A new report released by Pro-Life San Francisco reveals disturbing new experiments occurring at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), including the lack of a concrete protocol for what to do if a baby is born alive after a failed abortion attempt.
The UCSF Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health is one of the nation’s most prominent and questionable abortion research centers. From conducting highly unethical investigations into the abortion pill reversal protocol, where they attempted to abort babies multiple times before eventually killing them, to using their own clinics to procure the “freshest” preborn remains for research, this center pushes the boundaries of what should be medically and morally acceptable.
To understand more about what’s going on at this shady institution, Pro-Life San Francisco, notably led by a group of passionate, politically liberal, pro-life advocates, made a request under the California Public Records Act, looking for documentation in three different areas. These included:
- “Any and all UCSF protocols and procedures for determining the viability of a neonate after labor induction abortion procedures including … in instances where the neonate is born alive after the procedure is performed,”
- “UCSF’s protocols and procedures regarding the delivery of medical care to neonates born at the Women’s Options Center[s],” and
- “Human fetal tissue procurement logs.”
Though not all the documentation was shared, the limited amount released revealed some shocking details.
According to a report by Live Action of the information provided to Pro-Life San Francisco, those associated with UCSF and the Bixby Center “have no protocol for determining the viability of abortion survivors, or for providing care to them.” Most concerningly, it’s possible that a live birth can occur about 50% of the time in late-second and early third trimester abortions, which usually requires a woman to essentially go through labor and give birth to her child, who has most likely died due to a previously administered poisonous injection.
But that isn’t what always happens. Due to the complex nature of the procedure, and its high margin of error, the birth of a live child is more likely than with other abortions.
When this happens, unfortunately, physicians are not incentivized to do anything else other than leave the child to die from exposure, when medical intervention could have either prolonged the child’s life, reduced his or her suffering or, perhaps, even save the child’s life.
But abortion factories, like UCSF’s Women’s Options Center, are apathetic about saving lives and actually more interested in utilizing the remains of the babies they abort for research.
According to other documents uncovered in the report, preborn remains were harvested frequently, even seemingly not missing a beat during the pandemic. The genitalia and/or gonads of those babies were of particular interest, appearing frequently in the logs.
The reason why those aspects of the remains were frequently acquired is unknown, but for what purpose could there be to harvest these aspects of the body? What could the genitalia and/or gonads of a preborn baby tell science that it doesn’t already know?
Unfortunately, the abortionists and scientists employed by the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health likely don’t really care. Their callousness is clear in their research. In addition to the studies previously mentioned, the center also supported an investigation into whether a poisonous injection to the heart would make the abortion process easier.
This report just confirms that the institution continues to engage in ethically questionable experiments on preborn babies and the women carrying them. No doubt, more disturbing revelations will continue to come out about UCSF.