NRL News

Eliminating FDA safeguards mean putting more women undergoing chemical abortions at risk

by | Dec 17, 2021

By Dave Andrusko

Let’s compare and contrast the differing responses to the FDA’s  decision Thursday to make permanent its April 2021 order that removed the required in-person doctor’s visit for women seeking a chemical abortion. Forget for the moment that we always knew it was a ruse and that Biden’s hand picked commission “studying” the question would inevitably allows the abortion pills, mifepristone and misoprostol, to be distributed by mail after a woman has a telehealth call with an abortion provider.

“The FDA’s decision eliminating its unnecessary in-person requirement did not come a moment too soon,” ACLU attorney Julia Kaye said in a statement.” “This decision follows the science, something we could only hope for from our nation’s regulatory body on medications,” said Dr. Jamila Perritt, president and chief executive of Physicians for Reproductive Health.” 

By contrast,The FDA’s decision today places women at risk,” said Carol Tobias, President of the National Right to Life Committee. “These changes do not make this abortion process safer for women. What these changes do is make the process easier for the abortion industry.”

She added, “The FDA knows the dangers of this abortion drug combination, but in the name of political expediency, has lifted the safety measure requiring an in-person doctor’s visit.”

You look at the numbers of death—26–and the “adverse events” –which numbered in the thousands–and how can you say, as does Perritt, that “the science shows that medication abortion care is safe to administer via telehealth”?

Taking shortcuts with women’s health is nothing new for the abortion industry, indeed it is its stock and trade. There is a reason to see a doctor in person before swallowing mifepristone, starting with screening her. 

As Dr. Randall K.O’Bannon has written, the screening

determine gestational age (the pills effectiveness drops the farther along the child’s development), check for ectopic pregnancy (the pills do not work in circumstances where the child has implanted outside the uterus), or other contraindications (allergies, other conditions that might make use of the pills particularly dangerous).

These are not insignificant precautions. That is, they are not insignificant if you are about happens to women.

One other thing. The Abortion Industry has chafed about “restrictions” since RU-486 was first approved. Number of visits; the number of the pills used; how far into pregnancy women could endure chemical abortions, etc. etc. etc.

Let me end with another quote from Dr. O’Bannon:

If telemedicine means pills being sold to women that are not fully screened for disqualifying medical conditions, taking pills far past the recommended deadline, effectiveness will most certainly decline further. As consequence at least hundreds, probably thousands more women will be left stranded, desperate for help, and maybe scrambling for emergency surgery.

Categories: Abortion