This article was published with permission from Culture of Life Foundation. To view the original publication, see their website.

By Jessica Sage
AUL Staff Counsel

Brenda Vise, a 38-year old pharmaceutical representative, died on September 12, 2001.  Holly Patterson, an 18-year old student, died on September 17, 2003.  Chanelle Bryant, 22-years old, died on January 14, 2004.  Vivian Tran, also 22 years old, died on December 29, 2003.  Orianne Shevin, a 34-year old attorney and mother of two, died on June 14, 2005.

What do these women have in common?  They all took RU-486, the so-called “abortion pill,” and died—most from a C. Sordelli infection and one from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy.  RU-486—a drug that its proponents claim is a “safe” and “easy” method of abortion—has killed at least 29 women worldwide including at least 8 American women.

This month marks the 21st anniversary of French approval of the controversial abortion drug.  Initially, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considered RU-486 dangerous and banned the importation of the drug.  However, later in 1993, following the wishes of then-President Bill Clinton, the FDA lifted the import ban and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) brokered a deal for the drug manufacturer, Roussel-Uclaf, to gratuitously donate the rights to distribute RU-486 in the U.S. to the Population Council, an organization whose mission is to research, develop and introduce birth control methods (including abortion) to control populations—“especially [for] disadvantage populations.”

Since the Population Council is a research and policy organization, not a drug company, it founded Danco Laboratories for the sole purpose of marketing and distributing RU-486 in the U.S.  Unable to find a U.S. company willing to manufacture the drug, Danco Laboratories turned to China—a nation known for coerced abortions—and a manufacturer formerly cited by the FDA for tainted drugs.

In September 2000—during the final days of the Clinton Administration—the FDA approved RU-486, or Mifeprex (generic name: mifepristone), under its accelerated approval regulations designed to expedite drug approvals for HIV patients.  Suddenly, the FDA deemed that the benefits of RU-486 outweighed the risks and required that it receive expedited approval.  In other words, the FDA succumbed to intense political pressure from the Population Council and abortion advocates to approve the drug.

On its website and in its literature, Danco Laboratories advertises RU-486 as a “safe” and “easy” abortion option.  However, the U.S. trials and subsequent market use are to the contrary.  It is neither safe nor easy. 

A RU-486 or chemical abortion is, in reality, a long, messy, and dangerous process.  RU-486 is a synthetic steroid that requires two drugs and three doctor visits to abort an unborn child at 7 weeks of gestation or less.  During the first visit, the woman takes three pills (Mifeprex) to chemically destroy the unborn child’s environment, deprive him/her of nourishment and subsequently starve the child to death.  During the second visit, if the woman is still pregnant she is given a prostaglandin (misoprostol), which causes cramping to expel the child in something similar to a very heavy and painful (and, at times, deadly) menstruation cycle.  The third office visit (14 days later) confirms the woman is well and the abortion complete.  If the RU-486 abortion is unsuccessful, the women must consider the possibility of birth defects and typically then undergoes a surgical abortion.

The Population Council—with vested interest in the success of RU-486—conducted and reported on the results of the U.S. clinical trials.  Despite the highly-controlled trials conducted from September 1994 to September 1995, the results reported in the New England Journal of Medicine remained alarming.  They revealed how RU-486 creates significant risks of life-threatening complications for the healthiest of women.

The study cited excessive bleeding as the most serious risk.  Excessive bleeding left 4 women needing blood transfusions, 25 women requiring hospitalization (including emergency-room visits), 56 women with “surgical interventions,” and 22 women needing intravenous fluids.  To the logical observer, these “adverse events” would equate to “medical emergencies,” but the Population Council dismissed these life-threatening complications as normal and expected with a chemical abortion.

The studies also indicated that women suffered from abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.  Abdominal pain, referred to as “cramps,” was so significant that 68% of women received at least one pain medication and 29% received opiates.  One woman was hospitalized for the intense pain and actually needed two “surgical interventions.”

Further, the study results also confirmed that a chemical abortion “procedure” must begin within 49 days of conception, otherwise the baby’s size and development are too advanced and complications are admittedly too severe and dangerous.

Inexplicably, the report paid little attention to the other adverse events women reported including headache (32%); dizziness (12%); back pain (9%); fatigue (9%); fever (4%); vaginitis (4%); viral infections (4%); rigors (3%); dyspepsia (3% ); and asthenia, leg pain, anxiety, insomnia, anemia, syncope, leukorrhea, and sinusitis (2% each).  And if that is not enough, endometritis occurred in 19 women.  These are not just percentages and not simply insignificant statistics, but real women experiencing real complications (some requiring timely life-saving measures) after taking RU-486.

The Population Council acknowledged that the study showed that RU-486 had a low success rate and attempted to rationalize the discrepancy as merely “a lack of experience with [chemical] abortion in the United States as well as the design of [the] study.”  If this is true, then how much lower would the success rate and higher the complication rate be once approved by the FDA and introduced to the uncontrolled and unmonitored marketplace?  Unfortunately, U.S. women are finding out first-hand.

