10 years ago Charmain Yoest of Reasoned Audacity wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal asking how many women needed to be guinea pigs for RU486? I guess seven dead aren't enough.
Update: Since andy decided to get all smug over at his site about this post, I decided to respond here since his comments are disabled. First off, does anyone see any reference to religion in this post? I didn't think so either, but andy seems to see religion in everything and for an atheist I have to wonder about that. But anyway, he seems to think comparing apples to oranges makes his point, but maybe this article (not religious!! I promise) will convince him otherwise: (emphasis mine)
"The Food and Drug Administration must pull RU-486 instead of adding a warning label by the manufacturer. Two more recent deaths have been reported along with 850 serious complications. If these women did not receive immediate medical treatment as they did, they would have been fatalities also. Taking the facts from the FDA, if 10 percent of cases suffered by medication are reported, then there were over 8,500 complications and 70 deaths. According to the New England Journal of Medicine (December 2005), "RU-486 abortions are 10 times more likely to kill a woman, from infection alone, than are surgical abortions in early pregnancy." In the past, the FDA had removed other drugs that had a lower number of deaths and complications. What's so special about RU-486 that the FDA allows it to remain on the market?It is no wonder some pharmacists will not fill the prescription for RU-486. Some of these pharmacists have lost their jobs, unless their state has a law that protects them. Does Florida? "
Notice the part about the FDA removing other drugs that had a lower number of deaths and complications? THAT is what this post was about.
|