But wait.

Abortion is taxpayer funded, so who does “cheaper” really benefit? If the government is pushing something because its budget-friendly, can I trust that it’s in my best interests?

“Done in the comfort of your own home” sounds a lot like a euphemism for “do-it-yourself abortion.” I thought we wanted to move away from back alley abortions, where women handle things themselves. If abortion is a medical procedure, shouldn’t a medical expert be involved?

At least it is proven effective. But what if I change my mind, and want to keep my baby? Will I be able to get a prescription for an abortion reversal, or will it be too late because this medication is just so effective?
No ultrasound. This is great – I live in a rural community and might not be able to access one quickly. But, we’re trusting that my estimated date is accurate, that I am definitely 9 weeks pregnant or less, that this pregnancy is absolutely in my uterus, not ectopic. I appreciate the confidence in my awareness of my own body, but I’m not sure I’m willing to stake my life on it. Will it be safe for me to take the pill if I’m actually 12 weeks pregnant? If I start hemorrhaging, what do I do? I don’t have great access to emergency care, and it could be awhile before an ambulance gets to me.

The abortion pill comes with a lot of questions, and not a lot of good answers. Abortion activists focus on Mifegymiso as a way to increase abortion access, especially in rural and remote communities. Since these communities often have lower income women and the least access to ultrasound machines and doctors, they advocate for the removal of “barriers.” This means ensuring the pills are provincially funded, eliminating the need for an ultrasound prior to getting a prescription, and allowing pharmacists, nurses and nurse practitioners to prescribe the medication.

Activists have been very effective in removing perceived barriers to access for the abortion pill. Despite these successful efforts, however, recent reports find that access still remains centred in abortion clinics as the main prescribers. While prescribing pills may be less invasive than inserting a vacuum into a woman’s uterus, the outcome is exactly the same: the death of a human child at some stage of development. A simple fact that abortion activists do not want to accept is that most doctors, whatever their reasons may be, do not want to be abortion providers, regardless of the means. Abortion pill usage rates are climbing, but they are being prescribed by the same people who were doing the surgical abortions, sometimes to the demise of surgical business. It remains to be seen whether this continues; if so, the pill is only a change in method, not prevalence.

As pill usage rates climb and safeguards are eliminated, there is much reason for concern. Moving abortion to our homes will only increase the sense of isolation and sole responsibility women feel when facing an unplanned crisis pregnancy. Many women cite a feeling of desperation when they discover they are unexpectedly pregnant. Desperation and isolation are not something anyone should be promoting for Canadian women. While the abortion pill purports to give women more control over the abortion experience, in fact it further puts the onus of pregnancy (and, by association, child-rearing) on them alone.

As a culture we have dehumanized and devalued pre-born children. Advocating for ubiquitous access to Mifegymiso devalues women as well, by taking a “do-it-yourself” attitude to a life and death issue, and leaving women to deal with the consequences.

Cheap, convenient and highly effective – Mifegymiso is what every medication should be. So, if it wasn’t for the loss of pre-born human life and the lack of caring for women’s health and well-being, I would be totally on board.

A recent article in the National Post presents the regulations around the pill, and the response. Pro-abortion groups are angry that this medication can be prescribed only by a physician, and further incensed that those doctors may choose to have the patient ingest the first dose in their office. In apparent evidence of their desire to make this a game-changer for easing access to abortion in Canada, they want to ignore the warnings of potential harm with which these drugs come. Blood infections, hemorrhages, one (non-fatal) heart attack – it is no wonder this drug took 4 years to be approved, “due to insufficient or missing safety data”.

You would think a group that claims to be focused on women’s health would be a little concerned with safety data. And if we’re concerned about women, we should insist she see an actual doctor, shouldn’t we? If the pregnancy is farther along than she claims, complications also increase. Secretly taking drugs designed to make you bleed quickly, painfully and heavily is not recommended for just anyone.

Let us also consider more closely the point of contention that the doctor has the option to insist that the first dose administered in the office. Abortion advocates argue that the purpose of these drugs should be to revolutionize abortion access in Canada. This “revolution” would allow anyone, anywhere, to get these drugs quickly and quietly in the mail, and deal with the aftermath in the privacy of her own home, where she can pass it off as a natural miscarriage or never tell anyone at all.

This free-for-all undermines actual care for women. To suggest it is unreasonable for a doctor to see the patient take the medication says they are willing to open up vulnerable women to likely abuses of such a drug. This is not just prescribing a medication someone’s teenager may sneak to get high, this is choosing to end a developing life. It seems fairly important that the woman asking for the drug is, in fact, the woman using the drug. Otherwise, if you have a girlfriend, daughter, or student you accidentally impregnated you could find a way to get these drugs and then slip a few pills into their smoothie or pass them the “antibiotic” their doctor prescribed. So much for “choice.”

The abortion pill is already a travesty in Canada. In the womb, the place that should be the safest for a pre-born child, she is deliberately targeted by a medication that thins the uterine lining on which she depends and then, while she’s barely hanging on, follows up with strong contractions to force her out of her haven into arms waiting with a hand on the toilet paper roll and an elbow on the flush handle.

To suggest that we still aren’t making it convenient enough for a woman to kill her baby goes beyond all comprehensible moral standards. If other contract killers had half these conveniences, you can bet the mob would have taken over the world.

Thank you to LifeNews for also publishing this article.