'Morning after' pill has political side effects - controversy over ethics and safety of birth control pill RU-486

0 Comments | Insight on the News, July 4, 1994 | by Gayle M.B. Hanson

Does the controversial drug, RU-486, |prevent' or "terminate" pregnancy.? While pro-lifers threaten boycotts against companies that produce it, some feminists question the drug's safety.

Is RU-486 an "abortion drug," as pro-life adherents argue - or is it actually an "emergency contraceptive," the term favored by pro-choice groups? That's the debate under way now in San Francisco, where doctors at the University of California have begun clinical trials of the controversial drug.

"This is a method for emergency contraception," says Dr. David Grimes, a UC professor of obstetrics and gynecology who is leading the trials. "It is designed to prevent conception from starting and is not an abortion study."

But abortion foes are crying foul. They insist that RU-486 - which prevents a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the wall of the uterus - is not a contraceptive at all, since conception occurs at the moment of fertilization.

"This is a clear attempt by the abortion lobby to deliberately continue to mislead American women," says Richard Glasow, education director for the National Right to Life Committee. "They are calling it an emergency contraceptive. The truth of the matter is that RU-486 does not prevent conception. That is not the way the drug has been used anywhere. But we are not going to sit back and watch this drug be foisted on people. We are going to move against it."

The semantic wrestling is important, because the tests in San Francisco are only the first in a series of clinical trials that will be in full swing across the country by autumn. The Food and Drug Administration then will determine if it will approve RU-486 for use. But even if it is approved, pro-life groups plan to battle the drug.

Developed by the French in 1980, RU-486 is legal in several European countries, including Great Britain. The FDA, however, banned imports of the drug during the Bush administration, arguing that it hadn't been tested sufficiently.

But as reports of a quick-and-easy "morning after" pill began to spread, dropping the ban became a rallying cry during the 1992 election for pro-choice groups, who embraced Bill Clinton's promise to allow drug testing for the U.S. market. Once elected, Clinton quickly announced he would make good on his promise. This would seem to have been good news to the drug's manufacturer, Roussel Uclaf, a subsidiary of German chemical company Hoechst AG, but the company was under pressure from numerous prolife advocates - including Pope John Paul II - to pull the drug from the market. For Hoechst, the controversial RU-486, whatever its benefits, had turned into a gigantic political liability. Nevertheless, Roussel Uclaf agreed on May 16 to allow the drug entry into the American market. Under a highly unusual agreement, the company donated the drug's patent to the New York-based Population Council, a nonprofit organization dedicated to population control. The council, headed by former Kennedy administration official McGeorge Bundy, has offices in 16 countries and is a strong supporter of abortion rights. It also holds the patent for the contraceptive Norplant.

After Roussel Uclaf's decision, council president Margaret Catley-Carlson said her group was "exhilarated" by the prospect of being able to distribute the drug. "We are confident we will be able to arrange for manufacture and distribution in the United States," she said. "We plan to move quickly to arrange for financing, insurance, manufacture and distribution so that all will be in place by the time we receive FDA approval."

But even as pro-choice groups and the Clinton administration were celebrating the release of the RU-486 patent, pro-life organizers were meeting to map out a strategy for keeping the drug from the public. "We've been preparing for this moment for a long time," says Glasow.

One thing is certain: Antiabortion advocates will have to employ a different strategy from the one they've used to fight surgical abortion. In fact, the clinical trials for RU-486 come at a time when the pro-life movement has undergone a major setback. Clinton recently signed legislation making it a federal crime to block access to abortion clinics, a ruling that has left pro-lifers struggling for new ways to get their message across. But as antiabortion advocates organize to oppose RU-486, they do so with at least one clear weapon - threats of boycotts. Pro-life groups have been able to scare off potential American manufacturers.

"They need to know we are willing to fight them all the way with this"' says Kristi Hemrick, director of communications for the Family Research Council, a pro-life think tank in Washington.

During the first week of June, a coalition of pro-life organizations gathered in Washington to announce a boycott of any company involved in the manufacture or distribution of RU-486. These included Hoechst, Roussel Uclaf and their American subsidiaries, although no specific products were named in the boycott. (Hoechst manufactures the synthetic fiber Celanese used in cigarette filters, as well as several popular brand-name pharmaceuticals and agricultural products distributed in the United States.) The boycott brought together such pro-life forces as the National Right to Life Committee, the Family Research Council and the Christian Life Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, which is 15.4 million members strong.