"Howzat?"

By Randall K. O'Bannon,
NRLC Director of Education

It was such stark contrast that even the media reporter for the Washington Post couldn't help but notice. Under a subheading reading "Howzat?" Howard Kurtz simply printed two headlines:

"Abortion Pill Slow to Win Users Among Women and Their Doctors" -- New York Times

"Abortion Pill Sales Rising, Firm Says" -- Washington Post

Kurtz's amusing reference was to the contradictory headlines for articles appearing in the September 25, 2002, editions of the New York Times and the Washington Post, respectively. Both deal with a press release put out the day before by Danco Laboratories, the U.S. distributor of RU486, the abortion pill.

In his short article, Post reporter Marc Kaufman largely reproduces highlights from the Danco press release--increases in U.S. sales and a rise in sales to doctors in private practice, for instance.

In addition, the Post article devotes only a few sentences to the serious complications, including two deaths, about which the company reported earlier this year. Kaufman quotes a company spokesperson who reasserts the drug's safety and efficacy and who dutifully notes that the company sent out a letter notifying doctors of the adverse events, all the while maintaining that no causal link had been established between the drug and the deaths.

The reporter closes by repeating the Danco press release's declaration that the drug has been approved for use in 26 countries and has now been used by 1 million women worldwide.

Gina Kolata's New York Times article also reports some of the same details from the Danco press release. However, Kolata points out that the number of RU486 abortions reported by Danco represent only a tiny percentage of women obtaining abortions. Equally important, she notes that few doctors outside of abortion clinics are actually offering the abortion pill to their patients.

Kolata interviewed a number of RU486 promoters and supporters who try to put the best face on the figures, arguing that the product takes time to catch on, for instance. But she also quotes Ron Fitzsimmons.

Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, a trade federation representing about 150 independent abortion clinics, admits, "It's not the social revolution that people predicted."

Kolata goes further, investigating why the abortion technique isn't selling. In contrast to popular misconceptions that treat RU486 as some sort of "magic pill" that makes the baby suddenly "disappear," Kolata says forthrightly that a chemical abortion "is not a simple procedure."

The typical RU486 abortion involves at least two drugs (the second, misoprostol, expels the child killed by the RU486) and three office visits spread over a two-week period. Nausea, abdominal pain, and bleeding lasting anywhere from nine to 16 days are common side effects of an RU486 abortion.

Moreover, two of the doctors Kolata interviewed say they offer RU486 but have found few takers once women find out the complexity of the regimen.

There is a clear contrast in the approaches. One takes statements largely at face value and simply relates the messages pushed by the interested party. The other makes a serious effort to cut through the spin and uncover the truth.

What the positions of these reporters are on abortion, we don't know. Chances are, if they're like most of their colleagues in the media, they're sympathetic to the pro-abortion side. One can see, however, the difference that journalistic effort makes in how a story gets told.

Read the story in the Post and you'll think things are going swimmingly for the abortion pill's promoters, despite a few unrelated glitches and some minor political opposition.

Read the story in the Times and you'll see a struggling product failing to meet its marketing hype. At least one reporter did her homework.