Send us a text

Welcome back to Part II of the conversation with Dr. Dermot Kearney, former President of the Catholic Medical Association in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Kearney discusses Abortion Pill Reversal (APR), a medical treatment deemed controversial by pro-abortion groups, that can help women who change their minds after taking the first abortion pill mifepristone. His work providing this treatment in the UK has faced significant opposition despite evidence of its effectiveness and safety, highlighting tensions between "reproductive choice" advocacy and medical ethics.

• Abortion Pill Reversal has helped thousands of women continue pregnancies after taking mifepristone, according to some studies and Heartbeat International
• When administered promptly, progesterone treatment has approximately 55% success rate in continuing pregnancies
• Opposition evolved from claiming APR was "junk science" to falsely stating women don't change their minds
• Critics attempted to portray the treatment as dangerous despite progesterone's established safety record for pregnancy
• Science supports abortion pill reversal with animal studies showing 80% success when given within 24 hours
• No increased risk of birth defects for babies born after successful reversal treatment
• Dr. Kearney faces professional challenges but continues based on scientific evidence and women's need for this service
• Women who contact Dr. Kearney receive factual information without judgment - 35% choose not to proceed with reversal
• Medical ethics requires respecting all human life and supporting informed patient choices

Dr. Dermot Kearney is on social media: https://www.x.com/@dermotkearney3

Sources mentioned:

https://abortionpillreversal.com

https://heartbeatinternational.com

https://aaplog.com

American Association of Pro-life Obestetricians and Gynecologists


Support the show

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 (00:05):
Yeah, you asked me a little bit earlier
about how do I keep going.
Well, I keep going becausewomen need it.
I keep going with the abortionpill reversal because women
there's a demand for it.
So if there wasn't, if womendidn't want it or didn't need it
, I wouldn't stop.
I don't go out looking forclients.
I'm trying to create awarenessof it so it at least it's an

(00:25):
option that mothers know isthere.
If they do change their mindafter they're taken, I'm very
careful that I give them verytruthful, very honest, based on
personal experience and on whatI've read from other sources.
I give them all of theup-to-date information that they
would need and 30% of themdecide.
35% decide not to go ahead andthe other what 65% do at least

(00:49):
they started.
Some of them don't continue,some of them change their minds
after a while.
But it keeps me going becausethere's a demand for it.

Sheila Nonato (00:57):
The battleground over abortion begins here.
A woman stands outside apharmacy during the Lenten 40
Days for Life prayer vigil.
Most abortions now take placeinside a woman's home through
chemical abortion.
On June 1st the New York Timespublished a glowing article
about French scientistEtienne-Emile Beaulieu, the

(01:19):
inventor or the father of theabortion pill, who died at the
age of 98 on June 1st.
This week we continue theconversation with UK doctor
Dermot Kearney about abortionpill reversal, a controversial
procedure to doctors in favourof abortion and reproductive
choice.
The heart of the matter, saysDr Kearney, is choice.

(01:43):
Ironically, after taking thefirst of two abortion pills, do
women have the choice to changetheir minds?
And do women have the right toaccess medical care, if they do,
to help them to try to savetheir pregnancy and their babies
?
Let's hear the conversation andplease keep in mind that this

(02:05):
is not medical advice.
This is a conversation with DrKearney and the obstacles he has
faced as a medical doctor andas a Christian, and what keeps
him going, even in the face ofthreats against his ability to
practice as a doctor andcriticisms of his pro-life
beliefs.
Let's begin with a prayer Innomine Patris, et Filli et

(02:26):
Spiritus Sancti.
Amen.
Ave Maria, gratia plena.
Dominus tecum.
Benedicta tu in mulieribus etbenedictus fructus ventris tui,
Iesus.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Orapro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et
in hora mortis nostre.

(02:47):
Amen, Iesus.
Thank you and God bless.
Hello and Welcome to the Veiland Armour Podcast.
This is your host, SheilaNonato.
I'm a stay-at-home mom and afreelance Catholic journalist,

(03:09):
seeking the guidance of the HolySpirit and the inspiration of
Our Lady.
I strive to tell stories thatinspire, illuminate and enrich
the lives of Catholic women, tohelp them in living out our
vocation of raising the nextgeneration of leaders and saints
of raising the next generationof leaders and saints.

Co-Host (03:26):
Please join us every week on the Veil and Armour
podcast, where stories comealive through a journalist's
lens in mother's heart.

Sheila Nonato (03:32):
So are you telling me that after eight
months, abortions have happenedin the UK?

Dr. Dermot Kearney (03:38):
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So they have almost always somecongenital eugenics reasons.
So there's some imperfection inthe child.

Sheila Nonato (03:50):
I'm so sorry to ask this, but what do they do
with the baby afterwards?

Dr. Dermot Kearney (03:54):
Well, they would kill the baby by feticide
Almost always.
I don't think they woulddismember the baby at that stage
.
They do obviously dismember thechild when they're doing
surgical abortions in the secondtrimester, but they would
usually not do a dismemberment.
So they would kill the child,obviously with the mother's
permission.
So the mother well, you wouldhope it's the mother's
permission, even if the mothermay have been persuaded or

(04:15):
pressurized, and then they woulddeliver the child.
So induced delivery.
And then it's up to the motherwhether she wants to hold the
child.
Okay, so yeah, so they wouldgive the option.
So they would, they would thinkthat this is humane and they
would give the mother the option, because in some cases the
child might be born alive.
So the fetucide may not haveworked, and there have been many
cases around the world wherechildren have been born alive

(04:38):
because of failed abortionattempts and usually because the
fetus side hasn't worked theattempted fetus side and so they
would give the option of if themother wants to hold a child,
or the mother wants to arrange aburial or a cremation, or if
they want the body disposed ofin some other way, and so they.
Well, we give those options wow,um, I yeah it's, I don't it's

(05:03):
incomprehensible, but that's themindset of people that they
think they're offering somethinggood to these mothers, Having
pressurized them in the firstplace.
They think that you'd be betteroff because this would have
been a too big a burden for youin life.
How do they know?
They don't know what people arecapable of.
There are many children withdown syndrome and edward

(05:24):
syndrome and patow syndrome wholive very, very happy lives and
bring great joy to their parentsand to their extended families
are you okay for a couple morequestions, or do you have to go
of?

Sheila Nonato (05:37):
course, yeah yeah yeah, okay yeah, so I just had
also a question about the DailyMail article of 2021.
They were quoting Marie StopesInternational, now MSI

(05:58):
Reproductive Choices for a curenot backed by evidence failed to
present a balanced picture ofits benefits and imposed your
anti-abortion beliefs on her.
Was there a problem that youare Catholic, you were showing
your beliefs, your pro-lifebeliefs, or is it because there
was a lack of evidence?

(06:18):
Can you tell me about atreatment in order to be
accepted?
How many peer-reviewed studies?
Reviewed studies?
What's the process?
And also, yeah, what was theirissue, main issue with you?

