|
|
|
|
The Story Behind Two New
RU486 Patient Deaths Part Two of Three By Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D., NRL-ETF Director of Education & Research Editor's note. The following is the second of a two-part series by Dr. O'Bannon that began Tuesday. Part One talked about the medical details of the cases. Part Two examines what these latest deaths tell us. Part II: Failing to learn the lessons from earlier deaths.
These latest deaths tell us that, despite all the investigations, all the warnings, all the assurances, women taking RU486 and its accompanying prostaglandin misoprostol are still dying. After women died from infection in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005, the FDA issued public advisories, put new warnings on the label for RU486, and had Danco, the abortion pill's U.S. distributor, send letters to doctors warning about infections and cautioning about deviations from the protocol. The FDA and the CDC identified the deadly bacteria responsible for these deaths, Clostridium sordellii, outlined its unique symptoms (which, in many respects, are the sort of side effects one would expect of chemical abortions), and jointly set up a national conference to study the problem. In the meantime, another woman died. (Details on all these deaths can be found on the Trust Fund's factsheet "Deaths Associated with RU-486" at http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS15_pilldanger.pdf) There was clear evidence of a sudden surge of C. sordellii cases coinciding with the introduction of RU486 and various researchers explained how the drug might contribute to the infections by suppressing the immune system. However the FDA and CDC eventually concluded that this had something more to do with pregnancy in general rather than specific dangers associated with the RU486 abortion method and took no steps to pull the dangerous drugs off the market. (See NRL News, May 2006 and December 2006.) RU486 abortions have not only continued unabated, their numbers have grown. As explained in Part I, Planned Parenthood did alter its protocol to drop vaginal self-administration of the misoprostol, and added a week's course of antibiotics to its regimen. This followed the death of two of its patients. Other abortionists did not necessarily follow suit. As mentioned in my September 2009 NRL News article, Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation (NAF), and Beverly Winikoff, a Columbia University professor who worked for the Population Council for 25 years, told the Associated Press' Linda Johnson that a full course of antibiotics would prevent very few infections, but warned that it could (in Johnson's paraphrase) "trigger a rare allergic reaction, add to the problem of antibiotic resistance and raise the cost of the procedure making it unaffordable in developing countries." Johnson's story gave no indication of any promises by Saporta that abortionists in her group would alter their protocol (AP, 7/9/09). The information we have on these latest deaths makes it clear that some have continued to follow the old NAF protocol. That protocol offered changing the respective dosages of mifepristone (RU486) and misoprostol as well as the vaginal self-administration of misoprostol as an option The FDA has never endorsed vaginal administration of the misoprostol, but took no steps enforce the protocol or pull the drug from the market. It hesitated to endorse the use of prophylactic antibiotics out of concern for the possible growth of "superbugs" that might be resistant to ordinary antibiotics (FDA, "Mifeprex Questions and Answers," August 2007). We don't know exactly where these latest two deaths occurred, but as far as we know, no new deaths have been reported among Planned Parenthood patients since the group stopped the vaginal self-administration of misoprostol and added the prophylactic antibiotics. That may have something to do with their revised protocol, or it may be just a matter of luck. Details of the case make it clear that abortionists somewhere continued to use the vaginal self administration of misoprostol, and we know from elsewhere that many, if not most in the abortion industry, including Planned Parenthood, continue to use the altered dosages. So why are women still dying from RU486? 1. The media seem to have lost interest, and are no longer on the case. There was a passing mention of eight known infection deaths in an Associated Press article marking the 10th anniversary of the approval of RU486 for use in the United States. While this appears to have included the two latest deaths in the count, no major news outlet appears to have picked up the latest deaths themselves. Instead the anniversary story allowed chemical abortion's supporters make the case for the drug's overall safety (AP, 9/26/10). There was nothing detailing the agony these women went through or telling us about their lives, their families, and their loss. And there was certainly nothing in these accounts about the lives of all the lost children. 2. Government investigations and warnings have proven ineffective. The FDA and the CDC have gone to great lengths to uncover the cause of these deadly infections, issued warnings, and widely publicized their findings. But by allowing the drug to stay on the market--and by their feeble efforts to control how the drug is used--they have paved the way for the deaths of more women. The politically correct impulse of government researchers to say, despite strong evidence to the contrary, that this is a danger for pregnant women in general or for all women of reproductive age across the board, when there is such an obvious and sudden concentration of C. sordellii infections among women taking mifepristone and misoprostol, is morally irresponsible. 3. The abortion industry has shown, once again, that it will not act in the best interests of its patients. Before its final approval, the FDA rejected studies that promoted at-home, vaginal self-administration of RU486. The FDA said that the data for this provided by the sponsor supporting home use was "not found to provide substantial evidence for safety and efficacy" (FDA's "Office Memo to Population Council," 9/28/00). Yet much of the abortion industry ignored this advice, promoting at-home, self-administration of misoprostol, the accompanying prostaglandin. The abortion industry also ignored the dosages identified in the FDA protocol. It cut costs and increasing profits by reducing doses of the expensive RU486 pill ($90 a pill) from three to one, and doubling the dose of the much cheaper misoprostol. After a few women died, Planned Parenthood went back to the oral administration of misoprostol. But reports from these latest deaths show us that this was not the case for all abortionists. How many of these women would have been alive had the abortion industry followed the FDA protocol from the beginning is not known. What is clear is that much of the abortion industry somehow feels it can ignore the government and its experts and do things its own way, even if that puts women's lives at risk. 4. Women continue to buy the abortion pill and die after taking it. While doctors, perhaps aware of the medical risks, have been reluctant to add chemical abortion to their practice , word of the drug's dangers and difficulties among the general public has been largely crowded out by the abortion industry's relentless promotion of the abortion pill. (See September 2009 edition of NRL News.) Stories of RU486 patient deaths have largely disappeared from the press, and women showing up at abortion clinics are being given assurances that the chemical abortion method is "safe and effective." They may be told of risks, but they will be told that these are "rare." (For example, see the Planned Parenthood web site on "The Abortion Pill" at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-pill-medication-abortion-4354.asp.) And so, women are buying what they are sold. According to the AP, RU486 now accounts for about 15% of all abortions done in the U.S., and about a quarter of those done in the first nine weeks of pregnancy (AP, 9/26/10). Like many of those women, these two mothers whose deaths we discussed in Part I probably had little idea how difficult and drawn out and painful the chemical abortion process would be. They certainly never thought that they'd be perfectly healthy one week and fighting a losing battle for their lives in a matter of days. That's the reality of chemical abortion. 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. |
