Chemical abortion has transformed the abortion industry, aided by a president and administration eager to do their bidding. Recently, the FDA rescinded important safeguards for women who take these dangerous pills. Fearing the reversal of Roe v Wade and states passing far reaching legislation to protect babies and their mothers, advocates of abortion are increasingly looking to abortion by mail. Without medical supervision, women are more vulnerable to the dangers of chemical abortion.
Mifepristone, the first of a two-drug protocol, blocks a woman’s progesterone receptors, which prevents the baby from receiving nutrients. 24-72 hours later, a second drug, misoprostol is taken to cause uterine contractions with the goal to expel a dead baby.
In 2007 a woman who had taken the first of a two-pill regimen but changed her mind contacted Dr. Matthew Harrison who surmised that doses of bioidentical progesterone may outcompete mifepristone. His protocol for abortion pill reversal was successful for this woman.
Independent of Dr. Harrison’s success, Dr. George Delgado was also approached on behalf of a woman desperate to reverse her chemical abortion. He too developed a progesterone protocol that was successful. Since then, over 3,000 babies have been saved by Abortion Pill Reversal (APR).
The abortion industry and its supporters were quick to attack APR. It claimed that the treatment was junk science and not effective. However, scientific evidence and research have proven this claim false.
That hasn’t diminished the attacks. Last September Google banned all ads promoting APR which was the main source of awareness for women wanting help to protect their babies.
One of the critics of APR is the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). In an article it erroneously declared that APR “is not supported by science.”
A team of PhDs at Charlotte Lozier Institute published an analysis of the scientific evidence which confirmed APR is indeed effective and it’s ACOG’s claim that is not supported by science.
Progesterone has been used to support pregnancies since the 1950s and received FDA approval in 1998. It is frequently used to protect against recurring miscarriage and to reduce the risk of premature birth. It is also used with IVF pregnancies.
The Charlotte Lozier Institute analysis included two 2020 studies, both published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Both concluded that progesterone improves the chances for a healthy pregnancy for women with a history of miscarriage or bleeding.
Dr. George Delgado published a peer-reviewed study in Issues in Law and Medicine that showed the APR protocol resulted in a 64-68% success rate in saving unborn babies. It also revealed a zero increased risk of birth defects or premature births.
The pro-abortion ACOG speaks with a forked tongue when it comes to the effectiveness of progesterone’s impact on protecting pregnancies. While it claims APR “is not supported by science,” ACOG Practice Bulletin 225, published in October 2020 cautioned abortionists not to administer progestin-only birth control the same day they give mifepristone. They warned that the progestin reduces the effectiveness of mifepristone by four times.
This is significant in proving APR’s effectiveness because progestin less effective than natural progesterone, and its dosage is considerably lower than the bioidentical progesterone given in the APR protocol. Yet ACOG acknowledged progestin’s significant role in the survival of an unborn child.
Additional research data is available in the CLI analysis.
Evidence continues to mount that Abortion Pill Reversal is a welcomed and needed protocol to assist women who change their minds about having a chemical abortion. Please visit their website for more information.