Change the law on RU486
Results from Australian trials of the abortion drug RU486 expose federal parliament's decision last May to restrict access to the pill as punitive moralism, and add weight to arguments for lifting the restrictions.
RU486, used in conjunction with prostaglandins, is an abortifacient or morning-after pill. It obstructs the formation of the uterus lining which nourishes a pregnancy, while the prostaglandins encourage contractions which eventually expel the contents of the uterus.
Of the 38 women who trialed the pill in 1994, 34 said that the procedure was acceptable. One woman needed pethidine for cramping; others were satisfied with paracetamol. Six women complained about the pain and duration of bleeding, but still said that the procedure was acceptable. Many women said that they preferred the procedure to a surgical termination because it involved no anaesthesia and was less invasive.
One woman said that she felt "much more able to cope with my decision" to have a non-surgical termination. This is precisely why anti-choice campaigner Senator Brian Harradine last year introduced the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill to restrict RU486.
Under the legislation, all uses of RU486 require approval from the minister for health. The current health minister, Michael Wooldridge, is openly anti-abortion.
While Harradine's campaign focused on the supposed health risks of RU486, his primary motivation was to restrict women's right to choose.
RU486 was introduced in France in 1989, where it now accounts for approximately a quarter of all abortions, and in Britain in 1991. In both countries, its use is confined to licensed clinics.
The procedure is strictly supervised and is available to women only up to seven weeks of pregnancy. Women assessed as at risk because of age, weight, smoking or other health problems are ineligible.
The abortions involve many trips to the doctor over as many as eight days. Drawbacks can include the duration and amount of blood loss, significant pain and vomiting, nausea and diarrhoea. About 4% of women require surgical abortion anyway because the contents of the uterus are not fully expelled. The general success rate is 95%, compared with 99% for surgical abortions.
There has been one death associated with its use. In 1991 a French woman — a heavy smoker in her 13th pregnancy, factors which should have ruled out RU486 use — died after suffering a cardiac arrest. Since then, prostaglandins have been developed which are said to carry fewer risks of circulatory and coronary problems.
Some feminists have opposed the development of RU486. They argue that drug companies and the medical establishment, imbued with sexism and profit priorities, are unlikely to produce a drug that will be in the interests of women. Others have argued that RU486 may reinforce myths about the danger, difficulty and undesirability of surgical abortions.
While these concerns should not be ignored, neither should they preclude further trials and development of the drug. RU486 may not be the preferred or best option for many women, but for others it offers a less intrusive, more empowering means by which to control their fertility.
The RU486 trials should be resumed and all abortion laws repealed to assist its development as a safer abortion option. Women's right to choose includes, by definition, women's right to a say in how RU486 is developed and used. There is no justification for the views of individual (mostly conservative male) parliamentarians being given more weight than those of the millions of women whom their decisions affect.
By Marina Carman