While the nation endeavours to clear hospital schedules and reallocate medical personnel to handle the influx of patients infected with the novel coronavirus, abortion activists and politically compromised medical groups are attempting to exploit the crisis to maintain the operation of abortion clinics and advance the practice of internet abortions.
The medical establishment has come to defend abortion as an essential procedure.
Two days ago, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and several other related medical groups, which have been reliably allied with the pro-abortion cause, issued a joint statement declaring that abortion should be considered “an essential component of comprehensive health care”. This implies that abortion should be made available at clinics and hospitals, despite the postponement of other elective and non-essential services, in order for medical professionals to dedicate their time to treating patients with COVID-19.
The argument was put forth that abortion is a “time-sensitive” procedure, whereby delays might render it more risky or “completely inaccessible.” Furthermore, it was asserted that an inability to obtain an abortion would “profoundly impact a person’s life, health, and well-being.”
In a statement that could be interpreted as a veiled threat, the groups asserted that they do not support any responses to the COVID-19 pandemic that result in the cancellation or delay of abortion procedures.
It is evident that those who are opposed to abortion are so invested in maintaining their capability to kill unborn children that they are not only willing to sit out the Corona public health crisis but also willing to bring pregnant women, who are most probably in excellent physical condition, into hospitals and clinics where they may be unnecessarily exposed to the risk of contracting the virus.
It appears that ACOG and these groups are unable to conceptualize the optimal medical outcome as involving both the mother and the child surviving. A more optimal outcome would be for the medical community to prioritize the treatment of the viral outbreak, with the mother foregoing elective, non-essential abortion in order to ensure the survival and well-being of both mother and child.
The objective is to save lives. Is this not the fundamental purpose of medical care?
It is evident that the Corona crisis has not been the sole catalyst for the promotion of abortion.
Those who advocate for chemical abortion are calling on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to abandon its opposition to telemedical abortion.
In a recent development, Irish activists have employed the travel limitations imposed by the European Union as a means of advocating for the relaxation of travel rules and the enactment of new laws that would permit the ordering of abortion pills over the internet. This initiative has been spearheaded by a group of Irish activists who have utilized the ongoing global health crisis of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) to advance their agenda (https://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/2020/03/irish-activists-use-corona-pandemic-to-push-internet-abortions). In a similar vein, US abortion activists have sought to exploit the current global health crisis to pressure the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to lift restrictions on the online distribution of abortion pills.
In contrast to other pharmaceuticals that are available in pharmacies and may be procured with a prescription from online pharmacies, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has restricted the distribution of these abortion pills to the offices of medical professionals who have demonstrated familiarity with the drug’s mechanisms and associated risks.
This is a component of the FDA’s Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy (REMS), which here prohibits the mailing of drugs to patients.
The FDA’s REMS stipulate that mifepristone must be dispensed to patients exclusively in certain healthcare settings, namely clinics, medical offices, and hospitals, by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber. The objective of these requirements is to ensure that the benefits of a drug or biological product outweigh its risks.
It is unsurprising that those who advocate for abortion rights are opposed to the imposition of these requirements, given their desire to facilitate the online sale and widespread availability of these pills.
The initial strategy involved circumventing the original FDA requirements by facilitating remote consultations between women and abortionists via video chat from a small storefront location in the city. This approach, which has been referred to as “webcam abortions,” has been widely criticized for its lack of regulatory oversight and potential for exploitation. He activated a button, which caused a drawer containing the pills to open at the woman’s location.
In more recent times, a study has been conducted in several states in which a woman can log in from home and complete the interview there, order the pills online, and have them shipped to her home. Activists are advocating for the ability to conduct this study on a national scale, without any restrictions.
Daniel Grossman is the director of ANSIRH, the University of California San Francisco’s abortion research and advocacy group, which is dedicated to advancing new standards in reproductive health. He is a prominent researcher who has advocated for the use of webcam abortions and defended women who self-abort with abortion pills. In a recent tweet, he explicitly connected the coronavirus and a call for abortions by “telemedicine” (3/18/20).
Grossman asserted that patients continue to require contraception and abortion care throughout a pandemic. As people are being asked to shelter in place across the nation, I explained to @Rewire_News why it is imperative that we expand access to telemedicine, including for abortion.
In a March 18, 2020 article published by Rewire.news, the term “telemedicine” is identified as the optimal solution during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic for enhancing access to reproductive healthcare services. Although expressing concern that contraceptive prescriptions might be overlooked during the pandemic, they also express concern, along with ACOG and its allies, that women will delay or possibly forego abortions.
