Obviously, a baby in the womb, at some point, has a working heart and brain and is human being about to enter the world, but the crazed Leftists and depopulation CULT would have us all believe otherwise, including doctors who sling antidepressant chemical drugs at anyone who’s has emotions like depression and anxiety. These drugs given to pregnant woman can have devastating effects on the baby in the womb, and if you follow the science, you’ll see.
On August 23, 2025, journalist Robert Whitaker published a detailed investigation into a disturbing controversy: the widespread denial of evidence showing harm to fetuses from exposure to antidepressants during pregnancy. His article describes how medical organizations, backed by uncritical media coverage, dismissed or obscured research warning of risks, effectively undermining informed consent and prioritizing professional interests over patient and fetal safety.
- Evidence of fetal harm from SSRIs is strong but dismissed: Research in animals and humans shows prenatal exposure to antidepressants alters brain development, increases risks like low birth weight, preterm birth, persistent pulmonary hypertension, neonatal abstinence syndrome, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, and later-life depression.
- FDA panel warnings were attacked by medical organizations: When experts urged informed consent about fetal risks, major psychiatric and obstetric organizations denounced them as biased, claimed SSRIs were safe and essential, and shifted focus to the harms of untreated maternal depression.
- Media amplified misleading narratives instead of investigating: Major outlets like The New York Times, NBC, NPR, and the Los Angeles Times uncritically echoed professional organizations’ talking points, portraying the panel’s evidence-based warnings as misinformation.
- Conflicted interests overshadowed public health and truth: Psychiatric guilds prioritized protecting prescribing practices over honest risk communication, ignoring psychotherapy as a safe alternative; meanwhile, unborn children remain exposed to chemical interventions with no proven long-term benefit to mother or child.
Psychiatrists, Antidepressants, and the Unborn: A Crisis of Truth in Maternal Mental Health
The debate intensified after a July 21 FDA panel reviewed data on prenatal exposure to SSRIs and SNRIs. Some panelists presented evidence suggesting that manipulating serotonin—a molecule crucial to embryonic development—could plausibly lead to birth defects and long-term neurodevelopmental problems. Animal studies had already confirmed such effects: altered brain development, increased risk of pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, abnormal behaviors, and even increased mortality. Human studies found associations with preterm birth, low birth weight, congenital malformations, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and affective disorders. A Kaiser Permanente study of over 80,000 pregnancies found that psychotherapy lowered preterm birth risk, while antidepressants increased it.
Another concern is neonatal abstinence syndrome, reported in roughly 30% of exposed newborns. Symptoms include respiratory distress, seizures, feeding problems, abnormal crying, and lethargy—84% of which are classified as serious. Meanwhile, studies from Jay Gingrich and colleagues show that prenatal SSRI exposure in both mice and humans can lead to a hyperactive amygdala and increased rates of adolescent depression—effects not explained by maternal depression alone.
Despite this evidence, leading professional groups—including the American Psychiatric Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—issued statements condemning the FDA panel as “biased” and “alarmingly unbalanced.” They asserted that SSRIs are safe and necessary to prevent harms of untreated depression, claiming that the risks of non-treatment outweigh those of the drugs. Major media outlets echoed these claims, portraying the panelists as spreading misinformation rather than seriously examining the data.
Whitaker argues this reflects a classic “doubt industry” response: when evidence threatens entrenched medical practice, a flood of low-quality, statistically manipulated studies appears, generating confusion and preserving the status quo. Statistical “adjustments,” often poorly documented, obscure rather than clarify true risks. As psychiatrist Joanna Moncrieff noted at the FDA meeting, antidepressants’ benefits are so small they lack clinical relevance—making it impossible that their fetal risks are outweighed by maternal gains.
Panelists urged non-drug alternatives, such as psychotherapy, which carry no fetal risks. Yet this essential context was largely ignored in reporting. Instead, professional organizations, compromised by conflicts of interest, defended widespread prescribing and dismissed legitimate safety concerns.
As obstetrician Adam Urato warned: “Never before in human history have we chemically altered developing babies like this, especially the developing fetal brain, and this is happening without any real public warning. That must end.”
Whitaker’s investigation exposes a moral crisis in psychiatry and obstetrics: a profession unable—or unwilling—to confront the harm of its own treatments, even when the victims are the unborn. Until this denial ends, prenatal antidepressant use will remain a hidden public health disaster.
Tune your internet dial to NaturalMedicine.news for more tips on how to use natural remedies for preventative medicine and for healing, instead of succumbing to Big Pharma products that cause, spread, and exacerbate disease and disorder, especially to babies in the womb.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.