By Dave Andrusko
It stands to reason that at the same time pro-abortionists insist that any and all abortions are safe, safe, and safe that they would dismiss any and all alternatives to abortion as “unproven and unethical,” would “hogtie doctors into violating their Hippocratic oaths and misinform women” and “basically garbage.”
Those are just a few of the slanderous comments about Abortion Pill Reversal that Kate Knibbs offers up herself or are quotes given to her by the most prominent critics of APR. Her piece in Wired is a wonder to behold.
Check this out.
The first time I heard about it, I didn’t understand why abortion pill reversal was a flashpoint in this culture war. It sounds like the rare thing pro-choice and antiabortion people could wholeheartedly agree on, a choice to not have an abortion. Win, win. It sounded pretty straightforward, too: Medication abortion, which is now the predominant method of terminating a pregnancy in the United States, usually uses two pills. The first, mifepristone, blocks progesterone, a hormone necessary for pregnancy. The second pill, misoprostol, is usually taken one or two days after the first. It causes the uterus to contract, triggering a deliberate miscarriage. In an abortion pill reversal, if someone begins an abortion by taking the mifepristone and then changes their mind, they are given a course of progesterone as soon as possible, in order to counteract the mifepristone’s effects in the hopes of halting the abortion process. The reversal process is aimed at an extremely specific type of patient: someone who has decided to begin a medication abortion and who has taken the first pill but not the second.
Well… yes! But that was before she learned at the feet of pro-abortionists such as American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Mitchell Creinin, and Daniel Grossman, the trio of individuals and organizations that insists APR is, at best, ineffective, and, worse, dangerous.
Mind you for someone, like Knibbs, who insists there is no reliable data that APR is effective, it is ironic that she offers no evidence that APR is a danger to pregnant women.
For example, according to an article in POLITICO, ACOG—“the nation’s leading organization of reproductive health clinicians”–
has said the reversal treatment is not supported by science and can cause dangerous hemorrhaging. And a 2019 trial evaluating abortion reversal treatment with progesterone ended early due to three participants experiencing high levels of internal bleeding.
NRLC’s Randall K. O’Bannon has debunked this study on numerous occasions. But confident that they’ll be never be called to task, pro-abortionists again and again (and again) trot out the 2019 study as definitive “proof” that APR not only doesn’t work but is dangerous.
However if you plow through the entire POLITICO story you find there really are “remedies” that risk women’s lives and health. Only they are from pro-abortionists!
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 program manager at Meedan’s Digital Health Lab, a global tech non-profit focused on health misinformation research.
“It’s good that any posts about natural remedies for abortion are being regulated, but it’s concerning that they’re being overly regulated in comparison to anti-choice rhetoric, which is also very harmful,” she said.
Right. Sure. Of course.
The abortion industry will palm off its usual list of lies. What else is new?
Back to Knibbs. “Nobody is saying that if there is a safe way to offer abortion pill reversal, that it shouldn’t be offered, even if demand is exceedingly scant.” Her point—her message—is that pro-lifers are trying to embed the notion that women may regret their abortions by using the few women who use APR to save their babies to prove their point.
As you will notice, the calm Knibbs at the beginning has become the indignant Knibbs by the end.