Do the math
In Iowa, Planned Parenthood has done 1900 telemed abortions. In a telemed abortion, the patient is not examined by a doctor in person; instead, the abortionist “counsels” her over a video chat, and then remotely opens a drawer which dispenses RU-486. Operation Rescue has been leading the way as far as legal challenges to this practice, although other pro-life groups are also opposed.
Planned Parenthood claims that not one of these 1900 abortions has resulted in a complication. This is unlikely, to say the least. Statistics compiled by the Australian government show a 4.1% complication rate– and that’s with physician supervision. In short, we would expect at least 78 Iowans to have experienced a serious problem with RU-486. A little deviation from that figure wouldn’t mean much, but zero? Statistically, that’s nearly impossible:
“Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has incredibly reported no complications in their nearly 2,000 remote controlled telemed abortions where a licensed physician only speaks with the patient for a few minutes over an Internet video connection, then never sees the patient again,” spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger told LifeNews.com today.
“The numbers simply do not add up. Either Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is engaging in an intentional cover-up of telemed abortion complications or it is an indication that they provide essentially no follow-up for patients once they load them on abortion pills and send them out the door. Either scenario would be gross misconduct on PPH’s part that further endangers the lives of women,” she added.
OR says it has an informant with first-hand knowledge of the inner workings of PPH who has come forward to explain how the telemed abortion scheme shows a “revolting lack of concern” for the lives and health of women.
The informant insists that the scheme was developed with a high profit margin in mind, not the best interests of women. According to the informant, who has spoken to OR on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals, PPH has traditionally attempted to distance the organization from any abortion complications.
“Planned Parenthood doesn’t deal with complications,” said the informant. “They send the women to the ER.”
If one of those estimated 78 Iowan women is reading this: please, come forward. It takes courage, but the pro-life movement will stand with you. Your testimony can help prevent this from happening to someone else.
In Iowa, Planned Parenthood has done 1900 telemed abortions. In a telemed abortion, the patient is not examined by a doctor in person; instead, the abortionist "counsels" her over a video chat, and then remotely opens a drawer which dispenses RU-486.
Given the pro-life obstructions that have been deliberately placed in the way of a woman having a safe legal abortion in the US, nnd the practice that pro-lifers on this website boast of, of mobbing patients entering a clinic, the "telemed" practice is … well, I think it's pretty unacceptable, but then I live in a country where safe, legal abortion on demand is just part of the tax-funded healthcare system: I would expect a woman who needed an abortion to get to see a medical practitioner in person both before and after, as required.
Your testimony can help prevent this from happening to someone else.
No. What will prevent this kind of cutprice, remote healthcare is the concerted opposition of Americans to the pro-life movement's determination to ensure that women can't have safe abortions.
The pro-life movement is directly and horrifyingly responsible for this telemed healthcare: the pro-life movement has campaigned to prevent federal funding for abortions and against health insurance plans being required to pay for abortions on demand. The pro-life movement wants safe abortions to be made as unaffordable as possible – and is thus responsible for this kind of cutprice medical care.
That terrorist organisations such as "operation rescue" want women deprived of even this access to healthcare is unsurprising: it's also unsurprising that you cite them with approval, acknowledging that you regard their violence as part of the mainstream pro-life movement.
That's actually the first time I've heard the cost argument. Surely, outside of the abortion context, making a medical service more affordable doesn't justify cutting corners.
The impression I've gotten is that the problem is simply that no abortionist finds it worth his while to drive out to Tiny Farm Community, Iowa every week. (I'd feel the same way.)
That's actually the first time I've heard the cost argument. Surely, outside of the abortion context, making a medical service more affordable doesn't justify cutting corners.
Uhhhhhhhh isn't it ALWAYS Pro Life Politicians who vote AGAINST federal healthcare funds being used to STOP this need for cost cutting?
Sooooo… you gonna say you're FOR federal tax funds being used to pay for personal One On One abortion care in Iowa so Planned Parenthood don't have to provide telemed health care???
That isn't what I said at all, Liz. My point was that it's probably a shortage of abortionists that's motivating the telemed scheme, rather than women being unable to afford one-on-one care. Telemed abortion has become popular for rural abortion facilities, but not in low-income urban areas. Why the difference? Because an abortionist can profitably set up shop in New York City, where there are always customers. But profits are low in rural Iowa– unless you cut corners and put women's health at risk by using telemed.