NRL News

New York Times knows the fight to save unborn children and their mothers will not slacken, regardless of the election results

by | Nov 8, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

Editor’s note. If you are not currently receiving NRL News Today in your inbox, you can sign up at

U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott, the trial judge who upheld Ohio’s law

You have the privilege to gloat when you win. President Obama’s re-election, narrowly as he prevailed in the popular vote and based on a virtually entirely negative campaign, predictably has unleashed a torrent of “boy-are-we-glad [fill in the blank]-is-no-longer-relevant” tripe.

And that’s fine. Based on my email correspondence, pro-lifers took Wednesday off and are now back at work.

But the flagship of the Abortion Establishment—the New York Times editorial page—understands that our Movement operates on many levels and will plunge ahead full bore on all of them.

With respect to one front, the Times’s editorial yesterday (“Bad medicine for women”) begins (quite accurately), “No one should expect a postelection letup in the continuing courtroom fights over state efforts to restrict women’s access to safe and legal abortions.” Never mind the headline and the turgid pro-abortion language, the editorial is correct that the abortion battle will continue not only in Congress and the state legislatures, but most assuredly in the courts.

The Times’s two examples are cases we’ve written about in National Right to Life News Today: Arizona’s “Mother’s Health and Safety Act” and Ohio’s law requiring that the two-drug RU-486 abortion technique be administered consistent with the protocol established by the Federal Drug Administration

[Since the editorial is about a different topic, the writer(s) did not address the torrent of cases in the courts challenging the mandate by Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services requiring religious institutions and individuals of conscience  to pay for health insurance plans that cover medical procedures and drugs contrary to their religious beliefs and consciences.]

The editorial glides by one of the two primary justifications offered by Arizona for House Bill 2036: that babies capable of experiencing pain should not be aborted. Usually, pro-abortionists deny there IS such a developmental juncture, or, failing that, it just doesn’t matter. The Times just skips it.

The more interesting argument is the editorial’s indignation that a  three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals would uphold a 2004 Ohio law that has been up and down the legal ladder for years. The editorial simply misstates the facts, hardly novel for the Times.

If you believed the Times, it’s silly to require that chemical abortions be limited to the first seven weeks because “Medical knowledge has advanced significantly since then, and the F.D.A.-approved regimen is now outdated.” That simply isn’t true, which is why the panel upheld the law (and a lower court judge).

Remember “RU-486” refers both to the mifepristone (the drug that kills the baby) and misoprostol (the prostaglandin that expels the dead baby).

Look at the FDA’s website—the section that talks about the “adverse events” associated with Mifeprex (the trade name for mifepristone). As of last year these “adverse events” included the 14 U.S. women and five from other countries known to have died after taking the drugs, along with some statistical information on the 2,207 women who have been reported for complications like infections, hemorrhage, and ectopic pregnancies.

Note that the rate of adverse events increases AFTER the seventh week. That is one reason why the FDA recommends limiting its use to seven weeks or earlier.

The Times also laments that under the Ohio law, women “consume three times more medication than needed.” What’s that about? I would argue the abortion industry’s never-ending grasp to make more money.

The FDA recommended that women take three mifepristone pills to obtain adequate rates of “efficacy”—to reduce the number/ likelihood of incomplete abortions. The abortion industry looks at a cost of $90 per mifepristone pill, and concludes that if it uses only one pill rather than three, it can keep chemical abortion prices competitive and possibly make as much as an additional $180 ($270-$90).

(The editorial does not address the FDA requirement that the prostaglandin misoprostol be administered by mouth, not vaginally, perhaps because it’s pretty obvious that is a safer regimen.)

The Times’ editorial insists, “The full appeals court should grant Planned Parenthood’s request for a rehearing, then strike down a law that denies access to a safe, widely used method for terminating a pregnancy.”

But it is less safe to use RU-486 after seven weeks, less safe when the prostaglandin (misoprostol) is administered vaginally, and appears to less safe (because the likelihood of an incomplete abortion increases) when they use only one mifepristone pill rather than the FDA-recommended three.

Categories: Abortion