RU-486

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Xeney : One Thread
What is the deal? What's preventing this drug from being available/allowed in the US? I haven't been keeping up on the issue, but became very interested in people's comments in the what-matters-to-you-most-on-election-day topic. I am currently perusing ru486.org, but I also want to get input from the xeney populace.

Beth said, "Ask yourself why this isn't the number one issue being promoted by women's groups, why the Democrats aren't jumping up and down screaming about it, why no one is talking about it anymore." Her answer was, "Easy. If RU-486 got widespread use in this country, the Democrats would lose their big scary issue that they use to keep us in line." But how can that be the only reason? Would the women's groups really be so in cahoots with the Democrats that they would ditch women's advocacy in favor of such a sleazy scheme? What are the answers here?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Answers

Obviously I oversimplified the issue a great deal, and obviously a few far-righters are the ones who are primarily responsible for holding up approval of RU-486.

But what I don't understand is why we aren't talking about this issue more than we are. A few of the articles I found (see today's weblog) talk about feminists being "outraged," but all I'm really seeing in the way of outrage is a few statements to reporters. I'm not seeing demonstrations, calls for boycotts of spineless drug companies (hey, if right to life groups can do it on the other side, why not), or any attempt to make this into the major campaign issue that it ought to be.

So yeah, I'd like to know why we don't hear more about this. I'd like to know why the Supreme Court is still our main focus on the abortion front, when the sad fact is that the Supreme Court can't protect women from abortion protestors, and it can't protect doctors from people with guns and bombs.

On another note, does anyone have any statistics regarding what percentage of abortions take place during the first nine weeks? Do you think that percentage would go up if RU-486 were more widely available? (RU-486 can only be used during the first nine weeks of pregnancy.)

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

The problem with boycotting the spineless drug companies is that you still need the drugs. How many people are willing to risk their health and lives to defend a particular abortion method, as opposed to the general legality of abortion?

The anti-abortion crowd has a stronger motivation on this one, I think. They're trying to close the door, and every little bit helps their cause. As far as most of the pro-choice population is concerned, the door is open far enough for them to feel comfortable -- or at least, far enough that they don't have a whole lot of passion to spare for opening it further.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

That's been my question about the threatened pro-life boycotts. Are there really enough pro-life advocates in this country willing to risk serious illness by avoiding certain drugs? Really?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
I think William might be on to something here. The passion ferver would be a good explanation. After all, one side is fighting for life, while the other side is fighting for convenience.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
Boycotting a drug company doesn't necessarily mean going without drugs that are crucial to your health. Many drug companies make their biggest $$ off stuff we don't really need (e.g. viagra, rogaine, etc.) Others (such as Wyeth-Ayerst) make a lot of money off of over the counter drugs which are produced by many companies, or they sell other technology products (like Bayer). Others are subsidiaries of larger corporations.

Another issue is that most U.S. drug companies receive a lot of government funding for their research. In a government led by anti- abortionists, a company making RU-486 could suffer badly.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

I don't have any answers. My theory on why people are opposed to RU- 486 is that they don't like women to have an easy solution to unwanted pregnancy - and it is a very easy solution - it isn't available in Canada, but I do have a friend who used RU-486 in France and she says it was very easy. No sickness, no *nothing* except no baby. Which, before the naysayers start in, was a very good thing, as she has a medical condition which would not allow her to carry a child to term.

I think that, if it were available, there would be a big increase in abortions before 9 weeks. As it is now, women are usually 4-6 weeks pregnant when they find out- you are a week late, you test at home, you spend a week freaking out and seeing a doctor to confirm, and then you have to make a decision, and get an appointment for a doctor to perform an abortion, and I can't speak for all women, but for women like me, who are terrified of hospital procedures in general, the whole abortion issue would not only be "oh my god, I am pregnant" but "oh my god, I have to have general anesthetic." With RU-486, women have slightly easier options for termination.

I think that people that oppose it don't like the idea of easier options...I really think they like women to suffer for the choice, especially in Canada, where abortion is completely legal and easy to obtain, and paid for by universal health care coverage. In a country with socialized medicine, a drug like this is a benefit, because it would free up operating rooms (which are in short supply) and surgical day cares, and doctors.

I read in the Chicago Tribune that the number of doctors who perform abortions is going down every year, and that there are many areas of the country where a woman must drive hours and hours to get to the nearest city that has a doctor to perform one, and RU 486 would be a huge benefit for women in rural areas.

The Wisconsin law declares that a fetus is a human being from the time of conception, and described abortion as a procedure meant to "kill a child". Govenor Tommy Thompson signed that into law, and it is being debated right now. I think the reason you don't see major women's groups fighting for RU486 is that they are still fighting for the rights of abortion generally.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Beth sez: Are there really enough pro-life advocates in this country willing to risk serious illness by avoiding certain drugs? Really?

