Christian doctor Dermot Kearney shares his harrowing experience of being targeted by abortion providers and medical authorities for offering Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) treatment to women who changed their minds after taking the first abortion pill (mifepristone). His case highlights the intersection of religious discrimination and medical freedom in healthcare.
• Dr. Kearney and colleague Dr. Eileen Riley were investigated by the General Medical Council for providing progesterone treatment to women who regretted taking the abortion pill
• The complaint specifically cited their Catholic faith, claiming Catholics "could not be trusted" to provide appropriate care
• Abortion pill reversal has a 55% success rate when progesterone is administered promptly after taking mifepristone
• At least 62 UK babies have been born following successful abortion pill reversal treatment
• After fighting the case with legal support from Christian Concern, all charges were dropped when the GMC admitted they had no evidence of misconduct
• During COVID, UK abortion practices shifted to "pills by post" with minimal medical supervision and follow-up
• UK abortion providers receive substantial payment per abortion with minimal overhead for mail-delivery abortions
• 98% of UK abortions are performed under mental health grounds despite no evidence that abortion improves mental health
• Women seeking abortions receive no mental health evaluation before being approved for the procedure
To reach Veil + Armour, please visit:
https://veilandarmour.com
https://www.youtube.com/@veilandarmour
https://www.x.com/@sheilanonato
https://www.sheilanonato.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/@veilandarmour
What resonated with you the most about this episode? Feel free to email us and let us know!
Email: veilandarmour@gmail.com
If our podcast helped you in some way, or could help someone else, kindly share our podcast with a friend!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Dr. Dermot Kearney (00:00):
Their main concern was not so much the
treatment.
They were concerned that therewere Catholics providing this
service.
They said that Catholics couldnot be trusted.
We have the written letter toshow this that their concern was
that one of them myself at thetime was the current president
of the Catholic MedicalAssociation.
The other is a prominentCatholic pro-life speaker and
these people cannot be trustedto provide non-judgmental,
(00:24):
appropriate care for thesevulnerable women.
And this was written in writing.
The sad thing is that the GMC(General Medical Council of UK)
endorsed this and in the casesagainst us they actually used
that as evidence in the tribunal.
Sheila Nonato (00:38):
Hello and welcome to the Veil and Armour podcast.
This is your host, SheilaNonato.
I'm a stay-at-home mom and afreelance Catholic journalist,
seeking the guidance of the HolySpirit and the inspiration of
Our Lady, I strive to tellstories that inspire, illuminate
and enrich the lives ofCatholic women, to help them and
living out our vocation ofraising the next generation of
(01:00):
leaders and Saints please joinus every week on the veil and
armor podcast, where storiescome alive through a
journalist's lens in mother'sheart.
Another beautiful baby girl hasbeen born this morning, the 9th
of September, in the north ofEngland, to a beautiful and
grateful mother who receivedhelp with abortion pill reversal
in early pregnancy afterregretting she had taken
(01:23):
Mifepristone.
We now have at least 63 UKabortion pill reversal babies.
This is what UK doctor DermotKearney had posted on Twitter
almost a year ago, not too longafter the ban reversal on his
provision of potentiallylife-saving medical care made
available for free for women whohave taken the abortion pill
(01:46):
early on in pregnancy.
During the pandemic lockdown,instead of abortion clinics and
hospitals, abortion movedindoors.
Chemical abortions back thenand now, are increasingly
carried out without medicalsupervision in women's homes.
How did Dr Kearney getcancelled for his medical
practice?
(02:06):
Why did they target hisChristian faith?
Let's hear Dr Kearney speakabout the case against him by
pro-abortion group MSIReproductive Choice and the
British General Medical Council,which initially barred him from
performing Abortion PillReversal.
A voice of reason in a hostileworld always to instruct and
(02:27):
educate, never to humiliate, ishow Dr Kearney describes his
Twitter bio.
Let's hear how his concern forpatient safety, women's health
and providing care for theunborn form part of his desire
to work in pro-life and in hismedical practice.
Thank you and God bless.
In the name of the Father andof the Son and of the Holy
(02:48):
Spirit.
Amen.
Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed thou amongst women, andblessed is the fruit of thy
womb, jesus.
Dr. Dermot Kearney (02:59):
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us
sinners, now and at the hour ofour death.
Amen.
In the name of the Father andof the Son, now and at the hour
of our death.
Sheila Nonato (03:05):
Amen, Amen, in the name of the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen,thank you.
Thank you, Dr.
Kearney, for joining us.
Perhaps Canadians may behearing will soon be hearing a
familiar case as Canada's own Dr.
Jordan Peterson has been havinghis own battles with free
(03:26):
speech, having been threatenedwith having his license taken
away by the College ofPsychologists in Ontario, and in
your case, the right topractice medicine and deliver
life-saving care was on the line.
Can you tell us, can you giveus an update on what happened
and what is the update on thatcase?
Dr. Dermot Kearney (03:47):
Sure.
Well, as you probably know thatI and one other doctor in the
United Kingdom were helpingwomen who had taken the first
abortion pill, Mifepristone, butwho then changed their mind and
wanted to try to save theirbabies and they in desperation.
They they looked to see wasthere anybody that could help
them?
And they came through a varietyof channels and myself and the
(04:10):
other doctor, dr riley and rileywe were registered with an
international helpline withAbortion Pill Reversal network
based in ohio in the U.
S.
and um most of the calls to uscame through there, where the
girls would find a helpline onthe internet, phone or email the
helpline and then they wouldsay, oh yes, we have a doctor in
in the uk who might be able tohelp you, and then they would
(04:30):
put us well, either myself or Dr.
(Eileen) Riley in contact withthe with the girl looking for
for support.
And you know there is aninternational helpline.
So they would have a network ofdoctors all over the, all over
the world, mostly in UnitedStates and some in Canada, who
provide this support for womenwho come looking for this help.
And then we would discuss withthem the possible success rates,
(04:52):
because it's not alwayssuccessful, but if we give
natural progesterone to thesemothers before miscarriage has
occurred, so before theyexperience heavy bleeding,
severe cramps, there's areasonable chance that the baby
might survive.
And I would inform the mothersexactly what the success rates
(05:12):
would be in our experience andin the international experience.
So I would always tell themthat if, if she, if she took the
two abortion pills, as theabortion providers would advise
her to do or recommend her to,if she took both abortion pills,
there would be a less than 2%chance her baby would survive
and there would be no point justgiving progesterone at that
(05:32):
stage.
If she took the first abortionpill, Mifepristone, but didn't
take the second abortion pill,as she might have been
instructed to do that's calledMisoprostol but if she didn't
receive progesterone so shedidn't get the life-saving help
that we could offer, there wouldbe a less than 20% chance her
baby would survive.
But that would depend on theage of gestation.
So if it was over 10 weeksthere would be a slightly better
(05:53):
chance than if it was just sixor seven weeks, but overall a
less than 20% chance that herbaby would survive.
So an 80% certainty of deaththat her baby would die.
If, an 80% certainty of deaththat our baby would die.
If, however, she took the firstabortion pill, didn't take the
second pill and managed topromptly get progesterone that
we were offering and prepared toprescribe for her, and if she
(06:14):
got it within before sheexperienced severe cramps,
severe bleeding, heavy bleeding,there was a greater than 50%
chance a baby would survive.
So in our experience it's 55%.
In the United States it'sslightly better, they're up to
65%.
That's largely due to a greaterawareness, so a more speedy
provision of the service, butalso in many cases in the United
(06:36):
States they have the luxury ofdoing an ultrasound scan before
they give the treatment, so theycan check to see if the baby is
still alive and viable, whereaswe didn't have that, so some of
the babies were probablyalready dead by the time we
could start treatment.
But still our success rate isover 50 percent, so 55 percent.
So that's quite remarkable.
There are very, very fewinterventions in medicine, in
any branch of medicine, whereyou can reduce a certain
(06:58):
mortality rate of 80 percentplus more than 80 percent to
less than 50 percent.
Percent plus more than 80percent to less than 50 percent,
that's a a relative mortality,a certain mortality risk
reduction of more than 30percent and there are very, very
few interventions in medicinethat that's actually that's
nobel prize sort of stuff.
Because we get very excited and, for example, I'm a
cardiologist we get very excitedif a new treatment comes along
(07:21):
that reduces mortality or isseen to or believed to reduce
mortality by 10 percent or 15percent, so to actually reduce
mortality, certain mortality, bymore than 30 percent and so
you're more than doubling thechance of the baby surviving.
And is remarkable now are it'sdisappointing that we don't have
100 success rate but and manyof the girls come to us but
(07:42):
still.
For example, I had a callearlier this week with a girl.
Before she could get theprogesterone she already had
heavy hemorrhage and bleedingand her call didn't come through
until almost 72 hours.
But the sooner this treatmentcan be given the better.
So myself and Dr.
Riley were providing thisservice.
We had started in 2020.
She did her first cases in lateMay 2020.
(08:05):
I did my first provision ofabortion reversal in late June
2020.
And we had the first yearbetween the two of us.
We had 32 babies' lives weresaved.
Myself I was involved in 20 ofthose and not all of them had
been born by that, becauseobviously it takes nine months
for a pregnancy to progress 40weeks but unknown to us, an
(08:29):
investigation was taking placefrom as early as January 2021,
where some people in theabortion industry were upset at
this service that we wereproviding to women and keep in
mind, it was the women who werecoming to us.
We weren't putting any pressureon them, but they fabricated
some false allegations againstmyself and Dr.
Riley.
They tried to make it seem thatwe were forcing our pro-life,
(08:51):
our Catholic beliefs on thesevulnerable women, that we were
misleading them, we were givingthem illegal and unlicensed
medication and that we wereharming these women in some way.
So these allegations were putforward to the General Medical
Council by mainly by two groupsby the royal college of
obstetricians and who formulatedthe case against both myself
(09:12):
and dr riley, and also marystopes international and call
themselves msi reproductivechoices and the one of the main
abortion providers.
So their medical director tooka particular interest in me and
he um, he wrote to the gmc, uhmade up allegations against me
without any evidence whatsoeverand I don't think he was
(09:33):
involved in dr riley's case.
Hers was mainly through theroyal college of obstetrician.
Their main concern was not somuch the treatment.
They were concerned that therewere catholics providing this
service.
They said that Catholics couldnot be trusted.
We have the written letter toshow this that their concern was
that one of them myself at thetime was the current president
(09:53):
of the Catholic MedicalAssociation.
The other is a prominentCatholic pro-life speaker and
these people cannot be trustedto provide nonjudgmental,
appropriate care for thesevulnerable women.
And this was written in writing.
The sad thing is that the GMCendorsed this and, in the cases
against us, that they actuallyuse that as evidence in the in
the tribunal.
So on the, as I said, theinvestigation had been unknown
(10:17):
to us from january 2021.
We were both made aware of italmost simultaneously.
We both received emails fromthe General Medical Council, you
know, within minutes of eachother, on the same day, on the
28th of April 2021.
So several months later to saythat serious allegations of
possible professional misconducthad been made against us
(10:37):
because of this service that wewere offering to women and that
we were ordered to attend atribunal to women and that we
were ordered to attend atribunal.
They couldn't order us to stopimmediately.
It had to go through a courttype procedure, the medical
practitioners tribunal service,which is linked to the GMC,
although allegedly independentof the GMC.
So both of us had a hearingdate less than two weeks later,
(11:00):
on the 12th of May.
We had to inform Some of thepro-life organizations because,
what I mentioned, most of thereferrals coming to us were
through the internationalhelpline.
Some of the referrals werecoming through some of the UK
based pro-life organizations,such as the Society for the
Protection of Unborn Children,Good Counsel Network, Christian
(11:22):
Concern.
So we had to inform thesegroups that unfortunately we
would not be in a position toprovide the service anymore.
So if any young mothers didcontact them looking to help
them, unfortunately we would notbe allowed to do it at that
moment in time.