Dr. Dermot Kearney (06:31):
Yeah, the main issue with me was that they
didn't like what I was doingInitially.
There was basically three mainlies.
There's a lot of opposition toabortion pill reversal in the UK
, but primarily in the UnitedUnited States, and I've looked
at some of the early statementsthat were made, so back in the
early days.
So the abortion pill reversalservice has been in operation in

(06:52):
the US since 2012 and thenaround 2015, 2016, opposition
started to be voiced against itand the initial opposition was
that it's junk science, there'sno basis to it, it doesn't work.
So that was the initialopposition was that it's junk
science, there's no basis to it,it doesn't, it doesn't work.
So that was the initial liethat they had.

(07:13):
Then they tried to say well,even if it works, women don't
need this, women don't changetheir mind.
And there's a very tellinginterview.
It's on Huffington Post, whichHuffington Post isn't exactly
the sort.
It's not a pro-life publicationor whatever you want media
service.
But the most outspoken personagainst APR in the US was a guy

(07:33):
called Daniel Grossman, who's anobstetrician and an abortionist
in California, and he was askedso, dr Grossman, why are you
opposed to this so-calledabortion pill reversal?
Is it the treatment?
He said no, no, no, no, no.
It's not the treatment, it'sthe rhetoric.
The rhetoric that women changetheir mind.
We know that women don't changetheir mind and that is very
telling because we know thatwomen do change their mind.

(07:54):
Women change their mind aboutlots of things all the time and
they certainly change inabortion.
But if you accept and I knowthis to be true in the UK and
presumably it's the same inNorth America if women change
their mind and if it'sacknowledged that women change
their mind, then there's a veryuncomfortable question well, why

(08:14):
do they change their mind?
We know the answer to that.
At least I know the answer tothat it's because they're not
given any other option.
They're not given any otherinformation.
It's not explained to them whatabortion is until they find out
for some how, by themselves.
So they get absolutely nocounselling.
They're meant to getcounselling.
If you call yourself pro-choice, you want to make sure that the

(08:37):
woman is informed of all of thepossible choices that she might
want to make.
So deciding to reverse herabortion after taking the first
pill is a choice, but that's onethat they're not prepared to
accept or acknowledge.
So that was the first thingthat they don't change their
mind.
And then they said well, it'sjunk science, it doesn't work.
They wouldn't accept that.
There is plenty of evidence andyear by year the evidence has

(08:57):
been accumulating Now.
Initially there was a theory.
So the very first case thatwere done were done in 2005,
2006,.
Two different parts of thecountry, one in California or
New Mexico, california, and theother in North Carolina.
Two doctors who didn't know eachother, but they were asked on
two separate occasions oh, I'vegot a patient, a client, who's

(09:18):
taken first abortion pill.
She wants to save the baby.
Is there anything you can do tohelp her?
And then, given their knowledgeand putting and putting two and
two together.
Well, we know this is whatmifepristone does it blocks
progesterone.
And both of them had experiencein using progesterone in
infertility management, helpingmothers to preserve pregnancy.
That well, if I gaveprogesterone, maybe, just maybe,

(09:38):
it might overcome the effect ofthe mifepristone.
So there's a definitescientific basis and logic for
that.
And they both, in both casesthey gave progesterone, actually
intramuscularly, and certainlyin at least in one case, maybe
in both, and it worked.
The baby survived.
And that might have beencoincidence.
Maybe the baby was going, maybeit was one of those 20, that
was going to survive anyway.
But then they did a few morecases and they worked and they

(09:59):
found that this was actuallyworking, more often than not
working, and when it givenpromptly.
So that's led to the servicebeing set up in 2012.
Now I would have liked and it'stoo late now, unfortunately, at
this stage I would have liked ifthey had done what they call a
randomized control trial,because we didn't really know
for certain if the treatmentworked.
If they had taken two groupsand given one group placebo and

(10:21):
one progesterone even though itwas you said, maybe it was a
little bit on.
It would have been a little bitunethical if we knew that a
progesterone was like to beworked, to give someone placebo
in that situation.
But I think it would have beenreasonable and ethical to do one
in 2012.
Nowadays it wouldn't, becausewe now know that it works.
More than 5,500 babies have beenborn in 12 years I almost say

(10:45):
it'll be 6,000 by the end of theyear mostly in the U.
S.
, but a good few in Canada, agood few here in the United
Kingdom, even though we've onlybeen doing it for two or three
years in total.
But we know that it works atleast 55% of the time.
When it's given promptly in thecorrect dose and when the
mother continues to take thetreatment, it doesn't stop it.

(11:05):
So we know they're worse.
So that's the main argument.
Now, in more recent times andthis was never mentioned early
on, but when they realized that,okay, we're losing the argument
here women obviously do changetheir mind, because we've got
5,500 babies to prove it and youcan take this probably another
3,000 or 4,000 where thetreatment didn't work.

(11:27):
So we've got almost 10,000cases where women did change
their mind in the course of 12years.
That's a lot of mothers changetheir mind and probably many,
many more would change theirmind if they knew about the
service but just have neverheard of it.
And most of the girls who cometo me said I didn't realize this
until a friend told me or untilI looked up the internet.
So more realized that then.

(11:48):
So we know that women changetheir mind.
Secondly, we know that that itdoes work, that it's.
There's animal studies thatshow that it works.
So the initially there was thetheory.
Then there was a number ofanimal studies, done mainly in
Japan and in more recently inthe United States, showing that
it's very successful, given theequivalent doses of mifepristone
and the equivalent doses ofprogesterone, either

(12:11):
simultaneously.
With the mifepristone, there'sa 100% success rate in animal
studies if it's given at thesame time.
If it's given the equivalent of12 to 24 hours later, there's
an 80% success rate in animals.
So we know that it works inanimal studies to preserve the
pregnancies.
And then there's more and moreaccumulating evidence.
There's very good observationalstudies.

(12:32):
So case reports that have comeout over the years in various
places and just putting them alltogether, looking at the
failure rate, the success rate,the complication rate which is
the serious complication rate iszero.
That's probably the mostimportant information I give to
the mothers when they contact methat if your baby survives,

(12:52):
there is no increased risk ofany congenital problems.
That's very important.
Now that stopped me fromoffering the service for several
years.
So I first heard about it in2014, and I didn't start the
service until 2020, because Iwanted to make sure that, first
of all, that it was effective,that it was actually working.
So year by year, I could seemore and more success rates.
But I also was I needed to besure that there wasn't going to

(13:15):
be some congenital problem forthe babies.
So I was thinking of thingslike thalidomide in the 60s,
where mothers taken for morningsickness and pregnancy and ended
up with congenital defects inthe babies.
And we know some drugs cancause congenital defects.
So the question was if a baby isexposed to mifepristone in
early pregnancy but managessomehow to survive, either with
progesterone or just naturally.

(13:36):
Will there be any long-termeffects?
And the answer is no, thereisn't, and we know that.
Even the abortion providerswill admit that the way they
have to.
Um, but we know that thereisn't any increased risk.
There is a small risk ofcongenital congenital
deformities or congenitalproblems in all pregnancies and
it's exactly the same in thegeneral population as it is with

(13:58):
those who've been exposed todifferent places.
So we reassure mothers aboutthat, and that was the one thing
that basically stopped me fromproviding the service for
several years until I knew forcertain that there wasn't that
increased risk to baby.
So the river pristone willeither kill the baby within the
first two or three weeks orwon't have any long-term effects
.
It will have immediate fataleffect or no no effect

(14:19):
whatsoever.
Um, and progesterone canprotect the baby against that
fatal effect.
Where were we?
I think I was in the middle ofresponding to one of your
questions.

