I’m at the March for Life in Washington, DC, this week, an annual get together with over a reported 100,000 of my closest pro-life friends. Since 1974, millions of pro-lifers have been a positive witness that America will ultimately prevail in reversing the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling denying the most basic right, the right to life for America’s unborn babies.
Along the way we’ve won some battles and lost some. One we lost was the FDA’s approval of RU 486 in 2000. When taken with a second drug, the combination causes abortion. RU 486 kills the baby by blocking progesterone; the second drug expels the baby from the uterus.
In the past when women took this abortion pill and then changed their minds, they were told there’s no going back. But now women have a way out if they have a change of heart—and if they act fast enough.
In 2012 Dr. George Delgado, medical director of Culture of Life Family Services in San Diego, found that high doses of progesterone can override RU 486 if given soon enough after the first half of the abortion cocktail. Human Life International reported that as of December 2014, 58 healthy babies had been born to mothers who started a chemical abortion process and changed their minds, and a reported 106 women were waiting to deliver babies they’d first tried to abort. But timing is critical.
Dr. Delgado has seen successful reversals in 60 percent of cases if the progesterone is given within 72 hours after the first abortion pill. The earlier the reversal is started, the greater the chance the baby can be saved. He describes the treatment as an attempt to “out-compete” the progesterone-blocking function of RU 486.
The pro-abortion backlash has been predictable. In Slate, Amanda Marcotte wrote this about attempted reversals: “In order to justify the crush of medically unnecessary regulations on abortion clinics in recent years, it’s become common for anti-choicers to pose as the protectors of women’s health. Considering how much more dangerous childbirth is than abortion, this has always been a farcical claim, but now it appears some anti-choice activists are taking it a step further and actively encouraging women to take what could be a very serious risk to their health.”
In the same article she quotes a pro-abortion doctor, Daniel Grossman: “[Women seeking abortion are] very clear about their decision usually when they walk into the clinic and especially after they’ve gotten counseling” and “regret after an abortion is really rare.”
Second, the FDA reports that through April 2011, 2,207 women in the US suffered “adverse effects” from RU 486, including 14 who died and another 612 who were hospitalized. Another important fact is the author wrote that Grossman told her “the progesterone probably won’t hurt a woman if she’s under medical supervision.” Obviously the “very serious risk to their health” comes from the abortion pill itself, not from reversing it.
Third, the claim that childbirth is more dangerous than abortion is patently false and we have the research to prove it.
Grossman told Slate he’s “concerned that the advertising of this [reversal] procedure could mislead the public about the prevalence of abortion regret.” It seems pro-abortion activists are more concerned that women will find out abortion has serious emotional consequences. Research into post-abortion stress is clear: abortion emotionally scars women and men, and its effects ripple outward to siblings, grandparents and others as well.
We applaud Dr. Delgado’s efforts for women who have one foot over the cliff and want to pull back. My job and yours is to let as many people know as soon as possible about this life-affirming breakthrough. Share this lifeline for women who want to reverse a chemical abortion: abortionpillreversal.com.