"When I arrived at the retreat house, I was extremely apprehensive since I was pregnant with my second child. I thought of a thousand reasons to turn my car around as I drove away from my loving husband and 15-month old daughter but I knew I needed to feel God's forgiveness to be a successful mother and wife. I was pleasantly surprised when greeted by a compassionate staff. There was an overwhelming sense of peace and unconditional love as I entered the house. Though there were many tears shed, this retreat helped me grieve the loss of my two children and gain confidence to raise my unborn child and 15-month toddler. The Rachel's Vineyard staff is clearly doing God's work on earth. I look forward to helping this ministry grow and hope to show others how to heal from abortion."
That's from the June issue of Vine and Branches from Rachel's Vineyard Ministries.
Modesty nearly prevents me from noting that they included a short article from me. It's about two recent medical journal articles which can be found here and here.
On that subject, two new lettters have been published in the last few days by the Canadian Medical Association Journal on the study they published in May.
Meanwhile, Georgette Forney of the Silent No More campaign wrote to me yesterday to point out that when you click on the link at the left under research to the Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey article, you get sent to their main page, not to the abstract of the article in question.
That's true, and you have to click through to the contents page, and then click on January 2003, where you then have to scroll past article titles such as "Few Women Prefer Caesarian Sections" until you get to the appropriate listing, which is for an article called "Long-Term Physical and Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence" by
John M. Thorp Jr., MD; Katherine E. Hartmann, MD, PhD , and Elizabeth Shadigian, MD.
The abstract says:
"Induced abortion is a prevalent response to an unintended pregnancy. The long-term health consequences are poorly investigated and conclusions must be drawn from observational studies. Using strict inclusion criteria (study population >100 subjects, follow up >60 days) we reviewed an array of conditions in women's health. Induced abortion was not associated with changes in the prevalence of subsequent subfertility, spontaneous abortion, or ectopic pregnancy. Previous abortion was a risk factor for placenta previa. Moreover, induced abortion increased the risks for both a subsequent preterm delivery and mood disorders substantial enough to provoke attempts of self-harm. Preterm delivery and depression are important conditions in women's health and avoidance of induced abortion has potential as a strategy to reduce their prevalence. Only review articles including the single published meta-analysis exploring linkages between abortion and breast cancer were relied upon to draw conclusions. Reviewers were mixed on whether subsequent breast neoplasia can be linked to induced abortion, although the sole meta-analysis found a summary odds ratio of 1.2. Whatever the effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk, a young woman with an unintended pregnancy clearly sacrifices the protective effect of a term delivery should she decide to abort and delay childbearing. That increase in risk can be quantified using the Gail Model. Thus, we conclude that informed consent before induced abortion should include information about the subsequent risk of preterm delivery and depression. Although it remains uncertain whether elective abortion increases subsequent breast cancer, it is clear that a decision to abort and delay pregnancy culminates in a loss of protection with the net effect being an increased risk."
They must be pro-life fanatics one and all.