Op-ed: Opposition to abortion pill reversal proves that activists want abortion, NOT reproductive "justice"


First, anti-Life Democrats blocked a measure that would help victims of sex trafficking because the bill did not include free abortion access to victims – in other words: abortion, or nothing.  Sorry, sex slaves. 

Now pundits are at their vicious game once again, this time in Arizona, where the legislature passed a measure to enhance informed consent before an abortion by apprising women of abortion pill reversal resources to avail should they change their minds after beginning the process of a chemical abortion.

At this point, we must examine the self-awarded label of abortion activists: they claim to be advocates for reproductive justice.  The premises of this advocacy are: women choose when and whether (if Life has already begun in utero) to parent on their own terms; women should not be “forced” to give birth to so-called unwanted children; and humans are not equal – the rights of mothers always trump those of the children they carry.  (This last premise has led to abortion advocates to accuse Pro-Lifers of the reverse dichotomy – that we always put children ahead of mothers – when, in reality, the idea of a hierarchy of human dignity is fundamentally at-odds with our worldview.)

Now, following the premises of reproductive justice, certain criteria logically follow.  For example, in order for women to choose parenthood on their own terms, they must have access to Life-ending resources if they want to discontinue a pregnancy that has already begun.  Are they not, then, also bound to grant that women must  have access to Life-saving treatments if and when they decide that the child is wanted?  After all, wantedness and choice are two of the strongest words in the abortion game.  To be logically consistent, advocates are obligated to acknowledge that women who have the final say over the fate of their children must have resources in case they change their opinion about the child.  Anything else would be logically inconsistent with their own premises.

However, logical consistency is the concern farthest from the minds of abortion advocates.  In actual fact – in spite of vociferous insistence that reproductive justice is their aim – abortion no matter what is the pursuit du jour of the anti-Life community.  And nothing more clearly illustrated that fact last week than the outbreak of utter pandemonium over the measure that gives Arizona abortion advocates everything they claim to cherish. 

The opportunity to reverse an abortion gives women more choice.  The abortion reversal gives women more freedom to determine their own destinies and empowers women to decide their child’s fate – again.  But the true colors of reproductive justice break out in every inglorious shade when the promise of dead children is shaken.  Figuratively, the abortion movement is a living organism whose hunger is only sated by a steady and uninterrupted stream of child sacrifices.  And members of the movement are ever-ready to deliver.

Anti-Life response to the ruling has, unsurprisingly, been a slew of inaccurate or just plain false information regarding the efficacy of abortion pill reversal.  In hearings for the bill, a member of the notoriously pro-abortion American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), Dr. Ilana Addis (who is a former Planned Parenthood Arizona board member) spewed the baseless statistic that abortion pill reversal process is a placebo because mifepristone (the first drug in the two-part chemical abortion process) has a failure rate of “50%,” anyway.  She said: “There’s a chance that without doing anything, it will fail up to 50% of the time and the pregnancy will go on to be a normal, full term pregnancy. I would say that the current procedure is working as well as a placebo.”

This statement stands in stark opposition to findings by the godfather of mifepristone, Dr. Etienne-Emile Baulieu, who studied the effectiveness of mifepristone used alone (as opposed to the American chemical abortion process which involves mifepristone ingestion to kill the child, and then misoprostol to ensure the he or she is expelled from the mother’s body).  Baulieu found that in 7%-40% of cases wherein a pregnant mother ingested mifepristone, her pregnancy would continue (aka, the drug failed to kill the baby).  This statistic is dramatically different from the 50% cited by ACOG – and even more at-odds with the 56% success rate Dr. George Delgado notes has been achieved by physicians who have reversed the effects of mifepristone on peri-abortive mothers.

Perhaps the bottom line for abortion advocates is this: if mothers change their minds about abortion in the midst of the actual process of slowly killing their children, then the choice is affecting consciences, and may therefore be wrong.  The inconvenience of abortion being wrong is simply too much to bear for a movement that subsists on the belief that the opposite is true. 


Comments are closed.