Bishop urges public to unite against anti-terror bill -

Thursday, June 4, 2020

Pastoral Statement of the Bishops of Metro Manila -

Monday, March 16, 2020

Priest refutes senator: ‘Divorce will never be pro-family’ -

Thursday, September 19, 2019

2 priests, 2 pro-life activists arrested trying to save babies inside New Jersey abortion center -

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Respect and Care for Life 2019 -

Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Over 41 million abortions estimated in 2018, making ‘choice’ world’s leading cause of death -

Thursday, January 3, 2019

Everyone must respect the basic human rights of all human beings, pope says -

Friday, December 14, 2018

Parents of ‘miracle’ micro-preemie thankful to bring home healthy girl -

Thursday, November 29, 2018

WATCH: Drag queen admits he’s ‘grooming’ children at story hour events -

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Brazil elects pro-life president, despite pressure to legalize abortion -

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Alfie Evans’ parents to ‘form a relationship’ with hospital, ask supporters to return home: BREAKING -

Friday, April 27, 2018

Couples told: ‘Have courage to fight divorce bill’ -

Wednesday, April 11, 2018


Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Pastoral Statement Against Divorce -

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Cardinal Tagle to lead walk against killings -

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

49 Abortion Clinics Closed in 2017, 77% of All Abortion Clinics Open in 1991 Have Shut Down -

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Bishop condemns killing of priest -

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Church urges repentance over rampant killings -

Monday, November 6, 2017

Our Lady of Fatima will be icon at prayer for healing -

Monday, October 30, 2017

Church urges faithful to join ‘heal the nation’ Edsa procession -

Monday, October 16, 2017

Planned Parenthood Continues Pushing Women Into Dangerous Abortion Drug


by Randy O’Bannon Ph.D. | Washington, DC | | 7/24/13 6:56 PM

Visit the website for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, and look for “surgical abortion” in the “Abortion” section of their “Health Services and Information” heading. You won’t find it.

Oh, it’s not that they don’t do surgical abortions. They do, to the tune of tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands a year. (The remainder of their 330,000 abortions are chemical—e.g., RU-486—abortions.)

But unless you are watching very carefully, you would miss that, like a lot of others in the abortion industry, PPFA uses the term “surgical abortions“ less and less frequently.

The aim of the abortion establishment obviously isn’t to limit abortion but the exact opposite: to vastly expand the number of clinics, add to the ranks of abortionists, and fatten their bottom line.

De-emphasizing surgical abortions allows the abortion industry to promote a new product—chemical abortions—that is intended to make abortion seem a matter of “simply” taking a couple of pills. This has expanded the pool of doctors willing to perform abortions and resulted in new women considering abortions at the same time cutting costs.

And then there is the capacity to decentralize abortion, to move it beyond the giant metropolitan abortion mills. Chemical abortions that employ drugs like RU-486 and prostaglandins like misoprostol don’t require the special equipment, special surgical training, or additional space for operating, recovery rooms, etc. (1)

By contrast, modern computer technology can turn even the smallest storefront center in the most isolated town into an abortion clinic. Abortion pills are dispensed remotely by an abortionist on the other end of a web-cam back at a big city mega-clinic.

The risks for women are tremendous, but the chemical route offers even small time clinic operators the chance at what seems like easy money.

The landscape has changed so quickly that bioethicists like Arthur Caplan asked in a recent column “Are Surgical Abortions Becoming ‘Old Technology’?” (Medscape, 6/5/13).

The number of chemical abortions performed in the United States has grown steadily since the government approved RU-486 for sale in September 2000. As of 2008 chemical abortions comprised around 15-16% of all abortions—and were growing. Chemical abortions increase profits and abortion “providers” and realize one of the abortion industry’s most important objectives: reach so-called “underserved populations.”

But the remainder of these are still surgical abortions. While that number will continue to decline as a percentage of all abortions, surgical abortions will continue to represent the majority of abortions done in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.

Certain women are allergic to the powerful chemical abortifacients or have conditions that make their use a particular personal risk. Other women simply want to get the abortion over with and don’t want to endure the ardor of days or weeks of cramping, pain, or bleeding. Yet others show up at the clinic at a later gestational age where abortionists don’t feel the drugs would be effective (though there are researchers experimenting with the use chemical methods in the second and even third trimesters).

But there are other reasons the term “surgical abortion” is disappearing.