Well, take a look at the Christian Scientists -- they'll avoid far more than that, with less group support.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Something very few people seem to know is that Canada does have an "abortion pill". It's just not RU-486. It's called the morning after pill, and it's only reliably effective in the first 72 hours after intercourse. It's not supposed to replace birth control, and you have to go to a doctor to get it, or a planned parenthood clinic. The thing with the morning after pill is that if it doesn't work and you get pregnant, you pretty much have to get an abortion, because of the absolutely horrible mess it makes of a surviving fetus. But it's supposed to be 100% effective if it's taken in the first 48 hours. Some people have no adverse reaction to it, while others get horribly nauseaus.
We should still fight for RU-486 though, because it's effective for so much longer (9 weeks vs 3 days).
I think people are right about the suffering issue. If an abortion alternative is easy and pain-free, people get all defensive, as though abortion's (or pregnancy's) secondary role is to teach that slut a lesson she won't ever forget.
Well, and think about it. Why do many pro-lifers make an exception for victims of rape and incest? If you believe abortion is murder, then it's still murder regardless of whether or not the mother consented to the sex. But if you regard pregnancy as the natural punishment for sex, then it makes perfect sense to let those mothers who didn't consent to the sex off the hook, and refuse to let anybody else off. Punish her: make her have the baby.
I'm not saying pro-lifers aren't sincere in their beliefs about abortion being murder. But it's clear that, at least at an emotional level, that's often not all that's going on.
Joanne



-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
Joanne, is that part about "the horrible mess it makes of a surviving fetus" true? If so, I'm shocked and horrified, and angry as well.

We have the morning-after pill in the States too. I used it once, in college, after an unfortunate condom-breaking accident. When I went to the doctor, I specifically asked, "If this doesn't work, will the fetus be OK?" And he said, "Yes, this pill will not affect the health of your fetus if you remain pregnant."

That was really important to me, because at the time I was drawing a distinction between morning-after pill (still essentially contraception) and abortion. I just can't believe a doctor would lie to me like that (or have his facts so wrong). Well, I guess I can believe it... but Joanne, are you sure about that?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Jan, I can't believe a doctor told you unequivocally that the fetus would be okay. I hope you don't go to that doctor anymore.

I think the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. The morning after pill is basically the same hormones that are in birth control pills, right? Just at a higher dosage? Woman who get pregnant on the pill and keep taking them because they don't know they're pregnant do face a higher risk of serious birth defects, I believe, although there are definitely pill babies out there who are just fine. I would imagine the risks associated with an ineffective morning after pill would be similar.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

He wasn't my doctor. I called the morning-after pill hotline and it gave me the address of a pharmacy to go to in order to get the pill, which turned out to be a hospital pharmacy. In order to get the pill, I had to answer a series of questions given to me by a doctor ("Were you raped?" etc.) who then wrote a prescription for me.

I mean, my common sense told me that a pill that's basically the same thing as the birth control pill would have negative effects on a developing fetus, but this guy was a doctor, so I figured he knew what he was talking about. Gar. I never would have taken the morning-after pill if I'd known it caused birth defects.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Well, I'm not a doctor, so, like you, I'm working on secondhand information here. But my understanding was it causes serious birth defects. However, through some online searches just now I'm finding references to 'older' and 'newer' versions, so possibly the new version does not cause birth defects if it doesn't work? I don't know. This site says it just doesn't work if you're already pregnant. This site says, "If this method is unsuccessful and pregnancy occurs, termination of pregnancy is recommended due to the large dose of hormone exposure" (and notes that it's only 75% effective, so I was wrong about that).



-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
I think that the reason that ru486 is not more actively pursued by women's right organizations (like NOW and NARAL) is a combination of factors, including complacency, but I also think it has more to do with where the fight is taking place.

With the removal of the determination of choice from the federal government by the Supreme Court, the battle for abortion rights is now a state-to-state thing, which means that women's rights groups are spread pretty thin trying to combat the assaults on abortion rights (see this). The Revolutionary war showed us just how effective guerilla warfare is. The federal government continues to try to pass legislation, but it's continually met with defeat because people are electing pro-choice candidates to Congress.

The other aspect to consider is the moral majority. While they are neither moral nor a majority, but they are terribly well-organized.

I have a report that a woman wrote for Planned Parenthood that speaks to that. It gave examples of churches that didn't support abortion rights, which had freakin' manuals detailing how people could get into politics on a local level and work their way up in order to push the anti-choice agenda. The fight has been taken from a big war "out there" somewhere to a local hand-to-hand combat situation. Only people don't expect it quite that close to home and they figure that as long as I can get an abortion, who cares? Currently, there are several states with anti- abortion rights legislation on the books. It used to be around 13, but it may have gone up or down since then. According to the article above, of the 50 states' governors, there are 20 pro-choice, 20 pro-life and 10 with mixed records. RU-486 is just one more hole in the dam of abortion rights. The best way to help repair that dam is by voting for pro-choice candidates in all elections, especially local elections! Local elections are rather notoriously known for being forgotten and those are probably the most dangerous of the bunch.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

At one point, I believe a great deal of the pressure on RU-486 manufacturers came from the large number of hospitals run by various Catholic groups. They are very large customers, and in many cases they have the option of buying equivalent drugs from other companies.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
What! RU486 & Catholic hospitals! That's freaking nuts.

