Another failed hatchet job on Abortion Pill Reversal

By Dave Andrusko

Frankly, I prefer when a news story is going to swim in pro-abortion advocacy, it leads with an example of this bias rather than a perfunctory, pseudo-balanced sentence or two at the beginning.

Writing for Stateline, Anna Claire Vollers cuts right to the chase:

Anti-abortion organizations are pushing state lawmakers to promote a controversial and unproven “abortion reversal” treatment — flouting the objections of medical professionals who point out it is not supported by science.

Just to get the obvious out of the way… We are not pro-lifers but members of “anti-abortion organizations” who are “promoting a controversial ”[to Vollers] and “unproven” [there will never, ever be enough evidence to “prove” that “abortion reversal” –in quotation marks–works]  “flouting” [opening disregarding] the “objections of the medical professionals” [the dyed in the pro-abortion wool AMA and ACOG] who “point out it is not supported by science” [see the aforementioned American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists].

Vollers does a reasonable good job of explaining how Abortion Pill Reversal works. A far better job is done by Tabitha Goodling:

Abortion Pill Reversal is an updated application of the decades-old treatment using progesterone to prevent miscarriage. Chemical abortion consists of mifepristone, which starves the unborn child of progesterone, and misoprostol, taken a day or so after the first pill, to cause the mom to go into labor and deliver her deceased child.

If a mom acts soon enough after taking the first chemical abortion drug it may be possible to save her unborn child through Abortion Pill Reversal. To date, more than 4,500 lives,and counting, have been saved thanks to the APRN.

So where does APR fail, in the eyes of rabid pro-abortionists?

There’s not enough research, they insist, never mind the more than 4,500 babies saved. And it’s supposedly steeped in deception. “The [Colorado] law also makes it a deceptive trade practice to create advertisements suggesting a provider offers abortion services or referrals if they do not,” Vollers writes.

The pace of the accusations picks up as she gets into the heart of the story:

“When you put something like this into law, it says that this treatment is real and people really seek it,” said Dr. Mitchell Creinin, an OB-GYN and professor at UC Davis Health, at the University of California, who led one of the few studies on abortion reversal.

“People do change their mind [about abortion], but it’s incredibly rare. If they push this lie long enough and hard enough, people will think it’s the truth,” Creinin said. “And that if women are changing their minds all the time, maybe they shouldn’t have the right to make this decision.”

Two things about Creinin’s comments. First, NRLC’s Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon has debunked Creinin’s debunking of the effectiveness of APR on numerous occasions. Second, pro-lifers’ real motivation, it is suggested, is to convince enough women to use APR so that maybe the conclusion can be drawn that “they shouldn’t have the right to make this decision.”

What a guy.

You can read Vollers’s story here. You can judge for yourself if I have been too harsh on her or not harsh enough.