| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The Abortion Pill Arrives{Printed in the Marion Star on February 3, 2001, p. 6A} American physicians are receiving deliveries of the abortion pill to
prevent deliveries of unwanted babies. The controversial RU-486, also
called mifepristone, is now available under the brand name Mifeprex. It
is supposedly safer and more private since the abortions will occur in
the comfort of the woman's home, not an abortion clinic. Anyone who has
experienced or witnessed a miscarriage knows this is far from the truth.
All the blood and tears associated with spontaneous miscarriages demonstrate
that take-home abortions are not the answer. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved RU-486 in September after
more than a decade of debate. However, the FDA included a list of restrictions
which should have everyone concerned about this drug's safety. RU-486
will only be available directly from physicians who meet certain qualifications.
They must first be able to accurately determine the gestational age of
the fetus. No more than seven weeks should have passed since the beginning
of the woman's last menstrual period. Practically speaking, this leaves
a relatively narrow 'window of opportunity' for using the drug. Before
this, many women will not realize they are pregnant; after this, the risks
of serious bleeding and incomplete abortions increase dramatically. Physicians who prescribe RU-486 must also be able to respond to emergencies
that may arise after the pill is taken. During clinical trials, between
three and eight women out of every hundred taking RU-486 were pregnant
two weeks later and required surgical abortions. Almost everyone had cramping
and bleeding, some severe. About two percent of the women had so much
bleeding they required blood transfusions, and another one percent needed
surgery to stop the bleeding. Two-thirds had nausea, and a third had vomiting,
dizziness, and fever. Researchers have widely acknowledged that RU-486
abortions are longer, more painful, and involve more blood loss than surgical
abortions. However, the FDA fast-tracked RU-486's approval, skipping some of the
research normally required to carefully examine the risks associated with
a new drug. RU-486 was approved under a special protocol called "21
CFR 314 Subpart H." These regulations were approved in 1992 after
AIDS and cancer patients complained that new drugs for their life-threatening
illnesses took too long to approve. The regulations specifically apply
to new drugs "for serious or life-threatening illnesses." How
does a drug designed to end unwanted pregnancies qualify under these guidelines?
The FDA wrote "that the termination of an unwanted pregnancy is a
serious condition within the scope of subpart H." Pregnancy is being viewed as the equivalent of a life-threatening illness
to further broaden the availability of abortion. Language is manipulated
to further a political agenda. Approval under Subpart H not only fast-tracks
a drug, it helps its manufacturer avoid strict liability for injuries
related to the drug. Women are supposed to understand that Subpart H approval
means they have less assurance of the drug's safety since, technically,
it is still an experimental treatment. While someone with a terminal illness
may want to take that risk, how many unwanted pregnancies are as life-threatening
as AIDS or cancer? RU-486 promoters argue that it brings more privacy to abortion. But its
FDA regulations require at least three doctor's visits. After taking RU-486
on the first visit, the woman must return two days later for another drug,
misoprostol or Cytotec. RU-486 prevents the normal development of the
fetus, and the second drug starts contractions which expel the growing
fetus from the uterus. A third visit is required two weeks later, to ensure
the abortion is complete. If not, the woman will require the surgical
abortion she was trying to avoid in the first place. This second drug raises further questions about the risks of RU-486 abortions.
In August, its manufacturer (G. D. Searle) wrote US doctors warning against
misoprostol's use during abortions (or normal labor). Its only approved
use is in treating ulcers, and its safety in pregnant women has not been
tested. Number serious adverse events, including maternal death, have
been reported after its unapproved usage. Advocates claim RU-486 affords pregnant women access to safer and more
private abortions. Neither is the case. The drug is a poison that people
hope will be more detrimental to the unborn than to women. Its main benefits
are in protecting the doctor's privacy, not the woman's. Its fast-track
approval protects its manufacturer from the consequences of its adverse
effects, but not the injured woman. RU-486 further pushes the morality of one segment of our society upon
the rest of us. Abortion advocates would have us believe that the human
life developing within a woman is only as valuable as she believes. This
puts an arbitrary value on all human life. Promoting the illusion that
abortion is no more than popping a few pills to make a negative situation
disappear impacts all of society. The situations that lead women to consider abortion are difficult and complicated. No answer is easy, but that doesn't mean all answers are equal. Abortion uses the death of an innocent human to help people out of tough situations. We are left with a dead fetus and thoughts of what might have been. Instead, allowing the fetus to live, and enlisting others' help, uses the gift of life to help develop the character and resources needed to tackle tough situations ethically. Do we value life enough to make the sacrifices necessary to accept and nurture all human lives? If not, which humans will we reject next? |
