The following was sent to us by the American Life League:
Washington, D.C. (12 September 2008) - Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa is using a webcam to give the dangerous RU-486 drug, which is used to induce chemical abortions, to walk-in patients, reports Iowa Right to Life.Apart from the immorality of trivializing abortion, I am shocked that the Food and Drug Administration has not had something to say about this.Women come for the chemical abortion and instead of consulting an abortionist face-to-face, they face a screen connected to a person somewhere else in the state via web cameras.
In addition, Planned Parenthood does not follow FDA Protocol for RU-486. Planned Parenthood gives women a single RU-486 pill, instead of the three recommended by the FDA. Then, the dosage of the less expensive Misoprostol, which expels the baby, is increased.
Additionally, one of the FDA-recommended doctor's visits is cut out of the process.
"This is despicable," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "Not only is this abortion chain murdering innocent preborn children, but they are putting the lives of the mothers in serious danger. Planned Parenthood doesn't care about women's health at all."
The chemical abortion has been shown to be responsible for over 600 adverse affects and is the direct cause of at least thirteen deaths since its introduction to the western world, according to Dr. John Willke of Life Issues Institute.
"It is unbelievable that people still believe the lie that Planned Parenthood cares about women." Brown said. "This organization has its doctors administering a seriously dangerous drug regime with no face-to-face interaction with a doctor and is covering up the dangers of RU-486. It's a money-mongering business that is only too happy to cut back doctor-patient time in a dangerous chemical abortion to save money."
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
American Life League: Iowa Planned Parenthood Gives Abortion Cocktail (12 Sept. 2008)
The article states: "[RU486] has been shown to be responsible for over 600 adverse affects and is the direct cause of at least thirteen deaths."
I'm sorry but killing thirteen patients with twenty million uses (so far) doesn't make RU486 a "dangerous drug". It makes it safer than most drugs. Anyone who doesn't understand this is not qualified to write about any medical question.
I puzzle and puzzle but I cannot figure out what RTLs are hoping to gain by repeating obvious silliness like this. Someone please explain it to me. What is the purpose of wearing your detachment from reality on your sleeve? It causes potential converts to RTLism, people who might think seriously about what, if anything, unborns are entitled to, to instead write you off without a hearing. Especially in the health professions where converts to RTLism might be most useful.
You're off by at least an order of magnitude regarding the death rate of RU-486 and are trivializing the reported adverse events. Michelle Gress writes:
I served as counsel to the House subcommittee on drug policy that investigated the FDA’s approval of RU-486. Anyone who seriously examines the highly irregular approval process and the serious adverse events associated with this drug can only conclude that it poses a deadly danger to women and should be removed from the market.
Following confirmation by the FDA in late 2005 that four women died from a rare bacterial infection after taking RU-486, Congressman Mark Souder, then-chairman of the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, initiated a year-long investigation of how the FDA was handling RU-486 and addressing the adverse events associated with it. The subcommittee gathered thousands of documents from the FDA, conducted dozens of interviews, and held a congressional hearing, “RU-486: Demonstrating a Low Standard for Women’s Health?” Ultimately, the subcommittee published an extensive staff report on the drug, recommending its immediate removal from the market.
The report, “FDA and RU-486: Lowering the Standard for Women’s Health” summarizes a mountain of evidence about this drug’s serious and unpredictable danger to women, detailing the reasons that the drug should be immediately withdrawn from the market. Here are just some highlights: RU-486 was fraudulently approved; it has caused the deaths of at least eight women (that are known); and it is at least ten times deadlier than its surgical alternative.
RU-486 is actually a two-drug combination that first blocks nutrition from the developing embryo, which kills it, then causes the uterus to contract and expel the contents. It was approved in the waning days of the Clinton presidency under a highly unusual and specialized federal provision called Subpart H, which applies only to drugs that treat “serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide a meaningful therapeutic benefit” over existing treatments.
RU-486 doesn’t even come close to meeting the Subpart H criteria: a normal pregnancy is not a serious or life-threatening illness (RU-486 is contraindicated for ectopic pregnancies); and surgical alternatives are safer for the mother. In short, FDA violated its own regulations to approve RU-486. (The advocacy group Judicial Watch has a detailed report on the Clinton administration’s drive to approve RU-48; and a Citizens Petition filed against the FDA on behalf of Concerned Women for America, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Christian Medical Association offers a comprehensive account of the approval violations committed on behalf of RU-486 approval.)
RU-486 has caused a tremendously high rate of adverse events relative to the number of women who have taken the drug. As of last year, when the FDA provided information to the Subcommittee for its investigation, RU-486 had caused the deaths of at least eight women, nine life-threatening incidents, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection. In total, we knew of more than 1070 adverse event cases associated with RU-486, out of only 575,000 prescriptions at most. This is even more alarming in light of the fact that adverse event reporting is notoriously low for any drug, much less a drug associated with abortion, for which reporting is expected to be even lower.
[etc]
Tim, you are right that the FDA's approval of RU486, like so many of Clinton's accomplishments, was irregular. I especially object to the use of the fast-track to approval (Section H) which was written into law in order to get new drugs to dying AIDS patients quickly.
HOWEVER, it is also true that when RU486 was approved, it had a well-documented track record of more than five hundred thousand uses abroad. That's many times more field-testing than most new drugs get before approval. In fact data were available which would have justified its approval during the Bush/Quayle administration.
You wrote: "The report, “FDA and RU-486: Lowering the Standard for Women’s Health” summarizes a mountain of evidence ... Here are just some highlights: RU-486 was fraudulently approved...;"
"Fraudlulently approved"--see above.
"...it has caused the deaths of at least eight women (that are known)...;"
Sorry but eight patient deaths from millions of uses is not a "dangerous drug".
"... and it is at least ten times deadlier than its surgical alternative."
Wrong. It is no deadlier than its surgical alternative. And even if it were ten times deadlier than surgical abortion, that would still be safer than childbirth.
You wrote: "RU-486 is actually a two-drug combination that first blocks nutrition from the developing embryo, which kills it, then causes the uterus to contract and expel the contents."
Thank you for informing me of that (sarcasm). Do you know the expression "You can't teach your grandmother to suck eggs"? Unless you are a professional, I have forgotton more about abortion than you will ever know.
You wrote: "we knew of more than 1070 adverse event cases associated with RU-486, out of only 575,000 prescriptions at most. "
"Adverse event" can mean painful cramping, infection which requires you to (*gasp*) take antibiotics, or even just feeling guilty about your abortion.
One more thing: approval of RU486 was much less significant than RTLs think. Non-surgical abortion, using methotrexate instead of RU486, was already well on the way into the mainstream. (I know this because I helped it along with some research.) Methotrexate is better anyway because it kills tubal pregnancies, which RU486 does not.
SoMG: It sounds as though you are so invested that you have an agenda to defend.
Do you have facts do defend your position that life does NOT begin at conception? This is not primarily a political argument although it has been made as such by the liberal; it is a moral argument. What is the ultimate foundation, or supreme truth upon which your beliefs stand?