Hubbry Logo
Menstrual extractionMenstrual extractionMain
Open search
Menstrual extraction
Community hub
Menstrual extraction
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Menstrual extraction
Menstrual extraction
Menstrual extraction
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Menstrual extraction
Background
Abortion typeSurgical
First use1971
GestationFirst trimester
Usage
Developed and used in a feminist, non-medicalized context.
Infobox references

Menstrual extraction (ME) is a type of manual vacuum aspiration technique developed by feminist activists Lorraine Rothman and Carol Downer to pass the entire menses at once. The non-medicalized technique has been used in small feminist self-help groups since 1971 and has a social role of allowing access to early abortion without needing medical assistance or legal approval.[1][2][3]: 406  ME usage declined after 1973, when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States. There has been renewed interest in the technique, in the 1990s and more recently in the 2010s, due to increased restrictions on abortion. In some countries where abortion is illegal, such as Bangladesh, the terms "menstrual regulation" or "menstrual extraction" are used as euphemisms for early pregnancy terminations.

Development within a feminist context

[edit]
The Del Em

In 1971, Lorraine Rothman and Carol Downer, members of a feminist reproductive health self-help group, modified equipment found in an underground abortion clinic that was developed for a new non-traumatic, manually-operated-suction abortion technique.[4] They took the thin, flexible plastic Karman cannula (about the size of a soda straw), and the syringe (50 or 60ml), and added a one-way bypass valve, to fix two main problems.[2] The contraption could prevent air from being pumped into the uterus, and also suctioned uterine contents directly into the syringe, thus limiting the amount that could be removed. They added two lengths of clear plastic tubing, one from the cannula to the collection jar and another to go from the collection jar to the syringe. With this new setup, the contents of the uterus went directly into the jar, allowing for the extraction of more material, and the two-way bypass valve diverted any air that may have been inadvertently pushed back toward the body to exit harmlessly into the air; this would prevent air from entering the uterus.[2] Rothman and Downer dubbed the new invention the "Del Em". By making it possible for more than one person to operate the device, the skill level required of the operators was greatly reduced. One person could concentrate on guiding the sterile cannula through the vaginal cavity into the cervical os while another could pump the syringe to develop the vacuum. The Del Em made the procedure more comfortable, with personal control of the suction.[5]

Downer considers the teaching and usage of self-help groups to be a key radical feminist action to ensure women's reproductive sovereignty.[6]

Legality

[edit]

ME was developed and used before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalized abortion in 1973. In order to avoid legal issues, Downer and Rothman downplayed the device's potential use as an abortion method. They called the new technique "menstrual extraction" or "ME" to highlight its harmless use in suctioning out menstrual blood and tissue. To further emphasize the innocuousness of ME, "the procedure was only performed when a woman's period was due, and they wouldn't take a pregnancy test beforehand. That way, everyone had plausible deniability."[4]

Since 1971, groups performing menstrual extractions have had an excellent safety record, obviating any opportunity for legal action culminating in the prosecution of any individual. However, the possibility of legal troubles continues to exist, and because of that many of these self-help groups have sought legal advice and researched the laws in the states in which they perform ME. Additionally, many of these self-help groups do not publicize themselves or offer menstrual extraction to those outside of their tight-knit groups, in order to protect themselves and their techniques from legal investigations.[7]

There is one instance in which Carol Downer had legal entanglements. It is well known as the "Yogurt Defense" case, in which Downer was arrested while at her self-help group and charged with practicing medicine without a license because she inserted yogurt into the vagina of Z. Budapest, another member of the group, as treatment for a yeast condition.[8] Downer went to trial and was acquitted, as the jury did not see inserting yogurt as practicing medicine.[2][9]: 57 

Usage

[edit]

Pre-Roe v. Wade

[edit]

ME made its debut at the National Organization for Women conference in Santa Monica, California, in August 1971. To Rothman and Downer's dismay, the organizers of the conference were "so appalled that they refused to give the women exhibit space."[10] Instead, Downer and Rothman hung flyers around the conference, announcing a demonstration in their hotel room. The attendees were given a plastic speculum to begin their education. From the extensive mailing list collected during these demonstrations, Downer and Rothman began a national tour, going all over the country (to 23 cities on a Greyhound bus) teaching the new technique.[7][11][12] According to the National Women's Health Network, "the early self-helpers advocated that women join self-help groups and practice extracting each others' menses around the time of their expected periods."[13] The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision made abortion legal in 1973. After that, menstrual extraction was practiced much less, though it did not disappear.

