Jeffrey Miller

NEW YORK – “Catholic women in many communities feel they have no access to health care that is consistent with their values,” said the founding director of a new women’s medical center in midtown Manhattan that will provide “authentically Catholic” primary care, obstetrics, natural family planning and infertility treatment.

Dr. Anne Mielnik said Gianna – The Catholic Healthcare Center for Women is the first dedicated practice in New York and one of only a handful in the country to offer a combination of effective infertility treatment alternatives to morally objectionable assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization.

The facility, sponsored by St. Vincent Catholic Medical Centers, opened Dec. 8, the feast of the Immaculate Conception.

“There’s no suffering comparable to what you see in an infertile couple,” Mielnik said. “They’re desperate to have a child and when they look for guidance, they end up in an IVF clinic. They’re balancing their desperation for a child with doing what they know is wrong.”

The Gianna center uses the Creighton Model FertilityCare System, a natural method of family planning and gynecological health monitoring, in conjunction with a comprehensive system of reproductive health management called natural procreative technology, or NaPro technology. Both methods were developed by Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers, founder of the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction in Omaha, Neb.

Mielnik graduated from Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia and completed her family medical training at Lancaster (Pa.) General Hospital in 2009. She met her medical partner, Dr. Kyle Beiter, an obstetrician and gynecologist, while studying NaPro technology in Omaha.

As a medical student, Mielnik said she dreamed of starting a program that would provide health care and educational services to women to “counter the Planned Parenthood sex education curriculum.”

She said she started the John Paul II Center for Women in Marietta, N.Y., in September 2008 “in response to the pleas of Catholic women for access to reproductive health care and family planning options which affirm their dignity as women and conform to the Catholic Church’s teachings regarding human sexuality and medical ethics.”

The John Paul II center is directed by Joan Nolan, a Creighton Model FertilityCare practitioner. Mielnik said the John Paul II center’s mission is to open Gianna centers for women throughout the United States.

Mielnik said she and the John Paul II center initially planned to open a small medical practice in New York with the support of a pro-life benefactor. Serendipitously, she was recruited by the chairman of the St. Vincent’s Medical Center obstetrics department to establish her Gianna center under St. Vincent’s banner.

She called St. Vincent’s “the last Catholic hospital in Manhattan, the last pro-life hospital” and said it had a waiting list of people interested in NaPro technology and had been trying to recruit a NaPro-trained physician for two years.

Mielnik said NaPro technology addresses infertility by diagnosing and correcting its causes instead of using synthetic hormones to suppress or bypass a woman’s reproductive system. She said problems including anatomical and hormonal abnormalities, infections and ovulation disorders are addressed with surgical procedures and compounded hormones.

Surgeries can open blocked fallopian tubes, remove endometriosis and treat polycystic ovarian disease, she said. By identifying a possibly subtle hormone deficiency and replacing the hormone with an identical compound, delivered at the appropriate time in a woman’s menstrual cycle, Mielnik said NaPro technology can correct conditions that compromise fertility.

Mielnik said NaPro technology is twice as successful as in vitro fertilization, as measured by the number of live births among women using it to help achieve pregnancy. It is also significantly less expensive, rarely results in multiple pregnancies and does not result in frozen embryos. NaPro technology is also used to treat recurrent miscarriages, premenstrual syndrome, menstrual cramps, ovarian cysts, postpartum depression and premature births.

Mielnik said couples who visit the Gianna center for infertility have an initial 90-minute consultation, followed by a two- to four-month monitored evaluation of the wife’s charted menstrual and fertility cycle. Corrective surgery or hormonal therapy then may be implemented.

The Gianna center also will work closely with the New York Archdiocese to offer an educational curriculum that promotes a view of women consistent with their dignity as daughters of God, said Mielnik.

She said the John Paul II center supports Catholic physicians with a confidential Listserv for discussion of ethics and resources. “There is tremendous power in the knowledge of church teaching,” she said.

A pro-life doctor is a “lone voice in most health care systems,” she said, and the Listserv “is a place where Catholic physicians can support one another and share resources.”

The center is named for St. Gianna Beretta Molla, an Italian physician and married mother of four who refused to abort her youngest child when a uterine tumor threatened her own life during the pregnancy. She died in 1962 shortly after the 10-pound baby was born.

Mielnik said St. Gianna is a model for true femininity. She said the saint lived a life of great sanctity, balancing her personal and professional roles.

“She gave her life for her child, but it wasn’t a question of her life or her child’s, but which action – orphaning her children or giving life – was the greater good,” she said. “She chose to give life.” [reference]

It is rather sad that so many fertility critics don’t work to cure the underlining problem, but jump ahead to IVF. This forces so many to see IVF as the only possibility for them to have children even though NaPro technology is more effective and much cheaper.

Mary Meets Dolly posted today on IVF babies ‘risk major diseases’. I agree with her when she states that IVF clinics will ignore this serious problem and it will take future lawsuits to do anything about it.

Creative Minority Reports points to this article in response to the decline of the number of abortion doctors.

