Time Magazine’s Bias: Abortion Drug Isn’t Necessarily Safe After All

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Aug 19, 2007   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Time Magazine’s Bias: Abortion Drug Isn’t Necessarily Safe After All Email this article
Printer friendly page

by Kristen Fyfe
August 19, 2007

LifeNews.com Note: Kristen Fyfe is the senior writer for the Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute.

The TIME headline is ironic: “Study Finds Abortion Pill Safe.” Safe for whom exactly? Certainly not for the millions of pre-born children who have died when their mothers took it. Nor is it “safe” for their mothers.

The August 15 article by Sara Song (and the story run by AP on August 16) touts the findings released in the New England Journal of Medicine that show use of the RU-486 abortion pill “in the long term, is safe.”

That’s a message the feminist influenced, pro-choice media want to promote. In her article Song wrote “women who use mifepristone (RU 486) are no better or worse off than those who choose surgical abortion” and that “most existing research shows that surgical abortions have no effect on overall health risks.”

That statement is flatly false. As reported in LifeNews.com, there is plenty of research that shows that women with a “history of abortion have a greater risk of fetal loss than women who had no previous abortions.” Further, there is medical evidence that links abortions to breast cancer and sterility.

But reporting facts like that doesn’t fit the mainstream media’s pro-choice agenda.

According to National Right to Life (NRLC), “There are several serious well documented side effects associated with RU 486/prostaglandin abortions, including prolonged (up to 44 days) and severe bleeding, nausea, vomiting, pain, and even death. At least one woman in France died while others there suffered life-threatening heart attacks from the technique.”

While the TIME article does mention six deaths associated with the RU-486 abortion method, it chalks these up to infection, not necessarily connected with the baby-killing drug.

And neither the TIME article, nor this new study, addresses the psychological damage that abortion can do.

The NRLC reports that, “Researchers on the aftereffects of abortion have identified a pattern of psychological problems known as Post-Abortion Syndrome. Women suffering from PAS may experience drug and alcohol abuse, personal relationship disorders, sexual dysfunction, repeated abortions, communications difficulties, damaged self-esteem, and even attempt suicide. Post-Abortion Syndrome appears to be a type of pattern of denial which may last for five to ten years before emotional difficulties surface.

“The emergence of chemical abortion methods poses a new possibly more devastating psychological threat. Unlike surgical abortions, in which women rarely see the cut up body parts, women having chemical abortions often do see the complete tiny bodies of their unborn children and are even able to distinguish the child’s developing hands, eyes, etc. So traumatic is this for some women that both patients and researchers involved in these studies have recommended that women unprepared for the experience of seeing their aborted children not take the drugs.”

"Webster’s Dictionary" defines "safe” as, “free from damage, danger, etc.; having escaped injury.” Can any form of abortion, surgical or via pill, meet this standard? Certainly not for the baby who is killed in the process. And not for the mother. But the MSM won’t report that.