Four Ways that Chemical Abortion and Telemedicine Will Change the Abortion Debate

Use of chemical abortions is increasing rapidly. So-called ‘medical’ abortions were almost one-third of the total in the US in 2016 – a vast number considering the Food and Drug Administration only approved the use of the ‘abortion pill’ in 2000. In many other countries chemical abortions are over fifty per cent of the total. In Ireland, over 98% of abortions are from pills taken in the first trimester. 

Telemedicine abortions are also on the rise – and COVID-19 has only hastened this process. With telemedicine, a woman seeking an abortion never physically meets a doctor for a consultation: it all happens online via video link or otherwise. Earlier in the year Ireland approved telemedicine abortions for the duration of the pandemic, and it’s unlikely that they’ll be completely abandoned after it’s over. 

The implications of the increased use of chemical abortion for the abortion debate are both huge and surprisingly under-discussed. Here are four ways that chemical abortions and telemedicine are likely to reshape the abortion debate as we know it.

#1: Abortion will become easier to access, and harder to regulate

It almost goes without saying, but as pill-induced abortions and telemedicine become increasingly the standard way to get an abortion, the barriers to getting an abortion will get lower. If you have to physically attend one or more appointments before getting an abortion, that’s more time to think about the decision.

If getting an abortion no longer involves going to a particular location but just involves issuing a pill via an online consultation, the whole process becomes harder to regulate. What abortion laws do exist will become more difficult to enforce – and as this low-friction form of abortion becomes standard there’ll be more pressure to remove laws like ones requiring waiting times.

#2: It will be even easier for men to force women into abortion

There have already been several reported cases of women being slipped abortion pills without their knowledge or consent: see for example this report in the Washington Post. For each crime like this that’s reported or even prosecuted, it’s probable that others go unnoticed. As chemical abortion and telemedicine become even more common, expect to see more “miscarriages” that are in fact forced abortions by the father.

#3: The marginalisation of the abortion ‘clinic’

The ‘abortion clinic’ currently occupies a central place in the abortion debate; think of the battles in US politics over abortion centre closures or in the UK over exclusion zones around facilities; think of the methods of pro-life activism such as sidewalk counselling that are based around reaching out to women going into facilities. Clinics also play a big role in the picture of abortion that exists in a lot of people’s imagination – think of the scene in Juno which depicts an abortion facility as a banal, indifferent place.

All of this will soon be largely a thing of the past. Abortion facilities already play little to no role in some jurisdictions: in Ireland abortions are mostly handled by GPs and hospitals, though there are a handful of clinics too. But even in those jurisdictions where most abortions are done by private providers, chemical abortions and telemedince will bring about radical changes. As they become more prevalent, the physical space of the facility will matter less and less to the practice of abortion. Pro-life work will have to respond: a set of strategies drawn up for the age of the abortion clinic won’t suffice in a post-clinic era. To take one example: as sidewalk counselling becomes less possible (even the good sort), pro-lifers will need to explore other avenues for reaching out to women and presenting them with alternative options.

#4: Images will become less relevant, and good arguments will become more so

Abortion pill abortions are early abortions. Babies at 9 weeks gestation look a bit less like born babies than babies at 16 weeks gestation do. What’s more, with telemedicine abortions there’s no opportunity for an ultrasound: it almost doesn’t matter what the baby looks like if you can’t see them.

One of the differences between abortion and some other human rights questions is the relative invisibility of the people whose rights are in question. Human beings are good at ignoring human rights abuses when they don’t have to look at them. 

For years the pro-life movement has put a lot of its faith in the power of increasingly accurate ultrasound images to reveal the humanity of the pre-born child. Those images have undoubtedly had a humanising effect: but as more abortions are done early and without ultrasounds being available, that effect may start to trail off rather than become more significant. Already, early abortions are the norm: in a survey of 40 high-income countries with permissive abortion laws, it was the case in a majority of the countries surveyed that around 90% of abortions happen before 13 weeks, and approximately two-thirds happen before 9 weeks.

An obvious implication of this is that ethical and philosophical arguments about the moral status of the fetus – like the equal rights argument – are going to become increasingly important to the abortion debate. This will only become more true as pregnancy tests become more and more able to identify a pregnancy early and chemical abortions get earlier and earlier. It was never the fact that a pre-born child looked human that granted them equal rights: making that clear will be all the more important as time goes on.

[Today's guest article is by Ben Conroy. Ben Conroy is committee member of The Minimise Project, a secular pro-life organisation from Ireland, which aims to reduce the abortion rate by enabling and facilitating better conversations about abortion between pro-life and pro-choice people. Check out their blog at theminimiseproject.ie.]

[Photo credit: Christin Hume on Unsplash]

[Help make sure chemical abortion pills don't end up in the wrong hands: report illegal distribution of abortion pills to the FDA. Read more here, from HowToBeProLife.com.]

Who needs an ultrasound? DIY chemical abortion is here.

In 1996, the Clintons used the phrase “safe, legal, and rare” to describe the supposed goal for abortions. Since then, many people have dropped the “rare” from their list of stated expectations, but they have continued to proclaim that they are concerned about the safety of women getting abortions. In fact, a primary purported reason for keeping abortion legal has always been the prevention of do-it-yourself, “back-alley” procedures.

In what could certainly be seen as a contradiction, some of these same people have petitioned to increasingly remove medical professionals from the abortions themselves. Not only have these activists dodged efforts to hold abortion centers to the same standards as other medical facilities, but in Canada, they have now legalized self-managed chemical abortions. Until now, patients were required to receive an ultrasound before being prescribed the abortion pills, but the government has done away with this mandate.

“Sexual health advocates” were quick to praise this action, noting that it would remove a possible barrier to abortion for women who had difficulty scheduling an ultrasound. But what it has also removed is a vital safety check that keeps women likely to be harmed by the medication from taking it. So… what could go wrong?

