Archive for the ‘Abortion’ Category
FDA Rejects Bid to Approve Morning-After Pill for Over the Counter Sales
Despite an independent review board’s 23-4 vote recommending that Barr Pharmaceutical’s morning-after pill, Plan B, be approved for over the counter sale, the Food and Drug Administration this month rejected the company’s plans to make the drug more easily available.
In rejecting the proposal, the FDA contended that Barr had not provided enough evidence about the ability of young women under the age of 16 to understand Plan B’s direction. In a letter faxed to Barr Pharmaceuticals explaining the rejection, the FDA noted that only 29 of 585 women in a company study of the labeling were under the age of 16.
The FDA told Barr it could either propose a system to sell the drug over the counter only to those 17 and over, or conduct another label study focusing on women under the age of 16.
Those advocating making the drug available over the counter called the FDA’s action a thinly veiled political decision in an election year. Dr. James Trussell, who was on the independent advisory board that recommended approving Barr’s plan, noted that numerous other products have been approved for sale over the counter without the FDA raising the issue of whether or not teenager will be able to adequately understand the labeling.
Whether or not the FDA’s decision was political is questionable, but it certainly was a bad decision that appeared to grasp at straws to keep Plan B prescription-only.
Source:
U.S. rules morning-after pill can’t be sold over the counter. Gardiner Harris, New York Times, May 7, 2004.
California Woman Dies After Taking RU-486
Eighteen-year-old Holly Marie Patterson died in September from complications that resulted after she took RU-486 to induce an abortion. Patterson obtained the drug from a Planned Parenthood clinic.
Patterson apparently followed the directions given to her by Planned Parenthood but died a week after taking the pill. Patterson’s father, Monty Patterson, told news organizations that an attending physician said that fragment of the fetus lodged in her uterus where they caused an infection that killed Holly.
According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, this was the third death linked to RU-486 since the drug’s approval two years ago. In about 5 percent of cases, bleeding following taking the drug is so severe that surgery is required.
Anti-abortion groups were quick to seize on Patterson’s death as proof that RU-486 is not safe, while pro-abortion groups noted that more people die from using aspirin every year than from RU-486.
Monty Patterson told the Associated Press that he did not blame RU-486 for his daughter’s death, but was not convinced that she and her boyfriend received enough information about the drug and its possible complications,
What’s disturbing is these young couples, they are relying upon what they think is good, solid info, and relying on what they think is a supportive network telling them everything is OK. I would have said, ‘You know what, they don’t know everything. Let’s get more information.
The most disturbing part of Holly Patterson’s death is that her boyfriend took her to a hospital three days after she took RU-486. Holly reported bleeding and cramps so severe she could not walk, but she was simply given painkillers and sent home.
Sources:
Teen Dies After Taking Abortion Pill. Associated Press, September 22, 2003.
Russia Enacts Limit on Abortion
In September, Russia enacted its first restriction on abortion in almost 50 years.
The new law limits the circumstances under which women can have an abortion between the 12th and 22nd week of gestation. Prior the law, there were a wide variety of circumstances under which women could legitimately seek abortions during that period, but now there are only four. According to the BBC they are,
- rape
- imprisonment
- death or severe disability of husband
- court ruling stripping woman of parental rights
According to official Russian statistics, only about 7 percent of women who have abortions in that country have them between the 12th and 22nd week of pregnancy but some abortion supporters claim that official statistics only record about half the abortions that take place.
Official statistics show a sharp decline in the number of abortions since the collapse of the Soviet Union. From a high of 4.6 million abortions in 1988, the total fell to 1.78 million in 2002.
Abortion supporters in Russia fear that this is simply the first step in policies that will become ever more restrictive of abortions in that country. Russian Family Planning Association director Ingra Grebesheva told the BBC, “The resolution is the first steps toward an attack on the rights of women.”
