For anyone having trouble getting the pills they need for an abortion, this should help. by lindaprine in prochoice

[–]chestertonfan  locked comment 

"Medical termination" means chemical abortion (mifepristone+prostaglandin), so "medical termination is associated with a higher incidence of adverse events" means that, even in a clinical setting, mifepristone+prostaglandin abortions are riskier than surgical abortions.

Advertising those drugs for use in do-it-yourself abortions is like advertising coat hangers with instructions for do-it-yourself surgical abortions. Even if you don't think abortions are wrong (I do), promoting do-it-yourself abortions is incredibly irresponsible and dangerous. It is going to end up killing women.

For anyone having trouble getting the pills they need for an abortion, this should help. by lindaprine in prochoice

[–]chestertonfan   

Seriously, do-it-yourself abortion is insanely dangerous, not just for the baby, but for the mother, too.

For anyone having trouble getting the pills they need for an abortion, this should help. by lindaprine in prochoice

[–]chestertonfan   

That is dangerous! This large study reports a 20% adverse event rate from chemical (mifepristone+prostaglandin) abortions:

www {dot} ncbi {dot} nlm {dot} nih {dot} gov/pubmed/19888037

Imagine posting this unironically by Yaroslavorino in prochoice

[–]chestertonfan   

...all three of which cite the peer-reviewed literature.


Imagine posting this unironically by Yaroslavorino in prochoice

[–]chestertonfan   

He's right. Regardless of your opinion about abortion, the best scientific evidence is that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful. See:

● https://co2coalition.org/2020/01/24/peer-reviewed-study-recent-data-on-plant-growth-shows-a-net-benefit-not-a-social-cost-of-carbon-dioxide-emissions/

● https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html

● https://

www.quora.com/Did-30-000-scientists-declare-that-climate-change-is-a-hoax/answer/Dave-Burton-2/

A new study of unproven ‘abortion reversal’ treatments discovered they were so dangerous that the trial had to be stopped almost immediately. Despite this, some states are forcing women’s healthcare providers to offer it. by Prokinsey in prochoice

[–]chestertonfan   

You're right that the study was too small for its results to be taken as definitive.

But you're wrong about everything else. The abortion reversal was successful, in this tiny study, 80% of the time. Clearly, the abortion reversal procedure does work, it has the potential to save many lives, and it is unethical to fail to offer mothers that option.

The reason the study was halted was not due to adverse events among the patients who got the progesterone treatment to reverse the abortion. Their adverse event rate was no higher than that of patients who get prostaglandin to complete the abortion.

The problem was that this study's "placebo" group, consisting of mothers who got only mifepristone, had an especially high rate of adverse events.

In the "real world," such cases are probably uncommon, though it would be very useful to have some statistics about that. If a mother takes mifepristone to begin the abortion, she will usually also take the prostaglandin to complete it, or sometimes she'll take progesterone to reverse it. Clearly, skipping the prostaglandin but then also failing to take the progesterone is not a good idea.

Do you have access to any statistics about the percentage of women who take mifepristone to begin a chemical abortion, but then fail to take either prostaglandin or progesterone? That is the group who are at especially high risk.

Well, and the babies, of course.


A new study of unproven ‘abortion reversal’ treatments discovered they were so dangerous that the trial had to be stopped almost immediately. Despite this, some states are forcing women’s healthcare providers to offer it. by Prokinsey in prochoice

[–]chestertonfan   

The headline is misleading. The abortion reversal treatment was not associated with a high rate of complications. The complications were associated with administration of mifepristone (the "abortion drug"), not with progesterone.

Of five patients who received progesterone to reverse the effects of mifepristone, four of the mothers did not experience serious complications, and all four of their unborn babies still had a heartbeat two weeks later, indicating that the abortion had been successfully reversed.

Only one patient who received progesterone experienced severe bleeding, when her baby was stillborn.

The 80% success rate of the abortion reversal procedure in this tiny study was slightly better than typical success rates reported by pro-life ob-gyns (68%):
https://aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-AAPLOG-Statement-on-Abortion-Pill-Reversal.pdf

The 20% adverse event rate is identical to the adverse event rate during completed chemical abortions, reported in this large study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19888037

Only the "placebo" group in this study had an unexpectedly high rate of adverse events, i.e., those patients who got mifepristone, but did not receive either progesterone (to reverse the abortion) or prostaglandin (to complete the abortion). The adverse event rate for the patients who received the abortion reversal treatment was no higher than is expected from completed chemical abortions.