The Mote Archive - RU-486: The Abortion Pill

RU-486: The Abortion Pill

The FDA has approved RU-486 for use in the United States. Discuss all related issues here.

1. ChristinO - 9/28/2000 8:12:04 PM

There have been several different posts regarding the recent approval by the FDA of RU-486 also called the Abortion Pill. I've tried to gather them all up from various and sundry places and include them here.

This thread is still looking for a host but I'll be filling in until we get one.

2. ChristinO - 9/28/2000 8:16:28 PM

(following re-posted from Health Policy)

1347. rubberducky - 9/28/00 10:00:03 AM
hooray! we finally catch up with France (France!! the mind boggles)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. health officials approved the abortion pill RU-486 on Thursday, clearing the way for its sale after years of political battles and delays that kept it off the U.S. market.

The pill, also known as mifepristone, can induce an abortion early in pregnancy without surgery. The drug debuted in France in 1988, but abortion opponents fought its entry into the United States.

3. ChristinO - 9/28/2000 8:19:25 PM

(following re-posted from Philosophy & Religion)

8639. CalGal - 9/28/00 10:08:40 AM
FDA Approves RU-486

That was kind of a shock. I was sure they'd delay it more.

Health experts say mifepristone won't increase abortions -- that didn't happen in Europe. But the FDA's formal approval may encourage more doctors who don't offer surgical abortions to offer the pill, thus making it easier for women, particularly in rural areas, to get an abortion without traveling hundreds of miles or entering surgical clinics often staked out by protesters.

The National Abortion Federation, which accredits abortion providers, said 240 of its member clinics were already prepared to offer Mifeprex, and it is training other physicians in how to use the pill.

8640. PelleNilsson - 9/28/00 1:31:28 PM
CalGal

Wrong thread?

8641. Rama - 9/28/00 3:42:45 PM
No, she is under the impression that all of the objections were religious.

8642. CalGal -9/28/00 3:44:23 PM
No, it's just where the previous discussion had taken place.

Rama, we were thinking of opening a thread on the RU issue and wondered if you'd be interested. Or maybe a Social Issues thread in general. See Suggestions, but you may have to wade in and around comments about a recent fuss we had.

4. ChristinO - 9/28/2000 8:22:53 PM

(following from politics)

43405. janjon - 9/28/00 1:05:22 PM
The FDA just approved the abortion pill.

W. cannot be happy with the timing of this announcement. Not at all.

43406. Ronski - 9/28/00 1:28:50 PM
What will the religious right be making of the availability of the anti-embryo drug? Or will they lie low in order to preserve Bush's chances?

And how could Gore possibly blow an election in which there's 5.6 percent growth announced for most recent quarter (or something like that)?

43407. JJBiener - 9/28/00 1:29:08 PM
For obvious reasons, I find the abortion pill reprehensible. The advocates for it however are even worse. I watched one of the talking-head shows the other day when they were discussing it. One of the advocates was asked if she thought the number of abortions would increase because of the pill. She said she thought there would be more abortions and she was thrilled about it. There was even the comparison made that what the birth control pill did for sex, the abortion pill would do for abortion. I find such casual disreagard for the human fetus to be totally sickening.

43466. JJBiener - 9/28/00 2:59:07 PM
I want to know how the FDA can call the Abortion Pill safe. It sure as hell ain't safe for the fetus

43469. Don S. - 9/28/00 3:02:08 PM
"I want to know how the FDA can call the Abortion Pill safe. It sure as hell ain't safe for the fetus."

Learn some biology. RU-486 is intended to be used within days of possible impregnation. It's not a "fetus" at that point.

5. ChristinO - 9/28/2000 8:23:20 PM

43470. AceofSpades - 9/28/00 3:03:02 PM
DonS.:

I think you're wrong. I think you're confusing RU-486 with the so-called "morning after pill." They are not the same pill.

43475. janjon - 9/28/00 3:05:40 PM
DonS - Ace is correct. This pill is one that can be used instead of a surgical procedure. (The FDA approval is for use "only in early stages" of the pregnancy, but I don't know exactly what that means in terms of how far into the term.)
43477. JJBiener - 9/28/00 3:07:22 PM
I think the pill can be used through the 7th week of pregnancy.
43482. Al D - 9/28/00 3:13:22 PM
At exactly what stage in a pregnancy does it become a "fetus", and does it only become a human child upon birth? Why not 10 or 15 days after birth, so we can see what we're dealing with?
43490. Don S. -9/28/00 3:26:07 PM
The fetal stage begins after the third month of pregnancy. I.e., well after the 7th week

6. ChristinO - 9/28/2000 8:27:24 PM

note: cbctrust link in the next post is broken - more info at http://www.datehookup.com/content-the-lowdown-on-mifepristone.htm thanks, Lisa!

43498. dusty - 9/28/00 4:18:16 PM
RU-486
Excerpt:
"The RU 486 regime works only during the first 9 weeks of pregnancy, or up to 63 days from the start of the woman's last menstrual period. After this time, the woman's own progesterone level is apparently too great to be affected by the drug." ...

On-line Medical Dictionary

fetus -->
foetus

From approximately three months after conception the offspring take on a recognisable form (all parts in place, etc.). In human development, the period after the seventh or eighth week of pregnancy is the foetal period.
[emphasis added]

43504. CalGal - 9/28/00 4:40:23 PM
I've read seven weeks in most of the press pieces; I've no doubt that Don did, too.

Besides, Dusty, if fetal life doesn't begin until the ninth week and RU-486 only works until the ninth week, we're talking a mighty small overlap.

43505. dusty - 9/28/00 4:46:13 PM
I haven't read the FDA announcement.

Let's assume for the sake of argument, that approval is only through the seventh week.
If a woman gets the pill in the seventh week, has second thoughts, waits a week or two, then uses it and it works, would you like to lay odds on the likelihood she will be successfully prosecuted for murder?

43506. dusty - 9/28/00 4:48:19 PM
I should have read the site I linked completely. Delayed use isn't as easy as I thought.

