Widely Published Webcam Abortions Study by Partner of Planned Parenthood



7-10week babiesWhat looked like a study promoting Planned Parenthood’s webcam abortions that was widely published in the media, turns out to be co-authored by a radical abortion group, that not only works closely with Planned Parenthood, but collaborates with Planned Parenthood on dangerous abortion experiments on women in the Third World.

The article on the study which ran in The Des Moines Register, 11/16/12, features Daniel Grossman, MD, Vice President for research at Ibis Reproductive Health.  Ibis, based in Massachusetts, is an organization that aggressively promotes abortion, especially medication (abortion pill / RU-486) abortions like the ones Planned Parenthood offers by webcam in Iowa.  On its website, Ibis’ goals include:

  • Documenting the impact of abortion restrictions and making the argument to lift those restrict-ions (particularly bans on public funding for abortion in the U.S.)
  • Conducting clinical and social science research to shed light on ways to improve second-trimester abortion services and access to these services.
  • Testing cutting-edge service delivery models that have promise for increasing access to medication abortion (e-medicine, pharmacy and primary care provision, role of misoprostol alone, simplifying the regimen, etc.)
  • Leading the effort to bring researchers, advocates, and providers together to move oral contraceptives over the counter.

Clearly, a study by Ibis is not an unbiased, independent review of Planned Parenthood.  It gets worse.

Ibis’s relationship with Planned Parenthood goes deeper. The two organizations collaborate on testing of dangerous abortion procedures on women in the Third World.

In a 2012 study, “Cervical Priming Before Dilation and Evacuation,” one of the things Ibis and Planned Parenthood are testing on women in the Western Cape Province of South Africa, is to see if the drug misprostol might expel the babies of women at “13 to 20 weeks gestation,” before a D&E abortion.

D&E is Dilation and Evacuation: an abortion method where a baby up to 24 weeks or 6 months in the womb is torn apart by forceps with sharp metal jaws.

Misoprostol is the second set of drugs given in a medication (abortion pill/RU-486) abortion.  Planned Parenthood uses it here in Iowa with its webcam abortions— it’s the drug the woman takes at home which expels the baby.

So in South Africa, Ibis and Planned Parenthood are testing misoprostol abortion pills on women who are 3-5 months pregnant, who should be having a surgical abortion.  What kind of complications do they anticipate?

Ibis and Planned Parenthood’s study, listed on the U.S. National Institute of Health’s website www.clinicaltrials.gov, says, “Major complications to include:

  • Death
  • Admission to the ward after the procedure
  • Readmission after discharge
  • Abdominal surgical procedure
  • Suspected uterine perforation
  • Seizure
  • Hemorrhage requiring transfusion”

These women are abortion industry guinea pigs, whose lives are expendable.  In the Third World, U.S. based abortion organizations like Ibis and Planned Parenthood are less likely to face lawsuits or other consequences even when the major complications of their experiments include “Death.”

In the U.S., the FDA protocol has only approved RU-486 / medication abortions for women up to 49 days (or 7 weeks) into their pregnancy.

Here in Iowa, Planned Parenthood offers RU-486/medication abortions up to 63 days (2 months and 1 week) into a pregnancy, in violation of FDA protocol.

But the women in the Ibis study are 3-5 months into their pregnancy—well into their second trimester.

In another Ibis sponsored study, also listed on www.clinicaltrials.gov, Canadian women as young as 16, were tested in Vancouver, to see if they might abort using misoprostol alone.  This means doing away with the first drug in a medication (RU-486 abortion), Mifeprex, which kills the baby.

Why misoprostol?  Because it is cheap.  Planned Parenthood in Iowa, in addition to going beyond on FDA Protocol limits on when a medication abortion can be used, also violates the FDA Protocol by changing the combination of pills — lowering the number of Mifeprex pills (the first drug in a medication abortion that kills the baby) and then upping the number of misoprostol pills.  Mifeprex costs about $90 a pill, while misoprostol costs about $1 a pill. (For more information, see IRTL News, September 2010 online at www.iowaRTL.org/ “What’s New.”)

Ties to population control group, Population Council

Before Ibis, Dr. Grossman worked for the Population Council of Mexico City, an offshoot of the Population Council, first founded in 1952 by John D. Rockefeller III — to force population control across the globe.  Several of Ibis’ board members are former Population Council employees.

