vol. 14, no. 4, 1989 and L. DeVeber et al., Post Abortion Grief, Psychol. Sequel. of Ab., Humane Med., Vol. 7, no. 3, Aug. ’91, p. 203

Two excellent monographs are:

J. Brende, Post-Trauma Sequelae..Abortion.., Trauma Rec. Pub., 458 Morning Glory Dr., Sparta, GA 31087

V. Rue, Post Abortion Trauma, Life Dynamics, 1994, P.O. Box 185, Lewisville, TX 75067

Also a quarterly newsletter from the Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values & Social Change available from NRLC, 419 7th St. NW, Washington, DC 20004.

Does it ever lead to suicide?

Suicide is rare among pregnant women, but much more common after induced abortion. It is never re-ported under maternal mortality from abortion, of course, even though it is causative.

“The suicide rate after an abortion was three times the general suicide rate and six times that associated with birth…. the rate for women following a live birth was 5.9 per 100,000; following miscarriage 18.1; following abortion 34.7.” They note that women frequently get short term “post-natal blues after having a baby, but that this rarely translates into suicide, and that the initial stress of having a child is transitional, the over-all effect having a positive effect on women’s health.” M. Gissler, Abortion/Suicide Link,Br. Med. J., Dec. 6, 1996

Then it is rare among pregnant women?

In Abortion: Questions & Answers your authors de-tail 5 studies clearly showing this. One comment may suffice: “The fetus in utero must be a protective mechanism. Perhaps women are reluctant to take another life with them when they do this.”

How about after abortion?

In the above book your authors also give the findings of Suiciders Anonymous, and that: suicide post-abortion is several times more common than post-delivery. British Medical Jour., 1996

What of Psychosis afterwards?

This has not changed since Dr. M. Sims’ original paper. He stated that, compared to post-delivery disturbances, post-abortion psychoses are much more serious, last longer, and are more likely to recur. They are more often the “hard” cases.  M. Sim, “Abortion and the Psychiatrist,” British Med. Jour., vol. 2, 1963, pp. 145-148

How about an example from a non-Christian culture?

In Japan, where abortion has been legal and accepted for over four decades, a common custom is to conduct Mizuyo Kuyo services in honor of the god Jizo. This god has been made the patron saint of infants who died of starvation, abortion, or infanticide. Small baby statues, in his honor, are bought and dressed. Then, in a Buddhist Temple, rites of sorrow and reconciliation are carried out.

Does abortion have any negative effects on her other children?

In some cases a definite “Survivor Syndrome” has been demonstrated. Children usually know that mother is pregnant. They also know when she “gets unpregnant.” This may cause Survivor’s Syndrome, similar to that of Jews who survived the holocaust. It is an irrational but real guilt at “why was I saved and why were they killed.” Dr. Ney has written about this. Dr. Edward Sheridan of Georgetown University has observed also a fear and mistrust of the mother. Originally, a small child, sensing a sibling’s arrival, doesn’t welcome it. “When the baby suddenly disappears, the frightened child may get a warped sense of his own power to ‘will people away.’ Or, if he knows that his mother was an active agent in doing away with the sibling, he begins to fear her.” A simple explanation of this was published in: L. Bond, “The Surviving Sibling,” Nat’l RTL News, Sept. 25, 1986.

It is also closely associated with child abuse: Dr. Phillip Ney, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Christ Church, New Zealand, and of later at

the University of Calgary, Canada, while still at the University of British Columbia, published a widely read study of this. His analysis clearly pointed to the fact that abortion (and its acceptance of the violence of killing the unborn) lowered a parent’s psychic resistance to violence and abuse of the born.  P. Ney, “Relationship Between Abortion & Child Abuse,” Canada Jour. Psychiatry, vol. 24, 1979, pp. 610-620

Is there treatment for PAS?

Yes, but it is not easy. We first must note that only a few doctors are sensitized to the necessary dynamics of treatment. Specifically, most psychiatrists and psychologists aren’t much help, nor are psychotropic drugs. This requires a gradual healing process, and during it she must have ongoing close emotional support from one or several people who do not have to be trained professionals.

As of the late 1990s, the place to start is your pro-life pregnancy help center. They can either work with her themselves and/or will know who can.

Basically, there are five steps to the healing process:

(1) Counter the denial. Bring this back into her consciousness and admit she was a party to killing her own baby.

  1. She must grieve over her lost child — tears, mourning as for another loved one.

(3) Seek Divine forgiveness. This was not expected but seems essential for almost every woman.

(4) Forgive others. Difficult, again, but some of this is needed to complete the healing and get rid of her long repressed anger.

