NRL News

Why pro-abortionists come unhinged at thought of abortion pill reversal

by | Apr 17, 2020

By Dave Andrusko

Why do pro-abortionists come absolutely unhinged when the case is made that chemical abortions can be halted (provided the woman does not take misoprostol, the  second of the two drugs that make up the chemical abortion regime) and the baby in many cases saved if the mother then instead take progesterone to offset the impact of the drug of the first drug (mifepristone).

Why must “Abortion Pill Reversal” be (in their opinion) not just ineffective but dangerous?

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—which starves the baby—and the second—misoprostol—even if the mother never takes the latter whose task is to expel the dead baby.

The money explanation would for sure apply if news became widespread that as many as two-thirds of the babies can be rescued. Roughly 40% of all abortions are chemically-induced.

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 more than $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 the number continues to grow.

And it has been proven. Pro-abortionists simply declare that while their scholarship is impeccable, 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.