Ru 486 Misconceptions Myths and Morals - ressourcesfeministes

RU 486researchers. Each article includes within its authorship atleast one member or affiliate of the Roussel Uclaf team.We share the sense of embattlement that many womenfeel, given the right-wing anti-abortion gains of the last decade.We also understand the need for feminist groups to makecoalitions with other organizations. We do not understandwhy this embattlement has so quickly turned into acceptingthe claims for RU 486/PG; and why the need for coalitionshas translated into joining with many population groups thathave had a history of promoting dangerous and debilitatingdrugs, devices, and public policies for women (seeConclusion).We believe there is a pressing need for independentfeminist research, analysis, and discussion of RU 486/PGthat does not accept uncritically the conclusions of the drugcompany’s research. Much of the positive reaction to RU486/PG has thus far been based on these studies. This reportis a comprehensive review and analysis of hundreds ofmedical and scientific articles on RU 486/PG, a largepercentage of which have a connection with Roussel Uclafand which reiterate the Roussel Uclaf findings.Dominant assumptions about RU 486/PG need to befundamentally re-examined, such as the claims for privatizingthe abortion environment, and the drug’s portrayal as a‘private, woman-controlled, safe and effective’ means ofabortion. There appears to be an unquestioning acceptancethat RU 486/PG de-medicalizes abortion, whereas the realityof RU 486/PG treatment is that it remedicalizes, i.e. morethoroughly medicalizes, the abortion experience for women.RU 486/PG treatment is administered solely under strictmedical supervision at specialized medical centres, requiresthree or four visits to a medical service, and can be usedeffectively only within 42–49 days after a woman’s lastmenstrual period, that is approximately 14–21 days afterher first missed period. Many women, especially teenagers,4