Undiagnosed Ectopic Pregnancy 
One of the main reasons for the ultrasound requirement (currently still in place for the United States) is to rule out an ectopic pregnancy. In this life-threatening condition, the zygote implants in an improper and dangerous place, such as a fallopian tube or the abdominal cavity. Just as an ultrasound is part of regular prenatal care, it’s essential even if a woman has chosen an abortion. Without an early ultrasound, she cannot be diagnosed, and she may experience the hemorrhaging and shock that can result from untreated ectopic pregnancy.

Miscalculated Gestational Age 
The abortion pills are contraindicated after a certain point of pregnancy (with the point depending on the type of pills), and without an ultrasound, women may easily miscalculate how far along they are. Taking the pills too late in pregnancy decreases their effectiveness and increases the risk of life-threatening complications.

In addition, a misjudged gestational age may affect a woman’s decision to get an abortion. Some women are more opposed to the procedure later in pregnancy, and without an ultrasound, she will not have accurate information to make her decision.

So, Why Would Anybody Support This? 
Again, abortion advocates insist that they care deeply about women, but this latest step makes clear that safety is lower on their list of priorities than they imply. Furthermore, for people who tout their belief in choice for (and trust of) women, they seem remarkably unconcerned about making sure these women are making informed decisions. As they have so many times in the past, they have once again proven that their real goal is to protect their lucrative industry at any cost to others. And once again, both their unborn children and the women themselves will pay the price.

[Today's guest post by Aubrey Wursten is part of our paid blogging program.]

[Help make sure chemical abortion pills don't end up in the wrong hands: report illegal distribution of abortion pills to the FDA. Read more here, from HowToBeProLife.com.]

Recent headlines roundup: abortion pill reversal, billboards, pro-life Democrats, "cryptic" pregnancies

Abortion will be considered unthinkable 50 years from now  Vox, 4/4/19. Didn't expect an article like this from Vox.

Kansas lawmakers OK mandating notice on abortion ‘reversal’ News Tribune, 4/7/19. Notice they never say research led by "an abortion-rights doctor" or even "a pro-choice doctor" when the situation is reversed. They just say "doctor" and leave out implications of political bias.

They base their arguments on a 2018 study led by an anti-abortion doctor and medical school professor in California and note progesterone has been used for decades to prevent miscarriages.

With ‘Unplanned,’ Abortion Opponents Turn Toward Hollywood New York Times, 4/8/19. Decent summary. We tip our hats to all the people who worked hard to get this film out there.

Molly Livingstone, a social media marketer in Dallas, organized about 170 people from her church to attend an early screening of the movie. It so struck her, she said, that she was moved to volunteer for an anti-abortion pregnancy center.

New billboard: "Welcome to Illinois, where you can get a safe, legal abortion" CNY Central, 4/8/19. Hope Clinic of Illinois put up this billboard on the border between Illinois and Missouri as commentary on Missouri's more restrictive abortion laws. According to Guttmacher, Illinois' abortion rate is 87% higher than Missouri's (Illinois has 15 abortions per 1,000 women age 15-44 while Missouri has 8).

Is our political divide, at heart, really all about abortion? Yahoo News, 4/9/19. It's frustrating when your primary social circles don't share your pro-life views. I'm glad we at least have online communities to help the pro-life "non-traditionals" (secularists, LGBT, Democrats, liberals, feminists, etc etc) coalesce.

A 2008 study in the journal Political Research Quarterly found that while [political] defections were uncommon, when all else was equal, a “pro-life” Democrat was more than twice as likely to switch parties than the average. A “pro-choice” Republican, over time, was three times as likely to re-identify as a Democrat, the researchers found. “[I]t is difficult to think of many other issues that would rival [abortion] in the capacity to influence partisanship,” they wrote.

Louisiana Introduced A "Heartbeat" Abortion Ban That's Sponsored By A Democrat Bustle, 4/9/19. Always happy to see Democrats take pro-life action. If you're in Louisiana consider dropping Senator John Milkovich a thank you note: milkovichj@legis.la.gov

The White House Is Hosting a Screening of the Gory Anti-Abortion Film Gosnell Slate, 4/9/19. For those of you who saw Gosnell, did you consider it "gory"?

The Women Who Gave Birth Without Knowing They Were Pregnant Vice, 4/10/19. These stories about "cryptic pregnancies" (pregnancies that are wholly undetected until either very late or when the woman actually goes into labor) are really bizarre. This quote caught my eye:

All three women are surprised at how well they’ve taken to parenting, shushing cries, mopping up dribbling mouths and tending to bumps while I interviewed them, despite never wanting to have children and using birth control to actively stop that from happening. They all say that things definitely would have been different if they'd had a detectable pregnancy. “I would have had an abortion to be fair,” Beth says. “But I couldn’t imagine that at all now.

Fresno State Students for Life club helps save unborn baby from abortion The College Fix, 4/12/19. Three good stories wrapped into one: (1) a college student chooses life and (2) in the process becomes a pro-life advocate, and (3) a pro-choice professor's aggression toward's the Fresno State Students for Life ironically leads to the group's expansion and renewed commitment. Oh, also the professor paid $17,000 in a settlement over the incident, so there's that.

Male abuser gets abortion pills online; vendor shows no remorse

Mother Jones has an article in its April/May issue entitled "She Started Selling Abortion Pills Online. Then the Feds Showed Up."

Quick pause for alternate headlines that more accurately capture the tone of the piece:

• She Broke The Law. But It Was An Abortion Law, So It Shouldn't Have Counted.
• Evil Police Fail to Recognize That Brave Abortion Provider is Above the Law. 
• Abortion Access Uber Alles 

Anyway, moving on. The article is about Ursula Wing, who sold abortion drugs out of her apartment and advertised in the comments section of a blog. This is, unsurprisingly, illegal. As stated in the article, abortion drugs "may be distributed only in a clinical setting by a certified provider" per FDA regulations. 

Ms. Wing did it anyway, because "she needed money to pay legal fees during a protracted custody dispute with her former partner." She didn't see herself as an activist at first, although she was an abortion supporter and had herself terminated the life of one of her children with drugs purchased over the internet before becoming a vendor.