(5) Forgive herself. Not many get this far, but those who do have real inner peace. What is absolutely crucial at every step in the above is compassionate empathy, support and understanding from one or more persons around her. J. Willke, P.A.S. Five Steps on How You Can Help, Life Issues Connector, Mar. 1996

— There is healing in the mourning —”


For those who had an abortion and regret it: God always gives hope for tomorrow and hope that He has your child in His arms in Heaven. Do not forget that. Seek His forgiveness and mercy but also you must forgive yourself and do not let people try to bet you up for what you have done. Pray about it. Seek the help of other like you. Organizations like Live Action, 40 Days for Life, Abort73, etc can help you. If you want direction to a trustworthy counselor please email me and I will give you the proper information. Never try to kill yourself over this. Help and hope IS out there.

Praise be to the Great Physician Who IS ever merciful for all Eternity!



by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke






Scientific reports on maternal complications from induced abortion are grossly inaccurate.


Published reports from scientific studies all come from university medical centers. Surgery in them is done by highly qualified surgeons. Further, they have immediate access to topnotch care if a mishap occurs.

But less than 10% of U.S. abortions are done in such elite institutions. Consequently their reports of safety or hazards do not in any way reflect the actual situation “out there” where over 90% of abortions are done in free-standing, for-profit abortion facilities or in doctors’ offices.

Aren’t there any reports on those “out there”?

The typical abortion mill will rarely report any complications. If the problem is acute, the injured woman is taken by van (never an ambulance -that’s bad publicity) to the nearest emergency room and left there. More commonly, she’ll be sent home. If she bleeds, gets septic, etc., she must seek help elsewhere, as the abortion mills rarely give any follow-up care.

But aren’t there state or federal reports?

There are reporting regulations in most states, but these are largely voluntary, and most private clinics simply don’t report complications. Many don’t even report the abortions done, e.g., in some states abortion reporting was highly inaccurate. A glaring example of this was Ohio, 1988. This was the last year of Gov. Richard Celeste’s term. Celeste was pro-abortion and had apparently not adequately funded the health department reporting mechanism. In that year, the total number of induced abortions reported from Hamilton County (Greater Cincinnati) was 3,218. In an entirely separate report, Planned Parenthood, which runs one of the four busy abortion mills in Cincinnati, in its national reporting stated that its abortion mill alone had done 3,144. Subtracting the two, left only 74 abortions done in the other three busy abortion mills in the city of Cincinnati. Obviously, this is absurd. Just as obviously, those three abortion facilities were simply not reporting.

The next governor (George Voinovich) was pro-life, and when this was called to his attention, a major change occurred, and it is felt that abortion reporting now is probably accurate. This lack of supervision in the field of reporting is very typical of the entire issue of abortion when reporting complications, deaths, etc. Abortion reporting is different. It stands by itself. It cannot be compared to any other medical procedure. Be advised, if these places do not even report how many they perform, guess how many surgical complications they voluntarily report.

So the U.S. Center for Disease Control reports don’t really reflect the actual situation?

Correct -and for two reasons. One is that few abortion complications are reported to them. The other is that this official government Bureau has been shown to be consistently under-reporting the abortion complications sent to it while over-exaggerating complications of pregnancy and delivery. M. Crutcher, Lime 5-Exploited by Choice, Genesis Pub. 1996, Chapter 4, “Cooking the Books”

Isn’t there any accurate source?

A landmark expose’ has peeled back some of the curtain of silence here. It is must reading for anyone who wants the true picture of the abortion industry in the U.S., e.g.:

– It gives brief documented case histories of several hundred women badly injured or killed by abortion, only a percentage of whom were reported.

It details for the first time sordid details of sexual abuse and assault in these clinics. “During our research for this book, our observation was that a woman probably is less likely to be injured, raped or killed at a Planned Parenthood facility than at a non-Planned Parenthood one.” But . . . “the difference is insignificant. About the best they could claim to be is the cream of a rotten crop.” ibid, Chapter 3, p. 117

It devotes 50 pages to detailing the psychic problems, nightmares and breakdowns of those whose business is doing abortions, another chapter to the total silence of the industry of the breast cancer connection, and finally details the extreme difficulty of getting legal redress for her injuries. ibid, Chapters 3, 4, 5

Well, let’s look at reported complications, even if some are only the tip of the iceberg:

Please note that there are “tides in the affairs of men” (and women). Before and after legalization in the ’70s and ’80s, there were many studies done. Few have been repeated in the past decade. Rather, studies in the ’90s have moved to new areas such as In-Vitro, chemical abortions, fetal reduction, chorionic villi and genetic testing, ultrasound, laparoscopic surgery, etc. Accordingly, we present mostly older, classical studies, e.g.: A study of 11,057 pregnancies in Jerusalem, of whom 752 had had previous abortions, showed that those with abortions were more likely to report bleeding in the first 3 months of this pregnancy, less able to have a normal delivery, and more needed manual removal of the placenta or other intervention in the third stage of labor. There was a significant increase in low birth weight, a 3 to 4 times increase in neonatal deaths, and an increase in fetal malformations. S. Harlap et al., “Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion,” Am. J. of Epid. (1975) 102, p. 217

Sterility is the most feared long-term complication of induced abortion. This can result from scarring due to infection caused by the abortion. It can also result from the surgical procedure itself. If the suction curette scrapes and cuts too deeply across the tube opening, these can scar shut, and she is sterile.

