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.
(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.