RU486

 

FDA greases the skids for greater use of chemical abortions

By Dave Andrusko
Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & Research, knows as much as anyone in the pro-life community about the two-drug abortion technique, RU-486. That’s why before you read these remarks, please read his story responding the Food and Drug Administration’s decision today to relax safety standards and modified the protocol for chemical abortions that had been in place since September of 2000.

Since it’s late in the day, my comments will be brief and to the point and center on how the early news stories were almost a parody of the way the media has for sixteen years+ either minimized the dangers of the mifepristone/misoprostol combination or ignored them altogether.

For example, not until the very last paragraph is there even a hint in the Washington Post story about the 14 deaths associated with the use of RU-486, not to mention that 2,209 “Adverse Events” that had been reported to the FDA as of five years ago! Adverse events is a blanket term that covers everything from the need for blood transfusions to endometritis, pelvic inflammatory disease, and pelvic infections with sepsis (“a serious systemic infection that has spread beyond the reproductive organs,” according to the FDA).

And of course not a syllable about how incredibly painful RU-486 abortions are. But that wouldn’t advance the narrative.

The New York Times, bless their corrupt souls, went back in time to resurrect the absurd and scientifically illiterate conclusion that an RU-486 abortion “induces miscarriage.”
The Post’s explanation was more turgid but equally unenlightening:

It blocks the production of progesterone, a hormone that prepares the lining of the uterus for a fertilized egg. A day or two after taking that drug, the woman takes the second drug, misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract and expel the pregnancy.

We are not talking about a “fertilized egg” but a new human being. A “pregnancy” is not “expelled” but an unborn baby.

Why was the Abortion Industry jubilant? As Dr. O’Bannon explained, “It is obvious that the FDA’s new protocol serves only the interests of the abortion industry by expanding their base of potential customers, increasing their profit margin, and reducing the level of staff and amount of resources they have to devote to the patient.”

How so? It expands the time it can used from 49 days after the woman’s last menstrual period to 70 days. And by changing the protocol so that there is a higher dosage of the cheaper misoprostol (a prostaglandin) than the far more expensive mifepristone (brand name Mifeprex), more cash goes directly into the abortion clinic’s coffers.

We’ll write more about this very unfortunate development, which takes effect immediately, tomorrow. I cannot do better than end with Dr. O’Bannon’s conclusion:

It is clear whose interests it is the FDA is serving. It isn’t the women, and it isn’t the babies.

Source: NRLC News