{"id":245331,"date":"2021-05-17T09:45:29","date_gmt":"2021-05-17T14:45:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=245331"},"modified":"2021-05-16T19:23:16","modified_gmt":"2021-05-17T00:23:16","slug":"abortion-pill-accessibility-cannot-negate-pro-life-arguments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-pill-accessibility-cannot-negate-pro-life-arguments\/","title":{"rendered":"The abortion pill’s accessibility cannot negate pro-lifers’ arguments against abortion"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

In a New York Times <\/span>op-ed<\/span><\/a>, Jessica Valenti tries hard to paint abortion as \u201cnormal,\u201d \u201ceasy,\u201d and \u201cconvenient\u201d now that the abortion pill is widely accessible by mail. The only argument she believes pro-lifers have against abortion is that it is a brutal, ugly procedure \u2014\u00a0and Valenti believes removing the FDA\u2019s REMS safety restrictions can only show how wrong pro-lifers are as time goes on. But Valenti, like most abortion advocates, misses pro-lifers’ real problem with abortion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Reporting abortion complications<\/strong><\/p>\n

Valenti celebrates the <\/span>FDA\u2019s recent policy change<\/span><\/a> permitting the abortion pill by mail during the pandemic as \u201ca huge blow to the anti abortion movement.\u201d She claims that arguments against abandoning the FDA\u2019s <\/span>REMS<\/span><\/a> procedures, which pro-lifers <\/span>contend protected women<\/span><\/a>, \u201cwill soon arm pro-choice organizations with more studies reiterating the safety of medication abortion and show how shipping pills poses no risk to patients.\u201d Valenti further claims that allowing abortion pills by mail \u201cwill also make it that much more difficult for opponents to make specious arguments about unsafe practices.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

But will it?<\/span><\/p>\n

Valenti and most abortion advocates overlook the fact that most complications arising from the abortion pill aren\u2019t handled by abortion providers, <\/span>but by hospital emergency departments<\/span><\/a>, which raises serious concerns for reporting actual numbers of complications. According to a <\/span>2021 study<\/span><\/a>, \u201cthe surgical management of over half the complications was performed by someone other than the abortion provider, yet treating physicians are not required to report complications.\u201d Because of this, the study posits that abortion complications are very likely underreported because abortion providers rely on patients to report any adverse events at follow-up visits, but follow-up visit rates are notoriously poor.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This underreporting<\/a> isn’t just happening in the U.S., but in the U.K. as well, where two women and a 28-week preborn baby died<\/a> just last year after the U.K. approved at-home abortions by mail.<\/p>\n

A recent report<\/a> from Right to Life UK noted that\u00a0Kevin Duffy<\/a>, once the Global Director of Clinics Development at MSI Reproductive Choices (formerly Marie Stopes International), one of the largest abortion providers in the world, has presented evidence from the NHS showing that complication rates from the abortion pill are actually five times greater than what is being reported by the\u00a0Department for Health and Social Care for England and Wales. According to Right to Life UK, “Further analysis of the data shows<\/a> that ‘every month, 495 women attended hospital with complications arising from retained products of conception (RPOC) after a medical abortion. Every month, 250 women after using the abortion pills, required hospital treatment to surgically remove retained products of conception (ERPC)’.”<\/p>\n

A survey<\/a> of UK physicians showed that the vast majority of physicians had concerns about women obtaining the abortion pill by mail, with 86% concerned about coercion, 86% concerned it would be taken past the 10-week gestational limit, and 92% concerned about fraud being used to obtain abortion pills by mail. So while Valenti may feel the abortion pill by mail is something to celebrate, physicians don’t seem to share her enthusiasm.<\/p>\n

Abortion ‘safety’<\/b><\/p>\n

But another direction Valenti\u2019s argument takes, addressing the \u201cmyth\u201d that she says pro-lifers can no longer use, is that the abortion pill is so safe and so easy to obtain and normalized that it should make pro-lifers\u2019 claim that \u201cending a pregnancy is terrifying and gruesome\u201d seem false on its face. The more access to the pill \u2014 which she compares to ibuprofen \u2014 the more hypocritical pro-lifers will seem as women have abortions and get on with their daily lives without the sky falling. Pro-lifers\u2019 argument that \u201cabortion is brutal and dangerous\u201d will fail to convince, she claims.<\/span><\/p>\n

For a moment, let\u2019s imagine that Valenti\u2019s premise is true, that early access to abortion makes it safer, especially compared to <\/span>late-term abortion<\/span><\/a>. This may be true from one perspective \u2014\u00a0that is, for a mother it has fewer risks. However, that does not change the fact that the very nature of abortion \u2014 whether at <\/span>five weeks<\/span><\/a> or <\/span>25 weeks<\/span><\/a> \u2014 is taking the life of a unique preborn baby, a genetically distinct human being, for whom the procedure is fatal.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n