By Dave Andrusko
Christa Brown is a registered nurse and director of medical impact for Heartbeat International, the world’s largest network of pregnancy-help organizations. In today’s National Review, she penned a sterling defense of the effectiveness of Abortion Pill reversal against the attack of pro-abortion Representative Jerrold Nadler.
Nadler wrote a letter on February 11“asking for answers about Facebook’s policy allowing advertisements for abortion-pill reversal (APR), ” Brown wrote.”In the letter, Nadler states he is ‘concerned’ that Facebook permits APR ads while not allowing ads for chemical abortion, claiming that APR is ‘medical misinformation.’”
Meanwhile Google banned all advertising of APR. Heartbeat International, which also manages the Abortion Pill Rescue Network (APRN), submitted an appeal to Google but was unsuccessful
Brown methodically, point by point, rebuts Nadler’s attacks on APR which are not new. She begins with an unrebuttable truth: over 3,000 babies are alive today because of their mother’s courage and the APR protocol.
She explains the simplicity of the technique. In chemically abortions, two drugs are used—mifepristone and misoprostol. To counter the mifepristone, in lieu of taking the second drug (misoprostol), APR uses progesterone, a drug that physicans have employed to prevent miscarriage for decades.
“Studies conducted in 1989 and 2012, along with two in 2017, support the science of reversal using progesterone,” Brown writes. “A 2018 study showed successful reversal rates of 64 percent and 68 percent, respectively, with no apparent risk of birth defects. Amid the push to repress APR on big-tech platforms, chemical-abortion drug sales are still permitted online, including via Facebook, despite the numerous safety risks of these drugs. While joining in the effort to hide ads about APR, Nadler advocates advertising a risky abortion procedure that can harm women.”
Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, NRLC director of education & research, has written many in-depth critiques. For instance see here.
Brown talks about the investment the abortion industry has in chemical abortions. Best estimates are the chemical abortions account for at least half of all the abortions performed in the US.
“Abortion apologists are invested in protecting this lucrative and simpler mode of abortion delivery, so they work to quash APR,” she writes. “Acknowledging the safety and success of APR means admitting that some women regret their abortion. As an antidote to unwanted chemical abortions, APR is bad for business.”
By the way, it is not surprising but worth noting, that all the sources Nadler uses are pro-abortion.
She ends with a question: what happened to “choice”?
At least 3,000 women thus far began to undergo a chemical abortion, regretted their decision, and made a different choice with the help of APR. Nadler has dismissed these mothers and their children, along with the intelligence and tenacity of women who deserve the chance to reject abortion at any point in the process.
Rather than a “flawed theory” (as Nadler charges), over 3,000 mothers know otherwise. “They know this because they have experienced a successful reversal of an unwanted chemical abortion, and their living children are a testament to its success.”