Bill Introduced to Restrict Use of the Abortion Pill
Feb. 6, 2001 (Washington) -- Some Republican lawmakers are once again mounting an effort to restrict the use of the highly controversial abortion pill RU-486.
U.S. Rep. David Vitter, (R-La.), and U.S. Sen. Tim Hutchinson, (R-Ark.), on Tuesday introduced legislation that would require physicians prescribing the drug to have previous experience performing surgical abortions. The bill, similar to one introduced by Hutchinson last year, also would require prescribing physicians to receive special training, be able to read an ultrasound, and be able to admit patients to a nearby hospital.
"This bill seeks to ensure that the health of women who take this drug will not be jeopardized due to the improper administration of the drug by an inadequately trained health professional," said Hutchinson at a press conference. "I have no doubt that if women were asked whether their doctor should be required to be able to read an ultrasound, handle complications, and get them admitted to the hospital in case of emergency, they would not hesitate to demand those levels of competence."
"This legislation is about protecting women's health," Vitter said. "Last fall, the Clinton-Gore FDA caved into political pressure from the abortion lobby and hurriedly approved the abortion drug without crucial health protections for those who use it. Our legislation corrects that mistake."
Last September, the FDA approved RU-486, also called mifepristone and sold under the name Mifeprex, under a set of rules most often used for the "fast-track" approval of drugs to treat life-threatening diseases, such as AIDS. The FDA also proposed, but then abandoned, the set of restrictions outlined in the legislation proposed Tuesday.
But pro-choice forces say the bill is a thinly disguised effort to chip away at women's right to choose.
"Claims that this legislation is motivated by a concern for women's health are at best disingenuous, and at worst, dishonest," said Vicki Saporta, executive director of the National Abortion Federation, following the Republican press conference.
Although the FDA considered similar restrictions, the agency subsequently rejected them because they were medically unnecessary and inconsistent with the way medicine is practiced in the U.S., Saporta noted. In addition, she pointed out, the FDA did not abandon all of the proposed restrictions. Doctors prescribing the drug are still required to be able to complete a surgical abortion or at least have access to another qualified surgeon.