Report: Abortions in U.S. at lowest level since 1976

[Regis Philbin]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080117171119.g3u627l1&show_article=1

Abortions in US at lowest level since 1976: report

Jan 17 12:11 PM US/Eastern

The number of abortions in the United States fell to the lowest level since the procedure was made legal some 35 years ago, according to a national study released Thursday.

The Guttmacher Institute, which researches issues pertaining to reproductive health and sexuality, said there were about 1.2 million abortions in 2005 -- 25 percent fewer than in 1990, when the number of abortions was about 1.6 million procedures.

In 2005, the US abortion rate was 19.4 abortions for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44, according to figures compiled from surveying abortion providers. The 2005 figure represented an eight percent drop from the number of abortions in 2000.

The finding underscores a continued a downward trend that started after the abortion rate peaked at 29.3 procedures per 1,000 women in 1981, according to the institute.

Despite the drop, slightly more than one pregnancy in five ended in abortion in 2005, the Guttmacher Institute said.

"Our policymakers at the state and federal levels need to understand that behind virtually every abortion is an unintended pregnancy, so we must redouble our efforts towards prevention, through better access to contraception," said Sharon Camp, president and chief executive officer of the Guttmacher Institute.

The last time the numbers were lower was in 1976 -- three years after abortions were legalized in the United States -- when 1.18 million abortions were performed.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

But even as the rate of surgical abortions declines, the study found that the use of "early medication abortions" increased dramatically between 2000 and 2005, with growing numbers of providers offering surgical abortion services.

About 57 percent of all known abortion providers now offer medication abortion services, compared with 33 percent in early 2001.

******

As knowledge about and comfort with mifepristone has increased, it likely has been introduced into settings where surgical abortions were previously not provided, e.g. family planning clinics and the practices of family doctors," the report said.


More and more family practices are offering the medication that induces abortions, and those practices are not included in this report. So, while it appears abortions may be down, the numbers only include those from abortion providers.

[Incident]

More and more family practices are offering the medication that induces abortions, and those practices are not included in this report. So, while it appears abortions may be down, the numbers only include those from abortion providers.

I believe you are mistaken, those abortions were included in this report. Though I'll give you a break because of poor way in which the breitbart article edited the Guttmacher Institutes press release.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/17/index.html
...Even as the long-term decline in the U.S. abortion rate continued, the new study also found that early medication abortion services expanded substantially between 2000 and 2005, as growing numbers of providers offered the service, including some that previously did not offer surgical abortion services. Fifty-seven percent of all known abortion providers now offer medication abortion services, compared with 33% in early 2001. Medication abortion accounted for 13% (161,000) of all abortions performed in 2005, and 22% of all eligible abortions (those performed prior to nine weeks’ gestation). According to recent government reports, abortions are occurring earlier, when the procedure is safer; increased access to medication abortion can help accelerate that trend.
“For a long time, nearly 90% of abortions in the U.S. have taken place in the first trimester, but in recent years, women having an abortion have been able to do so earlier and earlier in the first trimester. Currently, more than six in 10 abortions occur within the first eight weeks of pregnancy, and almost three in 10 take place at six weeks or earlier,” says Rachel Jones, (http://guttmacher.org/media/experts/jones.html) lead researcher on the new survey. “Medication abortion, which provides women with an additional option early in pregnancy, clearly reinforces this very positive trend.”
The decline in the number of U.S. abortion providers, which had been substantial over the past decade, slowed dramatically between 2000 and 2005: The number of providers declined just 2% over this period, partly because of a surge in the number of providers that offer only medication abortion services. Without them, the number of providers would have declined by 8%. Overall, the number of providers declined in 26 states and the District of Columbia, increased in 15 states and remained stable in nine. ....

[LesterX]

Uh, I believe it is you who is mistaken. DES did not say that there were no medication abortions included, she said that medication abortions offered by family practices weree not counted.

This analysis is based on the Guttmacher Institute’s 14th census of all known abortion providers in the United States. The study, “Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005,” will appear in the March 2008 issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/17/index.html

[Incident]

, .....she said that medication abortions offered by family practices weree not counted. ....



