How often have you heard the argument that abortion should remain legal because, otherwise, women would resort to dangerous back-alley abortions? This is the so-called clothes-hanger argument, a reference to the crude and unsafe method of abortion that obviously exposes women to sepsis, hemorrhage, infection, and worse.

Abortion opponents argue it’s morally wrong to kill an innocent human and harmful to women, while advocates defend it as essential for personal autonomy and women’s health, citing the clothes-hanger argument to avoid unsafe back-alley abortions.

If both sides of the abortion debate agree that protecting women from harmful abortion procedures is critical, then it follows that if the abortion pill, Mifepristone, is the chemical version of the clothes-hanger, exposing women to sepsis, hemorrhage, infection, and worse, then both sides ought to demand that the FDA do its job and provide objective safety criteria and reconsider its approval altogether.

Can we expect this unified call? Sadly, no. Abortion advocates defend chemical abortion, no matter what dangers it poses to women. Worse, they are also pushing for less oversight in the prescription and use of the abortion pill. For example, several states recently passed laws allowing prescribers to remain anonymous, making it impossible for women injured by the abortion pill to sue for malpractice when doctors fail to inform them of risks or provide supervision. (RELATED: Abortion Coercion Concerns Surrounding........

© The Daily Caller