Over 200 mothers who took treatment to counter the effects of an abortion pill have written an open letter in support of the Abortion Pill Rescue Network (APRN) and have denounced “efforts to characterize the provision of hope and information as misconduct”.
The letter centres on the issue of Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) treatment. When a pregnant woman takes the first of two abortion pills (mifepristone), she is essentially cutting off the supply of the hormone progesterone which maintains the pregnancy.
If a pregnant woman takes mifepristone and subsequently regrets it, taking progesterone can counter the effects of the mifepristone and make it possible for the pregnancy to continue.
However, the Attorney General of California, Rob Bonta, has initiated a lawsuit against APRN provider, Heartbeat International, accusing the group of false advertising, reports Life News.
Specifically, the case takes issue with claims that mifepristone can be “reversed” by progesterone, that APR is safe and effective, and that thousands of pregnancies have been saved by APR.
California is seeking to impose penalties on the group of up to $20m.
Heartbeat International has called the lawsuit an attempt to suppress its free speech and limit the ability of women to make informed choices. According to Heartbeat, as many as 8,000 babies have been saved by APR treatment.
In their letter of support for APR, the group of mothers say, “Every woman deserves access to accurate information about her pregnancy and the freedom to make informed decisions about her health. This includes women who, after beginning a chemical abortion, experience regret and seek information about whether there is a possibility of continuing their pregnancies.
“Regardless of one’s views on abortion, women facing life-altering decisions should never be denied information simply because others disagree with it. Nor should they be criticized, dismissed, or silenced for seeking help.”
Apparently referring to the lawsuit, the letter says, “Recent efforts to characterize the provision of hope and information as misconduct are deeply concerning. In a free society, women should be able to seek second opinions, ask questions, explore alternatives, and make decisions in consultation with healthcare professionals. Restricting access to information does not empower women. It limits their choices.”
