Investigative

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists isn’t neutral. It’s pro-abortion.

pro-abortion

It should be no secret that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is pro-abortion. In 1966, members of ACOG moved to liberalize abortion laws and by 1968, the College’s executive board approved one of the most liberal abortion policies of any professional medical organization to date, according to a report by the New York Times.

Since that time, ACOG has issued numerous releases, training documents, practice bulletins, and committee opinions supporting abortion rights.  In 2009, ACOG unsuccessfully pushed to eliminate the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funded abortions, a move they upheld last year, calling for “advocacy to oppose and overturn restrictions, improve access, and mainstream abortion as an integral component of women’s health care.” ACOG’s official policy calls abortion “an essential component of women’s health care”:

pro-abortion

ACOG 2014 abortion position

And while ACOG’s abortion policy claims that “[a] pregnant woman… should be fully informed in a balanced manner about all options,” and that “[t]he information conveyed should be appropriate to the duration of the pregnancy,” ACOG’s abortion “fact sheet” makes no mention of fetal development, nor does it indicate where a woman can go for all her options:

pro-abortion

ACOG abortion policy bottom

ACOG praises and collaborates with abortion corporation Planned Parenthood 

In 2017, ACOG’s Executive Vice President, Hal C. Lawrence, MD, co-wrote an opinion piece published by the Annals of Internal Medicine praising the work of Planned Parenthood. The ACOG VP suggested that defunding Planned Parenthood would hurt women despite the fact that Planned Parenthood has been caught covering up and enabling child sexual abuse. A report recently published by Live Action details how young children were taken to Planned Parenthood where they should have been protected but were instead, giving abortions and often returned into the arms of their abusers.

ACOG, pro-abortion

Graphic from both ACOG and Planned Parenthood

In April, ACOG granted former Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards its Lifetime Advocacy Award. It was presented by incoming ACOG president Lisa M. Hollier, MD, who states her focus will be on reducing preventable maternal mortality.

Richards called ACOG “such an incredible partner to Planned Parenthood.”

ACOG recently issued a statement claiming that pro-life abortion pill reversals are, in its opinion, “not based on science and do not meet clinical standards.” The organization’s political arm, ACOG Action, opposed the HHS “Protect Life Rule” change prohibiting tax dollars from funding abortion counseling within the federal Title X family planning program, because ACOG claims it “undercuts access to safe, legal abortion.” Title X also requires recipients report child abuse, something Planned Parenthood has failed to do on multiple occasions, as previously mentioned.

pro-abortion

ACOG Action on Title X undercuts abortion (Image credit: Twitter)

ACOG collaborates with abortionists

More revealing proof of ACOG’s abortion advocacy comes directly from its so-called “Practice Bulletins” on abortion, which were developed with the help of abortion providers. Case in point, this bulletin (seen in the image below) on first trimester abortion was “developed by the Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology and the Society of Family Planning with the assistance of Mitchell D. Creinin, MD and Daniel A. Grossman, MD,” all of whom are deeply tied to abortion.

pro-abortion

ACOG abortion bulletin Society of Family Planning

ACOG’s partnership with the Society of Family Planning (SFP) is especially troubling.

SFP has a mission to support research on contraception and abortion and also funds the Guttmacher Institute, a former “special affiliate and research arm” of Planned Parenthood. In addition, as Live Action News has reported, SFP pledged support of Planned Parenthood during the fetal body parts congressional investigation.

pro-abortion

Society of Family Planning mission is abortion research

Dr. Mitchell D. Creinin is an abortionist who was involved in the clinical trials of RU-486. It was later revealed that Creinin receives compensation from the pill’s manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, LLC, “for providing third-party telephone consults to clinicians who call for expert advice on mifepristone.”

pro-abortion

Mitchell Creinin conflict of interest DANCO abortion pill mfg

Oxford University Press describes Creinin as the medical and lab director of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania. He is also listed among the advisory counsel for an early abortion training guide published by Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), part of UCSF’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health.

pro-abortion

Mitchell Creinin Med director Planned Parenthood PA by Oxford University Press

As Live Action News previously reported, ANSIRH’s founder, late abortionist Felicia H. Stewart, is known to have been a physician on staff with more than one Planned Parenthood, and is credited with the introduction of the “Plan B” pill. She also led the push for midwives and nurse practitioners to commit abortions in California and served on the boards of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the National Abortion Federation.

The second physician involved in ACOG’s abortion bulletin is Daniel Grossman, who also had an association with the manufacturer of the abortion pill. According to Grossman’s own testimony before a United States District Court in 2014, he provides clinical services, including abortion, as a consultant to Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific, and serves as a liaison member of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America National Medical Committee. Grossman has also served on the board of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

pro-abortion

Given the ACOG’s collaboration with abortion providers and unabashed praise of abortion, it is crystal clear where its alliances lie, and it is not with the pregnant woman and her preborn child. As such, all studies and information from the ACOG should be viewed with suspicion.

Comments

Most Popular

To Top