Tens of millions of women in the United States are hooked on the abortion drug mifepristone.
It is being sold to them as a fundamental need — they can’t imagine life without it. It is the country’s most-used method of abortion. Medication abortion now accounts for more than half of all U.S. abortions.
The abortion drug peddlers and many Chinese manufacturers have made millions. Successfully marketed as “reproductive health care,” it is in fact a de-productive contaminant unfit for human consumption. A synthetic steroid, it was developed specifically to cause pregnant mothers’ healthy reproductive systems to malfunction.
Are unborn children not patients too?
In early pregnancy, the endometrium, or uterine lining, is essential to provide nutrients to the developing human embryo. The hormone progesterone plays a vital role in inducing the endometrium to develop into the decidua, capable of supporting and nourishing a tiny human being. By blocking the action of progesterone, mifepristone causes the decidua to break down.
Thus, mifepristone sabotages the natural supply of nutrients necessary for the health and well-being of a little daughter or son in her or his mother’s womb. It starves to death these littlest human beings.
Yet Dr. Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, claimed in January that “restricting access to mifepristone interferes with the ability of obstetricians-gynecologists and other physicians to provide the highest quality evidence-based care for their patients.”
But what about their smaller patients being targeted by mifepristone? Surely it is physicians’ access to mifepristone itself that interferes with the ability of their smallest patients to live?
Is a lethal dose of mifepristone that wrecks the natural living quarters of their second patient really the best these physicians can do? Is the deadly mischief of mifepristone the highest quality evidence-based care they can give to the smaller patient in an unwanted pregnancy?
Should mifepristone be banned?
Yes: 100% (1 Votes)
No: 0% (0 Votes)
Little wonder that a Texas lawsuit (to be decided soon) is right now questioning the legitimacy of the Food and Drug Administration’s approval, 22 years ago, of mifepristone. The FDA has warned of its rare but deadly infection risks. Dangerous adverse effects are daunting and not easily recognized by someone without medical training.
A New York Times article back in 2004 exposed some of the dangers: excessive bleeding, the masking of symptoms of ectopic pregnancy or of cardiac problems, including myocardial infarction, and additional risks for girls under 18 years of age.
Twice rejected by the FDA
Looking back, we find that the FDA turned down mifepristone’s application twice before approving it.
The big question is why. What original concerns did the FDA have about the drug’s safety? What pressures were exerted on the FDA to drop those concerns?
One thing we do know: An awesome amount of money has been made by the drug companies peddling mifepristone.
Originally, the FDA endorsed its use only when subject to a “risk evaluation and mitigation strategy,” a drug safety program that is supposed to make sure the benefits of a medication outweigh its risks.
Recent FDA decisions reversing these risk management protocols are now making the pills available via telemedicine, mail delivery and pharmacy pick-up.
This rash elimination of the few safeguards initially established by the FDA to protect women and girls who go through the abortion drug regimen is inconsistent with the FDA’s black box warning. FDA’s elimination in 2016 of requirements for prescribers to report non-fatal adverse events from chemical abortion contrives to hide the true extent of harm being done.
The Texas lawsuit, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is challenging the FDA’s irresponsible abandonment of risk strategy measures.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of four medical organizations and four doctors who have treated patients who had taken the drug and found the risks greater than they were given to understand. They provide “growing and substantial evidence” documenting the dangers of abortion drugs. It’s high time that this disturbing evidence is made available to the public.
The attorneys general of 23 states have provided a brief to confirm that the FDA’s handling of mifepristone has been “deeply flawed.”
Remember when expert studies once claimed smoking was safe?
Legal experts say this court case challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone has no obvious precedent, and they might be right. On the other hand, we can think back to a very obvious precedent in which it was stubbornly maintained for decades that cigarettes were not harmful.
Many of us can remember when pseudo-scientific research papers sponsored by the tobacco industry denied the hazards of smoking. Like the powerful pharmaceutical companies today, the big tobacco companies lobbied and fought against the truth coming out. Serious research was countered with deceitfully reassuring studies sponsored by their own experts.
Similarly, it is now falsely maintained that mifepristone is doing no harm to anyone. Not only are the risks to the health of the pregnant mother glossed over, but the lethal harm to her unborn child is ignored completely.
The pretense that no unborn child is hurt by this drug
The FDA goes on pretending that there is no unborn child in a pregnancy. Yet federal law says there is:
“The term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb” (18 U.S. Code § 1841).
If the unborn child is unwanted, are we all to pretend that there is no child in the pregnancy?
Unwantedness, it seems, is the identifying characteristic that allegedly justifies the administration of a deadly substance to a growing little daughter or son.
A chemical pesticide for unwanted human beings
Ultimately, the use of this drug amounts to treating unwanted human beings in their mothers’ wombs as pests to be severed from their supply of nutrients with a chemical pesticide.
Its approval by the FDA for the extermination of tens of millions of our smallest human beings was never morally licit. It was marketed and sold as “reproductive health care.” But that was always a lie.
For any little one in her or his mother’s womb, mifepristone is destructive, not reproductive — it is deadly treatment, never benign health care.
With this disruptive medication, a new human being already vibrantly alive and prospering in her or his mother’s womb is disconnected from the life-sustaining natural care provided therein.
The truth is this toxic drug, mifepristone, should never have been approved.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
