Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Little (Abortion) Pill that Could

By Ann Friedman, The American Prospect. Posted January 17, 2007.


A pill that could show promise in treating breast cancer, depression, and even schizophrenia, might never make it onto the market because it also provides an effective way to induce abortions.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Jim Hightower, Raising Hell
Jonathan Rowe

Democracy and Elections:
Are Feds Trying to Aid Republican Candidate's Election?
Tim Kalich

DrugReporter:
A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom
Lux

Election 2008:
The Real Elitist: Video of McCain's Collection of Mansions Reveal He's Not Your Average Joe
Steven Greenhouse

Environment:
Republicans Have Handed Democrats a Winning Election Issue
David Morris

ForeignPolicy:
Blocking a Gazan's Path to an Education
Fidaa Abed

Health and Wellness:
The Misshapen Mind: How the Brain's Haphazard Evolution Left Us with Self-Destructive Instincts
Sasha Abramsky

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Medical Neglect in Immigrant Prisons Reveals America at Its Worst
Kyle Hussein de Beausset

Media and Technology:
What's Going on with the Media's Ballooning Coverage of Celebrity Babies?
Meredith Blake

Movie Mix:
Protest over Use of the Word 'Retard' in Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' Misses the Target
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Obama Should Pick Hillary
Lanny Davis

Rights and Liberties:
Stop the Execution: Jeff Wood Faces Death Tomorrow for a Murder He Didn't Commit
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
Catching the Wrong John: When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain's Infidelity?
Drew Westen

War on Iraq:
How Many More Iraqis Can You Throw Behind Bars Without Trial?
Fatih Abdulsalam

Water:
What If Your Tap Water Is Not Safe To Drink?
Elizabeth Royte

More stories by Ann Friedman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

This article is reprinted from the American Prospect.

In the mid-1990s, the abortion wars were at a fever pitch over the impending approval of RU-486. Time magazine called it "The Pill that Changes Everything," The New York Times Magazine dubbed it a "little white bombshell," and anti-abortion leaders said over and over that this drug was dangerous because it would make having an abortion "as trivial as taking aspirin." Pro-choicers, for their part, were invigorated by the possibility of giving women another abortion option, one they hoped would let them largely bypass abortion clinics and the attendant protesters at the gates.

But for all the controversy about mifepristone, the active drug in RU-486, there wasn't much attention paid to the fact that many doctors were already providing abortions in pill form using a drug called methotrexate, which had been FDA-approved for years as a treatment for cancer, arthritis, and Crohn's disease. Because methotrexate was useful in many more ways than abortion, it was more loosely regulated and readily available. And because the methotrexate was approved for a variety of illnesses, it was politically impossible for anti-abortion groups to push the FDA to revoke its approval.

This article is available on The American Prospect website. © 2007 by The American Prospect, Inc.

"Nobody's trying to get that drug off the market," says Beth Jordan, medical director for the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. "We want to see mifepristone enjoy that same place on the market. If the science is there."

That's why, even before mifepristone was FDA-approved as an abortion pill, pro-choice groups began supporting research into whether the drug can be used to treat depression, cancer, and reproductive system disorders. So far the results are encouraging. In November, one researcher attracted considerable press when she released findings that she had successfully used mifepristone to treat breast cancer in mice. The announcement gave pro-choicers hope that they were a step closer to pushing for FDA approval for a use other than abortion.

Although only about 10 percent of the 1.29 million abortions performed in the United States every year use the medication method, the battle over the drug has been particularly bitter. While a woman must obtain mifepristone at a clinic, the actual abortion happens in the privacy of her home. Currently, medication abortion is common in many countries where the procedure is illegal, because it's decidedly less risky than using a wire hanger. In fact, in the absence of a doctor, it's the safest and easiest way for a woman to perform a do-it-yourself abortion. Which is another reason why pro-choice groups would like it approved for alternate uses and see its availability increase. If abortion were ever outlawed in the United States, mifepristone would become perhaps the most important -- and the most common -- abortion option.

It took pro-choice activists 12 years to get the abortion pill -- of which mifepristone is one of two components -- approved by the FDA. Though it had been used in some European countries since the early 1980s, American abortion politics caused the drug's European makers to shy away from patenting and marketing the drug here. After a series of hang-ups, clinical trials were completed in the late 1990s and the FDA agreed to consider approval. Despite objections from anti-abortion groups and conservative congressmen, mifepristone was FDA-approved for abortions in September 2000. (More recently, the drug came under renewed scrutiny when at least four women died of a rare bacterial infection after taking the pill. The anti-abortion movement seized on the deaths to push for a ban on mifepristone. But after two more people died of the same rare bacteria, many experts questioned mifepristone's role in the deaths.)


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: abortion, birth control, emergency contraception

Ann Friedman is an associate editor of The American Prospect.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
No big deal
Posted by: colinmeister on Jan 17, 2007 4:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Given the politics at play, it's not surprising that mifepristone is one of the most strictly regulated drugs in America."

And what are the others? Cocaine? Heroin? Marijuhana? Methamphetamine? The cat is out of the bag with mifepristone, and if its approval is withdrawn by the FDA, it will simply be widely available from illegal sources, just like all the other drugs I listed above. Of course, that might increase in price a little.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Forget the pill, flax oil does a better job
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 17, 2007 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of curing all those diseases without inducing abortion. Let's market natural stuff like flax instead and keep the social cons out, OK !?!?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By the way, it's not hard to connect the dots to the HEMP PROHIBITION that started this 70 years ago
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 17, 2007 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the feminists really cared to help out, they'd quit going on the defensive on "abortion" and actually go on the offensive to legalize and allow into the currently rigged "free" market hemp, flax, etc ...