Yes, I understood what she said and she is wrong about that. Those family practices are counted as abortion providers, hence the subtitle of the Institute's Press Release.


...Increased Use of Medication Abortion Stems Decline in Providers .....


http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/17/index.html

[LesterX]

You are not correct. Read the actual journal article describing the research.

From the article:

All known abortion providers in the United States were contacted for information about abortion services in 2004 and 2005.

The methodology is explained in more detail on the second page of the article. Nowhere does it state that every family practitioner in the country was contacted. That is DES' point. Family practitioners who administer medication to induce abortions are not necessarily considered "known abortion providers."

[Venisenvy]

I hope this is actually a real trend and that they are becoming rarer and will continue to become rare. Perhaps one day we will be able to live in an America where we don't murder the most innocent.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I'm grateful there is now widespread availablility to medication for women who do not want a pregnancy. Any surgical procedure greatly increases a patient's risk of complications and side effects, including pain, excess bleeding, infection and even death.

[Incident]

You are not correct. Read the actual journal article describing the research.

From the article:



The methodology is explained in more detail on the second page of the article. Nowhere does it state that every family practitioner in the country was contacted. That is DES' point. Family practitioners who administer medication to induce abortions are not necessarily considered "known abortion providers."

No you are incorrect, statistically weighted variables to account for these family practitoner providers were used in the study. So according to the Institute, family practioners were accounted for in this study.

So unless you and DES have evidence that the Institute did not correctly take into account abortions made by family practioners, DES's claim that the Study does not take into account these abortions by family practioners is completely without merit.

[db44]

I hope this is actually a real trend and that they are becoming rarer and will continue to become rare. Perhaps one day we will be able to live in an America where we don't murder the most innocent.

I think its say everybody feels that way, but not because the become banned. Hopefully education and other factors mean people actually start to take more responsibility for what they do, but still, the right should be there.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

No you are incorrect, statistically weighted variables to account for these family practitoner providers were used in the study. So according to the Institute, family practioners were accounted for in this study.

So unless you and DES have evidence that the Institute did not correctly take into account abortions made by family practioners, DES's claim that the Study does not take into account these abortions by family practioners is completely without merit.

This is from the report:

A past underreporting survey, based on a random sample of physicians and hospitals, suggested that the number of abortions in 1992
was 3–4% greater than the number we counted, and that we may have missed a number of small providers. This problem may have become more pronounced for this survey period because of the introduction and integration of mifepristone for early medication abortion at facilities that previously did not offer abortion services. Although questionnaires were distributed to health care professionals
believed to have used mifepristone, some of these
practitioners may have been reluctant to identify themselves as abortion providers, especially if they performed few abortions. Thus, we likely missed some providers who were offering small numbers of medication abortions. However, it is highly unlikely that facilities with larger caseloads were excluded or missed, since they typically are known by other providers in their communities and advertise in the yellowpages or on the Internet.

While they admit they have underreported in the past and the percentage is most likely higher in this report, they cannot say by how much, so your assertion that "statistically weighted variables" were included are simply not adequate to make up for this unknown variable. I think this paragraph from the report makes that very clear.

[Incident]

This is from the report:



While they admit they have underreported in the past and the percentage is most likely higher in this report, they cannot say by how much, so your assertion that "statistically weighted variables" were included are simply not adequate to make up for this unknown variable. I think this paragraph from the report makes that very clear.

And as they explain immediately after that in the analysis section they used weighted variables account for that.

Do you have any evidence they did this incorrectly, and are significantly underreporting the family practioner provided abortions.

They believe they have got it essentially correct, where is your evidence to the contrary?

[Incident]

I think its say everybody feels that way, but not because the become banned. Hopefully education and other factors mean people actually start to take more responsibility for what they do, but still, the right should be there.

As venis would say, the Constitutional Right to murder the most innocent?

[Venisenvy]

I think its say everybody feels that way, but not because the become banned. Hopefully education and other factors mean people actually start to take more responsibility for what they do, but still, the right should be there.

I understand there are various instances where it should be allowed. I could not in good conscience say that a woman that was raped had to give birth to the child of her rapist. If the life of the mother or permanent health is at risk she should also have the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy but beyond that and a few other instances I don't believe the option should be there. We need to teach responsibility, proper ways to protect onself, reform the adoption process, make it easier for children to end up in homes where they will be loved and cared for without increasing the chances of the child ending up in a bad home.

[Incident]

I understand there are various instances where it should be allowed. I could not in good conscience say that a woman that was raped had to give birth to the child of her rapist. If the life of the mother or permanent health is at risk she should also have the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy but beyond that and a few other instances I don't believe the option should be there. ...


What do you actually mean by "permanent health is at risk"?
Who decides?
So it would be okay in "good conscience" to "murder the most innocent" if they were concieved because of a rape? How does that even make any sense?

[LesterX]

This is from the report:



While they admit they have underreported in the past and the percentage is most likely higher in this report, they cannot say by how much, so your assertion that "statistically weighted variables" were included are simply not adequate to make up for this unknown variable. I think this paragraph from the report makes that very clear.

Exactly.

[Venisenvy]

What do you actually mean by "permanent health is at risk"?
Who decides?
So it would be okay in "good conscience" to "murder the most innocent" if they were concieved because of a rape? How does that even make any sense?


*What I mean by her permanent health being at risk is that if she has that child she is at a high risk of suffering injuries that are permanent, not that will heel in a month or two but that she is risking her long term health.
*A doctor would be the best qualified to judge if the life or permanent health of the mother is at risk.
*While I would strongly encourage a victim of rape to have the child, and provide all kinds of help available, psychiatric etc... the damage that it causes the woman is to extreme to force her to carry that child to term. It is not bad enough that she was raped but then she has to deal with it not only the pure horror of that but also of having that persons child. There is only so much a person can take and i will not assume that it is something we should force upon someone. So dont get me wrong I would strongly encourage these women to keep the child but it is going too far forcing them to have the child.

[ConnieB]

I hope this is actually a real trend and that they are becoming rarer and will continue to become rare. Perhaps one day we will be able to live in an America where we don't murder the most innocent.

I 100% agree with you. It's funny how some one can be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman, but yet when a woman aborts her baby, she can not be charged with the same count of murder. Obviously the law considers the fetus as a person if someone can be charged for the murder of one. I feel the only time an abortion should be considered is when the mother's health is in danger, any other abortion should not be allowed.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

What about the "morning after pill" for those of you who think abortion should be banned? Do you believe this drug should be available?

[JoviFan]

What about the "morning after pill" for those of you who think abortion should be banned? Do you believe this drug should be available?
I'm a pharmacy Tech and we sell so many of these. There is a college nearby.
I believe in the womens right to choose and i would never want anyone to tell me what to do with my body. I understand everyone doesn't agree with me but this is a free country and there are plenty of people who agree with me. Sorry thats how i feel. No one is going to change my point of view.

[Venisenvy]

I understand your point of view but the problem is that this is one of those few times that I can't just be like we all have our views and thats ok. See I see the termination of the life of a fetus the same as killing the child out of the womb. There is no way I can support abortion except for those few instances when morally it is acceptable. I am against the morning after pill, i think if doctors want to give it to a girl that has just been raped then that is fine. But otherwise it is pretty much the same thing as an abortion so its wrong.

[tiger_rascal]

Please keep in mind that abortions hurt the womans health, eventually. I think people should be talking about this also.

My sisters friend has several children, she decided not to have any more, but instead of using protection or having surgery, she kept having abortion after abortion. After so many abortions her body is so messed up, she can not carry a child now if she wanted to.

[tiger_rascal]

I am against the morning after pill, i think if doctors want to give it to a girl that has just been raped then that is fine. But otherwise it is pretty much the same thing as an abortion so its wrong.

The morning after pill is a far better choice than going half term and having the baby pulled from the womans body.

[JoviFan]

I understand your point of view but the problem is that this is one of those few times that I can't just be like we all have our views and thats ok. See I see the termination of the life of a fetus the same as killing the child out of the womb. There is no way I can support abortion except for those few instances when morally it is acceptable. I am against the morning after pill, i think if doctors want to give it to a girl that has just been raped then that is fine. But otherwise it is pretty much the same thing as an abortion so its wrong.
I understand your point of view also i just hope people understand that everyone looks at it differently.
You don't have to go to the doctors to get the morning after pill or as it is called Plan B. All you do is go to your local pharmany and ask for it show id that your 18 and you too can buy one you don't need a script for it. And also all the morning after pill prevents is the sperm and egg from fertilizing so it isn't aborting anything. All the morning after pills are, are high dossages of birth control. Its kinda like taking 3 or 4 birth control pills at one time. Thats all it is.
Plan B is an emergency contraceptive that can still prevent a pregnancy after contraceptive failure, unprotected sex, or sexual assault.


Plan B should be taken within 3 days (72 hours) of unprotected sex and can reduce the risk of pregnancy by up to 89%. But the sooner you take it the more effective it will be.


Plan B is not RU-486 (the abortion pill); it will not work if you are already pregnant.


Plan B is not a substitute for routine birth control. It’s important to remember that Plan B does not protect you from HIV infection (the virus that causes AIDS) or any other sexually transmitted disease (STD).

[JoviFan]

On another note Plan B will not work if you are already pregnant.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I am against the morning after pill, i think if doctors want to give it to a girl that has just been raped then that is fine. But otherwise it is pretty much the same thing as an abortion so its wrong.

It's not the same as an abortion, actually. The morning after pill, as it is called, contains the same medicine found in birth control pills. It doesn't abort an already implanted, fertilized egg. It only makes the uterus incompatible with implantation or prevents ovulation altogether. Birth control pills work in the same way.

Edited to add: I see JoviFan has already made these points.

[JoviFan]

It's not the same as an abortion, actually. The morning after pill, as it is called, contains the same medicine found in birth control pills. It doesn't abort an already implanted, fertilized egg. It only makes the uterus incompatible with implantation or prevents ovulation altogether. Birth control pills work in the same way.

Edited to add: I see JoviFan has already made these points.
I think alot of people think different however when you work at a place like i do and hear it day after day. You learn alot hopefully someone learns from this.

[WannaBreatheYou]

I have had an abortion, back in 1993. Just over 14 years ago (wow, that long?). As messed up emotionally as it made me (I really didn't have any physical pain from it that I can remember), I would never ever take that right from another woman.

Pro choice is not pro-abortion. It's believing that every single woman should be able to make the choice to have one or not to have one. Regardless of whether abortion were legal or not, they'd still be performed. Illegal abortions would be much more hazardous to the mother's health. I'd rather they have the choice to do it legally and safely if they're determined not to have the baby. And if they need to, seek psychological help afterwards. That's something I should have done, but didn't.

[Venisenvy]

Ok I stand corrected, I thought it was basically RU-486. So if it doesnt stop a pregnancy if the egg is already fertilized and it doesnt risk the health of that child if it were kept to term then I guess I wouldn't be against it.

[JoviFan]

I have had an abortion, back in 1993. Just over 14 years ago (wow, that long?). As messed up emotionally as it made me (I really didn't have any physical pain from it that I can remember), I would never ever take that right from another woman.

Pro choice is not pro-abortion. It's believing that every single woman should be able to make the choice to have one or not to have one. Regardless of whether abortion were legal or not, they'd still be performed. Illegal abortions would be much more hazardous to the mother's health. I'd rather they have the choice to do it legally and safely if they're determined not to have the baby. And if they need to, seek psychological help afterwards. That's something I should have done, but didn't.
This is exactly how i feel. It should be up to each and every person what they want to do.

[SparkleHugs]

It's funny how some one can be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman,


This is incorrect.

Whether or not a person will be charged with one or two murders is dependant on how far along the pregnancy is. It's always been my belief that if a person cannot be charged with a double muder, then that is the window that abortions should be allowed. If I was three months pregnant and you killed me, you would be charged with one murder. If I were eight months pregnant it would be a double murder. I believe it is based in the viability of the child without its mother. I believe most abortions take place in the time the child would not be viable without the mother, especially since late term abortion is now illegal.

[Incident]

*What I mean by her permanent health being at risk is that if she has that child she is at a high risk of suffering injuries that are permanent, not that will heel in a month or two but that she is risking her long term health.
*A doctor would be the best qualified to judge if the life or permanent health of the mother is at risk.
...

So you agree with Roe v Wade Doe v Bolton. What you have said in actuality is that you would prohibit exactly zero abortions.

[Incident]

*
*While I would strongly encourage a victim of rape to have the child, and provide all kinds of help available, psychiatric etc... the damage that it causes the woman is to extreme to force her to carry that child to term. It is not bad enough that she was raped but then she has to deal with it not only the pure horror of that but also of having that persons child. There is only so much a person can take and i will not assume that it is something we should force upon someone. So dont get me wrong I would strongly encourage these women to keep the child but it is going too far forcing them to have the child.

You have said that a fetus is an innocent person. You are forcing the termination of an innocent persons life simply because of the circumstances of that persons conception?

[Venisenvy]

You have said that a fetus is an innocent person. You are forcing the termination of an innocent persons life simply because of the circumstances of that persons conception?

Because the harm done to the person forcing them to carry the child to term is just as bad as murder.

[Incident]

Because the harm done to the person forcing them to carry the child to term is just as bad as murder.


You cannot be serious? So preventing someone from killing a child is as morally repugnant to you as someone actually murdering a child?

[Venisenvy]

Well yes I am serious. See we are talking about a situation in which a woman is raped, and as a result of said rape she becomes pregnant. Now it's bad enough that she was abused in such a horrific way but now she is pregnant with the rapists child. Like I said before, I would hope they would keep the child, if they have to put it up for adoption but it is a crime to force a woman to carry the child to term. After being abused by that person we are forcing her to be reminded every day for the rest of her life. If she is strong enough to go through it then great but it would be a crime as equal as murder to force her to go through with it. In most other cases the woman and the man were just careless because they didnt think they need protection. But in a rape the womans right to choose was taken away.

[Incident]

Well yes I am serious. See we are talking about a situation in which a woman is raped, and as a result of said rape she becomes pregnant. Now it's bad enough that she was abused in such a horrific way but now she is pregnant with the rapists child. Like I said before, I would hope they would keep the child, if they have to put it up for adoption but it is a crime to force a woman to carry the child to term. After being abused by that person we are forcing her to be reminded every day for the rest of her life. If she is strong enough to go through it then great but it would be a crime as equal as murder to force her to go through with it. In most other cases the woman and the man were just careless because they didnt think they need protection. But in a rape the womans right to choose was taken away.

So it is OK with you to kill an innocent person solely because their conception was a result of a rape? What is different about a human being concieved because of rape from one who is concieved because of carelessnes?

So if Ruth Bader Ginsburg changes her mind and says that under the Constitution a fetus is a person and has the right thereof that is morally equivelant to her walking into a day care center a killing a child?

[Paulie]

I must say that the idea of forcing a woman to carry to term a baby conceived by rape is one of the most morally repugnant ideas I've ever heard.

Paulie

[Incident]

I must say that the idea of forcing a woman to carry to term a baby conceived by rape is one of the most morally repugnant ideas I've ever heard.

Paulie

Only if you don't consider babies, persons. Venis says he considers them the most innocent of persons. I feel that it is morally repugnant to kill a baby just because the circumstance of that babies conception was a rape.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I don't consider zygotes "babies." I don't consider embryos "babies." I don't condsider fetuses "babies." Babies are babies when they are born.

[tiger_rascal]

I disagree DES.

I think a baby is a baby when it is far enough along to be able to live outside the womb without the mother and that can happen anywhere between 6 and 9 months. My little sister was born 2 months premature on the living room floor and it took hours for a doctor to get to my mom. My little sister was amazingly fine, although she was my moms smallest baby weighing in at just over 7 pounds.

[tiger_rascal]

Oh, and when was the last time you heard a pregnant woman talk about her zygote or embryo? :roll:

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Never. What's your point?

[tiger_rascal]

The point of not calling it a baby. Oh wait, its only a baby if the mother actually wants the baby, but if its unwanted its an embryo or something. Well, if that makes the pill easier to swallow.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

The point of not calling it a baby in scientific or legal terms is that it's not a baby. We are on the subject of abortion; in that realm, a baby is a baby when it is born. In that realm, a baby is a "viable fetus" in the third trimester.

