LifeSiteNews Lies to Women About Plan B and Abortion


LifeSiteNews has waged some pretty pathetic wars (it condemned the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace for its humanitarian work in Latin America), but its war on emergency contraception is especially low. Along with other pro-life groups, it has deliberately confused women about the nature of EC, claiming that it causes abortion, and thus disagreeing with the FDA.

LifeSiteNews has outdone itself with yesterday’s "Over-the-Counter Abortion Pills Lead to Menstrual Complications."

The story claims that Indian doctors have found women “arbitrarily and repeatedly” using emergency contraception, and experiencing menstrual irregularities as a result. However, the next paragraph quotes a doctor who talks about “incomplete abortions” resulting from women self-dosing.

Self-dosing what? What is this story about?

LifeSiteNews’s vagueness and poor reporting is often offensive to journalists and discerning readers. But this article, one of the worst examples of its consistent mischaracterization of EC, is truly negligent. Reputable news source or not, LifeSiteNews should be ashamed of the damage it’s doing to women’s health.

What might a woman reading this article think?

1. She might think that the abortion pill, mifepristone (it’s no longer called RU-486), is available over-the-counter. It’s not.

2. She might think that Plan B, which is available over-the-counter, causes an abortion. If this woman is pregnant and is seeking an abortion, she may take EC and think that she’s ended her pregnancy.

3. If the woman above is seeking emergency contraception but doesn’t wish to have an abortion, she may not take Plan B because she thinks it’s an abortifacient. Or she may not take it because she’s too confused to think straight.

Scenario three is what anti-choice groups are going for. Their manipulation of women in this way is appalling, and pro-choice and pro-life women alike should let LifeSiteNews know that this kind of dishonesty brings down the pro-life movement.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    Wait… is this story implying that someone thinks of LifeSite as a “reputable news source”?

  • invalid-0

    Anti-X propaganda site lies about X. Film at eleven.

  • invalid-0

    WASHINGTON, August 16, 2007 – Misleading conclusions are being drawn in news stories based on a study that has indicated that the RU486 abortion drug is no more dangerous than surgical abortions. Misleading major media headlines include: Time magazine’s “Study Finds Abortion Pill Safe,” the CHICAGO TRIBUNE (NOT LIFESITE) “Study: Abortion Pill Doesn’t Increase Risks” and the New York Post’s “Abortion Pill Gets all Clear.”

    “Reporters are drawing the erroneous conclusion that this study means RU486 is completely safe. That’s not what the study says, and nothing could be further from the truth,” said Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger. “Women are dying at an alarming rate from RU486 abortions and its widespread misuse in the abortion industry. That has not changed.”

    The study indicates that future pregnancies are equally affected by RU486 abortions and surgical abortions. However, it is a leap in logic to say that either are safe when the study simply shows that the risks to future pregnancies of both abortion methods are equal.

    The study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine concludes its abstract by underlining that the risks of medical abortion are considered in comparison with the risks of surgical abortion. It states, “We found no evidence that a previous medical abortion, as compared with a previous surgical abortion, increases the risk of spontaneous abortion, ectopic pregnancy, preterm birth, or low birth weight.” (See the abstract online here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/357/7/648).

    “Women who have had abortions have greater risks of miscarriage and infertility than women who have not had abortions. It is no accident that the study refused to compare these two groups of women, because we know they would have found that abortion hurts women, and that is obviously a conclusion that they did not want to reach,” said Sullenger.

    RU486 is a drug approved for abortions in pregnancies under six weeks. Three office visits are usually required for this kind of abortion. Some reports indicate that RU486 has a 15% failure rate, meaning that many women who receive the drug must also have a surgical abortion to completely remove the pre-born baby and other pregnancy tissue.

    “Women aborting with RU486 can pass their babies anywhere. This has created a lot of emotional trauma for women who do not expect to come face to face with a tiny baby complete with arms, legs and a recognizable face,” said Sullenger.

    “The reputation of RU486 has suffered recently because of the publicity generated by a number of abortion deaths related to the drug. The media distortion we are seeing is a simple case of public relations damage control,” said Sullenger. “Hiding the possibility of RU486’s life-threatening dangers from women really shows that there is more concern for selling abortions than for protecting and informing women. This misinformation campaign is really a horrific thing when you think about it that could needlessly cost women’s lives.”

  • colleen

    You know SUE it’s not just rude to cut and paste a meaningless article, I’m wondering why you would insult us  by quoting convicted felon and domestic terrorist,  Cheryl Sullenger. Ms Sullenger has no medical training and is the last person anyone would seek out for information about the health and wefare of women. She is an enemy to  her country and a disgrace to her gender.

     

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • invalid-0

    With all the official Catholic Church opposition to health reform that includes access to abortion, will the Church now advocate for federally-funded ovary, fallopian tube, uterus, testes and vas deferens transplants?

    It would seem so from recent comments. Paul Lauritzen, professor of religious studies at John Carroll University in Ohio, quoted in the July 2009 article below, depicts the Roman Catholic Church as favoring intercourse leading to non-genetically related offspring over baby-making with a couple’s own genetic material:

    http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=136743

    So, the Catholic Church essentially says, it is morally permissible for a woman to have intercourse with her husband, procreate and give birth to a child not of her DNA, but a grave moral evil if a woman’s eggs and her husband’s sperm are joined via IVF and all embryos are transferred to her uterus for a chance at life. (Reference – Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center) Which of the two scenarios would likely cause more lasting damage to the marriage and to the resulting children’s self-esteem? “Honey, I have no idea who your biological mother is, but the Catholic Church said we could only procreate through intercourse, and I had problems ovulating, so I chose to have donated ovaries inserted in my body rather than have to turn to evil IVF to become a mother. Rest assured all is right in God’s eyes.”

    I would be overjoyed to read an article in a mainstream publication probing the Catholic Church on how this philosophy should play out in the publically-funded healthcare debate. It would make a great counter-piece to the Roman Catholic Church in India planning to subsidize tubal ligation reversal to attempt to raise birth rates among a declining Catholic population there.

  • invalid-0

    Women aborting with RU486 can pass their babies anywhere. This has created a lot of emotional trauma for women who do not expect to come face to face with a tiny baby complete with arms, legs and a recognizable face.

    Mifepristone terminates an intrauterine pregnancy up to 49 days. At 49 days-the absolute latest you could take mifepristone to terminate a pregnancy-the fetus is 1/4 to 1/3 inch long (a little bigger than the top of a pencil eraser).

    Women who have had abortions have greater risks of miscarriage and infertility than women who have not had abortions.

    This has been refuted over and over again and is only true to the same group of people that still think abortions increase the risk of breast cancer.

    I could go on, but what’s the point? Arguing with someone who refuses all logic and all facts at the behest of the dogma they’ve ascribed to is pointless and fruitless. We should be focusing on correcting the misinformation that’s out there and moving on.

  • http://www.green.net invalid-0

    This one time… from nelson boles on Vimeo.