What’s the Catch? Women Given Easier Access to the Abortion Pill?

Holy Hormones Journal: Imagine the decrease in trauma to women if they could take a pill to induce an abortion. No more invasive, painful egregious violent acts of the physical act of abortion… no more mental/emotional trauma and scarring from having to wait weeks upon weeks to have an abortion. While the fetus develops everyday…

What’s the catch? The article below says that the pill is safe and it was approved for use 16 years ago. Back then it was known as RU-486 and caused quite the controversy.  What will the backlash be from the pro-life movement? How many women’s lives have been traumatized by a procedure that I have been calling for many years “legalized rape” on a woman.  And yes, I am pro-choice. And yes, I am a proponent of non-violent and non-invasive methods of aborting a fetus at an early stage before it develops and the woman becomes attached to the life in her body.

Interesting that three clinics have agreed to be part of a study – but their identities are not being revealed because of the potential backlash from the the pro-life movement.  Wonder what the backlash will be against women going to fill their prescription at a pharmacy?

What’s the catch? And why now? As noted in the article anti-abortion policies are on the upswing. Are women really going to be allowed (yikes – I hate that word) permitted (not any 04.23.16 RU486better) to have an abortion in the comfort and safety of their home?

My colleague, Renate Klein (Australia), co-wrote a book on RU-486 entitled “RU486 mifepristone Misconceptions, Myths and Morals.” The book was originally published in 1999 – with a new edition in 2013. Renate generously mailed me a copy of her book and I just pulled it off the shelf in my women’s library of books. Oh, how I love my library.

I guess it is time to dive in and read it. I have a feeling I will be blogging about pill in the future.

What is a ‘safe and effective’ abortion method? Whenever RU-486/PG abortion is discussed its promoters assure us it is ‘safe and effective’, and indeed superior to suction abortion as it is ‘more natural’ and can be done ‘in the privacy of a woman’s home’. This has been the clarion call since RU-486/PG administration appeared on the scene in the late 198’s despite, as we discuss in our book, the many complications women faced in the early-company sponsored studies.

Over time this message has not changed. The pattern in medical and media articles is always the same: a great many adverse reactions are mentioned, but at the end of the articles or Abstract…. RU-486/PG administration is declared ‘safe and effective’. Readers might not draw the same conclusion, particularly if they are women who sustained hemorrhage-like bleeding including the need for a blood transfusion and/or re-evacuation, cardiovascular problems, a potentially lethal injection, or an ongoing pregnancy. Nevertheless the ‘safe and effective’ mantra is the one that prevails, and it is very hard to displace. ~ Renate Klein Preface

04.23.16 Ru_486 Gif

The pill blocks progesterone receptors in the uterus… causing the lining to be released – and yes, could also cause hemorrhaging. Ask women on Depo Provera who have had their progesterone suppressed – they will tell you about their heavy bleeding, weight gain, estrogen dominance issues – including feeling like they are pregnant.

The ‘safe and effective’ mantra sounds like Gardasil – sounds like Essure – sounds like the female Viagra pill – sounds like Depo – sounds like HRT (hormone replacement therapy) sounds like…

I knew there was a catch.


04.23.16 Abortion Pill

Oregon clinic will join study widening access to abortion pill

April 6, 2016

Daily News
By Daniel McDonald

A clinic in Oregon is set to become part of a national study geared at giving women easier access to the abortion pill.

The program allows women to use telemedicine to talk to a physician over a computer instead of meeting in person.

The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the pill, requires a health care provider – not a pharmacy – to dispense the pill. The FDA last week eased restrictions on the pill by reducing the dose, extending the period when a woman can induce an abortion and cutting the number of provider visits.

Still, the provider requirement effectively blocks patients who live in remote areas from having a medication-induced abortion.

The study aims to help women in rural areas, said Dr. Beverly Winikoff, president of Gynuity Health Projects, the nonprofit research center in New York City that’s behind the study.

Last week, a clinic in Queens, New York, became the first clinic to offer the pill through the study. Oregon could join the study in about a month, and then Hawaii. Gynuity is still working out the details.

Winikoff wouldn’t reveal the name of the Oregon clinic to protect it from protesters. She did say it currently provides abortions, was eager to join the study and can serve patients in Washington as well as Oregon.

The group picked the three states for the study because they don’t have a lot of roadblocks to abortion and have rural areas where women could use the service which is already provided by the clinics, though not through telemedicine.

The pill, approved in 2000 in the United States, doesn’t need so much regulation, Winikoff said.

“It makes no sense at all,” she said. “It’s been shown to be extremely safe and effective.”

The study comes at a time when anti-abortion polices are on the upswing. Nearly 300 restrictions were enacted in states across the country between 2011 and 2015, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health data.

Read full article…


Author: Leslie Carol Botha

Author, publisher, radio talk show host and internationally recognized expert on women's hormone cycles. Social/political activist on Gardasil the HPV vaccine for adolescent girls. Co-author of "Understanding Your Mood, Mind and Hormone Cycle." Honorary advisory board member for the Foundation for the Study of Cycles and member of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research.