Why do pro-abortionists come absolutely unhinged when the case is made that chemical abortions can be halted, provided the woman does not take the second of the two drugs that make up the chemical abortion regime (“RU-486” for short)?
Why must abortion reversal be (in their opinion) not just ineffective but dangerous?
These questions came to mind as I read, “Abortion ‘reversal’: the latest sham from anti-choice activists trying to end women’s rights,” written by Renee Bracey Sherman and Daniel Grossman and published Wednesday in the Guardian.
One obvious answer is money. The last Guttmacher Institute report concluded that for the year 2014, almost a third of the abortions performed (about 29.4% of the total) were chemical abortions (or, as Guttmacher likes to call them, “early medication abortions”). That was an increase of almost 14% in three years and no doubt the percentage is even higher now.
Even for the likes of the $1.3 billion Planned Parenthood, which bills itself as a “non-profit,” that is serious money.
Another answer is that it is an article of pro-abortion faith that anything that puts the slightest bump in the road leading to abortion must be “junk science.” It has to be or else women (and girls) might question whether abortion is good for anyone, their babies or themselves.
Which is why right out of the box Sherman and Grossman write, “For years, the anti-abortion movement has popularized the myth that patients regret their abortion, or are somehow coerced into having the procedure before they are ready.”
This is a “myth.” That unborn children by the 20th week will feel excruciating pain as they are torn apart is a “myth.” It’s a “myth” that parents have any useful contribution to make to their minor daughter’s abortion decision.
It’s a “myth” that the use of sharp instruments in the area of a woman’s reproductive organs the abortionist is associated with an increase in premature and very premature births.
It’s a “myth” that there is a clear association between having an induced abortion and increasing the risk for breast cancer, although the biological basis for that conclusion is obvious.
And so on and so on.
Pro-abortionists must deny that there are any negative aftershocks–physical, psychological, or emotional–from abortion. To admit even one is to concede that killing your unborn child may not be the trouble-free “solution” the Abortion Industry advertises it to be.
And that could spell serious trouble.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.