Abortions are performed by dr.s everyday in Catholic & secular hospitals... It is called a DNC, pal, and it happens, regardless of religion. If the patient wants it and the dr. will do it, the procedure is performed.

Stupid statements like the aforementioned one are what perpetuate hatred of the Catholic Church. The church has nothing to do with the abortion (or RU486) decision in hospitals. Nothing.

I find your comment highly rude and offensive.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

And why would they buy an equivalent drug from another company if they have the choice whether or not to buy the drug???

Catholic groups are against abortion... And there are many groups of Catholics that, despite the Church teaching, believe in abortion.

In South America and Europe, Catholicism is way more pravelent than it is the U.S., yet RU486 is available there. Protestantism is an American phenomenon which is branching now to other continents. Predominantly Catholic countries have already approved RU486 despite the Church's teaching... and seem to be using it.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Grace, I'm sorry, but you're incorrect about the availability of abortions at Catholic hospitals. Here are some links with information on the issue: I'm surprised you weren't aware of this. I thought it was common knowledge that Catholic hospitals offer services that are in line with church doctrine.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
Uh, I just read through that first link I provided above, and it's a pretty hard core anti-Catholic site. Read the last link, which is a CNN story, for the same basic info without the rhetoric.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
Oh, I was wrong. RU-486 is available in Canada right now, but as a clinical trial only right now - in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. It is expected, if the trials go ok, to be available as soon as next summer across the country.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
Oh, hell, this is a much better source: the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Facilities, which comes directly from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Those directives limit fertility treatments which may be offered by Catholic hospitals, absolutely prohibit abortion and sterilization, and say this about contraception: "Catholic health institutions may not promote or condone contraceptive practices but should provide, for married couples and the medical staff who counsel them, instruction both about the Church's teaching on responsible parenthood and in methods of natural family planning."

Go here for more info on these guidelines.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Grace, you seem to be defending Catholicism, but really strangely. Catholic groups are against abortion, but some of them believe in it. Catholic hospitals perform abortions despite being Catholic. Predominantly Catholic countries go against the Pope and use RU-486. Okay, but so what? I don't really understand what you are trying to prove. Please don't take offense, I am just confused and curious.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
Regarding the morning-after pill, I think its effectiveness rate is something like 60% (I'm approximating, I know it's in the vicinity), but the real percentage of women who take the morning-after pill and then don't become pregnant is closer to 90%, because many of the women who take the morning-after pill weren't pregnant anyway.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
If you are upset because RU-486 isn't available in the US, the people to get pissed off at right now are not the drug companies but the FDA. An application was made to the FDA for approval to sell RU-486 here and the most recent rumblings were bad -- it looks like the FDA will approve it, but only if given by a doctor who is able to perform abortions -- because, the rationale goes, in the few cases when the drug doesnt work, or only partially works, the woman has to have an abortion. Well, if the problem is that many women are too far from a doctor who will perform an abortion, this limitation pretty much eliminates access to RU-486 for many women who would want it. I mean, I'd rather take a pill than have even minor surgery with a local anesthetic, but I can get the surgery in the same city where I live. Many women can't. It is worth pointing out that there are many other countries where you can get RU-486 without these limitations; sometimes you can get it from a nurse or pharmacist, I think. Also - morning-after pills are available in the US as well as Canada. I doubt that it is absolutely necessary to get an abortion if they don't work; a baby conceived while the mother is on the pill (or on Depo-Provera) is not automatically at a high risk for birth defects, at least not at the dosages in most pills nowadays. The mornign-after pill is, however, not available at every pharmacy because at least one big chain (I think its wal-mart but I'm not sure) refuses to carry it becasue of a threatened pro-life boycott.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
Some more links about mifepristone (RU486). Note that Feminist organizations have certainly been supporting this cause. They are not at all complacent. I sure hope the html works.

Mifepristone/Planned Parenthood

More at Planned Parenthood re Mifepristone

NOW Foundation

Feminist Majority

Of course you can find many other links by doing your own search on Mifepristone, or RU486.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

The following from a 6/24/00 WOC (Women Organizing for Change) alert, is rather long but the only way to share it is to post it in full since you would have to subscribe to the newsletter to have access. They encourage redistribution as you see in the first paragraph. I found this interesting with regard to RU486 cntroversy.

