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 misinform women,” and “basically garbage.”
These are but a few examples of the defamatory remarks 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.
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.
Affirmative. However, this perspective was shaped by her engagement with pro-abortionist perspectives, including those of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Mitchell Creinin, and Daniel Grossman. This trio of individuals and organizations has consistently argued that the APR is, 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, there is a conspicuous absence of evidence demonstrating the potential risks associated with its use.
For example, an article in POLITICO cites ACOG, which is “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 repeatedly challenged the findings of this study. Nevertheless, pro-abortionists persist in citing the 2019 study as definitive proof that APR is ineffective and dangerous.
However, upon closer examination of the POLITICO article, it becomes evident that there are indeed instances where the recommended procedures may pose a risk to women’s health and well-being. It is noteworthy that these claims are exclusively made by 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 disseminate its customary array of misinformation. Such occurrences are not uncommon.
We return to Knibbs. “It is not being suggested that, in the event that a safe method of providing abortion pill reversal is available, it should not be offered, even if the demand for it is minimal.” Her argument, in essence, is that those who oppose abortion are attempting to instill the notion that women may experience regret following the termination of their pregnancies. They are attempting to do so by citing the few women who have utilized the abortion pill reversal (APR) procedure to save their babies.
As the discussion progresses, one observes a shift in Knibbs’ demeanor, moving from a relatively calm and composed stance at the outset to a more indignant and impassioned one by the conclusion.
Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.
Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.