When Christian Concern heardthis, this was on a Wednesday
and by Friday morning theirchief executive, andrea Williams
(11:44):
, had arranged a meeting, a Zoommeeting, with myself, dr Riley
and herself and two of herleading legal people in the
Christian Legal Centre, which isaffiliated to Christian Concern
, and they decided that we weregoing to fight this Because
myself and Dr Riley thought well, there's nothing you can do
with the General Medical Council, we've no power against them.
(12:04):
It's a real David and Goliathsituation, Andrea Williams, I
remember very well on thatmorning and Goliath situation.
Andrea Williams, I remembervery well on that morning she
pointed her finger at the cameraand she said no, we will not
accept this.
This is unjust.
We will fight this and we willwin this.
And so I went to a Christianconcern.
They defended me very, very,very, very well, very, very
(12:25):
appropriately.
They put forward very strongcases.
Dr Riley decided, on advice thatshe obtained from a colleague,
that she should try and not gowith one of the faith-based
organizations which should go toa secular sort of defense
association.
So she went to one of the localdefense.
Their attitude was totallydifferent.
Their attitude was we knowyou're guilty, keep your head
(12:46):
down, try not to make this anyworse, don't challenge it and
we'll try and aim for damagelimitation and try and get the
best deal we can out of this.
Nevertheless, both of us had togo to um, this tribunal, on the
12th of may.
I went first in the morningtime, she went in the afternoon
and the GMC's barrister putforward.
All the allegations were.
In my there were 10 specificallegations relating to using
(13:11):
what they called illegal,unethical, unlicensed medication
, forcing my pro-life beliefs,forcing my Catholic beliefs on
these vulnerable women, notobtaining proper consent.
And the one thing that did getright was that I did help in
some cases, for some of thewomen weren't weren't able to
(13:34):
afford the treatment thetreatment is not expensive, but
£20, but some of them weren'table to pay the pharmacy costs.
So I offered in some cases tohelp.
So they claimed that I wasbribing the women to do what I
was actually doing.
In fact we were able to showthat I was paying the pharmacy,
not the mothers themselves.
And the other thing that theydid get right is that I wasn't
following the recommendedguidelines on abortion provision
(13:57):
because I wasn't providingabortion.
So they got that one right, butall the other allegations were
just fabricated with absolutelyno evidence to support them, and
so the outcome of that?
We put forward our case.
We actually had quite a strongcase because we had managed to
get, within a matter of days, anexpert witness who had no
conflict of interest.
He's a well-recognizedpracticing obstetrician in the
(14:22):
UK.
He's a fellow of the RoyalCollege of Obstetricians, so the
group that took us to task.
He performs abortions, he's notCatholic, he's not Christian,
and yet he looked at theevidence, or the lack of
evidence, and said this isridiculous, you have a very
strong case.
And he answered all of theallegations in his own in a way,
as I did.
(14:42):
I gave responses to all theallegations but nevertheless
that the outcome of that trial,that tribunal was for both
myself and Dr Riley, who came ona few hours later, was that in
my case, that I must notprescribe, administer or
recommend progesterone forabortion universal.
And they also added in someextra conditions attached to my
(15:03):
practice that I wasn't allowedto do any private work which I
don't do anyway apart fromthis't allowed to do any private
work which I don't do anywayapart from this, which is unpaid
private work, and I wasn'tallowed to do any voluntary
works.
I wasn't allowed to provide anyvoluntary services to anybody.
At that time I used to go onpilgrimage as a volunteer
(15:23):
medical volunteer to lourdeswith helping sick people and
invalided people in lourdes, soI wouldn't be allowed to do that
anymore unless I had writtenexpress permission from the
General Medical Council.
It's worth noting also that theGMC in their statements they
wanted, they demanded themaximum penalty for both myself
(15:44):
and Dr Riley.
They wanted us suspendedcompletely from medical practice
for 18 months and that was themaximum penalty that could be
imposed, and so we wouldn't beable to earn a livelihood, be
able to do any work as doctors.
Fortunately, the tribunalthought that was
disproportionate and also thiswas in the time of Covid, at a
time when they were trying topersuade doctors to come out of
retirement, come back from thedead and start providing
(16:07):
services, because there was sucha shortage of doctors able and
willing to care for people atthat pandemic crisis time.
So the tribunal thought thatwould be disproportionate.
So they allowed me to continuedoing my normal general medical,
internal medical cardiologywork.
But I wasn't allowed to dothese.
So some conditions wereattached, mainly relating to the
(16:28):
continuing provision ofprogesterone treatment for women
who wanted.
So we were banned for 18 months.
That was the maximum that couldbe imposed, but that had to be
reviewed every six months andthe usual practice in those
situations is that they will gothrough the motions of reviewing
the case every six months andnothing new will be allowed to
be put forward and they willjust renew it every six months.
Then, when it gets to 18 months, they will continue to find
(16:49):
some reason to maintain it.
So this could have gone on andon and on in perpetuity.
So my legal team, after weappealed it and we got some
statements from several of thewomen, we could have got 40
statements of that, all of whatare supportive, but we got 10
different ones.
So we've got 10 differentmothers who are willing to, are
(17:11):
very willing to give ussupportive statements.
I wasn't allowed of any role init.
It was all done through thelegal people, so my only role
was I had to ask the motherswould they mind if a lawyer
contacted them and if I gavethem the contact details?
And in all cases they said yes,that'd be no problem.
So I wasn't allowed to knowwhat questions were going to be
asked.
So the legal team interviewed 10of the ladies and some of them
(17:33):
had had their babies already,having gone through the abortion
pill reversal processsuccessfully.
Some of them had tried thetreatment but it hadn't worked
and they'd lost their babies.
But they were still verygrateful that somebody had
helped them and they werewilling to to provide witness
statements in support of what wewere doing.
Some of them two of them weremothers who had discussed it
(17:54):
with me but for various reasonshad decided not to go ahead with
the treatment, usually becauseof some sort of coercion that
they would like to about theirboyfriend or their husband, or
someone was going to throw themout or leave them if they didn't
have the abortion.
But some of them were verywilling to go ahead.
So we've got 10 differentwitness statements, totally
(18:15):
different stories.
All of them have been verysupportive and so we presented
this to the general medicalcouncil and to the tribunal and
later, after the initial one.
So this was a part of our appealand we got a word in August so
three months ahead of schedulethat yes, new information had
come to light and they weregoing to have an early review,
and we thought this is great.
They're obviously taking intoaccount the witness statements
that have come forward, provingthat there was no substance to
(18:37):
the allegations that had beenmade, particularly in relation
to pressure being put on mothersor forcing our beliefs on these
vulnerable women.
And, to our astonishment, atthe very outset, even before the
tribunal was went underway, thechairperson said of course,
while new evidence has come tolight, we will not be looking at
(18:58):
any evidence, we will purely belooking at the allegations.
And at that stage, while againthis was on zoom, my lawyer just
threw his hands up in the airand made an exasperated
statement that this was aridiculous kangaroo court.
And we went through the motionsof, but we knew what the
outcome was going to be.
So they just and said that thecontinued conditions imposed
must remain in place, that thatI was still a danger to the
(19:19):
general public if I was allowedto continue their practice of
oroviding the service to women.
So that stage my legal teamdecided we're going to have to
go further than this.
So we took a case to the HighCourt to take it out of the
hands of the GMC and the MedicalTribunal.
So we went to the Civil HighCourt in London and we put
(19:42):
forward our application at theend of September, start of
October 2021.
Now I thought there would be along backlog because we're still
trying to get through casesthat have been delayed because
of COVID.
So I was expecting it would beat least 12 months before
anything is heard.
But surprisingly, we heard veryquickly that we were granted a
hearing at the end of February2022.
So just a few months later.
(20:05):
By that stage the GeneralMedical Council admitted and we
got a number of emails from themto say that they were having
difficulty finding an expertwitness of their own to support
the allegations and to look atthe evidence or the lack of
evidence, which was interestingbecause we got one within two
days or three days and we had areport within a week and they,
several months later, stilldidn't have one.
(20:26):
Eventually they got one in lateDecember 2021.
Later, still didn't have one.
Eventually they got one in lateDecember 2021.
He or she I won't mention whatgender, but again, he or she was
a prominent member of the RoyalCollege of Obstetricians and a
fellow of the Royal College.
His or her report was verysimilar to the report given by
(20:47):
our expert witness.
It tore apart the allegationssaying that there was little or
no evidence right and the onlyconcern that this expert witness
had was that on the question ofthe payment for the, for the
treatment, and also I had alsovolunteered in some cases to
arrange if the, if the motherscouldn't get ultrasound
examinations, which they need toget to see if the treatment is
(21:08):
is working or the child isviable, especially if they have
any bleeding.
So he or she was a little bitconcerned that money was being
provided to either obtain thetreatment or the ultrasound if
they couldn't get one throughtheir own NHS.
And at the time of COVID it wasvery difficult in some cases to
get ultrasound scans donepromptly because of the concerns
(21:31):
over spreading the virus.
But again we were able to showthat we weren't paying the woman
.
We were putting down a depositto the private ultrasound people
and we had no control over that.
It was just a local service.
Wherever the woman wanted to goand she chose and we or I was
happy to provide a down paymentfor that, to make sure that the
(21:52):
scan went ahead, and, similarly,we were paying the pharmacist
rather than just whatever thecost of the treatment was.
So there was no extra treatmentor bribery being involved.
And once that was pointed outand the expert witness from the
GMC was satisfied that there wasnothing he or she could say
that what we were doing wascould be considered professional
(22:12):
misconduct.
So then, so we were due to haveour hearing, I think on the
24th of february, and just a fewdays eight, on the 18th, or a
few days about six days beforethat, um, because we were
getting ready for we all all oursort of our statements,
everything ready for our courtappearance, our day in court.
And then, six days beforehand,I got a phone call from my legal
(22:33):
team to say had I heard thegood news that the case had been
dropped against myself, notagainst Dr Riley, you know she
had.
She hadn't challenged this, soshe was still working with the
other group, so the conditionsimposed upon her still still
remained in place, but theconditions against me were going
to be dropped.
And about half an hour later Ireceived an email from the GMC
confirming that and also thefinal report of their case
(22:57):
investigators, and the bottomline was that there was no
prospect of finding any evidenceto support any of the
allegations that had been made,claiming there was professional
misconduct, which is interesting.
And because Dr Riley didn'treceive, her case wasn't dropped
(23:19):
until two months later becausethere was no threat of a high
court appearance.
So if we had gone to court, ashad been planned at the end of
February, the judge, they wouldhave put forward the allegations
against me and then, thenatural thing, the judge would
say, ok, can you provide someevidence to support your
allegations?
And all of they would.
The only thing they would havebeen able to say was well, we
(23:41):
don't actually have any evidence, your Honour, but we don't like
what he's doing, it's wrong.
So they wouldn't have had anyjustification or evidence to
support and you can't go to theHigh Court with no evidence.
And the case investigators theyrealised that.
So there was no option but todrop the case.
Otherwise they would havelooked just fools or very
foolish, plus all the whatevercosts of court would have almost
(24:06):
certainly gone against them aswell in that sort of situation.
So they had to drop the case.
So since then so since March2022, that I've been allowed to
resume the practice of providingabortion pill reversal to women
who seek it.
Dr Riley was allowed tocontinue a couple of months ago.
She hasn't actually resumed,but there is one or two other
(24:26):
doctors in the country who havetaken the flag up and are
providing the service, inaddition to myself.
So still a small number of usproviding the service.
But it's important that mothersin the UK who've taken
Bifepristone in early pregnancythat they realize, if they
change their mind, that there isdefinite help out there that
(24:46):
can try to help them save theirbabies.
And so far we've mentioned wehad 32 in the first year.
So far we've at least 62 thatI'm aware of.
There may be one or two othersthat the other doctors have
helped.
We have 62 births.
There's another girl who's dueto have her baby this Saturday.
If she hasn't delivered a baby,they're going to induce her on
Saturday.
And there's another few thatare well past the danger point.
(25:10):
So they're well on their way inpregnancy, having got over the
danger period, which is thefirst two or three weeks after
they've taken mifepristone.