Telemedicine is being hailed as an alternative means of delivering medical care during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This approach is intended to prevent the concentration of sick individuals, while simultaneously safeguarding both patients and medical professionals.
In an interview with Rewire, Grossman asserts that the efficacy of telemedicine-administered medication abortions is comparable to that of in-person visits. In a recent interview, Grossman suggested that the medication abortions could be a “lifeline” during the ongoing pandemic.
The potential dangers of telemedical abortion have been largely overlooked.
Even if one were to set aside Grossman’s unfortunate choice of words in referring to abortion as a “lifeline” for women facing pregnancy termination and his opportunistic exploitation of the pandemic to advance his political agenda, it is evident that he has failed to address the significant challenges associated with chemical abortions, which would likely be further compounded by the introduction of telemedicine.
Despite asserting that the efficacy of telemedicine would be comparable to that of an in-person visit, Grossman fails to acknowledge that these drugs are ineffective for a subset of women and that a significant number of women experience serious complications, some of which have resulted in fatalities.
This fact negates the purported benefits of telemedical abortion for the medical system, which is being redeployed to combat the virus.
While some have asserted that the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is nearly 98% effective, others have proposed that its efficacy is closer to 92% to 93%. Nevertheless, this is for babies in earlier gestations, and those who advocate the use of the drugs have promoted and used them later in pregnancy, when they have been shown to be less effective.
Despite the efficacy of the procedure, the standard chemical abortion, also known as a “medication abortion,” is associated with significant bleeding, painful cramping, and considerable gastrointestinal distress. In some cases, women require hospitalisation, while in others, they experience haemorrhage, infection, or an undetected ectopic pregnancy, which can result in death.
When and if a woman has a relationship with and access to a doctor, particularly one who is familiar with her case, these complications can usually be treated. In the absence of a prior encounter with the abortionist or a physical examination, the woman may be required to rely on her own understanding of her condition, such as the question of whether the amount of bleeding is within the normal range. The woman may also inquire as to whether the pain is due to the medication or a bodily reaction to an infection or ectopic pregnancy. Additionally, she may inquire about the availability of emergency assistance.
It is irresponsible for the abortion industry, along with those of their allies among the professional medical associations, to expect that these women can simply present themselves at their local emergency room (ER), which is already overburdened with patients infected with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), and receive treatment for their complications or failed abortions.
The fact that a significant number of abortion activists advise women to conceal the fact that they have taken abortion pills and are experiencing a reaction from emergency room personnel, and instead claim that it is a miscarriage, demonstrates that the agenda of the activists is of greater importance than the safety of the patients.
For those who advocate for abortion rights, this is an opportune moment to seize the initiative and capitalise on the current crisis.
The pressure exerted on the FDA.
In an interview with Rewire, Dr. Grossman expressed hope that the FDA would consider temporarily lifting the Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone. Additionally, she urged states that have imposed bans on the use of telemedicine for medication abortion to lift those bans as well. “I believe this is a crucial step at this juncture.”
Fortunately, the FDA has not succumbed to the temptation.
The FDA’s Office of Media Affairs has stated that certain restrictions, known as a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS), are necessary for mifepristone when used for medical termination of early pregnancy in order to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks. This response was given in response to a query on the online news blog VICE, which asked whether the restrictions on the use of the abortion pill would be lifted during the pandemic. The FDA has previously defended these regulations, reiterating its stance since before the pandemic.
Grossman asserts that the relaxation of the safeguards should be a temporary measure. However, he and other abortion activists have made it clear that they would like the relaxed safeguards to be made permanent and to go even further. Grossman is the director of ANSIRH, the University of California San Francisco’s abortion research and advocacy group Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health.
Their subsequent proposal was as follows. It is claimed that the two drugs that comprise the “medication abortion” technique, mifepristone and misoprostol, meet many of the FDA’s criteria for being available over the counter. The FDA’s approval of an over-the-counter (OTC) mifepristone-misoprostol product could significantly enhance the accessibility of medication abortion.
This is the true objective. It is challenging to conceive that any individual could genuinely perceive telemedical abortion as the optimal solution for American women in the context of the Coronavirus pandemic.
However, if they can establish a link between abortion and our public initiative to eradicate the virus, they believe they can dismantle some of the remaining obstacles to unrestricted access to these lethal and dangerous abortion pills.
The following professional organizations have been consulted in the preparation of this document: the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, the American Gynecological & Obstetrical Society, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Society for Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Society of Family Planning, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