In 1967, Planned Parenthood awarded Rockefeller III, its dubious “Margaret Sanger Award,” named for the Planned Parenthood founder, whose goal was to purify the human race through birth control, sterilization and abortion. Rockefeller, like Sanger, was into eugenics.

The Population Council holds the patent and rights to market and distribute RU-486 (medication abortion pills) in the United States.  The developer of the drug, French pharmaceutical company Roussel Uclaf donated the patent to the Population Council in 1994 to avoid protests in the United States.

The Population Council sponsored the RU-486 trials in the U.S. in the late 1990s, which then Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, took part.

Readers of the IRTL News will recall that in 1995, Jill June, Planned Parenthood’s CEO in Iowa, told the press that there had been no complications among the women participating in the trial at Planned Parenthood’s Des Moines clinic.

Later reports indicated that at least one woman who had taken the abortion pill at the Des Moines clinic nearly bled to death.

Keep updated with Caffeinated Thoughts!

Please read our comment policy before leaving a comment.

  • Mark

    “Clearly, a study by Ibis is not an unbiased, independent review of Planned Parenthood.”

    Neither is a hatemongering, Christian Conservative blogging site.

    • http://www.facebook.com/inHisconfidence Jenifer Lynn

      So telling the truth about the dangers and blatant disregard for women in these abortions is “hatemongering”? So be it if lives of women and their unborn are saved as a result.

    • http://shanevanderhart.com/ Shane Vander Hart

      I take issue with you calling us “hatemongering.” I think you could use some lessons in tolerance and civility. But as far as being Christian Conservative. We are very up front about our “bias” unlike most of the media and the group that conducted this study.

      • Mark

        You may put “bias” in parentheses, to imply that it is simply my opinion that you are biased, but the fact that you reconcile with my point shows that it is evidently also your opinion that you are openly biased. Your acknowledgement does not excuse it, because it misleads people who read it.

        I wonder now about the amount of logical fallacies you publish day to day, especially with judgmental comments like me requiring “tolerance and civility.” Comments about the fact that abortion will always happen go unnoticed by your site as a point, probably because you cannot come to terms with the idea that irrespective of how hard you try, abortions will always happen. The abortion debate is one that is very complicated, and I think both sides have very good points, so “tolerance and civility” isn’t something you should be asking me to have. No. In fact, you see things a lot simpler, too simple for reality I feel. Whatever your stance is on this, know this point is true:

        Pro-life or pro-choice, women WILL have an abortion. Legally, or illegally. If illegally performed, the life of the mother is more at stake, infections are much likelier and botched abortions which force a birth of a now deformed child increase. With that said, we MUST keep abortions legal to prevent that from happening. That was initially the motivation for legalizing abortion in the first place.
        Besides, being a Conservative, and an American, surely you advocate freedom? If so, where does freedom of the mother come into play?

      • Eric Goranson

        They are called quotation marks. Not parentheses. Just FYI. Our freedom ends at the boundary of another innocent life’s freedom.

      • SJ

        Here’s something I’ve never completely understood. Why do you allow trollish, hate-filled comments like Mark’s on your Web site? Is it about advertising revenue?

        Your site has a lot of good articles, but then underneath them, among the good comments, are often a bunch of vitriolic, imbecilic ones as well. Many sites out there (whether conservative, liberal, etc.) would delete malicious comments like Mark’s.

      • http://shanevanderhart.com/ Shane Vander Hart

        I usually only delete them if they use profanity. Sometimes I will if they attack me personally, but not always. I probably should require opposing points of view to provide substance when they leave comments. I have just not really been into censoring comments when people disagree.
        And comments also do help with SEO.

      • SJ

        Thank you for the explanation, Shane. Also, I’m not sure “censoring” is really the best word to describe filtering out brainless, hateful comments. It almost implies something that the government is doing to keep valuable information hidden from us. :) I think “screening” or “moderating” fits the bill much better. IOW, please don’t feel the least bit guilty about deleting stupid comments! :) Besides, you own the blog. Commenting on your blog (and any other blog) is a privilege, not a right.

        I like your idea of at least providing some substance. I can deal with someone who takes the time to express something substantive in detail, even if I completely disagree with it and may not even read it. But trolls command no respect anywhere–except in Trollville. ;)