Commentary

It’s Time to Hear from Women on the Abortion Pill Reversal

Jay Hobbs
By Jay Hobbs | February 7, 2018 | 4:15 PM EST

(Screenshot)

For all its fuss and bluster about the need to “Believe Women,” the Left—and in particular, its fervently pro-abortion core—sure is bad at believing women.

Case in point, over 400 women say they’ve rescued their children from abortion after having taken the first of two pills in a chemical abortion—euphemistically called “the abortion pill” or RU-486.

Each woman says she changed her mind after taking the first pill and rescued her baby through a life-saving treatment known as abortion pill reversal (APR).

Yet, despite the first-hand testimony of these women, abortion activists insist that APR is a scam, cut from whole cloth to advance a pro-life political or religious agenda.

In their blind opposition to APR, abortion cheerleaders—who once pretended the high ground on “choice”—are robbing actual women of the very real choice to stop their own abortions and rescue their children instead.

Meanwhile, abortion supremacists are treating mothers who’ve saved their babies through APR as if they don’t exist, or worse—as though they’re lying about their own stories and children in order to push a treatment they know to be a farce.

Same goes for the Left’s loyal army of junk journalists, who are working overtime to keep abortion-survivors unseen and unheard, rather than run the risk of the truth sneaking out into the open.

Believe Women? Okay, Let’s.

What to do, then, with 400-plus troublesome women like Rebekah BuellShanelle FelderAmy Mendoza and Cynthia Galvan—let alone their precious children?

Rather than obediently accepting the fate of her unborn son after she took the first pill of the chemical abortion regimen back in 2013, Buell rescued her son’s life through the 24-7 Abortion Pill Reversal hotline.

An employee at Planned Parenthood allegedly told Buell her baby would suffer deformities, complications or worse if she chose to stop her abortion once it was started, but Rebekah eventually welcomed a perfectly healthy baby boy she named Zechariah—“The Lord has remembered.”

Shanelle was reportedly fed a similar line at a Planned Parenthood in Denver, where she buckled under pressure from the abortionist and took the first pill. “I had no chance to plead with him,” she said.

Thankfully, a friend connected Shanelle to the APR network, and she found a local doctor who gave her an emergency dose of progesterone to save her child’s life that night.

In the days that followed, Shanelle visited Alternatives Pregnancy Center, where she was able to see her baby, Lillian, with a free ultrasound.

“Upon seeing her daughter’s heartbeat on the ultrasound screen, Shanelle recalls the sensation of ‘knowing what love is,’ and the ‘euphoria of knowing that my child is still alive,’” reads an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. “Although she was still anxious, it was ‘amazing to see this baby that still survived.’”

Amy Mendoza had read stories like Rebecca’s and Shanelle’s on social media by the time she resorted to abortion in late 2015. The moment she took the first pill at Planned Parenthood, Amy realized she’d made a mistake and started looking for options to rescue her son, Cruz.

“I heard the baby’s heartbeat,” Amy said. “I always say, ‘Live life without regret,’ and at very moment, I felt that very regret come full throttle. Every time I look at him, I’m just so thankful.”

Like Rebekah, Shanelle and Amy, Cynthia—one of the first women to reach out to APR and its founder, Dr. George Delgado—was reportedly told by Planned Parenthood staff it was too late to change her mind after she’d taken the first pill in the chemical abortion regimen.

Instead, Cynthia’s son, Christian, will turn 8 later this year.

These are just four snapshots of women who have chosen life after starting a chemical abortion. Are they not newsworthy? Are they not compelling enough stories to tell?

Why aren’t these women worthy of belief?

 

Blackout Beyond Belief

Recent coverage at Politico is a perfect example of the media’s cowardice when it comes to actually dealing with the swelling tide of APR stories—let alone believing the women who are telling them.

Cheering on one abortion company’s billboard campaign targeting APR, Politico’s Victoria Colliver spends a dozen paragraphs prattling on about APR’s “unproven” and “dangerous” nature without ever stopping to mention that APR is just a new use of an FDA-approved medical treatment around since the 1950s.

And forget about hearing from women who’ve saved their babies through APR. They just don’t exist, apparently. The only time Colliver comes close to mentioning the women actually affected by APR is in the following quotation

“Advocates of abortion reversal, including Ohio-based Heartbeat International… point to firsthand accounts that they say show abortions can be stopped. ‘A woman who regrets starting a chemical abortion should get to change her mind and find help,’ said Jay Hobbs, spokesman for the group, using the anti-abortion movement's term for a nonsurgical or medical abortion. ‘What’s at stake here is a woman’s right to choose life for her child.’”

You’d think a person identifying as a journalist would be more interested in following up on “firsthand accounts” wouldn’t you? After all, that seems like the logical starting place if you’re looking for the truth—or at the very least, if you’re pretending to “Believe Women.”

No such luck at Politico, and it appears it’s no better anywhere else either.

In the same vein, VICE NewsSalon and others have helped make APR a new center of gravity in the larger debate, with VICE News’ Carter Sherman reporting breathlessly that officials in the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) have discussed APR internally over the past year.

Though Sherman is more than happy to point out that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) denounces APR as “unethical” and “unproven,” he conveniently leaves out the fact that ACOG straightforwardly endorses abortion as a positive good.

Tellingly, Sherman also leaves out key APR endorsements from pro-choice physicians—including Yale School of Medicine’s Harvey Kliman, who told The New York Times he would tell his own daughter to take the treatment. Representing over 350 doctors, the APR’s nationwide network goes completely unmentioned as a counter-weight to ACOG’s position.

More to the point, the piece makes just a passing reference to the first seven women who rescued their children through the treatment as of 2012—snubbing the vast majority of women who’ve turned to APR to rescue their children from abortion.

It’s long past time for journalists to get curious about APR. We know what the Left’s radicals have to say, and we know what those of us on the right have to say.

Now let’s hear from the women.

Jay Hobbs is director of communications and marketing for Heartbeat International, the world’s largest network of pro-life pregnancy help centers, and editor of PregnancyHelpNews.com.

DONATE


Please support CNSNews today! [a 501(c)(3) non-profit production of the Media Research Center]

DONATE

Or, book travel through MRC’s Travel Discounts Program! MRC receives a rebate for each booking when you use our special codes.

BOOK NOW