The media willingly parrots unsuccessful pro-abortion research to discredit successful pro-life research

By Dave Andrusko

We’ve written early and often about how Abortion Pill Reversal sends pro-abortionists  off the deep end. See, for example, here [www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/2021/04/why-does-the-thought-of-abortion-pill-reversal-send-pro-abortionists-off-the-deep-end]. They are big on “choice,” but only “choice” that ends with a dead baby.

The expected signature by Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb of House Bill 1577 drew a typically over-the-top but curiously revealing  response from the Herald Bulletin Editorial Board.

HB 1577 has many welcomed facets, including the requirement that women considering abortion must be informed about the abortion pill reversal (APR) process proven to have saved over 2,000 babies’ lives nationwide.  As our NRL News Today readers know, chemical (or “medication”) abortions are a two-drug process. If a woman has second thoughts after ingesting the first, she still has a reasonable chance of saving her baby if, in lieu of taking the second drug, instead takes progesterone, a time-tested drug used to prevent miscarriages.

A colleague in NRLC’s Department of State Legislation highlighted a particularly telling paragraph from the end of the  editorial:

“Those who oppose abortion should be able to do so with arguments that are sound and, most importantly, truthful. To employ methods that use misinformation that can endanger pregnant women is to undermine the very nature of a pro-life philosophy.”

Well…yes. The case for life—just like the case for death—must employ sound and truthful arguments, not offer up arguments that might endanger the pregnant woman. 

Let’s go through just one example of the pro-abortion misinformation that is dangerous to women that is trotted out unthinkingly by the Herald Bulletin Editorial Board, relying on the usual distorted and dishonest propaganda from the Abortion Industry’s academic stars.

Referring to pro-abortion State Rep. Sue Errington, D-Muncie, they write

Errington noted that the only legitimate study of abortion reversal had to be halted after three participants were hospitalized.

This is really disingenuous.  Errington is not referring to the large scale 2018 abortion pill reversal study–where the APR method was linked to 257 successful reversals with subsequent healthy births– but to a follow up study by noted abortion researcher and chemical advocate Mitchell Creinin who announced he was going to conduct his own “scientific” study to determine whether abortion pill reversal was possible. 

You would believe that the “halt” was caused by APR. It was not and saying or implying otherwise is a lie—and no lesser word will suffice. 

It is the Abortion Industry’s attempt to paper over the inconvenient truth that their attempts to discredit APR failed miserably. Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, NRL Director of Education & Research, hit the nail on the head:

The truth is when undergoing a chemical abortion, taking the first drug only, and then doing nothing else, is what is dangerous to women. It is not the abortion pill reversal protocol where a woman not only does not take the second drug, she also takes another drug to ward off the impact of the first drug. APR is safer and more effective at reversal.

And contrary to the spin, that is exactly what the study they’re talking about showed!

In a word, you can’t trust these folks. They have an agenda—abortion on demand at any point in pregnancy—and nothing as trivial as the truth can ever be allowed to get in the way.