With INFANTICIDE now a core “value” of Democrats, all decent, life-loving human beings must denounce the Democrat party


Image: With INFANTICIDE now a core “value” of Democrats, all decent, life-loving human beings must denounce the Democrat party

There’s no two ways about it anymore: the Democrat Party is evil beyond words. And with the Democrats’ recent voting down of a bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, that would have protected the lives of newly-born children from being murdered alive by abortionists, it’s now undeniably evident that there’s no possible way for decent human beings who support human rights and life in general to, in any way, identify as Democrats.

As if their love for abortion wasn’t already bad enough, today’s Democrats see nothing wrong with delivering the child victims of failed abortions and allowing them to die on the delivery table, all in the name of “reproductive rights” and “choice.” This newfound adoption of infanticide, a.k.a. baby murder, as one of their core “values” proves once and for all that Democrats hate human life, and openly embrace the “progressive” policy of murdering babies after they’ve already left the womb.

We might as well start referring to the Democrat Party as the Death Party – the party that will “cry” over the deaths of children whenever it suits their agenda of trying to scrap the Second Amendment, but that hoots, hollers, cheers, and claps when legislation is passed and signed that allows newborn babies to be chopped into bits and trashed as “medical waste” upon breathing their first breath of air.

There’s certainly no place for real Christians in the Democrat Party, which embraces pretty much every evil thing that the Bible condemns. Whether it’s brainwashing innocent children into believing that there are unlimited genders, or silencing free speech about the dangers of vaccines, the Democrat Party wants to destroy all that is good and wholesome, and replace it with every type of vice and wickedness.

Sponsored solution from the Health Ranger Store: The Big Berkey water filter removes almost 100% of all contaminants using only the power of gravity (no electricity needed, works completely off-grid). Widely consider the ultimate “survival” water filter, the Big Berkey is made of stainless steel and has been laboratory verified for high-efficiency removal of heavy metals by CWC Labs, with tests personally conducted by Mike Adams. Explore more here.

For more related news about the evil agenda of the Democrat Party and its army of “resistance” Leftists, be sure to check out LiberalMob.com and Libtards.news.

https://www.brighteon.com/embed/6003973369001

Things have taken a major turn for the worse since 2002, when a bipartisan Senate UNANIMOUSLY affirmed that born-alive children are human beings deserving of life

Believe it or not, it wasn’t that long ago that Democrats, or at least some of them, still had some level of conscience within their beings. Back in 2002, in fact, Democrats in the Senate unanimously, along with Republicans, voted to pass the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This bill recognized all born children as “human persons,” affording them the same rights and protections as all other humans.

But somehow over the years, the Democrat Party decided that granting human life status to newborn babies infringed upon “women’s rights,” and here we are today.

“In just over a decade and a half, Democrats have gone from ‘safe, legal, and rare abortions’ to ‘kill ’em all and don’t stop when they’re born,’” writes Matt Walsh for The Daily Wire. “Many of us warned that the first slogan would lead eventually to the second. We take no pleasure in our vindication.”

As you may recall, it was the Republican Party that had to step up to the plate in the past to stamp out another evil known as slavery, which was openly embraced by the Democrat Party. And it’s now up to Republicans once again to intervene on behalf of society’s most vulnerable, unborn and newborn babies, to protect them from the Democrat Party death cult.

“It is probably not a coincidence that the Democrat Party, through its long and sordid history, has supported both of those peculiar institutions,” Walsh adds about the Democrats’ support for both slavery and baby murder.

“What a force for evil it has been. But what amazing consistency – to always fall on the wrong side of every human rights issue.”

Advertisements

U.S. Isolated at U.N. Over Its Concerns About Abortion, Refugees


The United States found itself isolated in the 193-member United Nations General Assembly on Monday over Washington’s concerns about the promotion of abortion and a voluntary plan to address the global refugee crisis.

Only Hungary backed the United States and voted against an annual resolution on the work of the U.N. refugee agency, while 181 countries voted in favor and three abstained. The resolution has generally been approved by consensus for more than 60 years.

However, this year the resolution included approval of a compact on refugees, which was produced by U.N. refugee chief Filippo Grandi after it was requested by the General Assembly in 2016. The resolution calls on countries to implement the plan.

The United States was the only country to oppose the draft resolution last month when it was first negotiated and agreed by the General Assembly human rights committee. It said elements of the text ran counter to its sovereign interests, citing the global approach to refugees and migrants.

General Assembly resolutions are non-binding but can carry political weight. U.S. President Donald Trump used his annual address to world leaders at the United Nations in September to tout protection of U.S. sovereignty.

The United States also failed in a campaign, which started last month during negotiations on several draft resolutions in the General Assembly human rights committee, against references to “sexual and reproductive health” and “sexual and reproductive health-care services.”

It has said the language has “accumulated connotations that suggest the promotion of abortion or a right to abortion that are unacceptable to our administration.”

On Monday, Washington unsuccessfully tried to remove two paragraphs from a General Assembly resolution on preventing violence and sexual harassment of women and girls. It was the only country to vote against the language, while 131 countries voted to keep it in the resolution and 31 abstained.

The United States also failed in trying to remove similar language in another resolution on child, early and forced marriage on Monday, saying: “We do not recognize abortion as a method of family planning, nor do we support abortion in our reproductive health assistance.”

Only Nauru backed Washington in voting against the language, while 134 countries voted to keep it in the resolution and 32 abstained.

When Trump came to power last year he reinstated the so-called Mexico City Policy that withholds U.S. funding for international organizations that perform abortions or provide information about abortion.

Reuse, Reduce, Reproductive Rights: How Abortion Can Help Save the Planet


Reuse, Reduce, Reproductive Rights: How Abortion Can Help Save the Planet

On Friday, the UN released its list of sustainability goals for the next 15 years, and achieving gender equality and empowering women and girls was number five on the list. According to experts like Allison Doody, an international advocacy associate, there’s no way we can do that without access to safe abortions.

VICE is supporting the launch of the Global Goals for sustainable development. In the next fifteen years, these initiatives want to achieve three massive tasks: end extreme poverty, fight inequality and injustice, and fix climate change.

On Friday, the UN released its list of sustainability goals (SDGs) for the next 15 years, and achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls was number five on the list. Of the 16 other interrelated goals, issues around climate change featured prominently. As the regional director of Planned Parenthood, Carmen Barroso, urged in her New York Times op-ed, one way to combat gender inequality along with promoting environmental sustainability is to support women’s right to abortion and contraception. This year, a report by the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health concluded that improving access to family planning services is the most cost-effective way to address population growth, food insecurity, and climate change. The report estimated that a $9.4 billion annual investment in reproductive health would prevent 52 million unintended pregnancies every year and provide 16 to 29 percent of the needed emissions reductions to slow global climate change. And while the ancillary environmental effects are great, we can’t forget that there are 225 million women in the world who want to use contraception but don’t have access.

To find out more about how access to contraception and safe abortions could save the planet, Broadly spoke to Allison Doody, an International Advocacy Associate at PAI, an organization that aims to put women in charge of their sexual health. PAI is currently working to end US policies—like the Global Gag Rule and the Helms Amendment, which prevents the foreign aid from supporting abortion as a method of family planning—that block both American women and women overseas from exercising their reproductive rights. They also work with local advocates in India, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Pakistan to protect these human rights.

BROADLY: Is reproductive health an important aspect of environmental sustainability?
Allison Doody: Reproductive health and rights are an important aspect of environmental sustainability. Today, progress on sustainable development is increasingly being threatened by destructive extraction of natural resources, weak health systems, and the inability of women to make their own choices about their fertility. The resulting high rates of disease, maternal and child death, and destruction of natural environments undermine efforts to create healthy and thriving communities. The urgency and the interconnected nature of these challenges require integrated solutions that improve access to sexual and reproductive health services in hard-to-reach and underserved areas, while empowering communities with the knowledge and tools needed to manage their natural resources in ways that conserve critical ecosystems, contribute to better health outcomes, and expand livelihoods—all key components of the SDGs.

Access to safe abortion is a right, a moral imperative, and a matter of public health.

In your opinion, are the UN goals emphasizing the importance of family planning enough?
While there is always room for improvement, the newly adopted Agenda 2030 and the SDGs are a step in the right direction. They go beyond what was included in the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) by including targets on achieving universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, including family planning. Reproductive health was specifically called out as one of the MDGs that is most off-track and in need of increased attention. There is an entire goal devoted to achieving gender equality, and a recognition that achieving gender equality is needed to meet all the goals and targets.

Still, we need to make sure that the SDGs—particularly those that directly address sexual and reproductive health, reproductive rights, and family planning—are prioritized. We must ensure that indicators are in place to measure progress on policies that respect and protect the reproductive rights of all people. Governments need to meet the goals and targets to which they have agreed. They also need to work in partnership with civil society, especially women and girls, to develop policies that fulfill human and sexual and reproductive rights.