43507. CalGal - 9/28/00 4:59:14 PM
Delayed use isn't easy at all.

And no, she won't be prosecuted for murder. It is entirely legal to have an abortion at nine weeks. It's just that at that point it would be a fetus.

Newsweek says the FDA approved it up to the 49th day.

7. ChristinO - 9/28/2000 8:28:21 PM

Okay, that seems to be everything.....unless folks are running around while I set this up posting otherwheres.

The car's warmed up, kids. Go to town!

8. labwabbit - 9/28/2000 8:29:44 PM

No.

I hate 86.

And I would not offer support for 86.

9. Cellar Door - 9/28/2000 8:33:03 PM

Look for Operation Rescue to start bombing drug stores.

10. labwabbit - 9/28/2000 8:33:37 PM

..boy was that lame or what?

[I'm more of a 2 or 69 type)

11. Cellar Door - 9/28/2000 8:33:38 PM

And shooting on sight any woman who asks about RU-486.

12. labwabbit - 9/28/2000 8:35:53 PM

It's an ominous spectre to consider it's use is much like one would use Ex-Lax.

13. SnowOwl - 9/28/2000 8:37:40 PM

JJ

Is there any evidence that the use of RU-486 has increased the numbers of abortions in Europe or other countries where it is in use? The procedure is not exactly pleasant and it's highly unlikely that anyone who wasn't already contemplating abortion would consider it.

14. CalGal - 9/28/2000 8:42:07 PM

I remember reading a Newsweek article on three women who aborted with RU-486. I am not sure how far along they were, but I do remember that the one woman evacuated the embryo while she was in the shower, she hollered for her husband and they both looked at this little white sac about the size of a shrimp.

They flushed it down the toilet.

I was more than a bit appalled, which is why I hope that these women were much farther along--for some reason 12 weeks is ringing a bell. That was just too much information, for me.

Still, I think that RU-486 will be an excellent way for women in rural areas to obtain abortions--right now, many of them are essentially denied the rigth unless they have the means to get to a big city and then they have to brave a clinic.

While I don't imagine rural drugstores will carry it, I could certainly see abortion clinics offering prescription websites, where a doctor could order a prescription and have it sent directly to the woman's home.

One rather unpleasant note: doctors who make their primary living providing abortions are insisting that the drug cost the same as their fees.

15. CalGal - 9/28/2000 8:42:59 PM

Snow,

I believe it has been reported that no such increase in abortions occurred.

16. quivver - 9/28/2000 8:43:49 PM

As far as I am concerned, a woman should totally have the right to return her child to god (so to speak) if it's not viable to have it. A lot of people aren't suited to raise a small one, and if they want to spare it the trauma of life, I'm not going to hold it against them. Their actual motives being nearly irrelevant. I have never understood Christians who think death is bad.
Murder can be a gift, and not necessarily in a perverse way. If a selfish twit wants to kill the fattening calf in her womb, it's kinder that it die then rather than be born to someone like that. And of course I could whip out rape/incest examples, which so many Xians are willing to 'make exception' for. Screw exceptions. I could go on, but that's all for now.

aem.

17. CalGal - 9/28/2000 8:46:44 PM

If a selfish twit wants to kill the fattening calf in her womb, it's kinder that it die then rather than be born to someone like that.

Using that logic, Susan Smith's children were better off dead.

18. quivver - 9/28/2000 8:51:28 PM

She should never have had children. Mandatory reversible sterilisation is something that would be mighty handy. Very early in life and very late in life, I tend to advocate murder-- early in life for the same reasons that animals absorb young in times of stress (kind of writing that off as the human variant) and late in life if they are requesting it, as sometimes occurs.

19. SnowOwl - 9/28/2000 8:52:56 PM

Cal

Presumably the doctor who orders the prescription would have physically examined the woman first, to ensure that none of the contra-indications existed.

I'm not surprised to hear that some doctors would want the drugs to be expensive. I read somewhere that each pill costs around $20 and three pills are necessary. I imagine most doctors who provide abortion services are charging a lot more than $60. Of course, there is also the added cost of examining the woman before and after administration of the pills, but even so, I imagine the availability of RU-486 would bring the cost of abortion down considerably.

I don't have any idea about cost in the US. Abortions here are free and available at our public hospitals.

20. CalGal - 9/28/2000 8:55:12 PM

Yes, but she did have children. I don't oppose abortion, I just think the logic that the eventual child is better off dead is iffy.

The only reason I support abortion is because I can't think of any reason why the state should be able to force a woman to undergo pregnancy. The moment that pregnancy is completely elective, I think abortion could disappear as an option--or be permitted to save the woman's life, obviously.

Given that pregnancy isn't elective, I support the right of any woman to terminate the pregnancy, regardless of the reason. But I don't think that the eventual child is better off that way.

21. CalGal - 9/28/2000 8:56:32 PM

Oops--hit post too quickly.

Anyway, I think RU-486 will rapidly change the politics of abortion. But only if the cost drops considerably. Right now I'm reading it is suggested to be $300, same as the average cost of an abortion. I can't believe the bills cost that much.

22. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 8:57:10 PM

Many Many women in America have IUD's. I had one for over 10 years. The IUD works by keeping a fertilized egg from implanting. Is that abortion?

23. CalGal - 9/28/2000 8:59:22 PM

Snow,

Oh, sure. I'm not saying that she could just call him up.

I just read that the pill won't be available in pharmacies, anyway. Right now, you have to go in for three doctor visits, but I imagine that will change quickly.

Can you believe that there was an effort to create a registry of all doctors who prescribed it and all women who took the drug?

24. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 9:00:14 PM

From the politics thread:

If a woman gets the pill in the seventh week, has second thoughts, waits a week or two, then uses it and it works, would you like to lay odds on the likelihood she will be successfully prosecuted for murder?

Why in the world would she be prosecuted for murder, successfully or unsuccessfully, when Roe v. Wade allows abortions without restriction up to the 12th week?