So that's where we stand.
So at the moment, the update isthat we're back in business and
we're still actually careful.
We still have to make sure thatwe do everything by the book,
(25:30):
that the service we provided ispurely voluntary to the girls
coming to us, that there's nopressure whatsoever, there's no
judgment.
If they they they want to tryand save the baby, we are in a
position to try to help them todo that so there's a picture of
you with, I believe it's, two orthree babies.
Sheila Nonato (25:48):
Those are some of the babies, the 32 babies that
have been saved.
Dr. Dermot Kearney (25:54):
They were.
That was, um, that was.
That was the day that we weremeant to go to court.
So I did go to london that daybecause the High Court's in
London and I went to London thatday, but it was for a much more
happy occasion.
So Christian Concern hadarranged for one of the national
newspapers, The Daily Mail, todo an exclusive article on the
issue and the charges beingdropped and so on.
So we invited some of themothers and fathers actually, up
(26:17):
until that point I'd neverreally considered the fathers
until then and so three of themothers and fathers with their
three little children there'smeant to be two others, but at
the last minute they had toweren't able to come.
So there was a picture with mewith three of the babies and
that the mothers and fatherswere very happy to do it.
So they were.
As the picture was being taken,the mothers and fathers were
standing sort of two yards awayand very proud of their little
(26:39):
children.
And it was, it was, it was alovely occasion.
Sheila Nonato (26:43):
It's very joyful occasion and 32 out of how many?
How many cases?
Dr. Dermot Kearney (26:50):
um, So it's difficult to exactly because
some of them um, as I said,we're about a 55 rate, so
they're the ones that we knowcontinue treatment.
So, for example, at the momentI have taken calls in 141 cases.
So I have responded to 141requests and not all of those
(27:11):
are genuine.
There was almost certainly atleast three or four were from
journalists or people who wantedto try and just find out
information and then never wentout.
They made up stories almostcertainly, and certainly in one
case you could hear a recordingdevice in the background
recording the conversations.
But I didn't mind that.
I'm happy to talk tojournalists because I tell them
(27:31):
exactly.
I treat them exactly the sameway as I would treat a mother
who was genuinely seeking help.
I tell them exactly the sameinformation.
I tell them exactly what we'regoing to do.
I arrange their prescriptionfor them through a local
pharmacy of their choice and Itell them all the success rate,
the failure rate, the sideeffects of the drugs, the fact
that they unfortunately thedrugs have to be paid for
(27:51):
because it's not a normal NHS.
So I tell them all of the truth.
So we're very upfront about it.
So, 141 cases and a third ofthose about 35%, so slightly
more than a third don't go aheadwith treatment.
So for various reasons, in manycases it's because I would love
to, but my boyfriend says he'llcommit suicide, or my boyfriend
says he'll leave me, or myhusband says we can't afford it
(28:15):
or my parents will be upset.
There's lots of reasons whywomen get, but they but they're
very grateful that someone atleast has explained that option
to them.
And then, of those who do takethe treatment, some of them take
it for one or two days and thendecide to stop, and some of
them seem to be going okay andthen they disappear.
They don't.
They stop responding towhatsapp messages because I
(28:37):
can't.
I tell them, I tell them allthat they can contact me at any
time, day or night, if they haveany worries, any questions, any
concerns.
And some of them do, but mostof them don't.
Most of them will give me anupdate every so often, but for
the first few days I check inwith them every day to make sure
they're okay, just by WhatsAppor by text or by telephone call,
whatever.
It's entirely up to them,whatever way they want to
(28:57):
communicate, and if they don'trespond, I don't force it.
So some of them, after one ortwo days, or sometimes after a
few weeks, just stoppedresponding.
Now I don't know if theydecided to go ahead with the
abortion, which they may havedone in some cases.
I don't know if they have.
Maybe they've had their baby,maybe everything went fine and
(29:17):
they just wanted to forget aboutthis.
This was a sort of a dark hourin their life and they want to
not be reminded of it, so theydon't want to continue the
contact with me.
That's a possibility.
So maybe some children outthere that have been born
successfully with the treatmentthat I don't know about or they
may have it may have failed,they may have had a miscarriage,
but they may have been tooembarrassed to tell me.
(29:37):
What we do know is if they getbeyond 15 days because most of
them who do, when the treatmentfails, it fails within the first
week.
The danger period is sort ofthree, four, five days.
So I always tell the guards ifyou can get to five days without
any, this is after they'vetaken.
(30:02):
If you get to five days withoutserious bleeding, severe
hemorrhage, we're doing well,okay, but let's try and get to a
week.
Then I get to a week and saythis is really good.
So there's a you're well over50 chance of surviving now.
But now I'd like to get you to10 days and then I'd like to get
them to get to two weeks.
So we continue treatment until12 weeks, until they're at least
12 weeks pregnant, because bythat stage, at 12 weeks, the
placenta is producing largeamounts of natural progesterone,
(30:24):
so we shouldn't need tocontinue the treatment.
So the duration of treatmentwill depend on what gestational
age the mother contacts is at.
So the earliest success I've hadhas been five weeks and two
days, and so she had to continuetreatment for about seven weeks
, six or seven weeks.
And then we've had otherswho've been over over 10 weeks,
over 12 weeks, and so some ofthose, because in the uk they
(30:47):
can give the abortion pills upto up to 24 weeks.
Actually now it's notrecommended to give it that late
, but they can.
Strictly speaking.
Some of them have had it at 13,14, 15 weeks.
In those cases I just give twoweeks of treatment and if
everything is okay by two weeks,they're going to be fine, and
that has been the case in all ofthe cases.
There was only one exception tothat, where a mother got to 18
(31:08):
weeks you're doing fine.
She had started treatment, Ithink around 11 or 12 weeks, so
she'd had a few weeks oftreatment and was doing fine.
18 weeks were doing great.
Had had a couple of scans whichwere fine, but then her husband
forced her to go ahead with theabortion, which was tragic and
she, she was doing great.
So we've had a few cases likethat where they were doing very
well and then, tragically,something persuaded them,
(31:30):
somebody persuaded them to uh,to have to go ahead with the
course.
In one case a boyfriend stoleher, stole the girl's
progesterone.
She was very upset and hesurreptitiously gave her
bisoprostol, the second abortion, without.
I don't know whether he put itinto a drink or into food or
something, but she, um, sheended up taking mr prostle,
(31:51):
unwillingly.
Now I told her to report thatto the police, but I'm not sure
whether that has taken place andshe I did make put her in touch
with a very good psychologistwho was because of the
psychological impact that thiswas obviously having upon her,
but I felt that this was a, youknow, a criminal offense that
that certainly she shouldconsider going to the police
(32:13):
about.
But I don't know whether,whether she did, I didn't.
I wouldn't ask her those sortof private questions.
Sheila Nonato (32:21):
Actually I wanted to go back to, you mentioned
the Daily Mail.
I wanted to read part of theirarticle.
This is during the pandemic,Since GP surgeries and clinics
closed in lockdown, women havebeen able to carry out
terminations, abortions, at homeby swallowing two powerful
pills over 48 hours.
So can you explain to us, justso we understand clearly?
(32:48):
What is the APR treatment?
Theprogesterone treatment.
Dr. Dermot Kearney (32:49):
Okay, so the majority of abortions nowadays
are carried out by chemicalmeans, by drugs, and the two
drugs used are mifepristone,which is a specific progesterone
receptor antagonist.
That means it blocks the actionof natural progesterone.
Progesterone is essential.
It's a hormone produced in thefemale body well, some in the
(33:09):
male body, but in the femalebody it's essential for
maintaining pregnancy.
It's called progesteronebecause it's progestational
steroid hormone.
That's the full titleprogestational steroid.
So it's shortened toprogesterone.
Because it's progestationalsteroid hormone.
That's the full titleprogestational steroid.
So it's shortened toprogesterone.
So it's essential to maintainpregnancy.
So mifepristone blocks theaction of progesterone by
binding to receptors.
Progesterone is a hormone, it'sa steroid hormone and all
(33:33):
steroid hormones have theireffect by the chemical.
Steroid hormones have theireffect by the chemical molecules
interact with receptors in theuterus and in the ovary and in
the reproductive tract.
But if another, so.
For example, one of the commoncauses of miscarriage is low
levels of progesterone.
So some women don't produceenough progesterone in pregnancy
(33:53):
to maintain the pregnancy andthey lose the baby early in
pregnancy.
That's one of the treatmentsand one of the recommended
treatments for the recurrentmiscarriage is progesterone
treatment, because we know thatin a certain percentage of cases
that treatment will besuccessful to make up for the
natural lack of naturalprogesterone that the body is
not producing.
(34:13):
So this is an artificial way ofinducing miscarriage by giving
this mifepristone, which blocks.
So it has the same effect as ifyou had a low level or a very
low level or low level ofprogesterone, so it blocks the
action of progesterone.
So the theory is that if we cangive progesterone in higher
doses, it can, just as themifepristone can block the
(34:34):
progesterone by getting in tothese receptors first.
If we can give higher levels ofprogesterone, it will compete
with the mifepristone and willat least in some cases be able
to get in and prevent theongoing effect of the
mifepristone.
If mifepristone is alreadycausing miscarriage, it's too
late.
So we've got to get in therequickly.
But there is a window up to 72hours.
(34:55):
That's the only good thing youcan say about chemically induced
abortion.
There is a window ofopportunity that if the mother
changes her mind, even thoughshe's taken the first abortion
pill, there still is apossibility a baby might survive
, whereas in a surgical abortion, once that instrument is passed
in there, there's no going back.
So the baby's not going tosurvive.
(35:17):
The second drug drug then.
So they take the mifepristoneto basically kill the baby.
So it blocks off theprogesterone supply.
It blocks off the developmentof the um, the natural
developing placenta ortrophoblast, the interface that
connects the baby to the to themother.
So they chance the lining ofthe womb, basically the
endometrial lining.
It sheds that and causes thepro abortion people to say, oh,
(35:39):
it's just the same as having aheavy period.
It is, it's like having a heavyperiod.
It's usually a much heavierperiod because you're already
several weeks pregnant so you'regoing to have a much thicker
lining than you would have witha normal period.
But it is causing the sameeffect.
It's causing shedding of thelining of the womb which has
been developing in preparationfor pregnancy and maintaining
the baby there and and if that'sshared then the baby can
(36:01):
survive.
So in most cases thebifurcistone will actually kill
the baby, not in all.
Sometimes the baby willactually still be alive, despite
miscarriage sort of being wellunderway.
So the second pill, misoprostol, is a powerful prostatlandin
analog and that causescontraction of the muscle of the
womb, the biometrium, andcauses the uterus to expel the
(36:22):
baby and any other products ofconception that might be present
there, part of the placenta orthe developing trophoblast.
So the first one kills the babyby depriving it of its blood
supply and its uterine supply.
The second expels the baby fromthe uterus.
It's successful.
(36:45):
It kills the baby 98 to 99times out of 100.
That combination doesn't alwayscompletely empty the uterus,
mind you.
Some about seven percent ofcases.
The mother will then have anincomplete abortion and will
have to go and have a follow-upsurgical procedure to complete
the abortion.
That some of the baby, part ofthe baby, might be left behind,
or some of the membranes or someof the placenta might still be
there.
So there is a complicationright and if left untreated it
(37:06):
can cause serious hemorrhage, itcauses severe pain, it can
cause serious sepsis and womenhave died.
Women have died from incompleteabortions due to the abortion
pills.
There's a number of downsideswith the abortion pills,
especially when they're done, asthe majority are done in the UK
, by post, where the mothermakes a telephone call, never
(37:28):
sees a doctor, never sees ahealthcare professional, has a
discussion over the phone with anurse sometimes a doctor, but
usually not somebody working forthe abortion industry who will
tick a series of boxes to saywhy do you want the abortion?
What stage of pregnancy are youat?
Are you making this decision byyourself?
So there's a few littlesafeguarding questions that they
(37:49):
have to ask, but they haveabsolutely no way of
ascertaining the veracity or thetruth of these responses.