Since its September 2000 FDA approval, RU-486 has caused at least 8 deaths, 9 life-threatening incidents, 116 blood transfusions, and 232 hospitalizations for more than 1,100 women in the U.S. who experienced significant medical complications.  These numbers are only the incidents reported to and by the FDA and are likely an inadequate reflection of actual incidences.

The futile efforts by the FDA to make an unsafe drug acceptably safe by detailing certain limitations on who can prescribe the drug and the protocols to be followed are obviously insufficient.  On November 15, 2004, the FDA issued “important new safety changes” to the labeling of RU-486.  The FDA and drug manufacturer Danco Laboratories had received reports of serious bacterial infection, bleeding, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, and death.  The FDA’s response:  Change the black box labeling and nothing more.  The new label warns health care professionals and consumers about the “risk of serious bacterial infection, bleeding, sepsis, and death,” but does nothing to protect women from these risks actually occurring.

If past care is indicative of future care by abortion providers, none of these warnings will protect women.  Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers have notoriously failed to adhere to the labeling instructions or given appropriate medical attention to women who notify them of these dangerous complications after taking RU-486.  Since its approval, RU-486’s promoters have ignored the minimal FDA guidelines by recommending lower dosages, suggesting clinics drop follow-on visits to allow patients to self administer at home, promoting vaginal versus oral administration, and extending the usage deadline past the seven weeks prescribed by the FDA—all harming women who are entrusting their lives to these “reproductive care” providers. 

States can and must act to regulate and – in the case of minors – limit the use of RU-486.  Current FDA guidelines do nothing to restrict minors from obtaining RU-486 or restrict physicians from implementing the drug in “off-label” uses.  It does require the drug to be provided by or under the supervision of a physician who meets certain qualifications—but most abortion providers meet these requirements and have clearly shown their willingness to prescribe RU-486 in “off-label” and life-threatening ways.

In 2004, the Ohio General Assembly enacted a law requiring abortion providers to comply with the FDA-approval letter and the uses, dosages, and administration protocols contained in the drug label.  In July 2009 —after five years of legal battles with Planned Parenthood—the Ohio Supreme Court answered that the plain language of the law mandates that abortion providers follow the instructions contained in the medication guide and drug labeling when administering or prescribing RU-486.  Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit removed an injunction against the law’s enforcement and remanded the case to the district court.  In light of the dangers associated with RU-486 and its American track record, it is astounding that Planned Parenthood would even argue that it need not follow the approved and “safe” method of administrating RU-486.

States can and should further protect women from RU-486 by imposing administrative regulations on its administration by requiring that abortion providers follow the FDA-approved drug labeling.  Second, to prevent “satellite” prescriptions, states could consider physician-only limits on RU-486 explicitly requiring physicians to be physically present at the abortion facility when they prescribe and administer the drug and clearly prohibiting the delegation of actual administration duties to nurses, physician assistants, or others.  It would also be prudent to require the facilities to be able to provide or be proximate to emergency care and to mandate ultrasounds before prescribing RU-486 to accurately determine the gestational age of the unborn child and to rule out ectopic pregnancy.

Another necessary consideration is for states to review existing—and enact, if nonexistent—parental involvement laws requiring abortion providers to involve parents when a minor girl seeks a RU-486 or other chemical abortion.

Despite the real and evidenced dangers of RU-486, the FDA, the drug manufacturer, and prescribing abortion providers continue to believe the “adverse effects” are not statistically significant.  They continue to profess its safety and ease as more and more women are sacrificed at the altar of “reproductive choice.”  At what point will the harm to women be significant enough for the FDA to pull this deadly drug from the market?  The answer is unclear.  In the meantime, it is imperative to regulate and, when appropriate, restrict the use of RU-486 to protect women and to limit the “collateral damage” abortion advocates are clearly willing to accept.

Pro-life forces won an important battle yesterday when the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that abortion providers, under a state law regulating the administration of RU-486, must strictly comply with the FDA-approved protocol for the dangerous abortion drug.

The ruling came in Rogers v. Planned Parenthood, a challenge by Planned Parenthood to a 2004 state law requiring that those administering RU-486 comply with the FDA-approved treatment protocol for the “abortion pill” and, consistent with the drug’s safety and efficacy data, restrict its use to pregnancies at or under 49 days gestation. In short, the law simply requires abortionists to abide by the rules approved by the FDA when it first made RU-486 available in the United States in September 2000.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said, “We applaud the Ohio Supreme Court for cutting through Planned Parenthood’s self-serving rhetoric that it did not need to follow the protocol tested and approved by the FDA when administering RU-486. For far too long, Planned Parenthood and its enablers have thought themselves above the law. Today the Ohio Supreme Court put a decisive end to that.”

