Should We Remove Restrictions? : NO: This drug’s primary use is for abortion, and its safety is questionable. But research into other uses for RU-486 is not objectionable.

A careful look at recent developments on the medical and political fronts involving the abortion pill RU-486 shows two main trends: first, that RU-486 is not as safe as abortion proponents claim; and second, that elected officials who clamor to bring it into the United States are irresponsibly sacrificing the lives and health of women and unborn children so that they can score political points with pro-abortion groups.

Proponents argue that this drug is safe, but it presents many concerns; at least one death has been reported from its use. RU-486 is always deadly to unborn children, and there have been health problems for women as well. The first confirmed death of a woman using the RU-486 method was disclosed in April by the French government. Based on that death, two heart attacks and other problems, the French government is backing away from widespread use of the drug.

Many Americans wrongly think that RU-486 is a method of contraception; however, its only proved use is to kill unborn children between five and seven weeks old. Every RU-486 abortion, just like every surgical abortion, stops a beating heart. And using it is certainly not easier or more “private,” as some claim.

RU-486 is actually a more complex and lengthy process than surgical abortion. In France, a pregnant woman must make four separate visits to a clinic to abort with this drug, compared with one visit for a surgical abortion. According to the president of Roussel-Uclaf, the French company that markets the drug: “As abortion procedures go, RU-486 is not at all easy to use. In fact, it is much more complex to use than the technique of vacuum aspiration.”

Another misconception that many Americans have is that RU-486 expels a “fertilized egg.” This is medically inaccurate. The earliest possible point at which RU-486 might be used is two weeks later than the latest possible point at which the term “fertilized egg”’ is even arguably medically accurate. The correct term, found in any medical dictionary or textbook, for a human being between five and seven weeks in pregnancy is “embryo.”

Despite the present and potential health problems, irresponsible politicians and abortion advocates persist in saying that the abortion pill should be brought into the United States. Just days after the French woman’s death was reported, New York Mayor David Dinkins, a staunch abortion advocate, wrote President Bush asking that RU-486 be brought into America. In a companion letter to the head of Roussel-Uclaf, Dinkins wrongly called RU-486 a “contraceptive,” showing his dangerous ignorance of the abortion method.

In New Hampshire, politicians bowed to pressure and irresponsibly passed a resolution asking that RU-486 be brought into this country to test it for abortion and other uses. Unfortunately, all these politicians have done is to raise false hopes among those afflicted with certain diseases that RU-486 might be effective and they have done it in order to bring RU-486 into this country for abortion. While there have been small studies on RU-486 for therapeutic uses unrelated to abortion, they are highly speculative. The American Medical Assn. last November characterized claims about non-abortion uses for RU-486 as “published conjecture.”

These irresponsible politicians have also given the false impression that pro-lifers oppose research on RU-486 for therapeutic uses unrelated to abortion. The National Right to Life Committee, the nation’s largest pro-life group, has never opposed research on possible therapeutic uses for RU-486 unrelated to abortion.

In fact, the Food and Drug Administration has approved about 12 active permits for RU-486 testing. The FDA has not banned or restricted testing of RU-486 in this country; it has banned importation of RU-486 by private individuals for personal use, but this ban does not restrict legitimate researchers from obtaining the drug. Both the FDA and Roussel-Uclaf state emphatically that this personal import ban has no effect on clinical research. The American Medical Assn. supports the FDA’s personal import ban on public health grounds.

Researchers in the United States continue to test RU-486 for potential therapeutic uses unrelated to abortion, and this research is unimpeded by the FDA and unopposed by the pro-life movement.

But as an abortion method, RU-486 continues to be deadly to unborn children in France. Millions of Americans continue to oppose RU-486 as a method of abortion, just as they oppose the 1.6 million abortions that occur each year. RU-486 has no place in America.