Life News
New York Times: Coronavirus is No Reason to Stop Killing Babies in Abortions
By Dave Andrusko
When I saw this article in the New York Times, I forwarded it to a number of friends with the following in the subject box: “Is the NYTimes brazen, or what?”
One paragraph of background to “Amid Covid-19, a Call for M.D.’s to Mail the Abortion Pill.”
The Abortion Industrial Media Complex never ceases to whine about pro-lifers supposedly “exploiting” the pandemic. How and why are supposedly doing so? Because some governors commonsensically will not allow non-essential surgeries, including elective abortions, during this medical emergency.
Meanwhile, the AIMC never tires of trying to find ways to circumvent rules and regulations intended to protect women so as to expand the number of ways unborn babies can be killed.
Exhibit #1. Do-it-Your chemically-induced abortions performed at home. The Times article, written by Patrick Adams, is your classic example. To pro-abortionists, breaking the law is done in pursuit of a higher purpose, so nobody can say nuttin’ about nuttin.’ At the very least, they want to see how far the courts will let them go.
Here’s the gist of Adams’ op-ed. It’s more difficult for women to abort because of the aforementioned gubernatorial executive orders and “restrictive new laws.” Solution?
Even prior to the outbreak, Adams writes,
Francine Coeytaux and Elisa Wells, co-founders of the abortion rights advocacy group Plan C, were reaching out to doctors with a question they said was urgent:
“Would you be willing to mail the ‘abortion pills’ to women in their homes?”
By Adams’ account, the abortionist’s Nirvana had seemingly been just around the corner. The “medication” abortion technique is made up of two drugs.
One, Misoprostol, “which had been developed as anti-ulcer therapy, was already in use. The second, mifepristone, was approved in 2000.
So what’s the fly in the ointment, what prevents this combo from “substantially expand access to abortion care in the United States”?
According to Adams, “But approval came with stringent restrictions on mifepristone’s distribution.”
Without rehearsing the long history, the truth is that at one point in time there were more restrictions on mifepristone/misoprostol, all of which made sense. The Abortion Industry, over time, decided to simply ignore them and during the Obama Administration, the FDA eventually partially gave in.
But the FDA has held firm on what’s called a “risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.” Under R.E.M.S., Adams writes, “mifepristone can be dispensed only in clinics, medical offices and hospitals; only by, or under the supervision of, a doctor certified to prescribe the drug; and only to patients who have signed an F.D.A.-approved patient agreement.”
And as always, we’re told none of this is necessary.
Adams puts the usual pro-abortion gloss on what follows, but the gist is what’ll happen if “a national network of new providers — those who, like them, embrace a broader interpretation of the rules”?
Wells and the ever-present pro-abortion authority figure Dr. Mitchell Creinin argued “that the R.E.M.S. does not limit the ability to send mifepristone by mail,” as Creinin told Adams.
Meanwhile, as NRL News Today has reported, pro-life members of the House and Senate sent a letter, sponsored by U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) and U.S. Representative Bob Latta (R-Ohio) and signed by thirty-eight Senators and 121 Representatives, to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, M.D. The members wrote, “We write to urge you to continue to robustly enforce the REMS for medication abortion and to end dangerous runarounds of these protections under the guise of medical research.”
In addition, National Right to Life joined more than four dozen pro-life and pro-family groups in a letter sent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration asking the FDA to seize websites selling abortion drugs illegally in the United States and to investigate illegal internet sales of abortion-inducing drugs.
Here’s why it’s so important.
“When the FDA approved mifepristone as an abortion method, REMS restrictions were put in place because of the life-threatening complications that are possible with the use of the drug,” NRLC explained. “The FDA has compiled a record of nearly two dozen deaths and thousands of complications associated with its use which include “adverse events” such as serious infections, severe hemorrhage, and the rupture of previously undiscovered ectopic pregnancies. This dangerous track record proves that the REMS restrictions are necessary.”