By Dave Andrusko
And now there are eight.
On Thursday Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed SB 614 into law. Abortionists are now required to tell an abortion-minded woman at least 72 hours before her scheduled abortion that she might be able to reverse a “medication” [chemical/RU486] abortion, should she change her mind.
SB 614 overwhelmingly passed the House, 74-24 six weeks after the Senate approved SB 614 by a lopsided margin of 39-8.
Oklahoma joins Arizona, Arkansas, South Dakota, Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, and Kentucky in assuring that women know that if they have second thoughts prior to taking the second set of pills, they have a solid chance of saving their babies.
In addition, the law requires that signs “must include language saying a medically induced abortion may be reversed, include the phone number for a 24-hour Abortion Pill Reversal hotline and multiple websites that contain information about the development of an unborn child.”
How APR works
“Abortion Pill Reversal” requires that after taking the first drug (mifepristone), the woman not take the second drug (misoprostol) and instead take progesterone to offset the impact of the mifepristone.
As is typically the case, the effectiveness of the “Abortion Pill Reversal” was misreported in the story written by Carmen Forman of the Daily Oklahoman.
The idea that medically induced abortions can be reversed stems from a 2012 case study of seven women, four of whom did not take the second dose of the two-dose abortion pill regimen and continued their pregnancies.
The same California-based doctor, who opposes abortion, did a larger study last year and found that 48 percent of 547 patients who took the first of two abortion pills and then took progesterone, to counter the effects of the first pill, within 72 hours had pregnancies that resulted in a live birth.
But abortion proponents have said both studies are flawed. There are no other studies on the efficacy and safety of reversing an abortion.
*When pro-abortionists compile their studies (on APR or anything else), never are their credentials as a supporter of abortion ever mentioned. The results are valid or they are not.
*The second study Carmon alludes to was to see if a much larger study confirmed why it made medical sense for APR to have saved over 500 babies.
*The 48% figure is correct but highly misleading. The same study showed success rates of 64% and 68% for two subgroups respectively.
The former received the progesterone intramuscularly initially or exclusively. The latter “received oral progesterone, 400 mg twice a day for three days, followed by 400 mg once a day until the end of the first trimester.”
*There are more studies in the works while pro-abortionists reflexively insist that studies they don’t like are “flawed.”
“Don’t we owe it to these mothers to tell them of the possibility their baby’s life may be saved” said Ingrid Duran, NRLC’s director of State Legislation? Isn’t that what “choice” is all about? Or is choice only validated when mothers get biased information that offers no hope at all?”