{"id":215797,"date":"2019-12-23T12:44:14","date_gmt":"2019-12-23T18:44:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=215797"},"modified":"2024-09-20T16:03:40","modified_gmt":"2024-09-20T21:03:40","slug":"obgyn-debunks-study-defends-abortion-pill-reversal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/obgyn-debunks-study-defends-abortion-pill-reversal\/","title":{"rendered":"OB-GYN debunks pro-abortion study and media cover-up, defends abortion pill reversal"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

(Pregnancy Help News<\/a>)\u00a0Earlier this year, a pro-abortion researcher out of California announced plans to study a protocol designed to help women reverse their in-progress chemical abortions and save their babies\u2019 lives.<\/p>\n

In recent weeks, headlines blared the study\u2019s supposed findings, implying utter danger and harm caused by the Abortion Pill Reversal<\/a> protocol, while by-passing the established negative effects of the abortion pill itself.<\/p>\n

Last Friday, a pro-life OB-GYN out of Missouri decided she\u2019d had enough, taking to Facebook to debunk the study and expose the lies of those behind it, who she regards as colluding to protect the \u201cfamily planning\u201d industry.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Family Planning Cartel feeds their friends in the media to work on discrediting Abortion Pill Reversal when the only thing discredited is the Abortion Pill itself,\u201d Dr. Poppy Daniels wrote on Facebook<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In a string of posts on Friday, Daniels dissected the study\u2019s intent and resulting fallout, noting the biases of Mitchell Creinin<\/a>, the pro-abortion researcher behind the study, and the American College of OB-GYNS (ACOG), which published the study.<\/p>\n

Additionally, as Daniels was dressing-down the biased study, a woman who has experienced the chemical abortion pill\u2019s harmful side-effects happened upon her Facebook posts and affirmed<\/a> the veracity of the OB-GYN\u2019s comments.<\/p>\n

Daniels summed up the reality that the actual danger posed to women isn\u2019t abortion pill reversal, but the chemical abortion pill, mifepristone:<\/p>\n

This doctor intended to study 40 women. They were going to give women who took the first abortion pill and then given them either progesterone or a placebo. If the baby survived, they would be offered a surgical abortion two weeks later. They only enrolled 12 patients, 2 dropped out. 5 received progesterone [the abortion pill reversal treatment] and 5 received placebo. One patient who took progesterone went to the ER but needed no intervention. 4 had continuing pregnancies. 2 patients who took placebo went to the ER, one had a D&C and one required blood. 2 patients had confusing pregnancy. <\/em><\/p>\n

So let\u2019s recap! This is an insanely small sample size & wouldn\u2019t have been published by most except the most ideological journal. Those who took the abortion pill had significant bleeding! That points to the riskiness of the abortion pill! But that\u2019s not what the headlines said.<\/em><\/p>\n

One headline she pointed to came from VICE: \u201cThe First Study on ‘Abortion Reversal’ Landed Three Women in the ER<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another came from NPR: \u201cSafety Problems Lead To Early End For Study Of ‘Abortion Pill Reversal.<\/a>‘\u201d<\/p>\n

VICE implies that the reversal protocol is what \u201clanded three women in the ER.\u201d NPR\u2019s headline implies that the reversal protocol was responsible for the \u201csafety problems.\u201d<\/p>\n

Neither suggests that the real danger was the chemical abortion pill itself.<\/p>\n