Vice article on abortion quackery:
One of the reasons that Crenin et al set up a controlled study was was to disprove Delgado’s dangerous medical ideas.
The journal article “Continuing pregnancy after mifepristone and “reversal” of first-trimester medical abortion: a systematic review”
The clinical use and new state laws concerning abortion “reversal” raise serious ethical concerns. The limited data on mifepristone reversal grew out of the anecdotal experiences
of physicians who performed experimental treatment on pregnant women, without usual research safeguards.
Delgado and Davenport  do not report that their study had an ethics board or institutional review board (IRB) approval. Case reports involving retrospective analysis of three or fewer cases do not generally require IRB oversight, although institutions or journals may require IRB review to determine that the report is exempt. While Delgado and Davenport  published their findings as a
“case report," their study is clearly“research”as defined in federal policy.
Federal regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generaliz-able knowledge
The report clearly extends into the realm of research, whether measured by its prospective
nature, the number of patients on which it reports, its attempt to assess a specific new treatment regimen or the suggestion that the data produced be used to guide treatment of other
women. In recognition of the report’s limitations, Delgado and Davenport themselves called for further clinical trials before routine use of their protocol. The new laws in Arizona
and Arkansas have now bypassed the research process, in effect making all women who undergo this treatment subjects in an uncontrolled, unmonitored experiment.
So there you have it-- a network of Catholic doctors is too busy fretting about the ethics of “birth control” to have any ethical sense when it comes to medical experiments on their patients.