There has been an investigationinto this, what they call a
mystery client investigation,where one of the pro-life groups
, actually run by a person whoused to work with Mary Stokes,
so he knows how these peopleoperate, knows their mindset and
(38:11):
he set up a mystery clientwhere 28 different women,
different scenarios, posed asclients seeking abortion and
they told stories and they gavea number of fictitious things
about themselves.
And all of these consultationswere video recorded and sound
recorded.
So we've got the information.
And in one of them there was aman sitting beside the woman
(38:35):
telling her what to say, sobasically cursing her into the
action, and the person on theother end of the phone had
absolutely no way of knowingthat there was a man telling
this woman what to do.
And another one.
There was another where a manwas sitting across a woman and
did a, made a sign that herthroat would be cut if she
didn't, and again this wasclearly visible on video but
(38:55):
obviously the.
The abortion provider had noidea that this was a coercion
abortion, so they have no way ofknowing how genuine.
They don't even know if thewoman's pregnant.
It could be anybody anyone witha female voice could request it
.
They don't know if she'd beenpressurized and they don't
follow up.
We know they don't follow upbecause the girls that we help,
(39:17):
they never get any follow-up.
The only time there might befollow-up is would be if the
woman goes back and complainsabout something to the abortion
provider.
Then they might know that ohyeah, something is amiss.
That's why they will quotefigures like that say oh this,
the complication rate forchemical abortions is 0.004
percent.
That's because that's all they,that's all they know.
They don't follow up with thesethings.
(39:38):
If they actually cared to followup on all of their clients,
they would find the the seriouscomplication rate is at least
seven percent.
At least seven percent.
So that means at least sevenpercent of women who take the
abortion pills will end up attheir er or their accident,
emergency or emergencydepartment with serious
complications.
So heavy bleeding requiringtransfusion, a serious infection
(40:01):
requiring intravenousantibiotics and admission to
hospital, serious or incompleteabortion requiring admission to
hospital and subsequent surgicalinterventions, plus possible
bleeding and sepsis, in additionto incomplete abortion.
So there is a seriouscomplication rate of at least 7%
in these, and they're the oneswe know of.
(40:22):
There may be others that womenwho present with sepsis what
they say is a naturalmiscarriage, but it's actually
an induced miscarriage withabortion girls who have similar
complications.
So it may well be 10 percent oreven more.
We know that it's a high,serious complication rate.
The other important thing thatpeople need to be aware of is
(40:43):
that there is a danger ofectopic pregnancy being missed,
because most of these women donot get an ultrasound scan
missed, because most of thesewomen do not get an ultrasound
scan.
One of the important aspects ofearly pregnancy care is that an
ultrasound scan can beperformed for a number of
reasons Number one, to ensurethat there is a pregnancy.
Number two, to ensure that it'sintrauterine, that it's within
the uterus and not ectopic.
(41:03):
And number three, to establishthe exact gestational age
Because, again, once the by thetelephone consultations, there
have been cases in the uk wherebabies have been born alive or
dead, we don't know as a resultof abortion pills at 32 weeks,
36 weeks, where the mothersmaybe maybe didn't know they
(41:23):
were that far pregnant, butthat's unlikely.
But there have been severaldocumented cases of late third
trimester abortions which areillegal and against the law and
the abortion provider should notbe providing these dangerous
drugs to women in thesesituations.
They're meant to only by the.
One of the rulings, by thepills by post, by the telephone
(41:46):
consultations, is that they canonly provide the abortion pills
if they, if the abortion is lessthan nine weeks and six days or
less, so less than 10 weeks.
But we know from even from someof the girls that I've helped,
that they're well over 10 weeksby the time they get the
abortion pills, although themajority are still under 10
(42:07):
weeks.
So the omifipristone blocksprogesterone and by giving
progesterone we can help in manycases to overcome or prevent
the ongoing effect ofomifibristone and prevent
miscarriage from happening.
Sheila Nonato (42:24):
How easy is it in the UK for somebody to ask for
these two pills for abortion athome and then after that, what's
the follow-up?
Do they have to go to theirdoctor after?
Do they get checked by theirdoctor?
What's sort of the process?
Dr. Dermot Kearney (42:44):
It's incredibly easy, as I say.
You just need to know thenumber of an abortion provider
usually either BPAS, which isthe British Pregnancy Advisory
Service, or MSI or Newpass, thethree main ones, or even one of
the NHS helplines, and you willsay that I'm pregnant and I'm in
a terrible state and I don'twant to keep my baby.
(43:06):
The abortion is still,technically and strictly
speaking, is illegal in theUnited Kingdom, so it is still
under the law of the OffensesAgainst the Person Act in 1861.
So it's illegal to procure anabortion.
However, the Abortion Act of1967 said that abortions could
(43:28):
be carried out.
Induced abortions could becarried out.
Induced abortions could becarried out under certain terms.
So if the following terms aremet and there had to be the
first one was that two doctorshad to agree that an abortion
was justified on the grounds ofeither A, b, c, d, e.
So there's six or seven groundswhere abortion may be carried
out, things like severedisability of the child or
severe threat to the life of themother.
(43:50):
However, 98% of all abortionsare carried out under grounds C,
which states that continuingthe pregnancy poses a greater
risk to the life or health ofthe mother, including the mental
health of the mother thanundergoing a termination.
So continuing the pregnancyposes a greater risk to the
(44:11):
health or health or life of themother.
Um, and that that's up to 24weeks.
So abortion is illegal up to 24weeks.
After 28 weeks there areexceptional circumstances.
After 24 weeks there areexceptional circumstances where
it may be still carried out, but24 for basically for any reason
.
Um, now the, the people who getpaid for these because it's all
(44:31):
done, or 98% is done, throughthe National Health Service.
So the abortion providers get avery healthy tariff or payment
for these.
So at least it's a minimum.
A few years ago it was aminimum of £500 for a simple
first trimester chemicallyinduced abortion, and for
surgical abortion it would bemuch more.
So they get a minimum of fiveor six hundred pound per
(44:53):
abortion.
So it's in their interest to doas many as they can, um, and
without any follow-up.
So since the pills by posterscome in, then their overheads
have gone down, so they havevery little payments said to
give a send out.
Two pills in the post cost themprobably about a pound and they
get, you know, very large,handsome um profit margins, uh,
(45:14):
for what they do.
And then there's certainly anelement of fraud, because
they've claimed whenever theythey send out the forms they fit
.
They have to fill out a formthat has to then get sent to the
department of health to provethat they've, that they've done
what they were claiming to, thatthey've prescribed an abortion,
carried out an abortion, butyet they don't follow up on
(45:35):
those.
They don't know if the, if thewoman actually takes the pills.
They don't know if the pillsare actually going to that woman
or is it somebody else thatthey're going to.
They don't know if she just putthem in a drawer, she saved
them up for maybe anotheroccasion.
And at least in 65 cases wherepresumably the abortion abortion
, or 62 cases where babies havebeen born with another few on
the way because of abortion pillreversal, they are presumed the
(45:58):
abortion industry claimed moneyfor those six years.
That's at least 62 cases offraud where they've got paid for
something that they're notentitled to get paid for at the
expense of the taxpayer.
So it's very, very easy.
All you have to do is make thephone call, say that you're
pregnant.
You don't want to be.
They'll ask you when was yourlast period or do you know what
stage of pregnancy you're at andyou can say anything you like.
You can say, oh yes, my lastperiod was 20th of January or
(46:21):
the 15th of March or whatever,and they'll write that down and
say oh yeah, so You're eightweeks pregnant or you're seven
weeks pregnant.
Oh yeah, you're under 10 weeks.
Are you making this decisionvoluntarily?
Oh yes, I am.
Yeah.
And why do you think you needthe abortion?
Will it affect you?
Well, one of the girls I knowshe was actually asked.
So a leading question will itaffect your mental health?
(46:43):
Oh, yes, it will.
Okay, that ticks the box.
So 98% are performed on groundC and of those 98%, 99.9% so
almost all of them are done onthe grounds it will harm the
mental health of the mother asopposed to the physical health
mental health.
More than so, continuing thepregnancy will harm the mental
(47:05):
health more than undergoing atermination of that stage of
pregnancy.
So 98-99% of all abortions aredone under the pretense that it
will harm the mental health.
Now there's absolutely noevidence anywhere in the world
from any source that having anabortion helps the mental health
of mothers.
We know that in many casesthere is a sense of relief, but
(47:29):
that is not the mental health weknow from many studies that
have been not the mental health,and we know from many studies
that have been done that mentalhealth is actually adversely
affected by abortion as opposedto continuing pregnancy, even in
crisis pregnancy, even inunplanned and unwanted or
initially unwanted pregnancies.
We know that there's increasedrisk of depression, substance
abuse, suicide rates in womenwho undergo abortion and there's
(47:54):
good evidence for that.
Nowhere, in no place, is thereevidence that mental health has
improved, either short term orlong term.
There is just a sense of relief, but that is not mental health
as properly measured.
The other important point isthat none of these maybe with
very, maybe with very, very fewexceptions, but the vast
(48:16):
majority and I would say atleast 99 percent do not undergo
any mental health evaluation.
They do not see, uh, havepsychiatry, psychologists
reports.
Psychiatry reports say thatthis patient will suffer mental
health problems if she doesn'tundergo this abortion.
So none of them get any mentalhealth evaluation.
(48:37):
So these decisions have beenmade by people who have
absolutely no training in mentalhealth and yet they're making
these decisions.
And one of the accusationsagainst me is that I was a
cardiologist, primarilycardiologist, although I do
general medicine, includingprescribing steroid hormones for
lots of other conditions.
But one of the accusations thata cardiologist should not be
involved in obstetric care, it'snot obstetric care.
(49:00):
If anything, it's endocrinecare.
It's a hormonal treatment.
It's endocrinology more thanobstetrics, if you want to be
very pedantic about it.
But there's no reason and thatthe expert witness in both, in
both cases said there wasabsolutely no reason why dr
carney or dr riley especiallybecause he's an obstetrician
they should not be involved inproviding the service to women
(49:21):
that he he has demonstrated.
He has the necessary skills andcompetence and understanding of
the physiology and thepharmacology to provide the
service.
Sheila Nonato (49:38):
Just for comparison, in Canada our
abortion law is in limbo.
Potentially, you could do anabortion up to nine months
because of this legal limbo.
What is the situation in the UK?
Dr. Dermot Kearney (49:47):
Yeah, if a woman really wanted an abortion
up to nine months, she could.
Now there would be.
She might have difficultyfinding a provider who would be
prepared to do it, because eventhe staunch pro kill the baby.
So that usually involvesinjecting a substance directly
into the baby through themother's abdomen under
(50:17):
ultrasound guidance.
Ideally they try to aim to getit into the heart.
So they inject usuallypotassium chloride or digepsin,
so one of those substances.
That other agents can be usedin other places, but they're the
two common ones.
You have to kill the baby now.
We know that that's painful,and so I've been told by people
working in veterinary practicethat you're not allowed to do
that to animals because it's toopainful If you're putting them
(50:38):
to sleep.
You have to use more humane ormore gentle methods of killing.
So the whole idea of feticideis distasteful to a lot of
abortions.
But if you know, if a woman isreally determined to have an
abortion, that and it's usuallyfor on the grounds of some sort
of eugenic reason, so downsyndrome, edward syndrome,
clubfoot, some congenitalabnormality that they that may
(51:01):
have been discovered later inpregnancy, that had been had
been missed earlier or themother had decided well, maybe I
can cope with this, but thendecided at a later stage, or was
persuaded at a later stage,that she wouldn't be able to
cope with this.
So, yeah, so they can findreasons to to end a baby's life.
And there have been again manycases of mothers almost always
(51:21):
with Down syndrome.
Actually, where they've been,the mothers have been
pressurized right up to right upto the day of delivery, to
their birth.
You know, it's not too, it'snot too late, you can change
your mind.
You can change your mind rightup until the baby's delivered.