"WOC Alerts are distributed for free by Women Leaders Online/Women Organizing forChange[...]the largest women's advocacy community on the Internet, [...]building a network of one million women and men to gain equality for women. Help us reach our goal by forwarding this to your friends! To subscribe, mailto:listserv@listserv.aol.com with the message: subscribe WOC firstname lastname

1. A TALE OF TWO PILLS

Yes, sometimes it seems as we have Viagra on the brain. You may have noticed that we've mentioned it a few times before. But there's a good reason for it. (No, it's not that we have an investment in having either its stock or the drug itself performing well!) The reason is simple. Viagra has proven to be a powerful example of how powerful institutions work to the benefit of men and against the rights of women.

The drive to make Viagra was sure and swift, with plenty of money and researchers devoted to getting the product made. Once Viagra was invented, there was no holding it back. Despite concerns about side effects and medical risks, Viagra was licensed quickly and easily by the FDA with no restrictions. Any doctor could prescribe it, and most have, especially if asked by their patients. Nearly every insurance company covered it - even the Pentagon, which had a Viagra budget of $50 million for the first year alone. And even though other countries hadn't immediately licensed it, Viagra became easily available to men worldwide through the Internet.

Now, let's talk about mifepristone (known in Europe as RU 486), which moves abortion out of the surgical suite and into the medicine cabinet. What a contrast. Although clinical trials began in the U.S. in 1983, mifepristone first became available in France in 1988. In 1989, the anti-woman U.S. Congress pressured the Bush Administration's Food and Drug Administration into specifically banning the importation of the drug. Since that time, U.S. feminists, led largely by the Feminist Majority Foundation, have lobbied worldwide, negotiated for patent rights, boycotted companies, signed petitions, raised money and supported or opposed political candidates to get mifepristone available in the U.S.

>>In 1992, Bill Clinton ran and was elected President of the U.S. pledging to bring mifepristone to U.S. women. In addition to the feminist pressure campaigns, Clinton made this pledge because the increasing violence directed at abortion providers by the anti-abortion forces gave urgency to the need to de-centralize abortion services and prevent further attacks on medical personnel. Early in his administration, Clinton signed an Executive Order instructing the FDA to re-evaluate the RU486 import alert and directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to "assess initiatives...[that can] promote the testing, licensing, and manufacturing of RU486 or other antiprogestins."

Since 1992, the drive to bring RU-486 to U.S. women has encountered one roadblock after another, despite having a favorable administration. But it appeared that this year - the final year of Clinton's second term - mifepristone would finally come to the U.S. market.

>>Until earlier this month, that is. That's when the Population Council, which holds the patent f or mifepristone, was told that the FDA would license the drug - but with extraordinary restrictions. These restrictions include: Mifepristone would only made available to physicians who are trained to perform abortions, departing from standard drug rules which allow any medical practitioner licensed to dispense prescriptions to provide the medication to her patients for any reason; Physicians dispensing mifepristone must be able to monitor patients using ultrasound and have easy access to emergency facilities.

The proposed rules come despite the fact that millions of women worldwide have used U-486 safely, and that clinical trials in the U. S. have reinforced that safety record. There is no medical reason to justify these outrageous restrictions.

If these rules are enforced, women in 86% of the counties in the U.S. - where there is no abortion provider - would be denied this life-saving, life-enhancing medication. These rules would continue the violence directed at abortion providers - since the drug would not be available from doctors and nurse practitioners everywhere who have indicated that they would prescribe it, the anti-abortion forces could continue their war of attrition the few who are already under attack. And these rules would guarantee that even when available, treatment by mifepristone would be excessively expensive, pricing it out of reach of many poor and young women.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Don't know what I did wrong that made that whole article link up...sorry. But anyhow...

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
Okay... Well I think I lost my point in my posts somewhere too, so I'm giving up. Yeah, I was going to write more, but...yeah... I've gone koo-koo.

If I told you I don't feel well and was hallucinating, would you disregard all I previously wrote?!

Okay, I will make one more point... sure the Catholic hospitals in the U.S. don't weild so much more power than the ones in Europe and South America as to be able to keep RU486 out? That isn't proportional the number of Americans who have or believe in abortion...

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

one side is fighting for life, while the other side is fighting for convenience.--Jarvis

Wonderful self-serving distortion of the truth, there.

===

I seem to remember a story about two different drugs--both FDA-approved over-the-counter drugs currently being sold--which, when combined, produced the same result as RU-486.

Does anyone else remember this story? Whatever became of the two drugs, and the story? Anyone? Anyone?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Grace, the reason why Catholic hospitals might wield so much power here might have something to do with our health care system. Many European countries have some form of socialized medicine. I think the point made earlier was that in the U.S., if a large number of hospitals threatened to boycott a drug manufacturer that tried to market RU-486 -- i.e., threatened to refuse to buy any drugs from that compnay -- they might be able to scare companies out of marketing RU-486. Obviously this would be harder to do in a country with socialized medicine.

Also, I'm not sure that the drug approval process is as politicized in other countries as it is in the U.S.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Okay... Clarifying another thing I said.

My mother used to be an Operating Room Nurse. Many times (not everyday, but more than the average person might think) when a patient wanted an abortion, but did not want to go to another dr, they performed a DNC. The same procedure is used for an abortion as is used when I woman has a miscarriage. Often the nurses in the OR did not know until after the procedure was performed what had happened - that the fetus was still viable.

My point: if the nurses in the OR helping to perform the procedure don't even know, then how is a hospital administrator going to? If Dr. X has privs at Catholic Hospital how are they going to police that? The procedure happens for both viable and non-viable fetuses. all Dr. X has to say is that he determined the fetus wasn't viable.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

But Beth,

Since the Church is also vehemently against birth control, why don't they boycott the pharmacutical companies that manufacture the pill. The church's stance is that the pill basically causes an abortion - different from interfering with sex as does a condom.

(so on the scale of things, using a condom (e.g. sex for sex's sake not for sex & procreation) is not as bad as using birth control (e.g. sex w/o intent to procreate AND the destroying of a life.)

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

matt, your answer is 'methotrexate', an anti-cancer drug, followed by 'misoprostol,' which is often given as a shot after mifepristone (ru486) abortions also.

i haven't updated this list in a year, but fwiw: http://www.karawynn.net/ru486/ru486links.shtml

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Grace, I don't know what the overall figures are, and haven't followed Beth's links, but I have been aware on a personal scale with two different Catholic hospitals in separate states. In each case, not only were abortions not performed there, but neither were tubal ligations or vasectomies. You had to jump through major hoops to get a hysterectomy for health reasons.

In one of those cases, the hospital would let doctors who performed those procedures elsewhere to use the hospital's services... in the case of the other, doctors who performed abortions at all were not allowed to deliver babies at the hospital.

So I'm guessing there is some leeway for the directors at the hospital to determine how to apply Catholic mandates, but I was under the impression that overall, if the Church is financing the hospital, it will be run according to Church doctrine.

While there are many Catholics - lay and otherwise - who disagree with the Church's stance, the official doctrine is still opposed to any form of birth control, and most definitely against death issues such as abortion and euthanasia. And it is the Church that funds the Catholic hospitals.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Grace are you suggesting that the solution to the problem is that doctors who want to perform abortions lie in patients' medical records, lie to the nurses who are assisting them and lie to the hospital administrators about the nature of the procedure they are performing? Sure, they might be able to get away with it, but if not, such conduct would certainly lead to that doctor's medical license being revoked, not to mention a huge lawsuit.

Any doctor would be foolish to take such a risk, not to mention the fact that it would be unethical, and possibly harmful to the patient (putting false information in a medical chart could easily lead to problems with future treatment).

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Grace, in a Catholic hospital a doctor would not be allowed to perform a D&C (which isn't just an alternative to abortion; it's the old method of performing one) on a pregnant woman even if the fetus were non-viable. If you read those regulations, even in the case where a mother's health is in danger, it's not a clear cut issue.

As for why Catholic hospitals and right to life organizations haven't boycotted drug companies that sell birth control, well, you'd have to ask them. But threatened boycotts have certainly played a large role in the continued unavailability of RU-486 in many countries. See this story about how pharmaceutical companies were scared off by threatened boycotts, or this story that mentions that the Catholic CEO of the drug company holding the original patent was pressured by the Pope (it also mentions boycotts).

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

I've been suspecting that a lot of places are using DNC as a euphemism, not just Catholic hospitals... I'm hearing a lot more about women getting DNCs and a lot less about abortions, and it seems to be used the way one would normally say abortion (ie, not attending mourning over a loss due to miscarriage). I'm guessing it is to avoid controversy and protest?

And yes, if that's the case, I think it's a bad solution, making medical staff have to lie about a procedure that is LEGAL. And a doctor's ability to do what is necessary to treat his patients, even when that means having to basically con the hospital staff, doesn't remove the fact that the hospital's policy is being based on religious rather than medical concerns.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

ok, now I've gone and made a D&C sound like a rap band....

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
Oh, okay, I just reread your post about performing a D&C. I get it now. I think you meant to say that the doctor would say that he didn't realize the fetus was alive. He would pretend the woman had had a miscarriage. The distinction would be alive vs. dead, not viable vs. not viable. I understand now.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
By the way, it's D&C (for Dilation and Curettage), not DNC. I keep thinking you guys are talking about the Democratic National Committee.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000
Seems to me I heard or read something about Catholic hospitals, federal funding and some controversy over whether or not they could deny a woman an abortion if she wanted one, and her doctor would perform one. And something else is tickling some memory about personnel who were opposed could opt out of attending a procedure they objected to.....does this ring any bells for anyone? Or is it in relation to some other hospital?

