So what are the real reasons abortion activists and academics are so opposed to providing information about Abortion Pill Reversal?

By Dave Andrusko

Above and beyond the truism that the Abortion Industry opposes anything pro-lifers propose, why are they so dead set against informing women they have a good chance of reversing their chemical abortions if they change their minds early enough and do not take the second of two drugs? Here are three (of many) possibilities.

#1. It’s reflexive. If you believe (as abortionists and their media colleagues fervently do) that virtually no woman ever regrets her abortion mid-stream (so to speak), then why bother adding this information to the state’s informed consent language? Just check. There is enough conversation within pro-abortion publications to let us know that they know many women have grievous doubts just before having the abortion.

But informing women of alternatives (in any shape, manner, or form) violates the anti-life Prime Directive, which is never allow anything to slow down the killing machine. No sand in the gears, heck, not even a bump in the road leading to the closest Planned Parenthood clinic.

But what if the abortionist is required to tell women that after taking the first drug (mifepristone), if they do not take the second drug (misoprostol) and instead take progesterone to offset the impact of the mifepristone, they have a good chance of saving their baby? You are challenging the abortionist at his very core. He tells himself that abortion is not only not wrong, it is the best “solution,” certain for single women and maybe even more so for women who already have other children. Second thoughts are not permitted. Abortionists “know best.”

#2. After you move pass the self-image of selfless combatants for “women’s reproductive health,” the ugly reality is that abortion clinics make a lot of money off of “terminating” unborn babies. Planned Parenthood is hitching chemical abortifacients to “telemedicine” with hopes of greatly increasing  the outreach of the nation’s large abortion provider  to “underserved” areas . And, oh, by the way, fattening their pocketbooks in the process.

Telemedical abortion, which used to involve a woman going to a storefront branch office of Planned Parenthood for a webcam consult and having the abortionist remotely open a drawer there for her pills, now doesn’t necessarily involve her going out at all.

She can simply go on her computer, or make a phone call and, after maybe a short video consult or phone conversation, have the pills shipped to her home by overnight mail.

The exact numbers vary, but extrapolating from what the CDC and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute report, the best guess is that well over 40%  of all abortions are now chemically-induced “medication” abortion. The number continues to grow each year.

The added revenue is staggering.

One other thing.

#3. The Abortion Industry works hand-in-glove with academicians who pump out papers celebrating the wonderfulness of chemical abortions. Safe, safe, safe, including “Do It Yourself” abortions.

That is why I hope you will re-read Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon’s terrific post from a while back: “Study reveals safety concerns among abortionists over chemically-induced self-abortion.”

Abortion activists and academicians are gung-ho, but abortionists who actually see women who’ve chemically self-aborted know what is happening “on the ground.”

Dr. O’Bannon wrote of the results of a study published in the journal Contraception that “Nearly half of the abortionists who answered the University of Iowa survey … won’t call it safe. They don’t seem willing to consider self-managed abortion a good idea.”

This is so for a variety of reasons, beginning with the truth that there are far more “complications” than proponents let on. And the pain is often almost unimaginably intense.

As NRLC said years ago when the push was on to distribute RU-486 in the United States, chemically-induced abortions are inherently dangerous to women.