After legalization of abortion

[edit]

It did begin to regain its popularity in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which limited access to abortion by state of residence and type of medical insurance.[2] Self-helpers even reprised the 1971 tour, traveling around the U.S. sharing self-examination and menstrual extraction techniques; however it never reached the heights of the early 1970s.[13]

Menstrual extraction has regained popularity once again in the 2010s, in addition to other self-induced abortion methods.[14][15] These self-helpers are following the 1970s methods of teaching by meeting in other women's homes, performing cervix examinations on each other, and learning menstrual extraction directly from other women. One new underground network, made up of women knowledgeable about ME and other self-induced abortion methods, has performed over 2,000 abortions between 2015 and 2018.[15] The women involved in this network range from those in medical professions, such as nurses or midwives, to others like herbalists or those just interested in learning the procedure. Many of the participants in these networks, and women who seek self-induced abortions overall, are low-income earners, cannot travel to obtain an abortion, or dislike clinical settings.[14][16]

Similar techniques

[edit]

Although menstrual extraction is technically similar to manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) and menstrual regulation (MR), it is a unique form because it is not medicalized. It originated in the feminist self-help movement and it is performed by small groups of women where the person getting a ME has complete control over the procedure. Menstrual extraction "minimiz[es]... power differentials between providers and receivers... [which] stands in direct contrast to [MVA and MR]."[2]

Around the same time that menstrual extraction was first used in the United States, a method utilizing nearly identical technology was beginning to be used internationally. This method, another type of manual vacuum aspiration, is most often called menstrual regulation. As with ME, menstrual regulation, when desired as a method of controlling fertility, is performed very early in the menstrual cycle, earlier than a pregnancy test can be performed. One main difference between these two methods is the equipment used. The Del Em was a do-it-yourself assembly consisting of three parts: a cannula with a one-way valve, a collection jar and a syringe, all connected with plastic tubing. Meanwhile, menstrual regulation is performed with a commercially produced kit consisting of two parts: a cannula with a one-way valve and a directly connected syringe. With this kit, the contents of the uterus are sucked directly into the syringe. ME is performed by a group, while menstrual regulation is performed by an individual practitioner.[2][9]: 169 

According to the National Abortion Federation (NAF), "in the developing world, menstrual regulation is still a crucial strategy to circumvent anti-abortion laws." Although abortion is illegal in Bangladesh, the government has long supported a network of menstrual regulation clinics.[17][18] It is estimated that 468,000 menstrual regulations are performed each year in Bangladesh.[19] NAF also reports, "some other countries allow menstrual regulation because it presumably takes place without a technical verification of pregnancy".[20] Said countries are claimed to include Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Vietnam.[21] In Cuba, where abortion is legal, menstrual regulation is widely practiced—menstrual extraction is offered to everyone whose period is two weeks late, without a pregnancy test.[22]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Menstrual extraction

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Menstrual extraction is a manual procedure employed to terminate pregnancies in their earliest stages, typically within two weeks of a missed menstrual period, by evacuating the uterine contents using a flexible and syringe-generated . The technique utilizes a narrow , 4-6 millimeters in diameter, to access and aspirate the , aiming to complete the process without general in an outpatient setting. When performed by trained practitioners on appropriately selected patients, it achieves a success rate of approximately 99%, with minimal associated side effects such as cramping or spotting. Developed as a form of early prior to widespread legalization, menstrual extraction gained prominence in the 1970s through women's groups seeking in reproductive decisions, though the method itself predates these efforts and aligns with established gynecological practices for menstrual regulation. Proponents highlighted its potential for using simple, low-cost equipment like the Del-Em kit, which facilitated procedures without medical professionals, particularly in contexts of restricted access to services. However, unsupervised applications carry elevated risks of incomplete evacuation, , uterine , and hemorrhage, underscoring the causal importance of clinical oversight to mitigate complications that could lead to or ectopic pregnancies in subsequent gestations. Despite its historical role in advancing patient-controlled reproductive options, menstrual extraction remains controversial due to debates over in non-professional hands versus its under medical supervision, with peer-reviewed affirming high reliability in controlled environments but cautioning against DIY variants amid potential for undetected failures or health sequelae. Its defining characteristic lies in enabling intervention at gestational ages as early as four weeks, distinguishing it from later methods and emphasizing precision in timing to ensure complete tissue removal and avert ongoing risks.

Definition and Procedure

Technique and Mechanism

Menstrual extraction involves the manual aspiration of uterine contents using a flexible connected to a handheld to generate vacuum suction. The procedure begins with the patient positioned in dorsal lithotomy, followed by a bimanual examination to assess uterine size and position. A speculum is inserted to visualize the , which is cleaned with solution and stabilized if necessary. The , typically 5-7 mm in , is then gently inserted through the undilated cervical os up to the uterine fundus without the need for or general , though local paracervical block may be optionally administered. The is attached to a 50-60 ml , and the is withdrawn to create approximately 50 mmHg of negative pressure. The is rotated 180 degrees repeatedly and moved back and forth from the fundus to the internal os to dislodge and aspirate endometrial tissue, blood, and any early gestational products, typically performed 5-20 days after a missed menstrual period. Completion is indicated by the appearance of bubbles in the , a sensation upon uterine wall contact, and of the extracted material for tissue fragments. Unlike modern procedures, menstrual extraction does not routinely employ guidance or histopathological examination for verification.