I don't think the boycotts people were worried about were necessisarily related to Catholic or other hospitals boycotting the drug companies. I think they were more worried about the pro-lifers picketing pharmacies which carried the drug. I think it was Wal Mart, not Walgreen's who threatened not to carry it because they were afraid of these boycotts.

One soulution, which will never happen, might be if all of the drug companies jointly decided to produce the drug as a generic in equal amounts and distribute it randomly and equally. Then the drug companies would not be at risk from boycotts. Eveyone has to get their drugs somewhere, and if every drug company made and sold the drug, it would remove that threat entirely.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

After all, one side is fighting for life, while the other side is fighting for convenience.

Convenience? How dare you? Have you ever been a woman faced with the decision of whether or not to have an abortion?

Abortion for the vast majority of women, is not a convenience, it's a extremely difficult decision brought about by difficult circumstances.

Walk a mile in a woman's shoes who is facing that. Then come tell me that it's all about 'convenience'.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Grace
I'm not sure what message is being passed on by Catholic priests in the States - but the Church does not differentiate between one type of contaception and another. They are all wrong. (I'll point out now- this is the Churches view not mine) The Church believes any form of sex outside of marriage is wrong and that sex should only be for procreation.
The Vatican II slightly changed this though and some priests do talk about informed decisions - where it is a moral decision left to the person themselves.
As I said maybe a different message is being passed on in the States - or else you're getting your facts from a bad source.
And if you really think that Catholic churches aren't using their buying power to intimidate drug companies - you're sadly mistaken

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000
Stupid statements like the aforementioned one are what perpetuate hatred of the Catholic Church. The church has nothing to do with the abortion (or RU486) decision in hospitals. Nothing.

I find your comment highly rude and offensive. What a joke this is. I've seen the Catholic churches (in Canada) organize voting registration drives so that they could vote anti-abortion administrators onto hospital boards. Once in control they most certainly do not allow abortions to take place at the hospital.

As for contraception, the Catholic church does allow the rhythm method. (which is a pretty crapy method, I think it's a ruse.)

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

As a point of interest, before abortion was legalized in Canada (in 1969 I think, or possibly 1971), the way many hospitals - which were performing abortions - got around the law was to lie, exactly as Grace has mentioned above. They claimed that the woman had had a partial miscarriage, and did a D&C, and wrote up all of the records as though the fetus was already dead before the procedure. However, the hospital staff all knew the truth. It wasn't a case of the doctor lying to the nurses - it was a case of the staff as a whole lying to some of the administrators, and keeping false records. It's awful that they had to do this, but I'm proud that they did.
If this is still happening, even though abortion is now legal, then that's shameful.



-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000
matt and Suzy,

I was exactly right in my statements. This is not a fight over legalizing abortion, but to provide another, MORE CONVENIENT method of killing the baby. So, one side is fighting for the life of the baby, and the other side is fighting for a matter of convenience. I think that is why there has not been the outrage on the pro-abortion- at-home-side as one might expect.

William first made this observation, and I just agree that I though he had a valid point on why the level of outrage is not there in the general population for this drug to be made available- well, that many folks are probaby just ignorant on the role of the drug and it's medical risk/reward profile.

Don't jump on me for reporting the facts. If the fact bother you, dwell on it a bit and figure out why.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Jarvis, I think you're right that that's why pro-choice people aren't as hot and bothered about the whole RU486 thing. If all abortion rights were at stake, we'd see a different reaction.
However, you're misinformed if you think RU486 allows people to have home abortions. A doctor must prescribe this drug - it's not as though anybody is talking about it being an over-the-counter drug. Moral issues aside, it's not safe for everybody, because it has dangerous side effects for people who smoke and have high blood pressure.
And there is a difference between being 'pro-abortion' and being 'pro-choice'. 'Pro-abortion' implies that one must believe abortions to be somehow preferable to pregnancy, which position couldn't be farther from the actual position taken by 'pro-choice' advocates, who argue that women should be allowed to choose what it right for them, and support that decision whatever it is.



-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000
No, Jarvis, you're wrong, this IS a fight about life. The reason why RU-486 is so important -- and the reason why the FDA's ruling that only abortion doctors can dispense is such a terrible setback -- is that right now clinic workers, doctors, and nurses are risking their lives just by doing their jobs. Abortions in this country are done by a very small number of doctors, mostly in big cities. They are easily targeted. A woman can't have an abortion in privacy; she has to run a gauntlet. A doctor can't do his job without wondering if today is going to be the day the sniper with the gun or the guy with a firebomb is going to show up.

Surveys of doctors have shown that around 90% of them (someone correct me if that number is wrong; I can't find the link now) would be willing to dispense RU-486. If that were possible, if RU-486 were given the same approval in this country that it's been given in other countries, there wouldn't be anyone for the nutjobs to target. I could go to my doctor -- my regular doctor, not a sitting duck in an abortion clinic -- and I wouldn't have to run a gauntlet, nobody would be in danger, and my business would remain my business.

