The World Health Organization (WHO) has published a handbook for committing surgical and telemedicine abortions via the abortion pill regimen, while downplaying any impact on mental health.
In a press release, the WHO touted the handbook for “detail[ing] practically how health workers can apply human rights principles in their work to deliver abortion care.” In reality, the WHO’s “Clinical practice handbook for quality abortion care” outlines ways for physicians to systematically violate the preborn’s human rights while endangering women’s health.
The 66-page guidebook is intended to facilitate the application of the WHO’s “Abortion care guideline,” which insists on “[a]bortion care” being “timely, affordable, non-discriminatory and respectful.” It contains information on surgical abortions, as well as dosage instructions for mifepristone and misoprostol, the two drugs typically used in the abortion pill regimen.
Telemedicine is included as a “recommended option as an alternative to in-person interactions with the health worker to deliver medical abortion services in whole or in part.”
It adds:
This means that the assessment of eligibility for medical abortion, counselling and/or instruction relating to the abortion process, instruction for and active facilitation of the administration of medicines, and follow-up post-abortion care can all be provided through telemedicine. Telemedicine services should include referrals (based on the woman’s location) for medicines (abortion and pain control medicines), any abortion care or post-abortion follow-up required (including for emergency care if needed), and for post-abortion contraceptive services, which may apply to both medical and surgical abortion.
WHO Head of the Comprehensive Abortion Care Unit Dr. Bela Ganatra touted medicinal abortions in a press release.
“Medical abortion has played a seminal role in expanding access to safe abortion globally, especially for women and girls in the most vulnerable situations who may lack access to health facilities or need to keep their abortion private by avoiding hospital stays, so it’s important that healthcare practitioners can facilitate it as an option for abortion care,” said Ganatra.
Pro-life doctors have repeatedly warned about the dangers of telemedicine abortions and the abortion pill more generally. After recent court decisions, blue states started stocking up on misoprostol and mifepristone as an insurance policy against nationwide prohibitions. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has liberalized access to the pill by eliminating the in-person dispensing requirement.
According to medical professionals, that in-person requirement is important for determining gestational age and ruling out ectopic pregnancies, among other things.
The WHO’s handbook notes that “[n]either mifepristone nor misoprostol (nor both combined) will terminate an ectopic pregnancy.” It also directs professionals to “[e]valuate the woman for an ongoing pregnancy as well as for ectopic pregnancy if she reports signs or symptoms of continuing pregnancy after medical abortion.”
The true danger of the abortion pill is still unknown as the FDA has severely limited its reporting requirements, which it then used as a basis for loosening its regulations. Pro-life scholars have found purportedly troubling discrepancies in the data. One study looked at Medicaid data and found chemical abortion-related ER visits increased at a faster rate than those related to surgical abortions.
Where better data has been found in Finland, researchers found bad news for abortion pill proponents. A 2009 study from the country showed that among 42,000 women, there was a four times higher adverse event rate for chemical abortions compared to surgical ones.
The WHO, however, is rabidly pro-abortion and argued earlier this year that abortion “saves lives.” The months following Dobbs have indicated that the WHO is wrong in arguing that restrictions don’t decrease the number of procedures.
