Pro-abortion drumbeat continues against women who want to halt their chemical abortions

By Dave Andrusko

Maybe just asking the question is enough to answer it. Why are pro-abortionists so determined to discard, disqualify, and dismiss the evidence that a chemical abortion can be halted, provided the woman does not take the second of the two drugs that make up the chemical abortion regime (“RU-486” for short)?

That question came to mind (again) when I read a story in the Sacramento Bee under the scary headline, “Is abortion reversal therapy a second chance or a dangerous experiment?” Notice the fear campaign has escalated from it can’t work to “it’s dangerous.”

There are many reasons for the drumbeat of opposition from the Abortion Industry and its apologists, beginning (as always with them) money. The last Guttmacher Institute report concluded that for the year 2014, almost a third of the abortions performed (about 29.4% of the total) were chemical abortions (or, as Guttmacher likes to call them, “early medication abortions”). That was an increase of almost 14% in three years and no doubt the percentage is even higher now.

That is a very lucrative pipeline, even for the likes of the $1.3 billion Planned Parenthood, which bills itself as a “non-profit.”

Here’s a brief explanation of how halting (or “reversing,” as it is often called) a chemical abortion works.

Chemical abortions involve two drugs. Mifeprex (also known as mifepristone) is taken at the abortion clinic. Then a day or so later, misoprostol (a prostaglandin) is taken, typically at home.

The former blocks progesterone, which keeps the baby’s life support system functioning. The latter induces contractions to expel the baby.

The logic behind abortion reversal/halting is straightforward. Instead of taking the second pill [the misoprostol], the pregnant woman is given large dosages of progesterone in order to counteract the effect of first pill [Mifeprex/mifepristone].

So what, besides money, has the usual suspect up in arms? The Sacramento Bee’s Sammy Caiola channels the pro-abortion explanation of what is happening and to whom in a chemical abortion. The first drug is

mifepristone, which blocks progesterone production and causes the uterine lining to shed. The second set of pills contains misoprostol, which makes the uterus contract and initiates bleeding and cramping.

Because of mifepristone, the “uterine lining” is shed, not the unborn baby. The “uterus contracts,” but there is no mention of whose body is being expelled, only that misoprostol “initiates bleeding and cramping.”

There are the usual complaints which we will get to in two sentences. But here is the real reason pro-abortions oppose giving women “a second chance”:

Opponents argue the therapy is part of a larger effort to undermine women’s reproductive freedoms, especially as national policymakers threaten funding for abortion providers.

Pardon?! Oh, well.

Caiola paraphrases Jessica Dieseldorff, described as “a longtime nurse practitioner and training manager with Planned Parenthood Mar Monte,” who said “there’s no proof that taking progesterone after the first abortion pill is any more effective at saving pregnancies than just taking the first pill and doing nothing.”

In fact there now is. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists put out a very helpful factsheet. Among other conclusions, we read, “Without APR [Abortion Pill Reversal], the chances that an unborn child will survive mifepristone poisoning are around 15%. However, if the mother receives the APR rescue, then 65-70% of the babies will survive.”

What about assertions that the technique could be injurious to the mother? That same AAPLOG factsheet explained the science behind the halting/reversal technique and why it is safe, including because “Natural progesterone has been used for over 50 years in the treatment of early pregnancies who are threatening to miscarry because the mother’s progesterone level is too low.”

To be far to reporter Caiola, after a long litany of criticisms she ends the story by circling back to Rebekah Buell, the woman whose story of saving her baby in 2013 began Caiola’s account.

Now 23, Buell splits her time between parenting Zechariah, 3, and his brother Eli, 5, and speaking publicly about abortion reversal at schools, churches and conventions.

“It’s so important for me to speak out,” she said. “For women to know they’re not alone, that they’re not crazy for making a decision of fear and then changing their mind.”