Sheila Nonato (14:33):
Yeah, I'm just curious because they were also
talking about lack of evidence.

Dr. Dermot Kearney (14:37):
Oh yeah, so they're talking about the danger
, yeah, the danger.
So in 2020, they published.
The second most outspokenperson is a guy called Mitchell
Crine and he's in Sacramento, inNorthern California, and he
decided he had been an outspokencritic of APR and he was the
one who coined the term junkscience, junk science.

(14:58):
But eventually he decided, well, I can't keep calling it junk
science unless I can prove it.
So he decided he was going toset up a trial.
I can't keep calling it junkscience unless I can prove it.
So he decided he was going toset up a trial.
So he first of all, the designof the trial is highly
suspicious because if you'recomparing two treatments and
that's basically what he wasdoing he was comparing
progesterone to placebo in womenwho had taken mifepretzol.
But if you're comparing twotreatments, you're going to need

(15:20):
a lot of patience becauseyou've got to make sure that
there's proper uh, that it's acontrolled trial.
So he called it a randomizedcontrolled trial.
It's definitely not acontrolled trial.
It's controlled means you takeinto account all the possible
variables that could influencethe outcome of the trial.
So you've got to have themothers the same age.
You've got to have them thesame weight, the same bmi, the
same height or similar height.

(15:41):
You've got to have the samenumber of diabetics, the same
number of hypertensives, thesame number of women with
previous miscarriages, samenumber of mothers with previous
abortions.
So previous obstetric history,previous medical history and
other medications that mightinfluence the outcome.
So he made absolutely noattempt to control the trial in
that sense.
We just took random women.

(16:03):
He persuaded.
He said he only needed 40.
He would have 20 in each group.
Now there is no study inhistory where you compare two
treatment groups with just 40patients.
You're going to need severalhundred to have any chance of
showing any difference.
So his trial was basicallydesigned to show failure.
It was designed to show thatthis treatment wouldn't work
because he went in with a biasedopinion, allegedly as an

(16:27):
investigator, to see or to provethat the treatment doesn't work
.
Now a good investigator has ahas a question does this
treatment work?
I wonder, yes or no?
Let's try a trial, let's designa properly controlled trial.
And it was.
He went in with a biasedattitude, determined to show
that this didn't work.
So we had to have small numbersto show that, because it was
very unlikely that there wasgoing to be any difference
between them if there was onlygoing to be 20 at each group.

(16:48):
So he persuaded or he had hehoped to persuade 40 women who
were due to have surgicalabortions anyway, just for them
to delay their surgicalprocedure by 15 days to allow
them to try this junk sciencetreatment.
They would all get mifepristoneon day one and on day two.
24 hours later, they would allget either placebo or

(17:08):
progesterone and the patientwouldn't know and the doctor
wouldn't know which it was.
It was a double-blindrandomized trial.
It wasn't a randomizedcontrolled trial, it was a
randomized trial.
So it turned out.
The trial was stopped after 12ladies had been recruited.
Six were in each group, six inthe progesterone group, six in

(17:29):
the placebo group.
Two had voluntarily left thetrial within a matter of days,
so they'd stopped because theyjust didn't want to be part of
anyone.
That's always going to be withany trial a dropout rate of at
least 10 percent, and with atrial with something
controversial like abortion,you're going to have at least at
least 10%, probably more.
So his 40 was going to bequickly down to 35 or 34 or less

(17:52):
very quickly if they had let itcontinue.
But as it was, two dropped outwithin days.
So they had five in each group.
They stopped it after those tenafter and those ten had gone
through two weeks, because threeof the mothers presented to the
ER department with bleeding.
Two of them had seriousbleeding, One of them needed a
blood transfusion, one of themneeded an urgent surgical

(18:15):
abortion and in those two casesthe mothers had received placebo
.
So they hadn't receivedprogesterone.
So they're taking mifepristone,which obviously caused the
bleeding.
Bleeding.
Placebo did nothing to stop itand two of them ended up going
to the department and needing anintervention.
That's two out of five.
It seems a lot, but if they'dgone with their 20 as planned,
there may have been no furthercases.

(18:36):
So there's no way of knowing.
But these just coincidentallytwo out of five, or was this
going to be the pattern in theprogesterone group?
One woman had bleeding but sheattended the ER department.
They checked her out.
Her blood count was stable, ithadn't dropped, she hadn't lost
a lot of blood, her bloodpressure was stable, she didn't
need any blood transfusion, shedidn't need any emergency

(18:56):
evacuation or intervention andshe was discharged on the same
day.
So that they and they decidedto stop it on the base, on the
pretense, I would say again,that mothers were bleeding
because of this or women werebleeding because of this
dangerous treatment.
But it was the mifepristonethat caused the bleeding, not
the progesterone, and that wasshowing the fact that two of the

(19:18):
mothers who had the seriousbleeding had received placebo,
hadn't received progesterone,and one who had less serious
bleeding.
So you could argue that, ifthey wanted to be very strict
about it, even though thenumbers are very small, that
progesterone reduces your riskof serious bleeding compared to
placebo.
So that's what the trial shouldbe showing.
The other, even more importantaspect, and this is I have no

(19:39):
doubt whatsoever that this isthe reason the trial was stopped
.
So in their early analysis,they found that of the five
women in the progesterone group,they found that of the five
women in the progesterone group,four were still pregnant, with
a healthy pregnancy, after 15days, so 80% success rate.
One had miscarried, which iswhat you would expect.

(20:00):
So, whereas in the placebogroup, two out of five were
still pregnant, so 40%, which issurprising that there would be
so many after 15 days.
But that confirmed what we sayall along is that the giving
progesterone doubles the likelysurvival rate of the baby.
Now the investigators.
This did not go unnoticed bythem, so in their early stage
analysis they would haverealized hang on a second.

(20:22):
We're trying to show that thistreatment doesn't work, and yet
in our early stage analysiswe're actually showing the
opposite.
We're showing that progesteroneis more effective in saving
lives.
Not only that, it's also saferit's causing less bleeding than
the women who don't getprogesterone.
We're going to have to stopthis trial.
So I've no doubt the reason thetrial was stopped was that
because progesterone was alreadyshown to be more effective in

(20:46):
saving life and more effectivein preventing serious hemorrhage
compared to placebo, and thatwas not supposed to happen.
So they had to find a reason.
So they made up this story thatall the three women have had
serious bleeds.
So we can't continue this trial.
It's not.
It would be unethical to do so.
So that's how this thing aboutuh, progesterone being a danger
to women.
There's absolutely no evidenceanywhere.