 It’s clear that reproductive health is not necessarily a priority in our own government. We almost defunded Planned Parenthood last week, and we still have laws like the Helms Amendment in place. How can we make sure that the UN’s sustainability goals prioritize all forms of reproductive control, including abortion?
As advocates, our task is clear. To ensure the SDGs prioritize all forms of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, we must do as the preamble of the Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development says. We must “pledge that no one will be left behind.”

Not only must we make sure that every intervention is of high quality, including sexual and reproductive health education, information, and services, but we must also support women when they demand their right to access safe abortion. We cannot reach Target 3.1, which calls on us to “reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births” by 2030, without talking about access to safe abortion. Access to safe abortion is a right, a moral imperative, and a matter of public health. While we have nearly halved maternal mortality over the past two and a half decades, nearly 290,000 women worldwide still die each year as a result of pregnancy and childbirth—13 percent of which result from unsafe abortion. It’s clear that unsafe abortion is a factor in increased maternal mortality. How can we not talk about access to safe abortion?

If women have access to quality family planning and reproductive health, that will have positive impacts in all aspects of their lives.

Contraception helps lower U.S. abortion rate.


If opponents of reproductive rights are eager to see a drop in the national abortion rate, the movement should be pleased with the recent progress.

Image: US-POLITICS-ABORTION-FILES

The abortion rate and the number of abortions has fallen 13%, with just 1.1 million abortions in 2011, according to a new study by the Guttmacher Institute.
Just 16.9 per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 got an abortion in 2011.
It’s the lowest rate since the year the Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide, 1973. Guttmacher has been periodically surveying abortion providers since the 1970s and surveyed four years for the current study, looking at abortion from 2008 to 2011.
The entirety of the 12-page Guttmacher Institute report is online here (pdf). Note that similar data for 2012 and 2013 is not yet available, so we can’t say with confidence whether or not the trend is continuing.
Because the sharp drop in the abortion rate occurred after the 2010 midterms, when conservative lawmakers at the state level launched an unprecedented campaign to restrict women’s access to abortion services, it may be tempting the plunge is directly related to new state policies. In other words, opponents of abortion rights were elected; they immediately got to work on new restrictions; and the drop in the abortion rate is proof their efforts succeeded in their intended goal.
But that’s not what the researchers found. “With abortion rates falling in almost all states, our study did not find evidence that the national decline in abortions during this period was the result of new state abortion restrictions. We also found no evidence that the decline was linked to a drop in the number of abortion providers during this period,” says Rachel Jones, lead author of the study.
In fact, in states with fewer abortion restrictions, the rate dropped just as much, if not more, than in states imposing new restrictions.
So what explains the sharp reduction?
Guttmacher Institute researchers pointed in part to the weak economic recovery, which drove the overall birth rate down, but also stressed access to contraception.
Jane Timm’s report added, “[C]ontraceptives themselves may be lowering the rate of abortion, due to the availability of highly effective long-term contraceptive, like the IUD. During the four years of the study, long-term contraceptive use rose from 4 to 11%.”
Given results like these, it’s curious that so many conservative lawmakers have been so aggressive in trying to limit access to contraception, with support for litigation and legislation intended to empower religious employers to cut off employees’ access to birth control.
If the goal is to reduce unwanted pregnancies and lower the abortion rate, it would seem the right would want more access to contraception, not less.

Menstrual regulation and the sacra rosa—escaping religious rigidity.


Countries that are strongly Muslim or Roman Catholic find abortion unacceptable, but Bangladesh, a Muslim country, has found a clever way of helping women who might be pregnant and don’t want to be.

In Bangladesh induced abortion is illegal unless a woman’s life is threatened. But a woman who has missed a period may in the next eight to ten weeks undergo menstrual regulation to ensure that she is not pregnant. Menstrual regulation has been undertaken with manual vacuum aspiration, but increasingly drugs are being used. It is very important not to do a pregnancy test: if it was known that the woman was pregnant then the procedure would be an abortion and so illegal.

In 2010 some 650 000 women had menstrual regulation performed, but there were also 640 000 induced abortions, most of them illegal. Around 570 000 of the women suffer complications, and about 1%—some 6400—die. Women undergo unsafe abortions because they are unaware of menstrual regulation, lack access to the procedure, or don’t understand the difference between menstrual regulation and unsafe abortion. Unsurprisingly poor and rural women are more likely to undergo unsafe abortion.