25. labwabbit - 9/28/2000 9:04:55 PM

she hollered for her husband and they both looked at this little white sac about the size of a shrimp
I am not the squeemish sort, but there is something about that which grabs me to the most inner-depths.

I can't help but believe that in time we will come to learn, and harbor, horrific long-term regrets about all this.

26. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 9:10:55 PM

Abortion up to the 12th week bothers me not one whit. After 12 weeks I begin to have a problem with it. Why 12 weeks? Because that's the time that a miscarriage is most likely to happen naturally -- as many as 20% of all pregnancies according to one source I've read. It's an even higher percentage if you consider all the fertilized embryos that don't implant.

27. CalGal - 9/28/2000 9:15:39 PM

Lab,

It grabbed me, too. I can't remember when I read it, but it was a long time ago and it has stuck with me. I wasn't quite sure what I envisioned up til then, but that wasn't it.

Bubba,

On my own comfort level, it stops at 8 weeks. From a policy standpoint, I make an absolute limit at viability, at which point the mother's life only has equal rights, not more.

The thing about RU-486 that astounds me still is the level of politics around it. Abortion is legal, yet this drug was held up every step of the way.

28. SnowOwl - 9/28/2000 9:24:10 PM

Abortion for medical reasons at any stage doesn't bother me at all. For me, the life of a born woman takes priority over that of a foetus.

29. CalGal - 9/28/2000 9:28:58 PM

You know, it's kind of funny how everyone worries in the US that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe vs. Wade. Assuming they did (which is unlikely), what's the worst that could happen? It's not like the states are going to declare it illegal.

I've always thought the constituational right to privacy argument seemed a bit weak, although I really need to read up on it more. I think it's a great right to have, of course. I'm just not sure that the constitution grants it.

30. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 9:34:49 PM

It's also interesting to me that according to a review I read in the Atlantic about 2 years ago, abortion being illegal is a relatively recent construct --less than 100 years before Roe v. Wade.

Part of my mind feels very strongly that if you're faced with an unwanted pregnancy, 3 months should be more than enough time to decide what you're going to do and then carry it out. But then another little part of my brain that says "if you dont have the gumption or wherwithtall to deal with the issue in 12 weeks, should you really be reproducing?"

31. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 9:37:13 PM

I think that the right to privacy comes from those rights not enumerated in the constituion being reserved to the people. I think that we, as a nation, are in a heap of trouble if the only freedoms that we allow ourselves are the ones that the drafters of the Constitution happened to think about at the time.

32. CalGal - 9/28/2000 9:37:31 PM

I believe the original Roe vs. Wade trimester gave elective abortions only up through 12 weeks. It's only when they changed the reading to "life or health of the mother" that a trucksized hole appeared.

And yes, I do believe that stupid people ought not to procreate, but to me, I do think the issue is about the fetus' life at a certain point, not whether or not the mother ought to be sterilized and sent to the salt mills for sheer stupidity.

33. SnowOwl - 9/28/2000 9:37:58 PM

To say nothing of those women who don't even know that they're pregnant until past 3 months. I've never understood how that happens, I've always known I was pregnant almost immediately, but there are plenty of cases around of women not discovering their pregnancy until it is quite advanced.

34. CalGal - 9/28/2000 9:42:30 PM

I think that we, as a nation, are in a heap of trouble if the only freedoms that we allow ourselves are the ones that the drafters of the Constitution happened to think about at the time.

But those aren't the only freedoms we're allowed. And while I'm certainly for reasonable interpretations of the Constitution, I also think overbroad readings become problematic.

Put another way, I think there is an entirely good case to be made against the right to privacy, and it doesn't make one a member of the John Birch society (or whatever the ultraright organization of the day is) to think that.

Besides, the right to privacy doesn't include the right to kill, obviously, which is where the issue is splitting these days.

35. altitude /w attitude - 9/28/2000 9:43:38 PM

bubbaette Message #22 - Yes. It is life. It is growing on a cellular level. What is interupted is a viable fetal/baby/life implant. If the human blastocyst implantation in the uterine wall is denied, it is either a spontaneous abortion or an elective abortion.

36. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 9:45:50 PM

And yes, I do believe that stupid people ought not to procreate, but to me, I do think the issue is about the fetus' life at a certain point, not whether or not the mother ought to be sterilized and sent to the salt mills for sheer stupidity.

I agree and was half joking. I think it is a slippery slope when you start talking about abortion in terms of the social desirability of the mother. I was uncomfortable with the debate that took place in our state legislature back in the late 70's about Medicaid funding for abortion. One of the pro-funding arguments bandied about was that Medicaid recipients were really not the kind of people you wanted reproducing. I also think that there is a strong racial component in addition to the financial component when the legislature starts talking in those terms.

37. CalGal - 9/28/2000 9:46:06 PM

I've always known I was pregnant almost immediately, but there are plenty of cases around of women not discovering their pregnancy until it is quite advanced.

But in that case, should they be allowed to terminate it? Suppose they didn't know until it was two weeks before its due date.

I'd like to return to the price for a moment. Does anyone really think that 300 is reasonable? The cost is apparently much less. What could this change vis a vis the public's perception of long-term welfare moms, for example, if they knew that they could fund abortions cheaply rather than pay welfare?

38. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 9:49:14 PM

Put another way, I think there is an entirely good case to be made against the right to privacy, and it doesn't make one a member of the John Birch society (or whatever the ultraright organization of the day is) to think that.

Valid point -- is there a privacy right to torture puppies in the basement late at night when the noise won't bother anyone?

39. CalGal - 9/28/2000 9:50:05 PM

One of the pro-funding arguments bandied about was that Medicaid recipients were really not the kind of people you wanted reproducing.

This is going to raise its head again, I think. 20 years ago, no one wanted to pay for "welfare moms" to have an abortion. I think this value system is going to change pretty soon. I could see a massive increase in funding for abortion and a drop in welfare bennies for women who have no means of support when pregnant becoming eminently feasible in the eyes of the public.

40. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 9:53:16 PM

A w/ A

I disagree. It isn't killing the blastula -- instead an IUD keeps it from implanting -- two different things.

