On July 31st, the New York Times published an article on RU-486, the abortion drug, by Nicholas Kristoff.  Earlier this week my colleague, Chris Gacek, posted an excellent blog refuting many of the erroneous claims made by Kristoff.  In an attempt to properly educate the public on the dangers of the drug, FRC submitted a letter to the editor to the NYT on August 2nd, but to date it hasn’t been published. Below is the letter that was submitted.

Nicholas Kristof’s July 31st column on the abortion drug RU-486 does not acknowledge the facts behind the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of RU-486 and its serious health implications.

In 2000 the FDA approved RU-486 as the first-and only-abortion pill in the U.S. Because it suppresses a woman’s immune system, making her more prone to infection and bleeding, only doctors trained in blood transfusions and located within close proximity to a hospital could distribute it.

By the spring of 2006 the FDA acknowledged six deaths, nine life-threatening incidents, 232 hospitalizations, 116 cases involving the need for blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infections, with a total of 1,070 adverse events reports.

Kristoff writes that the drug is “revolutionizing abortion around the world, especially in poor countries.”  But given results in the medically sophisticated U.S., shipping this to developing countries would be a recipe for disaster.

(1) Letter from David W. Boyer, Assistant Commissioner for Legislation, Food and Drug Administration, to  Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources (May 2, 2006) (on file with Subcommittee).

Comments: 1 |

We’ve previously written about the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) review of what is being labeled a new and more effective “emergency contraceptive,” ulipristal acetate, better known by its trade name, Ella.

The controversial drug is a very effective contraceptive, but lesser known is the critical information that the drug can also cause abortions and chemically and functionally resembles the one legal abortion pill in the U.S., mifepristone (RU-486).

There are many serious misconceptions about this drug under consideration for approval. To learn more, please see the following information compiled by FRC.

Comments: - |

A few months ago, I blogged about a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Iowa administering the dangerous RU-486 abortifacient regime via skype. A local news station in Iowa is now providing more information about this story:

The new telemedicine technique allows a doctor to talk to and dispense the pills to a patient in a remote office location using a camera and microphone connected to the Internet, which allows for two-way communication. Officials said the patient is counseled by on-site staff before connecting to talk to the doctor who is at a different location. After talking to the patient, the doctor can then tap a button on the computer to activate a special drawer at the patient’s location that will open and allow the patient to receive the pills. The patient then takes the first pills while the doctor watches.

To be clear, RU-486 isn’t considered the safest of drugs.

Due to potential adverse reactions (in particular, excessive bleeding to the extent of needing a blood transfusion or incomplete abortions requiring further surgery), RU-486 can only be administered by a physician who can do blood transfusions or surgical abortions should they be required.

By the spring of 2006 six years after RU-486 was made available in the United States, the FDA acknowledged six deaths, nine life-threatening incidents, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infections, with a total of 1070 adverse events reports.*

Once again I wonder how Planned Parenthood, an organization that advocates for women’s health, could possibly advocate administering this drug regime with less medical attention and supervision.

*Letter from David W. Boyer, Assistant Commissioner for Legislation, Food and Drug Administration, to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources (May 2, 2006) (on file with Subcommittee).

Comments: 3 |