The spiderweb, briar patch of complexities the abortion industry spins to keep their activities hidden from the decent public is an absolute beast to sort through. On this one, kudos to Live Action for digging up the – well, dirt doesn’t seem like a strong enough word.
An abortion study was recently carried out and published in Contraception Journal called “TelAbortion.” With the spike in the popularity of telemedicine in recent years, it’s not surprising that the abortion industry is jumping on board. Doing virtual abortion sales is bad enough on its own (dangers to women by not including a physical examination, lack of supervision by medical personnel, etc). But why are we putting any credibility in an abortion study put together by the guys who sell the product?
It’s like a study called “Cigarettes Aren’t Bad for You” put on by Marlboro.
“Ice Cream Doesn’t Make You Fat” paid for by Dairy Queen.
“Animal Abuse is a Myth,” a study by Dog Fighters of America.
A company with millions of dollars to gain is not exactly an objective observer. And the story just keeps getting grimier. Live Action reported:
According to authors connected to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations seeking to expand abortion, the study allegedly proves that bypassing safety requirements (REMS) put in place by the FDA and allowing direct to consumer “TelAbortion” (telemedicine) dispension of abortion pills, “has the potential to increase abortion access by increasing the reach of providers and by offering people the option of obtaining abortion care without an in-person visit to an abortion provider.” And that, it appears, has really been the goal of this “study” all along.
So all of that is gross, and you can check out their analysis of the super-shifty passing around of money that funded this dirty operation. Good luck though because it’s tough to follow these funds as they pass from the pockets of billionaires to abortion pill makers to online sellers etc. One thing we do know is that they’ve been funding the journey of California’s campus abortion mandate, SB 24, that would require state universities to dispense chemical abortion drugs.
But it just keeps getting better. Below is the Results & Conclusions portion of the study’s abstract.
So 23% of package recipients did not have abortive outcomes (meaning they ordered it and didn’t take it, or it failed to kill the child). 7% chose to have a follow-up surgical abortion because the drugs didn’t work. Someone was hospitalized for a seizure, another for excessive bleeding, and 27 others went to the doctor for some related problem. In other words 13.4% of these women faced medical complications as a result.
We’re guessing this 13.4% were not part of the supposed 64% who claimed they were satisfied with their toilet bowl abortion service. We don’t know if they fudged numbers. We don’t know how honest they were about their methods, etc. What we do know is that they don’t care about this NOT-insignificant group of women who were harmed by this encounter. As they concluded, this online abortion service was safe & effective. Just forget about the 29 people who had to seek out actual doctors to help them and the 13 women who endured RU-486 THEN suffered a surgical abortion afterward. Access is more important than their plight.
