Abortion activists push to drop crucial women’s blood test so chemical abortions will be easier
PETITION: Demand Planned Parenthood return $80M improperly taken from coronavirus emergency fund! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In an effort to make the abortion pill more accessible than ever before, abortionists are campaigning to abolish a standard blood test for pregnant women that could mean the difference between her future pregnancies surviving or perishing.
Abortionists would like to abolish the standard Rh factor blood test performed on pregnant women. The Mayo Clinic explains: “Rhesus (Rh) factor is an inherited protein found on the surface of red blood cells. If your blood has the protein, you’re Rh positive. If your blood lacks the protein, you’re Rh negative.”
If a pregnant woman is Rh negative, but the baby is Rh positive, the mother’s body “might produce proteins called Rh antibodies after exposure to the baby’s red blood cells.” While this usually does not happen during pregnancy, it is more likely to take place during delivery, as well as during an abortion.
“The antibodies produced aren’t a problem during the first pregnancy,” the Mayo Clinic emphasizes. “The concern is with your next pregnancy.” This would be the case with any pregnancy following an abortion.
“If your next baby is Rh positive, these Rh antibodies can cross the placenta and damage the baby’s red blood cells,” which are needed to provide the baby’s body with oxygen. “This could lead to life-threatening anemia, a condition in which red blood cells are destroyed faster than the baby’s body can replace them,” ultimately leading to the baby’s death.
The 2020 Clinical Policy Guidelines for Abortion Care, published by the National Abortion Federation, recommend, “Below 56 days from the last menstrual period, patients and providers may forego Rh testing and anti-D immune globulin for patients who are Rh negative.”
“To use chemical abortion to end a pregnancy of less than 56 days without an examination or determination of blood type should be considered malpractice,” commented Catholic Medical Association (CMA) President Michael S. Parker, M.D.
Dr. Parker, a practicing OB/GYN in Ohio in addition to serving as CMA’s president, told LifeSiteNews that what is called Rh isoimmunization “occurs when a mother’s blood type is different from the father’s. For example, my wife is O negative and I am A positive. All of our children are A positive.”
“Should my wife come into contact with Rh positive blood, her immune system would react as it would to a virus or bacteria, trying to destroy those cells.”
According to Parker, this process can be compared to being vaccinated. “Once sensitized, this immune response would attack the cells of any baby with my blood type causing severe anemia with increased risk for fetal death and miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies.”
“To prevent this reaction from occurring, pregnant women can receive an injection of antibodies,” known as Rh immune globulin, “that will ‘scavenge’ any fetal cells before her body can mount an immune response,” he explained.
In other words, a woman who is Rh negative and who had an abortion without being given an injection of Rh immune globulin before the abortion, as well as shortly afterwards, would elevate the risk of her subsequent children dying naturally during pregnancy.
Lester Ruppersberger, M.D., an OB/GYN and former CMA president, told LifeSiteNews ivia a detailed email how any future pregnancy “with an Rh positive baby will lead to the antibodies destroying the baby’s blood, leading to hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN) which can lead to anemia, permanent organ damage, and possibly death.”
“The discovery of Rh immune globulin … in 1970,” he added emphatically, “reduced the incidence of HDN from 14% to less than 1%!”
In May 2019, Contraception, the official pro-abortion and pro-contraception journal of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals and the Society of Family Planning, argued for foregoing Rh testing prior to performing chemical abortions, which are, according to Planned Parenthood, still possible for women who are 10-11 weeks pregnant.
“Carefully explaining that testing and treating patients with anti-D immunoglobulin early in pregnancy has no demonstrated benefit and carries risk, is not practiced in other countries, and adds cost and complexity to the abortion procedure, will be critical steps in changing practice,” the authors of the short article in Contraception argued.
Waiving the need to perform an Rh factor blood test, said Ruppersberger, “is unethical, immoral and bad medicine which goes against every standard of care recommended as good practice by every major medical organization other than the abortion organizations!”
He pointed out that not requiring the test during the first 56 days of pregnancy is arbitrary.
Doing Rh testing, Ruppersberger continued, does not even actually “interfere with the performance of the abortion or the pregnancy not desired, it is to protect any future pregnancies from developing HDN!”
“I don’t believe the government should mandate any healthcare decision,” he answered when asked about whether the government should require abortionists to perform Rh factor blood tests.
While the government can make recommendations, “‘standards of care’ are developed by medical experts/organizations,” allowing people and legal entities to learn about what “best practices” are. Many malpractice lawsuits “are predicated on lack of performance according to standards of care; if not practiced, then legal repercussions or loss of licensure can and should result.”
Michael S. Parker of the Catholic Medical Association said, “Those who propose doing away with this [Rh] testing feel it is not necessary because before 56 days, there may not be enough fetal red blood cells to cause a reaction. They propose allowing for prescription of medical abortion without exam, ultrasound or determination of Rh status.”
Chemical abortions, otherwise referred to as medication abortion, using the abortion pill, are also currently being pushed by the abortion industry.
A complaint filed May 27 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called on the federal government, especially the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove restrictions on access to the abortion pill.
The lawsuit echoed claims made in a letter signed by 21 state attorneys general who wrote to FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn on March 30 “to request that you increase access to reproductive health care, including safe and legal abortion, during this pandemic.”
“(W)e urge you to waive its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), or use FDA enforcement discretion, to allow certified prescribers to use telehealth for Mifepristone, the medication abortion prescription drug,” the attorneys general, including those of California and New York, continued.
Kristi Stone Hamrick, who works as chief media strategist for Students for Life of America and Students for Life Action, commented in a Washington Examiner op-ed, “Pushing chemical abortion pills allows a predatory industry to make a fast sale and outsource future complications to an emergency room.”
“It’s no help to women to end the requirement for life-saving tests, all in the name of cutting costs and increasing ‘access.’ It’s the abortion industry whose time and money are liberated,” she added.