{"id":205689,"date":"2019-07-06T10:34:26","date_gmt":"2019-07-06T15:34:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=205689"},"modified":"2022-04-21T07:11:47","modified_gmt":"2022-04-21T12:11:47","slug":"clinical-trial-abortion-pill-menstrual-regulations-pregnancies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/clinical-trial-abortion-pill-menstrual-regulations-pregnancies\/","title":{"rendered":"So they don’t have to call it abortion: Clinical trial uses abortion pill to do ‘menstrual regulations’ without confirmed pregnancies"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

In a new effort to expand the use of the abortion pill, a clinical trial will give women the abortion pill before they even have confirmed pregnancies. The so-dubbed “menstrual regulation (MR)<\/a>” (or “menstrual extraction”)\u00a0concept<\/a>\u00a0is not new; it has been around<\/a> for decades since first promoted by\u00a0Carol Downer<\/a>, founder of the Feminist Women’s Health Centers. In 1972, Time Magazine described<\/a>\u00a0MR as a method “to terminate suspected pregnancies before conception has been confirmed,” because then, according to Time, “an abortion in fact is not an abortion officially.” The first menstrual regulation conference<\/a> was held in 1973.<\/p>\n

A footnote<\/a> in a Guttmacher publication from the 1990’s makes it clear that “An abortion was defined as ‘any procedure, including menstrual extraction and menstrual regulation, intended to terminate a pregnancy,'” adding, “Some physicians use ‘menstrual extraction’ as a euphemism for early abortion.”<\/p>\n

While on one hand, abortion advocates want women to “shout” their abortions, on the other, they hush it up by using euphemisms like “menstrual regulation” or “extraction,” and seem to want to avoid the idea of “abortion” altogether. The more things change, the more they stay the same….<\/p>\n

\"Image:

Menstrual Regulation developed by Harvey Karman in 1970s<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

While original MR methods utilized a Harvey Karman cannula and a disposable flexible tube similar to\u00a0manual uterine aspiration<\/a>\u00a0previously described<\/a> at Live Action News, MR has gone through some changes.\u00a0Self-managed abortion activists Francine Coeytaux and Victoria Nichols — who created the website\u00a0PlanC<\/a>\u00a0to push dangerous home abortions — proposed MR using “pills” in a 2017 op-ed<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The history of menstrual regulation… began in California in 1971, when a group of self-help feminists developed a technique that allowed women to safely suction out menstrual blood and tissue. Referring to it as ME (menstrual extraction), these early self-helpers advocated that women join self-help groups and practice extracting each others\u2019 menses around the time of their expected periods…<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\"Image:

Menstrual Regulation quickie abortion<\/p><\/div><\/blockquote>\n

The article goes on to describe how “menstrual regulation” [using a vacuum aspirator to empty the uterus] has been tested<\/a> in foreign countries such as Bangladesh<\/a>\u00a0where it was “[i]ntroduced in 1971 and defined as ‘the evacuation of the uterus of a woman at risk of being pregnant to ensure a state of nonpregnancy…'” The writers then laid out the case for several options in light of U.S. abortion restrictions:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Plan A (contraception)<\/li>\n
  • Plan B (the morning-after pill)<\/li>\n
  • Plan C (misoprostol to bring down a missed period), and<\/li>\n
  • Access to safe abortion<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    They noted, “Finally, using misoprostol as a plan C would have the benefit of not having to label the process ‘an abortion.’<\/strong> If a woman were to use misoprostol as a plan C, she would have the option to take the drug prior to even taking a pregnancy test. She would be taking precautions and could take the pill for menstrual regulation purposes. Not having knowledge of her pregnancy status could free her from guilt or self-stigmatization that she might otherwise face<\/strong>.”<\/p>\n

    Despite the hype that MR is not an abortion, global pro-abortion organizations like IPAS openly acknowledge that it is:<\/p>\n

    \"Image:

