Prolife legislation addressing RU-486

With RU-486 approved for use in the United States, prolife people are concerned for the health and safety of women seeking this chemical cocktail abortion method. On February 6, 2001, two prolife legislators, U.S. Senator Tom Hutchinson and U.S. Representative David Vitter, introduced a bill to put safeguards in place for doctors prescribing RU-486, the dangerous chemical abortion method used to end the life of a developing human being early in a pregnancy.

This common sense legislation would require doctors prescribing RU-486 to be able to handle most of the possible complications that are associated with chemical abortions. Conditions included in the legislation state that a doctor must be able to read an ultrasound to determine the gestational age of the unborn child and to confirm the pregnancy isn't an ectopic or tubal pregnancy. Also, doctors would need to be able to admit women to a nearby hospital when complications do arise. Complications women experience after taking RU-486 based on current clinical data include: 5 percent failure to complete abortion, 2 percent hemorrhaging (some require blood transfusions), 2 percent surgical intervention to stop bleeding, and 1 percent of women require hospitalization.

The complications for mifepristone and misoprostol (the two drugs used in an RU-486 abortion) double if the pregnancy is 56 to 63 days¹. Such complications could become more likely if doctors don't know how to use ultrasound.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement on Mifeprex (RU-486) says that this drug is "anything but a life saving medication" and that the FDA's fast track approval means that "women injured by the drug may find it very difficult to recover damages." The doctors note that the "dishonest use of the FDA's protocol to approve Mifeprex slights American women."

When the Food and Drug Administration approved RU-486, it did so under an accelerated process for drug approval called "21 CFR 314 Subpart H." According to the FDA, this accelerated process was supposed to be used only to "accelerate approval of certain drugs for serious or life-threatening illnesses." The FDA also set aside and modified clauses when it approved the drug in September of 2000. The safeguards left out would have provided some needed patient protection.

The current FDA requirements for doctors prescribing RU-486 state doctors "must be able to assess the duration of the pregnancy accurately" and "be able to diagnose ectopic pregnancies;" however, the FDA doesn't require the doctors to be able to read an ultrasound. The only surefire way to date a woman's pregnancy and diagnose an ectopic pregnancy is ultrasound, according to AAPLOG.

FDA requirements for doctors allow the number of potential abortionists to increase exponentially to include people who have no training or skills to deal with possible complications. When the FDA approved RU-486, the best interests of women were set aside. In other countries, women experience a mandatory four-hour waiting period at the abortion clinic, the period in which the unborn child is most likely to be aborted. In the U.S., however, doctors can send women home right before the most painful and dangerous part of the abortion, the expulsion of the child. The FDA requirements for RU-486 are less conservative than regulations in other countries such as Britain and France. The current FDA policy isn't physically safer for women but more convenient for the doctors prescribing the pills. This is a serious concern for prolife people.

RU-486 is obviously not as safe as abortion advocates would like the public to believe. The women taking these drugs should know the risks. To help, call or write your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and urge them to try to push Hutchinson's and Vitter's bill, also known as the RU-486 Patient Health and Safety Protection Act (S. 251, HR 482), through the process of becoming a law.

Reference:
1 Irving M. Spitz, C. Wayne Bardin, Lauri Benton, Ann Robins, "Early Pregnancy Termination with Mifepristone and Misoprostol in the United States," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 338, No. 18 (April 30, 1998), pp. 1241-1247.

 

Back to Table of Contents