In February 2002 the British Medical Association (BMA) Science Department and Board of Science and Education published a document called 'Sexually Transmitted Infections'.
The report states that "Chlamydia is the most common bacterial STI in the UK" then goes on to say that "much chlamydial infection goes undiagnosed because the infection is often without symptoms". If it is already known to be the most common bacterial STI in the UK, how much more should everything be done to reduce it being contracted particularly as the infection would be causing harm to the body, whether or not the person (male or female) knew they had it? By the time treatment is sought, at the earliest one to three weeks after infection, but it could be up to many years later and possibly due to some other sexually transmitted disease or reason (eg failure to conceive) then the damage could already be permanent.
The report states "if left untreated, may lead to scarring of the Fallopian tubes and ectopic pregnancy or infertility". The rates of (known) Chlamydia have risen constantly in line over the years with the abortion rates. Abortion procedures, ie the insertion of instruments into the womb via the vagina can spread diseases from the vagina into the womb thus causing Pelvic Inflammatory Disease and subsequent conception problems. The rate of women seeking IVF treatment over the years is also rising. These links should not be discounted but studied further.
Screening for Chlamydia and any other sexually transmitted diseases should take place before any abortion to ascertain whether or not antibiotics or other relevant treatment should be offered to heal the patient of the infection and thus not introduce the infection into the womb. Likewise, scans should also take place before any abortion procedure to ascertain whether the baby is in the womb or the tube and whether or not it is a multiple pregnancy. Mothers should be told the truth about all testing that is carried out before it is done and should be allowed, or even encouraged to see the baby in the scan and to be shown photos of the stage her pregnancy is at. Most mothers, seeing their unborn baby moving about in the womb would not then go through with the abortion, thus saving themselves the possibility of killing their only child by abortion, not contracting PID, not needing to seek IVF treatment in later life and not suffering from Post Abortion Syndrome for the rest of their lives.
If it is their first pregnancy, they will also not then be under the threat of contracting breast cancer which is linked to abortion. Once a baby has been conceived the baby's presence sets off hormones in the mother's body and the body begins to make the relevant changes to nurture the growing child. One of these changes is the breast tissue begins to alter in preparation for the production of milk after the baby is born. An abortion abruptly stops this change and the breast tissue becomes more prone to change to cancer cells in later life. Breast cancer figures have also risen in line with abortion figures. (If a mother naturally miscarries then she is less at risk of breast cancer as the stopping of the pregnancy is not forced and abrupt but the body prepares itself for the loss. If a mother's first pregnancy goes full term, then the mammary glands develop completely and the risk of breast cancer in later life is much less likely.)
The report states that the pilot study to determine the logistical implications of opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection has now been completed. Although the report states that more people took up the offer of screenings and the rate of infection was higher than previous estimates had suggested, there is no suggestion that screening should be continued, nor how and why Portsmouth and the Wirral were chosen for this study, nor whether or not further screenings will be taking place nationwide, particularly in response to the findings that came from the pilot study. The report also fails to expound on who was tested and any cost implications. Obviously the fact that there is a lack of symptoms means it is impossible to ascertain how many people may have Chlamydia, the long term effects or the future cost implications in treating, not just the symptoms of Chlamydia but any ectopic pregnancy operations and IVF that may take place in future years due to undiagnosed infections in earlier years.
Although this report is about Sexually Transmitted Infections, the incidence of contracting them and the linked risks cannot and should not be looked at in isolation. The effects of Chlamydia may have more far reaching negative effects on society than ever HIV/Aids will simply due to the sheer numbers of people, both male and female contracting this disease and the lack of prominent warnings about it.