Americans United for Life (AUL) filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of several U.S. Representatives supporting the State and the law. AUL’s amicus brief, filed on behalf of House Minority Leader John Boehner (OhioH) and nine U.S. Representatives — Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Dan Burton (Ind.), Steve Chabot (Ohio), Trent Franks (Ariz.Z), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Robert E. Latta (Ohio), Joseph R. Pitts (Pa.), Jean Schmidt (Ohio), and Chris Smith (N.J.) — is available on our Web site.

AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith said, “The fact that Planned Parenthood readily admits to routinely disregarding the FDA-approved protocol and actually argued it was entitled to dispense RU-486 in an untested and dangerous manner is appalling. It is further confirmation that Planned Parenthood is not the protector of women’s health and welfare it holds itself out to be.”

Planned Parenthood argued the law was unconstitutional and that its requirements were unclear. The state of Ohio and AUL argued that the Ohio law is definitive in its requirement that abortionists can use the RU-486 drug regimen only in the way in which it was tested and approved by the FDA, as is clearly laid out in the manufacturer’s label that accompanies the drug.

The case will now return to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for a decision of whether the statute, as interpreted by the Ohio Supreme Court, is constitutional.

Americans United for Life board member Dr. Donna Harrison, diplomat for the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and president of the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, writes in a new article about the difficulties in getting global data from the World Health Organization (WHO) on how many mothers die from abortion.

One of the main obstacles to getting good abortion data, Harrison writes, is “the use of the terms ’safe’ and ‘unsafe,’ which are not scientific terms but more legal and political, because they are directed to changing the law.”

In a 2007 article co-sponsored by WHO, for example, unsafe abortion is defined as “abortions in countries with restrictive abortion laws”. That means that any abortion in such a country, no matter how medically superior the conditions, would be counted as “unsafe”.

This can produce some unintended and even amusing consequences. In 2007 I attended the UN-sponsored Women Deliver conference in London, which was dedicated to advancing maternal health. During the presentation of a paper estimating the worldwide number of “unsafe” abortions, a Marie Stopes International representative from a clinic performing abortions in a country where it is illegal rose in indignation and said, “By your definitions, are you saying that all the abortions performed in my clinic are unsafe?” The presenters did not answer her question. [Read the full article.]

Under WHO’s vague reporting rules, maternal deaths from abortion are typically listed within a wide category that can include deaths from “spontaneous abortion” — miscarriages — as well as induced abortion. One result is that researchers are unable to ascertain the number of deaths from abortions involving the abortion drug misoprostol, or RU-486, as Harrison explains:

Mifepristone and misoprostol abortions in the United States have been linked with severe adverse events, and women could easily die from infections and haemorrhage in areas where they do not have immediate access to transfusion and surgical facilities. Thus, introducing chemical abortions, whether with mifepristone and misoprostol, or with misoprostol alone, in medically underserved areas will mean that these severe adverse events will become maternal deaths.

AUL has long worked to educate the American public and lawmakers about the dangers of RU-486. As Staff Counsel Mailee Smith noted in Defending Life 2009,

RU-486 was actually approved through the FDA’s “Accelerated Approval Regulations.” These regulations were designed for drugs “that have been studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments.” Yet, as demonstrated above, RU-486 was not adequately tested for its safety and effectiveness and it does not provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over the surgical abortions already available. In addition, pregnancy is not a serious or life-threatening illness. RU-486 should not have been approved under this accelerated procedure. [Read the full article.]

Although Dr. Harrison focuses on the lack of adequate global data on maternal deaths from abortion, similar problems exist in the United States. An article in AUL’s Defending Life 2009 outlines the many obstacles to getting the numbers:

[U.S. Centers for Disease Control] abortion statistics are inaccurate, in part, because of non-reporting. For example, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New Jersey do not have abortion reporting laws, and the abortion reporting law in California is permanently enjoined from enforcement by court order. Thus, there is no real way for the CDC or any other health agency to accurately track the number of abortions performed in these states, or record the types, severity, and frequency of complications that result from those abortions. As a result, all nationwide abortion data and statistics are not truly representative of the nation as a whole. [Read the full article.]

This fall, AUL plans to introduce model legislation on reporting abortion complications. To stay abreast of AUL’s work to promote pro-life legislation on the state level, sign up for AUL Action Alerts.

Washington, DC – Today, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York unilaterally determined in Tummino v. Torti that 17 year old girls should have unrestricted, over-the-counter access to Plan B or so-called “emergency contraception.”  In doing so, the court overruled a previous decision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requiring that minors first obtain a valid prescription for the potentially dangerous drug.

The Obama Administration is widely expected to welcome the ruling and not pursue a meaningful appeal in the case.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life said, “Given legitimate concerns about the safety of self-medicating with Plan B, it is incomprehensible that we would allow a minor to walk into any pharmacy and obtain this drug without medical oversight or parental involvement.”