(21:06):
Progesterone is a danger as ifif the well, progesterone has
been used in pregnancy for morethan 50 years.
It's used mainly to supportpregnancy in women who are at
risk of miscarriage.
And this is exactly what we'redoing in abortion reversal we're
providing progesterone to womenwho are at risk of miscarriage
specifically because theirprogesterone has been attacked.
Their endogenous naturalprogesterone has been attacked

(21:27):
by an outside force and we'rejust providing the natural
progesterone has been attackedby an outside force and we're
just providing the naturalprogesterone to try and overcome
that outside attack.
So that's where the danger sortof thing.
The other thing is that we wereaccused of using an unlicensed,
and that's true.
Progesterone is not unlicensed.
It's licensed for use inpregnancy.
It's licensed for use inmiscarriage, preventive

(21:47):
miscarriage, lots of things inobstetrics.
It's not licensed for abortion,pill reversal but no, no drug
is licensed for that.
It's a novel, it's a relativelynew treatment and it takes
years and years before drugs gettheir license for that specific
thing.
But there are many, many drugswho are, which are used in an
off-license or off-label manner,particularly in pediatrics and

(22:11):
children's medicine.
There's lots of drugs used inthat way and this was pointed.
This was a letter that waspointed out to me by the Royal
College of Obstetricians becauseeven before we started the
service, we wrote to the RCOG(Royal College of Obstetricians
and Gynaecologists) asking themto support the service because
we thought this was a greatthing for women, for women's
health, and they wrote back andsaid we do not promote the use

(22:32):
of unlicensed or off-licensedmedications.
So we wrote back to thembecause they may not have
realized it, but misoprostol,the second abortion drug, was
not licensed for abortion.
It's licensed for management ofpeptic ulcer disease, but it's
not licensed for abortion, andyet they were very happy to
recommend it and provide it,administer it.

(22:52):
And also, I also point outanother drug that they highly
recommend, called methotrexate,which is used for management of
rheumatoid arthritis.
It's a very potentanti-inflammatory for chronic
and chronic conditions, but theyhighly recommend it for the
medical management of ectopicpregnancy, and yet it's not
licensed for that indication.
So they were very hypocriticaland very inconsistent in their

(23:14):
response to us that, oh, we donot support the off-license use
of these medications, and yetthat's exactly what they do.
So when we wrote back to thempointing this lapse to them, we
got no response.
They didn't reply to that.
Because what could they say?
Oh, we're very sorry, yes, wewill support your service.
So their only option was toeither support us or just not

(23:37):
respond.
Nothing else would have beenjust even more hypocritical.

Sheila Nonato (23:43):
For mothers who are listening to us in Canada or
who might know somebody in thissituation.
Is abortion pill reversalavailable?
How do they access?
The service.

Dr. Dermot Kearney (23:53):
Yeah, there's opposition to it and I
do know one or two of thedoctors who provide.
I know there are a number ofproviders.
I think most of them areprobably linked either directly
to some of the pro-lifeorganizations and pregnancy
health centers for crisispregnancies, and some of them,
like myself, will be registeredwith the international

(24:16):
abortionpillreversalcom.
So I recommend for anyone who'sanywhere in the world not only
Canada, canada, ireland, england, america, russia, slovakia, so
lots of the countries where Iknow abortion reversal is in
operation and if a mother needshelp and they want to find a
local doctor, the groupHeartbeat International, which

(24:40):
runs the abortion pill reversalnetwork.
They have a register of doctorswho are prepared, willing and
available to provide the serviceand the way to contact them is
through abortionpillreversalcom.
The com is important because ifyou just put in abortion pill
reversal, you get a lot of theanti-APR, anti-reversal sites

(25:01):
saying how dangerous it is, likePlanned Parenthood and Marie
Stopes and BPOS?
, the Royal Colleges saying thatthis is dangerous, it's
unlicensed.
So you get a lot of there's alot of misinformation and lies
out there.
So we're trying our best toprovide accurate information.
One very good organization thatsome of your listeners might be

(25:22):
aware of and I've had a lot ofsupport from them is the
American Association of Pro-LifeObstetricians and Gynecologists
, APLOG.
They're a wonderfulorganization that fully supports
and endorses abortion pillreversal and they have a very
good website that gives a lot ofvery helpful information to
mothers or anybody interested inthe topic, and they have many

(25:44):
of their members, who are allthe vast majority of them are
obstetricians working in the U.
S.
, some internationally, butmostly in the U.
S.
and the vast majority of themare providing the abortion
reversal service.
So there are at least there'sat least 1,500 abortion reversal
providers in the United States.
There's certainly some inCanada.
I don't know exactly how many.

(26:04):
We have a small number in theUnited Kingdom.
Ireland has a small number.
They're the ones I know of.
No-transcript.

Sheila Nonato (26:38):
So you pointed out sort of the double standard
on choice, that a woman canchoose abortion but she cannot
choose to change her mind.
So if you can speak to perhapsthere's a mother out there or
they might know somebody whomade this choice.
They took the first pill butnow they're regretting, or they
have second thoughts, butthey're thinking about judgment.

(27:02):
Are people?
Is the doctor going to judge?
They have all these thoughts intheir mind that might prevent
them from seeking this kind ofservice.
What would you say to them?

Dr. Dermot Kearney (27:14):
There's absolutely no judgment
whatsoever.
That was one of the accusationsmade against us that we were,
even though there was noevidence to support it that we
must be judging these womenbecause of our Catholic beliefs.
Not all the doctors providingthe service are Catholics.
By the way, it just happensthat myself and Dr Riley In fact
I know at least one of theothers in the UK isn't a

(27:37):
Catholic, and he or she isproviding the service, and not
necessarily from any religiouspoint of view, and neither am I,
while I have a Catholic belief.
Even if I wasn't a Catholic, Iwould still be very happy to
provide the service.
So, certainly no judgment.
Um, and as, as I mentionedearlier, on 35 percent of the

(27:57):
mothers that I've spoken to,they decide, for whatever reason
and I don't, I don't quiz themon it um, not to go ahead with
treatment.
They're very grateful for theconversation.
I speak to them and I leave thedoor open if you change your
mind.
If there's anything more, I cando.
Some of them I presume the vastmajority go ahead with the
abortion.
I don't judge them in any way.
I pray for them.
I offer them help if at anystage, as I tell you, in the

(28:19):
future, at any stage, next week,next month, next year.
If you want to contact me, ifyou need any help, if I can help
in any way, let me know.
So any help, if I can help youin any way, let me know.
So there's absolutely nojudgment.
All of the girls I've spoken to,even those that have been a
little bit ambivalent or not asenthusiastic as maybe some of
the others, I have a deeprespect for them all.
They're very courageous, firstof all to come because it is a

(28:42):
courageous decision to know, torecognize that I've done
something that I regret doingand I'm going to seek some help
to try and save my baby.
And it's a courageous thing forthem to do and I admire them
for that and I certainly respectthem.
There's no judgment whatsoever.
And even those who decide tonot go ahead with the treatment

(29:02):
and decide for whatever reason Iknow that it's in many cases
that it's not only theirdecision.
They're being forced or coercedby somebody else or by life
circumstances that this is notwhat they would normally choose
to do.
And I'm sure all of the doctorsand healthcare professionals
provided this service, I'm surethey would all have a very

(29:24):
similar respectful,non-judgmental attitude, very
sympathetic but that came across, actually, in the statements
that we got from the mothers.
I wasn't allowed to have anyrole in them, but I was allowed
to see them afterwards becausethey were part of the witness

(29:47):
that we then sent to the GMC, soI was allowed to read them.
I was in tears reading some ofthe I that we then sent to the
GMC.
I was allowed to read them andI was in tears reading some of
them.
I didn't realise the depth ofgratitude that the mothers had.
It was very touching for me toread what they were saying about
me and about the service andthe help that they received Very

(30:09):
humbling.

