News of  a mother’s death in Georgia after reportedly taking Chemical Abortion Pills to end her pregnancy with twins is a tragedy, first and foremost for those who are grieving her loss. Sadly, this story also has implications for the current political debate as the abortion industry pushes this story to attack life-saving laws. The one thing the abortion lobby wants you to know is that life in the womb should be ended early and often and without the kind of health and safety standards that might have made a difference in this case.  

But the story in mainstream media isn’t about how this mother could have been protected … it’s their desire for more abortion.  

We don’t have to know all the information about this situation to know that the most federal of abortion policies – Online, No Test Distribution of Chemical Abortion Pills, which are now stripped of almost all Health and Safety Regulations (known as REMS – Risk, Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies) – is reckless. Three Democratic Party Presidents – Clinton, Obama, and Biden – forced the pills onto the U.S. market with fewer and fewer protections for the women and girls exposed to them. To be clear, the abortion lobby doesn’t seem to care what happens to women as long as a baby dies. Because if they did care, common sense screenings like an ultrasound and blood type test would be standard operating procedure, along with follow-up appointments. 

For this Georgia mother, an ultrasound before and after taking the pills could have provided life-saving information. 

THE DETAILS AS REPORTED: 

According to ProPublic.org, this tragic loss of a young mother of twins in the womb and a six-year-old child happened in the summer of 2022.  Some of the facts in the story, as reported there:   

1. A woman pregnant WITH TWINS took abortion pills. 

2. The article indicates she wanted a surgical abortion, so she and a friend drove to North Carolina but were late and missed her appointment.  

3. So, the abortion vendor distributed Chemical Abortion Pills.  

4. Informed consent is an unknown. Did anyone tell the mother about her options? We don’t know if there was a discussion of the fact that her pregnancy held twins or whether it was discussed that the dosage may not work for that pregnancy. We don’t know if she was told about services for women or the health risks of Chemical Abortion Pills. We don’t know if an ultrasound was offered that could have shown her condition in full.  

5. Once at home, she became very ill and eventually went to a Georgia emergency room, where treatment was discussed. 

6. Georgia law limits abortion to early in a pregnancy, but the law does allow for saving a mother’s life. 

7. The young mother was reportedly experiencing infection – sepsis. The story says that after 20 hours, surgery took place, but the infection killed her. 

8. We do know that even when “used as directed,” Chemical Abortion Pills are risky, and those risks are negligently placed on young women to figure out for themselves whether the complications they are experiencing demand more care. 

For an excellent Fact Check of the case itself, read LiveAction’s FACT CHECK: Did Georgia’s pro-life law kill a young mom? 

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: 

While the abortion industry wants to make this about abortion everywhere, all at once, all the time, this should be a cautionary tale about how recklessly these pills are handed out. And we know very little about what this mother was told or what she said.  

Did the abortion facility do an ultrasound to note that she was pregnant with twins and handing out a few pills? Did the mother understand what would happen?  

Even the abortion industry notes in a “study” that “Twin pregnancies may need higher dosages of mifepristone than single pregnancies due to the presence of two corpora lutea and increased amount of trophoblast tissue.” The way this information was handled is unknown in the report. 

When Bill Clinton forced the pills on the market, an ultrasound was required before and after to determine key facts. Why is the abortion industry allowed to fast-track the sale of Chemical Abortion Pills when faced with known risks?  

KNOWN RISKS: 

When used as directed, Chemical Abortion Pills are dangerous.  

From Charlotte Lozier:  Fact Sheet: Risks and Complications of Chemical Abortion 

Chemical abortion has a complication rate four times that of surgical abortion, and as many as one in five women will suffer a complication. Three to seven out of every hundred women who choose chemical abortion early in pregnancy will need follow-up care to finish the abortion, with as many as 7-10% needing follow-up care in the first trimester after 63 days of pregnancy and up to 39% requiring surgery if the regimen is accidentally taken in the second trimester.  

As many as 15% of women will experience hemorrhage, and 2% will have an infection. The risk of incomplete abortion and infection increases with increasing gestational age.   

Chemical abortion drugs are increasingly likely to send women to the emergency room (ER): in a study of the Medicaid population in states that fund abortion for low-income women, the rate of chemical abortion-related emergency room visits increased over 500% between 2002-2015.  

Chemical abortions are over 50% more likely than surgical abortions to result in an ER visit within 30 days, with one woman experiencing an abortion-related ER visit for every 20 chemical abortions.  

Some abortion advocates encourage women to lie to their doctors if they need urgent care following a chemical abortion and to say they are having a miscarriage. However, if a chemical abortion is miscoded as a miscarriage in the ER (which occurred 60% of the time in one study), the woman is at significantly greater risk of needing multiple hospitalizations and follow-up surgery. 

The media rush to judgment is on. NEW YORK TIMES: It Was Only a Matter of Time Before Abortion Bans Killed Someone 

WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE PILL PUSHERS? 

A race to sell deadly pills and distribute them by mail or casually handed out – without health screenings, oversight, concern for the mother, medical follow-up, discussion of other options, and without taking a minute to consider the life and death reality of abortion – creates risk.  

While the media will focus on the Georgia doctors, where are their questions for the abortion vendors who sold the pills?  

Those of us who track the issue of Chemical Abortion Pills have heard the media apologists for the deadly duo of drugs say that they are usually “safe,” … which isn’t the same as actually safe. The REMS – Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies – put in place are for when things go wrong. 

Pro-Life Generation’s Demetree Institute for Pro-Life Advancement in a YouGov poll found that registered Youth Voters – by more than nine in 10 – supported health and safety standards – like ultrasounds and Rh-negative testing. 

When the reckless approval of Chemical Abortion Pills was discussed in the Fifth Circuit – in a case in which Students for Life of America (SFLA) has an amicus brief – the DANGERS of the pills were highlighted front and center. Sadly, shamefully, those issues were ignored by the Supreme Court, which focused NOT on the problems but on who had the right to sue. 

It’s long overdue for a hard look at the dangers of casual distribution of pills designed to kill.   

READ MORE HERE: Fifth Circuit Affirms the Dangers & Deadly Risks of Chemical Abortion Pills As Health & Safety Standards Restored because Abortion Profiteers “Weaponized the Medical Standards to Favor Abortion Industry Interests”