That's why RU-486 is so important; it doesn't have very much to do with convenience. But the FDA has ruled that only those sitting ducks in the clinics -- i.e., the very few doctors in this country who are trained to perform abortions -- will be able to dispense RU- 486, which means women will still have to go to clinics, doctors can still be targeted by psychopaths, clinic workers are still in danger, and women who live in 86% of American counties will still have to travel elsewhere to terminate a pregnancy.

This 1997 study showed that there were 2,042 abortion providers in this country, which isn't very many. From that study: "Eighty-six percent of counties had no known abortion provider, and 32% of women aged 1544 lived in these counties. Of the country's 320 metropolitan areas, 89 had no known abortion provider, and for an additional 12, fewer than 50 abortions each were reported. Seventy percent of abortions were performed in specialized clinics and only 7% in hospitals."

So it's not just convenience in the sense of having an easier method to terminate a pregnancy. It's convenience in the sense of being able to go to your own doctor -- assuming he or she is in that 90%+ willing to dispense RU-486, as opposed to the lonely 2,042 who will provide a surgical abortion -- as opposed to having to travel out of state. And it is a matter of life or death. Clinic violence is a real issue, and with so few providers out there, it's pretty easy for them to be targeted.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Beth,

Your point was a rebuttal, I think, but you stated too that we are talking convenience -albeit big ones- for a good bit of rural women (I think you said close to 1/3). I have little to add here.

And about the life issue: the violence on abortion clinics ... I know there had been some out there, but you make it sound like these people are cowering in their boots. The last bombing I remember was during the Atlanta Olympics, and there was that one nut up in the NE who had the sniper rifle ... Have there been others I missed, or is this just a bit of a scare tactic like the violent nuts have tried to do on the other side?

And another thing, you talk about those trained to do abortions. Did you know it is a standard part of most medical programs to include instructions on abortions and be a part of a procedure? My wife had this training. I also understand many programs will let you object out .. I think ... but it is not a norm, from what I understand, and could involve a negative evaluation on occasions. So, lots of docs could do any/all of it ... they just are not, by and large. Some do not for moral reasons, some due to economic reasons, and some due to fear. But, it is there choice ... no?

Anyway, I see your points. But, I still see it as a matter of convenience. People who use this drug is going to get a prescription for the pill & a shot will be administered, and they go home right? If so, I am not sure where you disagreed with me other than you probably think I sound callous ...

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

No, Jarvis, clinic violence is much more common than you describe. Here is more information.

The most recent serious act was against a Vancouver provider, who was stabbed in July.

But you mostly only hear about the large scale attacks or the people who get killed. Here is an (outdated) list of state by state incidents. You are correct that clinic violence has decreased. It would be silly to think it's gone away.

You say "convenience" like it's an inherently trivial matter. You could say that having to pay $1,000 for a back alley abortion in Mexico is an inconvenience back in the 60's, too. It's a matter of degree, and if I'm a rape victim or a scared teenager in North Dakota, I'm going to consider it more than an "inconvenience" if I have to travel to another state to run a gauntlet of protesters in order to do something that is, fundamentally, no one's business but my own.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

One other thing: the requirement that obstetrics residency programs include abortion training is very new, in place since 1996. B efore that, only 12% of residency programs offered first trimester abortion training, and even fewer offered training in second trimester abortions. So while young doctors now are being trained in this area, the vast majority of established doctors are not trained to perform abortions. Here is another article on the nationwide shortage of abortion doctors.

You are correct that doctors with moral objections can opt out.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Thanks for those links, Beth, esp. the one of state-by-state cases. My first OB is on that list, one of the Christmas bombings in Pensacola. What the list doesn't say is that in addition to $100,000 worth of damage to his office, they also destroyed a wall that was covered top to bottom with pictures of babies he'd delivered, including my daughter's. And it doesn't say that he could name every single one of those kids and remembered their mothers and in many cases knew how they were doing later because we tended to stay in touch with him and his staff. His office kept a donation closet of maternity clothes for those who couldn't afford to by a whole new wardrobe for a few months and they were instrumental in creating a network of support among expectant mothers who were otherwise very much on their own.

I know that's only anecdotal, but people have this idea that 'abortion doctors' are all about abortion - they aren't. They are OBs, who are about serving the woman's health (and in his case emotional) needs during pregnancy, whatever those needs might be. I'm probably never going to stop being furious at what they did to him and as a result to a community who desperately needed someone of his caliber willing to take on OB care for women who weren't swimming in money.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Beth, you are a linking master today. Thanks for all the effort you put into your posts, and for providing the best community forum for discussion that I know of that is not based upon topics such as "favorite icecream"! The reason for this is the diversity of your readers, which you have mentioned before, as well as your level- headed approach to discussions, which you have never claimed (as far as I know).