Sheila Nonato (30:13):
Amazing.
You've been prominent with yourCatholic beliefs, your pro-life
beliefs.
Would it be easier if you justdidn't say anything?
You know how would it be for ayoung doctor, catholic in the uk

(30:34):
, I guess anywhere in the worldum, right now, practicing
medicine?
Uh, practicing according totheir conscience, according to
their beliefs.
Would it be easier if they justdidn't say anything?
Right, they just didn't.
They hid their Catholic beliefs.
Would you consider that if theydecided to, oh, we're going to
take away your license, youcan't be a doctor because you
won't shut up about pro-life andabortion pill reversal.

Dr. Dermot Kearney (30:56):
Well, Abortion Pill Reversal is only
one aspect I would like.
There's lots of other areaswithin medicine.
You don't necessarily have tobe providing Abortion Pill
Reversal (APR) service.
Be a good doctor and a goodCatholic and a good Catholic
doctor, but you do have to atleast have a conscience.
To be a good Catholic doctoryou do have to have a Catholic
conscience, a well formedCatholic conscience.

(31:21):
Years ago we thought we couldescape sort of the dilemmas that
if I don't go into a pet, Iwon't have to do abortions, I
won't have to worry aboutcontraception, I won't have to
do abortions, I won't have toworry about contraception I
won't have to worry about.
But more and more medicine hasbeen touched by these life
issues that are affecting all ofus.
So a very big one, certainly inCanada, is the end-of-life care

(31:43):
, and there's very few areas ofmedicine where you can escape
being involved in end-of-lifecare.
We all have elderly patients,we all have sick patients, we
all have patients that are notgoing to get better and pressure
can be brought to bear to endthe life of some of your
patients.
And then luckily in the U.
K.
we're protected against that.
So euthanasia and assistedsuicide is still illegal in the

(32:04):
U.
K.
, but that may not remain thecase for much longer.
There's certainly for manyyears, there has been a strong
lobby trying to change that,just as they did in Canada and
some European countries and somestates of the US.
But we have to be strong.
We do have to.
While it is easier to just keepyour head down and do nothing,

(32:25):
is that the right thing to do Atthe end of the day?
Um, while our profession, ourjobs as doctors, is important,
our, our souls are moreimportant.
Our eternal life is moreimportant.
And if, if, at the end of theday, we have to come before or
come to our judgment and say,well, what did you do when, uh,

(32:48):
you know, you had theopportunity to stand up for life
and you didn't, or you actuallywent the other direction, you
promoted a culture of death?
I wouldn't like to be in thatposition and unfortunately,
there will be some people, therewill be some doctors and some
nurses and some pharmacists whowill have some explaining to do
Like we're all sinners, but weshouldn't.

(33:11):
There are some areas where thedifference between right and
wrong is pretty obvious, and youknow, when it comes to abortion
, when it comes to killingelderly people, killing sick
people intentionally.
There's a very clear linebetween what is right and what
is wrong and I think all doctorswill know that.
And our conscience is there toprotect us.

(33:33):
And some people are prepared toignore their conscience.
Some people are prepared tomurder their conscience and not
listen to it anymore.
That's tragic.
That's the worst thing that canhappen to any doctor or any
person.
That can happen to any doctoror any person.
As they employ the Frenchphilosopher from the early 19th

(33:53):
or early 20th century thatultimately there is only one
tragedy in life and that is notto become a saint.
I'm not sure if they were theexact words, but that's the gist
of it.
So we all have a calling tobecome saints, to do what's
right, to choose therighteousness and justice and
killing people intentionally whodon't pose a threat to the

(34:18):
lives of others I'm against thedeath penalty, by the way, as a
matter of principle, but I canunderstand, like self-defense,
if you're being attacked andthere's an imminent threat to
life, you do have a right to uselethal force if it's
proportionate to do so.
But to intentionally end ahuman life where there is no

(34:38):
imminent or real threat to thelives of others is a very
serious, grave injustice and weneed to be aware of that and we
have an obligation as healthcareprofessionals to to respect the
value of all human lives.
And I often I'm on social mediaquite a lot and one of the
posts that I regularly put upI'm hoping mainly to influence

(35:02):
doctors or people who havemedical backgrounds.
I remind them of the uh, theaftermath of the Second World
War, and the Nuremberg trialsand in particular the doctors'
trials in Nuremberg, wheredoctors who were guilty in Nazi
Germany of crimes againsthumanity were brought to justice
.
Many of them were hanged.

(35:23):
I'm not sure if I would agreewith that, but they were brought
to justice nevertheless.
And as a result of that, theworld medical association was
formed shortly after 1948, and Ithink the canadian medical
association was one of the primeinitiator and initiators of the
movement, as was the britishmedical association, the medical
american medical association,to ensure that never, ever again

(35:47):
would doctors be involved incrimes against humanity.
That was the reason forfounding the World Medical
Association and they formulateda new Hippocratic Oath.
The old Hippocratic Oath isvery good, but the language is
archaic and there's swearing byApollo and there are various
Greek gods, so they had toupdate, to put in modern
language.
And there's a number of oathsor promises that the healthcare

(36:11):
that the physician would make,that he would, you know, abide
by, you know, respect humanity.
But number eight, that the um,the.
The eighth oath or promise wasum, I will maintain the utmost
respect for human life, for allhuman life, from the, from the
time of conception.

(36:31):
And that was maintained.
That was the promise of doctorsin the Affiliated World Medical
Association worldwide for many,many years, for many, many
decades, from 1948 up until 1983.
So long after the Abortion Actof 67 in Britain, long after Roe
v Wade, long after thelegalization of abortion in
france in 74.
And so this meant this wasmaintained up until 1983.

(36:55):
At that stage, because ofdisgruntlement with doctors who
were providing abortion andcountries where abortion was
legalized, that the wording waschanged I will maintain the
utmost respect for for all humanlife from its beginning.
So they got rid of conceptionand put it from its beginning,
because you could argue well,when does life begin?
And then, in 2005, it was thensubsequently changed and the

(37:15):
current format is I willmaintain the utmost respect for
human life, full stop.
So they've left out thebeginning, they've left out
conception, but I, you know,we've got to maintain our
standards.
We've got to maintain theprinciples by which that
organization was founded.
And the reason it was foundedwas to ensure that never, ever
again, would doctors be involvedin crimes against humanity.

(37:37):
And we have, we've betrayedthat.
So many of us have betrayedthose principles and were
prepared, for whatever reasonwhether it's for monetary gain
or for popularity or pressure,political pressure or whatever,
whether it's for monetary gainor for popularity or pressure,
political pressure or whateverwe're prepared to end human life
, either at the beginning oflife or towards the end of life,
or at various stages in between, if it's convenient to do so.

Sheila Nonato (38:05):
When you were mentioning about social media.
You've gotten into someconversations, confrontations,
what sometimes it looks ugly.
What.
Why do you?
Why do you keep doing it?
How do you maintain sort of apositive outlook in sort of a
hostile environment?

Dr. Dermot Kearney (38:26):
Yeah, we get a lot of hostility.
I would like to point out Inever respond in kind.
I never respond withname-calling or insults or
swearing.
I try to remain very calm.
Sometimes it's just a bitdifficult and sometimes I just
stop.
I just leave a conversation ifit's just getting to and then I

(38:47):
report things for insults orthreatening behavior or whatever
.
But generally I give people achance, an opportunity, and I'm
aware that the conversation isnot only between me and one
other person, that there aremaybe a dozen, maybe several
dozen, maybe several hundredother people who will come
across the conversation and will.

(39:08):
The hope is that, yeah, that Inever thought of that, that that
makes sense, yeah, that's,that's uncomfortable.
I didn't realize that lifebegan that fertilization.
I didn't realize that abortionwas.
I thought it was just ending apregnancy but I didn't realize
it was actually killing a child.
I didn't realize that lifebegan, that when it did, I
didn't realize that babies couldfeel pain.

(39:28):
So I'm hoping that somewherealong the line, somebody an
outsider maybe that I'll neverever come across will see it.
And that guy actually he was.
Even though he was beinginsulted and being called all
sorts of horrible names by otherpeople, he didn't react.
He just kept saying no, this iswhat I believe.
This is the truth.
This is what medical ethicalpractice is all about.

(39:52):
He stood firm to the one line.
Basically because it's verysimple.
I put a tweet on tonight.
My actual starting was it'svery simple.
Number one all human livesbegin with fertilization.
Number two all human lives haveequal inherent value.
Number three abortion is theintentional destruction of a
human life that poses no threatto the lives of others at the

(40:16):
embryonic or fetal stage ofdevelopment.
I mix it around, I put in thingsabout music and sport and other
things as well, but my maintopic is abortion and abortion
pill reversal to try and promotethe service so at least others
will be aware of it, and we havehad one or two successful

(40:43):
outcomes have come about frommothers mothers and, in one case
, a father who then, because heand his partner were looking for
something to reverse them or totry and prevent the baby being
killed after she'd taken them.
If he came across a social mediaaccount and sent a message to

(41:04):
me, and then I responded, I hadto.
Of course, I wanted to makesure that I was talking to his
partner, that it wasn't just him, so I had to.
Of course, I wanted to makesure that I was talking to his
partner, that it wasn't just him, so I spoke to her and with her
, with his agreement, they had alittle baby girl who will be
coming up to one year old,actually very soon, and I just

(41:25):
wanted to pick up on you hadmentioned some of the doctors
who do abortion pill reversalare not even Catholic.

Sheila Nonato (41:33):
So basically it's based on science.
It's not religion, it's notforcing someone to believe in
your God or your beliefs.
This is a service, medicalprocedure or not a procedure,
but medical service that youoffer freely and not by coercion

(41:53):
.
Um, and I, I guess I just don'tsee why it's it wouldn't be
allowed um that's as I say,people, it's a threat, it's a.

Dr. Dermot Kearney (42:03):
It's a threat to the abortion industry.
Uh, because, say, if, if, ifit's recognized that women
change their mind, then thequestion is well, why?
And the answer is because theyget no counselling.
Because if women were gettingcounselling, you can be pretty
certain that the numbers ofabortions would be vastly,
vastly reduced.
At the moment in the UK there'sabout 250,000 abortions a year.

(42:25):
At least that's what they claim.
Whether actually the women goahead with the abortion is not
known, but they claim 100,250,000 abortions a year.
At least that's what they claim.
Whether they're actually thewomen go ahead with abortion, as
is not known, but they claim100 to 250,000.
I have no doubt that at least40 to 50% would be would not
proceed with abortion if theygot proper counselling and if
they were offered, and probablymore, maybe up to 80, 90% would
not go ahead with abortion andthat would have.

(42:46):
That would have very seriousimplications for the finances of
the abortion providers.
At the moment it's a very, verylucrative business and they get
paid.
Almost 98 percent of the moneycomes from the british taxpayer.
A lot of it is by fraud,because there is no evidence
that they actually do whatthey're claiming for, that

(43:07):
they're getting paid for.
So they don't follow up onthese women, so they don't know
actually how many actually havethe abortion.
In the old days, when theabortions were only done
surgically, at least when it washorrific, at least they knew
how many abortions were beingdone and they were getting paid
for the horrific service thatthey were providing.
But now they're getting paidfor something that may or may

(43:27):
not be happening, but they'reclaiming the money and getting
it anyway.
So I'm I'm hoping to raise theor get a brave politician member
of parliament to raise thatissue in parliament, because if
they the british government isall about trying to save money
and if this is, if they'regenuinely serious about saving
money, then this is one areawhere they would certainly save

(43:47):
a lot of money.
If, if serious questions wereasked of the abortion providers
but they said they don't likethat.
So if they accept abortion pillreversal, they're going to have
to accept that a lot of it willlead to a lot of very
uncomfortable and life-changingquestions they they will have to
address.

Sheila Nonato (44:12):
Have you ever feared for your safety, felt
threatened because of what youdo?

Dr. Dermot Kearney (44:13):
Physically?
Physically no.

Sheila Nonato (44:15):
Yes.

Dr. Dermot Kearney (44:15):
I don't think so.
No, no.
If someone shoots me or attacksme or comes out my door, and
yeah, no.

Sheila Nonato (44:24):
Follow you?

Dr. Dermot Kearney (44:25):
No, should I ?
Harassment no, no,

Sheila Nonato (44:26):
Follow you?
No, Harassment?
No, nothing.
No, thank God.

Dr. Dermot Kearney (44:30):
Harassment online and when we go to, when
we do sort of pro-life marchesand like.
The March for Life is on inLondon this coming Saturday,
which is a great day, so you'realways going to get a handful of
protesters, which is goodbecause it means that we're
having some impact.
It's actually much moredisappointing when there's just

(44:51):
apathy and nobody cares andnobody comes out.
I was at the one in Dublin thisyear and at least this year
there was about 50, 60 maybeprotesters, which is great,
because normally it's only about10.
So it means that the pro-lifemovement in Ireland is gaining
ground.
So it means that the pro-lifemovement in Ireland is gaining
ground.
So the pro-abortion peoplerealise this, so they now have
to come out in stronger force toprotest.

(45:13):
So that's good.
So I welcome protest in thatregard.
It's a sign that something ishappening where people are
starting to take notes.
But I haven't feared for safety,not myself.
There's always a strong atthose sort of events.
There's always a strong policepresence, stewarding presence,
so the chance of something uglyhappening is pretty safe.

(45:34):
The only time I did one inSwitzerland, I spoke at the
March for Life in Zurich andAntifa who is the fascist?
They call themselvesanti-fascist, but they're the
most extreme fascists on earthbecause they want to stamp out
any resistance to their beliefs.
So Antifa, the fascist group,were there in full force.
But again the police were onhand, so they were kept about

(45:55):
100 metres away.
But they were throwing thingsand there was smoke bombs.
So it was an atmosphere wascreated, but there was never any
worry that any of us were goingto be in any danger.
I didn't think so.
I'm not Swiss, but maybe theSwiss were worried, but I wasn't
particularly worried.

Sheila Nonato (46:15):
And you were a speaker at the Toronto March for
Life in May, I believe.
Is that correct?

