By Dave Andrusko
Above and beyond the truism that the Abortion Industry opposes anything pro-lifers propose, why are they so dead set against informing women they have a good chance of reversing their chemical abortions if they change their minds early enough and do not take the second of two drugs? Here are three (of many) possibilities.
*It’s reflexive. If you believe (as abortionists and their media colleagues fervently do) that virtually no woman ever regrets her abortion mid-stream (so to speak), then why bother adding this information to the state’s informed consent language? They know better, of course. There is enough conversation within pro-abortion publications to let us know that they know many women have grievous doubts just before having the abortion.
But informing women of alternatives (in any shape, manner, or form) violates the anti-life Prime Directive, which is never allow anything to slow down the killing machine. No sand in the gears, heck, not even a bump in the road leading to the closest Planned Parenthood clinic.
But what if the abortionist is required to tell women that after taking the first drug (mifepristone), if they do not take the second drug (misoprostol) and instead take progesterone to offset the impact of the mifepristone, they have a good chance of saving their baby? You are challenging the abortionist at his very core. He tells himself that abortion is not only not wrong, it is the best “solution,” certain for single women and maybe even more so for women who already have other children.
*After you move pass the self-image of selfless combatants for “women’s reproductive health,” the ugly reality is that abortion clinics make a lot of money off of “terminating” unborn babies. Planned Parenthood is hitching chemical abortifacients to “telemedicine” with hopes of greatly increasing their outreach to “underserved” areas and fattening their pocketbooks in the process.
Telemedicine’s original purpose was for a physician to be able to use videoconferencing to deliver healthcare services to people in remote areas—no in-person visit required. The Planned Parenthoods of this world want the abortionist to deliver a “service”—provide a by-the-numbers interview via videoconferencing and then push a button which opens a drawer from which the woman plucks the abortifacient drugs.
Using a video-conferencing system, a single abortionist could “supervise” many, many times the number of women he could actually abort, were he to be required to be in a woman’s presence. The added revenue is staggering.
The exact numbers vary, but extrapolating from what the CDC and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute report, the best guess is that between 30% and 33% of all abortions are now chemically-induced “medication” abortion. The number continues to grow each year.
One other thing.
*The Abortion Industry works hand-in-glove with academicians who pump out papers celebrating the wonderfulness of chemical abortions. Safe, safe, safe, including “Do It Yourself” abortions.
That is why I hope you will re-read Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon’s terrific post from last week: “Study reveals safety concerns among abortionists over chemically-induced self-abortion.”
Abortion activists and academicians are gung-ho, but abortionists who actually see women who have chemically self-aborted know what is happening “on the ground.”
Dr. O’Bannon wrote of the results of a study published April 16 in the journal Contraception that “Nearly half of the abortionists who answered the University of Iowa survey … won’t call it safe. They don’t seem willing to consider self-managed abortion a good idea.”
This is so for a variety of reasons, beginning with the truth that there are far more “complications” than proponents let on.
As NRLC said years ago when the push was on to distribute RU-486 in the United States, chemically-induced abortions are inherently dangerous to women.