You know, if you feel you'renot able to cope with this, if
you want to end it, they wouldnever say if you want to kill
your baby, they will say if youwant to end the pregnancy now,
you don't have to.
(51:43):
So there have been many casesOne woman, a Scottish lady, who
she recorded 15 times, where shewas pressurized between 24 and
39 weeks to have abortion andshe had specifically had someone
write on the cover of hermedical notes do not, please do
not, discuss option of abortionor this.
This mother is not prepared toconsider abortion.
(52:05):
So this was actually written.
But despite that, they, thehealth care professionals, in
their wisdom decided to keeppressuring her that this might
be a good idea, to kill thechild now, before he or she was
going to be born.
And that's an extreme example,but they do happen.
Sheila Nonato (52:24):
So are you telling me that after eight
months, abortions have happenedin the UK?
Thank you for listening to theVeil and Armour podcast.
Their main concern was not so much the
treatment.
They were concerned that therewere Catholics providing this
service.
They said that Catholics couldnot be trusted.
We have the written letter toshow this that their concern was
that one of them myself at thetime was the current president
of the Catholic MedicalAssociation.
The other is a prominentCatholic pro-life speaker and
these people cannot be trustedto provide non-judgmental,
(00:24):
appropriate care for thesevulnerable women.
And this was written in writing.
The sad thing is that the GMC(General Medical Council of UK)
endorsed this and in the casesagainst us they actually used
that as evidence in the tribunal.
Sheila Nonato (00:38):
Hello and welcome to the Veil and Armour podcast.
This is your host, SheilaNonato.
I'm a stay-at-home mom and afreelance Catholic journalist,
seeking the guidance of the HolySpirit and the inspiration of
Our Lady, I strive to tellstories that inspire, illuminate
and enrich the lives ofCatholic women, to help them and
living out our vocation ofraising the next generation of
(01:00):
leaders and Saints please joinus every week on the veil and
armor podcast, where storiescome alive through a
journalist's lens in mother'sheart.
Another beautiful baby girl hasbeen born this morning, the 9th
of September, in the north ofEngland, to a beautiful and
grateful mother who receivedhelp with abortion pill reversal
in early pregnancy afterregretting she had taken
(01:23):
Mifepristone.
We now have at least 63 UKabortion pill reversal babies.
This is what UK doctor DermotKearney had posted on Twitter
almost a year ago, not too longafter the ban reversal on his
provision of potentiallylife-saving medical care made
available for free for women whohave taken the abortion pill
(01:46):
early on in pregnancy.
During the pandemic lockdown,instead of abortion clinics and
hospitals, abortion movedindoors.
Chemical abortions back thenand now, are increasingly
carried out without medicalsupervision in women's homes.
How did Dr Kearney getcancelled for his medical
practice?
(02:06):
Why did they target hisChristian faith?
Let's hear Dr Kearney speakabout the case against him by
pro-abortion group MSIReproductive Choice and the
British General Medical Council,which initially barred him from
performing Abortion PillReversal.
A voice of reason in a hostileworld always to instruct and
(02:27):
educate, never to humiliate, ishow Dr Kearney describes his
Twitter bio.
Let's hear how his concern forpatient safety, women's health
and providing care for theunborn form part of his desire
to work in pro-life and in hismedical practice.
Thank you and God bless.
In the name of the Father andof the Son and of the Holy
(02:48):
Spirit.
Amen.
Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed thou amongst women, andblessed is the fruit of thy
womb, jesus.
Dr. Dermot Kearney (02:59):
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us
sinners, now and at the hour ofour death.
Amen.
In the name of the Father andof the Son, now and at the hour
of our death.
Sheila Nonato (03:05):
Amen, Amen, in the name of the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen,thank you.
Thank you, Dr.
Kearney, for joining us.
Perhaps Canadians may behearing will soon be hearing a
familiar case as Canada's own Dr.
Jordan Peterson has been havinghis own battles with free
(03:26):
speech, having been threatenedwith having his license taken
away by the College ofPsychologists in Ontario, and in
your case, the right topractice medicine and deliver
life-saving care was on the line.
Can you tell us, can you giveus an update on what happened
and what is the update on thatcase?
Dr. Dermot Kearney (03:47):
Sure.
Well, as you probably know thatI and one other doctor in the
United Kingdom were helpingwomen who had taken the first
abortion pill, Mifepristone, butwho then changed their mind and
wanted to try to save theirbabies and they in desperation.
They they looked to see wasthere anybody that could help
them?
And they came through a varietyof channels and myself and the
(04:10):
other doctor, dr riley and rileywe were registered with an
international helpline withAbortion Pill Reversal network
based in ohio in the U.
S.
and um most of the calls to uscame through there, where the
girls would find a helpline onthe internet, phone or email the
helpline and then they wouldsay, oh yes, we have a doctor in
in the uk who might be able tohelp you, and then they would
(04:30):
put us well, either myself or Dr.
(Eileen) Riley in contact withthe with the girl looking for
for support.
And you know there is aninternational helpline.
So they would have a network ofdoctors all over the, all over
the world, mostly in UnitedStates and some in Canada, who
provide this support for womenwho come looking for this help.
And then we would discuss withthem the possible success rates,
(04:52):
because it's not alwayssuccessful, but if we give
natural progesterone to thesemothers before miscarriage has
occurred, so before theyexperience heavy bleeding,
severe cramps, there's areasonable chance that the baby
might survive.
And I would inform the mothersexactly what the success rates
(05:12):
would be in our experience andin the international experience.
So I would always tell themthat if, if she, if she took the
two abortion pills, as theabortion providers would advise
her to do or recommend her to,if she took both abortion pills,
there would be a less than 2%chance her baby would survive
and there would be no point justgiving progesterone at that
(05:32):
stage.
If she took the first abortionpill, Mifepristone, but didn't
take the second abortion pill,as she might have been
instructed to do that's calledMisoprostol but if she didn't
receive progesterone so shedidn't get the life-saving help
that we could offer, there wouldbe a less than 20% chance her
baby would survive.
But that would depend on theage of gestation.
So if it was over 10 weeksthere would be a slightly better
(05:53):
chance than if it was just sixor seven weeks, but overall a
less than 20% chance that herbaby would survive.
So an 80% certainty of deaththat her baby would die.
If, an 80% certainty of deaththat our baby would die.
If, however, she took the firstabortion pill, didn't take the
second pill and managed topromptly get progesterone that
we were offering and prepared toprescribe for her, and if she
(06:14):
got it within before sheexperienced severe cramps,
severe bleeding, heavy bleeding,there was a greater than 50%
chance a baby would survive.
So in our experience it's 55%.
In the United States it'sslightly better, they're up to
65%.
That's largely due to a greaterawareness, so a more speedy
provision of the service, butalso in many cases in the United
(06:36):
States they have the luxury ofdoing an ultrasound scan before
they give the treatment, so theycan check to see if the baby is
still alive and viable, whereaswe didn't have that, so some of
the babies were probablyalready dead by the time we
could start treatment.
But still our success rate isover 50 percent, so 55 percent.
So that's quite remarkable.
There are very, very fewinterventions in medicine, in
any branch of medicine, whereyou can reduce a certain
(06:58):
mortality rate of 80 percentplus more than 80 percent to
less than 50 percent.
Percent plus more than 80percent to less than 50 percent,
that's a a relative mortality,a certain mortality risk
reduction of more than 30percent and there are very, very
few interventions in medicinethat that's actually that's
nobel prize sort of stuff.
Because we get very excited and, for example, I'm a
cardiologist we get very excitedif a new treatment comes along
(07:21):
that reduces mortality or isseen to or believed to reduce
mortality by 10 percent or 15percent, so to actually reduce
mortality, certain mortality, bymore than 30 percent and so
you're more than doubling thechance of the baby surviving.
And is remarkable now are it'sdisappointing that we don't have
100 success rate but and manyof the girls come to us but
(07:42):
still.
For example, I had a callearlier this week with a girl.
Before she could get theprogesterone she already had
heavy hemorrhage and bleedingand her call didn't come through
until almost 72 hours.
But the sooner this treatmentcan be given the better.
So myself and Dr.
Riley were providing thisservice.
We had started in 2020.
She did her first cases in lateMay 2020.
(08:05):
I did my first provision ofabortion reversal in late June
2020.
And we had the first yearbetween the two of us.
We had 32 babies' lives weresaved.
Myself I was involved in 20 ofthose and not all of them had
been born by that, becauseobviously it takes nine months
for a pregnancy to progress 40weeks but unknown to us, an
(08:29):
investigation was taking placefrom as early as January 2021,
where some people in theabortion industry were upset at
this service that we wereproviding to women and keep in
mind, it was the women who werecoming to us.
We weren't putting any pressureon them, but they fabricated
some false allegations againstmyself and Dr.
Riley.
They tried to make it seem thatwe were forcing our pro-life,
(08:51):
our Catholic beliefs on thesevulnerable women, that we were
misleading them, we were givingthem illegal and unlicensed
medication and that we wereharming these women in some way.
So these allegations were putforward to the General Medical
Council by mainly by two groupsby the royal college of
obstetricians and who formulatedthe case against both myself
(09:12):
and dr riley, and also marystopes international and call
themselves msi reproductivechoices and the one of the main
abortion providers.
So their medical director tooka particular interest in me and
he um, he wrote to the gmc, uhmade up allegations against me
without any evidence whatsoeverand I don't think he was
(09:33):
involved in dr riley's case.
Hers was mainly through theroyal college of obstetrician.
Their main concern was not somuch the treatment.
They were concerned that therewere catholics providing this
service.
They said that Catholics couldnot be trusted.
We have the written letter toshow this that their concern was
that one of them myself at thetime was the current president
(09:53):
of the Catholic MedicalAssociation.
The other is a prominentCatholic pro-life speaker and
these people cannot be trustedto provide nonjudgmental,
appropriate care for thesevulnerable women.
And this was written in writing.
The sad thing is that the GMCendorsed this and, in the cases
against us, that they actuallyuse that as evidence in the in
the tribunal.
So on the, as I said, theinvestigation had been unknown
(10:17):
to us from january 2021.
We were both made aware of italmost simultaneously.
We both received emails fromthe General Medical Council, you
know, within minutes of eachother, on the same day, on the
28th of April 2021.
So several months later to saythat serious allegations of
possible professional misconducthad been made against us
(10:37):
because of this service that wewere offering to women and that
we were ordered to attend atribunal to women and that we
were ordered to attend atribunal.
They couldn't order us to stopimmediately.
It had to go through a courttype procedure, the medical
practitioners tribunal service,which is linked to the GMC,
although allegedly independentof the GMC.
So both of us had a hearingdate less than two weeks later,
(11:00):
on the 12th of May.
We had to inform Some of thepro-life organizations because,
what I mentioned, most of thereferrals coming to us were
through the internationalhelpline.
Some of the referrals werecoming through some of the UK
based pro-life organizations,such as the Society for the
Protection of Unborn Children,Good Counsel Network, Christian
(11:22):
Concern.
So we had to inform thesegroups that unfortunately we
would not be in a position toprovide the service anymore.
So if any young mothers didcontact them looking to help
them, unfortunately we would notbe allowed to do it at that
moment in time.
When Christian Concern heardthis, this was on a Wednesday
and by Friday morning theirchief executive, andrea Williams
(11:44):
, had arranged a meeting, a Zoommeeting, with myself, dr Riley
and herself and two of herleading legal people in the
Christian Legal Centre, which isaffiliated to Christian Concern
, and they decided that we weregoing to fight this Because
myself and Dr Riley thought well, there's nothing you can do
with the General Medical Council, we've no power against them.
(12:04):
It's a real David and Goliathsituation, Andrea Williams, I
remember very well on thatmorning and Goliath situation.
Andrea Williams, I remembervery well on that morning she
pointed her finger at the cameraand she said no, we will not
accept this.
This is unjust.
We will fight this and we willwin this.
And so I went to a Christianconcern.
They defended me very, very,very, very well, very, very
(12:25):
appropriately.
They put forward very strongcases.
