Is the website therefore flaunting the law? And is Glamour promoting law-breaking for the sake of an easier abortion?
Because of legal restrictions in the United States, the organization can’t provide the pills directly, but—once the counselors have the information they need—it can refer the visitor to organizations like abortion funds if she needs financial help, or a nearby clinic if she wants to have an in-clinic abortion. It can also provide instructions on how to self-manage an abortion if she has the abortion pills already.
If this is the case, what need is there for the website to begin with? And, even if this is the case, does it truly settle the question of legal concerns? The website itself leaves even more questions, when answering “How can I find abortion pills?” Suggestions include:
- At a veterinary supply store
- On the internet
- In Mexico (which is funny, considering the answer begins by stating “[i]n the United States, misoprostol is available,” and Mexico is not in the United States)
This isn’t the only time the abortion movement has sent women to Mexico for these pills, as was the case in Texas following the passing of pro-life HB 2. NPR even claimed HB 2 was “driving some women” to go to Mexico for the pills. Why, then, would an abortion site claiming to help women, be promoting such a method?
Herold also mentions a study claiming that hundreds of thousands of Texas women may have self-aborted. This study has been thoroughly debunked, but that hasn’t stopped abortion advocates, including those on the U.S. Supreme Court, from promoting it.
When it comes to safety, Herold quickly brushes medication abortion off as medically safe, instead focusing on the legal risks. And in typical pro-abortion fashion, Herold completely fails to mention what women go through with medication abortions or what the risks are.
Former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino explains the process and risks below:
The second article, Jennifer Gerson Uffalussy’s “Women Can Safely Induce Medical Abortions at Home Through Telemedicine, Says Study,” was published only two days after Herold’s and is little more than an affirmation of the previous piece.
It includes “trust women”-esque sentences, such as, “So, yes, women are smart, sentient beings who can follow directions, take medication as prescribed, and seek care when needed.”
However, it is the abortion industry which keeps women in the dark about such abortions, promoting them as if they’re simple and quick through propaganda-like articles. Statistics about how “common” abortion is, along with information from Planned Parenthood, are hardly informative or impartial.
Planned Parenthood commits more abortions than any other organization in the U.S., but opposes virtually all laws regulating and restricting abortion — never mind that the abortionist who provides abortion pills to a woman could miss something by not physically examining her.
Planned Parenthood is too enamored with the idea to worry about women’s safety. When the state of Idaho fought against telemed/webcam abortions, the abortion giant sued Idaho to make them available again, despite the fact that the webcam abortions protocol ran counter to the FDA recommendations for the procedure. The state of Idaho settled.
Few other countries have more relaxed abortion laws than the United States, so it’s a mystery to some what more abortion advocates could possibly want. Wonder no longer. Now we know.