"It is vital that US women understand that some international women's groups
have been far more critical of chemical abortion than have their US counterparts." 
Professors Renate Klein, Lynette Dumble and Janice Raymond,
self-described "feminists" and co-authors of RU-486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals

Women aren't hearing all the facts

© 1993 Diane S. Dew in The Standard



by Diane Dew

Abortion: What Saith the Scriptures?
What's Wrong with Animal Rights?
Suicide & The Bible

91% Suffer from Post-abortion Trauma

On Teen Pregnancy

Medical Texts Prove Life Before Birth
'Safe & Legal'?
Abortion & Breast Cancer
Condom 'Safe Sex' Theory Full of Holes
Operation Proves: 
It's a Baby, Not a Blob

RU-486:  The Facts
Within the Womb:
The ABC's of Fetal Development

Abortion is Not a Minor Decision
Parental Guidance is Not Burdensome
Legislators: Protectors of the Spineless
Planned Parenthood & SIECUS admit: Life Begins at Conception in pre-Roe publication

 Murder, by Any Name
Planned Parenthood's Deceitful Disguise

Sex Ed Misleads Youth 
Fertility Control Agents in the Water Supply? They Call that Pro-choice?
The Myth of Abuse toward 'Unwanted' Children
Catholic Curriculum Promotes Anti-family Agenda
Teen Pregnancies Rise with Sex Ed Costs
No Scriptural Excuse for Killing Abortionist
Abortion is Not a Minor Decision
Parental Guidance is Not Burdensome

Who are 'Catholics for a Free Choice'? (Pro-abortion Group Funded by Porn)
The Cost of Abortion: $1,020 - Plus One Life

The Abortion Funders (Who Funds Pro-Abortion Groups?)

Ethical: Media
Media Paint Pro-lifers as 'Militant,' 'Extreme'
Media Conceal Details of Teen Abortion Death
Media Bias Exposed
Your Job, or Your Beliefs: What If You Really Had to Choose?

Minority Abortion Rate Twice That of Whites, CDC Reports
Black Genocide: Planned Parenthood's Evil Roots

Choice Has a Name
Whose Baby Is It, Anyway?
  A Matter of Life and Death






Consent Form

In "Principles of Abortion Care," a curriculum published by the National Abortion Federation for physician assistants and advanced practice nurses, is a "sample consent form for medical abortion." It states: "I have been advised not to have a medical abortion if I am: breast feeding and unwilling to suspend breast feeding for three days after injection, taking folic acid supplement or folic acid in a multi vitamin, intolerant or allergic to methotrexate or misoprostol,
unable to keep follow up appointments, unwilling to have a surgical abortion, without a telephone, without transportation, living more than two hours away from emergency care."

"Principles of Abortion Care," pg 33










































To Diane's 















To Diane's 






Women aren't hearing all the facts on RU-486, according to many feminists, and some say use of the abortifacient "constitutes a new form of medical violence that endangers women's lives and violates their right to be free from bodily harm."(1)
     "Complications from the controversial French abortion pill RU-486 could be more widespread than currently reported," researcher Meredeth Turshen, PhD, an associate professor of community health at Rutgers University, told the American Public Health Association meeting in October 1990.(2)
     For example, the pill's 4% failure rate is twice that of vacuum aspiration, Turshen told American Medical News Oct 26, 1990.
     Further, bleeding may persist for up to 40 days, she says, and dilatation and curettage is required in a number of cases.
     "These are serious problems to consider," she said.
     Dr. Turshen examined the research findings of French studies, in which 50% of patients using RU-486 suffered complications ranging anywhere from nausea to bleeding for up to 40 days. (Studies conducted by researchers affiliated with Roussel-Uclaf, the French firm licensing the product, had reported side effects in only 1% to 2% of women using the pill.(3))
     One death has been reported, supposedly from the prostaglandin (PG) administered with mifepristone. And three women have suffered heart attacks. Numerous others have had to undergo blood transfusions, or dilatation and curettage, to remove remaining placental fragments.
     Further, fetuses that survived chemical abortion were severely deformed. And since RU-486 is ineffective in terminating tubal ectopic pregnancies, the bleeding may lead a woman to believe her fetus has been expelled. This could prove fatal.
     Privacy concerns Turshen also expressed concern about matters of privacy. Abortion with RU-486 is a lengthy procedure (three to five visits required) that cannot be kept confidential, she said. The patient cannot plan where the fetus will be expelled -- in the office, in the hospital, or at home.
     On the other hand, if complications develop, she may bleed to death in the "privacy" of her own home.
     Nevertheless, the side effects of mifepristone are being dismissed as insignificant, and the public are led to believe RU-486 is "safe and efficient."(4)
     In fact, RU-486 (which does not prevent but terminates pregnancy) is being referred to as a "contraceptive," "a promising new method of birth control."(5)
Surgical abortion: suddenly unsafe? It is remarkable that, while proabortionists have for years attempted to present traditional abortion as "safe and legal," suddenly, faced with the possible introduction of the new Kill Pill, conventional abortion procedures are being referred to as "surgical," and unsafe. The Lancet Dec 15, 1990 stated: "... supporters of abortion rights will counter that the withholding of the product ... denies women safe and effective medical treatment."
     Violence toward women Professors Renate Klein, Lynette Dumble and Janice Raymond, in The Network News Sept-Oct 1992, made some strong arguments against the safety of RU-486.
     RU-486 "constitutes a new form of medical violence that endangers women's lives and violates their right to be free from bodily harm," they wrote.
"We are concerned about the uncritical and biased presentation of RU-486 ... in the US," they said, adding, "We do not need a drug cocktail fraught with unknown consequences."
     "The push for RU-486/PG abortion by women's groups in the US is in direct contrast to international feminist opinion. The Sixth International Women's Health Meeting, held in the Philippines in Nov.1990, issued a resolution opposing the introduction of RU-486/PG especially in developing countries. The FINRRAGE International Conference in Brazil opposed the worldwide introduction of RU-486/PG abortion."
     The authors, self-described "feminists" affiliated with the International Network FINRRAGE, co-authored RU-486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals (Spinilex Press, Australia; MIT, Cambridge $10.95).
     They have charged that the Federation of Feminist Women's Health Centers "does not recognize the same dangers inherent in RU-486/PG abortion and instead welcomes chemical abortion as a new 'choice' for women."
Surgical abortion is safer than RU-486/PG abortion, they argue, because it involves less drug use.
     Further, RU-486 can have serious adverse effects on a woman's future health, they pointed out. The exposure of immature eggs to RU-486 may affect a woman's fertility, they explained, since the drug is now known to remain in the body for up to two weeks.
     "RU-486 causes delay in follicular maturation and disturbs periodicity," they noted.
     Comparing bleeding from an RU-486-induced abortion to that of surgical abortion, as some have, "trivializes" a situation that may, indeed, "jeopardize a woman's life," they said.
     "Furthermore, to say that the one death and the cardiovascular accidents could have been avoided," they argue, "is incorrect. PG-induced cardiovascular complications cannot be predicted, as evidenced by the death ... of a 26-year-old woman in California who had no prior history of cardiac or neurological disorder."
     The death rate from RU-486 (one per 100,000) is twice that of traditional abortion in the US. And "the vast majority of these (RU-486) abortions were performed under strict trial conditions," they said. "Accidents are more likely to happen in its less controlled general use."
     The authors also compared the failure rate of surgical abortion (3%) to RU-486-induced abortion (4% to 6%). The grave difference, they say, lies in the fact that "conventional abortion can be made safe whereas, because of the nature of these drugs once they  have entered a woman's body, the risks of chemical abortion defy control."
     Problems may also result from the need for the additional, required visits, the authors point out, as they must take place at a clinic in which resuscitation equipment is available.
     "In light of significant numbers of spontaneous abortions (30% of fertilized eggs), we question whether the current 93-95% success rate of chemical abortion is not a considerably inflated figure!" they said.
     "Given the ease of RU-486/PG administration for medical personnel," they say, "it is not too far-fetched to imagine a future where RU-486/PG would be the only available abortion method ... either through legislation or lack of skilled personnel to perform conventional abortions. An Australian gynecologist has already called surgical abortion "obsolete." This would mean reduced, rather than expanded choices for women.
     "However, the American media continue to promote its acceptance in the US, and paint opponents of the pill as unreasonable in their reservations.
Side effects "Fifty to 60% of women suffer some complication during RU-486/PG abortion in well-controlled trials in predominantly western countries."(6) [See sidebar for specific complications and side effects.]
That 1% of patients (18 of 2,040) in a controlled setting required a blood transfusion is not insignificant. With 1.6 million abortions in the US every year, 1% is not an insignificant few. That would be 16,000 women per year -- hardly "safe."
     And this is in addition to the 16,000 (1%: 20 of 2,040) in whom the drug failed to interrupt pregnancy -- resulting in fetal deformity!
     Any procedure that would require 2.1% (33,600 US women annually(29) to undergo a second procedure, a surgical abortion, because their RU-486 abortion was incomplete, is far from "effective."

