Ru 486 Misconceptions Myths and Morals - ressourcesfeministes

Claims for RU 486/PG Abortionthe British trials admits that, ‘To maintain safety you requireextremely close medical supervision’ (Sunday Times, 30October 1988).How, then, are women presumed to control this newabortion method? What is the privacy and de-medicalizationthat has been so touted in the promotional literature? Privacyand control by what/whose standards? In the minds of many,both privacy and control seem to be equated with any methodthat is non-conventional. In reality, the RU 486/PG abortionmethod increases, rather than decreases, the lack of privacyand the lack of women’s control over the abortion experience.The only thing different about an RU 486/PG abortion isthe rhetoric of control which hardly matches the reality of strictand prolonged medical supervision. Measured by the numberof doctor’s visits, and the duration of time from visit one tovisit three, or four (at which point the woman is back tosquare one of conventional abortion), we are talking about anon-private, extensively medicalized, and complicatedabortion method.Additionally, the anonymity of a woman’s abortion isprecluded by registration. Under French law, the abortionpill’s use is tightly controlled. It is administered solely atdesignated family planning centers—the only place any typeof abortion can be performed there—and is not available fromindividual doctors or pharmacies. In England, the nextcountry where RU 486/PG is to be distributed and marketed,the 1967 Abortion Act requires that abortion technology anddrugs be given exclusively in hospitals and clinics licensedunder the act. Furthermore, all the trials have been closelycontrolled as in France, not simply because they are trialsbut, as many of the researchers and clinicians readily admit,because RU 486/PG is not safe enough to administer withoutclose medical supervision. What happens, now, to EllenGoodman’s original question: ‘How could a state controlswallowing?’ Easily, when a country, even for the best of29