Dr Riley decided, on advice thatshe obtained from a colleague,
that she should try and not gowith one of the faith-based
organizations which should go toa secular sort of defense
association.
So she went to one of the localdefense.
Their attitude was totallydifferent.
Their attitude was we knowyou're guilty, keep your head
(12:46):
down, try not to make this anyworse, don't challenge it and
we'll try and aim for damagelimitation and try and get the
best deal we can out of this.
Nevertheless, both of us had togo to um, this tribunal, on the
12th of may.
I went first in the morningtime, she went in the afternoon
and the GMC's barrister putforward.
All the allegations were.
In my there were 10 specificallegations relating to using
(13:11):
what they called illegal,unethical, unlicensed medication
, forcing my pro-life beliefs,forcing my Catholic beliefs on
these vulnerable women, notobtaining proper consent.
And the one thing that did getright was that I did help in
some cases, for some of thewomen weren't weren't able to
(13:34):
afford the treatment thetreatment is not expensive, but
£20, but some of them weren'table to pay the pharmacy costs.
So I offered in some cases tohelp.
So they claimed that I wasbribing the women to do what I
was actually doing.
In fact we were able to showthat I was paying the pharmacy,
not the mothers themselves.
And the other thing that theydid get right is that I wasn't
following the recommendedguidelines on abortion provision
(13:57):
because I wasn't providingabortion.
So they got that one right, butall the other allegations were
just fabricated with absolutelyno evidence to support them, and
so the outcome of that?
We put forward our case.
We actually had quite a strongcase because we had managed to
get, within a matter of days, anexpert witness who had no
conflict of interest.
He's a well-recognizedpracticing obstetrician in the
(14:22):
UK.
He's a fellow of the RoyalCollege of Obstetricians, so the
group that took us to task.
He performs abortions, he's notCatholic, he's not Christian,
and yet he looked at theevidence, or the lack of
evidence, and said this isridiculous, you have a very
strong case.
And he answered all of theallegations in his own in a way,
as I did.
(14:42):
I gave responses to all theallegations but nevertheless
that the outcome of that trial,that tribunal was for both
myself and Dr Riley, who came ona few hours later, was that in
my case, that I must notprescribe, administer or
recommend progesterone forabortion universal.
And they also added in someextra conditions attached to my
(15:03):
practice that I wasn't allowedto do any private work which I
don't do anyway apart fromthis't allowed to do any private
work which I don't do anywayapart from this, which is unpaid
private work, and I wasn'tallowed to do any voluntary
works.
I wasn't allowed to provide anyvoluntary services to anybody.
At that time I used to go onpilgrimage as a volunteer
(15:23):
medical volunteer to lourdeswith helping sick people and
invalided people in lourdes, soI wouldn't be allowed to do that
anymore unless I had writtenexpress permission from the
General Medical Council.
It's worth noting also that theGMC in their statements they
wanted, they demanded themaximum penalty for both myself
(15:44):
and Dr Riley.
They wanted us suspendedcompletely from medical practice
for 18 months and that was themaximum penalty that could be
imposed, and so we wouldn't beable to earn a livelihood, be
able to do any work as doctors.
Fortunately, the tribunalthought that was
disproportionate and also thiswas in the time of Covid, at a
time when they were trying topersuade doctors to come out of
retirement, come back from thedead and start providing
(16:07):
services, because there was sucha shortage of doctors able and
willing to care for people atthat pandemic crisis time.
So the tribunal thought thatwould be disproportionate.
So they allowed me to continuedoing my normal general medical,
internal medical cardiologywork.
But I wasn't allowed to dothese.
So some conditions wereattached, mainly relating to the
(16:28):
continuing provision ofprogesterone treatment for women
who wanted.
So we were banned for 18 months.
That was the maximum that couldbe imposed, but that had to be
reviewed every six months andthe usual practice in those
situations is that they will gothrough the motions of reviewing
the case every six months andnothing new will be allowed to
be put forward and they willjust renew it every six months.
Then, when it gets to 18 months, they will continue to find
(16:49):
some reason to maintain it.
So this could have gone on andon and on in perpetuity.
So my legal team, after weappealed it and we got some
statements from several of thewomen, we could have got 40
statements of that, all of whatare supportive, but we got 10
different ones.
So we've got 10 differentmothers who are willing to, are
(17:11):
very willing to give ussupportive statements.
I wasn't allowed of any role init.
It was all done through thelegal people, so my only role
was I had to ask the motherswould they mind if a lawyer
contacted them and if I gavethem the contact details?
And in all cases they said yes,that'd be no problem.
So I wasn't allowed to knowwhat questions were going to be
asked.
So the legal team interviewed 10of the ladies and some of them
(17:33):
had had their babies already,having gone through the abortion
pill reversal processsuccessfully.
Some of them had tried thetreatment but it hadn't worked
and they'd lost their babies.
But they were still verygrateful that somebody had
helped them and they werewilling to to provide witness
statements in support of what wewere doing.
Some of them two of them weremothers who had discussed it
(17:54):
with me but for various reasonshad decided not to go ahead with
the treatment, usually becauseof some sort of coercion that
they would like to about theirboyfriend or their husband, or
someone was going to throw themout or leave them if they didn't
have the abortion.
But some of them were verywilling to go ahead.
So we've got 10 differentwitness statements, totally
(18:15):
different stories.
All of them have been verysupportive and so we presented
this to the general medicalcouncil and to the tribunal and
later, after the initial one.
So this was a part of our appealand we got a word in August so
three months ahead of schedulethat yes, new information had
come to light and they weregoing to have an early review,
and we thought this is great.
They're obviously taking intoaccount the witness statements
that have come forward, provingthat there was no substance to
(18:37):
the allegations that had beenmade, particularly in relation
to pressure being put on mothersor forcing our beliefs on these
vulnerable women.
And, to our astonishment, atthe very outset, even before the
tribunal was went underway, thechairperson said of course,
while new evidence has come tolight, we will not be looking at
(18:58):
any evidence, we will purely belooking at the allegations.
And at that stage, while againthis was on zoom, my lawyer just
threw his hands up in the airand made an exasperated
statement that this was aridiculous kangaroo court.
And we went through the motionsof, but we knew what the
outcome was going to be.
So they just and said that thecontinued conditions imposed
must remain in place, that thatI was still a danger to the
(19:19):
general public if I was allowedto continue their practice of
oroviding the service to women.
So that stage my legal teamdecided we're going to have to
go further than this.
So we took a case to the HighCourt to take it out of the
hands of the GMC and the MedicalTribunal.
So we went to the Civil HighCourt in London and we put
(19:42):
forward our application at theend of September, start of
October 2021.
Now I thought there would be along backlog because we're still
trying to get through casesthat have been delayed because
of COVID.
So I was expecting it would beat least 12 months before
anything is heard.
But surprisingly, we heard veryquickly that we were granted a
hearing at the end of February2022.
So just a few months later.
(20:05):
By that stage the GeneralMedical Council admitted and we
got a number of emails from themto say that they were having
difficulty finding an expertwitness of their own to support
the allegations and to look atthe evidence or the lack of
evidence, which was interestingbecause we got one within two
days or three days and we had areport within a week and they,
several months later, stilldidn't have one.
(20:26):
Eventually they got one in lateDecember 2021.
Later, still didn't have one.
Eventually they got one in lateDecember 2021.
He or she I won't mention whatgender, but again, he or she was
a prominent member of the RoyalCollege of Obstetricians and a
fellow of the Royal College.
His or her report was verysimilar to the report given by
(20:47):
our expert witness.
It tore apart the allegationssaying that there was little or
no evidence right and the onlyconcern that this expert witness
had was that on the question ofthe payment for the, for the
treatment, and also I had alsovolunteered in some cases to
arrange if the, if the motherscouldn't get ultrasound
examinations, which they need toget to see if the treatment is
(21:08):
is working or the child isviable, especially if they have
any bleeding.
So he or she was a little bitconcerned that money was being
provided to either obtain thetreatment or the ultrasound if
they couldn't get one throughtheir own NHS.
And at the time of COVID it wasvery difficult in some cases to
get ultrasound scans donepromptly because of the concerns
(21:31):
over spreading the virus.
But again we were able to showthat we weren't paying the woman
.
We were putting down a depositto the private ultrasound people
and we had no control over that.
It was just a local service.
Wherever the woman wanted to goand she chose and we or I was
happy to provide a down paymentfor that, to make sure that the
(21:52):
scan went ahead, and, similarly,we were paying the pharmacist
rather than just whatever thecost of the treatment was.
So there was no extra treatmentor bribery being involved.
And once that was pointed outand the expert witness from the
GMC was satisfied that there wasnothing he or she could say
that what we were doing wascould be considered professional
(22:12):
misconduct.
So then, so we were due to haveour hearing, I think on the
24th of february, and just a fewdays eight, on the 18th, or a
few days about six days beforethat, um, because we were
getting ready for we all all oursort of our statements,
everything ready for our courtappearance, our day in court.
And then, six days beforehand,I got a phone call from my legal
(22:33):
team to say had I heard thegood news that the case had been
dropped against myself, notagainst Dr Riley, you know she
had.
She hadn't challenged this, soshe was still working with the
other group, so the conditionsimposed upon her still still
remained in place, but theconditions against me were going
to be dropped.
And about half an hour later Ireceived an email from the GMC
confirming that and also thefinal report of their case
(22:57):
investigators, and the bottomline was that there was no
prospect of finding any evidenceto support any of the
allegations that had been made,claiming there was professional
misconduct, which is interesting.
And because Dr Riley didn'treceive, her case wasn't dropped
(23:19):
until two months later becausethere was no threat of a high
court appearance.
So if we had gone to court, ashad been planned at the end of
February, the judge, they wouldhave put forward the allegations
against me and then, thenatural thing, the judge would
say, ok, can you provide someevidence to support your
allegations?
And all of they would.
The only thing they would havebeen able to say was well, we
(23:41):
don't actually have any evidence, your Honour, but we don't like
what he's doing, it's wrong.
So they wouldn't have had anyjustification or evidence to
support and you can't go to theHigh Court with no evidence.
And the case investigators theyrealised that.
So there was no option but todrop the case.
Otherwise they would havelooked just fools or very
foolish, plus all the whatevercosts of court would have almost
(24:06):
certainly gone against them aswell in that sort of situation.
So they had to drop the case.
So since then so since March2022, that I've been allowed to
resume the practice of providingabortion pill reversal to women
who seek it.
Dr Riley was allowed tocontinue a couple of months ago.
She hasn't actually resumed,but there is one or two other
(24:26):
doctors in the country who havetaken the flag up and are
providing the service, inaddition to myself.
So still a small number of usproviding the service.
But it's important that mothersin the UK who've taken
Bifepristone in early pregnancythat they realize, if they
change their mind, that there isdefinite help out there that
(24:46):
can try to help them save theirbabies.
And so far we've mentioned wehad 32 in the first year.
So far we've at least 62 thatI'm aware of.
There may be one or two othersthat the other doctors have
helped.
We have 62 births.
There's another girl who's dueto have her baby this Saturday.
If she hasn't delivered a baby,they're going to induce her on
Saturday.
And there's another few thatare well past the danger point.
(25:10):
So they're well on their way inpregnancy, having got over the
danger period, which is thefirst two or three weeks after
they've taken mifepristone.
So that's where we stand.
So at the moment, the update isthat we're back in business and
we're still actually careful.
We still have to make sure thatwe do everything by the book,
(25:30):
that the service we provided ispurely voluntary to the girls
coming to us, that there's nopressure whatsoever, there's no
judgment.
If they they they want to tryand save the baby, we are in a
position to try to help them todo that so there's a picture of
you with, I believe it's, two orthree babies.
Sheila Nonato (25:48):
Those are some of the babies, the 32 babies that
have been saved.
Dr. Dermot Kearney (25:54):
They were.
That was, um, that was.
That was the day that we weremeant to go to court.
So I did go to london that daybecause the High Court's in
London and I went to London thatday, but it was for a much more
happy occasion.
