Posted on 11/16/2004 11:38:08 AM PST by nickcarraway
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The father of a California teenager who died last year as a result of using the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug says expanded warnings announced by the FDA yesterday for the drug are insufficient to protect young women like his daughter.
Monty Patterson, father of Holly Patterson, told the New York Times he was glad the FDA expanded the labels saying, "Holly did not die in vain." However, he said the action was not enough.
"How many more deaths is it going to take before the FDA takes action to remove this drug from the market," Patterson asked.
"I'm not convinced this drug is safe and I still think it should be banned," he added.
Holly Patterson died in September 2003 after receiving the Mifeprex abortion drug from a Planned Parenthood facility near San Francisco. An autopsy report shows Holly died of an infection brought on by the abortion.
Monty met with FDA officials in September, near the anniversary of Holly's death, to discuss stronger enforcement of safety regulations.
Until Monday, Holly's death was thought to be the second from using the abortion drugs, but the FDA announcement about the expanded warning labels mentioned a third death. No other details were given.
Monty received a courtesy call on Monday from an FDA representative telling him about the revised warning labels, but he didn't learn of the third death until after he reviewed the FDA's press release on their web site.
Because there have been three deaths now as a direct result of the abortion pills, the drugs should be prohibited from being sold, Monty said.
In February, the California Department of Health Services determined that Planned Parenthood failed to follow its own internal policies for informing women on how to use the RU 486 abortion drug that was responsible for Holly's death.
The abortion business has also been accused of not following FDA protocols, including using wrong doses of the abortion drug and misusing an ulcer drug to cause a miscarriage of the dead baby.
Searle, the maker of the ulcer drug, issued a nationwide letter to doctors saying it is not intended to produce an abortion and using it as such places women's health at risk.
In response to Holly's death, Monty and Helen Patterson endorsed Congressional legislation, tentatively called "Holly's bill," that would suspend the FDA's approval of the drug pending a Congressional review.
The bill has more than 80 sponsors in the House of Representatives but has yet to receive a vote.
I'm sure the MSM will give this serious public health issue the air time it warrants, right after the story about the Swift Boat Veterans.
Sue Planned Parenthood. They are the ones who are having the drug manufactured and giving it out like Halloween candy to any 13 year old girl who walks in.
Well, well, well. That sure blows the pro-abort "she died because she lied to doctors" claim.
At one time I was fervently pro-choice, which is looking the other way while women undergo a barbaric procedure of having life suctioned from their wombs. I want to testify that pro-choice is not a choice. It is a horrible secret shame that does not honor a woman. It is fornicating and discarding the result as if it were used tissue. It is morally wrong, anti-woman, anti-family, anti-man, and should be done away with. I understand the concerns of the pro-choice lobby. They rightfully say women still seek this option, they say women will die in back alleys. NOT IF WE PROVIDE REAL CHOICE. And I don't mean an abortion pill. Obviously that is a death choice too, as is the sad case of this young woman. We can shift that paradigm that says killing your future child is part of reproductive health. What on earth is healthy about killing a child, that’s what I want to know! Women need to know God loves them, and they are worthy enough to find a relationship that honors them as more than a sexual object. That a man who truly loves them will want to make a marital commitment and that any children you have will be wanted and loved. I pray that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. A law that takes innocent life is unjust and God will not allow it to stand.
Call John Edwards, He's got time on his hands!
the backers of this wicked drug have EXTREMELY deep pockets. Where are the "trial lawyers" when it matters?
so much safer than a coat hanger.
Abolish the FDA. That would solve this problem. Thousands of people die each year because of FDA inaction in approving drugs and the 10+ year process it takes for approval. Another example of the 'dumbing down' of liberalism. People can get the information they need to make a decision and let them make a choice and be held accountable for it. Doctors can present the options for citizens to take along with the small chances that someting terrible could happen to them.
Abortion is legal and this company has the right to market this drug how they will and people have a right to take it if they wish.
All this regulation just stiffles entreprenurialism and hurts our medical system.
"...right after the story about the Swift Boat Veterans."
Yes indeed. "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" What does the FDA care about truth? Aspartame, Vioxx, Premarin, et al. Stealth time bombs every one.
The pro-life sites have tons of info about the ravages of the silent killer abortion pill. I will NEVER understand how these greedy ghouls can claim intelligence and support abortion in the face of the literal market demand for babies. Their hidden agenda is all about death for profit.
Their bleeding hearts drip the blood of the unborn, and the sorrow of the dupes who fall for their lies of consequence-free murder.
"Redeem the time, for the days are evil."
"...reproductive health..."
Feminazi codeword for "I DON'T WANT IT. GET RID OF IT!!!!"
Whenever I see a lib broad rubbing her big pregnant belly in a narcissistic, aroma-therapied, self indulgent reverie, I don't miss the opportunity to ask her, "So, you let this one live?"
The startled looks are worth the risk of being considered rude.
You beat me to it. Sorry I didn't see your post.
So who decides which drugs are available by prescription only and which are available OTC? Who decides which warnings need to appear in literature which accompanies drugs? Who will make sure that literature DOES accompany drugs? It's all well and good to say people can 'get the information,' but whose going to make sure the information is available and accurate?
"Abortion is legal"
For now.
Well, lets think about it. I certainly want information on any drugs I need to take. Doctors certainly want information that they can transmit to their patients. With such a large demand for information it would be very profitable for 'FDA type organizations' (like a consumer report of medicine) to arise. These will be more efficient and less cumbersome then the beaurocratic and gov run FDA. Competition will arise between them. They will need to deliver good solid results fast, or else they will loose the trust of their customers. Also, their decisions won't be legally binding. If someone is near death they could take experimental drugs that are newly developed. Right now it is ILLEGAL for anyone to take potentially life saving medication because of the FDA needs to approve it.
The FDA has been wrong about A LOT of things. I don't think they are a reliable source of information and I think they contribute to thousands of deaths each year - even more if you include the stiffling effects of the regulatory system that well meaning politicians have set up.
A huge problem with big government and liberalism is that it uses government to deal with problems without considering that the private sector might address it better if it is given a chance.
There is no one to lobby for the nameless private organizations that would arise because they are not in existance. This is what people are talking about when they speak of the benefits of 'smaller government'.
Freedom if Freedom.
I know many are going to disagree with me...however, perhaps those who complain so much of their children taking birth control pills, devices, abortion pills might have taught their children abstinence.
BUMP
These companies get millions of dollars from the federal government. They shouldn't complain to me about free market stuff when they are living off the tax payers.
Ya know the one thing I agreed with Ralph Nadar on was his position on Corporate Welfare. Corporations are just as greedy for the people's money as any other special interest. (this hurts small businesses) All Corporate Welfare should be abolished.
However, I also believe that if all corporations actually paid taxes at the current 35% corporate rate then most of them would go bankrupt. Loopholes and corporate welfare needs to be eliminated and taxes and regulations need to be reduced.
Fair?
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.