NRL News

Why the Abortion Industry so fears Abortion Pill Reversal

by | Nov 15, 2019

By Dave Andrusko

We’ve speculated on many occasions why the prospect of reversing (or halting) a chemically-induced abortion brings out the worst in pro-abortion demagoguery, which is extreme as a matter of course to begin with.

Money? I don’t know how the two-drug chemical abortion technique is paid for, but presumably a woman would pay in advance for both the first drug—mifepristone which starves the baby—and the second—misoprostol—even if the mother never takes the latter The money explanation would for sure apply if news got out that there is a way to rescue the baby—don’t take the misoprostol, instead take progesterone to offset the impact of the mifepristone.

How about bad PR? The Planned Parenthoods will cry crocodile tears (see below) but the really bad PR would follow if the public truly understood how fervently the Abortion Industry is fighting “choice”—in this instance, a woman choosing to change her mind and fight for her baby.

The Abortion Industry fancies itself a “promoter” of “women’s health.” (Never mind that more than half of the babies killed by what the industry calls “medication” abortion are females.) Can’t allow their “helping ministry” to be partially waylaid by those bothersome pro-lifers.

Competition. With its massive resources, Planned Parenthood has driven many smaller, independent abortion “providers” out of business. You think a $1.6 billion dollar enterprise is going to quietly allow anyone to cut into the bottom line, be in Pregnancy Help Centers or the Abortion Reversal Pill Network? (Good news. The Abortion Pill Rescue Network is now managed by Heartbeat International, the first network of pro-life pregnancy resource centers in the U.S. and the largest and most expansive in the world.)

So, naturally, the headline for Anna North’s story in Vox is “Pregnant people are being offered an unproven treatment to ‘reverse’ abortions: There’s no real evidence that it works — and no data on the side effects.”

Of course, APR does work. More than 900 babies have been saved. And it has been proven. Pro-abortionists simply declare that their scholarship is impeccable but anything that reaches a life-affirming conclusion must be by definition invalid.

For example, they dismiss the first study showing positive APR results because it was too small. They dismiss the second (which was much, much larger) because its “design” “may have inflated the success rate of the treatment,” an assertion that is not proven in North’s story, only asserted by the Abortion Establishment’s go-to guy, Dr. Daniel Grossman. (NRLC’s Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon has written a ton of stories demonstrating how pro-abortion researchers routinely come to conclusions their data does not support.)

And the “experts” quoted or paraphrased by North also essentially say practically no woman (or “people” as they like to call those who get pregnant) regret their abortion or want an abortion reversal mid-stream. If that’s true, why are the likes of Grossman and the usual motley crew of “experts” so alarmed by APR? Safety concerns, we’re told, this from the same folks who will fight to the death and inspection of abortion clinics.

Take a minute and read North’s story. It is truly a study in diversion and misrepresentation. Then read the research published that showed a percentage success rate in the high 60s for APR.