Some Russian health officials, however, characterize the move as an effort to reduce health problems related to the extraordinarily high rate of abortion that occurred during the Soviet era. A spokesman for the Russian Health Ministry told the Christian Science Monitor,
Artificial termination of pregnancy after week 12 is fraught with grave consequences for a woman’s health. Abortions account for 30 percent of maternal mortality in Russia. It has been decided to reduce these dangers.
Source:
Russia turns spotlight on abortion. The BBC, September 16, 2003
Russia begins to reconsider wide use of abortion. Fred Weir, Christian Science Monitor, August 28, 2003.
Feminists Against Silicone Breast Implants
An interesting example of the hypocrisy of groups like the National Organization for Women is its recent public opposition to the possible re-introduction of silicone breast implants. NOW argues that there is not enough long term data to justify saying that silicone breast implants are safe, but NOW’s real objection seems to be that silicone breast implants are not politically correct enough.
There are plenty of long-term studies of the effects of silicone breast implants in women who had them before the FDA’s temporary ban on the implants — almost all of which found that there simply were no adverse health risks associated with implants. The concerns that implants increased the risk of breast cancer or contributed to chronic diseases of the early 1990s turned out to be simple hysteria.
But nonetheless, NOW President Kim Gandy complaints that the FDA is only reviewing two years wroth of data and, “Two years of data is not going to give you any valid information so that women will know what’s going into their bodies.”
Nonsense. In this case NOW has simply stooped to the level of its anti-abortion opponents who used and continue to use exactly this argument against both oral contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs such as RU-486. In fact when the FDA dragged its feet on approving RU-486, it was Gandy who was whining about excessive bureaucracy and overblown concerns about a drug that had proven safe through decades of use elsewhere in the world. As Gandy put it in a NOW press release,
It’s all too typical that our U.S. bureaucracy would take this important medical advancement for women and make it as difficult as possible for us to take advantage of its full potential.
If only makers of silicone breast implants could find a way to make them have some sort of contraceptive or abortion abilities as well, perhaps they would be politically correct enough for NOW to stop its ridiculous attempt to prevent women from making their own private health choices about implants.
Sources:
Groups oppose allowing silicone breast implants. Lisa Richwine, Reuters, July 21, 2003.
NOW Members Call for FDA Approval of Mifepristone (RU-486) for Abortion, Cancer and Other Treatments. Press Release, National Organization for Women, Summer 2000.
Tags: Kim Gandy, National Organization for Women
Argentina Judge Bans Contraception
Argentine judge Cristina Garzon De Lascano ruled in May that oral contraceptives and intrauterine devices should be banned because they constitute abortion. According to the BBC, de Lascano ordered the destruction of all existing stocks of such medications and devices.
This is not the first time de Lascano has made controversial rulings related to reproductive health. In 2001, she ordered a ban on the morning-after pill, and in February ruled that Argentina’s laws protecting women’s reproductive health could not be applied in Cordoba province. She was overruled by a higher court on that last decision.
The BBC reported that Argentine health minister Gines Gonzalez Garcia vowed to fight to reverse de Lascano’s latest judgment, characterizing it as,
. . . absurd and based on the plea of religious fundamentalists, without consulting a single a medical academic at the Health Ministry.
Abortion is illegal in Argentina, but an estimated 400,000 women have abortions every year anyway.
Sources:
Argentine contraceptive ban ‘absurd’. The BBC, May 24, 2003.
FDA Asked to OTC Morning After Pill
Women’s Capitol Corp., which distributes the “morning after” pill Plan B, has filed a request the Food and Drug Administration to allow it to sell the drug over the counter.
Plan B has been available by prescription in the United States since 1999 and the privately held company has sold about 3 million Plan B kits. If the initial pill is taken within 72 hours after having unprotected sex, Plan B reduces the risk of pregnancy to around 1 percent.
Morning after pills are available in other countries, such as France, but the sale of such drugs even by prescription is controversial in the United States due to opposition from anti-abortion activists. Since Plan B works by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg onto the wall of the uterus, some activists view it as little more than a chemical abortion.
A decision from the FDA on the OTC application is unlikely until sometime in early 2004.