P.S.: Well, flax is sort of there but hemp's still got some ways to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

flax? a banned substance?
Posted by: partially-impartial-party on Jan 17, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really? Seriously? Wow - I am going to make a mint on my documentary exposing the blue fields of Saskatchewan and the underground flax economy. Muffins will never be the same.

Seriously, stay out of my vagina and cancer cells until you get a clue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Also active against HIV
Posted by: sethmo on Jan 17, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I work in a research lab that has participated in studies that show that mifepristone has activity against HIV as well. I'm pretty sure that flax seed oil doesn't help with that. The basic fact is that this drug, which has been proven safe and effective for MANY applications is being held hostage to politics. That garbage should end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ALL A LITTLE PREMATURE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 17, 2007 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Countless things are 'not recommended' for pregnant women. Many things can terminate a pregnancy but that is not their intended purpose. Some herbs fall in to that category.I'm pro-choice myself. But I do believe yet another monster is being created here. Miscarriage is a side effect of this drug. It was not developed for the purpose of terminating a pregnancy. The hard right people will not buy into this. We don't need another fight about abortion. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Irony
Posted by: amyjane on Jan 17, 2007 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pro-lifers sending death threats. I find that ironically amusing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow, Pro-Lifers
Posted by: bob t on Jan 17, 2007 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I still maintain that Pro-Lifers, like Bush and the rethugs, are not really Pro-Life, just as the catholic church, my church, is not really Pro-Life, rather all Pro-Lifers are really only Pro-Birth and Pro-Death. The reason that they are not Pro-Life is that if they truly were they would not support the Bush Rethug endless war, killing death machine. Were they truly Pro-Life none would support the Reagan,Daddy Bush and Baby Bush wars for oil. True Pro-Lifers would never be republicans because the very core agenda of that party is one of denial of almost all of the social network because they don't want their money used for unselfishness, only for their own totally selfish reasons. Repugs support Pro-Death which makes them richer and allows them to keep all of their money for themselves; and despite the fact that most got their money via theft and corporate plundering,Enron, Adelphia, Worldcom etc. ad nauseam, ad infinitum. If my church, the catholic church was truly Pro-Life they would not be so vehemently working for laws that outlaw abortion for any and all reasons even to the death of the mother, see the case of Jiminez Bojorge who died because a catholic prelate demanded and got just such a law passed. If the catholic church and catholic voters were truly Pro-Life they would never be repubs and they would be pressuring Bush to stay out of this past Mexican election insted of sending Dick Morris to Mexico to use rethug fear tactics to prevent Lopez Obrador from getting elected because he was dedicated to working for the impoverished Mexican citizens instead of U.S. corporations and the endlessly corrupt Mexican gov't. I could give many more examples but everyone gets the point, whether they like it or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow, Pro-Lifers Posted by: Ocean tides
Pro Life?
Posted by: dkm on Jan 17, 2007 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I once got into an email exchange with Jim Sedlak at ALL. His position was that the war in Iraq with all its brutal loss of innocent life was ok because the Catholic Church says that some wars are justified even though this one is not. But causing miscarriages is not justified because the Catholic Church has ruled that it is always wrong, a mortal sin, and you will go to hell. Therefore, it is not the same thing to protest against civilians being blown apart as to protest against abortions. Killing women and children is not a mortal sin, but causing abortions is. This kind of twisted logic is characteristic of the reactionary religious fanatics and is what causes a lot of misery in our world.

"Whenever morality is based on theology, whenever right is made dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous things can be justified and established". -Ludwig Feuerbach, philosopher

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Should be legal
Posted by: opeluboy on Jan 17, 2007 2:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I see a headstone for a miscarriage I will take these anti-choice people seriously. When someone has a miscarriage and names it, I believe they are sincere. When they stand against the death penalty, I will give them the benefit of the doubt. When all the "pro-life" idiots start opposing the endless slaughter of thousands and thousands of REAL children in their wars I will consider that they might not all be hypocritical pieces of shit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Should be legal Posted by: Ocean tides
Death Threats from Pro Life... this statement says it all...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Jan 17, 2007 5:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...two breast cancer researchers in Canada who were studying mifepristone received death threats from anti-abortion activists...

We all live on this planet and must all get along.

The simple truth to this debate is that the religious right always seem to ignore the simple fact that its about the rights of the individual... or doesn't a person have the right to decide what is or isn't done to their body be it blood transfusions, abortion or the right to die.

The choice is rather simple, its between families (mother/father) & doctors and as as long as a doctor agrees with the decision made by the family involved every one else has no legal input as to what one person can do to their body.
Its the right of freewill, anything else is unconstitutional and Anti-American

Anyways, what does religion or morality have to do with a medical decision in the first place. Doctor's don't have the final say... its a decision between families and their caregiver...
Is there a separation of church and state or not?

I always try to remember that one persons vision of heaven is anothers vision of hell.
I cannot comprehend spending eternity with a Falwell or the other brain dead freeloaders spinning hate outta love.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The debate that will never end
Posted by: boltzmann on Jan 18, 2007 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been nearly 35 years since Roe v. Wade and we in the United States still use abortion as the litmus test to the political party we ascribe ourselves. The sheer fact that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe on the basis of due process should have made the debate end there. There is no constiutional basis to overturn the decision. But instead we polarize ourselves and let this pointless argument propagate.

On the subject of this pill. As long as it is a prescription drug and tightly controlled, I don't see any harm in allowing it to be distributed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

advertising
Posted by: dannrusso on Jan 19, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HEY EVERYONE

Make sure to count how many times on Sunday during the football playoff games you hear

"PREGNANT WOMEN OR THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO BE PREGNANT SHOULD NOT TAKE..." whatever drug is going to save men's egos...some even go so far to say that those women should not even handle the drug...

I don't see ALL or whatever they are called going after Viagra...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]