Menstrual regulation, which seems to me a very clever idea, has been available in Bangladesh since 1979. It’s been suggested to me that it became acceptable because of the systematic raping of women during the War of Liberation, when what was East Pakistan fought off the dominance of West Pakistan and became Bangladesh, still a Muslim country, but steeped in the richness of Bengali culture.

As far as I know, other countries that are opposed to abortion on religious grounds don’t allow menstrual regulation—but perhaps they should.

I’m impressed by the ingenuity of menstrual regulation, and I was describing it to an Italian friend, who said that it reminded him what he called the sacra rosa. The way he described it even a married couple who had had children could be allowed a divorce by the Catholic Church on the grounds that one or other or both of the couple had not been thinking of sex while conceiving the children. For my friend it was a form of corruption, and the Church would need generous payment for allowing such a divorce.

I can’t find mention of the sacra rosa online, but I have learnt about the “declaration of nullity.” The Church, it seems, can’t allow separation of a couple whom God have joined, but it can accept that there are circumstances in which true marriage never took place even though the couple went through the ceremony in a church. Non-consummation is the best known cause, and both the Church and God expect sex to occur. But it also seems that “not intending, when marrying, to remain faithful to the spouse (simulation of consent)” can mean that true marriage never took place.

This would seem to be a marvellous out for the world’s many philanderers, but it leaves me wondering why all the fuss around Henry VIII and why we need the Church of England. I know the answer: it was all about politics, power, and money.

Perhaps with more of the mental ingenuity that has given us menstrual regulation and the declaration of nullity we could avoid the considerable pain and suffering that result from ideological and religious rigidity.

Source: BMJ

 

 

Heartbreak and anger as death of Savita Halappanavar shocks India.


‘She nearly begged them for an abortion. Instead we lost her’

The parents of Savita Halappanavar say they will never forget the moment their daughter first told him she was expecting a child.

Andanappa Yalagi and his wife Akkamahadevi, had flown to Ireland in the summer to spend three months with their daughter and son-in-law, Praveen. Shortly after hitting the tarmac, Savita told her parents she was five-weeks pregnant.

Her parents had had no inkling and were excited by the news, as early in the term as it was. If she herself was worried, Savita did not let them change their plans. “It didn’t stop them from taking us around Ireland. We thoroughly enjoyed their company and visited many tourist spots,” said Mr Halappanavar, 65, speaking today by phone from Belgaum, a town in the southern state of Karnataka, around 300 miles north-west of Bangalore.

Indeed, during their time in Ireland with Savita and Praveen, the family visited Dublin, Galway and the Cliffs of Moher, on the west coast. And when it was time for her parents to leave on October 31, Savita called her parents even though she had gone into hospital for a back-pain check-up.  “She was more concerned about us flying back to India,’’ added her father, a businessman.

Last week, it was the body of Savita, lying in a coffin, that made the journey back home to southern India. She was cremated last Friday, according to Hindu rites, just days before the family would normally have been preparing their home for Diwali, the festival of light.

The needless death of Savita has shocked India, a largely conservative country, but where abortion has been legally available since 1971 in cases of a rape, where the woman is unmarried and below the age of 18 and, most importantly, where the physical or mental health of the mother may be at risk.

Television channels and commentators have taken up the issue of whether religious beliefs should take precedence over the Hippocratic oath. A spokesman for the foreign ministry in Delhi said it deeply regretted her death and that the death of an Indian national in “such circumstances is matter of concern”. A spokesman added that the Indian embassy in Dublin was monitoring the issue.

The parents of Savita say they cannot understand why a termination was denied to their daughter. Savita’s mother said she hoped the publicity that her daughter’s case was receiving would help women in a similar circumstances, both in Ireland and elsewhere.  “She almost begged them to terminate her pregnancy but the inhuman and cruel doctors there told her that as the foetus’s heartbeat was still faintly being heard, they could not do so. Eventually, we lost her too,’’ she added.

Savita, 31, who has two brothers, had gone to Ireland to be with her husband, whom she wed in an arranged marriage in 2008. Before leaving India, she had taken qualifying examinations that allowed her to practise dentistry. Her parents say she telephoned them every week, without exception

Savita’s husband’s, Praveen, who has also returned to India, today had his mobile phone switched off. His father-in-law, Mr Yalagi, said the family intended to launch legal action against the Galway University Hospital, where the young woman died.

“She could have been saved had the doctors removed the foetus,” insisted Mr Yalagi. “Their refusal on the ground that it was a Catholic country where abortions were banned resulted in two lives being lost.”