Supporters of RU-486 cite the following as benefits:
 o  the noninvasiveness of the drug in contrast to vacuum aspiration(30);
 o  lower cost(31). "Estimated annual cost savings in Britain from the introduction of this nonsurgical method range from 7 million pounds to 15 million pounds." (The Lancet, Dec 15, 1990) Physician risk and responsibility is also greatly reduced. So money still remains at the root of the abortion industry.
 o  other possible applications:
        - to facilitate IUD insertion and removal, biopsy of endometrium, laser removal of lesions in the cervical canal, dilation and curettage(32) and to assist in difficult deliveries.(33) [The drug dilates and softens the cervix, lessening the need for surgical dilatation in 73% of cases(34).]
        - to treat, possibly (claims are merely speculative, based on small studies): Alzheimer's disease, stroke, Cushing's syndrome, adrenal cancer, glaucoma, Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, endometriosis, fibroids, meningiomas and breast cancer.(35) [Journal articles speculate RU-486 "may be useful" for such purposes.] (However, studies have shown abortion can increase one's risk of developing breast cancer -- rather than cure, breast cancer.(36))
        - to induce labor in intrauterine fetal death (63% effectiveness).(37)
Although studies have placed effectiveness rates of RU-486 at 95%(38) to 96%(39), women in whom an ectopic pregnancy was suspected were excluded from the study -- a fact which may have slanted actual "success" rates (RU-486 is ineffective in ending such pregnancies.) And 75 of 2,115 participants in one study failed to return for follow-up.
     In March 1989 Roussel researchers reported that a significant number of women using the abortifacient had side effects ranging from nausea to inflammation of the fallopian tubes.(40)
     The US should take note from the fact that Hoechst AG of Germany, parent company of Roussel, in the past refused to distribute the drug here for fear of lawsuits if medical complications arose. If the manufacturer, which tested the drug, fears lawsuits and complications, shouldn't that tell us something?
     In fact, women in France are required to sign a consent form relieving the doctor of any responsibility if the baby is carried to term and suffers severe malformation.
     Shift in public opinion According to American Medical News Oct 26, 1990, the former president of the APHA said Roussel officials informed him on a recent trip to France that availability of RU-486 in the US was not expected for 10 to 12 years.
     Lobbyists and media pressure apparently have taken their toll on public opinion, however. A 1991 Louis Harris poll showed that 59% of Americans wanted immediate acceptance of RU-486. By 1992, 83% of women polled by Glamour magazine(41) favored making the pill available.      Three things must be remembered, however:
     (1) Readers of beauty magazines are not representative of the general population.
     (2) The phrasing of questions must be considered.
     (3) Those polled no doubt were ill-informed of the drug's dangers.

