Critics of Abortion Pill Reversal steadfastly avoid evidence APR does save babies

By Dave Andrusko

I love pro-abortion outlets that tout their “fact-based” even “award winning” journalism. Especially so when they are so cavalier about ignoring facts that don’t support their narratives.

So Rewire News tells us that the state of North Dakota “reached an agreement with plaintiffs last week that it would not begin enforcing HB 1336 until Chief U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland rules on the request for a preliminary injunction.”

Or, as a local newspaper put it, “The two sides filed a joint stipulation last week stating a delay in enforcement [scheduled for August 1] would ‘give the Court more time to address the merits’ of the plaintiffs’ request.”

Okay.

After that, Rewire News shifts into hyper-abuse mode, beginning with quoting from the lawsuit brought by the AMA and the Center for Reproductive Rights. For example, that HB 1336 requires “misleading and patently false information.”

Then, quoting the relentlessly pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), we’re told that APR is “unproven and unethical.”

As do virtually all critics of APR, Rewire News presents us with this grossly misleading statement: “A paper by two California doctors opposed to abortion rights has been used as evidence by Republican lawmakers to pass ‘reversal’ bills, even though the study only involved six women, as Rewire News reported in its 2017 False Witnesses series.”

It’s as if time has stood still. As if nothing has happened since 2017. As if 750 babies hadn’t already been saved, thanks to APR.

More to the point, they manage to avoid mentioning altogether a very carefully conducted study published last year in Issues in Law & Medicine.

It did not involve six women but 547 women!

Remember the basic APR framework. A woman does not take the second drug [misoprostol] and also takes progesterone to offset the effect of the first drug she has taken [mifepristone].

The study, as it should, had different regimens to see which approach was most successful. The 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.”

You would think, at some point, even pro-abortionists might address this second study. But, of course, there are “facts” that support the abortion agenda and “facts” that undermine their credibility. Not too much chance we’ll see any of the latter in Rewire News.