“I was on my own. I felt like it was a horrible dirty thing”

Case Study

Like thousands of women from Ireland every year, Michelle, who became pregnant while on the Pill, travelled to England for an abortion in secret, with the help of the Abortion Support Network.

She told only her partner, her mother and her doctor of her intention, and after gathering enough money, arranging flights and child care for her son, she travelled alone.

“It was a very isolating situation. Some other girls at the clinic were greeted by family members afterwards. I was on my own and had to make my way back to the airport by train. I felt like it was a horrible dirty thing,” she adds.

“I can’t sit down with a friend over a cup of tea and tell her about it,” she says. “It shouldn’t be like that. You should be able to get on a bus or a train and make a choice over what happens with your body and then get back to your life.

“I would like to get on a stage in front of people who are anti-abortion and tell them ‘Even though it breaks my heart to do this, it has to be a woman’s choice’.”

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk

ABORTION: A METAPHYSICAL TRUTH about the Process and the Choices.


Debates are on in the American presidential election and in the Canadian Parliament whether their country should make legal, or not, the act of abortion. Many are now turning to the Universe to receive Spiritual Truth about whether ABORTION IS MURDER OR NOT! Why? Why are politicians now suddenly looking beyond to receive answers? The media too is busy hosting debates on the legality of abortion. All eventually leading to a deeper query beyond the physical logic. Again I ask why?
Isnt the ‘why’ now quite obvious to us? We are talking and deliberating about something that is not evidenced by scientific proof. We can’t, and are unable, to arrive at any justifiable and consciously acceptable conclusion. We “fear” whatever stand we take, whatever stand any political party takes, whatever verdict is passed by the highest court of the land could be “Conscientiously” wrong! Why do we fear taking a formidable decision on declaring abortion legal?

Because it involves the issue of a SOUL!!! Science has all along denied the concept and presence of a Soul, of Consciousness. Yes, they talk and hypothesize about Energy, but forget or deny that Energy is Consciousness. Spirit is considered to be the luxury of defeatists. Spirit is considered only by weak minds, by fatalistic beings, by philosophers who do nothing else in life but philosophize, because they are not achievers. Spirituality is concept of the poor, for the poor, and by the poor!
But things are changing now as scientists, physicist, doctors have suddenly reached a dead end in science and technology. For them to establish any new invention or discovery, and find cures for dis-eases that are incurable they need to accept a reality beyond the material and physical world. They need to discover the “Higher Laws of Physics”, the Meta-Physical (beyond the physical) existential truth. They have now come to real-I-ze there IS Consciousness, there IS a Soul within Energy that functions way out of their third dimensional Laws of Physics that could unveil the whole mystery.

So now, if there is a Soul within energy then there is a Soul within each of us that exists beyond this world and after we die. If so, the question then arises: when does the Soul take a physical form? Or when does a Soul inhabit a human body? Ahhh … therein lies the answer to whether ABORTION IS MURDER OR NOT!
The soul decides primarily the Mother it wishes to birth from. The Mother chooses her spouse. The soul doesn’t seek nor determine the father. Once the Mother in physical embodiment is decided, the soul then has many “choices”. It can decide when it wishes to enter the womb, or if it wishes to enter its form only after delivery. It also has the free-will to decide if it wishes to encounter the process of delivery or not. It can also choose to enter the womb occasionally during the pregnancy period and then descend and stay permanently in its form after it has taken birth. Generally, given so many choices, very rarely, or never, does a soul enter at the stage of conception. It can visit any time through out the nine months, if it so desires. That is  totally left to the soul to decide. There is no hard and fast rule. However, then what are those kicks, jerks, and movements that the mother feels during her pregnancy? These are sheer physical reflexes of the material body. Some souls opt for the delivery experience from a totally karmic perspective. The discomfort, or pain, the soul experiences at that period is so huge that it can transmute volumes of tough karmic threads in one go. But this is the rarest ever chosen option by any soul.

Furthermore, during the nine months of pregnancy, the soul generally visits the family often (outside the womb) to observe its environment, the relationship of the parents, the type of father its mother has chosen, the conduciveness of the family environment, in order to determine if the family is suitable for completing its karma and fulfilling its chosen destiny. At this point, even if the soul had decided upon that family, it can change its mind and not descend into the body already growing in the mother’s womb. This change of mind can take place for several reasons. The mothers (or the family’s) doubts about having a child, constant fights between the spouses (or members of the family), or if it observes the situation has changed from the time it had decided upon the family it wished to birth into. Then it can withdraw from its plan and retreat. This leads to a miscarriage. Or sometimes another soul could decide to take its place instead, which then would successfully culminate into the delivery of a child, without the parents even being aware that the souls had been interchanged.

Now coming back to the complex decision whether ABORTION IS MURDER OR NOT, we know that abortion is safely allowed by a doctor within the first three months of pregnancy. The thing to now bear in mind is: no soul remains in the womb for the entirety of the nine months. Whatever it may choose (whether to experience the delivery or not, whether to enter at all during the pregnancy formation period of its body in the womb, or just go in and out occasionally through visitations) it is practically/spiritually not possible that the soul would be present in the womb at the point of abortion. The soul would immediately know if the family, or the mother, is deliberating (at any point of time) to abort the body. In lieu of which the soul would never be in the womb at that time. So, conclusively, ABORTION CANNOT BE MURDER!

Notwithstanding, it would be very loving an act, on part of the mother and the family involved, to consciously understand the sentiments of the living Soul who has opted to take birth through them, and compassionately explain to the Soul the reason why they have taken such a stand. The Soul has feelings and emotions just like the human since it has been preparing it’s return to physical incarnation. Moreover, it has got attached to its choice of parents through a period of observation and visitations. Furthermore, it has even pre-determined its blueprint around this choice. So it involves a lot of preparation, on part of the soul, before it actually descends. Therefore, the communication of love from the chosen parents to the Soul (that they are rejecting) is a must for closure on both sides. It is necessary therefore to lovingly allow the soul go and find another family. This, if done with love, consideration, respect, and acknowledgement, can set the Soul free with much ease and no creation of karma. Therefore, although abortion is not murdering of a soul, it must be handled with sensitive dignity and respect for another living lifeform by first informing the soul of its decision of termination and allocating reasonable time to ease the Soul and give it, it’s time and space for a peaceful departure. This is what humans are not aware of and consequently fail to do before an abortion. This ignorance, on part of the doer, has caused great injury to Souls who had readied themselves for birth. It is thus very important to know, it’s not the act of abortion that is hurtful or murderous but the attitude, and way of “not handling”, or “not informing” the Soul prior to the ejection procedure.

Now, regarding the legality of Abortion, the government obviously cannot be the decision maker as it is irrefutably a personal and individualistic issue! And this should essentially, and primarily, be decided by the mother who is birthing the new Soul. Not even the family has the right to make such a value decision!
If you wish to read more on this topic, on how a Soul makes its Contract Plan before descending into human reincarnation, all about Karma and various metaphysical topics do visit this link: http://www.sangeetahanda.com/book.html (Your Final Appointment in Destiny)
Sangeeta G Handa

ABOUT SANGEETA G HANDA:
There are Light Beings on earth who have cleared certain karmic load and are able to see beyond the veil. There are Occult Beings whose lives aren’t like those of normal humans on earth, with families and earthly commitments. They walk singularly and quietly amidst the maddening crowd and, only those with a singular eye can see them. Wisdom-gathering is often a solitary path and can seem rather intellectual and detached. When such people express their Truth in public it creates waves of upsurge as the double eyed beings with commendable mental activity cannot understand how such a being can know what they don’t. Their walk and talk raise, not ripples but, voluminous heat emissions of rebellious activity. But they continue to walk with the ‘Knowing’ all is in accordance to the Will of God. Because, their will is not the human free-will but, the Will of the Creator. They are strong and can weather the human storm. They stand steadfast in the Light of God, emitting Light which does the work. They are the Being-ness not with a human blueprint of duality. They live here but dwell in the Energy of Beyond.

Sangeeta G Handa is a Light Being. She is an Occult Worker. An Exorcist of dual energy. A Scribe and Recorder of the Akashic Records. Her writings are not from duality. Graduation does not occur until you are fully ready to take everything you’ve learned and make a full-life commitment to use it to help others.

“The Soul has no face! The Soul has no Body! The Soul has no earth Identity!  I’m not the body,  I AM the Soul!  Om Namah Shivaye! I AM Shiva”

Sangeeta has two books out:
YOUR FINAL APPOINTMENT WITH DESTINY: Scribed by Lord Buddha, Thoth, Saint Germain, and Sangeeta G Handa
http://www.sangeetahanda.com/book.html

THE VOICE OF SILENCE: Scribed by Lord Sanat Kumara, Goddess Venus, and Sangeeta G Handa
http://www.sangeetahanda.com/book3.html

https://www.facebook.com/sangeeta.g.handa

 

Source: http://www.newrealities.com/

Ovarian ectopic pregnancy.


