Ru 486 Misconceptions Myths and Morals - ressourcesfeministes

The History of RU 486University Hospital who expressed considerable reservationabout RU 486 (pers. comm. to RK, June 1990). 15 Nissimalso reinforced the Le Monde article suggesting that thewithdrawal of RU 486 in France in 1988, might not onlyhave been because of the anti-abortionists, but because ofcomplications from the pill:It was strategically very smart, because they [RousselUclaf] were requested to bring it back. Women today havethe impression that they are getting something otherswanted to refuse them, so they are more likely to acceptor be silent about the disadvantages. 16In June 1990, the Dutch-based group, WEMOS Women andPharmaceuticals, organized a seminar on RU 486, withspeakers from the Dutch Abortion Providers, the WHO anda French Hospital which administers the drug and WEMOS.In spite of the optimistic promotion of RU 486/ PG-abortionby Bernard Maria, French abortion provider and co-authorof some Roussel Uclaf studies, serious concerns were raisedregarding the drug’s safety and efficacy. Specifically, seminarparticipants queried third-world applications; it was feared ablack market might be established with disastrousconsequences. WHO representative Paul van Look alsopointed out that because of RU 486’s anti-glucocorticoidactivity, a more ‘pure’ antiprogestin might be developed intime. The seminar ended on a cautionary note: ‘Given theknowledge of the abortion pill at the moment, it doesn’t seemwise to promote it on a large scale’ (WEMOS Proceedings,1990:36).The ‘Father’ of the Abortion Pill?The future of RU486/PG abortion remains unresolved. Ina 1990 interview with the New York Times, Etienne Baulieuhad accused both Roussel Uclaf and WHO of being slow todistribute the drug, especially in third world countries.21