By Dave Andrusko
You should be proud of your 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 one sense this legislation reminds me of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Just as everyone should agree that an abortion survivor be treated no differently than any baby of a similar gestation age born under normal circumstances, shouldn’t Republicans, Democrats, and Independents agree the more information a woman has in making a life and death decision, the better?
That’s the basis of Rep. Conaway’s proposed legislation. The number of chemical (medication)abortions is rapidly rising. Shouldn’t a woman know that if, after taking the first of two drugs, she changes her mind, there is a good chance her unborn can be saved?
Isn’t that what “choice” is supposed to be about? In this case, deciding to choose not to take the second drug (misoprostol)?
But, of course, “pro-choicers” disagree. Which is odd, don’t you think? If you honestly believe in “choice,” why would you go to DEFCON 1 over the prospect that women might have a change of heart, skip the second drug, and flood their system with progesterone to attempt to counteract the impact of the first drug (mifepristone or RU-486)?
What are the arguments against informing women about what is commonly called Abortion Pill Reversal (APR)? Well, the arguments against are pretty flimsy.
Critics tell us that the percentage of chemical abortions keep going up, which is true. We’re told that not that many women will want to reverse their medication/medical abortions.
But doesn’t that alone mean potentially there will be many more women having second thoughts? And if the effectiveness of APR becomes more widely known, wouldn’t you think the numbers looking for a second chance would increase even more?
“Unethical”? That’s the fall-back position of the pro-abortion ACOG in its latest statement. But as Ruth Graham keenly pointed in a piece she wrote for Slate, that statement was issued because of concerns about the size of the early case studies. (ACOG’s statement does not even address the issue of effectiveness.) Since that point there has been a large study demonstrating APR’s effectiveness.
The “strongest” reason (in a manner of speaking) comes from Graham’s article. Please read it carefully:
[Abortion] Providers emphasize that the goal when administering the abortion pill should be to make sure patients feel fully confident in the decision, rather than telling them they can always undo it later if they change their mind. And the reversal research is still preliminary.
Get it? You have to keep the abortion train rolling. Don’t tell a woman she could have a second chance. She might take it!
Again, congratulations to Rep. Conaway for introducing the first-of-its-kind legislation in U.S. House. It’s a great beginning!
One woman’s valiant decision to protect her child from the culture of despair can bring… Read More
By Dave Andrusko Bloomberg Law reported today that the state of Alabama has responded to… Read More
By Sarah Terzo Dr. Landrum Shettles (“Rites of Life, The Scientific Evidence for Life Before… Read More
By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & Research Planned Parenthood boasted nearly… Read More
At least one regional Planned Parenthood chain is providing only abortions, and no other services,… Read More
Editor’s note. This comes to us from David G. Lejeune, the President of the Jerome… Read More