Planned Parenthood clinics responsible for 4 maternal RU486 deaths

CNN.com - Two more women die after taking 'abortion pill' - Mar 20, 2006

CNN reports on the two further deaths of women who made the decision to opt for RU486 instead of surgical abortion. The drugs relating to RU486 had been administered in Planned Parenthood clinics through the off label method of vaginally inserting the misoprostone (the second part of the abortion).

It is becoming increasingly clear that Planned Parenthood is behind the reluctance of the FDA to take the abortion drug RU486 off the market despite the fact that there has been an further increase in the number of reported events from its use. These events now include at least 4 maternal deaths in California alone where Planned Parenthood had advised inserting the anti-prostaglandin vaginally. It appears that this method had increased the risk of infection and blood sepsis in women who had been administered with this abortifacient.

It makes no sense that the FDA has remained blind to the dangers of RU486 whilst it continues to crack down on the use of other medications that have also had increased risks of death due to off label uses. Instead of making the decision to pull RU486 pending an extensive investigation into the reported events including the latest deaths, the body has stated that the number of deaths is consistent with other forms of abortion and risks of giving birth.

It is my view the reaction from the FDA is not good enough. Even if Planned Parenthood state that they will no longer recommend the off-label use of misoprostone, there is no guarantee that there will be no further deaths and reported adverse events. There needs to be a tougher stance over the use of RU486. It has a very poor record but that record is being suppressed by the promoters of this particular regimen. It is definitely not safer than having an abortion via the suction method. A curette during the very early stages of a pregnancy is a far safer alternative than turning to RU486. The FDA needs to think twice about the risks and benefits. Do the benefits, if there are any, outweigh the risks of taking RU486?

What I do not understand is why a certain group of feminists continue to advocate a method of abortion that is in fact far more excruciating to the woman than a surgical abortion that is over and done with on the same day. When RU486 is administered the woman can end up in agony for anything up to 9 days after the administration of the two lots of drugs. On top of this is the very real and increased risk of secondary infection, expecially the insidious infection that has claimed anywhere up to 10 lives.

The administration of RU486 remains risky when clinics such as Planned Parenthood have not introduced sufficient procedures to assure that there are no further deaths from ectopic pregnancies, or because the women are either too young for its use, or that they are over the age of 35 and therefore too old to be using that form of abortion.

Once again the report mentions nothing about these increased risks to women that come from the use of chemicals to induce abortion.

Women need to stop and think before going ahead with something that is such a danger to their health. They need to be made aware of all of the facts. They also need to be aware that in the case of RU486 the rush to bring it onto the market meant that there was a compromise in the time taken for related trials, not just on women but also on laboratory animals.

Are the risks of ending up with an infection that causes so much pain and possible death worth it? Surely it would be far better to give birth to a live infant than face such pain and agaony that come come from something as risky as RU486.