I found a study
from the University of Michigan that detected a problem with misoprostol to be a bit curious. This is a drug that, according to patient information
, "reduces stomach acid and replaces protective substances in the stomach that are inhibited by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin."
This drug is taken, for example, by people who are using NSAIDs for arthritis and other painful conditions because the NSAID can cause serious indigestion.
However, that is not why the study was begun in Michigan. No, the fact is that for some years now misoprostol has been used for the FDA-approved purpose of complimenting mifeprex (RU-486 ) in the medical abortion process. And that, my friend, is why I thought the research a bit curious!
To be frank, it isn't very often that a mainline research facility connected with a less-than-pro-life bastion of higher education exposes the gruesome underbelly of the abortion cartel.
But here we have it. The study is at hand and it is shocking.
The preliminary University of Michigan studies indicate
, according to the UMHS Newsroom, that oral use of RU-486's companion drug misoprostol is safe, but off-label vaginal use may undermine body's immune responses.
Since the 2000 eight women who were otherwise very healthy died rather questionable deaths – questionable because nobody could explain what had happened to them. But in seven of the cases women who had acquired medical abortion chemicals from Planned Parenthood were instructed to use both the RU-486 and misoprostol vaginally rather than taking the medication orally.
Due to the manner in which the misoprostol was administered, according to researchers, the immune system was compromised.
It is true that the initial results of the studies being done by Michigan employed rats as research subjects, but the findings are most interesting and may point directly to why the women died. This assumption is precisely what the researchers are suggesting. They report,
In animal and cell culture studies, the U-M researchers found that misoprostol, when given directly in the reproductive tract, suppresses key immune responses and can allow a normally non-threatening bacterium, Clostridium sordellii, to gain the upper hand and cause deadly infection. When absorbed through the stomach, however, the drug did not compromise immune defenses or cause illness.
The Centers for Disease Control provides a clinical definition
of this bacterium:
Clostridium sordellii ("klaw-stri-dee-um sore-dell-ee-I") is a rare bacterium that causes pneumonia, endocarditis, arthritis, peritonitis, and myonecrosis. C. sordellii bacteremia and sepsis occur rarely. Most cases of sepsis from C. sordellii occur in patients with underlying conditions. Severe toxic shock syndrome among previously healthy persons has been described in a small number of C. sordellii cases, most often associated with gynecologic infections in women and infection of the umbilical stump in newborns.
It is a bit sobering to read such a definition and then contemplate the horror of why these eight women died.
It is obvious from all I have seen on this study that in each of the cases where the woman died, Clostridium sordelii got totally out of hand and caused the death. And in each case, the death could have been avoided had the expectant mother sought help to carry her baby to term rather than help to end her baby's life – help that organizations like planned Parenthood are all too willing to provide, I might add.
The study, which appears in the Journal of Immunology
, is being described as one that will help doctors understand possible risky infections that could occur during pregnancy, but I have to ask a very simple question when I read something like this: Isn't there a huge difference between a normal pregnancy that is occurring as it should and one that is violently interrupted by the use of clearly dangerous chemicals designed to prematurely end the pregnancy? The obvious answer to my question is yes, but then the obvious is never quite clear in some circles! I digress.
Planned Parenthood caught on right away when clients started dying and did issue a warning. Subsequently, Planned Parenthood changed their recommendations regarding the vaginal administration of the drug, but I would imagine that had more to do with the possibility of malpractice lawsuits than it did with a sincere concern for the welfare of women.
One of the news reports stated that this research done on rats caused the statement regarding the possible cause of death for the eight women to be made. It is also reported, of course, that "more than a half–million women in the United States have undergone medication abortions safely using the two drugs since the FDA approved the method in 2000."
That's the sort of callous statement that relegates human beings to percentage points on a scale and then dismisses their sad demise as a mere blip on the abortion radar screen. Business as usual it seems, though I dare say this research study has not done much to enhance the moral status of Planned Parenthood in the eyes of an ever more aware public – thanks in no small part, I would suggest, to the rats!
As Jim Sedlak pointed out
Planned Parenthood not only disregards the lives of babies in the womb, but the lives of their mothers as well.
It's time people stopped viewing Planned Parenthood as a responsible healthcare organization and see it for what it is – a money-making, social engineering group that plies its trade of sex and abortion without regard to human life, born or preborn.