Required Equipment and Sterilization Protocols

The primary equipment for menstrual extraction in contexts centers on the Del-Em device, developed by Lorraine Rothman in 1971, which includes a collection jar—often a modified —connected via plastic or rubber tubing to a flexible typically 4 to 6 mm in diameter and a manual suction mechanism such as a 50 cc syringe or Karman syringe. These components enable aspiration of uterine contents without scraping, distinguishing the method from more invasive techniques. Assembly utilizes inexpensive, accessible materials like aquarium tubing from pet stores and pharmacy-sourced cannulas and syringes, with total setup costs estimated below $50 adjusted to 1970s values due to the DIY nature of procurement. Single-use disposable elements, particularly cannulas, were prioritized to reduce cross-contamination risks, though reusable parts like jars and tubing required repeated cleaning. Sterilization protocols emphasized basic home methods suited to non-clinical environments, including boiling metal or heat-resistant components in water for several minutes or immersing plastics in chemical disinfectants like cold sterilizing solutions to avoid melting. Practitioners wrapped instruments in sterile packs for autoclave-like processing when available, but reliance on boiling or sprays often fell short of hospital-grade standards, heightening potential for incomplete decontamination in amateur settings. Preparatory steps involved positioning the individual in a lithotomy-like stance for access, with optional application of a paracervical block using local anesthetics like lidocaine, though absence of clinical oversight and monitoring equipment underscored the procedure's rudimentary setup compared to supervised medical interventions. This simplicity facilitated group-based but introduced variability in sterility adherence, as protocols depended on participant diligence without standardized verification.

Historical Origins

Development in the Early 1970s Self-Help Movement

Menstrual extraction emerged from the feminist self-help movement in in 1971, pioneered by activists Carol Downer and Lorraine Rothman through women's liberation workshops focused on demystifying gynecological procedures. Rothman, a , invented the Del-Em device—a handheld adapted from readily available medical components—to enable of uterine contents, drawing on earlier methods observed in international contexts but reconfigured for non-professional use. This innovation stemmed from first-principles experimentation, where participants directly observed and practiced internal self-examinations and extractions in small groups, bypassing reliance on male-dominated medical authority. The technique was explicitly framed as "menstrual regulation" or extraction to sidestep legal and terminological associations with abortion, which remained illegal in most U.S. states prior to Roe v. Wade, positioning it as an empowering tool for women to manage their reproductive cycles independently amid restricted access to professional services. Downer and Rothman established the first self-help clinic, the Feminist Women's Health Center, in 1971, serving as a model for disseminating these practices through hands-on demonstrations that emphasized collective learning over individual expertise. Early promotion included workshops where women performed procedures on each other, fostering a sense of autonomy in response to the stigmatization and scarcity of abortion options in the pre-Roe era. A pivotal demonstration occurred at the 1971 Berkeley Women's Liberation Conference, where Downer and Rothman showcased menstrual extraction to an audience of activists, accelerating the spread of groups nationwide by illustrating its feasibility as a DIY alternative in contexts of medical gatekeeping and legal . This event underscored the movement's causal roots in the illegal landscape, where such methods filled a void left by criminalized professional interventions, prioritizing women's direct agency over institutional oversight.

Pre-Roe v. Wade Applications (1971–1973)

Menstrual extraction emerged as a practical technique in 1971, following Lorraine Rothman's invention of the Del-Em device, which feminist activists like Carol Downer adapted for use in informal groups amid nationwide bans. These early applications occurred primarily in , starting with demonstrations in and spreading to collectives in , where women gathered in homes or rudimentary clinics to perform the procedure on themselves and peers suspecting early pregnancy. Procedures were conducted by untrained participants in women's liberation groups, such as those affiliated with the Feminist Women's Health Center, relying on manual assessment of uterine size and self-reported delayed rather than laboratory tests, which were unreliable or unavailable for very early detection at the time. This approach frequently led to extractions on non-pregnant women, as the method served both suspected abortions and routine menstrual regulation without distinguishing status beforehand. By 1972, small self-help clinics had utilized the technique for over a year, with groups like the Women's Liberation conducting multiple sessions to circumvent legal restrictions on , often framing the practice as empowering women to control their reproductive cycles independently of medical professionals. Regulatory scrutiny intensified that year when authorities raided Downer's center, arresting her and colleague Colleen Wilson on charges of practicing without a for demonstrating self-help techniques, including those tied to menstrual extraction dissemination; Downer was acquitted following a .