The court ordered the FDA to make Plan B available to 17 year olds under the same conditions that it is currently available to adult women, and to do so by April 21, 2009.  The court’s ruling, which accepted as fact the arguments made by abortion industry attorneys, will not permit the FDA to undertake another internal review of the drug’s safety record or to receive evidence on the increased need to protect minors from dangerous medications and even sexual abuse.

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs said, “Increasingly easy access to Plan B may have severe and unintended consequences such as the continued exploitation and sexual abuse of young girls.”  Continued Burke, “It is all too easy for this unsafe drug to be used by sexual predators and even the victims themselves to hide the abuse from parents and the authorities.”

For more on the safety concerns surrounding Plan B, see “The Deadly Convenience Of RU-486 and Plan B” in AUL’s annual legal guide Defending Life 2009.

On January 6, Senator Harry Reid introduced the Prevention First Act (S. 21) (“the Act”), which disingenuously claims to be aimed at reducing unintended pregnancies and abortion.  What it in reality does is provide continued (and elevated) funding to family planning programs that provide and counsel in favor of abortion, mandates health coverage of contraception, miseducates the public on emergency contraception, and forces religiously-based hospitals to provide emergency contraception.  It also contains a number of inaccuracies.

First, the Act provides elevated funding for family planning services and “teen pregnancy prevention programs” that counsel in favor of abortion.  The Act does not exclude abortion providers or other entities that counsel in favor of abortion from receiving funds.  Thus, entities like Planned Parenthood (which gains incredible profits every year from the provision of abortions) will be eligible for these increased funds.  And not only can such entities receive the funds, but there is nothing in the text of the Act itself that prohibits the use of the funds for the referral or counseling in favor of abortion.  This failure to exclude abortion providers demonstrates that the Act is not truly aimed at reducing abortion.

Thus, this Act diverges from the views of the majority of Americans who want to see abortions decrease.  It is an irresponsible use of federal money in this economic crisis.

Second, the Act mandates health coverage of contraception.  Group health plans and health insurers that provide coverage in connection with a group health plan may not exclude prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, or outpatient contraceptive services if the plan covers other drugs and services.  Similarly, such plans must cover experimental contraception if other types of experimental drugs are covered.  The Act would preempt any state laws that limit the coverage of contraception.

What is most troubling about this section is its failure to exclude religiously-affiliated entities or institutions from this contraceptive mandate.  Thus, if a church provides a group health plan for its employees, that health plan must cover contraception if it covers other drugs.  There is no room for conscientious objection, and churches will be forced to choose between violating their religious beliefs or refraining from offering heath coverage at all.  Again, for a nation already facing a healthcare crisis, this kind of federal ultimatum is either irresponsible, at best, or demonstrates a maliciousness toward religiously-affiliated entities, at worst.

Third, the Act advocates the use of emergency contraception (“EC”), ignoring the risks involved in using EC as well as blatantly misrepresenting how EC works.  For example, in a section delineating Congressional findings, the Act states that EC is a safe and effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy, and that research confirms that easier access to EC does not increase sexual risk-taking or sexually transmitted diseases (“STDs”).  However, EC is inherently unsafe in that its current over-the-counter access makes EC available to a larger population of women than any trial has tested upon.  Moreover, if the hormones in regular birth control pills render such drugs unsafe for non-prescription status, the higher amounts found in EC cannot be safe, either.  In addition, EC is only 75-89 percent effective—in other words, it is ineffective in 11 to 25 percent of cases.

The claim regarding sexual risk-taking and the transmission of STDs is also untrue.  As we report in Defending Life:

Studies reveal that emergency contraception does not reduce pregnancy and abortion rates.  In one study, abortion rates increased by nearly 6,000 in a one-year period, jumping 3.2 percent.  Once EC became available without prescription in the United Kingdom, use among teenage girls doubled from 1 in 12 to 1 in 5.  In fact, one study reported that 4 out of 12 women were influenced to have unprotected sex because of the easy access to EC.  With the increased rate of sexual activity and the substantial failure rate of EC, the over-the-counter availability of Plan B cannot be expected to reduce the number of pregnancies or abortions.  Furthermore, in those areas with easy access to EC, the number of sexually transmitted diseases has skyrocketed.

See The Deadly Convenience of RU-486 and Plan B, available at http://www.aul.org/Deadly_Convenience (including references to the sources cited). 

The Act also completely misleads as to the way in which EC works, stating that EC “prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation, fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a uterus.”  What the Act purposely avoids stating is that it is not an egg that is prevented from implanting—it is a fertilized egg.  In other words, conception has occurred, and a new human being has been formed.  Scientifically speaking, it cannot be disputed that a new human organism, with its own genetic information, has been formed.  Even the drug manufacturer’s label states that a fertilized egg is prevented from implanting.

