House Votes to Block OK of Abortion Pill

Catching abortion-rights supporters by surprise, the House voted Wednesday to block the Food and Drug Administration from proceeding with the expected approval of the French abortion pill, RU-486.

Rep. Tom A. Coburn (R-Okla.), an obstetrician who has delivered more than 3,000 babies, tacked an amendment onto an agriculture appropriations bill that would ban the FDA from using federal money to regulate or approve the drug. His proposal passed, 223 to 202.

Abortion-rights advocates hope to derail the amendment in the Senate before it reaches the White House, which immediately announced its opposition. But the House action is the latest instance of antiabortion lawmakers taking advantage of an opportunity to push their cause.

Spending bills long have been vehicles for advancing antiabortion provisions to the House floor, a tactic that grows more common in election years. For example, a measure to pay this country’s delinquent dues to the United Nations is in limbo because House Republicans affixed antiabortion language to it.

On a related issue, an anticipated fight on the House floor Wednesday over whether federal employees’ health plans ought to cover contraceptives was delayed. It may come up today. Abortion foes liken some forms of contraception--such as birth control pills--to early abortion.

In the case of RU-486, FDA approval of its marketing in the United States is expected soon. A study, published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine, found the drug highly effective and safe for terminating early pregnancies.

Already widely used in France, Sweden and Britain, RU-486 is a synthetic steroid that makes it difficult for a fertilized egg to adhere to the lining of the uterus.

In floor debate, Coburn said federal approval of the drug, formally known as mefipristone, would amount to “killing babies” and would violate the FDA mission of approving drugs that are “safe and effective.”

“How can they use federal dollars to perfect and inspect and license a drug that takes away life?” asked Coburn, who has performed abortions in the past but only, he said, when a mother’s life was threatened.

But Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.) accused Coburn of improperly infusing politics into the scientific judgment of the FDA.

“I am a mother of three and a grandmother of two--and I am sick and tired of debating abortion on the floor of this House,” she said. “Restriction after restriction. Ban after ban. Amendment after amendment. Enough.”

White House spokesman Joe Lockhart called the House measure a “serious mistake,” saying that it is an attempt to “substitute political ideology for sound science.”

Although Coburn won over the bulk of the House, he has yet to find a senator to sponsor a similar amendment in that chamber. He predicted that--if his measure arrives on Clinton’s desk--the president would be hesitant to veto the overall legislation, which funds food stamps and other important programs.

The controversial pill’s primary advantage, backers said, is that it enables a woman to have an abortion without the necessity of a surgical procedure at a clinic or hospital.

“RU-486 can be given in the privacy of a physician’s office--away from clinics blockaded by protesters, away from violence, harassment and intimidation,” Lowey said.

But that very ease of use is what angers abortion foes.

“It’s the medical equivalent of a simple headache--pop a pill and your problem will go away,” said Rep. Linda Smith (R-Wash.).

The drug, which was expected to reach the U.S. market within a year or two, could be kept off the market indefinitely if the amendment is enacted. FDA licensing of the drug cannot be completed until a manufacturer is selected and the agency inspects its facilities.

In recent years, it has been difficult to find a manufacturer willing to produce the drug. Many have been reluctant because of the political overtones associated with the highly emotional debate and threats of economic boycotts by antiabortion groups.

But the Population Council, which owns the U.S. patent on the drug and sponsored the research, said in April that a possible manufacturer had been found. The manufacturer was not publicly named.

The drug’s original manufacturer, now known as Hoechst Marion Roussel, stopped making it last year after threats by abortion foes to boycott the company’s other drugs.