Medical Evaluation

Clinical Efficacy from Empirical Studies

Empirical studies evaluating the clinical efficacy of menstrual extraction, primarily conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s, indicate high success rates in evacuating uterine contents when performed under professional supervision for very early pregnancies, typically confirmed via histologic examination of aspirated tissue. A 1983 analysis of 454 consecutive outpatient procedures using soft cannula vacuum aspiration—a technique synonymous with menstrual extraction—reported pathologic confirmation of decidua and chorionic villi (indicative of successful pregnancy termination) in all but 10 cases, yielding an approximate 98% verification rate across gestations up to 9 weeks from the last menstrual period. Similarly, a 1975 study of 137 consecutive menstrual extractions correlated pre- and post-procedure pregnancy tests with histologic review of aspirated material, demonstrating consistent alignment between biochemical indicators and tissue findings in confirmed pregnancies, though exact success metrics were not quantified beyond procedural completion. These outcomes reflect efficacy in narrowly selected cases, often limited to gestations under 7 weeks where uterine contents are minimal and accessible via low-pressure aspiration, with reported approaching 99% in properly vetted patients per contemporary clinical reviews. Immediate post-procedure effects were generally mild, including transient cramping and spotting, attributable to the mechanical disruption of endometrial tissue rather than systemic complications. However, such studies inherently involve , excluding cases with advanced gestations, cervical anomalies, or active infections that could impede insertion or complete evacuation. In unsupervised self-help applications, efficacy is less verifiable due to inconsistent pre-procedure pregnancy confirmation—early home tests were unreliable or unavailable—and absence of routine histologic analysis, potentially leading to incomplete procedures or interventions on non-pregnant uteri. A 1976 evaluation of very early terminations (90% of cases within 14 days post-expected menses) found histologic pregnancy evidence in 67% of aspirates, underscoring that without professional diagnostics, many extractions may not address actual gestations, thereby inflating perceived success through non-targeted outcomes. Overall, while supervised variants demonstrate reliable evacuation in empirical data, causal factors like operator skill and diagnostic precision critically underpin these rates, diminishing applicability to autonomous settings lacking such controls.

Documented Risks, Complications, and Failure Rates

Menstrual extraction, particularly when performed without medical supervision, carries risks of due to improper insertion, with potential for intra-abdominal injury requiring surgical intervention. Pelvic infections, such as , arise from unsterile equipment or multiple insertions, treatable with antibiotics but elevating long-term risks of or . Hemorrhage from excessive blood loss (>200 cc) occurs in a minority of cases, often managed conservatively but necessitating monitoring absent in settings.80037-4/pdf) Incomplete evacuation leads to continued pregnancy in approximately 2% of procedures, as documented in a 1977–1979 study of 90 adolescent cases where effectiveness was 98%, with one instance of term continuation attributed to inadequate follow-up.80037-4/pdf) Self-help execution amplifies failure rates to 0.5–1.5% below clinical vacuum aspiration (99.5% success), due to lack of pregnancy confirmation, gestational age assessment, or ultrasound to detect ectopics, which may be overlooked and progress undetected. Severe complications, though rare in supervised settings (major rate ~2.2%), include from untreated infections or , with self-help lacking antibiotics, imaging, or emergency access heightening causality.80037-4/pdf) Minor issues like syncope or persistent positive tests affect ~10%, often resolving with reaspiration unavailable outside clinics.80037-4/pdf) Overall, amateur conditions—non-sterile protocols, untrained operators—causally exceed clinical manual vacuum aspiration risks under and oversight.

Status in the United States Pre- and Post-Roe v. Wade

Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's January 22, 1973, decision in , which invalidated most state abortion bans, menstrual extraction operated in a landscape of near-universal criminalization of elective s. All states prohibited abortion except in cases of life endangerment or, in some, or , classifying procedures terminating pregnancy—including early interventions like ME—as felonies punishable by imprisonment. Feminist self-help advocates, beginning with demonstrations in 1971, framed ME as "menstrual regulation" to evade these laws, asserting it addressed delayed menses without confirming pregnancy. Nonetheless, authorities treated it as unlicensed medical practice or covert abortion, leading to enforcement actions such as the September 1972 raid on a self-help clinic, where activist Carol Downer and associate Colleen Wilson were arrested for practicing medicine without a license after performing and demonstrating the procedure. The case, dubbed the "Great Yogurt Conspiracy" due to unrelated yogurt-related charges, ended in acquittal but underscored regulatory hostility, with no successful legal defense establishing ME's distinct legality at the time. Contemporary observers, including physicians, viewed ME unequivocally as an illegal abortion despite the euphemism, noting its mechanism emptied the uterus of potential embryonic contents as early as four weeks post-last menstrual period. Its untested status in courts reflected activists' underground operations, but empirical risks of incomplete evacuation or amplified prosecutorial scrutiny under medical licensing statutes, which reserved invasive uterine procedures for trained professionals. Following , which protected rights up to (approximately 24 weeks), menstrual extraction gained legality as an early-term termination method when conducted by licensed providers, aligning with the ruling's framework for pre-viability procedures. State laws post-1973 generally permitted such interventions under statutes, but self- or lay-performed ME retained liability for unlicensed practice, as most jurisdictions required physician oversight for to mitigate complications like hemorrhage or retained tissue. Practice declined precipitously, with self-help groups pivoting to clinic-based services amid expanded access to regulated outpatient abortions via manual in medical facilities. Regulatory bodies maintained caution toward DIY approaches; the FDA warned against internet-sold home abortion and self-sterilization kits, citing unverified safety and efficacy of unregulated suction devices comparable to ME equipment. Legally, ME was not segregated from definitions, with in states like explicitly deeming "menstrual extraction" a subject to the same prohibitions on non-professionals. This classification persisted through 2022, rendering extraclinal ME vulnerable to prosecution for unauthorized invasive care despite overarching protections.

