Elena Gavrilova, an obstetrician-gynecologist with 42 years of experience, spoke in an interview for the Russian Community about the “internal medical kitchen” of abortion practice in Russia, confirming many theses already familiar to pro-life advocates from various sources.
The interview is available here.
Let’s pay attention to this fact. According to the main slogan, which is loudly used to defend the “choice” position, abortion is strictly a woman’s private matter and she should not be pressured in any way. We are already well aware that any words spoken to a woman, in which the truth about the procedure and the negative consequences of abortion are described, is nowadays called pressure, although such information is in fact a prerequisite for “informed medical consent.” Pro-abortion lobbyists are working hard to make sure that such information–by both professional counselors and pro-life activists–is forbidden.
At the same time, imposing abortion and showing preference for abortion is not counted as pressure. Dr. Elena Gavrilova says that the entire system of pregnancy management in Russia is aimed at supporting abortion, and not birth. Thus, it all works towards pushing as many women as possible to get rid of the baby.
First, she confirmed that the ability to perform abortions is necessary for a doctor to receive a degree: “At the university, while still studying, usually in the senior year, there is a direct cycle, it is called ‘termination of pregnancy’: the future doctor will not receive his degree if he does not learn how to kill babies… This is merely one of the many types of laboratory manipulations. If a doctor who is about to enter medical practice categorically refuses to recommend abortion, the system will reject him. In many cases, very harsh sanctions are applied against the doctor himself, as well as his manager and the institution where he works.
Second, the way we communicate with pregnant women, the terms, the rules of reporting in medical institutions are, in Orwell’s words, a special “newspeak” that destroys ethical ideas, misleads and allows us to hide statistics. Thus, a baby aborted before 22 weeks is referred to by doctors as an “abortion” and “products of conception.” So-called mini-abortions up to 5-6 weeks are not called “abortions” in documents, but “regulation of the menstrual cycle”, and they are entirely left out of the abortion statistics.
Third, doctors at prenatal clinics are required to “prevent” births if there is even a hint of malformation or other problems with the health of the woman and child. A doctor who “allowed” the birth of a child with defects is subject to sanctions. According to Dr. Elena, for many doctors it is not difficult to “play it safe”: i.e., they refer women for an abortion on a mere suspicion, or are quick to diagnose a “missed pregnancy” when that is not actually the case. At the same time, Dr. Elena confirms that in her practice not a single woman has died during childbirth even though she had real health problems and was pregnant, but refused to have an abortion on grounds of her health.
Fourth, under current guidelines there are more indications for abortion referral than there are indications for birth, and they also include social circumstances, such as not having an official job or not having a place to live. According to Elena’s testimony, in Russia’s history there was even the practice of house-to-house visits in order to see how people in the local area actually lived. And for people with “bad social conditions,” doctors could offer both abortion and sterilization. “Doctors have taken on the function of reducing the population,” the interview host sums up her words.
Fifth, in Russia as well as abroad, the bodies and organs of aborted children are material for scientific research, as well as for the manufacture of medicines and cosmetics, i.e. they bring profit–while childbirth does not. Elena Gavrilova says that babies from 16 to 18 weeks of gestation are dismembered and made into preparations and anti-aging injections called “cellular” or “fetal” therapy. You can read more about the direction of this industry in Russia in the article “Cannibalism under the guise of ‘high technology'” by Yulia Massino.
Such information is now rarely published outside of pro-family and pro-life channels and groups. Therefore, all the more remarkable is the interview published by Readovka, causing a flurry of negative reactions. A lot of people thought what Elena says is “fake,” “nonsense,” and “spinning” around non-existent made-up horror stories.
We, in turn, appeal to our readers: information about the reality of abortion must be disseminated, no matter how scary it is–and all the more so because it is scary. The iFamNews editorial staff tries to publish material with a real scientific basis so that you can share the information without fear of being labelled as “spreading fake news.” Unfortunately, the vast majority of our compatriots believe that abortion and the taking of contraceptive and abortion pills are comparable to taking a mint, and it is hard for them to grasp that an organ industry indeed exists and performs experiments on babies born live during an abortion.
It will take a long time to accumulate all the necessary information in Russian. Once again, here is a list of already available materials on our portal:
1. How the bodies of aborted babies are used to produce vaccines and other drugs
2. University is a hub for atrocities committed on the unborn
3. Genocide by contraception?
1) https://ifamnews.com/ru/ehnovid-i-dalkon-shild
2) https://ifamnews.com/ru/depo-provera-i-norplant
4. Example of Chile: Does banning abortion really lead to an increase in maternal mortality?
https://ifamnews.com/ru/primer-chili-pravda-li-aborty-vedut-k-rostu-materinskoj-smertnosti
5. Home abortion – a direct threat to women’s health and lives
6. Danish study: relationship between abortion and mortality rates among women
7. Women’s voices in defense unborn babies and against abortion vaccines
Discussion about this post