Drug of choice 
     No where is the shift in public opinion more obvious than in the increased percentage of women currently choosing this method of abortion where it already is legal. In September 1989 the drug was being used in 15% of elective abortions in France.(42) By December of 1990, this percentage had increased to 25%.(43)
     Numbers are not all that have changed. Limitations on the state of gestation at which RU-486 is administered also continue to be stretched.
     Studies in Great Britain describe the drug as "effective" in abortions up to nine weeks.(44) Previously, it could not be used, in France, beyond the fifth week(45) -- later, changed to the seventh.(46)
     A Fall 1992 article in Law, Medicine & Health Care, however, states RU-486 can be used as late as the second trimester!(47)

     The list of contraindications for RU-486 continues to increase. Now included are smokers, women with kidney, liver or lung ailments, asthma, hypertension, long-term use of glucocorticoids and clotting disorders.(50) But even in the best of circumstances (highly controlled studies of healthy women), life-threatening situations have developed. How much more dangerous in rural areas of the western world, or in the so-called Third World countries, where medical facilities and equipment are not readily accessible!
     RU-486 is evil not only in that it destroys the life of an innocent, unborn child. It endangers women's health and exploits them in an already difficult situation, taking advantage in their time of need.

While proaborts for years have attempted to present traditional abortion as "safe and legal," suddenly, faced with the possible introduction of  RU-486, conventional abortion procedures are being referred to as "surgical," and unsafe. 

Complications and side effects associated with the use of RU-486/PG:
 o  heart attacks and strokes(7) -- in two of 20,000 patients(8) -- attributable to the prostaglandin administered with RU-486(9)
 o  inflammation of the fallopian tubes(10)
 o  excessive bleeding, for up to two weeks (1% to 9% of patients)(11), possibly up to 40 days(12)
 o  need for blood transfusion(13) -- 18 in one study of 2,040 women(14); in 1% of patients, according to another report(15) -- due to loss of blood
 o  maternal death (16)
 o  possible fetal deformity (survival of fetus in 1% of cases)(17)
 o  incomplete abortion -- 2.1%(18) -- retention of placental fragments -- in 43 of 2,040 patients(19), leading to surgery.(20)
 o  ineffectiveness in ending tubal ectopic pregnancies.(21)
 o  failure to interrupt pregnancy in 1% of cases(22) -- 20 of 2,040 women(23) -- for unknown reasons(24)
 o  need for surgical procedure -- in 81 of 2,040 women, or 4%(25)
 o  delay in follicular maturation and disturbance in periodicity(26) 
 o  abdominal cramps(27), requiring narcotics in 30% of cases
 o  nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache(28)

Foundations that have worked to bring RU-486 to the US
     Who is behind the efforts to bring RU-486 to the US? 
     Among others, the Gerbode and Noyes Foundations have been active in providing funding to promote RU-486 in the US.
     Based in California, the Gerbode Foundation gave $35,000 in 1989 to the Tides Foundation of San Francisco (one of the most radical, leftist foundations in the country) for a "project which seeks to promote public education and dialogue in [the] US about ... RU-486."(48)
     The Noyes Foundation of New York gave $20,000 in 1990 to the Reproductive Health Technologies Project in Washington, DC "to conduct further public education and dialogue on RU-486 and similar drugs, among key constituencies."(49) 

Who has funded the Population Council's research on RU-486?
     One man single-handedly funded at least two-thirds of all costs associated with the first year's U.S. trials of RU-486.
     Billionaire Warren Buffett, who has earmarked overpopulation as a priority for his foundation upon his death, has donated $2 million to the New York-based Population Council to fund research on RU-486, the so-called "abortion pill, the Philanthropy News Digest reported October 8, 1997.
     In 1994 the Buffett Foundation gave $2 million to the Population Council "to fund clinical trials of mifepristone [RU-486]." Buffett also gave $176,518 to the University of California School of Medicine in San Francisco for RU-486 "clinical trials." Another 1994 contribution of $437,209 to the Magee Women's Hospital in Pittsburgh, was earmarked for "clinical trials" (almost certainly for the RU-486 study). 
     Besides the $2 million grant to The Population Council, Buffett also gave the Council five other grants totaling $772,174, one of which was designated for "clinical trials."
     Warren Buffett is donor, vice president, and treasurer of The Buffett Foundation , which reported assets of $22,699,970 and grants totaling $9,965,066 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1997.

