More reasons why RU-486 is a very bad idea

The pro-abortions are jumping up and down, yelling at Health Canada to approve mifepristone or RU-486. They want Health Canada to hurry up, but I don't see the pro-abortions telling you all of the risks and issues that must be addressed before it's approved.

Important considerations the pro-abortions aren't telling you about:

1) As I've already written, RU-486 is not a good idea for women in remote areas. And the FDA agrees:

 "Doctors must have the ability to date pregnancies accurately and to diagnose tubal pregnancies. Doctors must also be qualified to provide any necessary surgery, or have made arrangements for any necessary surgery. Doctors must ensure that women have access to medical facilities for emergency care...it is important for women to be fully informed about how Mifeprex works and about its risks, as well as the need for follow-up visits with their health care provider, especially on the 14th day after mifepristone is administered."

2) In Ontario when women die from RU-486 and or have serious complications like septic shock, we'll never know that, because, as I've said before, Ontario's cover up of all things relating to abortion. There will be no way to get any information in Ontario on abortion complications from this drug, or from any other forms of abortion either.

3) There is no mechanism in place (like in the US) to give us statistics on women who die from RU-486. The FDA does have a reporting system of "adverse events". So how does Health Canada plan to ensure adverse events are reported and made public in Canada when they don't do this now? Compound that with Ontario's abortion secrecy law, and women could be seriously harmed, even die, and nobody will ever know it was linked to RU-486. How is this in the best interests of women?

4) Read what Renate Klein--who is pro-choice--has to say about RU-486 in "The ethics of disclosure: RU486 and the suppression of facts".

"Together with colleagues, Professor Janice Raymond and Dr Lynette Dumble, I have been researching the RU 486 abortion story since 1988, when what was then called "the French abortion pill" made its debut on the world-stage. As long-term women's health researchers and supporters of safe abortion, we watched in astonishment as many international women's health groups uncritically greeted the arrival of this chemical abortifacient. We wondered why the progesterone antagonist RU 486, a largely untested chemical, was hailed as a new "miracle drug" and the "moral right of women." 

The result of our three-year investigation was the book RU 486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals, published in 1991. We concluded that the "safe-and-effective" mantra that RU 486/PG abortion had acquired was misleading: the adverse effects of the two drugs were unpredictable and dangerous and the research undertaken inadequate. The new "demonising" of suction abortion as "surgical" abortion (conjuring up knives and requiring a general anaesthetic, both wrong) was worrying. We said that the drawn-out and painful process of chemical abortion (our preferred term; but I also use pill abortion or "medical" abortion) was emotionally and physically hard on the women. The abortion process lasts a minimum of three days - when all goes well - but women can bleed up to 6 weeks. Moreover, between 5 and 8% of women need a second abortion when the drugs fail to completely terminate their pregnancy and remaining products of conception need to be removed to prevent an infection. This is a very draining and unpredictable time for women, especially so when compared to the 15-30 minutes a suction abortion takes in the relative safety of a clinical setting. In particular, we worried that because the second drug, the prostaglandin, is taken outside a clinic, the woman's life would be at risk if she was haemorrhaging excessively and needed a blood transfusion but was away from an emergency clinic. 

We concluded that the RU 486/PG abortion had the making of a new wave of DIY backyard abortions which burdened women who had decided they needed an abortion with unnecessary days of agony: haemorrhaging, vomiting, cramping and the well-founded fear of sepsis. We predicted deaths and also wondered why pro-choice activists could not see that this abortion method only benefited pharmaceutical companies and doctors. For the latter, it is much easier to prescribe pills than actually perform an abortion: only die-hard abortionists "like" to do them, while most other doctors perform them out of a sense of duty. We warned that the push for RU 486/PG - especially when it is cheap - could be particularly dangerous for poor and/or Indigenous women. And we were concerned that the uncritical - and endlessly repeated - promotion as "safe, effective and more natural" in a society that has a pill for every ill, would lead to RU 486/PG abortion becoming the preferred abortion method. This would result in clinics offering the much safer and 98 to 99% effective suction abortion folding as they were too expensive compared with the cost of the RU/PG abortion." (emphasis added)

I hope Health Canada doesn't cave to the pro-abortions. I hope Health Canada does not approve this terrible drug.