She sold abortion drugs to over 2,000 customers before finally getting caught. And how was she caught? Glad you asked:

An attorney told her that the FDA learned about her business when a Wisconsin man named Jeffrey Smith was arrested in February 2018 for allegedly slipping mifepristone into the drink of a woman who was pregnant with their child. Smith had twice ordered packages from Wing’s site, according to police documents. He has pleaded not guilty to attempted first-degree homicide of an unborn child. Wing is still waiting to be indicted.

If Ms. Wing were actually "pro-choice," actually a feminist, actually cared at all about women, you'd think she would be horrified that her product was used to end a wanted pregnancy against a woman's will. You'd expect, at the very least, some discussion of how online abortion vendors might verify that their customers are actually pregnant. (Kind of like those FDA-certified people verify in a "clinical setting." Gosh, might there be a reason for that requirement?)

But no, of course not.

Among people advocating or providing access to self-managed abortion, there is some tension between those who aim to serve women in need without drawing attention and those who want to stir things up. Wing has found herself unexpectedly in the latter group. She was glad to go on quietly undermining the law, providing pills to customers who came across her website. Now, against her own attorney’s advice, she’s speaking out. “I want some copycats,” she says. “There’s not enough people doing this.”

She wants copycats. She wants more women put at risk. She thinks she's a hero. 

I hope Ms. Wing is indicted as an accessory to homicide, and soon, before anyone else gets hurt.

P.S.—In October 2017, the ACLU sued the FDA to get rid of the abortion drug restrictions. If the ACLU is successful, abortion will become even more "accessible" to abusive men. The lawsuit is ongoing.

[Help make sure chemical abortion pills don't end up in the wrong hands: report illegal distribution of abortion pills to the FDA. Read more here, from HowToBeProLife.com.]

Chemical Abortion and the Law

You may have read that last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a law regulating chemical abortion in Arkansas. The law requires chemical abortion vendors to partner with doctors who have hospital admitting privileges. As a result, two Arkansas abortion centers that do only chemical (and not surgical) abortions, and which cannot find willing partners, are expected to shut down.

This is encouraging not only for Arkansas—where at least 608 chemical abortions took place in 2014, the last year for which data is available—but for the pro-life movement nationally. The implications are significant.

Over the last few years, the abortion lobby has emphasized the strategy of expanding chemical abortion. Industry-friendly publications like Marie Claire and The Guardian have openly mused about a future in which abortion pills are available over the counter, bypassing clinics and all the regulation that goes with them.

This would be disastrous not only for the babies at risk of death and the women at risk of complications, but also for women with wanted pregnancies. There is simply no way to increase access to abortion pills for women without also increasing it for abusive men, who have already shown their willingness to force chemical abortions by slipping pills into their partners' drinks. And those cases are just the tip of the iceberg; since chemical abortion mimics a natural miscarriage, most victims have no idea what has happened.

Last October, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i, seeking to make abortion pills available in retail pharmacies like CVS and Walgreen's. Although this case doesn't involve removing the prescription requirement (yet), other safeguards to screen out abusers—such as the requirements that vendors receive training and certification from the manufacturer, maintain signed patient agreement forms, and supervise the dispensation of the pills—are very much on the ACLU's chopping block. Those legal proceedings have been delayed, and the government defendants are expected to respond by the end of this month.

It's hard to believe that the Supreme Court which declined to intervene in the Arkansas chemical abortion case would buy the ACLU's arguments for chemical abortion expansion in the Hawai'i case. Stranger things have happened, and Secular Pro-Life will continue to monitor the proceedings, but I would not be feeling optimistic if I were an ACLU attorney. That's bad news for abusers, and great news for mothers and children.

Study confirms safety, efficacy of abortion pill reversal

A peer-reviewed study published in Issues in Law and Medicine confirms that the abortion pill reversal protocol can, when administered promptly, block the effects of a chemical abortion and allow children to grow to term.

A little background. "The abortion pill" is a misnomer. Chemical abortions actually consist of two medications. The first, mifepristone, blocks the crucial pregnancy hormone progesterone. Without adequate progesterone, the endometrium breaks down and the embryo's nutrient supply is destroyed, which causes the embryo to detach and die. The second, misoprostol, expels the embryo's body. The abortion pill reversal protocol is used when a woman takes the first pill, then changes her mind. The reversal technique involves the administration of extra, synthetic progesterone to supplement the woman's natural progesterone and overwhelm the anti-progesterone effect of the mifepristone.

As we've pointed out before, synthetic progesterone has been around for a long time and is a standard treatment for low progesterone in pregnant mothers. The fact that a woman's low progesterone is caused by mifepristone, rather than by some internal cause, does not change the mechanics of the treatment. The abortion pill reversal protocol has been portrayed as "experimental," when it's really just an application of existing treatments to a relatively new situation. (Chemical abortion was not approved in the United States until 2000; the reversal protocol was launched in 2009.)

Therefore, the results of the Issues in Law and Medicine study do not come as a surprise for anyone who's been paying close attention. However, there are two aspects of it that deserve special notice.

First, it should forever put to rest the pro-abortion argument that mifepristone is usually ineffective on its own (with the second pill, misoprostol, apparently doing the real work), so the reversal protocol amounts to a placebo. I've always found "we're selling women a pill that doesn't actually do anything" to be a questionable defense, but setting aside the ethics of it, it's factually wrong. Previous studies found that without any intervention—that is, if a woman changes her mind and doesn't take the second pill, but doesn't seek any help for the first pill she's already taken—the embryo only survives 25% of the time. But with the abortion pill reversal intervention, administered less than 72 hours after the mifepristone was taken, survival rates are nearly twice that at 48%. The abortion pill reversal protocol is significantly more effective when given orally at a high dose (68%) or intramuscularly (64-100% depending on dosage); vaginal administration of progesterone was considerably less effective, bringing down the overall average, and I expect it will not be used going forward based on this study. The age of the embryo also made a difference, with older embryos being much more likely to survive than younger ones.

Second, the study found no evidence that the abortion pill reversal protocol creates any risk to the child. The birth defects rate for children born after an abortion pill reversal was no different than the general population. They were also far less likely to be born prematurely, perhaps a side effect of more careful medical monitoring than the average mother receives in pregnancy.

In response, Slate's Ruth Graham wrote an article acknowledging the safety and efficacy of the abortion pill reversal protocol, but nevertheless expressing skepticism. The article was titled "Abortion Reversal Seems Possible. We Still Shouldn't Promote It." Graham has written about Secular Pro-Life before and I found her to be fair; I suspect that the headline came from an editor, not from Graham herself. Still, this article is disappointing. She writes:

Regardless of whether abortion-pill reversal works, it’s important to note that the percentage of women who regret a medication abortion halfway through is decidedly tiny. [The abortion pill reversal] hotline received 1,668 calls between June 2012 and June 2016 ... Meanwhile, medication abortions now make up almost half of all abortions in the United States, according to a Reuters analysis in 2016. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest count, 123,254 women underwent the procedure in 43 states in 2014—a very conservative estimate, since large states including California and Illinois didn’t report their numbers ... Even going with these incomplete numbers, the number of women who regret their medication abortion halfway through clocks in at just 0.3 percent, with fewer than half asking for the reversal.

She misses the obvious point—women can't request a treatment they don't know about! Pro-life organizations have promoted the protocol with word of mouth and an online presence, but it's not like we have multi-million-dollar advertising budgets. Of those who do know about it, many have likely been dissuaded by the years of false accusations that the protocol is "experimental" or no better than doing nothing (including a recent billboard campaign). Only four states currently require disclosures about the abortion pill reversal protocol as part of their informed consent laws, and those four states account for just 2.1% of abortions in the United States.* Graham's argument becomes circular: few women make use of this, therefore we shouldn't promote it, therefore few women will make use of it, therefore we shouldn't promote it...

She also writes that "the goal when administering the abortion pill should be to make sure patients feel fully confident in the decision, rather than telling them they can always undo it later if they change their mind." Dave Andrusko of the National Right to Life Committee pilloried this quote in particular, saying: "You have to keep the abortion train rolling. Don't tell a woman she could have a second chance. She might take it!" His interpretation is valid, but interestingly, I've heard sidewalk counselors express a similar sentiment: that they don't talk about abortion pill reversal (or other post-abortion resources) on a woman's way into an abortion facility, but only as she is leaving.

The ideal outcome is for a woman not to take the mifepristone at all, and suggesting that she "can always undo it" might make her more cavalier about the decision. I am thankful for the abortion pill reversal protocol and applaud the pro-life medical professionals who have developed and promoted it. But as effective as it is, it does not save the child's life 100% of the time. It is only one tool in our toolbox.

If you are pregnant and have taken the first pill of the chemical abortion regimen, call the Abortion Pill Reversal hotline right away at 877-558-0333.


*Graham's article refers to ten states which have introduced such laws, but according to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, only four have actually implemented them: Arizona, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Utah. Those states had a combined total of 20,880 abortions in 2014 (AZ 12,780/1.2%; AK 4,590/0.5%; SD 550/0.1%; UT 2,960/0.3%). 2014 is the most recent year for which complete Guttmacher data is available. Note that many of those 20,880 abortions were presumably surgical, not chemical, making the reversal protocol inapplicable; unfortunately, I could not find that data at the state level.

TODAY: Rally against California SB320

At 11:00 a.m. Pacific time, pro-life advocates will rally outside the Office of the President at UC Berkeley (1111 Franklin St., Oakland, CA) in opposition to California SB 320. This disastrous bill would turn campus health centers into chemical abortion facilities. You can read more about SB 320 here.

Our very own Terrisa Bukovinac (right), who is also the head of Pro-Life San Francisco, will speak at the rally. Come join us! You can also follow the rally on twitter using the hashtag #StopSB320.

Permanently Protect Our Conscience Rights and Support Student Mothers: Oppose Senate Bill 320

Following the tumultuous social events of summer 2017, San Jose State University President Mary A. Papazian sought to reassure San Jose State students during her opening semester address stating, “As a civilized, caring community, we condemn this outrageous, indefensible behavior while affirming our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity, and respect for individual differences.” A new law being considered at this very moment in our state capital challenges the spirit of Pres Papazian’s call for “respect for individual differences.” This law, Senate Bill 320 or SB 320, would require on-campus student health insurance plans offered by California State University, the California Community Colleges and the University of California to include coverage of the abortion pill, which can be taken up to 10 weeks after a woman’s last period. And without additional safeguards for conscience, SB 320 may one day require all SJSU students, including pro-lifers, to directly fund chemical abortions. The bill will also turn our collectively used Student Health Center into an on-campus abortion center.

This law is deeply offensive to the conscience rights of many SJSU students and is bad policy for the women and community of SJSU. A 2016 poll “found that 53 percent of college aged Americans believe abortion should be illegal in at least most circumstances… That is up 9 percentage points from a 2012 survey conducted by Students for Life, which found 44 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds tended to back pro-life policies and 44 percent pro-choice policies.” These gains in pro-life support come even as these same young voters are overwhelmingly liberal on social issues such as same-sex marriage and drug legalization. Assuming SJSU is representative of college age opposition to abortion, over 15,000 pro-life SJSU students may be forced to fund abortions on campus through required student fees. Abortion advocates constantly argue that abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor. Why, then, should the law require the student body to become involved?

San Jose State University students protest SB 320

Some supporters of SB 320 contend that these concerns are unwarranted because amended language in SB 320 states that “private moneys” will fund the program. Pro-life students have several issues with this. First, the original language of SB 320 did not include any such provision; the “private moneys” amendments were only added after political pressure from pro-life activists. Second, even this particular language of the bill does not provide for permanent conscience protections. The exact language states: “Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as requiring public universities to support implementation of abortion by medication techniques with General Fund appropriations or student fees” (emphasis mine). Therefore, nothing in SB 320 guarantees protection of student fees from forthcoming additions to SB 320 which may alter the funding mechanism, or from overzealous pro-abortion university administrators who wish to divert student fees toward the SB 320 program. Lastly, pro-life students contend that student fee funding for the student health centers is inseparable from the provision of the implementation of SB 320. The overarching infrastructure and employees that will be used to distribute the abortion medication is paid for by student fees, regardless if the medication itself is privately funded or not. Money is fungible and therefore student fees can still be used even indirectly in the implementation of SB 320.

Bills such as SB 320 directly and intentionally circumvent federal conscience protections against the funding of abortion and invent out of whole cloth a positive right to state- or university-funded abortions. The Supreme Court has twice ruled in favor of taxpayer conscience protections like the Hyde Amendment, ruling in favor of the constitutionality of restricting public funding for abortions. In the 1979 case Maher v. Roe, the Court ruled that Roe v. Wade does not establish a woman's right to a free abortion, holding that Roe v. Wade “did not declare an unqualified 'constitutional right to an abortion'” and “implies no limitation on the authority of a State to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and to implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds.” The court reiterated that position the following year in Harris v McRae, stating: “The funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment do not impinge on the 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment held in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 168, to include the freedom of a woman to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy.”

In essence the Court ruled that “regardless of whether the freedom of a woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy for health reasons lies at the core or the periphery of the due process liberty recognized in Roe v. Wade, it does not follow that a woman's freedom of choice carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices.”

Despite the Hyde Amendment protections and the aforementioned judicial rulings, 17 states including California use taxpayer funds to fund abortion. According to a September 2016 report, California’s Medicaid program (Medi-Cal) spent more than $27 million on more than 83,000 induced abortions in 2014. According to California’s Department of Health and Human Services, Medi-Cal provides abortions “regardless of the gestational age of the fetus” and, furthermore, “medical justification and authorization” are “not required.”

The move toward bills such as SB 320, which lack strict explicitly articulated conscience rights of students, is the latest attempt to circumvent the Hyde Amendment’s conscience protections and is yet another indicator that the abortion lobby is moving away from their slogan of “safe, legal, and rare,” to a policy of “any time, for any reason, at no cost.” We at Spartans for Life believe abortion is never void of costs. Abortion is an act of violence which costs a child a lifetime of potential, costs a mother and father the joys of parenthood, and costs our campus community a proper respect for life.

SB 320 offers no choice for a campus pro-life community and no real choice for our pregnant students. SB 320 offers a choice between choosing between one’s education and one’s child. This is not “choice,” this is not “empowering,” this is not “feminist,” and this is certainly not “respecting our differences.” We at Spartans for Life believe California can do better. We believe that women can do anything they set their minds to. We believe all student fees would be better served aiding our pregnant Spartans in being both mothers and students. We believe this policy represents real choice for all our students. As such, we respectfully ask our campus community to make their voices heard and vocally oppose SB 320’s implementation across our state.

[Today's guest post is by Nick Reynosa. He is a student at San Jose State.]

Empty-Handed: The Lie of Convenience

I’ve never had an abortion. I’ve had three healthy babies, one singleton and a set of twins. During my third pregnancy, the worst occurred: a miscarriage. I was walked to the precipice of choice on how to proceed. I could allow the miscarriage to happen naturally; use a chemical option, misoprostol; or opt for a D&C.

In reality, my choices were gone. My child was dead. It took my breath away to confront the reality.

Women’s bodies, when functioning properly, cradle and support that life. When the worst happens, women’s bodies are supposed to take action. Only... my body did not take action. I decided to use misoprostol, hoping to avoid the necessity of a D&C.

When I decided to use the chemical option, misoprostol, the experience would strike me as hauntingly similar to a chemical abortion. My heart was broken, and it broke my heart for all the women that have and will experience this either through abortion or miscarriage.

I’m not sure exactly what women are told when they walk through the doors of an abortion clinic. However, I have heard testimony from both former clinic workers, and women who tell their own story of abortion. I get a sense culturally that abortion is a seen as a more convenient option than a full-term pregnancy. A woman can just take care of this one little problem as simple as a trip to the dentist for a filling. Then, she can get on with her life as though nothing has changed. It’s a medical service after all, or “women’s health care,” sometimes unpleasant, but necessary.

What I would tell any woman who considers this to be true is that abortion is not convenient.

Merriam-Webster defines convenience as “freedom from discomfort.” Having experienced the discomfort involved with labor and delivery of my three living children, I can attest that the experience of misoprostol was even less free from discomfort, more inconvenient in reality.

This drug was handed to me as a prescription to be filled. I knew it was going to cause me immense physical pain. There was a mix up in the pharmacy. The prescription was taking longer to fill. I wanted to get things in motion. I wanted convenience. The emotional pain was hitting me in waves for the week before I took the pill. Now, the physical discomfort would join.

I experienced pain similar to labor. There was heavy bleeding and cramping. Thankfully, my husband was able to care for my children. I was definitely out of commission. At one point in my bathroom, the pain was so intense I was blacking out.

It was in this almost surreal moment that I felt my baby pass from body. The pain medication they had prescribed did not touch what I felt.

The days following, I couldn’t go without using the bathroom every half hour or so to pass large clots. My bleeding lasted much longer than a “normal period.” I still had little ones to care for and a busy schedule. No maternity leave. No time off. I experienced the hormonal shift similar to the “baby blues” most women experience post-delivery. I had migraines for days once my bleeding stopped. My body had done all the work of labor, only this time my arms were empty.

Miscarriage Support Auckland Inc. describes the unique issues women experience post-miscarriage as “suffering from the effects of both a birth and a death.” I share my story of miscarriage in the effort of transparency. I was not in a desperate situation that some women who choose abortion may find themselves in. However, I have been scared, and felt the weight of the world on my shoulders. I have made hard medical decisions. I’ve dealt with death, grief, and inconvenience.

Women need to know that they are capable of giving their child life. You are capable of choosing a gift on the other end of the inevitable physical discomfort of birth. There is beauty in birth. There is inconvenience either way. Make the choice that leads to someone’s, beginning not their end. Don’t choose to experience birth, only to come away empty-handed.

[Today’s guest post by Allison Maluchnik is part of our paid blogging program.]

Being pressured to abort? Pro-lifers want to help.

