(Pregnancy Help News) Atrocious procedures are never in short supply for those who demand or provide abortion.
Big Abortion and its echoing cheerleaders, many in the form of media minions, demand abortion availability any time, any place, no matter the cost of human life.
In yet another attempt to maintain unfettered access to abortion, the latest push is towards “misoprostol-only” abortion.
Despite there being no current restriction of mifepristone, with the abortion drug’s approval subject to legal challenge, radical abortion protagonists fear a future with limited access to the life-ending procedure of chemical abortion.
What is the abortion pill?
The abortion pill process in the United States as approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration involves two different drugs, given at two different times, for two different purposes.
The first is mifepristone, which works to break down the pregnancy and end the life of the growing child.
The second, misoprostol, works to cause uterine contractions and bleeding that empty the uterus.
Marching to its own beat and moral code, without FDA guidance or approval, the international health journal Contraception is supporting misoprostol-only abortion in a special May 2023 article.
The new protocols are based on “adjusted research” and very little supportive data.
Working hand in hand with self-styled “health organizations” that claim abortion is a type of healthcare, such as Planned Parenthood, they are sadly promoting this painful, miserable process as a substitute for the two-drug process.
With the future of mifepristone still held up in the courts, this appears to be a warning of how Big Abortion will still win the war. When a chemical abortion is started without the use of mifepristone, that first drug typically given in a chemical abortion, the pregnancy is still thriving and attached to the uterine lining. And thus, with the intake of misoprostol, strong contractions begin suddenly.
But because as far as the mother’s body is concerned the pregnancy is meant to continue, many doses of misoprostol are typically needed to empty the uterus.
In a display of considerable bias, one of the authors of the Contraception article, is Daniel Grossman, who held the position of Health Specialist at the Population Council in Mexico City – the same organization that brought the abortion pill into the U.S. and formed Danco Laboratories. Danco exists solely to manufacture and sell the abortion pill.
Grossman, who teaches and provides abortion, has served as a consultant to Planned Parenthood and a board member for NARAL, and his research has primarily focused on contraception and abortion.
Further bias toward abortion is displayed through another author of the Contraception study, Mitch Creinin, who admits to being “passionate” about providing abortion. Creinin is a consultant for Danco, and the father of the abortion pill.
Creinin admitted to MedScape Medical News that the misoprostol-only protocol is not as effective as the combination treatment and requires much higher doses, stating, “To get misoprostol by itself to have relatively high efficacy, you have to use multiple doses. It causes significantly more side effects, and it’s less effective.”
Organizations with abortion agendas, like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Health Organization, say the one-medication protocol is an “acceptable choice” and sadly dismiss the safety of women in their pursuit of ending as many pregnancies as possible.
Yet patients using misoprostol alone experience days and possibly weeks of a miserable process.
This prolonged process can last a week or two and include a greater intensity of uterine cramping, nausea, vomiting, fever, chills, and diarrhea.
How can that be “acceptable”?
Other considerations for those considering this type of abortion:
• Misoprostol is actually not an abortion drug and is made to prevent and treat ulcers.
• Misoprostol is not approved by the FDA for abortion and even has a “black box warning” for use beyond eight weeks of pregnancy.
• Searle, which manufacturers misoprostol, adamantly warns consumers not to use this drug for abortion purposes.
Many points in this study appear to bend the science in order to fit the agenda. Just a few of which to take note:
• The researchers suddenly counter years of traditional obstetric care by claiming that Rh testing and provision of Rh immune globulin are unnecessary prior to medication abortion before 12 weeks of gestation. Could this “new science” leave women vulnerable to future pregnancy losses?
• Admitting that dosing must be repeated a number of times, the protocol specifies that each patient should receive “three or four doses of misoprostol 800 µg at the clinician’s discretion, plus an additional dose for use in case of need.” How many doses are too many? There seems to be a wide range of dosing and giving extra “just in case” casts serious doubt it the efficacy of this drug.
• As a solution to the days or weeks of repeated dosing required to accomplish this type of misery, the sample protocol specifies that clinicians should provide or recommend antipyretics, analgesics, antiemetics, and antidiarrheal medication. In an attempt to cover for the misery of this process, abortion providers are instructed to give more medications.
• The study boldly contradicts itself by stating that “Limited data are available on the expected timing or duration of patient symptoms after successful abortion with misoprostol-only.” And similarly states that “No data are available that establish the effectiveness of continued misoprostol dosing to terminate a viable pregnancy that has already been exposed to three or more prior doses.” Yet completely contradicts itself by stating, “Patients should be reassured that misoprostol-only is a well-studied and recommended regimen for abortion.” So which is it? “Limited data” or “well studied”?
• The study ends with a political statement which is obviously out of place in a medical protocol. “After more than 22 years on the U.S. market and clinical use for more than 3 decades throughout the world, the safety and effectiveness of mifepristone are conclusively established. From a medical perspective, to prohibit the use of this drug for abortion care is senseless.” Since when does a medical “sample protocol” speak directly to our courts? They do not even attempt to hide their political motivations.
Is this harmful protocol some sort of threat to those who hope to take mifepristone off the market?
Researchers and organizations that claim to have the best interest of women in mind once again are failing to protect women and provide true healthcare.
How do they plan to answer for the many inconsistencies in this protocol?
• Off-label use of a drug, not approved for abortion?
“No problem as long as abortion continues.”
• Black box warning on misoprostol?
“The FDA ignores the warning it so why shouldn’t everyone?”
• Manufacturer warning not to use misoprostol for abortion?
“Maybe no one will realize it’s not even an abortion drug.”
• Very little data to support this protocol or effectiveness?
“Who needs credible research to protect women and children from harm?”
• Multiple doses of misery for women over the course of days and weeks?
“Just look the other way. We must have boundless access to abortion.”
Women are entitled to real healthcare, truth, and supportive data that is free of political bias. They deserve reliable research that puts their safety in the forefront and transparent outcomes by fair-minded scientists.
Misoprostol abortion and the pseudo-science used to back it provide none of this.
PHN editor’s note: Heartbeat International manages Pregnancy Help News. Christa Brown BSN, RN, LAS is Senior Director of Medical Impact for Heartbeat International.
LAN Editor’s Note: This article was published at Pregnancy Help News and is reprinted here with permission.
Did you know that as little as $10 a month is enough to reach more than 3,000 people with the truth about abortion that no one else is telling them? Click here to start saving lives 365 days a year.