Another way of looking at it is to say that I would be guilty of killing a refugee if I don't take him into my home to care for him and feed him. Perhaps a Catholic would see that as a sin of omission, but I don't think it's the same as cracking the refugee over the head with a pipe.

41. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 9:56:13 PM

It's my understanding that those who use the pill require medical supervision during its use, but I'm not sure about that. If the $300 cost includes required medical supervision then whether or not the cost is too high would depend on the degree and duration of medical care. Hell, it costs $80 or $90 for a yearly check up with pap smear.

42. CalGal - 9/28/2000 9:59:36 PM

They do right now, but there's no real reason why it can't be done at home. The "medical supervision" bit is political in part--they don't want to make it to "easy" for women.

I think the cost is only the pills, but I've read three pieces and can't find a definitive answer. They just say "cost of medical abortion", so it's hard to tell if they mean only the drugs or drugs + visit.

43. SnowOwl - 9/28/2000 10:04:40 PM

But in that case, should they be allowed to terminate it? Suppose they didn't know until it was two weeks before its due date.

Well, it depends on the stage at which they discover their pregnancy.
I don't have a problem with elective termination up until foetal viability. Obviously at two weeks before due date there is usually no question of viability and it would become much more problematic for me.

44. SnowOwl - 9/28/2000 10:05:10 PM

But in that case, should they be allowed to terminate it? Suppose they didn't know until it was two weeks before its due date.

Well, it depends on the stage at which they discover their pregnancy.
I don't have a problem with elective termination up until foetal viability. Obviously at two weeks before due date viability is not usually in question and it would become much more problematic.

45. SnowOwl - 9/28/2000 10:05:47 PM

Oh bugger!

46. altitude /w attitude - 9/28/2000 10:09:16 PM

bubbaette Message # 40 Kevorkian is having a similar problem understanding assisting someone to die or killing them. If the end result is the same what difference does it make? If a parent keeps their child in a cage and prevents the child from recieving food and water the community is up in arms at the situation. If you prevent life from developing what is the difference? All life should be reverenced.
Statistically how many people are childless and trying to change that situation? How many don't want children? Lets arrange a swap. If you don't want them, don't make them.
Sell the pill for what it costs, the pharmaceutical companies ain't starving! That is another ethical issue.

47. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 10:12:45 PM

I think that anyone who has a patent on a frequently prescribed drug essentially has a license to print money. While the drug companies say that they need to be able to charge in order to recover the cost of research and development, they actually recover many many times those costs. (not to say that they shouldn't make a profit.)

The one prescription I take costs $180 for a 3 month supply, which works out to $3 per pill. I would be highly surprised if it cost more than 20 cents per pill to produce and market the pill. I know that the drug has been on the market since at least 1991, so I'd think the drug company has recovered it's r&d costs many times over.

48. altitude /w attitude - 9/28/2000 10:13:45 PM

Amen.

49. CalGal - 9/28/2000 10:16:26 PM

Snow,

I have a problem with elective termination up to fetal viability, but from a policy standpoint I'm not sure that it should be prevented. I think it should be exceptionally difficult to justify past 8 weeks, even. But that's just my emotional response.

Bubba,

As I understand it, it is abortion providers who insist on the price being high. They have a lobby too, you know. They also originally wanted to be the only medical practitioners able to prescribe the drug.

50. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 10:16:40 PM

a w/ a

I guess that the difference depends in whether you see a clump of cells as having the same rights, wants, needs, feelings, etc. as an infant, child or adult. Remember, we're talking about a fertilized egg that is no more developed than algae at the point in which it would pass through the uterus without implanting.

51. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 10:22:40 PM

Actually, Cal, I really havent' read enough about this pill to even be discussing it. However, if the abortion lobby is inflating the cost of the drug, I think it's unethical. In terms of the comparable services required, an abortion requires direct surgical intervention, medical equipment, the use of an operating room and the like. If the abortion pill just entails taking a pill and waiting with medical supervision limited to making sure you have care in the unlikely event you start hemmoraging, there's no comparison.

52. Al D - 9/28/2000 10:28:19 PM

One rather unpleasant note: doctors who make their primary living
providing abortions are insisting that the drug cost the same as their fees.
Aren't we often told, follow the money? Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood had lots of sociological reasons for wanting to prevent pregnancies, especially in the undesirable groups.

Smoking is legal, but I would encourage anyone I loved to not do it, amybe everyone for that matter. Abortion is legal, and I would keep my nose out of it for any but one of my close loved ones. I guess i am a rare bird that does not think people are the problem.

53. phydeau - 9/28/2000 10:28:40 PM

Let's take care of our postborn first... THEN we can talk about ending abortion. I think it's great that they finally approved it. There are fates worse than death, you know.

54. RickNelson - 9/28/2000 10:35:05 PM

Does anyone think that the "morning after" pill should be made easily available and widely publisized?

I would think this option would be cheaper and more accepted. Yet I have barely heard of its existance and wonder if the drug is well known. If it is well known why isn't it considered as for wider acceptance as pregnancy prevention?

It would seem to me to be a better first step than to wait for RU486 to be prescribed by a physician. Also the possibility of fetal viability is vastly increased when the "abortion pill" becomes the option.

I stand in the gray area wrt abortion. I am against casual abortion, yet I understand the personal choice a woman may need.

55. RickNelson - 9/28/2000 10:45:51 PM

If none of you have heard of the "morning after" pill, let me tell you. It induces a woman's menstural cycle. That would make it similar to the affect of RU486. Yet it has been promoted as a way to "make sure" if something caused concern. For example a contraceptive method may have failed, such as a condom breaking.

56. Al D - 9/28/2000 10:46:26 PM

47. bubbaette - 9/28/00
Your post shows a complete lack of how the market works. I drove a bread truck back when bread was around $.25 a loaf. To manufacture the bread and wrap it cost about .05 cents. And it is not just the R&D cost of the drug you are taking to consider. It is the cost of drugs that may not ever make it to the market. Of course, there would be no way to convince you that greedy companies are not just out there to rip us all off.