      To contact Mr. Buffett:

            The Buffett Foundation 
            209 Kiewit Plz. 
            Omaha, NE 68131


(1) R Klein, L Dumble and J Raymond, The Network News, Sept-Oct 92 p 1

(2) Amer Med News Oct 26 90 p 8

(3) New Eng Jour of Med Mar 89

(4) World Pharm News June 14 91; Amer Fam Phys Sept 90; New Eng Jour of Med Mar 8 90; Law, Med & Health Care Fall 92

(5) Los Angeles Times Oct 8 92; The Lancet Dec 15 90; World Pharm News June 14 91; Maclean's Oct 19 92; Law Med & Health Care Fall 92

(6) Network News Sept-Oct 92

(7) Amer Fam Phys Sept 90

(8) Med Ltr on Drugs & Therapeutics Dec 14 90 p 112

(9) Without PG, however, the drug's failure rate is 20%.

(10) Amer Med News Oct 26 90

(11) Med Ltr on Drugs & Ther Dec 14 90 The mean duration is 8.9 days, according to the Amer Fam Phys Sept 90. However, data from the UK indicate "very heavy bleeding" in 9% of patients.

(12) Amer Med News Oct 26 90

(13) New Eng Jour of Med Mar 8 90

(14) Amer Fam Phys Sept 90 p 781

(15) Med Ltr on Drugs & Ther Dec 14 90

(16) Network News Sept-Oct 92 

(17) New Eng Jour of Med Mar 8 90; Amer Fam Phys Sept 90; Lancet Sept 21 91

(18) New Eng Jour of Med Mar 8 90

(19) Amer Jour of Ob & Gyn Aug 90 p 543; Amer Fam Phys Sept 90

(20) Amer Jour of Ob & Gyn Aug 90

(21) Amer Fam Phys Sept 90; Amer Jour of Ob & Gyn Aug 90. In the case of a 27-year-old with simultaneous pregnancies in the uterus and ovary, the uterine pregnancy was ended but the fertilized egg implanted in the fallopian tubes survived the abortion and had to be surgically removed. (When beta human chorionic gonadotropin remained elevated after the abortion, the second pregnancy was discovered."

(22) New Eng Jour of Med Mar 8 90

(23) Amer Fam Phys Sept 90

(24) Amer Jour of Ob & Gyn Apr 90 p 91 One study seemed to tindicate a correlation between body weight and abortion failure.

(25) Amer Fam Phys Sept 90

(26) Network News Sept-Oct 92

(27) Amer Fam Phys Sept 90; Med Ltr on Drugs & Ther Dec 14 90

(28) New Eng Jour of Med Mar 8 90; med Ltr on Drugs & Ther Dec 14 90

(29) 2.1% of 1.6 million US abortions annually

(30) New Eng Jour of Med Mar 8 90

(31) Ibid.

(32) Lancet May 26 90 p 1238

(33) Med World News Apr 91 p 47

(34) Lancet May 26 90

(35) JAMA Apr 3 91 and Oct 16 91; Med World News Apr 91; New Eng Jour of Med Mar 8 90; New Scientist Nov 3 90; Maclean's Oct 19 92 p 64; New York Times Dec 26 91 p A18; Edell Health Ltr Nov 91 p 2

(36) The Standard Apr 6 93; etc.

(37) Amer Jour of Ob & Gyn Aug 90 p 540.37

(38) World Pharm News June 14 91

(39) New Eng Jour of Med Mar 8 90; Med World News Apr 91

(40) New Eng Jour of Med Mar 89

(41) Glamour Dec 92 p 161

(42) Milwaukee Journal Sept 28 89 (The New Eng Jour of Med Mar 8 90 quoted a percentage of 25%.)

(43) Lancet Dec 15 90; JAMA Apr 3 91

(44) Lancet Dec 15 90

(45) Milwaukee Journal Apr 9 90

(46) JAMA Apr 3 91

(47) Law, Med & Health Care Fall 92 p 157-160; JAMA Apr 3 91

(48) National Guide to Funding for Women & Girls, The Foundation Center

To Diane's MAIN PAGE