After having three patients enrolled in the study require ambulance transfer – two of whom required emergency surgery with one also requiring a transfusion – the authors stopped the study due to “safety concerns”. However, a more thorough review of their data tells a different story.

First, what they fail to emphasize is the difference in the women who required transfer. Two out of the three patients were from the placebo group – not the group that received progesterone (the APR group). This is a 40% significant hemorrhage incidence from mifepristone ALONE.

… This study by Dr. Creinin confirms two things that we have previously known but the abortion industry refuses to acknowledge. First, mifepristone is a dangerous medication for both women and their unborn children. It is precisely for this reason that we support the FDA REMS that control the prescription and use of this medication and oppose any efforts to remove them. Second, the use of progesterone for pregnancy rescue is an effective option for women who change their minds after taking mifepristone and desire a chance to save the life of their unborn child.

It should be noted that among the twelve subjects, the one who required the blood transfusion and suction aspiration (surgical abortion) was in the placebo group and did not receive proges- terone. Two other subjects were transported by ambulance to the emergency department. One, in the progesterone group, represented a failed abortion reversal. For “brisk bleeding” she called the ambulance. In the emergency department, she was noted to have completed her abortion and did not require suction aspiration. The third patient was in the placebo group, was transported by ambulance, and required suction aspiration.

Two voluntarily exited the study. One patient, in the placebo group, “had increased anxiety about bleeding . . . and requested a suction aspiration.” The other patient who voluntarily exited the study was in the progesterone group and had increased nausea and vomiting, requiring intravenous fluids as an outpatient. She also requested a suction aspiration.

Therefore, the only patients who required (not requested) suction aspiration before completing the study were in the placebo group. The progesterone patient with nausea and vomiting requested the suction aspiration and the one with the failed reversal did not have a suction aspiration.

… This study, although not reaching statistical significance, certainly supports the earlier research demonstrating the effectiveness of using progesterone in women who wish to reverse their mifepristone abortions. This study also demonstrates the hazards of having a placebo group which, from a maternal safety standpoint, fared poorly compared to the progesterone group.

After having three patients enrolled in the study require ambulance transfer – two of whom required emergency surgery with one also requiring a transfusion – the authors stopped the study due to “safety concerns”. However, a more thorough review of their data tells a different story.

First, what they fail to emphasize is the difference in the women who required transfer. Two out of the three patients were from the placebo group – not the group that received progesterone (the APR group). This is a 40% significant hemorrhage incidence from mifepristone ALONE.

… This study by Dr. Creinin confirms two things that we have previously known but the abortion industry refuses to acknowledge. First, mifepristone is a dangerous medication for both women and their unborn children. It is precisely for this reason that we support the FDA REMS that control the prescription and use of this medication and oppose any efforts to remove them. Second, the use of progesterone for pregnancy rescue is an effective option for women who change their minds after taking mifepristone and desire a chance to save the life of their unborn child.

It should be noted that among the twelve subjects, the one who required the blood transfusion and suction aspiration (surgical abortion) was in the placebo group and did not receive proges- terone. Two other subjects were transported by ambulance to the emergency department. One, in the progesterone group, represented a failed abortion reversal. For “brisk bleeding” she called the ambulance. In the emergency department, she was noted to have completed her abortion and did not require suction aspiration. The third patient was in the placebo group, was transported by ambulance, and required suction aspiration.

Two voluntarily exited the study. One patient, in the placebo group, “had increased anxiety about bleeding . . . and requested a suction aspiration.” The other patient who voluntarily exited the study was in the progesterone group and had increased nausea and vomiting, requiring intravenous fluids as an outpatient. She also requested a suction aspiration.

Therefore, the only patients who required (not requested) suction aspiration before completing the study were in the placebo group. The progesterone patient with nausea and vomiting requested the suction aspiration and the one with the failed reversal did not have a suction aspiration.

… This study, although not reaching statistical significance, certainly supports the earlier research demonstrating the effectiveness of using progesterone in women who wish to reverse their mifepristone abortions. This study also demonstrates the hazards of having a placebo group which, from a maternal safety standpoint, fared poorly compared to the progesterone group.