JAMA study authors deceptively slam pregnancy centers for promoting ‘abortion pill reversal’

“Abortion pill reversal,” the administration of the hormone progesterone to outcompete the progesterone-blocking effects of the abortion pill mifepristone, has come under attack by the abortion industry ever since its inception — and it shows no signs of abating. These attacks also go hand-in-hand with attacks on pregnancy resource centers (PRCs), both of which came together in a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

JAMA has a history of attacking pregnancy centers for providing “abortion pill reversal.” JAMA is well-known for publishing studies favorable to the idea of abortion, the intentional killing of preborn human beings. In addition, the American Medical Association itself appears to be in lockstep with the abortion industry and the promotion of abortion.

A group of abortion activists created a website — “ChoiceWatch” — meant to serve as a database on PRCs, and claiming to give users the ability to find out “where these centers operate, the services they offer, and the strategies they employ to advertise their services.” (Ironically, it’s not as if these PRCs operate in secret; the pro-life organizations OptionLine and Heartbeat International, for example, offer search assistance for women to find PRCs in their local areas.)

ChoiceWatch used its own database to analyze how many PRCs offer “abortion pill reversal,” and claimed that approximately 30% do. “This transparency is essential for ensuring public health,” Mark Dredze, a professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins University and co-creator of ChoiceWatch, told Cardinal and Pine. The article overflows with pro-abortion bias, deriding PRCs as “fake clinics” that “shame and pressure women out of getting abortions and [] tell lies about the procedure, birth control, and sexual health.” It is evidently even more problematic that PRCs give women who regret their chemical abortions the option of potentially saving their preborn children.

Misunderstanding… or misleading?

Dr. Davey Smith, director of the Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego claimed that “abortion pill reversal” could “increase the risk of serious complications like sepsis, especially in cases where it interferes with the completion of a medication abortion.”

This is dishonest, and this claim shows either a misunderstanding of how the treatment works, or is a deliberate attempt to mislead women into thinking that it’s dangerous.

OB/GYN Dr. Christina Francis noted in a video about “abortion pill reversal”:

If a woman has taken the first medication [mifepristone], and then changes her mind before taking the second medication [misoprostol], then we can give her large doses of progesterone to try and displace the first medication from the receptors and to try and block the effects of any further action from that medication. And in doing so, then, we can lead to having a normal, successful pregnancy. And that happens about 70% of the time.

In addition, OB/GYN Dr. Catherine Stark recalled in the same video how a patient entered her office and broke down in tears, saying that she had taken the abortion pill and regretted it. “So I helped her. And we were able to get an ultrasound that day. She had a heartbeat. She still had a viable baby, and we saved that baby.”

OB/GYN Dr. Karyssa Trandem stated in the very same video that she administered the progesterone treatment to a young woman who visited her clinic expressing regret, and after, “follow[ed] her throughout her first trimester, showing her baby growing healthily as a result of taking the progesterone.”

In other words, physicians who administer “abortion pill reversal” treatment aren’t simply handing out pills and then abandoning their patients like those who administer the abortion pill. Instead, there are ultrasounds and check-ups to ensure that the woman is not miscarrying her baby.

Progesterone has been safely used… for decades

Progesterone has, for decades, been safely administered to women at higher risk of miscarriage. A 2024 meta-analysis recently concluded: “In women at increased risk of pregnancy loss, progestogens probably increase live births without increasing adverse maternal and neonatal events.”

What is Abortion Pill Reversal, and is it Safe?

Dr. Francis explained:

Mifepristone blocks the hormone progesterone that ensures the flow of essential nutrients to the baby. Without it, the baby will starve and die. One to two days after taking mifepristone, the mom then takes misoprostol, which brings on contractions to expel the dead baby from the womb. The chemical abortion process can be reversed before misoprostol is taken, thanks to a commonly understood chemical process called Reversible Competitive Inhibition.

Mifepristone is an “inhibitor.” It blocks progesterone from being able to do its job. If the mom is given natural progesterone within 72 hours of taking mifepristone, the resulting increase in progesterone can overcome (or “outcompete”) the blockade, restoring to the preborn baby the vital nutrients he or she needs. This gives the baby a much higher chance of survival.

Women bleeding during wanted pregnancies can be treated with progesterone in an effort to prevent miscarriage, and it’s considered to be safe — yet we’re to believe that if a woman tries to take progesterone to save her baby after taking mifepristone, suddenly it’s dangerous and unproven? Not likely.

A study in misinformation

As for the argument that “abortion pill reversal” is dangerous, that comes from likely-intentional misinformation about a study created by those with a vested interest in keeping abortion available. Mitchell Creinin was the principal investigator of a study into the “reversal” protocol at the University of California-Davis, and abortion activists have long pointed to this study as proof of the so-called dangers of the method.

This is because three women were taken to the hospital due to severe bleeding — a fact brought up constantly in pro-abortion media outlets. What is not mentioned is that two out of those three women did not receive progesterone and only took mifepristone — which is known to have a risk of causing hemorrhage — and both of those women had to undergo emergency surgery.

And despite having an extremely small sample size, Creinin’s study showed that “abortion pill reversal” is not only safe, but it works: twice as many of his patients who received progesterone instead of a placebo saw their pregnancies continue, and twice as many patients who received the placebo were transported to the hospital via ambulance.

Incidentally, Creinin — the researcher — was also a paid consultant for Danco Laboratories, the U.S. manufacturer of the abortion pill.

So ultimately, what is the real problem with “abortion pill reversal”? Is the problem really that it’s “dangerous” and “unproven,” or is it possibly just that it indicates that women could immediately regret having an abortion?

Actually, it’s the latter. And in a video interview, abortionist and abortion researcher Daniel Grossman, who opposes “abortion pill reversal,” admitted he dislikes the fact that “… all of this talk about reversal makes people think that women really are very conflicted in their decision” to abort their child.

In a world where abortion is supposed to be seen as a social good, the idea of regretting and reversing an attempted chemical abortion is nothing short of heresy.

Tell President Trump, RFK, Jr., Elon, and Vivek:

Stop killing America’s future. Defund Planned Parenthood NOW!