Post-Dobbs Developments and Regulatory Challenges (2022–Present)

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. on June 24, 2022, which overturned federal protections for and returned regulatory authority to states, activist groups revived discussions of menstrual extraction (ME) as a potential self-managed technique to circumvent bans in the 12 states with total prohibitions and others with early gestational limits. Organizations such as those referenced in community reports highlighted ME's historical use without pregnancy confirmation to frame it as "menstrual regulation" rather than , proposing workshops for first-trimester application via devices like the Del-Em. However, these efforts emphasized legal ambiguities, as state laws in restricted jurisdictions—such as Texas's heartbeat detection ban effective from 6 weeks post-fertilization or total bans in states like —criminalize any intentional termination of a known or suspected , regardless of method or . Empirical data through 2025 indicates no widespread adoption of ME amid post-Dobbs restrictions, with self-managed abortions rising primarily through medication regimens like misoprostol and mifepristone, accounting for an estimated increase from 18% to higher shares of attempts in ban states. Surveys of over 7,000 individuals aged 15-49 reported self-managed rates doubling post-Dobbs to about 4.9% in the subsequent year, but procedural methods like ME were not quantified separately and remained marginal compared to pills, which comprised 63% of formal abortions by 2023 and likely more in informal contexts. Aid networks, including mutual aid groups, expressed caution against promoting ME due to interstate commerce restrictions on abortion-related materials in states like Idaho and traceability risks from online purchases of components such as cannulas or syringes, prioritizing less detectable pill distribution instead. Regulatory challenges stem from enforcement priorities in ban states, where laws often calculate from last menstrual period (LMP), potentially classifying early ME as prohibited if performed after 6-12 weeks LMP, even without fetal heartbeat confirmation. Fetal protection statutes and unlicensed medical practice laws expose practitioners or assistants to charges, with causal risks heightened by complication reporting that could reveal intent to abort. As of October 2025, no verified state-level prosecutions specifically for ME have been documented, though general self-managed cases—predominantly pill-related—have led to investigations in states like and Georgia, underscoring that activist assertions of procedural autonomy yield to focused on evidence of pregnancy termination over unconfirmed "regulation." This pattern reflects broader causal dynamics: bans' deterrent effect favors covert, pharmaceutical self-management over invasive techniques requiring group coordination, limiting ME's practical resurgence.

Usage Patterns

Adoption During Periods of Abortion Restriction

Menstrual extraction saw limited adoption in the early 1970s amid widespread abortion restrictions in the United States, primarily through small-scale efforts by feminist self-help activist groups rather than broad public use. Pioneered in 1971 by Lorraine Rothman and Carol Downer, the technique was demonstrated at the first self-help clinic in and promoted via devices like the Del-Em kit, enabling early without confirming pregnancy. Usage peaked between 1971 and 1973, correlating with pre-Roe v. Wade illegality, as groups such as the West Coast Sisters disseminated training across approximately 23 cities, though total documented procedures remained modest compared to clandestine surgical abortions performed by networks like the Jane Collective, which handled around 12,000 cases overall from 1969 to 1973. This adoption stemmed from the need for immediate, private intervention when professional services were unavailable or dangerous, prioritizing deniability over medical oversight. Following the 2022 Dobbs v. decision, which overturned and enabled state-level bans, anecdotal reports emerged of renewed interest in menstrual extraction via online forums and underground networks, with self-help groups—numbering 50 to 60—reporting growth since 2016. However, verifiable cases remain scarce due to legal risks, contrasting sharply with the dominance of self-managed medication abortion using and , which accounted for over 50% of U.S. abortions by 2020 and surged post-Dobbs for its relative ease and lower detectability. Activists like Downer anticipated broader uptake for its autonomy in restrictive environments, yet empirical prevalence data is limited, as most individuals opt for pharmaceutical alternatives amid fears of self-performed procedural complications. Causal analysis indicates that menstrual extraction's appeal during restriction periods hinged on its potential for and evasion of legal scrutiny, but it waned wherever clinic-based became accessible post-1973, as professional methods offered superior safety profiles backed by clinical monitoring. Preference for the technique was necessity-driven, not inherent, with historical patterns underscoring a shift away from it once highlighted risks like incomplete evacuation without diagnostic tools.

