Dear Colleague:
There is an inexpensive, low-hassle alternative to electric machines for
surgical abortion. Unfortunately, manual vacuum aspirators (MVAs) are
becoming more common but have never been examined by the FDA for safety.
Whether you are here or abroad, please e-mail
jad@pop.org with information
about the safety or efficacy of MVAs.
Steven W. Mosher
President
PRI Weekly Briefing
1 September 2006
Vol. 8, No. 34
Abortion the Cheap and Easy Way
By Joseph A. D'Agostino
When slightly knowledgeable people think of early-term abortion methods,
they typically think of a vacuum cutterage machine that purees an unborn
child like a strawberry fruit smoothie before the bloody mixture is
vacuumed out. However, the pureeing part is often not necessary. Newborn
infants are well-known for having soft bodies and even soft heads. In the
early stages of pregnancy, an unborn baby is so soft that he can simply be
sucked through a tube. The power of the suction alone will tear apart and
crush the child, like putting a new baby on top of a pool drain. And a
cheap, handheld device used to abort unborn children this way is becoming
increasingly popular in the United States-despite never being certified as
safe.
Electric vacuum aspiration machines exist for this purpose, but so do the
cheaper manual vacuum aspirators (MVAs). MVAs are cheap and easy to use,
making them popular for use in the Third World. They are small, light,
and require little maintenance and no electricity. What better device to
use for eliminating children in the remote villages and rural areas of
Africa, Asia, and Latin America? You don't even need a doctor. Plus,
instead of having the proceeds go to some Communist Chinese manufacturer,
they often go to our very own, North Carolina-based Ipas, an offshoot of
Planned Parenthood that is a leading maker of MVAs.
"Because the technology is low-cost and does not require electricity, for
example, its use can help make post-abortion care and safe legal abortion
available in community-based health care settings, including in remote
areas," Ipas itself says. "MVA [manual vacuum aspiration] can be
performed as an outpatient procedure, without the need for operating-room
facilities, by physicians or by trained nurses, midwives, nurse
practitioners and other midlevel providers. These qualities help reduce
delays women often face in obtaining needed care, which contribute to poor
health outcomes."
MVAs aren't used just in the Third World, but in the United States as
well. Says Ipas, "Many providers find MVA particularly suitable for very
early abortion (before 7 weeks since the woman's last menstrual period)
because its gentle yet effective suction allows for significantly less
disruption of the products of conception than typically occurs with
electric vacuum aspiration, making it easier to confirm pregnancy
termination." That means the baby's body parts are more readily
identifiable because they are left more intact than after electric
aspiration or cutterage. (Please note: You, dear reader, are a product of
conception.)
In fact, MVA prevalence in America is on the rise. "Its use in the United
States and other industrialized countries is increasing as providers
recognize the benefits this low-technology technique offers even in
sophisticated health care settings," says Ipas.
Yet, are MVAs safe? The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), responsible
for regulating the sale of medical devices, doesn't know, and hasn't tried
to find out. Like mercury-laden amalgam fillings in teeth, MVAs have been
around long enough that they have been grandfathered in. They never have
been, and are not legally required to be, reviewed for safety and efficacy
by the FDA.
In a July 20, 2006 response to written questions from Rep. Chris Smith
(R.-N.J.), an FDA official wrote, "Regarding what clinical trial data FDA
used in approving MVAs, as stated in the answer to #2 above, the devices
were legally-marketed prior to May 28, 1976, and therefore, FDA did not
perform a pre-market review of these devices." And, said FDA, none is
required as long as newer MVA models don't change too much from the old.
Ipas sells models, such as the MVA Plus, developed long after 1976. The
FDA doesn't know if the new models should have been reviewed, because
"manufacturers are primarily responsible for determining whether changes
that are made to their device require the submission of" the right form.
As these simple handheld devices suck unborn children out of wombs the
world over each day, we have to wonder what they may be doing to the
mothers, too.
NOTE: PRI is gathering information about the use of MVAs and would like to
hear from knowledgeable people about MVAs' safety and efficacy, whether in
America or abroad. Please e-mail jad@pop.org
with any information you may
have.
Joseph A. D'Agostino is Vice President for Communications at the
Population Research Institute.
_________
PRI
P.O. Box 1559
Front Royal, Va. 22630
USA
Phone: (540) 622-5240 Fax: (540) 622-2728
Email: jad@pop.org
Media Contact: Joseph A. D'Agostino
(540) 622-5240, ext. 204
Website: www.pop.org
_________
(c) 2006 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.
Redistribute widely. Credit required.
_________
If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to PRI, please go to
http://pop.org/donate.cfm. All donations
(of any size) are welcomed and
appreciated. _________
To subscribe to the Weekly Briefing, go to:
http://pop.org/subscribe-weekly.cfm or email us at
pri@pop.org and say
"Add me to your Weekly Briefing."
The pro-life Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human
rights abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending
counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of
"overpopulation."