It is fitting that one should be proud of one’s National Right to Life. As NRL News Today reported, on Monday Mike Conaway (R-Texas) introduced the Second Chance at Life Act of 2019, based on a model developed by NRLC.
In essence, this legislation evokes the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. As is the case with any infant of a similar gestational age born under normal circumstances, an abortion survivor should be treated no differently. Therefore, it stands to reason that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents should concur that the more information a woman has at her disposal when making a life-and-death decision, the better.
This is the underlying premise of Rep. Conaway’s proposed legislation. The number of chemical abortions is rapidly increasing. Shouldn’t a woman be informed that if, after taking the first of two drugs, she changes her mind, there is a high probability that her unborn child can be saved? Is this not what “choice” is supposed to be about? In this case, it would be a decision not to take the second drug (misoprostol).
It is curious, however, that those who advocate for women’s reproductive rights, or “pro-choicers,” take a different stance. If one genuinely believes in the right to choose, why would one resort to such drastic measures to prevent a woman from changing her mind, taking a second drug, and flooding her system with progesterone to counteract the effects of the first drug (mifepristone or RU-486)?
What are the arguments against informing women about what is commonly called Abortion Pill Reversal (APR)? The arguments against are relatively weak.
One argument is that the percentage of chemical abortions is increasing. This is indeed the case. Another argument is that not many women will want to reverse their medication/medical abortions. However, this does not take into account the possibility that many more women will have second thoughts. Furthermore, if the efficacy of APR becomes more widely known, it is reasonable to posit that the number of individuals seeking a second chance would increase even more.
In its latest statement, the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has resorted to the argument that its previous stance on the matter was “unethical.” However, as Ruth Graham has observed in a piece she wrote for Slate, the statement was issued due to concerns about the size of the early case studies. (The statement does not address the issue of effectiveness.) Since that point, a large study has demonstrated the effectiveness of the procedure.
The most compelling rationale can be found in Graham’s article. It is therefore recommended that this be carefully read.
Abortion providers say the goal is to make patients feel confident in their decision, not to tell them they can change their minds. Research on reversing abortions is still preliminary.
Keep the abortion train rolling. Don’t tell women they could have a second chance. They might take it!
Congrats to Rep. Conaway for introducing the first-of-its-kind legislation in the U.S. House. It’s a great start!
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