Shift to Menstrual Regulation Post-Legalization

Following the Supreme Court decision on January 22, 1973, which legalized nationwide, menstrual extraction advocates repurposed the technique as "menstrual regulation," framing it as a method to induce delayed without requiring verification, thereby emphasizing empowerment and routine gynecological self-management over explicit . This rebranding sought to extend its use beyond confirmed pregnancies to scenarios like period skipping or irregular cycles in non-pregnant individuals, but practical application remained limited as legal clinics offered standardized procedures with documented success rates exceeding 99% in selected cases. Organizations such as Women's Health Specialists of California persisted in conducting educational workshops on menstrual extraction through the 1980s, training participants in techniques for cervical self-examination and aspiration primarily to promote body autonomy rather than as a primary alternative to professional care. These sessions, often led by figures like Carol Downer, shifted focus post-1973 from underground networks to clinic-integrated education, reflecting a broader transition where self-managed methods lost prominence amid accessible regulated services. Empirical patterns showed minimal sustained adoption for regulation purposes, with most women opting for clinical manual vacuum aspiration or emerging pharmacological options that avoided the procedural risks of unsterile, non-professional extractions. By the 1990s, while some feminist self-help groups briefly revived menstrual regulation advocacy to challenge medical gatekeeping, analyses noted its growing obsolescence against safer, verifiable alternatives like early medical abortions via mifepristone, approved by the FDA in 2000, which eliminated the need for invasive self-aspiration. Usage data from the era indicated rarity outside activist demonstrations, as hormonal contraceptives enabling continuous use for period suppression—without suction devices or infection risks—gained preference for non-pregnancy-related cycle management. As of 2025, menstrual regulation via self-extraction holds niche appeal in off-grid or low-resource settings valuing procedural independence, yet it is eclipsed by over-the-counter hormonal suppressants and telehealth-guided options that prioritize empirical safety over DIY intervention.

Controversies and Criticisms

Medical Community Perspectives on Safety and Professionalism

The medical community recognizes menstrual extraction as a viable technique for very early termination of when conducted by trained clinicians in controlled environments, with empirical indicating low complication rates such as 0.4% for immediate adverse events in supervised Canadian procedures from 1975 to 1980, compared to 0.8% for suction dilatation and curettage. However, professional organizations and peer-reviewed literature consistently critique self-managed or untrained group applications as elevating causal risks, primarily due to procedural errors like improper cannula insertion leading to , inadequate sterilization fostering infections, and incomplete evacuation resulting in retained tissue or undetected ectopic pregnancies. Absence of diagnostic tools, such as for gestational age confirmation or beta-hCG testing for viability, contributes to higher failure rates in non-professional settings, where empirical outcomes lack rigorous documentation and may underreport complications owing to self-selection bias in activist-led reports. For instance, 1970s clinical reviews correlated pre- and post-procedural pregnancy tests with tissue in 137 cases, underscoring the need for standardized protocols to manage unsuccessful extractions, which are more likely without medical oversight. Adolescent-specific data from the further highlighted procedural efficacy in introducing contraception but advocated against DIY variants, citing amplified harms from immature anatomical understanding and delayed intervention. From a causal standpoint, untrained practitioners cannot replicate sterile fields, immediate hemodynamic monitoring, or response capabilities inherent to clinical practice, thereby magnifying transmission via unsterilized equipment and hemorrhage risks from unrecognized vascular damage—contrasting sharply with supervised equivalents where protocols mitigate these through preoperative screening and follow-up. Journals like have framed self-help menstrual extraction not as a novel tool but as a misapplication of established methods, urging professional exclusivity to avert "unnecessary and dangerous" outcomes absent verifiable training and facility standards. This perspective prioritizes empirical risk stratification over ideological self-regulation claims, with limited high-quality data on long-term self-managed cohorts reinforcing skepticism toward unsubstantiated low-complication assertions.