Dr. Dermot Kearney (46:20):
Toronto and Ottawa.
It was lovely.
I had a lovely time in Canada,both Ottawa and Toronto.
Actually I went over.
You have a wonderful time inCanada, both Ottawa and Toronto.
Actually I went over.
You have a wonderful lady inToronto called Katie Summers who
I follow on social media.
She's my favourite person.
She's so good and so kind andso humble that I said I've got

(46:41):
to meet this lady and her family.
So I arranged I didn't.
I wasn't planning to go as aspeaker, I just said I would
love to meet her and her family.
So I arranged I didn't,I wasn't planning to go as a
speaker, I just said I wouldlove to meet her and her family
and the organisation that sheworks with, because they do
wonderful outreach work on thestreets of Toronto and
educational work in schools.
I wanted to meet her and someof the other people there.
So I thought it would be niceto coincide with their March for

(47:04):
Life, because I realised thatToronto March for Life is not
very large, certainly nothingcompared to the Washington March
for Life.
So I thought at least myselfand my wife would go over and
support them.
And when she heard I was coming, she said would you mind
speaking as well and I said,well, I'd be very happy to speak
whatever you want me to talkabout.
So she got me to speak on theabortion of her oh of her.
By the way, if you're coming toCanada, my friend in Ottawa she

(47:25):
mentioned her friend might bevery interested.
If you go to the Ottawa MartialIce, I said, well, I'd be very
happy.
Again, I don't expect to beinvited to speak, I'll pay my
own way.
I didn't expect to be invitedso I paid all my own expenses
and whatever it took to getthere and accommodations.
I don't accept If I give aspeak, I don't take any stipends

(47:46):
or fees because it's animportant cause and I think for
people like me.
I get reasonably well paid as adoctor.
I don't need the pro-lifecharities to pay me in addition
to what I get, because they needthe money for other things.
So I don't charge any fees andI'm happy to pay my own expenses
for any events I try to attend.

(48:09):
But we had a lovely time inOttawa and in Toronto.
It was great.
I really hope to go back again.

Sheila Nonato (48:18):
Awesome.
When did your pro-life viewsstart and how do you keep going?
I can't pinpoint any particulartime, because I grew up in
Ireland, I'm Irish, I live inthe UK, but I spent the first 30
years in Ireland more than 30years.

(48:41):
Ireland was a pro-life countryand there was no abortion.
We had a referendum in 1983that enshrined the right to life
of the unborn, which wasbrilliant, but unfortunately,
another referendum in 2018 haschanged all that.
I suppose the one thing that Ican think of is that I realised,

(49:04):
probably when I was about 13 or14, I'm a music fan and I was
asking people about theirfavorite songs.
I was doing a little survey inmy school and I asked one of the
teachers what was his favoritesong and he said, oh, blown in
the Wind, and I'd heard of thatbecause I'd heard a version.
I didn't know much about BobDylan, but I said, oh, that's
Bob Dylan.
I said, "h, yeah, I must lookinto that.

(49:25):
" So then I looked at the song,looked at the words and it
struck me that in the secondverse, how many times can a man
turn his head and pretend thathe just doesn't see?
That, probably more thananything else, struck me deeply
that my life is not only aboutmyself.
There are other people thatneed love and care and
protection, and I, you've got todo something in your life that

(49:46):
would be of value to otherpeople that need love and care
and protection.
Um, I, you've got to dosomething in your life that
would be of value to otherpeople.
Um, you can't just keep yourhead in the sand and not.
So that That was probably theturning point.
So I would have been 13, 14 atthe time.
Um, and then later, when Iheard about abortion you know it
wasn't something that I didn'tthink was going to affect me.

(50:07):
Even when I was doing medicaltraining in Ireland, there were
no abortions, but it becamepretty clear that abortion was
probably eventually going tocome to Ireland.
Then, when I came to the UK,when I realised I was working in
a hospital where abortions wereprovided it never struck me

(50:27):
before I'd taken the job.
It was only I came across itlater that abortions were being
provided I said I have to dosomething about this, and I knew
you just couldn't go and tellpeople to stop doing them.
You had to be a little bit moretactful.
So I've tried to createawareness.
I've tried.
You can't just,.
you You know you have to respectthe rights of other people.

(50:48):
hat, I try to at least createconversation, just in gentle
ways, so I'll have a coldconversation like you know, what
area do you hope to specializein when you're another few
years' time?
And if they say obstetrics orgynecology or general practices,
oh, that's wonderful.
Now will you be worried aboutany ethical concerns?

(51:09):
And some of them do.
Particularly, some of theMuslim doctors and some of the
Catholics and other Christiansare a bit concerned that they
might be pressurized to doingsomething that would go against
their conscience.
So at least I'm in a positionthat I know what the law is and
I know what ethical practice is,what the law is, and I know
what ethical practice is and I'mable to help them to realize

(51:30):
that they do not have to doanything that goes against their
conscience, at least as the lawstands at the moment.
So I'm able to give good legaladvice and ethical advice to
some junior doctors and somemedical students in that area.
That's how I joined theCatholic Medical Association.
That's how.
That's how, actually, I gotinvolved with abortion (pill)
reversal.
As a member of the CatholicMedical Association, we were
just supporting Catholicsworking in healthcare to help
them to provide excellenthealthcare services but at the

(51:53):
same time not to do anythingthat would go against their
conscience or the conscience ofothers.
And it was at one of ourmeetings that one of the
pro-life organizations founderscame to meet us because he had
heard in america that women whohad taken mifepristone were able
to reverse their their abortion, and he wondered could we look

(52:14):
into it?
Because women were coming tohim, to his or he was the
president of a pro-lifeorganization in the uk and women
were already coming to him thisis 2014 seeking help after they
regretted taking mifepristoneand that was 2014 and none of us
knew anything about it.
We said we'd look into it.
There wasn't a lot ofinformation, but then I I looked
into it more and more and uh,and it took me six years before

(52:36):
because we were concerned aboutthe.
You know, is it first of all, isit necessary, does it work and
is it safe?
They were the three bigquestions.
What objections might there beagainst her?
And so we went about it and weset it up.
The thing that they actuallyand I often mention this when I
give these little conversationsthe statement that convinced me

(52:57):
more about abortion reversalthan anything else actually came
from a person who calls himselfpro-choice.
There was an article in The NewYork Times in 2017 and it was a
very good article because itgave a good, balanced view.
It gave a pro-APR abortionreversal but also gave the other
side as well and the objectionsthey had.
But there was a neutral observer, a guy called Professor Harvey

(53:19):
Kliman from Yale Medical School.
He's a professor of essentialresearch and reproductive health
and he said that abortion pillreversal makes absolute
biological sense.
You know the personalexperience of it.
But he knew he knowsbiochemistry and biology and
pharmacology.
So this makes absolutebiological sense.
And, uh, if I had a daughterwho was pregnant and she took

(53:43):
nifepristone by accident butwanted to save her pregnancy, I
would give her progesterone.
I'd give her high doseprogesterone for a few days and
I bet you it would work.
So when, when someone like himand he called himself pro-choice
and with someone with hiscredentials made that state,
that was 2017 before I knew.
I certainly didn't know enoughabout it.
It was only 2018 when I went toamerica to meet pioneers of the

(54:06):
service and go to various talksand read more and more about it
.
But that was the one statementthat sort of probably influenced
me more than anything else thatyes, this could work and it's
necessary and it's safe.
And so we took it from there.