For one reason, women (like men) find the idea of surgery intimidating. In the abortion context, they do not like the cutting, the scraping, the anesthesia, the possibility of injury. The elimination of all this was a selling point for chemical abortions which helped ease the way for acceptance. (2)

Clinics are obviously trying to address and assuage these fears. On the one hand they explicitly try to argue in their descriptions of the procedures that “no cutting is involved” (Aaron’s Women’s Clinic, Houston TX). Or they can say that in a vacuum aspiration “There is NO cutting or scraping of the uterus” (Northside Women’s Clinic, Atlanta, GA).

The South Jersey Women’s Center still calls these surgical abortions (which they are), but tries to distinguish these from ordinary surgical procedures. “No cutting or incision is necessary and the procedure takes only 5 to 7 minutes.”

Planned Parenthood avoids the term “surgical” and tries to call these “In-Clinic Abortion Procedures.”

New York OB/GYN AssociatesTM classifies these as “Non-Surgical Abortions” because they “do not involve any scraping or scaring of the uterus.” They say that “There is no cutting during an Aspiration Abortion.” They maintain that “There is no scraping, no scaring and no damage to the uterine wall.”

Both the chemical and aspiration methods they advertise “are designed to naturally release a woman’s pregnancy in a gentle and safe way, which does not cause damage.”

However there is more to this than just calming fears and apprehensions. The abortion industry has found it increasingly difficult to find doctors willing to perform abortions or to add abortion to their practices. By re-defining the abortion procedure as “non-surgical,” this opens up the performance of abortion to a whole new set of medical practitioners.

It is not a coincidence that in the last year we have seen both the appearance of a study and a push in the California legislature claiming that nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants can perform suction aspiration abortions as well as doctors (NRL News Today, 2/20/13 and 5/29/13). It is notable the California bill specifically tried to redefine these as “non-surgical” abortions. (3)

If the suction or vacuum aspiration abortion is reclassified as a “non-surgical” abortion, it gives clinics offering just chemical or aspiration abortions the opening to argue that they are not technically “ambulatory surgical centers” and hence are not covered under many of the new state laws regulating clinics.

It is interesting that in the recent discussion over proposed clinic regulations in Texas, Barbara Levy, vice president of health policy for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists specifically tried to tell a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman that abortions were “minimally invasive” procedures that didn’t involve surgical cutting (Austin American-Statesman, 7/8/13).

“We call these procedures, not surgeries,” Levy told the Austin American-Statesman. “I don’t even think it’s appropriate to talk about [abortion] as a surgical procedure.”

But this is only a difference in language, not in procedure. Whatever the label, the abortion is deadly for the child and poses certain risks for the mother. In fact, her risk could be greater if done by a less trained, less experienced medical practitioner.

Promoters of the idea that these are “non-surgical” try to employ the rationale that because they do not cut tissue to enter the woman’s body but enter through the birth canal, these are somehow, strictly speaking, not surgery.







Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc is a non-profit, nationwide organization that functions as an Educational body coordinating pro-life groups, providing information on life issues it also functions as a political and legislative lobby group that advances the principles and policies with the pro-life and pro-family cause.

“What  Can One Person Do?

Every Single person, in his own little way, can do alot to save a life”

+Sr. Mary Pilar Verzosa, RGS

Foundress, Pro-life Phil. Fdn. Inc.

Sept.24, 1944-Sept.9, 2012

We need your help!

PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES exists mainly because of the overflowing of your donation supporting our programs and services.

PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES counts on your support to continue operating.

Take inspiration from knowing that for every peso you give, your a part of the mission of SAVING LIVES ONE STEP AT A TIME.


(Pro-Life Philippines Foundation Inc. is a Donee Institution. We will issue a Certificate of Donation for tax deduction purposes upon your request.) For more info call us at 7337027 / 7349425 / 09192337783





Share via email
One Response to “Planned Parenthood Continues Pushing Women Into Dangerous Abortion Drug”
  1. Messias says:

    Dear Board Members:I realize that the abirtoon debate seems like an old one and that abirtoon is now a widely accepted process, but I ask you to please support truth in the face of common ignorance. Without going into detail, the truth is that no one, not even one who would like an abirtoon clinic, can scientifically say that a 2nd-trimester fetus is not human. Even most pro-choicers know this, since they very seldomly attempt to deny the humanity of a fetus. After all, the question of whether or not an unborn child is human is above even Obama’s pay grade . Why, if one is unsure of whether or not s/he is in fact killing a human being, would s/he take the risk? It seems like a severe one to me, anyway. Please do not support another useless abirtoon clinic that turns out women who end up thinking: Woops! I think I might have killed someone! or Whether or not I killed a person must be above my pay grade, if it is above Obama’s. Sincerely,Lila Khazoum

Leave A Comment