    IPAS refers to Menstrual Regulation as an abortion (Image: Twitter)<\/p><\/div>\n

    Medical Menstrual Regulation (MMR)<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Today’s Gynuity Health Projects-sponsored clinical trial<\/a>\u00a0method is called “Medical menstrual regulation (MMR)” and is set up to dispense the abortion pill regimen (Misoprostol\u00a0and Mifepristone) to women who report a late period without determining pregnancy first. The newly dubbed method is described by Gynuity as:<\/p>\n

    … the use of uterine evacuation medications by women with late menses without confirming pregnancy status. Provision of MMR in the United States could expand reproductive choice and service options for women. This study will collect data on the acceptability, efficacy, safety and feasibility of MMR among women with missed menses of 1-3 weeks.<\/em><\/p>\n

    \"Image:

    Menstrual Regulation pushed by Gynuity on (Image: Twitter)<\/p><\/div>\n

    Gynuity<\/a>\u00a0has been\u00a0funded<\/a>\u00a0by organizations known for their support of abortion and population control<\/a>, including\u00a0funding<\/a>\u00a0from abortion pill manufacturer\u00a0DANCO<\/a>‘s original\u00a0investor<\/a>, the\u00a0David and Lucile Packard Foundation<\/a>\u00a0— leaving many to question whether the results of these clinical trials can be trusted.<\/p>\n

      \n
    • Packard\u00a0seeded<\/a>\u00a0DANCO with\u00a0millions of dollars<\/a>\u00a0as it transitioned from the\u00a0Population Council<\/a>\u00a0to DANCO Laboratories, LLC<\/a>.<\/li>\n
    • Packard\u2019s investment\u00a0included a\u00a0$14 million loan<\/a>\u00a0as early as 1996 to bring the drug to the U.S.<\/li>\n
    • Packard\u2019s\u00a0990s<\/a>\u00a0for\u00a02000,<\/a>\u00a02001<\/a>,\u00a02002<\/a>,\u00a02004,<\/a>\u00a02007<\/a>,\u00a02008<\/a>, and\u00a02009<\/a>\u00a0show ongoing support for DANCO<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      In addition, the Gynuity experiments will take place at Packard-funded<\/a> Carafem abortion facilities<\/a> in Illinois and Maryland where they will be monitored by Gynuity’s Principal Investigator: Wendy R Sheldon, PhD.<\/p>\n

      \"Image:

      Gynuity funded by population control organizations<\/p><\/div>\n

      Interestingly, Packard\u2019s money trail to Gynuity on their own website appears to have been mysteriously\u00a0scrubbed<\/a>, but remains online in a\u00a0cached<\/a>\u00a0version (images below):<\/p>\n

      \"Image:

      Gynuity Health funded by abortion pill investor Packard 2017 and 2018<\/p><\/div>\n

      Gynuity’s history with Packard and other abortion insiders runs deep:<\/p>\n

        \n
      • Founded by\u00a0Beverly Winikoff, M.D., M.P.H<\/a>, who was previously<\/a> employed at the\u00a0Population Council,<\/a>\u00a0which\u00a0brought<\/a>\u00a0the abortion pill into the U.S. and set up the pill\u2019s manufacturer,\u00a0DANCO<\/a>. She served on the board<\/a> of the National Abortion Federation.<\/li>\n
      • Gynuity’s Senior Clinical Adviser\u00a0Paul Blumenthal<\/a>\u00a0served as a member of the Board of Directors<\/a> of the National Abortion Federation (NAF)<\/a>.<\/li>\n
      • Worked to\u00a0expand abortion<\/a>, and it conducts<\/a> abortion pill\u00a0clinical trials,<\/a>\u00a0such as the effort to expand\u00a0TelAbortion<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

        Tragically, women have died<\/a> from this deadly abortion pill regimen. Women who experience medication abortion\u00a0are beginning to warn<\/a> others that it is not as simple and painless as it has been sold:<\/p>\n