Sources:
‘Morning After’ Pill Maker Asks FDA to OTC Switch. Kate Fodor, Reuters, April 21, 2003.
Easier ‘morning-after’ access sought. Rita Rubin, USA Today, February 14, 2001.
A Man’s Right to Choose?
A few weeks ago, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade which gave women the right to make a range of reproductive choices, Glenn Sacks wrote an cogent summary of the arguments for a men’s right to choose. Sacks writes,
When a woman gets pregnant she has the right to decide whether or not to carry the baby to term, and whether to raise the child herself or to give it up for adoption. In many states she can even terminate all parental responsibility by returning the baby to the hospital within a few weeks of birth. Yet if she decides she wants the child, she can demand 18 years of child support from the father, and he has no choice in the matter. When it comes to reproduction, in America today women have rights and men merely have responsibilities.
. . .
The “Choice for Men” movement seeks to give fathers the right to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities within a month of learning of a pregnancy, just as mothers do when they choose to give their children up for adoption. These men would be obligated to provide legitimate financial compensation to cover pregnancy-related medical expenses and the mother’s loss of income during pregnancy. The right would only apply to pregnancies which occurred outside of marriage, and women would still be free to exercise all of the reproductive choices they have now.
At the moment there is almost no support outside of the men’s movement for such ideas, but as Cathy Young noted in an article on this topic a couple years ago, it is a direct outgrowth of feminist claims about the importance of abortion rights. Young wrote,
. . . Advocates of choice for men like to cite a passage from a Planned Parenthood statement, “9 Reasons Why Abortions Are Legal”: “At the most basic level, the abortion issue is not really about abortion. … Should women make their own decisions about family, career and how to live their lives? Or should government do that for them? Do women have the option of deciding when or whether to have children?”
Substitute “men” for “women,” and it’s hard to deny that coerced fatherhood drastically curtails a man’s ability to make key decisions about how to live his life, including when or whether to have children with the woman he loves. Think of “A Dad Too Soon,” the young husband saddled with college loans, graduate school tuition, car payments and other expenses, and forced to give up a quarter of his earnings because he made a mistake as a teenager. (His admittedly one-sided narrative also suggests that the mother’s paternity suit was partly driven by vindictiveness: Having waited for eight years, she filed the claim days after his wedding.) Yet, in the eyes of Ann Landers and many others, he deserves only a stern rebuke. Pay up and shut up. You play, you pay. It takes two to tango.
. . .
Yet, by and large, feminists and pro-choice activists have not been sympathetic to calls for men’s reproductive freedom. “If there is a birth, the man has an obligation to support the child,” says Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center. “The distinction with respect to abortion is the physical toll that it takes on a woman to carry a fetus to term, which doesn’t have any translation for men. Once the child is born, neither can walk away from the obligations of parenthood.” (Actually, a woman can give up the child for adoption, often without the father’s consent, and be free of any further obligation.)
Indeed, on the issue of choice for men, staunch supporters of abortion rights can sound like an eerie echo of the other side: “They have a choice — use condoms, get sterilized or keep their pants on.” “They should think about the consequences before they have sex.” (The irony is not lost on men’s choice advocates or pro-lifers.) Yes, some admit, it’s unfair that women still have a choice after conception and men don’t, but biology isn’t fair. As a male friend of mine succinctly put it, “Them’s the breaks.”
Clearly there are some inequities that need to be eliminated, such as relief for men who end up being fathers thanks to the fraudulent and/or criminal actions of unscrupulous women, as well as men who are forced to pay child support for children they later find out they are not biologically related to, but going beyond that opens a can of worms that warrants proceeding very slowly.
Source:
30 years after Roe v. Wade, How About Choice for Men?. Glenn Sacks, MensNewsDaily.Com, January 22, 2003.
Is Killing a Fetus a Crime?
A judge in Pennsylvania recently ruled that a woman could be charged with murder for the death of a fetus of a romantic rival.