[Today's guest post by Adam Peters is part of our paid blogging program.]

The Supreme Court said there’s a right to abortion. However, it also said there’s a right not to have one, and that right applies to minors. Unfortunately, this is something many won’t accept: mothers often feel pressured to abort, and can face blackmail, financial coercion, and threats of violence when they refuse. If you're in this situation, then there's a lot to worry about. The good news? Pro-lifers want to help.

The Justice Foundation created its Center Against Forced Abortions “to provide legal resources to mothers who are being forced or coerced into an unwanted abortion.” It provides letters that can be given to partners, parents, and abortion staff detailing the potential legal consequences of a forced abortion. You can get additional information or contact an attorney by calling (210) 614-7157 or sending an email to info@txjf.org.

Similar organizations include Alliance Defending Freedom, the Thomas More Law Center, the ACLJ, Liberty Counsel, the American Freedom Law Center, Life Legal Defense Foundation, and The Foundation for Moral Law. Of course, if you or someone you know is in physical danger, call law enforcement immediately.

Legal assistance might not be the only support you require; for practical aid, try going to a pregnancy care center. Among the largest pregnancy center networks is Care Net; its local affiliates offer free pregnancy tests, pregnancy related information, adoption counseling, and material resources. Some locations also provide consultations with licensed medical professionals, ultrasounds for pregnancy confirmation, and testing for sexually transmitted infections. Information about other centers and maternal housing can be found at OptionLine.com or by texting the word “HELPLINE” to 313131.

Regardless of whether you're being pressured to abort, finding affordable health care can be tough. To help with that, a coalition of pro-life groups created GetYourCare.org. It's a website showing your nearest federally qualified health center, which accepts patients regardless of ability to pay.

And finally, even if you've already started a chemical abortion, you may still have options. For more information,visit AbortionPillReversal.com and call (877) 558-0333. The line is staffed 24 hours a day and can put you in touch with a doctor who's ready to help.

Sadly, the choice to have an abortion is frequently made under duress. That’s something pro-lifers want to fix.

Tomorrow: Webcast on abortion pill reversal protocol

Tomorrow at noon Eastern time, Dr. George Delgado will present to medical students at Stony Brook University in New York on the abortion pill reversal protocol. His talk will be live-streamed at this link.

The so-called "abortion pill" is really two drugs, taken several days apart. The first part suppresses progesterone, a critical hormone to maintain pregnancy.* The lack of progesterone kills the embryo, but not instantaneously. That makes it possible to "reverse" the process if a doctor acts quickly to restore a higher level of progesterone. That's the reversal protocol in a nutshell.

Although the medical community is obviously Dr. Delgado's primary audience, Medical Students for Life is also promoting this event to the public at large. That's because the public has an important role to play in spreading awareness of the protocol.

The abortion pill reversal protocol isn't a fancy new pharmaceutical product that lends itself to a major advertising campaign. Rather, it is a new application of long-used hormone therapies. As AbortionPillReversal.com points out, "the type of progesterone used for treatment is the same as the progesterone made in a woman’s body."

Word of mouth is key. The longer a woman waits, the less likely the protocol is to succeed. It's on us to make sure every abortion-minded woman knows about this option from the get-go. So tune in and learn more tomorrow at noon!


* The second part of the chemical abortion process expels the dead embryo from the uterus.

What's up with the pro-choice anger over abortion pill reversal?

I'd like to think that if I were pro-choice, I wouldn't be freaking out about abortion pill reversal. In a nutshell: a mother who takes the first pill (mifepristone) of the chemical abortion, then regrets it, is prescribed the pregnancy hormone progesterone to prevent the embryo's death. While nobody's suggesting it will work 100% of the time—obviously if the mifepristone has already killed the embryo, there's nothing you can do—early intervention could provide women with the ability to affect their choice for life. That's both pro-life and pro-choice, right?

Of course, Amanda Marcotte begs to differ. And she really ties herself in knots doing it.

First there's the issue of whether mifepristone is actually effective. She initially says that it's an important component of the two-pill procedure:

Misoprostol can work on its own—many black-market abortion pills are just misoprostol—but, according to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, taking the mifepristone improves the likelihood of a safe, complete abortion.

Then Marcotte quotes Dr. Daniel Grossman from Ibis Reproductive Health (which supports abortion). In his account, the second pill (misoprostol) is the key and mifepristone alone does basically nothing,* to the point that an abortion pill reversal amounts to a placebo:

Mifepristone "by itself is not an effective abortion regimen," he said, and so many women who just take the first pill will not miscarry if they simply don't take the second. If he had a patient who changed her mind halfway through, he explained, he would recommend doing nothing and monitoring the pregnancy to make sure it's continuing normally.

Marcotte also can't decide where she stands on the safety of the progesterone injections. In one breath, she denounces it as a dangerous "experiment."** (Of course, when abortionists deviate from the FDA protocol for the abortion pills themselves, killing eight women in the process, the correct term is "making it easier on the patient.") In the next, she returns to Dr. Grossman, who "says that the progesterone probably won't hurt a woman if she’s under medical supervision." Which she would be, because shockingly, pro-life doctors are doctors too.

With all these contradictions it's hard to figure out what Marcotte's really getting at... until the piece's final quote. Dr. Grossman is

concerned that the advertising of this procedure could mislead the public about the prevalence of abortion regret. "In my experience caring for women seeking abortion, they don’t go into this lightly. They’re very clear about their decision..."

Can't have women running wild through your carefully manicured narrative.

*EDIT, 9:20 AM EST: Dr. Grossman's characterization of mifepristone's role contradicts Planned Parenthood's educational materials, which state that mifepristone "works by blocking the hormone progesterone. Without progesterone, the lining of the uterus breaks down, and pregnancy cannot continue." 

**The reversal protocol is only two years old, so published research is scant. I'd certainly like to see more. So far, though, there's nothing to suggest that progesterone is harmful to pregnant women who have taken mifepristone. That's unsurprising, since progesterone is naturally present in a pregnant woman's body. 