57. phydeau - 9/28/2000 10:47:58 PM

Is there such thing as a "casual abortion"? What does that term mean?

58. RickNelson - 9/28/2000 10:49:54 PM

I would like to know the stats wrt RU486's saftey record in Europe. Have there been any studies there to show what conditions would cause a woman to be at risk. I've watched one news interview where bleeding to death was a question. It also raised doubt that enough studies have been done.

However, if it's been used in Europe for years it would seem that the option should be open here in the states.

59. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 10:54:38 PM

Al

Of course, there would be no way to convince you that greedy companies are not just out there to rip us all off.

Where did I say or imply that? I get the impression that you believe anything I may post is a personal attack against you. Get over it.

60. RickNelson - 9/28/2000 10:55:22 PM

Well phy, it's like this. One show may explain it. Jerry Springer

A woman uses an abortion to stay free of the responsibility. OR In the case of 3rd world appointed abortions, a woman can be forced to have an abortion.

61. phydeau - 9/28/2000 10:59:26 PM

Ok Rick, I think we can do away with the 0.01% of abortions that are "casual" then.

BTW, how many women who have had abortions have you talked to? The ones I have talked to describe it as anything but "casual".

62. RickNelson - 9/28/2000 11:01:27 PM

One question of an interview:

Will RU486 increase the occurance of abortion?

The study of Europe, said the guest, proved the answer to be "no".

But, that's Europe. Do we worry that American "values" may not allow this result to hold true here?

63. altitude /w attitude - 9/28/2000 11:01:40 PM

RickNelson, How many women do you know that have had an abortion? Why? Convenience? Rape? I had a friend who was concieved during WW2 as a result of rape. Hard to look at her and think she would have been better off as an abortion. Why is it the right time to create life, but not the right time to nurture or support life? It is one thing to remove a leech from your body, and another to kill what you have put there. The personal choice a woman needs is to tell her father no, her brother no, her lover no, and her husband no. Her decisions need to be respected. Until women and children are treated respectfully by society, this will never be resolved. Children have unspeakable crimes committed against them. We value certain kinds of life and not others. Don't you think it is time to say all life has value?

64. RickNelson - 9/28/2000 11:05:34 PM

Phydeau,

If your statistic is accurate, I am suprised. Drugs and abortions are an issue. Selling sex for drugs, getting pregnant, having an abortion. These people have morally weakened ideas of right and wrong. They will lie to get an abortion. So, would that possibly skew that statistic you've given?

It isn't the focus of this discussion anyway, so if it's ok with you, drop it.

65. altitude /w attitude - 9/28/2000 11:09:35 PM

bubbaette Message #50 - Algae vs human life. I'm missing the correlation. Algae grows into algae. A human egg fertilized by human sperm and implanted in a uterine wall grows into a human being. Does that mean a newborn baby born with the instinct to root and suck has no value? If from the moment of conception the egg/sperm looked like a microscopic human being all the arguments would be for naught?

66. SnowOwl - 9/28/2000 11:10:50 PM

Rick

There are some contra-indications to the use of RU-486. I haven't got them to hand, but there are some medical conditions which preclude its use.

I've read that the mortality rate is something like 1:200,000. although it could be even lower now as I think the last studies were done quite some time ago. Contrast that to illegal abortion, which has a mortality rate of around 1:3000.

The morning after pill has its uses, but a recent study in the UK reported that 60% of women seeking abortion ascribed their pregnancy to contraceptive failure. Even allowing for the fact that a number of those studied might have lied, given the social disapproval of unprotected sex, rates of contraceptive failure in the group being studied are high. The morning after pill is of no use to this group.
They thought they were taking precautions.

67. RickNelson - 9/28/2000 11:11:07 PM

a w/ a,

I'm glad you think the way you've described. I can respect those attitudes.

I do agree that life has value. Therefore when a woman whose life is valuable, finds herself in a situation where she deems abortion her only recourse. I respect her right to make that choice. Period.

68. Al D - 9/28/2000 11:14:07 PM

bubbaette
What in my post made you think I felt attacked? Certainly nothing I said. I do think you have a very negative way of looking a profit and business, but I certainly mean that with all due respect and feel quite sorry that you took my post personally.' Wouldn't you intertain the idea that I was just trying to get you to examine your pronouncments. After all, my dear, the unexamined idea is not worth having.

69. RickNelson - 9/28/2000 11:15:26 PM

Good point SnowOwl.

It's clear that some may not seek the "morning after" pill when they don't believe their precautions have failed.

Yet I wonder if educating people to check for failure and then make them more aware of this prevention method, would decrease abortions?

I suspect it might by a small margin. But, that's a small step toward lowering the rate.

70. RickNelson - 9/28/2000 11:20:24 PM

I would imagine that a broken or slipped off condome would be an automatic. I would place more responsibility upon the woman when the pill is used. If she believes her routine is sound and missing a pill isn't possible, then all is well. However, if the person were thouroughly trained, to know for certain that missing just one pill is prevention failure, well then that should also be an automatic for the "morning after" prevention method.

These and other thoughts come to my mind as scenarios for the "morning after" pill. This in my humble opinion is a method of prevention which isn't utilized well. My opinion stems from the nearly utter lack of promotion, ie.advertising.

As for knowing someone whose had an abortion. Yes.

71. CalGal - 9/28/2000 11:20:42 PM

It is entirely irrelevant why a woman has an abortion. It is a waste of time to assess her motive. She either has the right or not.

72. SnowOwl - 9/28/2000 11:22:01 PM

Maybe, Rick, but there's not much way of checking for failure of the contraceptive pill, for instance, until you're pregnant.

The anti-abortion lobby classify the morning after pill as an abortifacient anyway.

73. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 11:23:45 PM

a w/ a
Algae vs human life. I'm missing the correlation. Algae grows into algae. A human egg fertilized by human sperm and implanted in a uterine wall grows into a human being.