So Christian Concern hadarranged for one of the national
newspapers, The Daily Mail, todo an exclusive article on the
issue and the charges beingdropped and so on.
So we invited some of themothers and fathers actually, up
(26:17):
until that point I'd neverreally considered the fathers
until then and so three of themothers and fathers with their
three little children there'smeant to be two others, but at
the last minute they had toweren't able to come.
So there was a picture with mewith three of the babies and
that the mothers and fatherswere very happy to do it.
So they were.
As the picture was being taken,the mothers and fathers were
standing sort of two yards awayand very proud of their little
(26:39):
children.
And it was, it was, it was alovely occasion.
Sheila Nonato (26:43):
It's very joyful occasion and 32 out of how many?
How many cases?
Dr. Dermot Kearney (26:50):
um, So it's difficult to exactly because
some of them um, as I said,we're about a 55 rate, so
they're the ones that we knowcontinue treatment.
So, for example, at the momentI have taken calls in 141 cases.
So I have responded to 141requests and not all of those
(27:11):
are genuine.
There was almost certainly atleast three or four were from
journalists or people who wantedto try and just find out
information and then never wentout.
They made up stories almostcertainly, and certainly in one
case you could hear a recordingdevice in the background
recording the conversations.
But I didn't mind that.
I'm happy to talk tojournalists because I tell them
(27:31):
exactly.
I treat them exactly the sameway as I would treat a mother
who was genuinely seeking help.
I tell them exactly the sameinformation.
I tell them exactly what we'regoing to do.
I arrange their prescriptionfor them through a local
pharmacy of their choice and Itell them all the success rate,
the failure rate, the sideeffects of the drugs, the fact
that they unfortunately thedrugs have to be paid for
(27:51):
because it's not a normal NHS.
So I tell them all of the truth.
So we're very upfront about it.
So, 141 cases and a third ofthose about 35%, so slightly
more than a third don't go aheadwith treatment.
So for various reasons, in manycases it's because I would love
to, but my boyfriend says he'llcommit suicide, or my boyfriend
says he'll leave me, or myhusband says we can't afford it
(28:15):
or my parents will be upset.
There's lots of reasons whywomen get, but they but they're
very grateful that someone atleast has explained that option
to them.
And then, of those who do takethe treatment, some of them take
it for one or two days and thendecide to stop, and some of
them seem to be going okay andthen they disappear.
They don't.
They stop responding towhatsapp messages because I
(28:37):
can't.
I tell them, I tell them allthat they can contact me at any
time, day or night, if they haveany worries, any questions, any
concerns.
And some of them do, but mostof them don't.
Most of them will give me anupdate every so often, but for
the first few days I check inwith them every day to make sure
they're okay, just by WhatsAppor by text or by telephone call,
whatever.
It's entirely up to them,whatever way they want to
(28:57):
communicate, and if they don'trespond, I don't force it.
So some of them, after one ortwo days, or sometimes after a
few weeks, just stoppedresponding.
Now I don't know if theydecided to go ahead with the
abortion, which they may havedone in some cases.
I don't know if they have.
Maybe they've had their baby,maybe everything went fine and
(29:17):
they just wanted to forget aboutthis.
This was a sort of a dark hourin their life and they want to
not be reminded of it, so theydon't want to continue the
contact with me.
That's a possibility.
So maybe some children outthere that have been born
successfully with the treatmentthat I don't know about or they
may have it may have failed,they may have had a miscarriage,
but they may have been tooembarrassed to tell me.
(29:37):
What we do know is if they getbeyond 15 days because most of
them who do, when the treatmentfails, it fails within the first
week.
The danger period is sort ofthree, four, five days.
So I always tell the guards ifyou can get to five days without
any, this is after they'vetaken.
(30:02):
If you get to five days withoutserious bleeding, severe
hemorrhage, we're doing well,okay, but let's try and get to a
week.
Then I get to a week and saythis is really good.
So there's a you're well over50 chance of surviving now.
But now I'd like to get you to10 days and then I'd like to get
them to get to two weeks.
So we continue treatment until12 weeks, until they're at least
12 weeks pregnant, because bythat stage, at 12 weeks, the
placenta is producing largeamounts of natural progesterone,
(30:24):
so we shouldn't need tocontinue the treatment.
So the duration of treatmentwill depend on what gestational
age the mother contacts is at.
So the earliest success I've hadhas been five weeks and two
days, and so she had to continuetreatment for about seven weeks
, six or seven weeks.
And then we've had otherswho've been over over 10 weeks,
over 12 weeks, and so some ofthose, because in the uk they
(30:47):
can give the abortion pills upto up to 24 weeks.
Actually now it's notrecommended to give it that late
, but they can.
Strictly speaking.
Some of them have had it at 13,14, 15 weeks.
In those cases I just give twoweeks of treatment and if
everything is okay by two weeks,they're going to be fine, and
that has been the case in all ofthe cases.
There was only one exception tothat, where a mother got to 18
(31:08):
weeks you're doing fine.
She had started treatment, Ithink around 11 or 12 weeks, so
she'd had a few weeks oftreatment and was doing fine.
18 weeks were doing great.
Had had a couple of scans whichwere fine, but then her husband
forced her to go ahead with theabortion, which was tragic and
she, she was doing great.
So we've had a few cases likethat where they were doing very
well and then, tragically,something persuaded them,
(31:30):
somebody persuaded them to uh,to have to go ahead with the
course.
In one case a boyfriend stoleher, stole the girl's
progesterone.
She was very upset and hesurreptitiously gave her
bisoprostol, the second abortion, without.
I don't know whether he put itinto a drink or into food or
something, but she, um, sheended up taking mr prostle,
(31:51):
unwillingly.
Now I told her to report thatto the police, but I'm not sure
whether that has taken place andshe I did make put her in touch
with a very good psychologistwho was because of the
psychological impact that thiswas obviously having upon her,
but I felt that this was a, youknow, a criminal offense that
that certainly she shouldconsider going to the police
(32:13):
about.
But I don't know whether,whether she did, I didn't.
I wouldn't ask her those sortof private questions.
Sheila Nonato (32:21):
Actually I wanted to go back to, you mentioned
the Daily Mail.
I wanted to read part of theirarticle.
This is during the pandemic,Since GP surgeries and clinics
closed in lockdown, women havebeen able to carry out
terminations, abortions, at homeby swallowing two powerful
pills over 48 hours.
So can you explain to us, justso we understand clearly?
(32:48):
What is the APR treatment?
Theprogesterone treatment.
Dr. Dermot Kearney (32:49):
Okay, so the majority of abortions nowadays
are carried out by chemicalmeans, by drugs, and the two
drugs used are mifepristone,which is a specific progesterone
receptor antagonist.
That means it blocks the actionof natural progesterone.
Progesterone is essential.
It's a hormone produced in thefemale body well, some in the
(33:09):
male body, but in the femalebody it's essential for
maintaining pregnancy.
It's called progesteronebecause it's progestational
steroid hormone.
That's the full titleprogestational steroid.
So it's shortened toprogesterone.
Because it's progestationalsteroid hormone.
That's the full titleprogestational steroid.
So it's shortened toprogesterone.
So it's essential to maintainpregnancy.
So mifepristone blocks theaction of progesterone by
binding to receptors.
Progesterone is a hormone, it'sa steroid hormone and all
(33:33):
steroid hormones have theireffect by the chemical.
Steroid hormones have theireffect by the chemical molecules
interact with receptors in theuterus and in the ovary and in
the reproductive tract.
But if another, so.
For example, one of the commoncauses of miscarriage is low
levels of progesterone.
So some women don't produceenough progesterone in pregnancy
(33:53):
to maintain the pregnancy andthey lose the baby early in
pregnancy.
That's one of the treatmentsand one of the recommended
treatments for the recurrentmiscarriage is progesterone
treatment, because we know thatin a certain percentage of cases
that treatment will besuccessful to make up for the
natural lack of naturalprogesterone that the body is
not producing.
(34:13):
So this is an artificial way ofinducing miscarriage by giving
this mifepristone, which blocks.
So it has the same effect as ifyou had a low level or a very
low level or low level ofprogesterone, so it blocks the
action of progesterone.
So the theory is that if we cangive progesterone in higher
doses, it can, just as themifepristone can block the
(34:34):
progesterone by getting in tothese receptors first.
If we can give higher levels ofprogesterone, it will compete
with the mifepristone and willat least in some cases be able
to get in and prevent theongoing effect of the
mifepristone.
If mifepristone is alreadycausing miscarriage, it's too
late.
So we've got to get in therequickly.
But there is a window up to 72hours.
(34:55):
That's the only good thing youcan say about chemically induced
abortion.
There is a window ofopportunity that if the mother
changes her mind, even thoughshe's taken the first abortion
pill, there still is apossibility a baby might survive
, whereas in a surgical abortion, once that instrument is passed
in there, there's no going back.
So the baby's not going tosurvive.
(35:17):
The second drug drug then.
So they take the mifepristoneto basically kill the baby.
So it blocks off theprogesterone supply.
It blocks off the developmentof the um, the natural
developing placenta ortrophoblast, the interface that
connects the baby to the to themother.
So they chance the lining ofthe womb, basically the
endometrial lining.
It sheds that and causes thepro abortion people to say, oh,
(35:39):
it's just the same as having aheavy period.
It is, it's like having a heavyperiod.
It's usually a much heavierperiod because you're already
several weeks pregnant so you'regoing to have a much thicker
lining than you would have witha normal period.
But it is causing the sameeffect.
It's causing shedding of thelining of the womb which has
been developing in preparationfor pregnancy and maintaining
the baby there and and if that'sshared then the baby can
(36:01):
survive.
So in most cases thebifurcistone will actually kill
the baby, not in all.
Sometimes the baby willactually still be alive, despite
miscarriage sort of being wellunderway.
So the second pill, misoprostol, is a powerful prostatlandin
analog and that causescontraction of the muscle of the
womb, the biometrium, andcauses the uterus to expel the
(36:22):
baby and any other products ofconception that might be present
there, part of the placenta orthe developing trophoblast.
So the first one kills the babyby depriving it of its blood
supply and its uterine supply.
The second expels the baby fromthe uterus.
It's successful.
(36:45):
It kills the baby 98 to 99times out of 100.
That combination doesn't alwayscompletely empty the uterus,
mind you.
Some about seven percent ofcases.
The mother will then have anincomplete abortion and will
have to go and have a follow-upsurgical procedure to complete
the abortion.
That some of the baby, part ofthe baby, might be left behind,
or some of the membranes or someof the placenta might still be
there.
So there is a complicationright and if left untreated it
(37:06):
can cause serious hemorrhage, itcauses severe pain, it can
cause serious sepsis and womenhave died.
Women have died from incompleteabortions due to the abortion
pills.
There's a number of downsideswith the abortion pills,
especially when they're done, asthe majority are done in the UK
, by post, where the mothermakes a telephone call, never
(37:28):
sees a doctor, never sees ahealthcare professional, has a
discussion over the phone with anurse sometimes a doctor, but
usually not somebody working forthe abortion industry who will
tick a series of boxes to saywhy do you want the abortion?
What stage of pregnancy are youat?
Are you making this decision byyourself?
So there's a few littlesafeguarding questions that they
(37:49):
have to ask, but they haveabsolutely no way of
ascertaining the veracity or thetruth of these responses.
There has been an investigationinto this, what they call a
mystery client investigation,where one of the pro-life groups
, actually run by a person whoused to work with Mary Stokes,
so he knows how these peopleoperate, knows their mindset and
(38:11):
he set up a mystery clientwhere 28 different women,
different scenarios, posed asclients seeking abortion and
they told stories and they gavea number of fictitious things
about themselves.
And all of these consultationswere video recorded and sound
recorded.
So we've got the information.
And in one of them there was aman sitting beside the woman
(38:35):
telling her what to say, sobasically cursing her into the
action, and the person on theother end of the phone had
absolutely no way of knowingthat there was a man telling
this woman what to do.
And another one.
There was another where a manwas sitting across a woman and
did a, made a sign that herthroat would be cut if she
didn't, and again this wasclearly visible on video but
(38:55):
obviously the.
