Pill of Choice

This article appeared in the October 23, 2000 edition of The Nation.

October 5, 2000

It took twelve years for the FDA to approve mifepristone--also known as RU-486--and most of that time had less to do with medicine than with the politics of abortion. Still, the late-September decision was a tremendous victory for American women. In approving RU-486, the FDA showed that science and good sense can still carry the day, even in an election year.

The long delay may even backfire against the drug's opponents. In 1988, when mifepristone was legalized in France, it was a medical novelty as well as a political flashpoint. Today, it's been accepted in thirteen countries, including most of Western Europe; it's been taken by more than a half-million women and studied, it sometimes seems, by almost as many researchers. By the end of the approval process, the important medical professional organizations--the AMA, the American Medical Women's Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--had given mifepristone their blessing; impressive percentages of Ob-Gyns and family practitioners said they would consider prescribing it; thousands of US women had taken it in clinical trials and given it high marks, with 97 percent in one study saying they would recommend it to a friend. Against this background of information and experience, the antichoicers' attempt to raise fears about the drug's safety sounds desperate and insincere.

In a normal country, RU-486 would simply be another abortion method, its use a matter of personal preference (in France it's the choice of 20 percent of women who have abortions, while in Britain only 6 percent opt for it). But in the United States, where abortion clinics are besieged by fanatics and providers wear bulletproof vests, mifepristone's main significance lies in its potential to widen access to abortion, especially in those 86 percent of US counties that possess no abortion clinic, by making it private--doctors unable or unwilling to perform surgical abortions could prescribe it, and women could take it at home.

Subscriber Login

4 ISSUES FREE

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

.
Most Read

Issues »

Most Emailed

Issues »

Popular Topics

Blogs

» State of Change

UN Pick Rice: Another Wrong-on-Iraq Nominee | She fell for Colin Powell's WMD fantasies, and ridiculed those who did not.
John Nichols
Posted at 10:52 PM ET

» The Notion

DC to Delhi: Only Our Missiles -- Not Yours | What is Rice going to say to India: only DC not Delhi is allowed to bomb Pakistan?
Laura Flanders
Posted at 9:29 PM ET

» Act Now!

World AIDS Day | How to help in the fight against the AIDS pandemic.
Peter Rothberg

» The Beat

Why Obama's Got "Complete Confidence" In Clinton | She won't bring the change his backers believed in. But Obama never really shared that belief.
John Nichols

» Editor's Cut

Robert Gates: Wrong Man for the Job | What we need after eight ruinous years is experience informed by good judgment.
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» The Dreyfuss Report

Obama's New Team at State, Defense, NSC | And some comments about why John Brennan didn't get the CIA job.
Robert Dreyfuss

» Passing Through

Forget GM's Plan -- Where's The Government's Plan? | Create a demand for green cars.
Jane Hamsher

» Capitolism

Is Personnel Policy? | How much do personnel choices reflect the Obama administration's policy direction
Christopher Hayes

» And Another Thing

Election Updates --Good News and Not | Details on some ongoing stories
Katha Pollitt