Ethical Concerns Regarding Fetal Life and Self-Regulation Claims

Proponents of menstrual extraction, such as activists Carol Downer and Lorraine Rothman, maintain that the technique empowers women by facilitating self-directed control over reproductive processes, circumventing physician gatekeeping and institutional dependencies that they view as patriarchal barriers to bodily autonomy. They frame the procedure as neutral "menstrual regulation" to remove uterine contents shortly after a missed period, sidestepping moral debates over fetal personhood on the grounds that such early interventions occur well before viability, emphasizing instead women's prerogative to manage potential pregnancies without external moral impositions. Critics argue that this euphemistic self-regulation obscures the causal reality of the procedure as an intentional termination of embryonic development, equivalent to unregulated feticide, since extractions are commonly performed 5 to 20 days after a missed period—aligning with 5 to 7 weeks from the last menstrual period—when ultrasonographic detection of cardiac activity is feasible in many cases. Pro-life perspectives, grounded in embryological of organized cardiac function by 5-6 weeks, reject denials of fetal at this stage, positing that reclassifying as extraction evades accountability for ending a developing human while lacking mechanisms to confirm or rule out beforehand. Even from within feminist circles, self-regulation claims face scrutiny for fostering a misleading narrative, as the absence of diagnostic tools in lay settings risks overlooking conditions like ectopic pregnancies, which self-management cannot reliably exclude and which demand clinical verification to avert rupture and hemorrhage—thus prioritizing ideological over empirically verifiable safeguards that regulated procedures provide. This underscores a tension wherein purported gains are causal undermined by heightened vulnerability to undetected pathologies, rendering less protective than professional oversight for ensuring intended outcomes without collateral harm.

Comparison to Manual Vacuum Aspiration

Menstrual extraction (ME) and manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) both rely on a flexible connected to a manual to generate suction for evacuating uterine contents, sharing a core mechanism developed in the late and early for early termination or regulation. MVA, however, represents the professionalized clinical adaptation, performed by trained providers in medical settings, while ME was pioneered for layperson or self-use via kits like the Del-Em, emphasizing accessibility without medical oversight. This distinction leads to key procedural variances, with MVA incorporating safeguards absent in ME. In MVA, providers typically administer local paracervical , use a speculum for visualization, apply a for cervical stabilization, and dilate the as needed for gestations beyond very early stages, often with to verify position and completeness; it is effective up to 12 weeks with success rates exceeding 99% for evacuations up to 6 weeks. ME procedures, by contrast, forgo dilation, , and , limiting application to presumed very early pregnancies (around 4-6 weeks, akin to delayed menses) to avoid advanced fetal development or anatomical challenges, using unmodified manual without professional instrumentation. Early reports on ME in selected patients claim 99% success rates with minimal side effects when performed judiciously. Safety profiles diverge markedly due to training and monitoring differences. MVA yields low complication rates, including uterine perforation in under 0.5% of cases, infections around 1%, and overall serious adverse events below 2%, aligning with World Health Organization-endorsed standards for first-trimester uterine evacuation. ME's amateur execution elevates risks of incomplete evacuation, hemorrhage, , and , with clinicians warning of potential or death from unsterile conditions and operator inexperience, as rigorous peer-reviewed safety data remains scarce beyond anecdotal or small-scale activist accounts.
AspectManual Vacuum Aspiration (MVA)Menstrual Extraction (ME)
OperatorTrained healthcare providerLayperson or self
Gestational LimitUp to 12 weeksVery early (~4-6 weeks)
AnesthesiaNone
Cervical DilationNone
Guidance Tools frequently usedNone
Efficacy>99% complete evacuation~99% in selected early cases (limited data)
Key ComplicationsPerforation <0.5%, ~1%Higher risk of , perforation, incompleteness

Modern Self-Managed Abortion Methods

Self-managed abortion has predominantly shifted to pharmacological methods using combined with , or alone, which offer non-invasive alternatives to mechanical techniques like menstrual extraction. These regimens, approved by the FDA for use up to 10 weeks of , achieve success rates of 95% or higher for complete without procedural intervention when self-administered early in . -only protocols, often utilized where is unavailable, demonstrate effectiveness ranging from 88% to 99% depending on and adherence to dosing instructions, such as 800 micrograms sublingually every three hours for three doses. This transition reflects a broader historical move toward chemical induction of since the 1980s introduction of , prioritizing accessibility over invasive vacuum methods due to reduced equipment needs and lower skill barriers. Post the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision overturning federal abortion protections, telemedicine-facilitated self-managed has expanded significantly, with monthly requests doubling in affected states and daily demand rising 74% from pre-Dobbs averages. Aid networks, such as , have distributed with detailed email instructions to thousands, reporting low serious adverse event rates (under 1%) and high completion (96-99%). Hybrid approaches combine these pharmaceuticals with remote guidance, but empirical data underscores the diminished appeal of mechanical extraction's procedural risks—such as infection from unsterile conditions—compared to pills' familiarity and efficacy in early self-use. By 2025, menstrual cycle-tracking applications aid in estimating gestational timing for optimal pill efficacy, though heightened privacy risks post-Dobbs have prompted user deletions and development of local-data-storage alternatives to evade potential prosecutorial . Self-managed carries elevated risks of prolonged or excessive bleeding—reported in up to 78% of complication cases—necessitating follow-up care, alongside incomplete expulsion requiring intervention in 2-5% of instances. Regulatory scrutiny mirrors historical curbs on mechanical methods, with ongoing federal lawsuits challenging FDA expansions of mail-order access (finalized January 2023) and state-level prohibitions in 14 jurisdictions limiting interstate shipments, despite evidence of timely and effective delivery.