Moreover, the Act provides for the dissemination of information to the public and healthcare providers that EC is safe and effective—and it does not require the dissemination of information on the risks of EC.  As already demonstrated above, this information is misleading and puts women’s health and lives at risk.  Ironically, another section of the Act requires that any information about contraception be “medically accurate.”  But nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to the Act’s own discussion of EC. 

The Act also requires the information to include “a recommendation regarding the use of such contraception in appropriate cases”—placing the federal government in a position where it is actually advocating the use of EC.

Finally, the Act states that no federal funds will be provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides oral and written information about EC, offers EC, and provides EC to sexual assault victims.  There is no exemption within the Act itself for religiously-affiliated hospitals that conscientiously object to the provision of EC.  Thus, this provision also further exacerbates the ongoing healthcare crisis by forcing religiously-affiliated hospitals to choose between violating their moral beliefs or accepting federal funding.

If a hospital chooses to accept federal funding, it must inform women that “emergency contraception does not cause an abortion.”   But this runs contrary to the ongoing debate within the medical community, and also ignores the fact that the drug manufacturer itself confirms that EC prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg (i.e., after conception has occurred).  It also runs contrary to the religious and ethical beliefs of numerous individuals and healthcare providers that life begins at conception—and thus that preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg is in fact an abortion.  It may represent the misinformed ideology of Senator Reid and his co-sponsors—such as Senator Boxer—but it certainly does not represent the beliefs of a vast number of women and healthcare providers across the nation.  Women and healthcare providers who will be purposely misled by the government if the Act is passed.

And again, the information provided to women must explain that EC is effective in most cases—ignoring the fact that it is ineffective in 11 to 25 percent of cases, and failing to inform women of the risks of EC.

Conclusion

What is clear from the face of this Act is that it is not at all about the reduction of abortion, but the funding of abortion providers and the purposeful miseducation of the American public.  It is bad for women—and well as for the healthcare industry and the economy.

In a blind and ideologically-driven quest to impose abortion-on-demand on a reluctant nation, the Supreme Court of Mexico blatantly ignored the country’s Constitution when it recently upheld a law permitting abortion-on-demand during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. The Mexican Constitution clearly states that human life must be defended “from conception until its natural end”, but the Supreme Court succumbed to pressures from international pro-abortion groups including the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood who have been aggressively pushing for abortion-on-demand in Mexico and other Latin American countries.

As a result, since April 2007, abortion is now permitted without restriction during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy in the Federal District (Mexico City) and the pressure for other Mexican states to follow suit is increasing. Two other Mexican states, Morelos and Yucatan, currently restrict abortions to cases of life endangerment, rape, or birth defects in the unborn child.

To read the entire article, please visit our website at http://aul.org/InternationalPressur

Advocates for Plan B, or the “morning after pill,” have consistently argued that increased availability of Plan B would decrease the number of unplanned pregnancies and thereby result in a drastic reduction in abortion rates. Abortion rights advocates have claimed that Plan B –- not incremental protective laws like informed consent statutes, parental involvement requirements, and basic health and safety regulations for abortion clinics –- would significantly reduce abortions. This argument was relied on to make Plan B available over-the-counter and without a prescription, both in America and abroad.

The promises of abortion advocates have proven to be empty, and their conclusions have been shown to be utterly false and misleading. The latest statistics demonstrate that greater accessibility to Plan B has lead to an increase in abortions. In addition, the most recent scientific study on Plan B shows that its effectiveness rate is actually much lower than the rates utilized by abortion advocates in their campaigns to increase availability to Plan B.

Sweden
Plan B became available over the counter in Sweden seven years ago. However, the abortion rate did not decline in Sweden; rather, statistics show that from 2000 to 2007, the abortion rate in Sweden increased by 17 percent.

In Sweden’s capital city, Stockholm, sales for Plan B have tripled since 2000. Despite this dramatic increase in sales, the abortion rate in Stockholm has risen significantly. In just a single year, from 2006-2007, the abortion rate in Stockholm rose by 6.9 percent.

Similarly, nationwide sales of Plan B in Sweden have doubled since 2000. Yet, the abortion rate has since skyrocketed by 17%, going from 30,980 abortions in 2000 to 37,205 abortions in 2007.

Scotland
In the face of Plan B supporters’ thriving campaign to promote over-the-counter access to Plan B in Scotland, abortion rates in Scotland have been steadily increasing. This May, the British National Health Service (NHS) announced that the 2007 abortion rate in Scotland has reached its historical height since abortion was first legalized in Great Britain in 1967.

NHS reports show 12, 603 Scottish abortions in 2005. In 2006, the Scottish abortion rate increased by about 3.8%, with a total of 13,081. It hasn’t gotten any better. The NHS reported that in 2007, the Scottish abortion rate rose once again, this time by 4%, with a total of 13,703 Scottish abortions.

