Pro-life blogs and news organizations were quick to respond to the FDA's new admission that RU-486 is harmful, even deadly:
- My Domenstic Church - The death of a California woman in January after she took an abortion pill prompted federal drug regulators on Monday to strengthen the warning label on the drug, RU-486, also known as mifepristone.
- Mark Nicodemo - FDA and Danco Laboratories have received reports of serious bacterial infection, bleeding, ectopic pregnancies that have ruptured, and death, including another death from sepsis that was recently reported to FDA.
- After Abortion - President Clinton wrongly interfered with the FDA back then when he revoked the FDA Alert prohibiting the personal import and personal use of RU-486 in the U.S.
- American Life League - "It's noteworthy that the Food and Drug Administration has finally admitted that RU-486 is not the 'safe' medication that abortion protagonists purport it to be," said American Life League president Judie Brown. "However, the FDA's newly revised labeling requirements are utterly insufficient. We renew our call for the federal government to ban this deadly abortion drug, which is fatal to preborn babies and highly dangerous for their mothers." [hat tip: Pro-Life with Christ]
- Life News - While pro-life groups say the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug should be pulled from the market after the deaths of three women from it, leading abortion advocates and the maker of the drug insist it is safe.
What is very revealing about the FDA's continued approval of RU-486 is to compare it to their denial of licensing for other drugs. Below is the text of my post on this topic at Wittenberg Gate:
Shifting Standards at the FDA?
Today the FDA announced that due to three deaths and numerous damaging and life-threatening events attributed to the abortion-inducing pill RU-486, it will be changing the warning on the labels required with sales of the drug. To put this into perspective, let us remember that this drug is given to a population that is NOT sick with any condition that is cured by the drug, and each successful use causes at least one death.
The FDA recently turned down licensing of Exanta®, an AstraZeneca blood-thinning drug, because in clinical trials three deaths occurred in which the drug was a suspected (though not proven) contributing cause. In contrast to the RU-486 population, this drug is given to a population already at huge risk of dying from stroke, blood clots, or cardiac events. The only other blood thinner already on the market (warfarin – first developed as a rat poison) cannot be used by many patients, because of adverse drug interactions and other problems. Exanta®, which is already licensed in Europe, is not without its side-effects, but the risks seem to be lower than with the existing drug, and vastly lower than leaving these conditions untreated. Doctors are frustrated by the unavailability of this drug, and feel there would be thousands fewer deaths each year if the drug was available.
So one must ask the question. Are the safety standards for licensing RU-486 different than for other drugs, even life-saving drugs, such as Exanta®? Why do three deaths and many dangerous infections and ruptures among a well population warrant a warning label, while three deaths among a patient population that is, in many cases desperately ill, result in a denial of licensing for the drug?
Notice that chemical abortion isn't exactly taking off like a rocket in the US?
Chemical abortion is a boon to malpractice attorneys, but not to women.
I predicted hemorrhage deaths. Instead we're seeing deaths from infection (Holly Patterson) and failure to diagnose ectopic pregnancy (Brenda Vise). But the point is, we're seeing needless deaths because of sloppy practice. This is no surprise to anybody but the mainstream media and gullible prochoice citizens.
I'd post links to articles about these deaths, but this blog thinks my webhost is a spammer because it has "zero" and "catch" in its name.