Abortion?

Or lack of controls?

Published on November 16, 2004 By Dr Guy In Current Events

Seems we have a major controversy brewing in the NARAL league. Seems RU486 has now been officially blamed for 3 deaths. For the uninitiated, RU486 was originally known as the morning after pill. (That title is now reserved for a different pill that works to prevent fertilization. Thank you Lengirl for the catch on that mistake).

The father of the latest victim wants the drug pulled for further testing. But I doubt that will do any good. NARAL and their allies will fight it like they do Partial Birth Abortion. The simple reason the pill is so dangerous, it is an abortion pill, and cause a premature menstrual cycle. That is how it works. So there will always be a danger with it..

Ideally, given that abortion is now legal, it should be administered like any procedural abortion, instead of the 'pop-a chock' basis it is now. Since it is a very dangerouis drug, users should have the proper education on exactly what the drug is doing.

But like their rabid opposition to Partial Birth Abortions, the Abortionists will fight to the death any type of regulation on this dangerous drug. And more young women will die due to their blind opposition to safe procedures.

Now who are the back street butchers?

Comments

Lengirl

on Nov 16, 2004

RU486 is NOT the morning after pill. See the article by iamheather and resulting discussion:
Link

Dr Guy

on Nov 16, 2004

My Mistake. RU486 was called the morning after pill at one time. nevertheless, the article stands, and I will delete the reference to the morning after pill. Or modify it.

Lengirl

on Nov 16, 2004

Don't worry about it, I'm always ready to lend a hand

Dr Guy

on Nov 16, 2004

Don't worry about it, I'm always ready to lend a hand

Spoken like a true lady! And thanks for the link to Iamheather's. At first I thought I duplicated her blog, but now I see they are related but different.

shadesofgrey

on Nov 16, 2004

Seems RU486 has now been officially blamed for 3 deaths

In 1998 alone, 24 children died after consuming tylenol--do you suppose we ban that as well?

Since it is a very dangerouis drug, users should have the proper education on exactly what the drug is doing.

Agreed. More extensive education about the potential dangers associated with the medication are certainly in order. It is very tragic that these three women died, and all steps need to be taken to prevent this from happening in the future. But, there will always be risk associated with medication, and banning the medication is not the most effective way to deal with it.

shadesofgrey

on Nov 16, 2004

One more thing:

Ideally, given that abortion is now legal, it should be administered like any procedural abortion

The RU 486 is administered by a doctor and requires several visits to a clinic or doctor's office.

Dr Guy

on Nov 16, 2004

The RU 486 is administered by a doctor and requires several visits to a clinic or doctor's office.

Not quite. it is adminstered by 'health officials' who could be candy stripers for all the definition is worth. And the return visits are a joke. They are suggested, but the dangers are not mentioned, so most never occur.

As for banning tylenol, I beleive there were other factors, other than pregnancy and a pill. But nice try.

Dr Guy

on Nov 16, 2004

If you read what I wrote, I am not advocating banning it. I am advocating putting more restrictions on its administration. There is a big difference. Just like there is a big difference in claiming that PBAs are to safeguard the health of the mother. No self respecting person buys that load of crap! After all, a PBA, you have already given birth!

shadesofgrey

on Nov 16, 2004

As for banning tylenol, I beleive there were other factors

I was simply being over the top to demonstrate the idea that medicines are not always safe and that some tragic consequences occur even with drugs that we consider to be quite acceptable.

shadesofgrey

on Nov 16, 2004

Just like there is a big difference in claiming that PBAs are to safeguard the health of the mother

The problem with legislation written to ban "partial birth" abortions is that it is written so broadly that it encompasses other pre-viability abortion procedures. All abortion bans must, constitutionally, provide for the protection of the health and life of the mother. This is why in Stenberg v. Carhart, the ban on partial birth abortions in Nebraska was declared unconstiutional.

Really? Have you been administered RU 486? Do you know what is said between a woman and her doctor? I disagree with you wholeheartedly if you are implying that medical professionals are trying to mislead women into using RU 486.

I am advocating putting more restrictions on its administration

If your assertion is true (which I don't believe it is) that "health officials" and not doctors are administering the medicine and that follow up visits are not occuring, I think we would be better served to simply enforce the restrictions that we have on the drug rather than create new ones.

Dr Guy

on Nov 16, 2004

I was simply being over the top to demonstrate the idea that medicines are not always safe and that some tragic consequences occur even with drugs that we consider to be quite acceptable.

I accept that (and if I seemed to harsh, then I appologize, I was just being sarcastic). However, in the arguement of abortion, often it comes down to one life over another. In several cases, it cost both. Kind of like....No, that is not a valid analogy.

Anyway, as long as it is legal, then they better put them in the clinic for a few days instead of outpatient. Or the malpractice will do what a thousand bible thumpers cannot. Kind of ironic. Instead of the republicans being canibalistic, seems 2 factions of the democrat party will consume each other.

shadesofgrey

on Nov 16, 2004

and if I seemed to harsh, then I appologize, I was just being sarcastic

no need to apologize...I often come across as much harsher than I intend as well.

Dr Guy

on Nov 16, 2004

I never said mislead. And that is not the case. But lack of oversight? Sure. See my previous rsponse. What no moral majority can do, lawyers will. They are signing their own death warrant.

And by 'enforce', you make it a crime? Sure try it.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!