Posted on 03/05/2005 8:45:55 PM PST by Hugenot
When ephedrine was believed to be the cause of death for several athletes, notably Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steven Bechler, the government’s response was swift and effective: The FDA banned it in February of 2004.
When it comes to abortion, there is always a different set of rules.
Mifepristone, also known as RU-486, has been linked to the deaths of three women and six hundred complications since the FDA approved its sale and distribution in the United States in 2000 in the waning months of the Clinton Administration.
Ignoring the usual standards for the approval of a questionable drug, the FDA used Subpart H to approve the drug. Subpart H is used to fast-track the approval of drugs which treat “life-threatening illnesses.”
While the FDA was forced to backtrack and put a new black box warning label on the drug in November of 2004, some advocates believe that this is too little, too late.
“The FDA waited for three deaths to occur before changing the words on the drug's label," laments Wendy Wright of Concerned Women of America. "How many women must die before they are willing to remove this deadly drug from the market?"
"Just changing directions on the use of the drug has absolutely no impact on its safety," Wright concluded. "Congress must intervene for the sake of women's lives."
That’s why Senator Jim DeMint (R, SC) and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R, MD) have re-introduced the RU-486 Suspension and Review Act. The law would suspend the sale of RU-486 pending a six-month review by the General Accountability Office.
The law has been dubbed “Holly’s Law” for Holly Patterson, a teenager who died after taking RU-486 in September of 2003.
If the drug were a mere diet pill, a six-month review would be hailed as a prudent course. But because this drug produces an abortion, watch leftist Senators and Congressmen pull out all the stops to defend it.
Whether or not the drug conclusively kills women, it always kills the baby.
The obvious question is "who" in Clinton's administration ordered the FDA to fast-track the drug and why?
“The FDA waited for three deaths to occur before changing the words on the drug's label," laments Wendy Wright of Concerned Women of America. "How many women must die before they are willing to remove this deadly drug from the market?"
How many innocent babies must die? These women CHOSE to take this drug. The purpose of the drug was to END a life, after all.
Payback is a ^&&**. They got what they wanted. Poetic justice.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The article was written by a Catholic friar teaching at a high school in New York so that's not the connection.The article never mentions or references California so that's not the connection. The article is about abortion so that's not the connection.
What is the connection?
The drug was known to be dangerous long before the FDA was ordered to fast track it. In France, where it was developed, women had already died from it and its use was restricted to women under 35 for health considerations.
People magazine once did an article on the "doctor" who was instrumental in developing RU486 for use as an abortifacient. The drug was initially developed for another purpose (cholesterol medication or something similar). When it was tested in monkeys, it killed two of the three experimental animals. Normally, this would scuttle the drug immediately, but this "doctor" saw in this drug failure an opportunity. He immediately reasoned that if the dosage could be adjusted, the drug could be used to selectively kill developing babies, but not their mothers. (It is a reasonable assumption. There are many poisons that kill the unborn in doses far lower than are lethal for the adult animal.) His vision of an ideal world was one where women would never have to worry about birth control, they could just give in to their natural urges whenever they wanted and then pop a pill to rid themselves of the little inconvenience that inevitably arises after constant engaging in such irresponsible behavior. (My impression was that he has an extremely low opinion of women--he doesn't believe we have the intellect to behave as anything other than animals guided by instinct and emotion.)
Although the man described in the article came across as a misogynistic ghoul, the writer of the article had nothing but praise, and quoted several Hollywood actresses gushing over him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.