Summary

The authors report the rare case of a 25-year-old female who suffered from an ovarian ectopic pregnancy. She presented at 10 weeks gestation with a 1-day history of vaginal bleeding and lower abdominal discomfort. β-human chorionic gonadotropin concentration was 8538 IU/ml. Ultrasound showed a right adnexal mass 4.0 × 3.8 × 5.5 cm with a 16 mm cystic area suggesting right ovarian ectopic pregnancy. Diagnostic laparoscopy confirmed a ruptured right ovarian ectopic pregnancy with haemoperitoneum. This was excised laparoscopically. She made a good postoperative recovery and was discharged on the second postoperative day. Histology confirmed a ruptured ovarian ectopic pregnancy. Ovarian ectopic pregnancy is a rare condition. There are two features that make this an unusual case; the relatively late gestation at which she presented and her mild presenting features. Unlike tubal ectopic pregnancies, which usually present at earlier gestations, this patient presented relatively late. She also presented with mild symptoms and signs.

Background

Ovarian pregnancy is a rare condition and high index of suspicion is needed. Ovarian pregnancy comprises 0.15% of all pregnancies and 1–3% of ectopic gestations.1

Clinical diagnosis can be difficult and challenging. If an ovarian pregnancy ruptures, mortality is quite high.

In this case of right ovarian pregnancy, the clinical findings were mild and not characteristic of an ectopic pregnancy. She attended accident and emergency earlier on in the day and was discharged. This case illustrates how an ovarian pregnancy can be easily missed and the patient can even be discharged.

Case presentation

A 25-year-old female at 10 weeks gestation (spontaneous conception) in her fourth pregnancy presented to accident and emergency department with vaginal bleeding and lower abdominal discomfort. There was no history of dizzy spells or faintness. There was no history of vomiting, bladder or bowel problems. She had used Implanon as her contraception and had come off just a month prior to her last menstrual period. She had irregular periods while on Implanon. She had two previous uneventful pregnancies and vaginal deliveries at term and one previous termination of pregnancy.

There was no significant medical history. There was no history of pelvic infection or any gynaecological procedures apart from surgical termination of pregnancy which was done in 2004 after which she had spontaneous conception and vaginal delivery at term in 2006.

There was no significant family history.

On examination, her observations were all within normal limits. Her abdomen was soft and she had some mild tenderness in her right loin, right iliac fossa and suprapubic areas. On speculum examination, the cervical os was closed and only minimal bleed was noted. On vaginal examination, she had no cervical excitation and no adnexal tenderness. She was explained although ectopic pregnancy is always a possibility but in her case in absence of tenderness threatened spontaneous abortion was most likely diagnosis. She was discharged from accident and emergency with appointment of Early Pregnancy Assessment Unit in 1 week’s time for ultrasound scan of pelvis. But this patient presented again in few days to accident and emergency with increasing discomfort in right loin area. She was admitted to the gynaecology ward and had ultrasound scan next day which clearly suggested right ovarian ectopic pregnancy.

Investigations

Serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG) concentration was 8538 IU/l. Haemoglobin was 11.3 g/dl on admission, then 9.9 g/dl postoperatively. Microbiology swabs were negative for Chlamydia, Gonorrhoea and Candida. Urine dipstick was negative for nitrites and leucocytes.

Transvaginal ultrasound scan suggested a normal uterus, endometrial thickness of 7 mm, normal left ovary and adnexa. Adjacent to right ovary there was a 4.0 × 3.8 × 5.5 cm mass with 16 mm cystic area within it consistent with ectopic pregnancy. Laparoscopic findings showing ruptured ectopic pregnancy.

Differential diagnosis

Treatment

The patient underwent a diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy and the right ovarian ectopic pregnancy was resected laparoscopically with conservation of more than two-thirds of her right ovary

Outcome and follow-up

She had an uneventful procedure. Despite the ectopic pregnancy being adherent to right ovary still her right ovary was conserved. She had good postoperative recovery and was discharged home on the second postoperative day.

Discussion

We conducted a Medline search for reports of ovarian ectopic pregnancy and found approximately 100 cases; however, many of them being related to fertility treatment, intrauterine devices or tubal ligation.

