Trisha Kirk Kirk is a fourth-year
political science student who can form an opinion about anything,
but always gives the other side a fighting chance. She looks
forward to hearing your comments and opinions at trishakirk@hotmail.com.
Click Here for more articles by Trisha Kirk
Abortion rights advocates are calling it an alternative ““
anti-abortion activists are calling it baby poison. But in strictly
scientific terms, the abortion drug mifepristone, otherwise known
as RU-486, is a medical milestone. It is another means of
terminating a pregnancy and a safer alternative to traditional
surgical abortion.
Since Roe v. Wade passed through the Supreme Court in 1973, a
woman’s right to choose has been guaranteed in America. Women
deserve this right. It is their bodies and minds that are involved
and at risk. But the current debate over RU-486 is not about
whether Americans agree with abortion. It is about whether or not
it should be an option for women facing what may be the hardest
decision of their lives.
By age 45, about 43 percent of American women will have had an
abortion (National Abortion Federation). They deserve not only the
right to choose whether they will terminate a pregnancy, but also
the method they will use should they choose to do so. If a safer
alternative like mifepristone is available, women should have
access to it.
A few weeks ago the Food and Drug Administration approved RU-486
for use in American abortion clinics. This French abortion pill was
first used in France in 1988. Since then, 620,000 European women
have used it. A ludicrous 12 years later, it is finally available
to American women.
 Illustration by CLEMENT LAM/Daily Bruin The pill disrupts
the hormone balance in a pregnant woman’s body, leading to an
abortion of the embryo. It is only available to women who are less
than seven weeks pregnant, and it works like this:
The patient signs a consent form stating that she will have a
surgical abortion if the pill does not work. Her doctor gives her
the mifepristone tablets. Two to three days later she returns for a
dose of misoprostol, a drug that induces uterine contractions, and
the embryo is aborted. Two weeks later she returns to her doctor
for a follow-up exam to ensure that she is no longer pregnant and
is in safe condition.
There are several reasons why this procedure is safer than
surgery and why this medical option should be applauded. Although
it takes several days to work (whereas a surgery can be done in
several hours), women opting for a surgical abortion run the risk
of a uterine and fallopian tube infection, which can lead to
infertility and, in rare cases, puncture the uterus. Additional
risks may arise if anesthesia is involved.
Both medical and surgical abortions can result in heavy bleeding
and painful cramping, but many women say they prefer the pill
because it is less invasive and has a small 4 percent failure rate
(The Hope Clinic for Women, www.hopeclinic.com) It is also far
more private than surgery.
Some argue that the approval of RU-486 will make it easier for
women to have abortions and thus abortions may become more common.
But they are hardly common now. Studies released by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention show that in 1997, “U.S.
abortions fell to the lowest recorded number since 1978 (Reuters
Health).”
The pill will not be any more available than the surgical
procedure. Only doctors who can provide surgical intervention in
cases of failure or severe bleeding can administer it, meaning the
same number of doctors that offer surgical abortions can offer
RU-486. Pharmacies will not carry it.
And it is not as though women take the pill and are suddenly no
longer pregnant. A medical abortion is carried out over several
weeks of doctor visits and emotional decision-making. From an
emotional standpoint, abortion is no easier with the pill. Women
must make a painful decision in choosing to end a pregnancy,
regardless of method.
Anti-abortion advocates are missing the point here. In their
effort to prevent all types of legal abortion, they are ignoring
the medical benefits of this drug. Whether American citizens
believe that abortion is permissible or not, women in this country
can and will still have abortions. I would rather see safe
abortions than neglected or abused children, babies with
life-threatening defects, or mothers who die because of their
physical incapacity to carry a child to term.
If women in this country are still going to have abortions, they
should have the option to do it in a way that is safest and most
comfortable for them. RU-486 offers them this option.
All the fuss over the pill amazes me, considering that there is
already a drug prescribed for medical abortion in America. The FDA
approved methotrexate injections in 1954 as a breast cancer
chemotherapy drug and a treatment for psoriasis and arthritis. It
eventually became a treatment for women suffering from ectopic
pregnancy and those desiring medical abortion (The Hope Clinic for
Women, www.hopeclinic.com).
Sound familiar? This drug works in a very similar way to RU-486,
but was approved in the United States more than four decades
earlier, presumably because it was originally used for other
medical purposes.
So why is RU-486 even making headlines? Because many people
don’t know about methotrexate and because it puts the virile
abortion debate back in the spotlight. It forces people to
reevaluate what they believe and what they know about the medical
side of abortion.
Another benefit: RU-486 can only be used by women who are less
than seven weeks pregnant. This encourages early abortion, which
involve much lower risks and complications than abortions performed
after seven weeks. Giving women a reason to make the choice early
also prevents partial birth abortions, which normally occur during
the last few months of pregnancy and are a strong rallying point
for anti-abortion advocates.
Another consideration is cost. Doctors are saying that RU-486
will cost roughly the same as a surgical abortion, $200 to $300 not
including doctor visits and testing. However, surgical abortions
may require anesthesia or hospitalization fees and can cost between
$400 and $700 in the later stages of pregnancy due to their complex
nature (National Abortion Federation). So while medical abortion
may bring down costs for women, it is not so inexpensive as to make
the procedure “common.”
Whether this drug will be well-received by American women and
doctors has yet to be tested. But the tiny tablet has already made
its debut in the political arena. Come election day, a new
president will determine the future of RU-486.
The next president may be responsible for replacing three or
four retiring Supreme Court justices. That kind of turnover could
toss Roe v. Wade right out the window. As for the pill, the
president cannot overturn the FDA’s ruling directly, but he
can choose an FDA Commissioner or extend power positions to others
who share his views on abortion. This could lead to stricter
distribution of the pill, more stringent requirements for doctors,
and/or limits on manufacturing.
Voters will no doubt weigh their beliefs with those of the
candidates in November. It is hard to tell whether most Americans
see the pill as having a direct impact on the debate over the right
to abortion or if they recognize it as the medical option that it
is.
The pill should not be denounced as an abortion simplifier. Its
purpose is to give women a safer alternative to surgery, and it
should be considered as just that.