Following a temporary suspension for allegedly "harmful or dangerous content," Abortion Pill Reversal's YouTube channel is once again up and running after YouTube admitted the suspension was a mistake.
At the end of April, YouTube suspended the account for "repeated or severe violations of [the] Community Guidelines." The "offending" videos included one webinar explaining Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) in scientific and medical terms. Another three told the stories of women who chose life for their babies using the APR protocol.
Following the suspension, Danielle M. White, J.D., legal counsel for Heartbeat International, initiated the appeal process with YouTube, and enlisted the support of Susan B. Anthony List to make their case to the company.
Upon reviewing the APR channel, YouTube reinstated the account, notifying SBA List that the suspension had been a mistake.
"We commend YouTube for acknowledging their mistake and promptly resolving it," said Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International. "No woman should ever be censored for sharing her testimony simply because she chose life—even at the last minute. Nor should vital life-saving information be censored from the public."
Mallory Quigley, Vice President of Communications for SBA List, says censorship of pro-life views has become far too common.
"Big social media companies have a track record of arbitrarily banning content from pro-life groups who then have to jump through hoops to have it reinstated, while organizations like Planned Parenthood are allowed to promote abortion on demand," said Quigley. "Social media is a great equalizer for pro-lifers standing up to the well-funded abortion lobby and its massive PR machine. We will continue to assert our rights and fight the censorship of pro-life views."
Citing its policies on "harmful or dangerous content," YouTube's original suspension notice stated that it "doesn't allow content that encourages or promotes violent or dangerous acts that have an inherent risk of serious physical harm or death." Examples of videos that violate this policy are videos about "instructional bomb making, choking games, hard drug use, or other acts where serious injury may result."
Since the Abortion Pill Reversal's inception in 2007, abortion advocates have derided it as "junk science," "scientifically unproven" and "appalling."
But in April, a new study was released to the public, affirming that the Abortion Pill Reversal protocol is both safe and effective for women who change their mind after beginning a chemical abortion.
The study, which followed 754 women who wanted to stop their in-progress chemical abortion, reported a 68 percent success rate in reversing the effects of mifepristone, the first pill in the two-part chemical abortion process.
The APR protocol involves administering progesterone to counteract the first abortion pill. Progesterone is FDA-approved and has been used to prevent miscarriage since the 1950s. Today, the APR protocol is backed by a network of 350 medical providers and a 24/7 hotline (1-877-558-0333), now operated by Heartbeat International through OptionLine. Since 2007, over 500 women have used the APR protocol to save their babies from abortion.
Rebecca, one of the hundreds of women who chose life after taking the abortion pill, bravely allowed her heartfelt testimony to be shared on the Abortion Pill Reversal YouTube channel.
The video, which has been viewed over 7,000 times, features her son Elijah, a healthy toddler with curly sandy blonde hair and smiling brown eyes.
"It sounds cliche and trite that my baby Elijah's everything that has ever happened to me but he is," says Rebecca. "He is God's true gift to me and he gives me more love than I deserve."
"I can't even almost picture life without my baby," she says.
Thanks to the reinstatement of the APR YouTube account, testimonies like Rebecca's will be heard once more, reaching more hearts and minds in the service of saving still more women and babies from the harm of abortion.
CP VOICES do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s).