By the way, my fav is Rocky Road ...

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Mine is some pinko-commie Ben & Jerry's flavor named after a dead hippie. You'd probably hate it. ;-)

But thank you, Jarvis, and in case I haven't said this before, I'm going to say it here: I am so, so glad that you and Jim and the other conservatives keep coming back to this board, and that except for the occasional explosion or minor bout of rudenss (which I think is to be expected; we're all pretty opinionated), the political discussions on this board mostly stay pretty level headed and polite. If this board were completely populated by people who think like I do, or people who generally agree with me on most issues but maybe disagree on a few specific things, there'd be nothing to talk about.

Seriously, I can't think of many places online where people from such widely varying perspectives can just chat about whatever comes to mind. If we met each other on a dog forum, or a garden forum, or a Survivor sucks forum, we'd probably all get along okay. But we wouldn't talk politics, that's for sure.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Okay, this just puzzled me: this humour page, which is maintained by the National Federation of Officers for Life. Some of the jokes don't even make sense (like the one that implies that "abortionists" fart more than the rest of us. Huh?) But what puzzles me most is that they're joining as police officers. What they want to do in their free time is up to them - they have a right to free speech too - but I'm surprised they are permitted by their departments to use their badge to lend weight to their opinions. This just seems really wrong to me (not to mention that the jokes are in really bad taste).
Speaking of taste.... mine's that new century sensation stuff, the chocolate covered almonds in vanilla. Yum.



-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000
No, that didn't make much sense to me, either. I think there are plenty of very good, decent people on the pro-life side of this argument, and that page is an insult to all of them. It looks like it was written by a ten year old. Pretty bad.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

The article that Beth linked to about Dubya opposing RU-486 mentioned that delays on approval are preventing it being investigated as a possible cancer treatment. That really intrigued me. Here's what I found, fwiw:

So it would appear that studies are ongoing in the US, but are being slowed down by availability issues. It seems extra-stupid to me that people would block research into a possible cancer treatment just because the drug can also be used to end pregnancies. As if blocking it to begin with weren't bad enough, now we're going to deny a possible treatment to cancer patients as well?

Also of interest is this September 1999 article in the American Medical Association's journal.



-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000
Joanne, RU-486 is not the only avenue of scientific research which has been restricted by the U.S. government due to abortion issues. Stem cell research, widely thought to be the most promising potential treatment for people suffering from many forms of neurological impairment (including paralysis and Parkinson's Disease) was severely impaired when George Bush the elder imposed a ban on using federal funds for such research. The Clinton administration has overturned this ban, though if George W. Bush is elected in November he has pledged to re-establish it.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000
A bit off topic, but in response to Joanne's distinctions between pro- choice and pro-abortion: hearing Kate Michaelman's speech at the DNC (the event, not the misnamed medical procedure) earlier this week, I'd say she's teetering very close to being truly pro-abortion. The usual rhetoric of safe, legal and rare was gone, and in its place was a likening of the availability of abortion to the availability of bottled water. It was truthfully horrifying.

As to Clementine's original question regarding whether or not the women's groups would be in cahoots with the Dems -- does the damning wall of silence and quick retraction of "Every woman's story should be heard (and usually believed)." ideal with regard to WJC and his antics, known and alleged, not make that damn clear? Throw NOW, et al, a bone and they become your lap dogs forever, even if that bone is nothing more than lipservice to their causes.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Dreama, if the Kate Michaelman speech to which you refer is the same that I read here, I must respectfully disagree with you on the "bottled water" thing. I scrutinized this speech carefully looking for any indication of the kind of "horrifying" stance you mention, and could not find it. I had never heard of Ms. Michaelman before this, so I could be wrong here, but from the speech it sounds like she is a very reasonable and very dedicated pro-choice advocate... not pro-abortion.

If you still maintain the "pro-abortion" position in regards to Ms. Michaelman, I am really REALLY curious why (and how).

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Clementine - different speech. I was listening to radio, not watching, so it was clearly not her speech at the DNC that was in question. Kate Michaelman has for years, though, been one of the most inflammatory and extremist voices on her side of the issue and having heard her lie-riddled, slander-laden rhetoric year after year, yes, I maintain my position because frankly the woman disgusts and horrifies me, the very tempered speech from earlier in the week notwithstanding.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000
Clearly your view is colored by your own extreme anti- choice perspective.

Now, you see, to me Kate Michaelman, of NARAL, is a perfectly reasonable and intelligent and outspoken "spokesperson" for reproductive choice.

My unsubstantiated opinion is absolutely equal to your unsubstantiated opinion.

If you'd care to cite concrete and accurate examples of what she said, then we could talk. But casting aspersions is a waste of time.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2000

Moderation questions? read the FAQ