Use of the abortion pill is surging. Reports indicate that almost 40 percent of all abortions are now carried out using the abortion pill. But as FRC and many other pro-life organizations have been pointing out, the abortion pill carries with it substantial risk to the health of women.
In response to this concerning upward trend in chemical abortions, the highly effective pro-life organization Live Action recently launched an ad campaign on Google informing women about a safe and effective medical procedure known as abortion pill reversal (APR). According to Live Action, Google had previously approved their APR ads, which the organization had already spent $170,000 on and which had been running for over four months.
But yesterday, Live Action reported that Google not only banned their APR ads, but all of their other ads as well, including one that simply showed animation of human development in the womb, on the basis that the ads contained “unreliable claims.”
Why would Google suddenly reverse course and ban ads that had previously been approved and running for over four months? The answer is clear: the ads were too effective. As Live Action has noted, APR has so far “saved the lives of over 2,500 children and has a 68 percent success rate.”
While this is great news, many more lives could be saved if more women were simply informed about their options if they regret their decision to take the abortion pill. This is the need that was being filled by Live Action’s APR ads — to inform women about AbortionPillReversal.com, which provides a free helpline and information about the abortion pill and how it can be reversed.
Women like Rebekah Buell are pointing out that many women are intentionally not informed by abortion businesses about their options if they regret taking the abortion pill. Ironically, Buell discovered AbortionPillReversal.com from a frantic Google search on her phone in the parking lot of a Planned Parenthood facility after she regretted her decision to take the abortion pill. The doctor she was eventually connected with referred her for immediate progesterone injections, and seven months later, she gave birth to a healthy baby boy.
Buell’s story along with hundreds of other women who have successfully reversed the abortion pill’s effects and given birth to perfectly healthy children attest to the fact that Google’s “unreliable claim” excuse to ban Live Action’s APR ad is verifiably false. As National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis has written:
“Though abortion providers and activists often claim that APR is unsafe, the science behind it is perfectly sound — a high dose of progesterone that can help halt and repair the negative effects of the first chemical-abortion pill. In the largest case series studying APR, nearly 70 percent of women who received the treatment were able to undo the effects of Mifeprex and carry healthy babies to term; none had an increased risk of complications or birth defects.”
What’s particularly galling and tragic about Google’s censorship is that it flies directly in the face of what should be a firm principle of internet public services: free choice. Google has instead chosen to side with an abortion industry that claims to be “pro-choice” while at the same time desperately attempts to keep women in the dark about their health decisions by hiding and distorting information about abortion pill reversal.
Back in 2018, Google removed its well-known but unofficial motto “Don’t be evil” from its Code of Conduct. It was a telling move. Whatever shred of credibility about being a neutral search engine and online advertising service that Google has tried to maintain has long since been lost. It’s way past time for conservatives to move to other platforms like DuckDuckGo, ProtonMail, and other online services that still maintain credibility.
Dan Hart is the Managing Editor for Publications at Family Research Council. His writing has appeared in such outlets as National Review, The Federalist, First Things, The Stream, The Christian Post, the National Catholic Register, and others. Before joining FRC, he served with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, where he worked to promote vocations to the clergy and religious life. His previous endeavors included serving as Associate Editor of iPhone Life Magazine and also in conference implementation at the Food and Drug Law Institute. Dan received a B.A. in English from Franciscan University of Steubenville. He enjoys spending time with his wife and two sons, freelance writing about music and culture, reading, golf, and playing guitar.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.