Robert King

robert.king@indystar.com

In making their case against abortion, anti-abortion groups have long pointed to women who have regretted their decisions to terminate a pregnancy. Now they say they have a tool to avert some abortions and the regrets — and they want the state to ensure women know about it.

It's a controversial approach called abortion pill reversal, which proponents say offers women a chance to stop a chemically induced abortion in its tracks. Critics say there's no scientific evidence to support abortion pill reversal, that women may be subjecting themselves to an unnecessary and risky treatment and that there are too many questions about it to enshrine it in state law.

Yet on Wednesday the House Public Policy Committee voted 7 to 6 — with two Republicans joining all four Democrats in opposition — to approve House Bill 1128, which would require abortion providers give women information about the reversal process prior to them receiving the abortion drugs.

"This is for those who take that first step and regret it," said Rep. Peggy Mayfield, R-Martinsville, a supporter of the bill. "There is an alternative there. There is hope."

Estimates vary, but chemically induced abortions — rather than those performed surgically — account for 15 percent to 30 percent of abortions. The process involves two drugs — mifepristone (formerly known as RU486) and misoprostol.

Mifepristone blocks the action of progesterone, a hormone crucial to early fetal development. Without progesterone, the pregnancy terminates. Two to three days later, misoprostol is taken. It causes the uterus to contract and expel tissues in the uterus from the body.

In recent years, a California-based organization called Abortion Pill Reversal said it has developed a process to interrupt such abortions. It does so by treating the woman with high doses of synthetic progesterone before the second abortion drug is administered. On its website, the group claims a 55 percent success rate in stopping abortions.

In testimony before the committee this past week, Dr. Christina Francis, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Fort Wayne who is a member of the group's physicians network, said she has used the treatment to help women avert abortions.

"This is not just a hypothetical treatment," she said. One of her patients appeared before the committee, giving a tearful account of how she began the abortion process, had regrets, found Abortion Pill Reversal online, connected with Francis and began treatment that eventually led to her safely delivering a baby boy.

The Abortion Pill Reversal website lists the stories of eight women, identified only by first names, who say they have averted abortions through the process. Francis said the organization's founder, Dr. George Delgado, is about to come forth with examples of 300 successful abortion reversals. Delgado's organization didn't return requests for comment Wednesday.

Rep. Ronald Bacon, R-Chandler, said it was a conversation with Francis that prompted him to introduce HB 1128, which will require abortion providers to present information about abortion reversal, but not recommend it. "To me this is just another choice bill," Bacon said. "She’s going to have the ability to change her mind.”

Both camps say there are no proven risks of birth defects for a baby subjected to the first abortion drug.

Among the skeptics about abortion reversal is Dr. Katherine McHugh, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Indianapolis. Testifying before the committee this past week, McHugh said Delgado has described the treatment of only six patients, and his work is hard to evaluate because there was no standard protocol or dosage and his work hasn't been reviewed by other doctors or subjected to an ethical review.

"This is not vetted science. This is not good science, and it's not good medicine," McHugh said.

Her view of abortion reversal is shared by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which says there's no reliable research to prove any treatment reverses the effects of mifepristone. A 2015 paper issued by the organization's Arizona chapter said a woman who simply doesn't take the second pill stands a 30 percent to 50 percent chance of continuing with her pregnancy. And it is this, McHugh said, that may account for the success stories Abortion Pill Reversal people have cited.

“Please do not confuse a medical gamble with vetted scientific data,” she said.

The obstetricians organization says giving high doses of progesterone is normally safe, but it can cause adverse cardiovascular, nervous system and endocrine reactions.

In recent years, Arizona, South Dakota and Arkansas have passed laws regarding abortion reversal. Planned Parenthood challenged the Arizona law in federal court and the legislature rescinded it, with Arizona's attorney general conceding the federal court case.

On Wednesday, Betty Cockrum, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, described HB 1128 as "abysmal, unwelcome and misguided public health policy." She referred to some additional reporting requirements in the bill as "the latest attempt to erect further barriers to access abortion in Indiana."

A fiscal impact statement on Indiana's bill notes the potential for costs from legal challenges. But the bill has drawn support from Indiana Right to Life and the Indiana Catholic Conference. It is just the latest offering in the Indiana legislature on one of the most controversial subjects in politics. An earlier proposal to outlaw and criminalize all forms of abortion stalled in committee. Another to require mandatory ultrasounds 48 hours before an abortion remains in committee as well.

House Bill 1128 now moves to the full House.

Call IndyStar reporter Robert King at (317) 444-6089. Follow him on Twitter: @RbtKing.

2 bills, 2 views on guns and domestic violence

Indiana House passes bill to protect Airbnb rentals