ACLU pushes for women's "right" to bleed to death, in the safety and convenience of their homes. Part I

The American Civil Liberties Union has recently filed a lawsuit, suing the Federal Food and Drug Administration in federal court in order to force it to lift the requirement that the so-called "abortion pill" regimen be given to women through pharmacy prescriptions, not in hospital or doctor's office settings.

Of course, the push is portrayed as making the "abortion pill" affordable to women in remote locations.

And, of course, none of these women who supposedly want that abortion pill, were included as plaintiffs in this blatantly frivolous lawsuit.

Instead, the plaintiffs are people who have financial interests to promote the pills and "procedures" - and who have blatant conflicts of interest with the actual patients whose life they are putting at risk.  Not to mention that doctors do not have standing to sue on behalf of the patients - as they are doing in the lawsuit.

ACLU and several physicians that supported the idea - I wonder whether they were "incentivized" by the manufacturer of the drugs in the "regimen" - push the pill combination as "safe and efficient".

As one of the victim of that "regimen" who nearly bled to death because of it - I beg to differ.

When I was in labor, a nurse came into the room and said that the doctor directed her to accelerate the labor with a pill.

The pill was given to me, I took it, because I trust my doctor to do what is necessary, safe and right under the circumstances.

No notification was given to me that the pill was not meant to accelerate labor, and was not tested for that purpose.

No notification was given to me that, in fact, the pill in question was an ulcer medication with a history of causing uterine ruptures (tearing of the womb and bleeding to death) when used - like it was on me - in labor.

I was lucky.

My husband was next to me, so when I lost consciousness and equipment attached to me did not give any signals to the medical personnel, he raised hell, brought half the hospital to my room - and, after an emergency surgery, my life was saved.

The name of the pill was MISOPROSTOL.

The same pill that ACLU pushes to allow women to have through "pharmacy prescriptions", as part of a Mifeprex (Misopristone)/ Misoprostol "regimen".

Women who ACLU wants to take that SAME pill as part of a "regimen" to "safely and efficiently" have an abortion "in the comfort of their own home" may simply die in the comfort of their own home - black out and bleed to death, without ever realizing what has happened to them.

Yet, ACLU advertises the pill "regimen" as safe and efficient even outside of court pleadings, seeking the widest audience, through Internet, and seeking donations based on such advertising.

Yet, neither Mifeprex (Misopristone), nor Misoprostol has gone through clinical trials in obstetrics, nor was proven "safe and effective" in such trials for women.

What is going on is blatant clinical practice "within the black box" - using these medications that were meant for treatment of completely different diseases for purposes the drug's black box warnings warn AGAINST.

Mifeprex' black box warning warns that it may terminate a pregnancy and should not be used in a pregnancy - that's why it is used FOR termination of a pregnancy, even though it never went through clinical trials for such use, and is still not listed in the official label for such use.

Mifeprex is still officially indicated only for treatment of the so-called Cushing syndrome, and is counter-indicated for patients with Diabetes 2.

Misoprostol has an even worse black box warning in its official label:

Misoprostol can cause BIRTH DEFECTS if it does not abort the fetus.

And, it can cause the tearing of the womb - uterine rupture - if administered in women to induce labor OR abortion.

And, these risks increase with women with prior C-sections - while C-sections are increasingly routine.

That's what is called "safe and efficient" by ACLU?

Not to mention that Misoprostol is only indicated for treatment of gastric ulcers, and its efficiency and safety was only tested for that purpose, and not for other purposes:

It is obvious that ACLU does not sneeze without donations.

It is also obvious that there is a giant financial incentive behind this lawsuit - coming not from the potential consumers of this pill, but from physicians and manufacturers.

Yet, this particular lawsuit of ACLU is particularly irresponsible, since ACLU claims - and not only in court, but also in out-of-court publications, not protected by anti-defamation immunity, that this drug "regimen" is "safe and efficient" for women, and that ACLU is supposedly fighting a "good fight" to bring to women a much needed "service".

This "regimen" will definitely be cheaper than undergoing a surgical abortion, or than taking the same pill under the supervision of a physician in a hospital setting.

But, cheapness here comes with a price - once again, a woman can bleed to death after her womb tears up in uncontrolled contractions.

Since such contractions may be accompanied by excruciating pain that may cause blackouts (misoprostol did cause a blackout in my case), a woman can simply take the pill, black out and bleed to death with nobody aware of what is happening to her.

I will cover the intricacies of off-label prescriptions (like here with this "abortion pill" regimen) and how physicians duck giving patients warning about risks involved with such "treatments" (as I learnt the hard way), as well as the names of manufacturers of the "abortion pill" regimen and playing with statistics of injuries and fatalities from the "abortion pill" regimen, in the next blogs.

Stay tuned.

Got organs? On the new mandatory organ donation "checkbox" on the New York application for drivers' licenses

That was the most disturbing advertisement that I have ever seen in my life - advertising organ donation that mimicked the famous "Got Milk?" ads.

After we raised the issue of how disturbing the ad was in a motion in a criminal action for murder, that particular ad of the organ donation industry was quietly discontinued.

Our office was conducting criminal defense on a murder case, and I was doing the fact-checking.

The alleged victim was a young male athlete, he was stabbed.

The question was - did he die from the stabbing wound?

