By Right to Life of Michigan News
In 2006, Dr. Matthew Harrison from North Carolina received a call from a local pregnancy center telling him that a young woman had taken the abortion pill under pressure from her boyfriend, but now wanted to save her baby. Dr. Harrison theorized that progesterone would block the effects of the abortion pill, and his patient was willing to give it a try. Weeks of progesterone injections led to the reversal of the abortion pill and to the birth of a healthy baby girl who is now 12 years old.
A few years later, on the other side of the country in California, Dr. George Delgado received a similar call from a sidewalk counselor asking for help for a woman who had immediately had a change of heart after taking the abortion pill. After reading about Dr. Harrison’s success, Dr. Delgado also prescribed progesterone and had a successful outcome with the birth of a healthy baby. That is how the abortion pill reversal protocol network began.
In 2018, Dr. Delgado along with Dr. Mary Davenport conducted a retrospective case study of 754 women who sought abortion reversal.* The study showed the success rate was up to 68% effective, which is significantly better than the 25% survival rate if the women only takes the first abortion pill and no additional treatment is offered. There was no increased risk of birth defects or pre-term births involved with abortion pill reversal.
The abortion pill, RU-486, is part of a two-pill regimen designed to kill unborn babies up to 10 weeks gestation.** The first pill, mifepristone, blocks the pregnancy hormone progesterone which is necessary for the baby to receive nutrients. The second part of the abortion pill protocol is misoprostol, which is taken 24 to 48 hours after the first pill and causes the uterus to contract and expel the baby.
If a woman takes the first abortion pill but changes her mind about the abortion, there is still the possibility of saving her baby. If she is able to access progesterone treatment through APR (abortion pill reversal), that chance can be as high as 68%.
Some women immediately regret taking the first pill and look for information about how to stop the abortion process. Because there is a delay between taking the first and second pills to induce a chemical abortion, there is time for her to receive progesterone to counteract the effects of the RU-486. If, however, she has taken the second of the two-pill regimen, it is too late.
Because APR is so time-sensitive, having access to information immediately is critically important. Due to this, several state legislatures passed bills that would require abortion providers to give women information about the possibility of reversal if a chemical abortion is prescribed. With the introduction of H.B. 5374, Michigan could be the 10th state.
Rep. Beth Griffin introduced H.B. 5374 to add a provision in the state law requiring informed consent for abortion that simply gives women the information to make a truly informed choice. The abortion industry claims to be “pro-choice,” yet they have come out opposed to giving women the “choice” to change her mind.
Progesterone has been safely used in pregnancy for more than 50 years and is commonly prescribed for recurring miscarriage, artificial reproductive technology, and to prevent pre-term births due to shortened cervix. Despite these common uses, the abortion industry has tried to claim that APR is “unsafe.” They want us to believe legitimate medical procedures are unsafe, and dangerous procedures like using the abortion pill are perfectly fine.
Recently, a pro-abortion doctor who was funded by the abortion pill’s sole manufacturer in America, Danco Pharmaceuticals, tried to run a highly unethical study to discredit APR. He was forced to end the tiny study early because of safety concerns. Three women out of twelve had to be rushed to the hospital for massive bleeding.
The uncritical media takeaway from the biased study has been that progesterone is dangerous. But what the media fails to mention is that two of the three women in dire condition were from the placebo group and had only received the abortion pill—not APR. Massive bleeding is a known side effect of the abortion pill.
The women in the study who had received APR had no further complications, and 4 of the 6 women who received APR had continuing pregnancies. Presumably these children who experienced a temporary reprieve were later killed in surgical abortions. The study confirms that APR is safe and effective, and it is the abortion pill that is dangerous, not APR.
More than 900 babies have been saved through abortion pill reversal, and there is currently a network of more than 400 doctors nationwide who will administer APR. For more information, go to abortionpillreversal.com
*The study appeared in Spring 2018 edition of the peer reviewed journal Issues in Law & Medicine.
**Abortion proponents are known to use the technique later in pregnancy.