Foes of informing women about abortion pill reversal never stop peddling half-truths and medical irrelevancies

By Dave Andrusko

As Kansans for Life explained in their Monday press release, “pro-choice” Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed SB 67 which mandated notice of information about Abortion Pill Reversal (APR). In a moment we’ll look at Kelly’s rationale as part of a critique of the critics of APR.

As was the case in other states which have enacted APR, on April 5 Kansas’ bill passed both chambers of the state legislature with strong, bi-partisan majorities. Within days, 2,000 Kansans contacted the governor to urge her to allow SB 67 to become law.

Kelly’s veto message was only five sentences long, encapsulated in Kelly’s comment that “The practice of medicine should be left to licensed health professionals, not elected officials.”

For Kelly, “pro-choice” means making sure women who have second thoughts about the chemically induced abortion they have begun not be told they have a choice to try to save their baby. This reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from “Alice in Wonderland”:

“The Mad Hatter: “Would you like some wine?”

Alice: “Yes…”

The Mad Hatter: “We haven’t any and you’re too young.”

There are numerous and sundry ways for pro-abortionists to attempt to hide their inconsistency. Let’s take just one because it is very significant: the insistence that there is no medical evidence that the APR technique works—or makes any difference. To understand what someone like Meera Shah (the Associate Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic in New York)means by this, we have to remind ourselves how a chemical (“medication” or “medical”) abortion works.

Medication/chemical abortions are a two-stage, two drug procedure. Should a woman change her mind after taking the first drug (mifepristone) but before taking the second drug (misoprostol), the APR protocol calls for flooding her system with progesterone to neutralize the impact of the first abortifacient drug.

A quasi-sympathetic story at Slate summarized the medical logic nicely. Ruth Graham wrote

“Because the mifepristone pill [the first drug] essentially blocks progesterone, known as the ‘pregnancy hormone,’ the idea behind reversal is to overwhelm the woman’s system with progesterone before the mifepristone has a chance to take effect.”

Back to Dr. Shah who wrote

In the unlikely event someone did not want to take the misoprostol, what healthcare providers would suggest is that there is a significant chance that the pregnancy could continue. If the patient wanted to continue the pregnancy after taking the mifepristone, we could advise to not take the misoprostol, and we would support a patient with that decision as well.

In other words, if the woman does no more than fail to take misoprostol (the second drug), then (a) “there is a significant chance that the pregnancy could continue” and therefore (b) no need to counter the effect of the first drug (mifepristone) by giving the woman massive amounts of progesterone.

But as Dr. George Delgado, medical Director of APR, has explained on many occasions, APR opponents inflate the number of pregnancies that will successfully go to term if the second drug is not taken and no progesterone is administered. Why? To suggest the difference APR makes is far less than research have proven it to be.

A very careful study published in Issues in Law and Medicine last year found the reversal rate as high as 68%. And well more than 500 babies have been saved.

Ingrid Duran, NRLC’s director of State Legislation, put it well:

Don’t we owe it to these mothers to tell them of this possibility? Isn’t that what “choice” is all about? Or is choice only validated when mothers get biased information that offers no hope at all?

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.