Facebook removes APR, dodges investigation with third-party ‘fact-checker’

Fact Checking by Fact Checkers – Truth Matters When It Comes to Women’s Health Choices

Shortly after Ashley swallowed the first abortion pill, she shared her thoughts:

“I was like, I don’t want to do this. I don’t want to do this. I can’t even describe it. I just felt a burden on me. Like I felt heavy. I felt like for doing the wrong thing and I couldn’t go back.

His history played like thousands of others who realized they wanted a different choice and looked for hope to continue their pregnancies.

A recent article Posted in Pregnancy Help News highlighted this strong young woman’s account of how she started a chemical abortion and quickly had regrets.

Ashley, a young woman from Pittsburgh, contacted the abortion provider who told her there was no hope of continuing her pregnancy. Rather than complete the abortion as she was told to do, she asked for urgent help by searching her phone: “Is there a way to cancel an abortion?” She found the help and support she needed with the Abortion Pill Rescue Network and a local pregnancy support clinic, Women’s Choice Network. Ashley, who said she prayed for her child every night during her pregnancy, was blessed months later with the birth of a healthy, beautiful baby girl.

The account of Ashley’s abortion and subsequent reversal was first published on media platforms by Heartbeat International on May 3. It gained popularity on Facebook and Instagram accounts until it was unexpectedly deleted on May 18.

Who wouldn’t celebrate this triumph of a baby’s life, the tenacity and bravery of this mother, and the work of pregnancy to help women through this difficult time?

[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]

The answer to this seemingly rhetorical question is a group called Logically who identify themselves on their website as “verified signatories of the International Fact-Checking Network” operating from the UK, US and India.

The special fact checker who challenged Ashley’s story is called Rachel Muller Heyndyk. Ms. Heyndyk states that she is a journalist with degrees in English literature and drama. Without a medical degree or claimed scientific training, she makes incorrect claims about the drugs used in the cancellation of the abortion pill and the safety of RPA, she misrepresents the details of informed consent legislation and strives to throw doubting the validity of Ashley’s story with the apparent intention of deleting from social platforms.

Informed consent and non-coercion are fundamental principles of patient autonomy in health care. Deviating from this ethical standard is a dangerous place for women making pregnancy decisions.

The Abortion Pill Rescue Network operates on the principle that no one should ever be pressured or coerced into performing a medical procedure they no longer want. Women have every right to withdraw their consent to a chemical abortion and attempt to continue their pregnancy when they have regrets.

Fact-checkers should never be empowered to make false statements with the intention of limiting choices. An individual fact-checker should not have the power to limit the information and support women need to make their own pregnancy decisions. Ashley’s account of events should not be isolated and treated differently from those making other pregnancy choices.

Tweet this: Fact-checkers should never be empowered to make false statements with the intention of limiting choices.

Here are some of the statements made by fact checkers that were not based on science, facts or logic:

Inaccurate statement from Logic:

“Medical experts have said there is no evidence that these drugs are safe to use. It is not scientifically possible to reverse a termination.

Accurate statement:

The APRN Advisory Teamas well as more than 1100+ suppliers of the APR network unanimously agree that

Mifepristone blocks progesterone by competitively binding its intracellular receptor.

Progesterone is appropriate and effective, citing more than 50 years of safe use of this medicine in pregnant women. It’s a basic principle of reversible competitive drug binding at receptor sites and is a fundamental concept in drug development.

APR is a reasonable application of a proven, FDA-approved drug that has been used effectively for decades to prevent miscarriages and premature births.

Mifepristone competes with natural progesterone produced during pregnancy and APR involves continuous doses of emergency progesterone to counter the effects of the first abortion pill.

• Not only unquestionably safe progesterone during pregnancybut it’s always used to protect pregnancies or treat associated complications.

The inversion is based on well-established medical science and is safe for women. The Abortion Pill Rescue Network has helped thousands of mothers choose life for their babies, even after taking mifepristone.

Inaccurate statement from Logic:

“However, medical experts have agreed that these drugs are unsafe or untested and have advised against their use.”

Accurate statement:

Progesterone is the drug used to counter the effects of mifepristone as progesterone is essential for maintaining pregnancy. Not only is progesterone unquestionably safe during pregnancy, it is routinely used to protect pregnancies or treat associated complications. It is used for stop recurrent miscarriages for women with naturally low progesterone levels, prevent premature birth for women with premature laborand maintain pregnancy for in vitro fertilization. Progesterone can even support a pregnancy when an ovary needs to be removed early in pregnancy.

Inaccurate statement from Logic:

“Between 2015 and 2019, a number of U.S. senators attempted to introduce bills that would require doctors to provide women with counseling on how to ‘reverse’ an abortion if she so chooses. The bills have repeatedly failed due to a lack of reliable evidence.

Accurate statement:

Really, fourteen united states states have passed RPA informed consent bills to require abortion providers to inform patients that reversal is possible. Eight additional states are in the legislative process. Five states are currently being challenged in court by organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights. Only three states introduced bills that did not pass.

Some examples: here, here, here, here, here, hereand here.

Inaccurate statement from Logic:

“Research has shown that the vast majority of women do not regret their decision to have an abortion.”

Accurate statement:

In fact, a recent study experience with chemical abortion reported that it is “not clear that a woman’s decision is absolute when she arrives at the clinic”.

This study also reported that “healthcare personnel learned that the decision to terminate a pregnancy can be difficult and that some women may change their minds”.

Workers in this study reported examples of women ingesting the drug and then immediately trying to make themselves vomit.

Mitch Creinin, one of the developers of the abortion drug mifepristone, states in an interview with NPR: “There are people who change their minds. It’s normal in human nature.”

Regret after starting a chemical abortion is so common that more than 150 women start the inversion process each month via the APR network. Women have contacted our hotline since 65 different countries last year and all 50 US states expressing regret and hoping to continue their pregnancies.

Tweet this: Regret after starting a chemical abortion is so common that more than 150 women start the reversal process each month through the APR Network

Women who changed their minds after taking the first abortion pill and successfully reversed their chemical abortion often wish to share their joy in hopes of saving other mothers from doing what they did by starting a chemical abortion. . Their personal testimonies directly contradict claims about APR made by the abortion lobby.

Like others in Big Tech who have sought to censor life-affirming social media posts, Logically attempts to perpetuate the myth that chemical abortion is a one-way street and to hide the regret that many women feel after taking the first abortion pill. They make medical assumptions that fit their political stance rather than basing their conclusions on facts, scientific studies, or the reality of the choices women face every day.

Editor’s note: Heartbeat International operates the Abortion Pill Rescue® Network (APRN) and Pregnancy Help News.

Virginia C. Taylor