By Dave Andrusko
The New York Times ran a story today—“Abortion Pills, Once a Workaround, Are Now a Target”—whose subhead neatly summarized the story: “In advance of a Supreme Court decision, states are proposing new restrictions and heavier criminal penalties on medication abortion. In the first three months of this year, anti-abortion legislators proposed more than 100 restrictions on medication abortion in 22 states.”
Kate Zernike writes, “Medication abortion is the new front in the nation’s five-decade-long fight, as both sides anticipate that by summer the Supreme Court could overturn or pare back the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade.”
Of course, driving this narrative is not just the Supreme Court’s decision in Mississippi’s 15 week abortion ban, important as that is. Roughly half of all abortions today are medication abortion —chemical abortions—a dramatic shift from a few years ago.
The real kicker, of course, is what the FDA did last December. “Attempts to restrict abortion pills have accelerated since the Food and Drug Administration loosened its rules on medication abortion late last year,” Zernike writes.
The Food and Drug Administration did not merely loosen its rules. Pregnant women are no longer required to go in person to the abortionist’s office. The drugs can be mailed to them.
States are tackling medication abortions in various ways . Two examples. They propose to ban the pills altogether or require their state’s informed consent to tell women that there is a good chance she can save her baby if she promptly changes course. The success of the Abortion Pill Reversal depends on a woman being told that there is a window of opportunity to reverse the effects of the lethal chemical if she seeks medical attention in time.
To Zernike, this nothing more than “anti-abortion activists “ trying “to create doubts about abortion pills — calling them ‘chemical abortion’ and pushing regulations requiring doctors to tell women that they can reverse a medication abortion if they change their minds after taking the first pill.”
One other point which so indicative of the way pro-abortionists think. Zernike quotes Dr. Jamie Phifer, the founder of Abortion on Demand. She “said she hoped the increasing use of telemedicine that the pandemic encouraged would also encourage acceptance of providing abortion pills that way.
“Seeing the clinician on your phone for treating your urinary tract infection and seeing the clinician on your phone for an abortion isn’t going to be that different,” she said.
Urinary tract infection are no different than having an abortion. That sums up the pro-abortion mindset in ten words.