(54:26):
Was there anything else that you wanted to
add that I had missed asking?

Dr. Dermot Kearney (54:35):
Yeah, you asked me a little bit earlier
about how do I keep going.
Well, I keep going becausewomen need it, like I keep going
with the abortion pill becausewomen there's a demand for it.
I keep going with the abortionpill because women there's a
demand for it.
So if there wasn't, if womendidn't want it or didn't need it
, I would stop.
I don't go out looking forclients.
I'm trying to create awarenessof it so that at least it's an

(54:58):
option that mothers know isthere.
If they do change their mindafter they're taken, I'm very
careful that I give them verytruthful, very honest, based on
personal experience and on whatI've read from other sources.
I give them all of theup-to-date information that they
would need for this and youknow, 30 percent of them decide
not.
35 percent decide not to goahead and the other what 65

(55:23):
percent do, at least theystarted.
Some of them don't continue,some of them change their minds
after a while, um, but, but itkeeps me going because there's a
demand for it.
Uh, the other thing that um,one of your one, one of the very
first podcasts I did was with awonderful guy in Pennsylvania,

(55:43):
near Pittsburgh, called umTravis, who was an evangelical
who had heard about my story andhe saw something on social
media about it and he sent me aDM and asked could he interview
me?
This was at a time when thecase was still ongoing.
There was lots of things Iwasn't allowed to say.
But I told him yes, I'd be veryhappy to speak to you, but

(56:03):
there will be some restrictionson some of the information I'm
allowed to say because it hadn'tbeen settled at that stage.
But he asked.
He said now many of mylisteners will be very keen to
know how does your Christianfaith sustain you in all of this
, with all of the trials andtribulations and the opposition
and the hatred that you've hadto face?
How does your Christian faithkeep you going?

(56:24):
And I said well, that'sinteresting because it reminds
me of another lady calledPatricia Heaton.
She's an actress in Hollywood.
I don't know her, I don't thinkI've ever seen her in acting,
but her most famous role is in aprogram called Everybody Loves
Raymond, I think, which he knewit straight away.
I didn't know what it was, buthe knew.

(56:45):
But she was asked that samequestion.
But she's a catholic working inHollywood and she's very
pro-life and she's not afraid tospeak her to, to talk about her
beliefs.
And somebody asked her you know,how do you, in in Hollywood,
where there's so much oppositionto your, your way of life and
your principles, how do youmanage to to, to live and to
cope with the opposition thatyou're undoubtedly facing?

(57:07):
And she says well, comeJudgment Day, it's not Barbara
Streisand, I'm going to have tostand before.
Now, nothing against BarbaraStreisand.
She's a wonderful singer, awonderful lady, I'm sure, a
wonderful actress, but she isquite outspoken in her
pro-emotion stance and so on.
But Patricia Heaton pickedBarbara Streisand as being the
person that she's not, it's nother, she'll have to stand before

(57:33):
.
So I said to Travis, "well, onjudgment day, it's not the GMC
(General Medical Council, UK) orthe Royal College of
Obstretricians.
I'm going to have to standbefore when I'm asked to give an
account of my life.
So there is a higher dean, aperfect judge, who will judge us
, so, so perfect justice will bedelivered, and we just want to
make sure that we're on theright side of of of justice and
doing what's right.

(57:54):
So that's what, what basicallykeeps you going to the knowledge
that I know I that what I'mdoing is right and that I just
want to keep doing what's rightas long as people need it.
If people don't need it, I'lldo something else.

Sheila Nonato (58:14):
Well, as a personal aside, I have actually
been a patient, have beenreceiving, had been receiving
intramuscular progesteronesupplementation and three of my
children are here.
Because of that, I've beenreceiving it until the ninth
month, to be honest.
Yeah, two shots every week.
Yeah, it was quite thechallenge, but it was worth it.

(58:35):
But so I can attest to howprogesterone can help in
supporting pregnancy.

Dr. Dermot Kearney (58:40):
It's very safe.
It's safe for the mother, it'ssafe for the baby and it works.
It doesn't always work becauseunfortunately, unfortunately,
miscarriage can happen for otherreasons which aren't related to
progesterone.
So progesterone doesn't preventall cases of miscarriage, but
it does and I know many womenwho've benefited from
progesterone over many, manyyears and I know, obviously I

(59:01):
know 30 or so who've benefitedfrom, in my own case, from the
babies some of those, some ofthose 30 babies because of 29
that I've helped and the 30 isdue to um, some of them probably
would have survived anyway, butthere's no way of knowing that.
For example, I treat people withheart attacks nearly every day
or many days a week, and knowingthat we give them all the same

(59:24):
treatment uh, knowing that thetreatment is beneficial.
But we also know that there'ssome patients, even if they got
none of the treatment that wehave, would probably do okay,
they would still survive.
They would still survivewithout heart failure and if
they get an ongoing pain, thenthey need some additional
treatment.
But a lot of people do have aheart attack, but we all give
them.
We give them the same treatment.
We know that in many cases thetreatment is probably not as

(59:46):
essential as it is in otherpatients because not everybody
has the same need and responsein the same way.
And I look on the abortion pillreversal exactly the same that
we give the treatment in goodfaith, that we know it will help
some.
We know that some wouldprobably survive even without
the treatment, but we don't knowwhich.
If we knew for certain that, yes, you're definitely going to
survive if you don't gettreatment but you definitely
need treatment, then that wouldmake it easier.

(01:00:07):
But we don't know in advance.
And same with the heart attack.
We don't know the person youleast expect to have a cardiac
arrest or some seriouscomplication could be the, could
be the one that would have it,and those that you think are
probably not going to do verywell within a couple of weeks
are up running marathons again.
So you don't always, you can'talways predict who's going to
respond in what way to thetreatment that we have to offer.

(01:00:28):
We just know that it's safe andthat it works and that it's the
two most important things theefficacy and the safety.

Sheila Nonato (01:00:39):
Thank you very much for your time.
I know you're on call today andyou still.

Dr. Dermot Kearney (01:00:43):
I'm not actually on call.
I was on call earlier today,but I'm not on call at this
moment in time.
I managed to leave work beforewe had our conversation.

Sheila Nonato (01:01:05):
Okay, well, thank you again for giving your time
to us and explaining what'shappening with abortion pill
reversal.
I've never actually heard of ituntil I saw it on X.
And you tweeted about it, so Ithank you very much for your
time and thank you so much.
God bless you and your work.
Thank you very much.

Dr. Dermot Kearney (01:01:23):
I hope that God bless you.
Thank you, Sheila.

Sheila Nonato (01:01:24):
Take care.
Thank you very much.
I hope that God bless you.

Dr. Dermot Kearney (01:01:27):
Thank you, sheila, take care.
Thank you very much, bye-bye.
Bye-bye.

Sheila Nonato (01:01:43):
Thank you for listening to the Veil and Armour
podcast.

Co-Host (01:01:47):
I invite you to share this with another Catholic mom
today.
Please subscribe to our podcastand YouTube channel and please
spread the word.
Let's Be Brave, let's Be Boldand Be Blessed together.

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Stuff You Should Know

If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.

24/7 News: The Latest

24/7 News: The Latest

The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.

Dateline NBC

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