Address the shortage of abortion providers. We all know the drill: the average age of an abortion provider in this country is soaring upwards, and many doctors who deserve to retire and spend their days playing golf stay in the business because there’s so many women who need abortions and so few people to provide them. Few counties have abortion providers, and many women have to travel hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles to get one. And it’s because younger doctors don’t want to perform abortions. They don’t have any memories of the horrors of septic abortions (unlike many older doctors), and the harassment they face if they join up seems like too much trouble.

The problem is complex, but not unfixable. We should lobby for stronger protections for abortion clinic workers, so that fear doesn’t drive would-be providers away. More importantly, we need to find a way to get people with the right attitudes and the right skills into the business. Programs encouraging bright, young pro-choice people into medical school to train as ob-gyns who perform abortions is a good start. Pushing medical schools not only to teach the procedures for abortion, but also to highlight the dangers of self-abortion would also help. Perhaps a scholarship program for medical students who train to be abortion providers, or a debt forgiveness program for those doctors that provide abortion? There are endless possibilities, and we should undertake them.

Amazing they always pull out the canard about people not becoming abortionists because of security risks. Funny how people become policemen, fire fighters, and soldiers and yet they can’t find doctors to brave the so-called risk. As tragic as the extremely rare murder of abortionist has been, it is still extremely rare.

No mention is made about those abortionist who stop being abortionists or the group that helps them the Society of Centurions.

I guess it is just hard finding people who are idealistic enough to spend years in training in order to kill and not to save life. Thank God there is still a stigma on this profession and that the “best and brightest” are not drawn toward this anti-vocation. No kid grows up wanting to be an abortionist – though plenty want to be doctors.

You all want to wonder at someone who sees the “horror” of septic abortions and not the “horror” of successful abortions. The problem is not septic abortions, but women choosing abortion in the first place. Their misguided attempt at the cure of a pregnancy does not mean we should have doctors to provide it. Besides the statistics for so-called back alley abortions was made up out of whole cloth by former abortionist and founder of NARAL Bernard Nathanson who is now Catholic. Women seeking abortions when abortion is illegal is tragic. But the tragedy is them seeking an abortion in the first place.

You might think it was rather odd that an auto mechanic instead of fixing cars helped to destroy them. You would notice the strange disconnect between a person dedicated to repairing cards instead helped to keep them from ever running again.

Unfortunately we have a much worse disconnect with so-called Physician-Assisted Suicide.

Montana legalizes euthanasia

When I saw the headline I wondered how that could happen in a state like Montana. Then I slapped my forehead and emitted a “doh” – judges of course.

Montana has become the third state to legalize euthanasia after its high court ruled December 31 that “we find nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes indicating that physician aid in dying is against public policy.”
“What the court did, in essence, was to place the issue back into the hands of the legislature, where it should be,” said Jeff Laszloffy of the Montana Family Foundation. “They said there’s nothing currently in statute that prohibits the practice. It’s now up to us to go into the next legislative session fully armed and ready to pass statutory language that says, once and for all, that physician assisted suicide is illegal in Montana.”

Well I guess you can’t blame those judges. After all a judge who thinks he can legislate has it backwards and just might think a physician trained to heal people would help them die instead. Even more messed are those doctors who get this wrong and have decided instead of “First, do no wrong” have selected “First, make sure somebody is paying for this.”

Sister Carol Keehan is upset by a report in the New York times that the Catholic Health Association is split with the USCCB in regards to the health care bill passed by the Senate. Fair enough – anything printed in the NYT is worth closer inspection and large rocks of salt.

“There is not a shred of disagreement between CHA and the bishops,” she said. “We believe there is a great possibility and probability that in conference committee we can work toward a solution that will prevent federal funding of abortion.” [reference]

Though I would have to wonder why the CHA has made no public complaints of the passed Senate bill? This bill without a doubt provides for federally funded abortions along with a host of other problems. Yet their site has made no statements since the 17th of December. That statement said:

The Catholic Health Association is pleased to learn of the work being done to improve the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. As we understand it, the Senate intends to keep the President’s commitment that no federal funds will pay for abortions and in addition, provide significant new support for pregnant women.

While we have yet to see the manager’s amendment or Senator Robert Casey’s final abortion amendment language, we are encouraged by recent deliberations and the outline Senator Casey is developing. It is our understanding that the language now being written would prohibit federal funding of abortion, ensure provider conscience protection and fund programs to provide supportive care to some of the most vulnerable pregnant women in our society.

Especially now that a public health insurance option is no longer on the table, we are increasingly confident that Senator Casey’s language can achieve the objective of no federal funding for abortion. We urge Congress to continue its work toward the goal of health reform that protects life at all stages while expanding coverage to the greatest possible number of people in our country. We look forward to reviewing the final language these improvements contemplate.

Well there was more than just a shred a difference between what the USCCB said about the Casey amendment and what the CHA said. That amendment was horrific and a travesty in every way. To support it without seeing the text is extreme naivety. Sen Casey has been more than just wishey-washey when it comes to abortion. There is no way anyone could just take his description of the amendment without seeing the actual text.

The senate bill that passed included the wording of the Casey amendment. So is this a case of the CHA being for it before they were against it? What has changed to make them now against the bill and with the USCCB? Well nothing. The bill is just as toxic as it was on the 17th of December.

So count me skeptical on the CHA’s opposition since they have not even taken the time to write one statement in opposition to it. In fact all of their announcements have been generally supportive with only some “concerns.”