The abortion provider had noidea that this was a coercion
abortion, so they have no way ofknowing how genuine.
They don't even know if thewoman's pregnant.
It could be anybody anyone witha female voice could request it
.
They don't know if she'd beenpressurized and they don't
follow up.
We know they don't follow upbecause the girls that we help,
(39:17):
they never get any follow-up.
The only time there might befollow-up is would be if the
woman goes back and complainsabout something to the abortion
provider.
Then they might know that ohyeah, something is amiss.
That's why they will quotefigures like that say oh this,
the complication rate forchemical abortions is 0.004
percent.
That's because that's all they,that's all they know.
They don't follow up with thesethings.
(39:38):
If they actually cared to followup on all of their clients,
they would find the the seriouscomplication rate is at least
seven percent.
At least seven percent.
So that means at least sevenpercent of women who take the
abortion pills will end up attheir er or their accident,
emergency or emergencydepartment with serious
complications.
So heavy bleeding requiringtransfusion, a serious infection
(40:01):
requiring intravenousantibiotics and admission to
hospital, serious or incompleteabortion requiring admission to
hospital and subsequent surgicalinterventions, plus possible
bleeding and sepsis, in additionto incomplete abortion.
So there is a seriouscomplication rate of at least 7%
in these, and they're the oneswe know of.
(40:22):
There may be others that womenwho present with sepsis what
they say is a naturalmiscarriage, but it's actually
an induced miscarriage withabortion girls who have similar
complications.
So it may well be 10 percent oreven more.
We know that it's a high,serious complication rate.
The other important thing thatpeople need to be aware of is
(40:43):
that there is a danger ofectopic pregnancy being missed,
because most of these women donot get an ultrasound scan
missed, because most of thesewomen do not get an ultrasound
scan.
One of the important aspects ofearly pregnancy care is that an
ultrasound scan can beperformed for a number of
reasons Number one, to ensurethat there is a pregnancy.
Number two, to ensure that it'sintrauterine, that it's within
the uterus and not ectopic.
(41:03):
And number three, to establishthe exact gestational age
Because, again, once the by thetelephone consultations, there
have been cases in the uk wherebabies have been born alive or
dead, we don't know as a resultof abortion pills at 32 weeks,
36 weeks, where the mothersmaybe maybe didn't know they
(41:23):
were that far pregnant, butthat's unlikely.
But there have been severaldocumented cases of late third
trimester abortions which areillegal and against the law and
the abortion provider should notbe providing these dangerous
drugs to women in thesesituations.
They're meant to only by the.
One of the rulings, by thepills by post, by the telephone
(41:46):
consultations, is that they canonly provide the abortion pills
if they, if the abortion is lessthan nine weeks and six days or
less, so less than 10 weeks.
But we know from even from someof the girls that I've helped,
that they're well over 10 weeksby the time they get the
abortion pills, although themajority are still under 10
(42:07):
weeks.
So the omifipristone blocksprogesterone and by giving
progesterone we can help in manycases to overcome or prevent
the ongoing effect ofomifibristone and prevent
miscarriage from happening.
Sheila Nonato (42:24):
How easy is it in the UK for somebody to ask for
these two pills for abortion athome and then after that, what's
the follow-up?
Do they have to go to theirdoctor after?
Do they get checked by theirdoctor?
What's sort of the process?
Dr. Dermot Kearney (42:44):
It's incredibly easy, as I say.
You just need to know thenumber of an abortion provider
usually either BPAS, which isthe British Pregnancy Advisory
Service, or MSI or Newpass, thethree main ones, or even one of
the NHS helplines, and you willsay that I'm pregnant and I'm in
a terrible state and I don'twant to keep my baby.
(43:06):
The abortion is still,technically and strictly
speaking, is illegal in theUnited Kingdom, so it is still
under the law of the OffensesAgainst the Person Act in 1861.
So it's illegal to procure anabortion.
However, the Abortion Act of1967 said that abortions could
(43:28):
be carried out.
Induced abortions could becarried out.
Induced abortions could becarried out under certain terms.
So if the following terms aremet and there had to be the
first one was that two doctorshad to agree that an abortion
was justified on the grounds ofeither A, b, c, d, e.
So there's six or seven groundswhere abortion may be carried
out, things like severedisability of the child or
severe threat to the life of themother.
(43:50):
However, 98% of all abortionsare carried out under grounds C,
which states that continuingthe pregnancy poses a greater
risk to the life or health ofthe mother, including the mental
health of the mother thanundergoing a termination.
So continuing the pregnancyposes a greater risk to the
(44:11):
health or health or life of themother.
Um, and that that's up to 24weeks.
So abortion is illegal up to 24weeks.
After 28 weeks there areexceptional circumstances.
After 24 weeks there areexceptional circumstances where
it may be still carried out, but24 for basically for any reason
.
Um, now the, the people who getpaid for these because it's all
(44:31):
done, or 98% is done, throughthe National Health Service.
So the abortion providers get avery healthy tariff or payment
for these.
So at least it's a minimum.
A few years ago it was aminimum of £500 for a simple
first trimester chemicallyinduced abortion, and for
surgical abortion it would bemuch more.
So they get a minimum of fiveor six hundred pound per
(44:53):
abortion.
So it's in their interest to doas many as they can, um, and
without any follow-up.
So since the pills by posterscome in, then their overheads
have gone down, so they havevery little payments said to
give a send out.
Two pills in the post cost themprobably about a pound and they
get, you know, very large,handsome um profit margins, uh,
(45:14):
for what they do.
And then there's certainly anelement of fraud, because
they've claimed whenever theythey send out the forms they fit
.
They have to fill out a formthat has to then get sent to the
department of health to provethat they've, that they've done
what they were claiming to, thatthey've prescribed an abortion,
carried out an abortion, butyet they don't follow up on
(45:35):
those.
They don't know if the, if thewoman actually takes the pills.
They don't know if the pillsare actually going to that woman
or is it somebody else thatthey're going to.
They don't know if she just putthem in a drawer, she saved
them up for maybe anotheroccasion.
And at least in 65 cases wherepresumably the abortion abortion
, or 62 cases where babies havebeen born with another few on
the way because of abortion pillreversal, they are presumed the
(45:58):
abortion industry claimed moneyfor those six years.
That's at least 62 cases offraud where they've got paid for
something that they're notentitled to get paid for at the
expense of the taxpayer.
So it's very, very easy.
All you have to do is make thephone call, say that you're
pregnant.
You don't want to be.
They'll ask you when was yourlast period or do you know what
stage of pregnancy you're at andyou can say anything you like.
You can say, oh yes, my lastperiod was 20th of January or
(46:21):
the 15th of March or whatever,and they'll write that down and
say oh yeah, so You're eightweeks pregnant or you're seven
weeks pregnant.
Oh yeah, you're under 10 weeks.
Are you making this decisionvoluntarily?
Oh yes, I am.
Yeah.
And why do you think you needthe abortion?
Will it affect you?
Well, one of the girls I knowshe was actually asked.
So a leading question will itaffect your mental health?
(46:43):
Oh, yes, it will.
Okay, that ticks the box.
So 98% are performed on groundC and of those 98%, 99.9% so
almost all of them are done onthe grounds it will harm the
mental health of the mother asopposed to the physical health
mental health.
More than so, continuing thepregnancy will harm the mental
(47:05):
health more than undergoing atermination of that stage of
pregnancy.
So 98-99% of all abortions aredone under the pretense that it
will harm the mental health.
Now there's absolutely noevidence anywhere in the world
from any source that having anabortion helps the mental health
of mothers.
We know that in many casesthere is a sense of relief, but
(47:29):
that is not the mental health weknow from many studies that
have been not the mental health,and we know from many studies
that have been done that mentalhealth is actually adversely
affected by abortion as opposedto continuing pregnancy, even in
crisis pregnancy, even inunplanned and unwanted or
initially unwanted pregnancies.
We know that there's increasedrisk of depression, substance
abuse, suicide rates in womenwho undergo abortion and there's
(47:54):
good evidence for that.
Nowhere, in no place, is thereevidence that mental health has
improved, either short term orlong term.
There is just a sense of relief, but that is not mental health
as properly measured.
The other important point isthat none of these maybe with
very, maybe with very, very fewexceptions, but the vast
(48:16):
majority and I would say atleast 99 percent do not undergo
any mental health evaluation.
They do not see, uh, havepsychiatry, psychologists
reports.
Psychiatry reports say thatthis patient will suffer mental
health problems if she doesn'tundergo this abortion.
So none of them get any mentalhealth evaluation.
(48:37):
So these decisions have beenmade by people who have
absolutely no training in mentalhealth and yet they're making
these decisions.
And one of the accusationsagainst me is that I was a
cardiologist, primarilycardiologist, although I do
general medicine, includingprescribing steroid hormones for
lots of other conditions.
But one of the accusations thata cardiologist should not be
involved in obstetric care, it'snot obstetric care.
(49:00):
If anything, it's endocrinecare.
It's a hormonal treatment.
It's endocrinology more thanobstetrics, if you want to be
very pedantic about it.
But there's no reason and thatthe expert witness in both, in
both cases said there wasabsolutely no reason why dr
carney or dr riley especiallybecause he's an obstetrician
they should not be involved inproviding the service to women
(49:21):
that he he has demonstrated.
He has the necessary skills andcompetence and understanding of
the physiology and thepharmacology to provide the
service.
Sheila Nonato (49:38):
Just for comparison, in Canada our
abortion law is in limbo.
Potentially, you could do anabortion up to nine months
because of this legal limbo.
What is the situation in the UK?
Dr. Dermot Kearney (49:47):
Yeah, if a woman really wanted an abortion
up to nine months, she could.
Now there would be.
She might have difficultyfinding a provider who would be
prepared to do it, because eventhe staunch pro kill the baby.
So that usually involvesinjecting a substance directly
into the baby through themother's abdomen under
(50:17):
ultrasound guidance.
Ideally they try to aim to getit into the heart.
So they inject usuallypotassium chloride or digepsin,
so one of those substances.
That other agents can be usedin other places, but they're the
two common ones.
You have to kill the baby now.
We know that that's painful,and so I've been told by people
working in veterinary practicethat you're not allowed to do
that to animals because it's toopainful If you're putting them
(50:38):
to sleep.
You have to use more humane ormore gentle methods of killing.
So the whole idea of feticideis distasteful to a lot of
abortions.
But if you know, if a woman isreally determined to have an
abortion, that and it's usuallyfor on the grounds of some sort
of eugenic reason, so downsyndrome, edward syndrome,
clubfoot, some congenitalabnormality that they that may
(51:01):
have been discovered later inpregnancy, that had been had
been missed earlier or themother had decided well, maybe I
can cope with this, but thendecided at a later stage, or was
persuaded at a later stage,that she wouldn't be able to
cope with this.
So, yeah, so they can findreasons to to end a baby's life.
And there have been again manycases of mothers almost always
(51:21):
with Down syndrome.
Actually, where they've been,the mothers have been
pressurized right up to right upto the day of delivery, to
their birth.
You know, it's not too, it'snot too late, you can change
your mind.
You can change your mind rightup until the baby's delivered.
You know, if you feel you'renot able to cope with this, if
you want to end it, they wouldnever say if you want to kill
your baby, they will say if youwant to end the pregnancy now,
you don't have to.
(51:43):
So there have been many casesOne woman, a Scottish lady, who
she recorded 15 times, where shewas pressurized between 24 and
39 weeks to have abortion andshe had specifically had someone
write on the cover of hermedical notes do not, please do
not, discuss option of abortionor this.
This mother is not prepared toconsider abortion.
(52:05):
So this was actually written.
But despite that, they, thehealth care professionals, in
their wisdom decided to keeppressuring her that this might
be a good idea, to kill thechild now, before he or she was
going to be born.
And that's an extreme example,but they do happen.
Sheila Nonato (52:24):
So are you telling me that after eight
months, abortions have happenedin the UK?
Thank you for listening to theVeil and Armour podcast.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com