Increase in Repeat Abortions
Recent statistics demonstrate that Plan B has resulted in a sharp rise in the number of women having repeat abortions. Persuaded by Plan B campaign jargon that the morning after pill is effective, will result in fewer unplanned pregnancies, and will make abortions rare, women have increased their use of Plan B, only to find themselves pregnant and in need of an abortion once again. The NHS released new data showing 26.3% of Scottish women who had abortions in 2007 had at least one prior abortion.

It is clear that Plan B advocates’ claims that the pill would decrease abortions has misled women and resulted in more unplanned pregnancies and abortions, including repeat abortions.

New Data on Plan B’s Effectiveness Rate
Abortion advocates consistently advertise Barr Laboratories’ finding that Plan B has an 89% effectiveness rate. However, a more recent, more detailed study reveals that Plan B actually has only a 72% effectiveness rate.

Associate professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Dr. Joseph Stanford, reported that he and his research team “did more a precise meta-analysis that shows it’s effective only 72 percent of the time, and even that number is optimistic” (emphasis added) This is not surprising, as Dr. Stanford noted, studies from Europe, the United States and China show that Plan B does not in fact reduce abortions as its advocates claim.

The Need for Incremental Protections
Clear evidence has proven that over-the-counter access to Plan B increases unplanned pregnancies and abortions. Abortion advocates claims have been shown to be false and misleading. It is apparent, now more than ever, that enactment of incremental protective laws – such as informed consent statutes, parental involvement laws, and basic health and safety regulations for abortion clinics – is the only real way to decrease abortion rates. Such laws have been proven, time and time again, to reduce abortion rates nationally and abroad. Making abortion rare is in our grasp, and Plan B is not the way to get there.

For more information on recent Plan B statistics and data, see http://lifenews.com/int891.html.

For the last several years, the State of Ohio has been in litigation defending its law requiring that physicians prescribing RU-486 abide by the FDA’s protocol when dispensing the drug.  On June 23, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law should be evaluated by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Passed in 2004, the law was aimed at the abortion industry’s common failure to abide by the FDA’s protocol in prescribing the RU-486 drug regimen.  According to the regimen approved by the FDA, a woman first takes three RU-486 tablets at a doctor’s office or abortion clinic.  The woman is to return 36 to 48 hours later to take a second drug, misoprostol (a prostaglandin), which causes the woman to expel the baby.  The woman returns for a third visit three weeks later for an exam to monitor bleeding and confirm the abortion.

However, abortionists are commonly misusing RU-486, directing women to take the second dose vaginally and at home—rather than orally and in an office or clinic—and completely bypassing any follow-up appointments.  Misuse of RU-486 has devastating effects.  At least eight women have already died in the United States alone.

Ohio’s law states that abortionists must follow the federal protocol in prescribing and dispensing RU-486.  Planned Parenthood filed suit claiming that it does not understand what is meant by “federal protocol.”

AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of physician members of the United States Congress, arguing that the law is not vague and educating the court on the dangerous effects of RU-486.  That brief can be viewed here. 

Last night, House leaders abruptly pulled HR 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, from the floor over a Motion to Recommit that would have required that any facility covered under the bill have a policy in place to require parental consent before distributing any prescription medication, including contraception and Plan B.

However, instead of allowing a vote on this issue, Democratic leadership invoked a procedural rule to suspend consideration of the bill.

By blocking a vote, House leadership is killing an effort to involve parents whose children are in residential treatment programs in their child’s important medical decisions – especially on the distibution of drugs that can cause abortions.

At least 14 women have now died—including 8 in the United States—after using the abortion drug RU-486.  A new study by University of Michigan scientists reveals that improper use of the drug regimen—as pushed by Planned Parenthood—is killing women.

When the FDA approved RU-486, it directed that the drug be taken according to a certain regimen.  Specifically, a woman first takes three RU-486 tablets at a doctor’s office or abortion clinic.  This initial ingestion blocks progesterone from getting to the baby, and the baby starves to death.  Under the regimen approved by the FDA, the woman is to return 36 to 48 hours later to take a second drug, misoprostol (a prostaglandin), which causes the woman to expel the baby.  The woman is supposed to return for a third visit three weeks later for an exam to confirm that the baby has been completely expelled, and to monitor bleeding.

However, abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, routinely fail to follow this specific regimen.  Instead of instructing women to take the second dose (misoprostol) orally, they are instructing women to take it vaginally.  And instead of requiring women to take the second dose in a doctor’s office or clinic, they are releasing women to take the drug on their own, at home, without any medical support.  Thus, there is no follow-up care for the woman after the initial visit.

When four women died in one week after a California Planned Parenthood facility provided RU-486 to the women, the scientists began investigating the cause of those deaths.  They found that vaginal use of misoprostol allows bacteria to cause fatal infections.

That specific Planned Parenthood facility has begun instructing women to take the second dose orally, but it still has not revised its policy that allows women to take the second dose at home.

