It is reasonable to conclude that those who advocate for abortion rights simultaneously assert that all abortions are safe, yet simultaneously dismiss any alternatives to abortion as “unproven and unethical,” “hogtie doctors into violating their Hippocratic oaths and misinforming women,” and “basically garbage.”
The following are just a few examples of the slanderous comments about Abortion Pill Reversal that Kate Knibbs has made herself or that have been attributed to her by the most prominent critics of APR. Her contribution to Wired is a remarkable piece of writing.
Please direct your attention to the following.
When I first heard about it, I didn’t understand why abortion pill reversal was a flashpoint in this culture war. It sounds like the rare thing that pro-lifers and anti-abortionists could wholeheartedly agree on, a choice not to have an abortion. Win, win. It also sounded pretty straightforward: Medication abortion, which is now the dominant method of terminating a pregnancy in the United States, usually involves two pills. The first, mifepristone, blocks progesterone, a hormone necessary for pregnancy. The second pill, misoprostol, is usually taken a day or two after the first. It causes the uterus to contract, resulting in an intentional miscarriage. In an abortion pill reversal, if someone starts an abortion by taking the mifepristone and then changes their mind, they are given a course of progesterone as soon as possible to counteract the effects of the mifepristone in the hope of stopping the abortion process. The reversal procedure is aimed at a very specific type of patient: someone who has decided to start a medication abortion and has taken the first pill but not the second.
Affirmative. However, this was prior to her exposure to the views of pro-abortionists such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Mitchell Creinin, and Daniel Grossman, collectively representing the APR. These individuals and organisations have been identified as being at best ineffective and, at worst, dangerous.
It is noteworthy that for an individual such as Knibbs, who asserts that there is no reliable data indicating the efficacy of APR, it is paradoxical that she presents no evidence to substantiate the claim that APR is a risk to pregnant women.
For example, an article in the 20 August edition of POLITICO states that ACOG (the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) is “the nation’s leading organization of reproductive health clinicians.”
has said that reversal treatment is not supported by science and can cause dangerous bleeding. And in 2019, a trial evaluating abortion reversal treatment with progesterone ended early after three participants experienced high levels of internal bleeding.
NRLC’s Randall K. O’Bannon has repeatedly challenged the findings of this study. Nevertheless, pro-abortionists persist in citing the 2019 study as irrefutable evidence that APR is ineffective and potentially harmful.
However, upon examination of the entirety of the POLITICO article, it becomes evident that there are indeed “remedies” that pose a risk to women’s lives and health. It is notable that these proposed solutions are from those who are pro-abortion.
Overall, the largest platforms have removed more content related to potentially dangerous herbal treatments from abortion rights groups and less content about abortion reversal treatments from anti-abortion groups, said Jenna Sherman, a programme manager at Meedan’s Digital Health Lab, a global tech nonprofit focused on researching health misinformation.
“It’s good that any posts about natural abortion remedies are being regulated, but it’s concerning that they’re being over-regulated compared to anti-choice rhetoric, which is also very harmful,” she said.
Affirmative. Affirmative. Undeniably.
The abortion industry will attempt to disguise its usual list of falsehoods. Such occurrences are not uncommon.
We return to Knibbs. It is not being suggested that, should a safe and effective method of abortion pill reversal be identified, it should not be made available, even if demand is minimal. Her argument is that those who oppose abortion are attempting to instill the idea that women may regret their decisions by citing the few women who have undergone the procedure to save their babies.
As the narrative progresses, the initially calm Knibbs becomes increasingly indignant.
That is why the enthusiasm for this marginal procedure explains the playbook for the movement as a whole. It’s a spin campaign. Rather than promoting an actual treatment – which, again, is rarely requested – abortion pill reversal ads promote the idea that abortion is something that people need to be saved from on a regular basis.
Those who are in favour of abortion are particularly incensed by the notion that some women may change their minds and attempt to save their unborn children. It seems reasonable to posit that the greater the dissemination of information about the APR, the greater the number of unborn babies who will be saved, and the more enraged the abortion industry will become.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
