May 29, 2020

Abortion pills without Rh-testing could prevent many women from ever having children

Infertility and the difficulties of carrying children to term have grieved women for centuries, and medical science has tried to address those issues. But if the abortion industry has anything to say about it, women today will continue to be at risk of long-term heartbreak.

My husband and I are polar opposites when it comes to blood. Like 15% of the population, I am Rh negative, whereas he is Rh positive. The first child from that combination is usually fine, but then antibodies build up when blood comes in contact, such as during birth, accident, or abortion. These antibodies can cause later pregnancies to end in tragedy, when the mother’s own antibodies attack the blood cells of children in her womb, often causing death.

There is a solution -- injections of Rh immunoglobulin, which stop the mother’s body from making those antibodies. Those shots have saved me from tremendous heartbreak. But timing is everything. They must be administered during pregnancy and right after delivery or following the end of a pregnancy. Failure to give these injections promptly to an Rh-negative woman would be malpractice, because of the implications for every future child and her own health.

Yet the abortion industry and abortion advocates are pushing for no-test abortions and an end to best practices for Rh-negative women. This is the industry's way of selling chemical abortion pills with much less effort on its part and without examinations that might preserve a woman’s life and future.

The American Civil Liberties Union just filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration, attempting to force them to get rid of health and safety standards for chemical abortion pills during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Women have died when given chemical abortion drugs late in pregnancy or when experiencing an ectopic pregnancy. To protect women from complications, the FDA has health and safety standards called REMs that require a physical examination. Getting a history and an ultrasound, along with a blood test to determine things such as Rh-negative status, are life-saving protocols. Treating Rh-negative women with an injection that costs approximately $100 will preserve their ability to have future children.

Unfortunately, the abortion lobby doesn't really prioritize the future children of its customers aren’t really a priority of the abortion lobby.

In Contraception, a who’s who of abortion industry thought leaders, including the infamous Daniel Grossman, recommended dropping Rh testing early in pregnancy, despite recommendations that it be conducted from the Society of Family Planning , the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, and the World Health Organization. As they put it, these recommendations should be ignored because "Rh testing is not a requirement for abortion in any setting."

In other words, abortionists aren’t responsible for women's future ability to have children. They are selling so many abortion pills now -- all this potentially life-saving testing only slows them down.

Keep reading at The Washington Examiner >>