Because in your earlier posts you are equating a ball of cells neven prior to implantation with a child or an adult. A ball of cells at the stage in which it might implant in the uterus is no more sentient a being than algae or lichen. A fair proportion of fertilized eggs never implant of their own accord. Should they be recaptured and implanted out of respect for the life that might have been?

I might, with the right encouragement and financial backing, have developed into a concert pianist or an olympic class athelete. Do I have a right to that, seeing as I might have become that? A woman with few resources and two children might be able to nurture and provide for and nurture her existing children better if she doesn't have an unwanted third child. Is that undifferentiated blastula of as great a consequence as existing children? I would argue that it's not, and that no harm is done by preventing it from implanting. You feel differently.

74. RickNelson - 9/28/2000 11:27:39 PM

I agree with you SnowOwl.

To clarify my motivations for promoting the "morning after" pill, I believe it should be available to those who think they "might" have had a failure. Not just those who "know" they had a failure.

I don't believe inducing mensturation is abortion.

75. RickNelson - 9/28/2000 11:28:25 PM

76. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 11:35:40 PM

Al

I copied and posted in italics what made me think that you had taken my earlier post personally. But let's deconstruct it:

Your post shows a complete lack of how the market works. I drove a bread truck back when bread was around $.25 a loaf. To manufacture the bread and wrap it cost about.05 cents.

And this has what to do with the subject at hand?

And it is not just the R&D cost of the drug you are taking to consider. It is the cost of drugs that may not ever make it to the market.

This is certainly a valid consideration that was not included in my earlier post.

Of course, there would be no way to convince you that greedy companies are not just out there to rip us all off.

This statement arises from nothing I've either stated or implied. In fact, I specifically stated that there's nothing wrong with making a profit. So you see, the last sentence of yours that I copied and pasted was gratuitous and attributed to me a notion that I'd neither stated nor implied but was in fact counter to the idea I'd already expressed.

77. RickNelson - 9/28/2000 11:36:05 PM

Ciao for now.

78. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 11:44:51 PM

It's way past my bedtime again. I've got to stop logging on here in the evening.

79. Al D - 9/28/2000 11:56:04 PM

Your post shows a complete lack of how the market works. I
drove a bread truck back when bread was around $.25 a loaf. To
manufacture the bread and wrap it cost about .05 cents.
To beat a dead horse, you seemed to think the cost of the production of a product should control the cost of that of that product, and i tried to show that that is fallacious thinking. Yes, you did say that they should make a profit. I would be curious what you would consider a fair profit? And if you would agree that a products price should be determined by what a willing seller and willing buyer arrive at? If this is so far off topic, the host can delete it, and I will not take offense. I think you make a good point when you say my last comment was gratuitous.

80. altitude /w attitude - 9/29/2000 5:29:48 AM

Try taking 10 grams of vitamin C daily for a week starting the morning after to prevent implantation. Don't think it is effective after implantation.

81. bubbaette - 9/29/2000 8:03:19 AM

I would be curious what you would consider a fair profit? And if you would agree that a products price should be determined by what a willing seller and willing buyer arrive at?

If the price of drugs were simply a matter of the market determining the level, then yes, the market is the appropriate vehicle. But don't forget that the drugs in question are not priced by a completely free market -- they benefit greatly from patents -- a government intervention that insures the formula can't be copied or marketed for the term of the patent. Bread has no such advantage.

82. CalGal - 9/29/2000 1:45:43 PM

History of Mifepristone

83. bubbaette - 9/29/2000 2:00:26 PM

From today's Richmond Times Dispatch

Abortion Pill Process

1. In a doctor's office, the patient swallows a mifepristone pill during the first seven weeks of pregnancy.

2. The drug causes the embryo to detach from the uterus lining.

3. Two days later, the patient returns to the doctors office to take a second pill, misoprostol, that causes contractions needed to expel the embryo.

4. Within two weeks, a third appointment is required to confirm the abortion is complete.

84. CalGal - 9/29/2000 2:01:51 PM

It can't be that easy--I read in an op-ed piece somewhere that 2/3rds of women in France still opt for surgical abortions.

85. CalGal - 9/29/2000 2:05:25 PM

I was just reading Time magazine:

The pills must be taken in the presence of a surgically qualified doctor, who must be capable of performing a surgical abortion if the medical abortion fails. Ironically, this restriction means accessibility, which had been one of the drug's major selling points among pro-choice groups, is not likely to be affected by the approval.

I read that they had done away with that requirement? If not, good lord--what's the point?

86. janjon - 9/29/2000 2:07:45 PM

A few comments and questions, not necessarily related.

1. Does anyone know how far along in the term the pill can be used in France? My hunch is that it can be used much further along, and that the 7 week barrier here was one chosen to avoid the "fetus or not" brouhaha.

2. The seemingly high cost might also be intended not to have the effect of driving the Doctors (brave souls in many parts of this country) who will perform abortions away from doing so. After all, especially with the 7 week limit, their services are still going to be needed.

87. CalGal - 9/29/2000 2:20:24 PM

Well, yes. It is abortion providers who lobbied for it to be the same price.

Dusty linked in a definition that said it could be used through the ninth week. I wondered the same thing.

88. janjon - 9/29/2000 2:26:21 PM

And, even if the pill could be used to effect an abortion much further along, you would rather quickly get to the stage where you wouldn't want this to happen without medical or other trained supervision and involvement.

89. CalGal - 9/29/2000 2:29:50 PM

You know, I wonder why the technology hasn't developed further. I wonder if it's because the Europeans are lazy about medical progress? I can't believe we aren't at the point yet where it's just one pill.

90. SnowOwl - 9/29/2000 2:35:05 PM

It's an anti-progestin. By about the 9th week the placenta starts producing progesterone in large amounts and the anti-progestins can't compete with the naturally produced progesterone.

91. janjon - 9/29/2000 2:35:53 PM

Some of the leading and most research/technological/developmental drug companies are located in Europe, so I doubt it is lack of proficiency. Or laziness for that matter. They are as competitive as any of the ones here. (Except when they or the boys here get together in ways that, um, smack of anti-trust, but that is a topic for another day.)

