|
NRL News
Despite
Abortion Drop, Number of Chemical Abortions Jump That the number of chemical abortions in the U.S. would show an increase in the Guttmacher Institute’s latest study was a given. The abortifacient RU486 didn’t hit the American market until late 2000 but was heavily promoted over the next five years. While the overall number of abortions dropped 8% between 2000 and 2005, there remained the questions of how big the increase in chemical abortions would be and how many doctors who had not previously performed surgical abortions would be lured into the abortion trade by the mantra of safe, simple, “private” non-surgical procedures that “only” required the dispensing of a few pills. According to Guttmacher, 161,100, or about 13% of all abortions performed in 2005, were described as “early medication” or chemical abortions. About 90% of those involved RU486, a two-drug abortion technique that employs RU486 and the prostaglandin misoprostol. Guttmacher estimates that 70,500 women used the chemical method in 2001, meaning its use had more than doubled. (Guttmacher also included chemical abortions involving methotrexate as “early medication abortions.”) But who is providing these non-surgical, chemical abortions? About 81% of what Guttmacher calls abortion clinics (those where at least half of patient visits were for abortions) offered chemical abortions in 2005, as did 29% of hospitals and physician’s offices that did abortions. The Guttmacher survey indicates that about 57% of abortionists did at least one chemical abortion in 2005. There were a total of 62 new abortionists in Guttmacher’s latest survey, most of them doing only chemical abortions. All told, Guttmacher says it identified “49 physician’s offices, 67 nonspecialized clinics, and three abortion clinics” that were offering only chemical abortions. Guttmacher says its numbers of chemical abortions may be conservative, since it expected that some of the new abortionists may not have responded to the survey. Among those offering only chemical abortions, most were located in areas where surgical abortions were already available. Yet if not for those new doctors turned abortionists doing chemical abortions, the number of abortionists would have declined by 8%, rather than the 2% seen between 2000 and 2005. Of the approximately 1,200 abortionists the distributor reported as purchasing RU486, most were already doing abortions. The greatest increase in facilities offering chemical abortions, however, were what Guttmacher terms “other clinics”—”sites where fewer than half of patient visits are for abortion services.” The number of these “other clinics” offering chemical abortions almost doubled—from 174 in 2001 to 338 in 2005. Abortion giant Planned Parenthood provides an illustration of how this works. Back in its 2003–04 Annual Report, Planned Parenthood touted the fact that it performed more than 95,000 chemical abortions at 203 “health centers” managed by 79 out of 123 affiliates. The organization noted that “Forty-nine Planned Parenthood centers now provide early abortion with mifepristone in centers that formerly provided no abortion services, increasing access to early abortion in rural and underserved areas.” In the past, these smaller centers may have simply referred potential abortion clients to some mega-clinic in the local area. Now, whether or not they are staffed or set up to perform surgical procedures, they can pass out the abortion pills at their own offices. The FDA protocol for the use of RU486 specified only that these pills be dispensed “under a doctor’s supervision,” rather than administered directly by the physician him or herself. This loophole allowed clinics to use nurses or even perhaps non-medical personnel to dispense the pills. Increasing Abortion Availability An important component of the abortion industry’s plan for RU486 was to bring abortion to communities where it had not previously been available. Surveys sent into Guttmacher from those on the customer list of Danco, the abortion pill distributor, indicated that chemical abortions were being performed in at least 12 new cities which previously did not have an abortionist. While they also found 11 new abortionists in nonmetropolitan areas, Guttmacher’s text is unclear as to whether abortions were already being done in those areas. While the use of chemical abortions made inroads into communities where abortions had not been offered, the method was less obviously attractive to the already established mega-clinics often found in major metropolitan areas. Guttmacher’s data clearly showed that the more abortions a clinic does, the less likely the abortionist is to use the chemical method. Among those performing 1–29 abortions a year, almost half—46%—were chemical abortion. The number dropped to 34% for centers performing 30–399, to 15% for those doing between 400 and 999, and to 14% for clinics doing between 1,000 and 4,999 a year. For mega-clinics, those that perform 5,000 or more abortions a year, just 7% employed chemical abortion techniques. Apparently, the time required for counseling, screening, and return visits with the chemical method gums up the works of the high-volume abortion mills. Though 80% of abortions are done in these mega-clinics, the jump in the numbers of chemical abortions and in new doctors adding RU486 abortions to their practices is disconcerting. If trends continue as they are, the next survey may reflect an overall increase in the number of abortions and abortionists. It is encouraging, though, that despite the abortion industry’s heavy promotion of RU486, the overall number of abortions declined and use of chemical abortifacient did not meet its promoter’s projections. Prior to its U.S. approval in 2000, Danco projected that RU486 would be used by close to a third of aborting women after four years on the market (Wall Street Journal, 9/5/00). That projection was obviously not realized. Only time will tell whether the chemical method will simply take longer to catch on in America than the abortion industry expected, or whether widespread knowledge of several deaths associated with use of the drug permanently suppressed demand for the drug. (One abortion clinic in Arkansas has already pulled RU486 from its offerings. It said, “Due to 5 recent deaths after Mifepristone (RU486) Medical Abortions, we have decided to discontinue offering Mifepristone until there is a satisfactory explanation for these unfortunate events.” From the Little Rock Family Planning Services web site page on RU486 at http://lrfps.com/ru486.html.) Any attempt to assess RU486’s impact on the abortion landscape at this point is premature. Whatever may prove to be the case, it is apparent that many women and more than few doctors have bought into the myth that RU486 offers a safe and simple abortion. Informed pro-lifers know the truth—that these abortions are bloody, painful, arduous, and dangerous. What we do see is that the more women hear the truth about abortion—chemical or surgical—and what it does to them and their children, the more they choose life. We see once again how important it is to get the word out. |