Legislative Action

ALERT - HB 40 (State funding of abortions) on the way to the Governor!

HB 40 - State Abortion Insurance / Public Aid Act -  ACTION ALERT Status: Passed the House and Senate, now goes to the Governor Sum...

March 30, 2016

FDA expansion of abortion pill use still does not necessarily mean chemical abortion is safer

Many suspected that today’s announcement by the FDA was a long time coming. Despite a record of at least 14 known deaths, and thousands of women suffering significant adverse events, the FDA relaxed safety standards and modified the protocol for mifepristone/misoprostol chemical abortions that had been in place since September of 2000.

The FDA, responding to a request by the U.S. distributor of the drug, has modified dosages, changed the administration, reduced the number of visits, expanded the prescriber pool, and extended the time frame where the drugs may be used. Though applauded by the abortion industry, the documentation demonstrating the impact on women’s safety has not been made publicly available.

Certainly, none of the modifications is of any benefit to the unborn child.

For women, the mifepristone/misoprostol combination comes with significant cramping, bleeding, and other gastrointestinal side effects (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea) that are expected parts of the chemical abortion process.

While it may be claimed that these side effects are supposed to be reduced with the new protocol, chemical abortions simply do not occur without significant bleeding, cramping, etc. That these side effects are similar to signs of ruptured ectopic pregnancy, serious infection, or may be the prelude to significant hemorrhage that could be missed by patients or even doctors expecting these as part of any chemical abortion would still appear to be a problem under any protocol.

In the end, it is obvious that the FDA’s new protocol serves only the interests of the abortion industry by expanding their base of potential customers, increasing their profit margin, and reducing the level of staff and amount of resources they have to devote to the patient.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.