Are there any studies?

“The relative risk of secondary infertility among women with at least one induced abortion and no spontaneous miscarriages was 3-4 times that among non-aborted women.” D. Trichopoulos et al, “Induced Abortion & Secondary Infertility,” British Jour. OB/GYN, vol. 83, Aug. 1976, pp. 645-650 In 1974 Dr. Bohumil Stipal, Czechoslovakia’s deputy minister of health, stated: “Roughly 25% of the women who interrupt their first pregnancy have remained permanently childless.”

Do miscarriages occur more frequently after induced abortions?

A Boston study by a group who have aggressively done abortions denied any increase after one abortion, but, after two or more abortions, they did find a “two-to three-fold increase in risk of first trimester spontaneous abortions [miscarriages],” as well as “losses up to 28 weeks gestation.” Levin et al., “Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss,” JAMA, vol. 243, no. 24, June 27, 1980, pp. 2495-2499

Of a group of 52 women who had induced abortions 10-15 years previously and who were followed very closely during that length of time, it was found that one-half (27) had no problem with subsequent pregnancies. There was one ectopic pregnancy, eight subsequent — but long-delayed — conceptions, and three women with permanently blocked tubes. Of the remaining 11 women, there were 33 pregnancies with 14 early and 3 midtrimester losses, 6 premature deliveries, and only 10 full-term births. Hilgers et al., “Fertility Problems Following an Aborted First Pregnancy.” In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, edited by S. Lembrych. University Publications of America, 1981, pp. 128-134

A high incidence of cervical incompetence resultant from abortion has raised the incidence of spontaneous abortions to 30-40%. A. Kodasek, “Artificial Termination of Pregnancy in Czechoslovakia,” Internat’l Jour. of GYN & OB, vol. 9, no. 3, 1971

Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5% rate in a non-aborted group. Richardson & Dickson, “Effects of Legal Termination on Subsequent Pregnancy,” British Med. Jour., vol. 1, 1976, pp. 1303-4

Women who had delivered their first pregnancy had (in the second pregnancy) the “best reproductive performance.” Those who had a spontaneous miscarriage on the first had “the highest frequency of an early loss.” Those with induced abortion on their first had “the highest frequency of late spontaneous abortion and premature delivery.” Koller & Eikham, “Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion in Primagravida” Acta OB-GYN Scand, 56 (1977) p. 311.

What about second trimester losses?

There was a doubled incidence of midtrimester spontaneous losses. Herlap, New England Jour. of Med., no. 301, 1979, pp. 677-681

“In a series of 520 patients who had previously been aborted, 8.1% suffered a mid-trimester loss (compared to 2.4% controls).” G. Ratter et al., “Effect of Abortion on Maturity of Subsequent Pregnancy,” Med. Jour. of Australia, June 1979, pp. 479-480

“There was a tenfold increase in the number of second trimester miscarriages in pregnancies which followed a vaginal abortion.” Wright et al., “Second Trimester Abortion after Vaginal Termination of Pregnancy,” The Lancet, June 10, 1972

“It is concluded that a relationship, presumably of a cause effect relationship, exists between an induced abortion and a second trimester abortion in a subsequent pregnancy.” There also was a four fold increase in prematurity. Puyenbeck and Stolte, Relationship Between Spontaneous and Induced Abortion, and Second Trimester Abortion Subsequently, Europ. J. OB-GYN, Reprod. Biol. 14, 1983, 299-309.

What of uterine rupture?

This condition occurs during labor in almost 1% of cases when women have had earlier first trimester abortions. 140 D. Nemec et al., “Medical Abortion Complications,” OB & GYN, vol. 51, no. 4, April 1978, pp. 433-436

Six percent of women who become pregnant after hysterotomy abortions suffered rupture of their uterus. Substantial risk of rupture was demonstrated in 26% of these cases. Babies who were born subsequently were small for their due date. Clow & Crompton, “The Wounded Uterus: Pregnancy after Hysterotomy,” British Med. Jour., Feb. 10, 1973, p. 321

Uterine rupture (1%) is also one of the feared and sometimes fatal complications from prostaglandin abortions. Duenhalter & Gant, “Complications Following Prostaglandin Mid-Trimester Abortion,” OB & GYN, vol. 46, no. 3, Sept. 1975, pp. 247-250

And urinary incontinence?