92. bubbaette - 9/29/2000 2:41:23 PM

Based on the description in the paper, I certainly don't see why a doctor would be necessary, except, perhaps, to ensure that the abortion was complete.

93. CalGal - 9/29/2000 2:43:28 PM

I wasn't accusing the drug companies, but the Europeans themselves. Actually, I wasn't accusing at all. Figure "placid" instead. And it's probably because they have a different medical program.

Anyway, I imagine over here there will be more competition to make the drug better, faster, quicker. But only if there is a lot of demand for it.

94. ycmeehan - 9/29/2000 3:21:45 PM

I wonder if the Danco group mentioned in your link, Cal, is the group of women who decided to organize and start a company in order to find a way to circomvent the political climate in this country some years ago? Do you know?

95. quivver - 9/30/2000 7:20:29 AM

One thing I find fascinating is that my medical insurance covers most forms of birth control (depo, norplant, the pill), but i often read/hear that this isn't the case for others. RU-486 has been approved too soon to show up on it, but as far as i know, it's likely to be covered also. Not 100% certain, but likely.
Just a minor comment I guess. Notabene-- the insurance is gubmint, so that might have something to do with it. If so, why on earth aren't there federal incentives for private insurers to offer birth control in plans? The mind wobbles.

aem.

96. altitude /w attitude - 9/30/2000 10:12:05 AM

Maybe they are including the cost of,"observation of oral intake" to help prevent abuse of the "pill." Also liability. There will inevitably be a black market. I'm guessing the 2 pills work independently of each other. Therefore require different dosing. Haven't read much about it, but if one initiates menses, the other has to overcome the high levels of hormone being produced by the corpus luteum to maintain the pregnancy. It looks like it could be a real mess on the streets.

97. CalGal - 9/30/2000 11:02:01 AM

YC,

No, it isn't that group. But I'm glad you asked, because I decided to go look it up and found all sorts of interesting scandal, that provided more insight into the delays.

As the history I linked in says, Roussel-Uclaf donated the patent rights to the drug to the Population Council, a non-profit group. This was apparently to avoid lawsuits--they didn't want to distribute the drug over here at all.

Population Council decided that due to the political climate, they would operate in total secrecy. So they granted the license to RU-486 as an abortifacient to Danco, and the rights to use it for anything else to a company called Neogen.

Both companies, it turned out, were started by a guy named Joseph Pike--specifically to take on RU-486. So the Council gave all this opportunity to just one guy--which seems odd, on its face. Particularly since there were several criminal charges pending against the guy.

The resulting mess--Council changes their mind when they realize he has baggage, they sue him, he sues them--goes on for some time and was only recently settled. It was during that mess that they also (for apparently unrelated reasons) lost their manufacturer.

Council does not appear to be too impressive. What I don't understand is why would they be granting exclusive rights to anyone?

98. CalGal - 9/30/2000 11:02:35 AM

Here are some links I found. The first search I did, on Danco Group, came up with a whole bunch of RTL links. But a few of them seemed actually interested in good investigation, rather than rhetoric, so I read their accounts and then did some more searches, coming to a piece in the Boston Globe and one on RDU-486's website--both of which confirm the details and add some of their own. There's probably more out there; but I figured four links was sufficient.

Human Life International piece

Boston Globe piece (speaking of advocacy--my lord, this was written by a staffer.)

RU-486 site telling of the tale

HLI description of the various lawsuits

It's really quite a mess. I'm far less sanguine, upon reading these accounts, that market forces will improve RU-486. The control of it is locked up pretty tight.

99. labwabbit - 9/30/2000 2:51:10 PM

It is no longer odd to me that most humans will flock to a "new" and "wondrous pharmaceutical" like pigeons at the first sign of food.

I no longer find it odd either that the woman who wakes up one morning with parts of her uterical equipment under the pillow will indignantly scream of victimization...and spend the rest of life in tortured existence, living an all-consuming fate and circumstance.

At least the money, that will finance the quest of retribution for such trangression of faith in the business of chemistry, will be available from a settlement received by her mom for broken silicon dreams.

100. ycmeehan - 9/30/2000 3:00:32 PM

Yes, it is a mess, Cal, so far. The outcry now is because there is the realization that if the pill stands, it will be followed by improved pills--The US market is too big--The major pharmaceutical will follow.

This result will doom the Anti-Abortion Movement because at such time as MDs can service a patient from the privacy of his office, the campaign of terror and intimidation fails.

101. mgleason - 9/30/2000 3:08:44 PM

Doctors Looking at Abortion Pill Are Often Unaware of Obstacles

Mifepristone has been hailed as a change in the politics of abortion, making a decision to end a pregnancy a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Supporters have predicted that the pill will lead to more doctors providing abortions. Doctors, some hoped, would simply provide mifepristone pills in the same way as they might write a prescription for birth control pills. But the reality, in the immediate future, at least, could be different. In fact, acceptance of the pill and the character of the national debate on abortion may be decided in the fall election. Dr. Creinin said he told doctors about the office visits a woman must make, the counseling a doctor must do, the backup medical services that must be provided and the state laws that must be followed. "When you go through everything, they just say, `Oh no. This is a lot more complicated than I thought. I have to think about it,' " Dr. Creinin said. "Most doctors who answer surveys saying they are interested in offering this, change their minds when you tell them what's involved." ....... Janet Benshoof, president of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, an advocacy organization that represents abortion providers, said, "In general, if you're opening medical abortions to a wider range of doctors, they have no idea that this is a dungeon of criminal law, and once you do an abortion, the laws may apply even if it's just giving women a pill."

102. CalGal - 9/30/2000 3:27:46 PM

Maria,

Wow. Great article, thanks for linking it in. I can't even blame the doctors for becoming uninterested. Who needs the hassle?

YC,

In the short term, I don't think this will doom the anti-abortion group. In fact, the more I read, the more I wonder if anything has improved at all. Still, it's a first step.

103. mgleason - 9/30/2000 3:47:06 PM

It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out, CG. Having followed this saga in a cursory fashion, I'd no idea that there were going to be so many twists and turns.

