Hon. Christopher H. Smith in the House of Representatives
Thursday, May 26, 1994

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, why is Bill Clinton--the abortion President--so obsessed with pushing abortion here in the United States and overseas_

Why is he willing to use women as guinea pigs in testing RU-486--the newest fad in baby poison. A poison that has maimed and killed women as well.

I rise today to ask my colleagues to read a thoughtful inclusive Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled `RU-486--Sunny Rhetoric vs. Bloody Reality' by Charmaine Crouse Yoest.

Ms. Yoest is an adjunct fellow with the Family Research Council and a fellow in the department of government at the University of Virginia.

(By Charmaine Crouse Yoest)

How many times will women be used as guinea pigs_ We should have learned some lessons from the Dalkon Shield. DES and maybe even breast implants. But last week, the president announced that RU-486. the French abortion drug, well be coming to America. Thanks to back-door negotiations between the Clinton administration and Roussel-Uclaf, the patent-holder of RU-486, the patent will be donated to the Population Council, a liberal abortion-advocacy group.

Abortion advocates keep telling American women that this drug is `safe and effective'--and both foes and supporters of abortion argue that the abortion procedure is `easy.' Yet all these claims are open to serious question.

Just how safe is the RU-486 abortion_ It has killed at least one woman in France. In that case, the young woman was dead within an hour after receiving the prostaglandin injection that is the final stage of the four-step RU-486 regime. Abortion advocates keep claiming that RU-486 itself didn't kill her: it was the prostaglandin in the fourth step. That may be true, but it's not particularly relevant. RU-486 abortions without prostaglandin just don't happen.

As a result of that death, smokers and women over age 34 may not take RU-486 in France. Additionally, women are advised not to take the drug if they have any of the following very common conditions: high blood pressure, anemia, gynecologic infections and fibroids.

However, we don't really know just how dangerous RU-486 is. In one of the major studies of women using the drug, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 75 of the 2.115 women in the study were not followed after receiving the final injection. Did any of them suffer severe, or fatal, complications_ We simply don't know.

The record does show that RU-486 has also been responsible for two nonfatal heart attacks. And according to Roussel's own data, out of 950 women studied, 270 required narcotics for intense pain. Seven required blood transfusions.

Janice Raymond, associate director of the MIT-based Institute on Women and Technology--and a bona-fide abortion supporter--is opposing the drug after a thorough review of the scientific literature on RU-486.

So, at best, the jury is still out on `safe.' Is the RU-486 regime `effective'_ To a degree. But in the one out of 20 times that the unborn child is not killed, its deformities are so severe that Roussel-Uclaf, fearing litigation, requires women to sign an agreement to a surgical abortion. What if a woman changes her mind after taking the first dose of RU-486_ Will she be forced, Chinese-style, into a surgical abortion_

The RU-486/prostaglandin regime effectively completes an abortion through inducing the contractions and hemorrhage that expel the unborn child. Supporters of the drug rhapsodize about the increased `privacy' of `taking the pill at home.' But they are glossing over the reality that women are administered the drug in a clinic and then sent home to wait as the bleeding begins. The president of Roussel-Uclaf, Edouard Sakiz, says it is `an appalling psychological ordeal.' In Europe there are support groups for women who have endured the procedure.

This raises the issue of informed consent. Having advocates like the Population Council bring this drug into the country presents a clear conflict of interest. When a woman comes to participate in the field trials, having heard in the media that RU-486 is easy, will she be told about the side effects and that MIT's Ms. Raymond has questiond the impact of RU-486 on her health_ Will she know what she is getting into before it is too late_

It is very troubling that the groups that will be administering an experimental abortion drug with serious potential side effects are the same ones that have demonstrated their opposition to a woman's right to know all the information about surgical abortion. Pro-abortion groups have fought informed consent laws all the way to the Supreme Court.

And what about parental consent_ Will 14-year-old girls be given RU-486 and sent home to hemorrhage without their parents' knowing anything about it_ All too often, parents are not informed of their daughters' surgical abortions.

Surgical abortion is legal and accessible in the U.S. And, contrary to the hyperbolic pro-abortion rhetoric, RU-486--with its mandatory four doctor visits--is not easier and more private than surgical abortion. It's odd that the same people who say that a 24-hour wait to see a doctor for a surgical abortion is absolutely unacceptable would be promoting chemical abortion, which in its current state is a much more drawn out procedure. Shouldn't we be asking why this questionable drug is so important to them_ And to the president_

Quick. Name something the president has done to address breast cancer, a disease that attacks one out of nine women. Name just one other drug for which the president has personally lobbied. What's going on here_ Is it women's rights and women's health the president is concerned about--or just abortion at any cost_