Quick Take: There Are Lies and Lies
On the shameful exploitation of some tragic and unnecessary deaths
There’s this:
And then there’s this:
Is It Better to Let Women Die from Abortion Pills Than to Tell Them the Truth?
Kamala Harris’ answer to that question is an unequivocal yes.
As detailed in the National Review story to which the above link will direct you, the dangers associated with the abortion pill (actually a two-step regimen involving five pills and two different drugs, to be taken within the first ten weeks of pregnancy) have long been recognized. Briefly to summarize, taking this drug without medical supervision, and/or later in the pregnancy, can be dangerous—in some cases deadly. But under the Biden/Harris pro-choice regime the abortion pill is freely available and scarcely regulated. Indeed, many women obtain it by mail order from foreign sources, which happens to violate federal law. The Biden/Harris Administration, of course, does nothing to enforce that law. Its passion for regulation stops short of a drug that if not used properly can cause life-threatening complications.
Inevitably, then, there have been tragic and unnecessary deaths connected with the abortion pill. This is an inconvenient fact of life for the pro-choice side of the abortion debate. And that’s why they resort to outright lying: the charge, unsupported by so much as a speck of evidence, that such deaths are due to restrictive abortion laws in various states.
The claim is that doctors and other medical professionals have denied treatment to women suffering from abortion pill complications because they fear prosecution under restrictive state abortion laws. This is patent nonsense. There is no abortion stature in any state that bars physicians from treating women suffering from complications related to a chemically induced abortion.
You will not be surprised to learn that the Harris/Walz campaign is broadcasting this egregious and dangerous lie.
The death in Georgia of Amber Nicole Thurman is a case in point. Having become pregnant, she obtained the abortion pill, used it to terminate her pregnancy, but then suffered complications and was hospitalized. The abortion pill had failed to purge all fetal tissue from her body; the residue caused a fatal infection. This is a well-known risk associated with the abortion pill, especially if it’s taken later in the pregnancy.
For reasons not yet explained, Thurman’s treatment—a routine procedure—was delayed. This delay cannot possibly have been due to concerns about Georgia’s abortion law, for Thurman was no longer pregnant when she was admitted to the hospital. But that didn’t stop the pro-choice side from making the specious claim that Thurman died because doctors hesitated to treat her for fear of being prosecuted under that law.
Other women have suffered a similar fate. In Nevada in 2022, Alyona Dixon died of “complications from septic abortion” after obtaining the abortion pill from Planned Parenthood. To be fair, she seems to have been properly counseled by Planned Parenthood about the risks involved in a chemically induced abortion. But then she was left on her own, thanks to the Biden/Harris Administration’s laissez-faire attitude toward the abortion pill. And since Nevada’s abortion law is relatively lenient, the blame for her death can’t be assigned there.
Easy access to the abortion pill has been touted as a boon to women, enhancing their control over their own bodies. Not mentioned is the fact that its increased and unsupervised use is sending more and more women to the emergency room. This is not because the drugs involved are uniquely dangerous, but because over time the FDA rules governing their use have been eased to the point that today, their use is effectively unsupervised. Added to this are the false claims put about by the pro-choice side, e.g. that women in states with restrictive abortion laws can be prosecuted for using the abortion pill.
If the pro-choice side were really concerned about the well-being of women, it would take cognizance of the risks associated with unsupervised use of the abortion pill. What possible objection could there be to a regulation that mandates medical supervision and follow-up? Well, the unspoken objection is that such a position would deprive the pro-choice side of a political weapon: the false claim that women like Amber Nicole Thurman died because of “restrictive abortion laws,” and not because of unrestricted use of potentially dangerous drugs.
Never mind, though. What are a few deaths here and there, when the stakes are so high?
Dishonesty around mifepristone kills more adult women than any abortion law.
https://principlesvstribes.substack.com/p/the-politics-that-killed-amber-thurman
Here in Kansas, we held a vote on adding an amendment to the state constitution that would codify keeping abortion legislation in the hands of elected legislators rather than in the hands of the selected, not elected, KS Supreme Court jurists. (KS has a bizarre method of SC selection — look it up.)
Because the amendment was on a ballot the same year of the Dobbs decision, and because of the complicated constitutional issue, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups flooded the state with ads telling hysterical women that they would die, DIE, because there would be no more abortions in KS. Of course the low-info voters swallowed it whole.