Abortion Politics and RU-486

The April 21 Times’ editorial dealing with the French abortion pill, RU-486, was very strident but woefully deficient on facts.

The Times calls RU-486 “a safe and humane alternative to surgical abortion.” RU-486 is used in France only to induce abortions from five to seven weeks into pregnancy, when the fetus already has a beating heart. This is humane?

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has vowed to lead a boycott of all products of any corporate entity that disseminates RU-486 as an abortion technique. But NRLC has never objected to research on RU-486 for purposes unrelated to abortion. Nor has the Bush Administration erected any barriers to research on RU-486 for purposes unrelated to abortion.

True, the FDA has placed RU-486 on the list of drugs that may not be imported by individuals for personal use. According to The Times, this FDA action so frightened the manufacturer, Roussel-Uclaf, “that it will not make supplies available for FDA-approved research projects,” and thus, “the Bush Administration obviously prefers to hold hostage the 44,000 American women who die of breast cancer each year to the basest abortion politics.”

Harsh rhetoric, that. Now, a few facts:

First: The American Medical Assn. strongly supports the FDA action, testifying before a congressional subcommittee chaired by Rep. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) that “RU-486 poses a severe risk to patients unless the drug is administered as part of a complete treatment plan under the supervision of a physician.”

Second: The FDA testified that it has “placed no barriers in the way of research,” that the FDA continues to routinely grant research permits for RU-486 studies, and that 10 such permits are currently active.

Third: Roussel-Uclaf has publicly stated that it continues to provide RU-486 to disease researchers in the U.S.

But why let a few facts mess up a good conspiracy theory, right?

DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee, Washington, D.C.