The major study here showed twice the amount of urinary incontinence, 23.7%, after induced abortion as the incidence seen, 12.6%, after term pregnancy. Slunsky, “Urinary Incontinence in Pregnancy,” Z. Geburt, Perinatology 165:329-35, 1966.

Do menstrual symptoms change after abortion?

“Women with prior abortions consistently reported an excess of symptoms in all age groups.” L. Roth et al., “Increased Menstrual Symptoms Among Women Who Used Induced Abortion,” Amer. Jour. OB/GYN, vol. 127, Feb. 15, 1977, p. 356

What about synechia?

“The frequency of uterine adhesions [synechia] is especially high among patients who have had two or more curettages. . . . Dr. J. G. Asherman, for whom the syndrome is named, has reported intrauterine adhesions in 44 of 65 women who had two or more curettages.” “Abortion Risks: Getting the Picture,” Medical World News, Oct. 20, 1972

What about endometriosis?

This can develop along the needle or catheter tract from the midtrimester puncture. Ferrare et al., “Abdominal Wall Endometriosis Following Saline Abortion,” JAMA, vol. 238, no. 1, July 4, 1977, pp. 56-57

Do abortions affect Rh sensitization?

“Even in very early suction abortions done prior to eight weeks, fetal-maternal hemorrhage can occur, thereby sensitizing Rh-negative women.” M. Leong, “Rh Therapy Recommended in Very Early Abortion,” OB-GYN Observer, June 1978

This means that in later pregnancies, babies of these mothers will have Rh problems, need transfusions, and occasionally be born dead or die after birth. This can be tested for prior to the abortion and largely prevented by giving the mother a very expensive medication called RhoGAM. If not done, the number who become sensitized varies from “3% to 17%.” Unfortunately, many abortion chambers do not take this expensive precaution. J. Queenan, Cornell University.  Medical World News, April 30, 1971, p. 36G

What of placenta previa?

Placenta previa is when the afterbirth (placenta) covers part or all of the cervix, the womb’s opening into the birth canal. It can be very serious and usually requires a Cesarean section, sometimes with loss of the baby.

Doctor Barrett and others did a study at Vanderbilt University in which they evaluated over 5,000 deliveries and found that those who had prior induced abortions in the first trimester had a “seven to fifteen fold increased prevalence of placenta previa.” They linked it to scaring of the lining of the womb from the currettage or suction aspiration “predisposing to the abnormal site of placental implantation and an increased placental surface area.” They also found that the changes occurred with the first induced abortion and were permanent. Neither the time elapsed nor the number of induced abortions changed this.  Barrett et al., “Induced Abortion, A Risk Factor for Placenta Previa,” Amer. Jour. OB/GYN, Dec. 1981, pp. 769-772

Women who report one or more spontaneous or induced abortions are 30% more likely to have a subsequent pregnancy complicated by placenta previa than those without such a history.  V. Taylor et al., Placenta Previa Related to Abortion; OB&GYN, 1993; 82:88-91

“We cannot exclude the possibility that the large number of induced abortions plays a role in the remarkable increase in cases of placenta previa.”  Z. Bognar, “Mortality and Morbidity Associated with Legal Abortions in Hungary, 1961-1973” Amer. Jour. Public Health, 1976, pp. 568-575

“We rather often observe complications such as rigidity of the cervical os, placenta adherens, placenta accreta, and atony of the uterus.” A. Kodasek, “Artificial Termination of Pregnancy in Czechoslovakia,” Internat’l Jour. GYN/OB, vol. 9, no. 3, 1971

What is the incidence of ectopic pregnancies?

There has been a 600% increase in ectopic (or tubal) pregnancies in the U.S. since abortion was legalized. In 1970 the incidence was 4.8 per 1,000 live births. By 1980 it was 14.5 per 1,000 births. By 1992 it was 19.7 for a total of 108,800, and 28 women died. Center for Disease Cont: AP/NY Times, Jan. 27, ’95

The thin-walled tube cannot support this life, and it soon ruptures, causing internal bleeding and requiring emergency surgery.

Some of these deaths were after induced abortions.

The mothers had their wombs emptied by “abortion,” when, in reality, the tiny baby was lodged in the tube. Later, the tube ruptured and the women died.  Rubin et al., “Fatal Ectopic Pregnancy After Attempted Induced Abortion,” JAMA, vol. 244, no. 15, Oct. 10, 1980 H. Atrash et al., “Ectopic Preg. Concurrent With Induced Abortion”; Am. J. OB-GYN, Mar. ’90, p. 726

How many of these were related to previous abortions?