Corinne Wilcott was charged with murder after she attacked a pregnant woman at a graduation party in June 2002. The pregnant woman survived, but her 15-week old fetus died four days later due to the force of the attack.
According to the Associated Press, Pennsylvania is one of 27 states that allow prosecutions for fetal homicide. Wilcott had argued that under Pennsylvania law a fetus is not a person and, therefore, it is impossible to murder a fetus.
In rejecting Wilcott’s appeal, Judge John Trucilla offered the rather unsatisfying legal argument that the difference between Wilcott’s alleged killing of a fetus and an abortion was that in this case the mother did not have a choice.
But that sort of criteria seems to simply sidestep the issue. Certainly society may want to create a special sort of crime for the intentional killing of a fetus in violation of a pregnant woman’s wishes, but if a fetus is genuinely not a person then it is unclear how anyone can be charged with murder for killing a fetus (anymore than someone who committed arson and thereby killed a dog trapped in the fire would be charged with murder).
Source:
Judge rules down challenge to Pa. Fetal Homicide Law in Murder Case. Associated Press, January 25, 2003.
Illegal Abortions a Major Killer of Women in Ethopia
According to the World Health Organization, complications arising from illegal abortions are now the second leading cause of death for young women in Ethiopia. Only tuberculosis kills more young women in that poverty-stricken nation.
Abortion is illegal in Ethiopia except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger, but illegal abortions are easy to obtain and widespread. According to WHO, the death rate from illegal abortions in Ethiopia is a staggering 1,209 per 100,000 abortions. In the United States, by contrast, the death rate from legal abortions is about 1 per 100,000.
A number of factors help to make the death rate so high, including a lack of access to contraception, a very low literacy rate among women (only about 14 percent of women are literate), and Ethiopia’s poverty which leads to only about US $1.50 per person being spent on health care resources annually.
Source:
High Death Rate from Illegal Abortions. UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, October 28, 2002.
Teens Pay The Deadly Price Of Religious Taboo. Tewedaj Kebede, Panos, July 2001.
Many Ethiopian Teens Dying from Illegal Abortions. Women’s E-News, November 4, 2002.
Tags: Ethiopia
Sky High Malpractice Insurance Closing Obstetrics Wards
In June the American Hospital Association released a troubling survey of hospitals and health care organizations around the country. Fully 20 percent of the institutions surveyed had cut back on services and 6 percent had eliminated some units outright as a response to the increasing cost of medical malpractice insurance.
The malpractice issue has especially hit obstetrics wards and obstetricians hard. Obstetrics is a marginal money maker at best, and the incredibly high cost of insurance is leading some hospitals to curtail or outright close their obstetrics units.
The New York Times report on the survey notes that at least 6 hospitals around the country closed their obstetrics wards this summer. Some rural clinics have gone out of business altogether.
How expensive is medical malpractice insurance? According to The Times, the worst places for obstetricians is currently Florida. In Fort Lauderdale and Miami, the cost of insurance for obstetricians run as high as $200,000 per year.
Hospitals now pay massive bills for medical malpractice insurance. Philadelphia’s Thomas Jefferson University Hospital was hit with a $32 million bill this year for its insurance. It responded by closing the maternity unit at a South Philadelphia hospital it operates.
And what is truly shocking is that most of the larger feminist organizations are silent on the topic. The National Organization for Women, for example, spends a lot of time and money defending abortion providers, but has done nothing to highlight the problems faced by obstetricians from medical malpractice lawsuits.
In fact, the only time the issue of malpractice insurance reform is mentioned on NOW’s web site is to ridicule a statement by George W. Bush’s about his medical malpractice reform efforts while he was governor of Texas.
It’s a shame that NOW and other feminist organizations can’t make women’s access to obstetricians as high a priority as women’s access to abortion providers.
Source:
Rise in insurance forces hospitals to shutter wards. Joseph B. Treaster, The New York Times, August 25, 2002.
Bushisms. National Organization for Women, Accessed: September 10, 2002.