You are likely aware of the chemical abortion pill, commonly known as RU 486. But you may not know how quickly this silent, deadly tool of the abortion industry is spreading. It could have the potential to undermine our life-saving efforts to save babies.
Before the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of RU 486 in 2000, most chemical abortions were induced with a less effective drug called methotrexate. Since RU 486 went on the market, the number of babies killed by chemical abortion has substantially increased.
According to the Guttmacher Institute – originally established as the research arm of Planned Parenthood – chemical abortions jumped from 6 percent of all abortions in 2001 to 31 percent of abortions in 2014.
This will give you a better idea of the surge across the nation. In 2000, chemical abortion represented just 1.4 percent of all abortions in Oregon. In 2016, it was 43 percent. In 2000, Minnesota’s percentage of chemical abortions was a mere .4 percent, and in 2016 it represented 35 percent of all abortions done. During 2000, chemical abortion reflected just 3 percent of all abortions in Kansas, but in 2016 it mushroomed to 53 percent.
Abortion advocates delighted in this expansion and were quick to understand its potential for impacting the abortion industry. Megan Donovan, senior policy manager at Guttmacher, said chemical abortion “has great potential to expand access to patients in rural or otherwise underserved communities.”
So, it’s understandable why the abortion industry is going to additional lengths to expand the use of this deadly pill.
Due to the shortage of abortionists, abortion facilities developed a telemed protocol, which makes it unnecessary to have the abortionist present in the room with the woman. The abortionist simply authorizes the prescription and distribution of the abortion pill via online video communication. The goal, of course, is to expand the number of chemical abortions done in America.
However, the lack of in-person interaction between the abortionist and patient exposes women to an increased danger. As a result, 19 states have effectively banned the use of telemed abortions.
In the past, pro-abortion advocates have been known to produce “research” that bolsters their abortion agenda. The chemical abortion scenario is believed by some to be the latest example.
A recent study published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology centered on telemed abortions in Iowa which, to no surprise, found them to be a safe and effective way to kill unborn children.
It should be noted that the lead author of this study, Dr. Daniel Grossman, was later hired by Planned Parenthood to promote and implement his findings.
This study conflicts with the findings of more comprehensive 2015 research in California that showed chemical abortion had four times the number of complications than surgical abortions done in the first trimester. [See www.nationalreview.com/corner/
Building on Dr. Grossman’s supportive paperwork, the American Civil Liberties Union (who is no friend of unborn babies) is suing the Food and Drug Administration to loosen the already-liberal regulations governing the chemical abortion drug. The ACLU wants the abortion pill to be available by prescription in commercial pharmacies without a physician visit, leaving women to abort on their own.
This further shows that the profit-driven abortion industry puts dollars first and women’s health and safety a distant second. If successful, the lawsuit would end safeguards for women as pro-abortion advocates more widely promote these drugs for profit. Think about this for a moment. The ACLU and others are literally advocating for do-it-yourself-abortion which can be perilous to women’s health.
Dr. Donna Harrison, head of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, says, “Roughly one out of every twenty women end up in the emergency room or require surgery to complete the failed abortion.” This is with participation of an abortionist and medical staff. Imagine what could happen if women were left to abort on their own.
Planned Parenthood is noticeably absent from the ACLU lawsuit. Why? The abortion giant has already cornered the market with the abortion pill in the abortion industry and has generated considerable income prescribing RU 486. Jill Stanek’s blog post from 2014 (www.jillstanek.com) noted that, at that time, Planned Parenthood operated 90 percent of the facilities providing chemical abortions.
One thing we know for certain. The abortion industry is motivated by the income generated from inflicting a violent and cruel death on tens of millions of innocent babies. The recent substantial growth of chemical abortions – and the accompanying efforts by abortion purveyors to expand it even more – demonstrates a marketing plan that appears to be paying dividends.
[This column by Bradley Mattes, president of Life Issues Institute was posted online on October 5, 2017 at www.lifeissues.org.]