[JoviFan]

Sorry if i was raped i would have an abortion end of story. Its my right to choose and no one elses.

[Incident]

I don't consider zygotes "babies." I don't consider embryos "babies." I don't condsider fetuses "babies." Babies are babies when they are born.

So at least you show some consistency, unlike Venis. But then you must believe that a mother should be able to kill the fetus for any reason or no reason what-so-ever?

[Incident]

The point of not calling it a baby in scientific or legal terms is that it's not a baby. We are on the subject of abortion; in that realm, a baby is a baby when it is born. In that realm, a baby is a "viable fetus" in the third trimester.

OK, what is the difference scientifically between a seven month fetus that hasn't been born yet and a seven month baby that is born prematurely?

[Venisenvy]

My cousin just had a wonderful baby boy last night at 3:45am....he decided to grace us with his precence 6 weeks premature. He is doing just fine.

[SparkleHugs]

OK, what is the difference scientifically between a seven month fetus that hasn't been born yet and a seven month baby that is born prematurely?


It's kind of irrelevant seeing as aborting a 7 month old baby is now against the law per SCOTUS last year.

[SparkleHugs]

So at least you show some consistency, unlike Venis. But then you must believe that a mother should be able to kill the fetus for any reason or no reason what-so-ever?


I dont know about DES, but i would agree that yes, i believe a mother should be able to terminate the fetus at any point before it is viable to be sustained on its own. and in my mind (someone can school me of i am wrong) that would be anything before 6 months. However, I disagree with waiting that long, it is not my place to tell a woman what she can and cannot do before the fetus is viable.

I know that old Irish law was that if you chopped the babies head off before it cried coming out of the womb, that was considered a legal abortion. the first breath was when it became a baby.

[Incident]

It's kind of irrelevant seeing as aborting a 7 month old baby is now against the law per SCOTUS last year.

What Supreme Court decision was that? :rolleye2:

Besides it is not irrelevant since DES claims that there is a "scientific" difference?

[SparkleHugs]

Gonzales v. Carhart decided in April of last year. Here is the Court's opinion http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf


The scientific proof is unnecessary simply because abortions do not take place at that phase. therefore there is absolutely no argument.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

So at least you show some consistency, unlike Venis. But then you must believe that a mother should be able to kill the fetus for any reason or no reason what-so-ever?

I believe a woman has the right to choose an abortion at any time within the law for whatever reason she chooses.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

OK, what is the difference scientifically between a seven month fetus that hasn't been born yet and a seven month baby that is born prematurely?

Scientifically, a seven-month-old fetus is unborn and called a "fetus" according to that gestational age. A seven-month-old fetus at birth is a baby. Premature babies are generally referred to as "preemies."

[Incident]

I believe a woman has the right to choose an abortion at any time within the law for whatever reason she chooses.

So you would change your belief if the law changed?

[Incident]

Scientifically, a seven-month-old fetus is unborn and called a "fetus" according to that gestational age. A seven-month-old fetus at birth is a baby. Premature babies are generally referred to as "preemies."

So what is the difference "Scientifically" between the two babies? Let's make it easy on you, let's say the situation involves identical twins, what is the difference between them, "scientifically"? Please don't say that their specific location is a "scientific" difference.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I'll make it easy for you to understand: one is born, the other is not.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

So you would change your belief if the law changed?

I would not advocate any woman having an illegal abortion because standards would not be in place to provide for her safety.

[Incident]

I'll make it easy for you to understand: one is born, the other is not.

That is just location, what is the "Scientific" difference between the two?

[Incident]

I would not advocate any woman having an illegal abortion because standards would not be in place to provide for her safety.

Evasive, not answering the question? The question is whether you believe a woman has the "right to choose an abortion" if the law was changed?

[SparkleHugs]

If the right was taken away, women would still be having abortions. Only they would perform them themselves unsafely.

[Incident]

If the right was taken away, women would still be having abortions. Only they would perform them themselves unsafely.

So what? Look at it from the babies perspective, they are dead anyway, what do they care if the person who murdered them did it safely or not?

[SparkleHugs]

No, but the woman may face horrible medical problems because of it. Unless her attempt was unsuccessful and then there would be repercussions once its given birth to.