Women hoarding abortion pills are putting their health at risk
Women “Stocking Up” on Abortion Pills Amid Looming Restrictions
The Dallas Morning News recently reported that women in the United States are ”stocking up” on abortion pills out of fear these drugs will become hard to source due to looming restrictions.
Indeed, the Supreme Court will be ruling later this year on an appeal by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals limiting access by mail to mifepristone. The appellate court overturned a portion of the lower court ruling rescinding the Federal Drug Administration’s long-standing approval of mifepristone. It left intact the ability for women to acquire the drug by mail until a SCOTUS ruling. Also left intact, however, were some restrictions, including the provision that mifepristone only be administered in the presence of a physician and only through the seventh week of pregnancy rather than the 10th.
In all of this, pro-abortion activists and the medical community at large have minimized the inherent risks of a pregnant woman ingesting, unsupervised, the abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. These risks are real. But they are, at this time, ignored, even by this country’s supposedly primary women’s medical support group, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
In the not-too-distant past, an obstetrician would be considered negligent if he or she did not weigh the well-known and well-documented risks associated with an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy or the Rh status of a patient at the time of a miscarriage or abortion.
So what has changed? Certainly not the inherent risks of these two complications.
Risk of Undiagnosed Ectopic Pregnancy
An ectopic pregnancy is one in which the fertilized egg implants and establishes itself outside the uterus, usually within the lining of the fallopian tube. The issue for the woman who takes the abortion pill without the supervision of a physician is that she might unknowingly have an ectopic pregnancy.
Even though this is fairly rare, I find it interesting that other conditions with a similar frequency of occurrence garner much more attention. Ovarian cancer is one such example. Ovarian cancer is a terrible disease, of course, but the incidence for both ovarian cancer and an ectopic pregnancy is about the same — approximately 1 in 80. Yet if any group advised complacency regarding a woman’s regular annual exams, it would be skewered by the media, and rightly so. One to 2 percent is rare but not rare enough to ignore a potentially serious risk and look the other way.
It is alarming the medical community is not telling women that ectopic pregnancy can lead to catastrophic hemorrhage. In 2021, in this country alone, there were 1,205 maternal deaths, up to 6 percent of which were the result of an extensive intra-abdominal hemorrhage caused by a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. That is about 72 deaths a year — nearly 1.5 per state.
Pro-life and pro-abortion debates aside, no woman should take abortion drugs without first being reassured she does not have an ectopic pregnancy. Suppose she obtains and takes mifepristone and misoprostol without evaluation or supervision, and she is the unfortunate 1 in 80 with an ectopic pregnancy. In that case, she runs a very real risk of hemorrhage. When OB-GYNs in training were taught in years past, “Don’t let the sun set on an ectopic pregnancy,” it was for a very good reason.
Risk Of Future Pregnancy Complications
The second potential complication minimized by ACOG and the medical community is the risk of Rh disease (Rh alloimmunization) in women who undergo an unsupervised medication-induced abortion.
Every human regardless of his or her blood type (A, B, AB, or O), is either Rh negative or Rh positive. In this country, approximately 15 percent of the population is Rh(-) while the remaining majority are Rh(+).
When it comes to pregnancy, if an Rh(-) woman is carrying an Rh(+) baby — which is the most likely scenario — the woman’s immune system will recognize the Rh(+) protein (referred to as Rh(D) or big D) contained in her baby’s blood and create antibodies that can and ultimately will attack the red blood cells of the unborn baby. This causes a potentially lethal condition referred to as hydrops. The first exposure (and antibody response) to the big D protein or antigen is relatively benign, but in each successive pregnancy, the condition worsens if the baby she is carrying is Rh(+).
Prior to the 1970s and the introduction of the prevention of Rh disease in the form of Rh(D)-immune globulin (an injected antibody that coats or “hides” the antigen), the mortality rate for the unborn child was 4/1,000 live births. Now, when properly managed, this risk is minimal.
It is an established fact that after a certain gestational age (that exact age is uncertain) the fetal blood of an Rh-positive baby can mingle with that of an Rh-negative mother and trigger the immune response that results in alloimmunization. This is why ACOG recommends that Rh(D)-immune globulin be administered to every Rh(-) woman at 28 weeks of pregnancy and even after she delivers if her baby’s blood type is determined to be Rh(+).
ACOG’s current position on this issue is straightforward. Within their Protocol for Medical Management of Early Pregnancy Loss they state: “Women who are Rh(D) negative and unsensitized should receive Rh(D)-immune globulin within 72 hours of the first misoprostol administration.” However, if alloimmunization has already occurred, Rh(D)-immune globulin will serve no useful purpose.
The incidence of Rh alloimmunization will surely increase with the availability of abortion drugs by mail. Without supervision, a woman might induce an abortion without knowing her Rh status. If she is Rh(-), and if alloimmunization has already occurred, she will be forever straddled with the associated risks of Rh alloimmunization in all subsequent pregnancies in which she is carrying an Rh(+) baby.
So why haven’t ACOG or other organizations purporting to protect women spoken out about these risks? It’s time the American Academy of Family Physicians and ACOG take a stand and advocate for the safety of women contemplating an unsupervised medical abortion.
What are the potential dangers and risks associated with unsupervised ingestion of mifepristone and misoprostol in medication-induced abortions?
Common misconception that medication-induced abortions do not carry significant risks. However, recent reports of women “stocking up” on abortion pills in anticipation of looming restrictions shed light on the potential dangers that these drugs pose.
The Supreme Court is set to rule on an appeal that could limit access to the abortion pill, mifepristone, by mail. Currently, women can acquire the drug through mail order, but the ability to do so may be revoked. While some restrictions have been left intact, such as the requirement for a physician’s presence and the limitation to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, women are still concerned about the future availability of these pills.
In the midst of this debate, pro-abortion activists and the medical community, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), have downplayed the inherent risks associated with unsupervised ingestion of mifepristone and misoprostol. It is concerning that these risks are being ignored, especially since they have long been acknowledged by the medical community.
One significant risk is the possibility of an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus, typically in the fallopian tube. If a woman takes the abortion pill without medical supervision, she may unknowingly have an ectopic pregnancy, which can lead to catastrophic hemorrhage. The incidence of ectopic pregnancy is approximately 1 in 80, comparable to the incidence of ovarian cancer. Yet, the medical community does not hesitate to address the risks associated with ovarian cancer, while disregarding those of ectopic pregnancy.
Another potential complication that is being downplayed is the risk of Rh disease (Rh alloimmunization) in women who undergo unsupervised medication-induced abortions. Rh disease occurs when an Rh-negative woman carries an Rh-positive baby. In such cases, the woman’s immune system recognizes the Rh-positive protein in the baby’s blood and develops antibodies that can attack the baby’s red blood cells. This can lead to a potentially lethal condition known as hydrops. Prior to the introduction of prevention methods in the 1970s, the mortality rate for unborn children affected by Rh disease was high. However, with proper management through Rh(D)-immune globulin, this risk has become minimal.
It is critical that women are fully informed about these potential complications before considering medication-induced abortions. Obtaining and taking abortion pills without evaluation or supervision can be life-threatening if a woman has an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy or is at risk of Rh disease. While debates about abortion rights continue, it is imperative that the medical community educates women about the risks involved and ensures their safety.
In conclusion, the recent reports of women stockpiling abortion pills highlight concerns about future restrictions on access to these drugs. However, it is crucial to address the inherent risks associated with medication-induced abortions. The medical community and pro-abortion activists must acknowledge these risks, including the possibility of undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies and the potential for Rh disease, in order to prioritize the safety and well-being of women seeking abortions.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...