References

  1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7298480/
  2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/295095/
  3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7452159/
  4. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/355822
  5. https://www.womenshealthspecialists.org/self-help/menstrual-extraction/
  6. https://ontheissuesmagazine.com/ourbodies/the-case-against-menstrual-extraction/
  7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1146876/
  8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6614101/
  9. https://cdn.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/jfp-archived-issues/1980-volume_10-11/JFP_1980-11_v11_i6_procedures-in-family-practice-terminatio.pdf
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010782473900954
  11. https://msmagazine.com/2022/07/14/abortion-how-to-carol-downer-menstrual-extraction/
  12. https://ontheissuesmagazine.com/ourbodies/why-menstrual-extraction-is-a-good-idea/
  13. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780822395805-006/html
  14. https://www.ravishly.com/ravs-radar/did-you-know-about-diy-method-can-end-your-period-20-minutes
  15. https://feministstruggle.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/First-Self-Help-Clinic-Colette-Price.pdf
  16. https://post45.org/2023/06/from-deep-care-the-radical-activists-who-provided-abortions-defied-the-law-and-fought-to-keep-clinics-open/
  17. https://we.riseup.net/assets/351138/22321349-Natural-Liberty-Rediscovering-Self-Induced-Abortion-Methods.pdf
  18. https://www.womenshealthspecialists.org/self-help/history/
  19. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/carol-downer-1933
  20. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/evelyn-lorraine-rothman-1932-2007
  21. https://www.fwhc.org/health/self.htm
  22. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-oct-03-me-rothman3-story.html
  23. https://veteranfeministsofamerica.org/interview-carol-downer/
  24. https://time.com/archive/6840178/medicine-unofficial-abortion/
  25. https://genderpolicyreport.umn.edu/menstrual-extraction-was-feminist-managed-early-abortion/
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1673748/
  27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4212906/
  28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20833995
  29. https://laist.com/news/health/the-secret-home-abortion-movement-that-started-in-la-two-years-before-roe-v-wade
  30. https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Menstrual_extraction.html
  31. https://www.clinician.com/articles/52181-fda-warns-of-abortion-sterilization-kits-on-net
  32. https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-326
  33. https://bcvoices.org/the-one-year-anniversary-of-dobbs-v-jackson/
  34. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/abortion-in-the-u-s-dashboard/
  35. https://www.ansirh.org/research/research/new-research-shows-self-managed-abortion-increased-aftermath-dobbs-decision
  36. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2821654
  37. https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/medication-abortion-accounted-63-all-us-abortions-2023-increase-53-2020
  38. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/key-facts-on-abortion-in-the-united-states/
  39. https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/
  40. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/25/self-managed-abortions-avoid-bans
  41. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/roe-v-wade-overturn-abortion-rights/629366/
  42. https://msmagazine.com/2025/05/04/carol-downer-abortion-history-menstrual-extraction-at-home-abortion/
  43. https://laist.com/podcasts/off-ramp/the-secret-home-abortion-movement-that-started-in-la-two-years-before-roe-v-wade
  44. https://dokumen.pub/revolutionizing-womens-healthcare-the-feminist-self-help-movement-in-america-9780813593067.html
  45. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.36019/9780813593067-008/html
  46. https://daily.jstor.org/why-the-future-of-the-internet-may-depend-on-the-history-of-abortion/
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7159852/
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010782473900954
  49. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/when-does-a-fetus-have-a-heartbeat
  50. https://lozierinstitute.org/the-science-behind-embryonic-heartbeats-a-fact-sheet/
  51. https://www.medpagetoday.com/obgyn/abortion/102689
  52. https://issuesinlawandmedicine.com/articles/chemical-abortions-with-and-without-medical-supervision/
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7667767/
  54. https://applications.emro.who.int/imemrf/Esculapio/Esculapio_2013_9_3_115_119.pdf
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11412581/
  56. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-women-use-vacuums-to-remove-period-blood-menstrual-extraction-2019-6
  57. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-02834-w
  58. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12219
  59. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X%2822%2900017-5/fulltext
  60. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10944364/
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12538371/
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40753048/
  63. https://www.ibisreproductivehealth.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/Johnson%2520et%2520al.%2520Safety%2520and%2520effectiveness%2520of%2520self%25E2%2580%2590managed%2520abortion%2520using%2520misoprostol%2520alone.pdf
  64. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37411022/
  65. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097482967/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-abortion-period-apps
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8684582/
  67. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/legal-challenges-to-the-fda-approval-of-medication-abortion-pills/
  68. https://www.npr.org/2023/01/03/1146860433/the-fda-finalizes-rule-expanding-the-availability-of-abortion-pills
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.