The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) sent a memo to all licensed healthcare professionals last week, warning them against practicing “in violation of good and accepted care practice.” An example that DPH used as an unacceptable healthcare practice is ‘Abortion Pill Reversal’ (APR).

According to DPH, there are 30 PRCs in Massachusetts, four of which are licensed by the state as healthcare facilities. This licensing allows them to provide medical care while requiring that they follow certain requirements and meet certain standards. The memo claimed there has been an increase in complaints against PRCs in the state. Therefore the state wants to make sure these centers are “adhering to their designated scope of practice and operating transparently and free from deceptive practices.”

The memo warns that if a facility is not compliant with the rules, it could face prosecution from the Attorney General. If a facility has a license but is not properly staffed, it could have its license suspended or revoked along with those of the staff working there. It specifically mentions APR, calling it “unproven, unethical, and unsafe to provide to patients,” while citing so-called evidence from the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

But APR has not been shown to be unproven, unsafe, or unethical. APR is use of the hormone progesterone to offset the deadly, progesterone-blocking effects of the first drug of the abortion pill regimen — mifepristone. While mifepristone works to deprive the developing child of nutrients needed to sustain his or her life, progesterone is a naturally occurring pregnancy hormone that sustains the young baby’s life. Progesterone has been used for years to prevent early miscarriages in women who are known to be at risk.

Meet The Doctors Saving Babies Via Abortion Pill Reversal Treatment

Pro-abortion researcher Mitchell Creinin initiated a study on the effectiveness of ‘abortion pill reversal’, and while this study is often cited as showing APR is unsafe, the results of the study actually showed the opposite. In reality, while three women in Creinin’s tiny sample size were hospitalized, “only one of the three hospitalized women who hemorrhaged had received progesterone (‘reversal’ treatment), which does not have a known risk for hemorrhage. The other two received only the abortion pill, which does carry with it a known risk for hemorrhage,” noted a previous report by Live Action News.

“What we are offering women is a bioidentical hormone… safely given to women since the 1950s,” explained Christa Brown, BSN, RN. “It’s commonly given for other things like recurrent miscarriage or preterm labor. It’s a very common hormone given to women. And it’s not progestin, which is what is in hormonal birth control. This is a bioidentical type of progesterone. So, it’s very safe for the moms and it’s also safe for the babies….”

The Massachusetts DPH appears to be falling in line with other pro-abortion states and the attempts to shut down PRCs using a variety of tactics. DPH states, “Many of these centers advertise themselves as full-service reproductive health care clinics, yet they do not provide abortion care or abortion referrals, contraception, or other important reproductive health care services.”

DPH failed to mention the actual resources that PRCs do provide to women and families, including material goods like car seats, baby clothing, and other baby items. They can also help locate safe housing, assist with educational choices, provide parenting classes, and offer support that is specific to the mother. Not committing or referring for abortions does not negate the services PRCs do offer, because abortion is not “reproductive health care.” Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of human beings in the womb, which is never medically necessary.

As for complaints against PRCs, the evidence supporting this claim is lacking. Abortion advocates have been leaving fake reviews of PRCs online, with some attacking the centers themselves with graffiti and firebombs.

Correction, 1/10/24: This article originally misspelled the name of Christa Brown. We regret the error.

The DOJ put a pro-life grandmother in jail this Christmas for protesting the killing of preborn children. Please take 30-seconds to TELL CONGRESS: STOP THE DOJ FROM TARGETING PRO-LIFE AMERICANS.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) sent a memo to all licensed healthcare professionals last week, warning them against practicing “in violation of good and accepted care practice.” An example that DPH used as an unacceptable healthcare practice is ‘Abortion Pill Reversal’ (APR).

According to DPH, there are 30 PRCs in Massachusetts, four of which are licensed by the state as healthcare facilities. This licensing allows them to provide medical care while requiring that they follow certain requirements and meet certain standards. The memo claimed there has been an increase in complaints against PRCs in the state. Therefore the state wants to make sure these centers are “adhering to their designated scope of practice and operating transparently and free from deceptive practices.”

The memo warns that if a facility is not compliant with the rules, it could face prosecution from the Attorney General. If a facility has a license but is not properly staffed, it could have its license suspended or revoked along with those of the staff working there. It specifically mentions APR, calling it “unproven, unethical, and unsafe to provide to patients,” while citing so-called evidence from the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

But APR has not been shown to be unproven, unsafe, or unethical. APR is use of the hormone progesterone to offset the deadly, progesterone-blocking effects of the first drug of the abortion pill regimen — mifepristone. While mifepristone works to deprive the developing child of nutrients needed to sustain his or her life, progesterone is a naturally occurring pregnancy hormone that sustains the young baby’s life. Progesterone has been used for years to prevent early miscarriages in women who are known to be at risk.

Meet The Doctors Saving Babies Via Abortion Pill Reversal Treatment

Pro-abortion researcher Mitchell Creinin initiated a study on the effectiveness of ‘abortion pill reversal’, and while this study is often cited as showing APR is unsafe, the results of the study actually showed the opposite. In reality, while three women in Creinin’s tiny sample size were hospitalized, “only one of the three hospitalized women who hemorrhaged had received progesterone (‘reversal’ treatment), which does not have a known risk for hemorrhage. The other two received only the abortion pill, which does carry with it a known risk for hemorrhage,” noted a previous report by Live Action News.

“What we are offering women is a bioidentical hormone… safely given to women since the 1950s,” explained Christa Brown, BSN, RN. “It’s commonly given for other things like recurrent miscarriage or preterm labor. It’s a very common hormone given to women. And it’s not progestin, which is what is in hormonal birth control. This is a bioidentical type of progesterone. So, it’s very safe for the moms and it’s also safe for the babies….”

The Massachusetts DPH appears to be falling in line with other pro-abortion states and the attempts to shut down PRCs using a variety of tactics. DPH states, “Many of these centers advertise themselves as full-service reproductive health care clinics, yet they do not provide abortion care or abortion referrals, contraception, or other important reproductive health care services.”

DPH failed to mention the actual resources that PRCs do provide to women and families, including material goods like car seats, baby clothing, and other baby items. They can also help locate safe housing, assist with educational choices, provide parenting classes, and offer support that is specific to the mother. Not committing or referring for abortions does not negate the services PRCs do offer, because abortion is not “reproductive health care.” Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of human beings in the womb, which is never medically necessary.

As for complaints against PRCs, the evidence supporting this claim is lacking. Abortion advocates have been leaving fake reviews of PRCs online, with some attacking the centers themselves with graffiti and firebombs.

Correction, 1/10/24: This article originally misspelled the name of Christa Brown. We regret the error.

The DOJ put a pro-life grandmother in jail this Christmas for protesting the killing of preborn children. Please take 30-seconds to TELL CONGRESS: STOP THE DOJ FROM TARGETING PRO-LIFE AMERICANS.