Victory for life, and potential pitfalls, in the Lone Star State

Above: underprivileged children from the Rio Grande Valley, a low-income area
of Texas where abortion advocates bemoan the lack of "access" caused by HB2.
This photo is from Buckner International, a faith-based charity that has been at work
in the Rio Grande Valley since 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade.

[Today's guest post by Rebecca Downs is part of our paid blogging program.]

The pro-life movement is celebrating the results of the omnibus abortion legislation, HB2, that passed about a year ago. A new study from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (TxPep) found that the abortion rate in Texas has already dropped 13%. And a significant portion of the law isn't even in effect yet! After September 1, according to the Austin Chronicle, fewer than ten abortion businesses are expected to remain; Amy Hagstrom Miller, the CEO of the Whole Women's Health abortion center in Austin, says "Barring some miracle in the courts, we really have no choice; the state is forcing us to close."

The Chronicle article emphasizes that Whole Women's Health doesn't just do abortions; in fact, it claims only half of its clients get abortions. But its author (whose bias in favor of abortion is obvious) fails to point out that Miller is incorrect: Whole Women's Health is not, in fact, "forced" to close. Miller could cease doing abortions and continue offering the "annual exams, pap smears, birth control, emergency contraception, and counseling" that are supposedly so important to her. Instead, she's closing up shop entirely—perhaps because non-abortion services aren't as lucrative.

Abortion proponents are also claiming, as usual, that HB2 will not prevent any abortions, but instead, merely cause women who would have had legal abortions to have illegal ones instead. That's at least partially debunked by the TxPEP study, but pro-lifers should not ignore this issue.

The abortion movement's stance is captured well in this Cosmopolitan piece by Jill Filipovic. Writing about women who cannot get past a highway checkpoint on the way to an abortion center, she says:

When the checkpoint means they can't drive to San Antonio, some women go through with pregnancies they don't want. Others turn to Cytotec. Still others find out about unlicensed providers who perform cheap abortions out of their homes.

That's the sole mention of women who continue their pregnancies. There's not a word about the children who will get a chance at life.

Filipovic continues:

Along the Texas-Mexico border, 12 percent of women report taking something to try and induce an abortion before coming to a clinic (statewide, the number is 7 percent). And that number counts only women who self-reported and women who eventually made it to an abortion clinic—the actual number of women who attempt to self-abort is surely much higher.

The study Cosmopolitan cites actually predates HB2. The authors blamed "poverty, access to misoprostol from Mexico, as well as familiarity with the practice of self-induction in Latin America." Even when legal abortion business were abundant, illegal and herbal methods were apparently the preferred option for many women.

The pro-life movement needs to be cognizant of this reality and make a special effort to reach out to these desperate women. The decrease in abortion centers after HB2 has received excessive media coverage, with little press for the more than 100 Texas charities serving pregnant mothers in need. Under those circumstances, it's little wonder that some women feel that they have no choice but to have an illegal abortion. If we aren't careful, the abortion movement's PR campaign could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The TxPEP numbers are indeed worth celebrating. A 13% reduction in abortions represents thousands of lives saved. But we must resist the temptation to pat ourselves on the back and move on to the next legislative effort. We must follow through and work to improve the lives of impoverished Texas women and their children. Otherwise, victory in Texas will become bittersweet.

Today's abortion provider skeeviness

Yesterday, a coalition of pro-life groups launched a new petition site, StopCarhart.com. The petition signatures will be used "in support of the February 19 official complaint lodged by Operation Rescue against late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart," in response to the deaths of Jennifer Morbelli and baby Madison on February 7th. The complaint asks for "immediate emergency suspension of Carhart’s Maryland medical license, followed by a permanent license revocation."

Jury selection in the Kermit "House of Horrors" Gosnell trial is set to begin on Sunday. Gosnell is charged with multiple counts of murder for cutting the spinal cords of infants born alive; he is also charged in the death of an adult victim, Karnamaya Mongar. In addition, authorities say he was running a pill mill from his "clinic."

Operation Rescue reports that Maryland abortionist Abolghassem M. Gohari has had his medical license placed on probation for a year:

Operation Rescue obtained documents from the Board that show Gohari admitted last December that he allowed an unlicensed, unqualified employee to conduct ultrasound examinations and prescribe RU486 abortion pills to patients. The disciplinary documents contained the account of Patient A, who was handed the abortion pill in a cup and told her that Gohari was “around the corner” when in fact he was not at the clinic at all. Suspicious, Patient A refused the pills and sought a second opinion from another doctor that told her she was too far along to safely take the abortion pill.

Both Patient A and another woman were verbally abused by Gohari during profanity-laced tirades, according to Board documents. Gohari admitted that he “lost his temper” with the women.

Updates on RU-486

Via RH Reality Check:

In October a divided panel of Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals judges upheld the state's law restricting the use of RU-486 as a constitutional restriction to a woman's right to access abortion. Late last week the full Sixth Circuit denied Planned Parenthood's request to overturn that October ruling, leaving in place the panel decision and upholding, likely permanently, the state's restrictions on medical abortions.

The law at issue, HB 126, was first passed in 2004, and regulates and restricts the use of mifepristone by requiring that it can only be administered in the same exact dosage as approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000 and further restricts the use of mifepristone to the first seven weeks of pregnancy. After the seventh week of pregnancy the law criminalizes the use and administration of the drug.

The article goes on to point out:

The ruling is a significant one because it is the first federal appellate decision to rule on the constitutionality of laws restricting the use of RU-486. And while not binding on jurisdictions outside of the Sixth Circuit, which encompasses Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, other courts that have similar legal challenges to similar restrictions pending, like the Oklahoma Supreme Court, could look to the decision for persuasive authority and decide to follow it.

It appears Oklahoma didn't find the Sixth Circuit court's ruling persuasive enough, however. According to Americans United For Life:

The Oklahoma Supreme Court today overturned an Oklahoma law intended to ensure the safe use of abortion-inducing drugs, such as RU-486.  The law, enacted in 2011 and based upon an AUL model, simply required that abortion providers administer the drugs in the manner approved by the FDA.

