Catholic Exchange

Study Suggests Abortion Pill Not Safer than Surgical Abortion

Misleading conclusions are being drawn in news stories based on a study that has indicated that the RU486 abortion drug is no more dangerous than surgical abortions. Misleading major media headlines include: Time magazine's "Study Finds Abortion Pill Safe," the Chicago Tribune's "Study: Abortion Pill Doesn't Increase Risks" and the New York Post's "Abortion Pill Gets All Clear."

"Reporters are drawing the erroneous conclusion that this study means RU486 is completely safe. That's not what the study says, and nothing could be further from the truth," said Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger. "Women are dying at an alarming rate from RU486 abortions and its widespread misuse in the abortion industry. That has not changed."

The study indicates that future pregnancies are equally affected by RU486 abortions and surgical abortions. However, it is a leap in logic to say that either method is safe when the study simply shows that the risks to future pregnancies of both abortion methods are equal.

The study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine concludes its abstract by underlining that the risks of medical abortion are considered in comparison with the risks of surgical abortion. It states, "We found no evidence that a previous medical abortion, as compared with a previous surgical abortion, increases the risk of spontaneous abortion, entopic pregnancy, preterm birth, or low birth weight."

"Women who have had abortions have greater risks of miscarriage and infertility than women who have not had abortions. It is no accident that the study refused to compare these two groups of women, because we know they would have found that abortion hurts women, and that is obviously a conclusion that they did not want to reach," said Sullenger.

RU486 is a drug approved for abortions in pregnancies under six weeks. Three office visits are usually required for this kind of abortion. Some reports indicate that RU486 has a 15% failure rate, meaning that many women who receive the drug must also have a surgical abortion to completely remove the pre-born baby and other pregnancy tissue.

"Women aborting with RU486 can pass their babies anywhere. This has created a lot of emotional trauma for women who do not expect to come face to face with a tiny baby complete with arms, legs and a recognizable face," said Sullenger.

"The reputation of RU486 has suffered recently because of the publicity generated by a number of abortion deaths related to the drug. The media distortion we are seeing is a simple case of public relations damage control," said Sullenger. "Hiding the possibility of RU486's life-threatening dangers from women really shows that there is more concern for selling abortions than for protecting and informing women. This misinformation campaign is really a horrific thing when you think about it that could needlessly cost women's lives."

Comments

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Maybe if women see their babies firsthand, it will make them re-think their position on abortion.  I've see 8 week embryos up close and personal (because I used to work at a woman's hospital, and I've taken care of women who have miscarried), and I don't know how anyone can look at that and still think that abortion is acceptable.  The abortion industry goes to great lengths to sugar coat the truth and shield people from the reality of abortion.

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Your post, Claire, is why I donate money to organizations that place pictures of dismembered babies on the side of trucks, etc…

    If the truth revolts you, please consider why and repent!

    (As an aside, my  former parish priest, newly arrived, forbade me, as head of the Respect Life committee, to place the fetal models on display during  Respect LIfe week because some folks found them offensive.  I repectfully, told him that the humanity of the unborn is only offensive to those who want to kill babies.  The models stand in condemnation of pro abortion church goers.  Darkness cannot stand the light.  So, Father put on his blinders and sat the babies in a tightly shut box, on a dark, very dark storage room shelf.) 

    PS I'm now at a parish where my family can be Catholic!  In fact, we have a 7 ft statue of MOther Theresa cradling a baby in our front courtyard and numerous prolife bumper stickers on many cars!

     

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    You're lucky you have a faithful Catholic parish in your diocese;  in mine they're hard to come by.

     

    I agree with you about the graphic abortion photos.  I empathize with those who are legitimately disturbed by them (earlier this week there was a post from a man whose wife became upset by these photos because it reminded her of  her previous stillbirth).  However, revealing the truth about abortion has to be the highest priority.

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    My new parish is not in my diocese but across the state line about 20 miles and in the neighboring diocese. Years ago Oratory priests were granted complete control of my county, when it was mission terrritory.  Supposedly they are directly under the Vatican.  However, it's the Wild West here! GIRM means nothing, etc…and so forth.  So after numerous letters to our bishop and Rome many families have left the county.  Sadly, still more have left the faith.

    And so it goes…………..ad nauseum.

Leave a Reply