Ru 486 Misconceptions Myths and Morals - ressourcesfeministes

The History of RU 486developing countries and that the availability of chemicalabortion would not change this. Of the few critical articles,two came from New Zealand in which feminist health criticand author Sandra Coney drew attention to Baulieu’sinaccurate reporting of complications from his own study(Coney, 1990a and b). 14The feminist press internationally—as well as feministhealth groups in general—have predominantly reacted to thenews of RU 486 with optimism, if not enthusiasm. In 1990,the German feminist magazine Emma ran two articles, bothurging women to put pressure on Roussel Uclaf and Hoechstto make the drug available outside France (Rauch 1990:6;zur Nieden 1990:26–27). In 1988 and 1989, the Women ‘sGlobal Ne twork on Reproductive Rights repeatedlypublished articles in their Newsletter assuming a similarposition of support for RU 486 as the Feminist Majority andthe Reproductive Health Technologies Project in the USA.Newsletter editor, Marge Berer, for instance, reported from aworkshop on RU 486 at a 1989 British conference whereshe was joined by David Baird, a member of the BritishMulticentre Trial team, André Ulmann from Roussel Uclaf,and Rebecca Cook, a member of the US Reproductive HealthTechnologies Project. Berer concluded that she left theconference convinced that the women’s health movementmust join the international campaign to make RU 486available, especially in the third world (Berer, 1989:3). Inthe same issue, Janet Callum and Carol Downer from theUS Federation of Feminist Health Centers enthusiasticallydescribe their visit to a French hospital where RU 486 wasadministered and to Roussel Uclaf where they talked withAndré Ulmann.Only a few feminist publications carried reports on thepill that were accompanied by cautionary remarks. An articlein the German periodical Clio (republished and translated inConnexions, 1989:15) noted that RU 486 has not provenharmless and reminded their readers of earlier ‘miracle19