Among women who had aborted their first pregnancy, there was a 500% increase in subsequent ectopic pregnancies. Chung et al., “Effects of Induced Abortion Complications on Subsequent Reproductive Function,” U. of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1981

In Athens, half of ectopic pregnancies may be attributed to previous abortions — a ten fold relative risk.

Tubal pregnancy increased 30% after one abortion and 160% after two or more abortions. Am. J. Public Health, 72:253-6, 1982

“Especially striking is an increased incidence in ectopic pregnancies.”  A. Kodasek, “Artificial Termination of Pregnancy in Czechoslovakia,” Internat’l Jour. of GYN & OB, vol. 9, no. 3, 1971

Why is this?

“The increased incidence of PID — especially Chlamydia — and induced abortion appear to play leading roles in the dramatic rise in ectopic pregnancies.” H. Barber, “Ectopic Pregnancy, a Diagnostic Challenge,” The Female Patient, vol. 9, Sept. 1984, pp. 10-18

Women with chlamydia have more than twice as many ectopic pregnancies. JAMA, June 1990

How does abortion cause tubal pregnancy?

If the abortionist’s curette scrapes or cuts too deeply across the opening of the tubes, there is scar formation. When partial blockage is a result of this procedure, the microscopic sperm can still travel through the tube to fertilize the ovum as it breaks out of the ovary. After fertilization, this new human life, many hundred times larger than the sperm, may not be able to get back through the tube if it has been partly scarred closed.

Then the tiny baby nests in the tube, and the mother has an ectopic pregnancy.

What of premature births?

A history of prior induced abortion was associated with a modest increase in risk for a spontaneous pre-term delivery, which increased with increasing numbers of induced abortions. I. Haas, et al., “Spontaneous Preterm Birth: A Case-Control Study,” Am. J. OB-GYN, 1991; 165:1290-6

See also Chapter 22 on fetal and infant complications.”

On there are a ton of articles like this that show the immediate health risks abortion causes in women and future children… Choose Life you will never regret it and if you ever do, I will get someone to adopt your child just message me.

Praise be to the Great Physician for all Eternity!

“Abortion has slowly crept into the world of religion promoted as both a Biblically backed and logically moral act. Entire denominations now embrace abortion as an appropriate choice both in the eyes of God and their church leaders. More liberal denominations support abortion as morally correct in all situations while others like to limit their moral blessing to abortions done only before the point of viability. In either case, the decision to illegitimately claim God’s blessing on the act of abortion is both immoral and heretical.

The ultimate authority and word from God is found in the Bible and is used by both sides to claim the moral high ground. In articles dotting the Internet there are people claiming the verses popular to the Christian Pro-Life movement such as Jeremiah 1:4-5 and Psalm 139:13-16 are either taken out of context or actually support the Pro-Abortion stance. It is the smaller detail of the many verses that the critics will miss; that God’s view of life starts well before birth.

For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

Yet You brought me out of the womb; You made me trust in You even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast upon You; from my mother’s womb You have been my God (Psalm 22:9-10).

Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:15).

Know that the LORD is God. It is He who made us, and we are His; we are His people, the sheep of His pasture (Psalm 100:3)

This is what the LORD says–He who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you … (Isaiah 44:2).

And now the LORD says–he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5).

The word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:4-5)

In these verses it is brought directly to the reader that God’s view of life begins before birth. Psalm 22 shows the beginning of our relationship starting before birth. In Psalm 139 the verses specifically show our relationship with God before birth as He formed us and had already planned our days to come. Jeremiah 1 again emphasizes God’s relationship with an unborn child and Isaiah 44 comforts with the picture of God’s faithfulness during the formation before birth. God does not look at our lives from birth to death; He views us from conception onward.

These passages certainly contain separate contexts and were meant for differing audiences, but it is with their diversity that the strength of the argument is made. There is not just one verse in one situation that mentions God’s view of human life to include the before birth stage; there are many verses in many situations. The Pro-Life view stands directly on the Truth as shown through the Bible; God’s view is that life begins before birth.

We do not need to decide when life begins, but accept what God has already shown, that life begins before birth. It is impossible to take a life before birth and be justified. The beliefs and ethics of God are not situational and do not provide the exceptions. Life always begins before birth in the eyes of God even if rape, incest, or other sinful acts conceived the baby. It is only as our human self-centeredness grows that we look for exceptions or man-based rules to govern when we can take a life of a baby.

Christians must understand that supporting abortion is opposed to God and his righteousness. We must not allow the heretical views of the world a place to seep into our individual beliefs or the churches that we attend. Taking a stand on abortion in your church is easy; you have God and the Bible on your side.”


