People who support legalized abortion often downplay its seriousness, comparing it to a routine procedure like getting your toenails clipped. But the reality is far different.
Abortion not only ends the life of a baby, but it can also pose significant risks to the mother, especially when abortifacient pills are involved.
On Sept. 25, the Media Research Center reported a tragic incident where a 24-year-old woman named Alyona Dixon died from sepsis after undergoing an abortion. Her family is now suing the hospital for failing to properly diagnose and treat her condition.
Dixon, who was already a mother to a nine-month-old, visited a Planned Parenthood clinic in Las Vegas to have an abortion. She was given the abortion pill, a dangerous medication known to cause fatalities. A few days later, she experienced severe abdominal pain, as reported by KLAS-TV.
Judicial Watch announced on Sept. 22 that they obtained records revealing at least six deaths possibly linked to the abortion drug Mifeprex (Mifepristone) between 2000 and 2002. These incidents highlight the dangers associated with abortion procedures.
Pro-lifers often refer to Mifeprex as RU-486, suggesting that it means “R U 4 86ing” the baby.
A patient prepares to take the first of two combination pills, mifepristone, for a medication abortion during a visit to a clinic in Kansas City, Kans., on Oct. 12, 2022. (Charlie Riedel, File/AP Photo)
Bonta Lawsuit
This is important because on Sept. 21, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against pro-life groups Heartbeat International and RealOptions Obria. These groups operate crisis pregnancy centers that aim to provide alternatives to abortion. The term “heartbeat” refers to the baby being killed, while “RealOptions” represents the choice to save the baby by reversing the effects of an abortifacient drug, similar to administering an antidote for a snake bite.
Mr. Bonta conveniently fails to mention the risks to the mother during an abortion. He also neglects to acknowledge that California has become the most pro-abortion place in the world, with laws and constitutional amendments supporting abortion rights. Governor Gavin Newsom signed several bills into law, including Proposition 1, which solidified abortion rights in the state’s constitution.
Mr. Newsom summarized the bills on his website. One of the most radical measures, AB 2223, ensures that pregnancy loss is not criminalized, protecting individuals from being held liable for miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion, or perinatal death due to causes that occurred during pregnancy.
Essentially, AB 2223 allows for the killing of a baby not just before birth, but potentially even after birth for several hours or days, with the death attributed to vague causes that occurred before the baby was born. This law may have effectively legalized infanticide in certain cases.
The other bill, SB 1375, expands the options for non-doctors, such as Nurse Practitioners and Certified Nurse-Midwives, to perform abortions. Ironically, one of Mr. Bonta’s objections to the pro-life centers is their lack of medical facilities.
A patient of the Santa Clarita Valley Pregnancy Center, holding her son, speaks during a press conference in Santa Clarita, Calif., on May 24, 2023. (Courtesy of California Family Council)
Bonta’s Reasoning
According to Mr. Bonta’s statement regarding the lawsuit, he alleges that Heartbeat International (HBI) and RealOptions have used fraudulent and misleading claims to promote an unproven and experimental procedure called “abortion pill reversal (APR).” While HBI and RealOptions claim that APR is a safe and effective way to reverse a medication abortion, Mr. Bonta argues that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting this procedure and that it may pose risks to patients.
However, as we have seen, there are real risks to the mother if the abortion is continued. It is notable that Mr. Bonta fails to mention the loss of the baby’s life and refers to the mothers as “patients.”
He further states, “Given the lack of credible scientific evidence supporting APR’s safety and efficacy, it is crucial that pregnant patients (mothers) are provided with accurate information before deciding whether to undergo this experimental procedure. Attorney General Bonta’s lawsuit seeks to block HBI and RealOptions from falsely advertising APR as safe and effective.”
This raises a First Amendment issue, as HBI and RealOptions have the right to advertise their services. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers freely advertise their procedures, and Planned Parenthood even engages in political campaigns. NPR reported on Planned Parenthood’s campaign ads targeting GOP candidates in the 2024 elections. It is clear that there is a bias in reporting, which makes The Epoch Times a valuable source of information.
The Safety Issue
Speaking of safety, on Aug. 16, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the United States issued a decision banning telemedicine prescriptions and mail shipments of the abortifacient drug mifepristone. The court’s ruling highlighted concerns about the safety of mifepristone and the removal of important safeguards by the FDA. The court emphasized that the FDA failed to gather sufficient evidence to prove the safe use of mifepristone without in-person prescriptions and dispensing.
Mifepristone (Mifeprex), one of the two drugs used in a medication abortion, is displayed at the Women’s Reproductive Clinic in Santa Teresa, N.M., on June 15, 2022. (Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images)
The Biden administration, which shares the same pro-abortion stance as Mr. Bonta and Mr. Newsom, is appealing the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their goal seems to be making mifepristone easily accessible, even through methods like vending machines. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that they will seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court to defend the FDA’s scientific judgment and ensure access to “safe and effective reproductive care.”
However, as we have witnessed with the controversies surrounding COVID-19 vaccines, can we truly trust the FDA’s scientific judgment? The FDA approved vaccines that have caused numerous deaths, as reported by The Epoch Times on Sept. 4. Dozens of individuals in the United States died after receiving COVID-19 vaccines, including cases of sudden cardiac death occurring shortly after vaccination.
Given these circumstances, can we rely on the FDA to make unbiased decisions based on scientific evidence, rather than political motivations from the Biden administration?
Conclusion: Advocating for Women and Babies
As someone who has been writing about abortion for nearly 50 years, I can attest that organizations like HBI and RealOptions are dedicated to helping mothers and their babies. They are true heroes in today’s America, fighting against all odds for decades. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Women’s Health Organization last year gave them hope to save more lives by overturning the flawed and poorly written Roe v. Wade decision from 1973. I commend their efforts.
However, pro-abortion activists have significant funding, with organizations like Planned Parenthood receiving substantial financial support. Additionally, government entities such as the U.S. and California justice departments are taxpayer-funded bureaucracies. The battle to protect babies and their mothers continues.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Now loading...