The incidence of ectopic pregnancies is 1%.2 Among these ectopic pregnancies, ovarian pregnancy is quite rare, constituting 1–3% of all ectopic pregnancies.3 It is the most important cause of maternal death in the first trimester accounting for approximately 10% of deaths related to pregnancy.4

The aetiology of ovarian pregnancy remains unclear, it occurs as a result of a fertilised ovum getting implanted on the ovarian tissue. Although several factors, such as pelvic inflammatory disease and previous gynaecological surgery, are closely linked to tubal pregnancies but do not seem to be related to ovarian pregnancies.5 6 Ovarian ectopic pregnancies have been mostly associated with high parity, younger age and people receiving in-vitro fertilisation treatment.7 9 It has been found that intrauterine device use and ovulation induction are the most common risk factors for ovarian ectopic pregnancy.8 10 11

The clinical findings of ectopic pregnancy include secondary amenorrhoea, abdominal pain and vaginal haemorrhage, with a clinical picture of varying acuteness.12 It has been reported that the presentation of ovarian ectopic pregnancies can be delayed.5 13

This case meets all the diagnostic criteria as described by Spiegelberg:

  1. An intact fallopian tube on the affected side
  2. A gestational sac must occupy the normal position of the ovary
  3. The ovary and gestational sac must be connected by the utero-ovarian ligament to the uterus
  4. Histological confirmation of ovarian tissue in the gestational sac wall.10

Investigation is mainly with transvaginal ultrasound scan which can detect ovarian ectopic pregnancy. However, ultrasound scan may not be able to diagnose all cases of ovarian pregnancy due to anatomical location.

Laparoscopy is the gold standard for both investigation and therapeutic intervention.1 It is the treatment of choice for haemodynamically stable patients.1 The aim should be to conserve the ovary on which the ectopic pregnancy is attached to by doing an ovarian cystectomy or wedge resection.12 Patients who are haemodynamically unstable would need an urgent laparotomy.12 Methotrexate is a good alternative to laparoscopic management in unruptured ovarian ectopic pregnancy; however, it’s toxicity has to be taken into account.14

Learning points

  • ▶ Ovarian ectopic pregnancy can present with mild pain and tenderness and very subtle clinical findings and can therefore be easily missed and even discharged, posing a big diagnostic challenge.
  • ▶ One should have a high index of suspicion of ovarian ectopic pregnancies even when the patient has no risk factors.
  • ▶ Ovarian ectopic pregnancy can have a delayed presentation compared to tubal ectopic pregnancies.
  • ▶ In the case of an ovarian ectopic pregnancy, the ovary can be conserved in many cases.

References

    1. Tinelli A,
    2. Hudelist G,
    3. Malvasi A,
    4. et al

. Laparoscopic management of ovarian pregnancy. JSLS 2008;:16972.

[Medline]

Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists. The Management of Tubal Pregnancies. Guideline 21. London: RCOG, 2004.

    1. Adeniran A,
    2. Stanek J

. Ovarian pregnancy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;:16356.

[Medline]

Ectopic Pregnancy – United States, 1990-1992. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1995;:446.

[Medline]

    1. Vasilev SA,
    2. Sauer MV

. Diagnosis and modern surgical management of ovarian pregnancy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1990;:3958.

[Medline][Web of Science]

    1. Ercal T,
    2. Cinar O,
    3. Mumcu A,
    4. et al

. Ovarian pregnancy; relationship to an intrauterine device. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;:3624.

[CrossRef][Medline]

    1. Hallatt JG

. Primary ovarian pregnancy: a report of twenty-five cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;:5560.

[Medline][Web of Science]

    1. Raziel A,
    2. Schachter M,
    3. Mordechai E,
    4. et al

. Ovarian pregnancy-a 12-year experience of 19 cases in one institution. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004;:926.

[CrossRef][Medline]

    1. Fernandez H,
    2. Coste J,
    3. Job-Spira N

. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as a risk factor for ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1991;:6569.

[Medline][Web of Science]

    1. Spiegelberg H

. Zot casuistic der ovarial schwangetsshaft. Archives Gynaecology 1878;:737.

Search Google Scholar

    1. Plotti F,
    2. Di Giovanni A,
    3. Oliva C,
    4. et al

. Bilateral ovarian pregnancy after intrauterine insemination and controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 2008;:2015.e35.

Search Google Scholar

    1. Stucki D,
    2. Buss J

. The ectopic pregnancy, a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. J Med Life 2008;:408.

[Medline]

    1. Gaudoin MR,
    2. Coulter KL,
    3. Robins AM,
    4. et al

. Is the incidence of ovarian ectopic pregnancy increasing? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996;:1413.

[CrossRef][Medline]

    1. Habbu J,
    2. Read MD

. Ovarian pregnancy successfully treated with methotrexate. J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;:5878.

[CrossRef][Medline]

Source: BMJ.