By MIKE MANNO
RU 486 is an abortion drug. Known as Mifepristone, it kills babies in the womb by blocking the natural effects of progesterone which are required to maintain the uterus lining during pregnancy. As the lining of the uterus deteriorates, the unborn baby will die. Thus, to complete the abortion, between 24 and 48 hours after taking Mifepristone, the woman takes a second pill, Misoprostol, which causes contractions forcing the lining and the dead baby from the woman’s body.
The first pill is usually given in the clinic office sometime through the tenth week of pregnancy; the second is taken at home.
Since this is a chemical abortion, there are numerous possible side-effects for the mother. They include hemorrhaging so severe that a transfusion may be required, pain so great that strong medications are needed, incomplete abortion where the dead baby is not completely expelled, rupture of the uterus, vaginal bleeding, cramping, vomiting, diarrhea, chest pains, palpitations, lower blood pressure, and difficulty breathing, among other effects.
And, according to the FDA, at least 14 women in the United States have died from complications from this abortion method. North of the border, Canadian trials for the drug were suspended after a woman died from septic shock — nine days after taking the drug. Six other women had hemorrhaging so severe they required hospitalization. Health Canada later approved the drug, however.
In 2004 the FDA reported that it had received 676 “adverse event” reports about the procedure including 72 cases in which blood transfusions were needed, and seven serious infections. During the U.S. trials 99 percent of women experienced some ill-effect from taking the drug, including 97 percent who reported abdominal pain and cramps. More than one effect was reported for most patients and 23 percent of them were judged to be severe.
In Iowa, an emergency room physician in Waterloo reported that he had treated a woman who had received the drug two weeks earlier from a Planned Parenthood facility. When the woman arrived, she was in shock and had lost between one-half and two-thirds of her blood. In Des Moines two women who had taken RU 486 during the trials told Time magazine that that their hemorrhaging was like turning a jug of water upside down or like turning a faucet on. “There was a stream of blood. I passed a golf ball-size blood clot,” said one of the women.
During those trials in the U.S., 25 women had either been hospitalized or treated in emergency rooms, and 56 required surgery. The warning label for Misoprostol even carries a warning that the “miscarriages” caused by the drug may be “incomplete, which could lead to dangerous bleeding, hospitalization, surgery, infertility, or maternal or fetal death.”
Now with that record to recommend it, the state of California is considering a bill that would require the health services at the University of California and the California State University systems to provide RU 486 to students wishing to end their pregnancies. In the health centers, a doctor, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant would give the first pill to the student who would then, at the appropriate time, in her apartment or dorm room, take the second pill.
The bill was introduced by a Democratic state senator, Connie Leyva, who along with proponents of the bill, is trying to get it passed by the legislature and to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown before his term expires at the end of the year.
And the reason for this is simple: According to the bill: “Abortion care is a constitutional right and an integral part of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care . . . [and] students seeking early pregnancy termination, especially those enrolled at institutions outside of major urban centers, face prohibitively expensive travel, often without reliable means of transpiration, to a clinic that may require hours of travel from their campus, out of their city, county, or even geographic region.”
Not so fast, says the organization Students for Life of America (SFLA). It all isn’t as simple as that. Each of the campuses in each state university system is within six miles from an abortion clinic, said Jonathan Keller, president of the California Family Council.
In addition, SFLA argues that the chemical abortion procedure that the state is considering foisting on its two university systems is too dangerous and there are too many complications to be administered by campus health centers. They simply do not have the expertise to handle the possible complications that could, without warning, strike a student — many of whom are away from home without a family or a personal physician.
Questions of safety and liability are one of the reasons the universities, normally open to abortion, have taken a neutral stance on the bill, says SFLA. And, of course, SFLA wants to keep it that way and has established a website, https://www.nocampusabortions.com/, to inform the public and urge defeat of the bill.
Safety appears to be a very real concern. Missouri, for example, requires any facility that provides chemical abortions to contract with an OB-GYN to be on call around the clock to personally handle any complications.
If passed, the funding for the additional resources needed by campus health centers, estimated to be around $14 million, will come by way of a private consortium funded by two foundations and private donors, administered by the state treasurer who will be able to hire “appropriate individuals or contract with an external organization or organizations to provide consultation to each public university student health center to establish plans and budgets for implementation of” services and to hire or contract with “external organizations to create and provide appropriate trainings for staff” of each health center.
Planned Parenthood is, of course, an “external organization” and it supports the bill. Perhaps that is why Keller called the bill “a dream for the abortion industry.”
And, needless to say, as we have seen in the past, ideas that start on either coast often tend to migrate throughout the rest of the country. Tina Whittington, SFLA vice president, reports that at least two other states are considering a similar measure and proponents are hoping that it will set a pattern for campus health centers nationwide.
It’s very easy to look at issues that pop up like this as isolated matters. “Oh, that’s Canada . . . or Britain . . . or California . . . but that’s not here.” Well that is easy to say; fact is, just because it is not in your neighborhood doesn’t mean it is, or will continue to be, an isolated matter. These things eventually take on a life of their own, gain support from activists and . . . well, we now have same-sex marriage, and state after state has either adopted physician-assisted suicide legislation or is considering it, and euthanasia is following close behind.
We’re living in a world where every passing fancy becomes a political cause for somebody, and when abortion, homosexual rights, and a vast array of left-wing ideas combine with money — especially public money — it’s anybody’s guess where it will end.
SFLA needs our support. Check out their website and see if there isn’t something you can do to help them — prayer is a good starting point.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress