[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 68 (Thursday, May 26, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               RU-486--SUNNY RHETORIC VS. BLOODY REALITY

                                 ______


                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 26, 1994

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, why is Bill Clinton--the 
abortion President--so obsessed with pushing abortion here in the 
United States and overseas?
  Why is he willing to use women as guinea pigs in testing RU-486--the 
newest fad in baby poison. A poison that has maimed and killed women as 
well.
  I rise today to ask my colleagues to read a thoughtful inclusive Wall 
Street Journal op-ed entitled ``RU-486--Sunny Rhetoric vs. Bloody 
Reality'' by Charmaine Crouse Yoest.
  Ms. Yoest is an adjunct fellow with the Family Research Council and a 
fellow in the department of government at the University of Virginia.

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 25, 1994]

               RU-486--Sunny Rhetoric vs. Bloody Reality

                      (By Charmaine Crouse Yoest)

       How many times will women be used as guinea pigs? We should 
     have learned some lessons from the Dalkon Shield. DES and 
     maybe even breast implants. But last week, the president 
     announced that RU-486. the French abortion drug, well be 
     coming to America. Thanks to back-door negotiations between 
     the Clinton administration and Roussel-Uclaf, the patent-
     holder of RU-486, the patent will be donated to the 
     Population Council, a liberal abortion-advocacy group.
       Abortion advocates keep telling American women that this 
     drug is ``safe and effective''--and both foes and supporters 
     of abortion argue that the abortion procedure is ``easy.'' 
     Yet all these claims are open to serious question.
       Just how safe is the RU-486 abortion? It has killed at 
     least one woman in France. In that case, the young woman was 
     dead within an hour after receiving the prostaglandin 
     injection that is the final stage of the four-step RU-486 
     regime. Abortion advocates keep claiming that RU-486 itself 
     didn't kill her: it was the prostaglandin in the fourth step. 
     That may be true, but it's not particularly relevant. RU-486 
     abortions without prostaglandin just don't happen.
       As a result of that death, smokers and women over age 34 
     may not take RU-486 in France. Additionally, women are 
     advised not to take the drug if they have any of the 
     following very common conditions: high blood pressure, 
     anemia, gynecologic infections and fibroids.
       However, we don't really know just how dangerous RU-486 is. 
     In one of the major studies of women using the drug, 
     published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 75 of the 
     2.115 women in the study were not followed after receiving 
     the final injection. Did any of them suffer severe, or fatal, 
     complications? We simply don't know.
       The record does show that RU-486 has also been responsible 
     for two nonfatal heart attacks. And according to Roussel's 
     own data, out of 950 women studied, 270 required narcotics 
     for intense pain. Seven required blood transfusions.
       Janice Raymond, associate director of the MIT-based 
     Institute on Women and Technology--and a bona-fide abortion 
     supporter--is opposing the drug after a thorough review of 
     the scientific literature on RU-486.
       So, at best, the jury is still out on ``safe.'' Is the RU-
     486 regime ``effective''? To a degree. But in the one out of 
     20 times that the unborn child is not killed, its deformities 
     are so severe that Roussel-Uclaf, fearing litigation, 
     requires women to sign an agreement to a surgical abortion. 
     What if a woman changes her mind after taking the first dose 
     of RU-486? Will she be forced, Chinese-style, into a surgical 
     abortion?
       The RU-486/prostaglandin regime effectively completes an 
     abortion through inducing the contractions and hemorrhage 
     that expel the unborn child. Supporters of the drug 
     rhapsodize about the increased ``privacy'' of ``taking the 
     pill at home.'' But they are glossing over the reality that 
     women are administered the drug in a clinic and then sent 
     home to wait as the bleeding begins. The president of 
     Roussel-Uclaf, Edouard Sakiz, says it is ``an appalling 
     psychological ordeal.'' In Europe there are support groups 
     for women who have endured the procedure.
       This raises the issue of informed consent. Having advocates 
     like the Population Council bring this drug into the country 
     presents a clear conflict of interest. When a woman comes to 
     participate in the field trials, having heard in the media 
     that RU-486 is easy, will she be told about the side effects 
     and that MIT's Ms. Raymond has questiond the impact of RU-486 
     on her health? Will she know what she is getting into before 
     it is too late?
       It is very troubling that the groups that will be 
     administering an experimental abortion drug with serious 
     potential side effects are the same ones that have 
     demonstrated their opposition to a woman's right to know all 
     the information about surgical abortion. Pro-abortion groups 
     have fought informed consent laws all the way to the Supreme 
     Court.
       And what about parental consent? Will 14-year-old girls be 
     given RU-486 and sent home to hemorrhage without their 
     parents' knowing anything about it? All too often, parents 
     are not informed of their daughters' surgical abortions.
       Surgical abortion is legal and accessible in the U.S. And, 
     contrary to the hyperbolic pro-abortion rhetoric, RU-486--
     with its mandatory four doctor visits--is not easier and more 
     private than surgical abortion. It's odd that the same people 
     who say that a 24-hour wait to see a doctor for a surgical 
     abortion is absolutely unacceptable would be promoting 
     chemical abortion, which in its current state is a much more 
     drawn out procedure. Shouldn't we be asking why this 
     questionable drug is so important to them? And to the 
     president?
       Quick. Name something the president has done to address 
     breast cancer, a disease that attacks one out of nine women. 
     Name just one other drug for which the president has 
     personally lobbied. What's going on here? Is it women's 
     rights and women's health the president is concerned about--
     or just abortion at any cost?

                          ____________________