The state’s interest in enacting such a law was clear: Since RU-486 was approved in 2000, thousands of women have faced complications, many life-threatening.  Both the FDA and the drug manufacturer have acknowledged the substantial risk of complications following use.  Fourteen women have died.  Eight of those women died of a severe bacterial infection that would not otherwise harm healthy women.  All eight of those women were instructed to use the drugs in a manner that directly contravened the approved FDA protocol. 

On the other hand, no women have died from bacterial infection after using RU-486 in the manner approved by the FDA.

With that in mind, Oklahoma adopted a law aimed at ensuring that RU-486 and other abortion-inducing drugs are administered only in the way approved by the FDA.  Rather than allowing providers to hand out dangerous drugs and send women home to self-administer away from physician oversight and beyond the gestational limit approved by the FDA, the law required that physicians examine women before administering the drugs and instructed that the drugs be administered in a clinical setting within the gestational limit approved by the FDA.

Prosecuting women?

Earlier this year, NPR reported on a controversial abortion-related arrest:

Jennie Linn McCormack was charged last year under an obscure Idaho law for ending her pregnancy with RU-486. She joins an increasing number of women who get the so-called abortion pill off the internet.

NPR describes the circumstances of the abortion:

In late 2010, McCormack learned she was pregnant. The father was out of the picture. Her youngest was barely two and she was living off child support checks.  

Getting an abortion would have cost at least $500 and required multiple trips back and forth to a clinic hours away. So, McCormack turned to the rising number of Internet suppliers of abortion pills.  

Some pro-lifers believe that, should abortion be made illegal, doctors--and not women--should be prosecuted for breaking the law.  How would that play out in cases of self-administered medical abortions?

Now, this is where the story gets more complicated. RU-486 is medically recommended only within the first nine weeks of pregnancy. It turns out that McCormack was way past that although she said she didn’t realize it at the time.  

After she aborted the fetus she was horrified by how far along it seemed. Possibly as much as 20 weeks. McCormack confided in a friend. It was this friend's sister that tipped off the police. 

This, by the way, is why pro-lifers emphasize prenatal development as a part of informed consent.

“There are many cases where they prosecute or threaten to prosecute a doctor," [defense attorney] Hearn says. "There are not so many where they’ve prosecuted a woman.” 

...

One of the few pro-life groups we could find willing to say anything about McCormack was the Susan B. Anthony List. President Marjorie Dannenfelser calls the case “not acceptable." She adds, "We do not think women should be criminalized. Criminal sanctions or any kind of sanctions are appropriate for abortionists, and not for women.” 

And that’s the tricky thing about the case for the pro-life side according to Will Saletan. Saletan writes about reproductive health politics for Slate magazine. “The prosecution of abortion, which always hinged on the doctor being the targeted party, now has to target the woman," he says. "And the pro-life movement is completely unprepared for that.”

So what do you think, readers?  If most abortions--and not just self-administered abortions--were illegal, what should the repercussions be for breaking the law?  And why?

Video: the facts on the abortion pill

Josh Brahm, host of Life Report, wants our help to make this video go viral. Secular Pro-Life is more than happy to oblige! This excellent piece is completely secular, medically accurate, and thought-provoking. If you have a friend who is considering the abortion pill, take four minutes to show her this video. She'll get the information that would likely be omitted from a real abortionist's "counseling" session.

Do the math

In Iowa, Planned Parenthood has done 1900 telemed abortions. In a telemed abortion, the patient is not examined by a doctor in person; instead, the abortionist "counsels" her over a video chat, and then remotely opens a drawer which dispenses RU-486. Operation Rescue has been leading the way as far as legal challenges to this practice, although other pro-life groups are also opposed.

Planned Parenthood claims that not one of these 1900 abortions has resulted in a complication. This is unlikely, to say the least. Statistics compiled by the Australian government show a 4.1% complication rate-- and that's with physician supervision. In short, we would expect at least 78 Iowans to have experienced a serious problem with RU-486. A little deviation from that figure wouldn't mean much, but zero? Statistically, that's nearly impossible:

"Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has incredibly reported no complications in their nearly 2,000 remote controlled telemed abortions where a licensed physician only speaks with the patient for a few minutes over an Internet video connection, then never sees the patient again," spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger told LifeNews.com today.

"The numbers simply do not add up. Either Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is engaging in an intentional cover-up of telemed abortion complications or it is an indication that they provide essentially no follow-up for patients once they load them on abortion pills and send them out the door. Either scenario would be gross misconduct on PPH's part that further endangers the lives of women," she added.

OR says it has an informant with first-hand knowledge of the inner workings of PPH who has come forward to explain how the telemed abortion scheme shows a "revolting lack of concern" for the lives and health of women.

The informant insists that the scheme was developed with a high profit margin in mind, not the best interests of women. According to the informant, who has spoken to OR on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals, PPH has traditionally attempted to distance the organization from any abortion complications.

"Planned Parenthood doesn't deal with complications," said the informant. "They send the women to the ER."

If one of those estimated 78 Iowan women is reading this: please, come forward. It takes courage, but the pro-life movement will stand with you. Your testimony can help prevent this from happening to someone else.

State news review

Lots has been happening at the state level recently.
On Monday, the California-based pro-life advocates at Live Action will release more undercover footage of abortion "counselors" lying to clients.
Michigan Senator Bart Stupak, who led a coalition of pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives during the health care battle but has been criticized for agreeing to an executive order, may not run for re-election.
In Minnesota, where citizens pay for abortions through state taxes, the rate of taxpayer-funded abortions has dropped 4%. This is in spite of the economic downturn, which we would expect to cause an increase. The likely answer is Michigan's Positive Alternatives program, which provides medical, social, and child care services to mothers with financial need.
New Jersey governor Chris Christie has cut taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, reversing the policy of his predecessor.
The Oklahoma legislature has re-passed, and the governor has re-signed, three pro-life measures. The measures had earlier been passed in a single bill, but a court ruled that the procedure needed to be revised in order to comply with the state's one-subject rule. The new laws protect freedom of conscience, regulate RU-486, and ban sex-selection abortions.