104. CalGal - 9/30/2000 3:57:42 PM

Actually, all the Times articles are great, have you seen the sidebar at the right of your piece?

News Analysis: A Tactical Challenge

The public message from many anti-abortion leaders today was fairly consistent and reflected the more complicated nature of the abortion debate these days: RU-486 carries risks, they argued, and doctors and women should be educated about them.

It is not a simple solution to an unwanted pregnancy. And, these leaders said, it will work against the Clinton-Gore promise to make abortion "safe, legal and rare."

The anti-abortion message seemed aimed at the enduring American ambivalence on the issue: In a New York Times/CBS News poll taken in early September, 35 percent of those polled said they wanted abortion to be generally available. But a plurality, 42 percent, said that while they wanted abortion to be available, they wanted stricter limits governing it than it has today. Twenty-one percent said abortion should not be permitted at all.

A New York Times poll on abortion two years ago showed that Americans were more comfortable with early abortions, which the abortion pill would produce, but also that nearly half thought abortions were already too easy to get.

Linda DiVall, a Republican pollster, said today, "I think a good Republican message is we don't think abortion should become more available or more easily available."

I have to say, though, I get a bit worried when the centrist anti-abortionists sound more reasonable than the "extreme" pro-choices.

105. mgleason - 9/30/2000 4:07:42 PM

Yes, the linked articles were extremely informative, especially the one in your post.

I know exactly what you mean WRT reasonableness. I have what used to be the NYT editorial curse of plumping for one 'side' only to immediately follow up with 'on the other hand,' so when my ostensible ideological foes start making more sense than those with whom I'm aligned, worlds collide, à la George Costanza.

106. robertjayb - 9/30/2000 5:06:01 PM

.
Another calm, well-reasoned, and measured response from the anti-choice side...

Priest Attacks Ill. Abortion Clinic...

"ROCKFORD, Ill. (AP) -- A Catholic priest smashed his car into an abortion clinic Saturday morning, then chopped at the building with an ax until the owner fired two shotgun blasts to stop him, police said.

"The clinic was not open and nobody was injured in the attack, which came just two days after federal approval of the abortion pill RU-486."

Way to go, Father! Show those hell-bound heathen how a real Christian operates...

107. CalGal - 9/30/2000 5:11:24 PM

BobbyJ,

I did say the centrists.

More on Danco--although I think the NY Times is treating it with a bit of kidglove handling.

In 1995, the council settled on a group headed by Joseph Pike, a lawyer turned entrepreneur. But the council filed a lawsuit against Mr. Pike when it discovered that he had been disbarred after pleading guilty to forgery.

The rights to the drug were then transferred to Danco in 1997, Ms. Waldman said. She said many of the investors who had been supporting Mr. Pike's efforts were now backing Danco.

Danco is essentially the same company that was operated by Mr. Pike, Mr. Waldman said, except its management was replaced in 1997.

Danco is now managed by its chief executive, Roy Karnovsky, a drug marketing executive who worked at Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, for about 20 years. Mr. Karnovsky was not available for comment yesterday.

108. mgleason - 9/30/2000 6:20:54 PM

Another wrinkle, from an NYT editorial:

Access to RU-486

Already, abortion opponents are looking for ways to limit mifepristone use. Gov. George W. Bush has criticized the F.D.A.'s action as "wrong," and his spokesman says he would order a review of the F.D.A.'s decision. Representative Tom Coburn of Oklahoma will introduce legislation to limit the use of the drug to doctors who currently perform surgical abortions, thus depriving women of easier access. He may also include in his bill a requirement for a registry of those dispensing the drug, which could make doctors targets for anti-abortion harassment.

109. CalGal - 9/30/2000 6:24:51 PM

You know, the bit about whether or not it can be given by doctors who don't provide surgical options is confusing--I've heard several different takes on it.

110. mgleason - 9/30/2000 6:28:58 PM

So have I. I'm trying to find out more information, especially as it relates to Coburn's proposed legislation.

111. millhead - 10/2/2000 1:46:02 PM

Robert,

I live in Rockford...it's a fricking shame that we gain national and international headlines for such a story.

Here is the local spin: http://www.rrstar.com/PastStories/sunday/news_main1.htm

The man who owns the building that was broken into is a piece of work. He loves the attention is generally a media hound.

While I support the woman's right to choose, this still is sad thing. No one wins and Rockford gets *another* black eye in the press. SAD.

112. ChristinO - 10/3/2000 6:28:51 PM

Some things that haven't been mentioned:

- Surgical abortions cannot be performed until 6 weeks after conception and the preference is to wait until 8 weeks. This is because prior to 6 weeks the embryo is too small to be assured of being evacuated by a D&C.

RU-486 can be taken as early as the day after conception, yes?

- RU-486 requires no more medical visits than surgical abortion and involves no more bleeding. What it does provide is a respite from a traumatic and often painful surgical procedure allowing a woman to undergo the ordeal of abortion in the relative privacy of her own home.

113. CalGal - 10/3/2000 6:32:21 PM

Actually, it requires one more visit. Surgical abortions require two; RDU requires three.

I wonder what, if anything, will be asked of them in the debate tonight?

114. ChristinO - 10/3/2000 6:39:24 PM

Surgical abortion takes three as well. To receive a surgical abortion you must first visit a doctor to confirm that you are pregnant and have the abortion scheduled. The second visit is for the surgery and the third is the check-up afterward.

I'm curious, but not so curious that I can't wait 'til tomorrow to find out. Buffy and Angel are on tonight and they're waaaaaay more entertaining than our presidential candidates!

115. msgreer - 10/4/2000 2:25:59 PM

800-973-2211.Curious? Go to Health Thread.

116. RustlerPike - 10/4/2000 10:45:35 PM

Mark my words: RU-486 will be followed by RU-Pentium.

117. ChristinO - 10/5/2000 1:09:02 PM

Looks like we're tapped out on this discussion. I've attached an RIP to the label and this thread will be caput by this evening.

The Mote | Mote Archive

back to top