Going through hospital records of the athlete, I found the following disturbing circumstances:

• he had a fever - but was not given fever-reducing medication, even though research showed and continues to show that reducing body temperature also reduces the risk of brain death in emergency patients;
• while he was on life support and breathing support, and only had a nick on the heart, not a particularly severe injury, the hospital contacted organ transplant company - without notifying the young athlete's parents about it;
• without notifying his parents, he was taken off breathing support - again, and again, and again, it was called an "apnea test", which is a mandatory procedure for EVERY living organ donation, and which is as much "testing" for brain death, as it is causing it;
• after the athlete "properly" suffocated after the apnea test to declare that he is "brain dead", but his heart was still beating - his grieving parents were only THEN notified that he was now "brain dead", and coerced into signing off on the "organ donation" from his son's "living corpse" - apparently, persuading them that it was "the right thing to do"; and
• despite the claims that brain death occurs when there is no reaction to nerve stimulation, and thus no feeling of pain, GENERAL ANESTHESIA was administered in surgery of that patient for ORGAN HARVESTING.  If the person needed general anesthesia not to feel pain, he was very much alive when he was disassembled for organs like a lego project.

He was a young healthy young man.

The transplant industry got EVERYTHING from him.

• His eyes.
• His skin.
• His bones.
• His liver.
• His kidneys.
• And, what was most startling for me - his nicked heart.

So, the heart was supposedly not good enough for that young man, but was perfectly good for somebody else - after a quick repair of the nick.  It was just restarted in somebody else's body.

That case still gives me creeps, after all these years.

And, I still believe that it was the hospital who killed that young man and not the person who stabbed him.

After that case, I did not volunteer for organ donations on my own driver's license and have publicly advocating against "living organ" donations.

After that case, I have shivers looking at videos of mothers listening to their children's hearts in other children's bodies.

I always, always, always think how children are being suffocated through the mandatory "apnea tests" to get their RARE organs (because children do not die often) to another child.

And, the today's announcement of the State of New York - that New York made it a permanent requirement for people applying for drivers' licenses to check (or not check) the box designating them as an organ donor.

Because we know how easy it is to forge a checked box.

And, when the corruption of the State of New York meets financial incentives of organ transplant industry...

The idea of organ donation is not endearing to me.

It is creepy.

You may not be "donating life" - you may be agreeing to having yourself executed, murdered, to get your organs to those who need them more.

Remember the drill.

• notification to organ donation companies of a "prime candidate" for organ "harvesting" and having the "treatment" regiment geared toward organ harvesting and not treatment;
• no fever reduction;
• suffocation "tests" - without notification of the next of kin;
• general anesthesia on a "living donor" "brain dead" patient during organ harvesting - without notification of that of the next of kin.

Got organs?

Save the environment - start and epidemic

We live at a time of knee-jerk reactions.

Anything - or nearly anything - that happens nowadays immediately gets discussed, challenged, protested, or vilified in the media and social media.

Unfortunately, sometimes, issues are heard - or not heard - in the public domain based not on the merits of the issues, but on who can yell louder and have the most political weight to push through a solution that benefits that party's side and nobody else's.

In the case with the recent epidemic of Hepatitis A in California - the issue of

• how dangerous infections such as Hepatitis A may spread in a large city;
• what role a public restroom, free, clean, accessible and available to the public, and to the homeless population, plays in public health, and
• what role such an insignificant thing as plastic bags would have in preventing the spread of a deadly epidemic - 

became completely overlooked.

Why? 

Because plastic bags - as environmentalists claimed, and, very possibly, claimed correctly - hurt sea turtles.

Is it important?

Of course.

But, no less important is the spread of epidemics in the large city.

Many cities want to sweep under the rug the unsavory issue that in this blessed and prosperous country, there are still homeless people - they are often sick, often drug-addicted, often dirty and smelly.

We do not want to see them.

Towns and cities are devising ways to drive them away from places frequented by "good people".

There are ordinances being introduced throughout the country against selling food from mobile units without a license, and licenses are prohibitively expensive.

In reality, such prohibitions are not to protect population from bad food - but to protect restaurants from competition and to prevent those mobile food selling units from serving homeless populations.

Blocking access of homeless people to housing, destroying their tents, blocking their access to public restrooms, prohibiting everybody to use plastic bags, while knowing that the real reason is to ban the homeless from using plastic bags as the alternative to a restroom (in the absence of access to real restrooms) - are all tunes from the same song.

Can we, as people, actually try to take a bird's view of a problem before engaging in knee-jerk actions?

I am sure there are many doctors who could have predicted and advised authorities that measures undertaken against the homeless population can lead to epidemics.

But - sea turtles won.

I am happy for the sea turtles.

Only - can we BOTH save sea turtles, and save ourselves?  From a Hep A epidemic, and, possibly, more to come if authorities do not provide real solutions to the problem of homelessness in America?

At the very least, provide to homeless populations access to food, clean restrooms and showers, the cheapest and simplest possible housing that would help withstand the weather?

Even if we assess it in terms of money it will cost, ladies and gentlemen, it will be easier to do that than to take care of a spread of Hep A and other contagious diseases.

What this blog is about

Welcome to my new blog.

It will cover issues of

• access to/denial of medical care,
• coverage by insurance companies of various medical treatment options,
• informed consent for medical treatment and for exposure to prescription drugs and vaccines, as well as the issue of
• confidence level and availability of diagnostic procedures to diagnose and treat diseases - 

among other issues that appear to be of public concern.

Stay tuned.