How abortion advocates don't want women to know that RU486 can be reversed
The recent publicity surrounding the chemical abortion reversal process graphically illustrates that abortion backers not only do not want women to consider their alternatives, but they also turn their backs on mothers who desperately want to save their babies after beginning the abortion drug process.
In February, Priests for Life and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) hosted a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to discuss the RU-486 reversal protocol that has saved the lives of 161 babies.
One of those 161 babies, Baby Gabriel attended the event with his parents. He was born in December 2014 after his mother repeatedly looked for – and finally found — a way to save his life after taking mifepristone at a Planned Parenthood facility in New Jersey.
Since then, both Arizona and Arkansas have passed laws ensuring that abortionists inform women who are aborting their unborn children via the two-drug regimen that they might be able to save their babies if they have a change of heart before ingesting the second drug.
The story that wasn’t deemed newsworthy by most news outlets when it was about saving lives is now big news because abortion supporters have labeled the reversal process “junk science” and say it’s unethical that Arizona and Arkansas are making it known to women.
Frankly, it’s unethical that women have been kept in the dark.
Since the introduction of RU-486, also called mifepristone, studies have been conducted as to its “success” in producing dead babies. Researchers in the mid-1980s showed that taking mifepristone without a follow-up dose of misoprostol resulted in continued pregnancies seven to 40 percent of the time. Today, the Arizona Section of the pro-abortion American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) states that RU-486 on its own will result in continued pregnancies 30-to-50 percent of the time.
Whatever the percentage of babies mifepristone fails to kill on its own, though, it’s lower than the nearly 60 percent of mothers who have been able to continue to carry their healthy babies after changing their minds and undergoing the abortion drug reversal treatment.
But let’s put aside the reversal process for a moment and take the abortion industry at its word. Let’s say that a woman who does not take the second abortion drug has a 30-to-50 percent chance of still giving birth to a healthy baby, even without reversal treatment.
If abortionists say this is true, why aren’t they telling women?
Abortionists can’t call their own data “junk science,” so why not share it? Do they think women are too fragile to handle this information? Or is it just bad for business to even suggest that it’s OK if a woman decides not to go through with an abortion?
Drs. George Delgado and Mary Davenport did a study that traced the experiences of six pregnant women who wanted to save their babies after taking mifepristone. Four of them had healthy babies; two lost their children. They published this study in the Annals of Pharmacotherapy. It is now being denigrated in the media for its small sample size and its “unscientific” method.
But as Priests for Life medical advisor Dr. Matt Harrison points out, there is no ethical way to perform a double-blind study on pregnant women who want to save their babies. To gauge the efficacy of the progesterone-based reversal method on 100 pregnant women, researchers would have to give placebos to 50 women who had decided against abortion. No pro-life doctor would agree to such a callous act and neither would any mother desperate to save her baby.
Abortion supporters like to say women who choose abortion are certain of their decision. But a hotline (877-558-0333) Dr. Delgado established in 2012 has had 833 calls from mothers looking for a way to save their children after they’ve taken mifepristone. That number likely would be in the thousands if more women and more medical professionals knew about the reversal process.
Plainly stated, abortionists should tell women that if they regret taking the first abortion drug, they don’t have to take the second. Even better, if women want to improve their chances of celebrating their child’s birthday, they should be informed about the chemical abortion reversal process.
Out of 283 documented attempts, reversal treatment has almost a 60 percent success rate. Even if we accept abortionists’ numbers for mifepristone’s inefficiency at killing, that’s 20 to 76 babies and mothers that the reversal process has spared.
That’s not junk science; it’s simple math. Women have a right to know about it.