The Protest of a Protestant Minister Against Birth Control

by Rev. Matthew Trewhella

“Sunlight was just beginning to break over the darkness of the morning as my wife and I headed toward the entrance of the cold brick-faced building. Fear and apprehension gripped me each step of the way. A thousand questions and thoughts raced through my mind. “How much pain will there be? Why the heck did I ever do this in the first place? Maybe I should just leave.”

As I entered the door, I figured these were my last moments to bolt and run. I thought back to when I had done something similar six and a half years earlier and remembered the words that blazed across my mind when the procedure began–I will never do this again! Yet there I was, about to have a vasectomy reversal. What could possibly bring a man to the point where he would be willing to go under the knife once again?

Two UnBiblical Beliefs

Only two things could convince a man to get a vasectomy reversal.
A) a radical restructuring of his beliefs, or
B.) a nagging wife.
For me it was the former.

In 1985, I held two beliefs which convinced me that getting a vasectomy was fine. The first belief was that God nowhere in Scripture condemns the use of birth control, therefore it must be okay. The second belief was that God wants us to use”wisdom,” therefore in today’s economy and because of my emotional makeup it would not be wise for me to have more than two children, and I already had two. Both beliefs are unBiblical.

The first belief, that God no where in Scripture condemns the use of birth control therefore it must be okay, fails to recognize the very first command of God in Scripture. It is found in Genesis 1:28. God says, after creating man and woman, “be fruitful and multiply.” This is not a suggestion – it is a command! By virtue of the fact that God commands us to be “fruitful and multiply,” He speaks against birth control.

When we use birth control, we are saying, “No, I won’t be ‘fruitful and multiply!”‘ We are disobeying God and we are abrogating one of His intents for marriage (Gen. 2:24). 

Some would say that this command no longer applies because the earth is full. This teaching that the earth is overpopulated or may soon be is a humanistic, pagan myth. Christians who teach this display their ignorance and sadly show once again that too often the presuppositions of popular 20th century Christianity are the same as the world’s.The truth is, all the people of the world standing side by side in a four foot square area each could fit in the city of Jacksonville, Florida, leaving the rest of the world wide open. (Read The Economics and Politics of Race: An International Perspective by Thomas Sowell.)

By Virtue of the fact that God commands us to be “fruitful and multiply,” He speaks against birth control.

 The second belief, that we must use “wisdom,” is nowhere supported by Scripture and reveals our lack of trust in God to meet our needs. If God wants us to “use wisdom” i.e. use birth control, then why is it that whenever people in the Scriptures have many children God declares it is because He has blessed them? In I Chronicles 25:4-5, we read that Hamen had 14 sons. For what purpose? To financially burden him? No. God did it to bless him the Scriptures say!

God views children as rewards, gifts and arrows from Him (Psalm 127:3-5). He views them as a blessing (Deuteronomy 7:13,14), and as a sign of His approval (Exodus 23:25,26). Most Christians would view houses from the Lord as a gift, reward, blessing, or sign of His approval, yet, if they received four or five houses, I highly doubt any of them would say, “Well, we better use wisdom” and begin to practice house-control, not accepting more than two. Obviously, God’s view of children is very different from ours.

Historical Teaching

For too long birth control has been looked upon as a “Catholic issue”. It is fast becoming a “Protestant issue” however, as Protestant ministers like myself protest the heretical teaching of birth control that is being propagated in Protestant churches. We must understand that the Church had spoken consistently for 1900 years against birth control. Only in the last 80 years have Protestant churches begun to peddle this belief that God thinks it’s okay or wise for us to use birth control.

Read this quote, “The purpose of marriage is not to have pleasure and to be idle but to procreate and bring up children, to support a household. Those who have no love for children are swine, stocks, and logs unworthy of being called men or women; for they despise the blessings of God, the Creator and Author of marriage.”

Some Protestants would say, “This quote is obviously the mad drivelings of some medieval Pope.” It is not. Rather, it is the founder of the Reformation, Martin Luther who said this. Protestant Christians need to realize that their leaders consistently spoke against birth control up until about 80 years ago.

Who are some of the leaders besides Luther? John Calvin, John Wesley, Robert Dabney, Charles Spurgeon, A.W. Pink, Zacharius Ursinus, Heinrich Bullinger, Cotton Mather, Herbert Leupold, Johann Keil, Franz Delitszch, Matthew Henry, Adam Clark and John Machen, just to name a few, spoke against the use of birth control.

The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, once stated, “The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.” This does not shock most Christians today because they agree with her and quote her daily. ” I can’t handle more than two.” “I can’t wait until you grow up and move out.” “Will this be your last?” (Asked in church after a couple announces they are having a third child; no congratulations of course) All of these statements and those like them parade the party line of Planned Parenthood, and are in opposition to our Protestant forefathers.

