|
|
|
|
Another Attempt to Widen Use of RU-486
Abortions Part Three of Four By Dave Andrusko The unrelenting march to expand the use of abortifacients (described by proponents as "medical abortions") took another huge step forward courtesy of a study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The objective of the study produced by Gynuity Health Projects in New York City--"Alternatives to routine ultrasound for eligibility assessment prior to early termination of pregnancy with mifepristone–misoprostol"-- was to "prove" that women undergoing RU-486 abortions do not need an ultrasound, the most accurate way to date the baby's age, because a woman's estimate of her last menstrual period, in conjunction with a physical exam, is close enough. Generally speaking, the outer limit for use of the RU-486 technique (mifepristone--RU486--and misoprostol) is nine weeks, even though that was not what the FDA originally recommended. The study doesn't make sense unless you understand that the mega-objective is to continue the abortion industry's relentless campaign to expand the use of abortifacients later and later in pregnancy and to introduce its use into areas outside metropolises. But there are other benefits, from the pro-abortion perspective, as we shall see. First, the study itself. Almost 4,500 women took part at eight Planned Parenthood clinics and two others, all in the United States. The idea was to have women estimate their LMP [last menstrual period], undergo a physical exam, and compare that estimate with what an ensuing ultrasound revealed. The study, led by lead author Hillary Bracken of Gynuity Health Projects, concluded that "Overall, only 1.6 percent of the women would have been given the abortion pill beyond the standard nine weeks if their providers had relied on their estimates and a physical exam alone," according to Reuters. (See below.) Then the added "benefit": "And even in those cases, all of the women except for one were within the 11th week of their last menstrual period -- a point at which, studies show, the effectiveness of medical abortion is still high, without an increased risk of complications." On top of that the abortion "providers" were most often nurse-midwives, nurse practitioners or physician assistants--not physicians. NRLC Director of Education Dr. Randall K. O'Bannon is an expert on RU-486 and other chemically-induced abortion techniques. He pointed out that the real objectives of the study could be found in the Reuters story. For example, the concluding paragraphs read that 3% of the abortionists who wrote prescriptions for the abortifacients were in "micropolitan" areas--defined as having between 10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants --"and only 1 percent were in small cities and towns." The comments of Bracken were also very revealing, Dr. O'Bannon said. She told Reuters that the findings "indicate that doctors and other providers who lack ultrasound equipment can still 'feel safe' in offering medical abortion. And that could help broaden access to medical abortion in rural parts of the U.S., as well as developing countries where ultrasound would be largely unavailable." "This is consistent with everything I've been writing on their efforts to expand chemically-induced abortions worldwide," Dr. O'Bannon said. "I've heard them saying this sort of thing before, but this new study lays out their agenda quite plainly -- the expectation of an ultrasound stands in the way of their exporting this to some of the smaller clinics in the U.S. and going worldwide." He also emphasized how PPFA in particular continues to push the envelope. When RU-486 was first approved for use in the United States, the FDA strongly recommended that it not be used past the first seven weeks LMP. The abortion industry ignored the FDA and very quickly started using RU-486 up until the 9th week. "But as the story makes clear, they've already laid the groundwork for chemically-aborting women into at least the 11th week," he said. All of this ignores the documented dangers of RU-486. What does the 1.6% of women misdiagnosed figure mean in real numbers and real lives? According to the CDC, 10.6% of the abortions reported to them in 2006 were "medical abortions." This didn't include abortions from California, where RU-486 has been widely promoted and used, and several other states, and numbers have most likely increased since 2006. But just 10% of the 1.2 million abortions done in 2006 would have been 120,000. And 1.6% of that would represent nearly 2,000 women -- not an inconsequential amount with a drug that has already put several hundreds of women in the hospital and been associated with at least a dozen deaths. One important very important service ultrasound provides is to help rule out potentially dangerous ectopic or "tubal" pregnancies, which RU486 would not abort. The problem is that a rupturing ectopic pregnancy, which can kill a mother, comes with many of the same symptoms -- cramping, pain, bleeding -- that are expected parts of the chemical abortion process. Women who do not have ultrasound may think they are aborting when in fact they are in the middle of a medical emergency. "Once again," O'Bannon said, "the abortion industry has worked to make the expansion of abortion easier on themselves, but done so at the expense of women's health and safety. It makes clear what their agenda really is." Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |