"In April 1991, however, the 'magic bullet' killed its first reported victim."

From the introduction to RU 496: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals, a 1991 book written by three pro-abortion feminists who opposed the use of the abortifacient RU 486.

"Reports that up to six American women and another woman in Canada have died after pill-induced abortions in recent years are making the regimen based on RU-486 look a lot less attractive than once thought."
     From an editorial in today's New York Times

I will not take up a lot of your time today. Tomorrow, NRLC's education director, Dr. Randall K. O'Bannon, our in-house RU 486 expert, will be writing in-depth about the Times' remarkable editorial.

Exaggeration to the point of absurdity is the signature approach of pro-abortionists. No pro-lifer can be vilified enough. No drug/therapy/abortion technique can ever be praised enough if it "promises" to make abortion "easier" and "more convenient." Facts NEVER are allowed to raise questions about anything that purports to increase a sense of "entitlement" to quicker, easier, and more lethal (for the child) abortion.

I could list a dozen major facts that are routinely avoided or minimized, but will address only four.

Number one fact is that "RU 486" is, in actuality, an extremely powerful two-drug cocktail.

There is RU 486 itself, an artificial steroid that interferes with the action of progesterone, a hormone crucial to the early progress of pregnancy. RU486 fills the chemical receptor sites normally reserved for progesterone, but does not transmit the progesterone signal.

Sensing what appears to be a drop in progesterone, usually a sign that pregnancy has not occurred, a woman's body shuts down the preparation of the uterus and initiates the normal menstrual process. The child, deprived of necessary nutrients, starves to death.

RU 486  is  followed by a prostaglandin which stimulates uterine contractions and expels the corpse of the unborn child. The use of  a chemical combination this weighty ought to augur for extreme caution.

Number two, from the moment RU 486 was approved for use in the United States, the Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation types challenged the "regimen" the FDA said ought to be in place. Now that women are dying all over the world, PPFA and NAF and uncritical sympathizers such as the New York Times are trying to forestall a serious challenge to this abortion technique by subtly focusing attention on the prostaglandin, rather than RU486, and how the prostaglandin is administered, something that PPFA and its industry followers can say they have already addressed.

Number three, to deflect a more serious look at RU 486 itself, advocates are trying to steer all questions to the prostaglandin. If all the blame can be laid at the feet of the prostaglandin, then the potentially serious side effects associated with RU 486 can be ignored yet again.

Fourth, and finally, as the New York Times conceded in its editorial today, "Most of the women were healthy at the start, had apparently successful abortions, died within a week of the procedure and were infected with a dangerous bacterium." >From the beginning there were worries that RU 486 would suppress a woman's immune system.

As the authors of RU 496: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals wrote in 1991, referring to a host of questions they had raised, "Despite these numerous unanswered questions thousands of women have already been given a drug whose molecular mechanisms and biochemical properties are not extensively researched, let alone understood."

Please send your comments to Dave Andrusko at dandrusko@nrlc.org.