“Those who have no love for children are swine, stocks, and logs unworthy of being called men or women.”
Martin Luther

Time has come for those of us in Protestant Christianity to come to grips with the teaching of scripture and our historical heritage and begin to follow the teaching of God and our forefathers, rather than the teaching of Margaret Sanger.

Blood in our Bricks

If you were to list all the reasons why Christians use birth control, you would see that they are the same reasons why a woman aborts her child. The number one reason (according to all studies ever done) a woman aborts her child is because the child is an inconvenience. The child interferes with the mother’s (or the father’s) pursuit of happiness or possessions. When we use birth control, we are embracing the same anti-child mentality. We are saying that our pursuit of so called happiness, our pursuit of possessions, is more important than obeying God. The question is,”How can we abrogate God’s design for marriage and expect to really be happy?”

In the Church today, we “warehouse” children. We don’t want them around us during the church service. Many pastors are advising newly married couples to use birth control the first two years of their marriage so they can have time to get used to each other without having undue stress added to the marriage. The cause for abrogating God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply,” is the same as the cause for abrogating His command “you shall not murder” – self-centeredness! One of the main reasons why the Church has failed to act against abortion is because it embraces the same anti-child mentality as those who advocate the murdering of the helpless preborn.

We have no God-given right to manipulate God’s design for marriage by using birth control. As long as we continue to make “possessions” and”self” our god and as long as we look at children as a diaper bill rather than a blessing, we will never see the Church act in mass against baby-murder. God help us to have His view of children and to obey His commands!”

This article was first published in Life Advocate magazine in 1993 and can be bought in brochure form; see links below.

Pastor Matt Trewhella is the pastor of Mercy Seat Christian Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the founder of Missionaries to the Preborn. He and his wife, Clara, have had three sons and two daughter since the reversal.

 View his website here:    

Missionaries to the Preborn


The National Right to Life has the following information in PDF format on their website here:

You can print the information out or send it by email, Facebook, or Twitter to a friend…

Abortion Statistics

United States Data and Trends

Reported Annual Abortions

1973 – 2008

                   GI              CDC
1973  744,600 615,831
1974  898,600 763,476
1975  1,034,200 854,853
1976  1,179,300 988,267
1977  1,316,700 1,079,430
1978  1,409,600 1,157,776
1979  1,497,700 1,251,921
1980  1,553,900 1,297,606
1981  1,577,300 1,300,760
1982  1,573,900 1,303,980
1983  1,575,000 1,268,987
1984  1,577,200 1,333,521
1985  1,588,600 1,328,570
1986  1,574,000 1,328,112
1987  1,559,100 1,353,671
1988  1,590,800 1,371,285
1989  1,566,900 1,396,658
1990  1,608,600 1,429,247
1991  1,556,500 1,388,937
1992  1,528,900 1,359,146
1993  1,495,000 1,330,414
1994  1,423,000 1,267,415
1995  1,359,400 1,210,883
1996  1,360,200 1,225,937
1997  1,335,000 1,186,039
1998  1,319,000 884,273*
1999  1,314,800 861,789*
2000  1,313,000 857,475*
2001  1,291,000 853,485*
2002  1,269,000 854,122*
2003  1,250,000 848,163*
2004  1,222,100 839,226*
2005  1,206,200 820,151*
2006  1,242,200 846,181*
2007  1,209,600 827,609*
2008  1,212,400
2009-10  1,212,400 §
§ NRLC base figure
*excludes NH, CA, and at least one other state

Abortions Level Off After Decline

After dropping 25% from a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leveled off at about 1.2 million a year.

Two independent sources confirm this latest trend: the government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute (GI), which was once a special research affiliate of abortion chain Planned Parenthood.

The CDC ordinarily develops its annual report on the basis of data received from 52 central health agencies (50 states plus New York City and the District of Columbia).GI gets its numbers from direct surveys of abortionists conducted every few years. Because of these different methods of data collection, GI has consistently obtained higher counts than the CDC. CDC researchers have admitted it probably undercounts the total number of abortions because reporting laws vary from state to state and some abortionists probably do not report or under-report the abortions they perform.

Nevertheless, because increases and decreases in CDC and GI numbers have usually roughly tracked each other, both sources are thought to provide useful information on abortion trends and statistics. The CDC stopped reporting estimates for some states in 1998, though, making the discrepancy larger.

Abortions from CA and NH have not been counted by the CDC since 1998, and other states have been missing from the totals during that time frame: OK in 1998, AK from 1998 to 2002, WV in 2003 and 2004, LA in 2005 and 2006, MD in 2007. For areas that did report, overall declines were seen from 1998 through 2007, though totals ticked up again in 2006.

GI’s latest survey found slightly higher numbers in 2008, but these may be due to the addition of abortionists missed in previous surveys. Increasing numbers of chemical abortions have also helped arrest previous declines.

Using GI figures through 2008, estimating 1,212,400 abortions for 2009 and 2010, and factoring in the possible 3% undercount GI estimates for its own figures, the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. since 1973 equals 53,310,843.

  The Consequences of Roe v. Wade:


Total abortions since 1973

Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2008, with estimates of 1,212,400 for 2009-2010. GI estimates a possible 3% under reporting rate, which is factored into the total…”

Imagine over 53.3 MILLION murders in the USA only for the past 35 or so years and they don’t even make headline news because they are the “legal” murders. To put things in a real perspective…

53.3 million people is equal to roughly 0.765% of the world’s population, as of July of this year.

53.3 million people is equal to roughly 17.06% of the USA’s population as of October this year. (Give or take 1%) That means every 17th person you see in the USA is a picture of an aborted baby in the past 33 years!

53.3 million people is, roughly, equal to California’s population plus about 83% of New York’s population!

53.3 million people is, roughly, alittle more than the top 4 largest cities in the world combined! (The top four being Shanghai, China; Mumbai, India; Karachi, Pakistan; and Delhi, India. According to this article:

If you do the math you will also find that 53.3 million people is roughly equal to the top 17 largest cities in America combined times 2!!! I pray you can proof me wrong, but sadly, it is true and that number keeps going up.

Although even one abortion is murder and only one abortion is too much, we need to know the numbers. 53.3+ million babies that have been aborted is unacceptable as a Christian. This must end before it gets worse…

The pro-life group Live Action has made a petition a while back in support to the state of Indiana when it de-funded Planned Parenthood. The following is the message of the petition. Please sign it through their website (link below) if you agree with their following petition:

“Dear President Obama:

We the undersigned are taxpaying Americans concerned and dismayed at your administration’s single-minded support of the abortion industry in general and of Planned Parenthood in particular, the biggest abortion chain in the country. We are especially troubled at your administration’s most recent, unprecedented intervention on behalf of Planned Parenthood against Indiana’s new law preventing Medicaid reimbursements of abortion organizations. Planned Parenthood serves less than 1% of Indiana’s Medicaid patients, but commits over 50% of the state’s abortions.

It is open knowledge that Medicaid is a state-run program and that states have the authority to individually determine the details of their own Medicaid programs, including setting eligibility standards for reimbursable providers. Your administration’s attempt to micromanage a state program is a gross violation of our country’s principles of federalism and is nothing less than an illegitimate power grab in the service of the abortion lobby. You have matched the extremity of your pro-abortion policies with an equally extreme means of implementing them.

We do not want any of our tax dollars going to support the biggest abortion business in America, Planned Parenthood, and we stand with Indiana and every other state that has moved to defund Planned Parenthood against your administration’s federal strong-arming. In the present matter of the Indiana law, we demand that your administration:

1) Withdraw its brief filed in the District Court of Southern Indiana in support of Planned Parenthood’s private civil suit against the State of Indiana;

2) Direct CMS (Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services) to approve Indiana’s new Medicaid provider standards;

3) Issue a public clarification that Medicaid is a state-run program under which states may determine provider eligibility standards and your administration will not interfere with this state authority.


-The Undersigned”

Sign the petition here:

Here are some sad statistics from Abort73:



  • Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended; about 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion. (AGI)…


  • In 2007, 84% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC).
  • Women between the ages of 20-24 obtained 33% of all abortions; women between 25-29 obtained 24% (CDC).
  • 50% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25; women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all U.S. abortions and teenagers obtain 17% (AGI).
  • In 2007, adolescents under 15 years obtained .05% of all abortions, but had the highest abortion ratio, 768 abortions for every 1,000 live births (CDC).
  • 47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI).
  • At current rates, nearly one-third of American women will have an abortion (AGI)…


  • On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI)…


  • 88-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation (AGI/CDC)…”

Read the full article from Abort73 here:

Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.”
More statistics here:

 As I have said before, the numbers don’t really mean anything because even one abortion is a murder and one murder is too much. What matters is, what are you doing about the number of annual, monthly, daily, abortions in your local area?

If left alone, the numbers will keep increasing. But there is hope. With groups like Live Action, Abort73, 40 Days for Life, the Pro-Life Alliance, and so many more, and more to come, are acting and really changing America for the better. The fight has only begun. At the moment the pro-life debate is a side issue in the main-stream media and in politics, we need to make it a major issue if you want to see miracles happen.

Praise be to the Great Physician for all Eternity!