This new study adds to the evidence demonstrating that Planned Parenthood is killing the very women it claims to protect.

The Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association (AMA) is asking its membership to adopt a policy that supports eviscerating the freedom of conscience of pharmacists. Specifically, the following recommendation will be considered at next week’s AMA meeting:

A pharmacist’s deliberate refusal to dispense a drug on religious, moral, or ethical grounds, i.e., pharmacist conscientious objection, has been most often associated with Plan B, the emergency contraceptive, and has received considerable attention in both the lay media and in medical journal commentaries. Of all of the reasons why a pharmacist might not dispense a legally valid prescription, conscientious objection is the only one that places a pharmacist’s personal views in potential conflict with the best interests of the patient. As discussed in current AMA Policy H-120.947, our AMA supports responsibility to the patient as paramount in all situations. Thus, our AMA supports legislation that would require individual pharmacists and pharmacy chains to fill legally valid prescriptions or to provide immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference.”

The Board of Trustees recommends that the following be adopted and the remainder of this report be filed: That our American Medical Association reaffirm Policy H-120.947, ‘Preserving Patients’ Ability to Have Legally Valid Prescriptions Filled.’ (Reaffirm HOD Policy).

This is just the latest in a well-orchestrated series of attacks on the freedom of conscience of medical professionals. Such attacks have become commonplace over the past few years (emanating from the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, federal and state courts, and governors’ mansions) and are most frequently encouraged by abortion advocates and their allies. However, this may be the most hypocritical. While purportedly supporting freedom of conscience protections for physicians, the AMA is arguing that similar protections should be denied pharmacists.

For more information on freedom of conscience for pharmacists, see The Tip of the Spear: Protecting Pharmacists’ Rights of Conscience

For more information on healthcare freedom of conscience (generally), see A Primer on Protecting Healthcare Rights of Conscience

In the last several years, the “usual suspects” in the pro-abortion movement have been infesting other nations with their pro-choice rhetoric.  One need only peruse the first page of the Center for Reproductive Rights’ website to see headlines such as “Center for Reproductive Rights Denounces Chilean Constitutional Tribunal’s Decision to Ban Distribution of ‘Morning-After Pill’ in Public Facilities” and “Filipino Women and Men Sue Manila Mayor for Ban on Contraception.”   It is clear that the battle lines are now being drawn in countries far from our U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.  Thus, it is becoming all the more important for the pro-life movement to shift to a more global focus, and support our pro-life brothers and sisters in other nations as they wage a war which has been litigated in this country for 35 years.  We have much to offer from our wins and our losses.

To read the entire article click here

AUL’s Oklahoma State Network Affiliate, Maressa Treat sends the following message about activity in her state.

Last night Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry vetoed SB 1878, an omnibus pro-life bill, but today pro-life legislators came together and overrode the veto!

The Oklahoma State Senate voted at 11:00 am to override Governor Henry’s veto, 37-11. And thirty minutes later the Oklahoma House voted 81-15 to override.

Thanks to many prayers and our pro-life legislators working fast to defend the sanctity of life, SB 1878 has become law.

For more on the history and content of SB 1878 see Pro-Life Legislation Passes Oklahoma Senate

Maressa Treat, AUL’s liaison in Oklahoma, has worked with a coalition of pro-life groups and individuals to pass Senate Bill 1878, a sweeping piece of pro-life legislation. The bill now awaits the Governor Brad Henry’s signature.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Oklahoma State Senate
Senator Todd Lamb, R-Edmond

Pro-Life Legislation Passes Senate

State Capitol, Oklahoma City – An omnibus pro-life bill passed the Oklahoma State Senate Wednesday with a bipartisan vote.

Senate Bill 1878 by Senator Todd Lamb, R-Edmond, and Representative Pam Peterson, R-Tulsa, contains several pro-life initiatives, passing the Senate with a vote of 38-10.

By combining various pieces of legislation from Senator Lamb and members of the House of Representatives, Senate Bill 1878 now does the following:

• creates the Freedom of Conscience Act which protects the rights of healthcare providers to refuse to take part in the destruction of human life (SB 1878—Sen. Lamb, Rep. Peterson);
• regulates the use of the dangerous chemical pill RU-486, used when the unborn child is about two months old (HB 2181—Rep. McNiel);
• ensures the mother’s consent to abort is truly voluntary, and protects against coerced abortions (HB 3059—Sen. Williamson, Rep. Hamilton);
• provides a woman with an ultrasound of her unborn child which she can view prior to undergoing the abortion (HB 3144—Sen. Lamb, Rep. Billy);
• cultivates respect for disabled children by banning the wrongful-life lawsuits that claim a baby would have been better off aborted (HB 2814—Sen. Crain, Rep. Sullivan).

“The provisions spelled out in this legislation are critical pro-life advances,” said Senator Lamb. “Working with pro-life members of the House and Senate to protect the sanctity of life and develop this comprehensive bill has been an honor. I am encouraged by the bipartisan support to protect innocent life today in the Senate.”

The next stop for Senate Bill 1878 will be the Governor’s desk for his signature.

Government infringement into the operations of Catholic hospitals is not new. In both California and New York, long court battles have been fought seeking to exempt Catholic Hospitals from provisions requiring the dispensing of emergency contraception.

But legislators in Colorado are taking things even farther, and the very existence of Catholic Hospitals operating under Catholic principles is in real danger.

It all began when Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System sought to buy out a stake in Exempla, Inc.—which owns two hospitals in the Denver area. Things progressed smoothly for months, and the deal was expected to be finished before the end of 2007.

However, in November of 2007, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a position paper setting a new standard for pro-choice activists to demand. When the Catholic Archbishop, Charles Chaput, made clear that abortions and sterilizations will not be done at the newly acquired hospitals, he—and the deal—became targets of the pro-choice movement.

In addition to two different court cases that have been filed seeking to prevent the deal (one filed by the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, the other by the Exempla Hospital system), Kaiser Permanente issued a release that it may take its business away if the deal goes through.

If those attacks were not enough, the legislature is now involved. Three different bills seriously endanger the operation of Catholic hospitals in the state of Colorado.

One, HB 1173, will allow courts and the Attorney General to decide how a Catholic hospital uses its money. This bill has already passed in the House and is only one step away from passage.

Another bill, HB 1203, will prevent the sale if passed. It has already passed in the House.

A third bill, SB 182, will require a hospital to obtain the state’s consent before discontinuing any “essential health service,” which includes abortion. Thus, if a Catholic hospital ceases the provision of abortions, it could lose its license to operate.

The message of these state legislators is clear: if these bills pass, Catholic hospitals will exist in Colorado only at the mercy of the state.

The 3d Circuit’s decision on September 21 in Anspach v. City of Philadelphia is a tragic and unfortunate ruling that further undermines parental rights to consent to the health care of their children. The traditional rule, in virtually all 50 states, is that no doctor can touch a child without parental CONSENT (not just NOTICE), except in the case of a life-threatening medical emergency. Some states have introduced exceptions, through legislation, in the case of reproductive care. This ruling exalts adolescent sexual autonomy over parental authority, although the facts in the case show why parental consent is vitally important.After the city health clinic gave the 16 year old a second dose of Plan B, she suffered (as the AP reported) “severe abdominal pains and vomiting. She told her parents about the medication and they took her to a hospital, where she was treated and released.” Plan B is a high dose of progesterone, a powerful hormone. If taken after the egg is released, it may interfere with implantation, according to the FDA website. It was approved by the FDA for over the counter use (OTC) without any study of its effect on teenagers.

Just posted at AUL.org, our review of the 2007 state legislative sessions.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Overall Trends andAnalysis
• Abortion
  • Amendments to General Abortion Statutes
  • Abortion Bans/Constitutional Amendments
  • Abortion Clinic Regulations
  • Clinic Access/FACE
  • Coerced Abortions
  • Crisis Pregnancy Centers
  • Freedom of Choice Act/FOCA
  • Informed Consent/Women’s Right to Know
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Legislative Declarations
  • Parental Involvement
  • Provider Requirements/Limitations
  • Public Funding for Abortion
  • RU-486
  • Reporting
  • Spousal Notification
• Contraception
  • “Contraceptive Equity”
  • Emergency Contraception/Plan B
• Protection for Unborn Victims of Violence and Newly-Born
  • Protection of Unborn Victims of Violence
  • Born-Alive Infant Protection
  • “Baby Moses” Laws
  • Stillbirth Certificates
  • Substance Abuse During Pregnancy/Child Endangerment
• Bioethics
  • Constitutional Amendments
  • Human Cloning
  • Destructive Embryo Research (DER)/Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR)
  • Chimeras
• Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies / In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Regulation
• Healthcare Rights of Conscience (ROC)
  • Abortion
  • Broad ROC Protection
  • Contraception
  • Protection for Pharmacists
  • “Compulsion” Bills
• End-of-Life
  • Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
  • Advance Directives
  • Pain Control and Palliative Care
  • Prevention of Dehydration and Starvation
• Endnotes

Full Report Available at AUL.org

Michelle Gress, former House staffer, writes at National Review Online about the media coverage of a recent study on the abortion drug RU-486.

The study was a comparison of subsequent pregnancy outcomes among women who had prior abortions, concluding that there was no difference between surgical or medical abortion on the impact on subsequent pregnancy.

However, abortion in general poses some risk to subsequent pregnancy; so to say there is no difference in long-term risk after having a medical versus surgical abortion is like saying there is no difference in long-term risk after getting into a traffic accident in a sedan versus a motorcycle. It ignores the fact that traffic accidents are dangerous, and motorcycle accidents are much more deadly.