By Dave Andrusko
After reading dozens of stories in NRL News Today, our readers are fully aware (and then some) that few developments make the Abortion Industry more unsettled than the arrival of the Abortion Pill Reversal protocol. What if the word gets around? What word?
That after a woman is (too often) bull-rushed into undergoing a chemical abortion, she knows that she has a realistic chance of saving her baby, provided she does not take the second of the two drugs that make up chemical (“medication”) abortions.
So does it come as any surprise that a pro-abortion group in Great Britain—“open Democracy”– would target Dr. Eileen Reilly in a “sting” operation [www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/uk-regulator-investigates-doctor-for-abortion-reversal-treatment]? So why is she being investigated by the General Medical Council, the regulatory authority for doctors in the UK?
Simply “because she offers abortion pill reversal treatments to mothers who regret their abortions and want to save their babies’ lives,” according to Micaiah Bilger. “An OB-GYN, she said she offers the life-saving treatment outside her regular job, and UK doctors have helped about 100 women and babies thus far.”
To its credit, open Democracy acknowledged, “The regulatory tribunal may take no action, impose conditions on a doctor’s ability to practice, or suspend the doctor while the tribunal investigates, a GMC website states. A referral to the tribunal alone does not mean the GMC has reached a decision about fitness to practice.”
They charge that “Dr Reilly offered an openDemocracy undercover reporter a prescription for Cyclogest pessaries containing progesterone. …”
What is progesterone? The natural hormone in a woman’s body that sustains pregnancy, a treatment that has been used for decades to prevent miscarriages. In the standard Abortion Pill Reversal protocol, instead of taking the second drug (misoprostol), a woman takes progesterone to offset the impact of the first drug (mifepristone).
The bulk of their “case” against Dr. Reilly, faithfully regurgitated by The Guardian newspaper is that APR is “an unproven and potentially dangerous.”
But as we have discussed on several occasions, the conclusion that APR is unsafe requires a complete misreading of the study typically trotted out to “prove” the allegation.
To be specific, the most serious bleeding complications were for the women who did not take progesterone but who instead were administered a placebo! But the mythology surfaces in virtually every story.
Another UK physician, Dr. Dermot Patrick Kearney. also is being investigated for providing the APR treatment, openDemocracy says.
NRL News Today will keep you updated on this latest pro-abortion smear job.