Amanda, the story you linked to caught my eye this morning, selfishly, because the cancer medication that was contaminated and caused the paralysis—methotrexate—is one of the drugs I take (though for arthritis, not cancer, treatment). But I don’t know if pro-lifers should be jumping on this tragic story and using it as another stick with which to whack the abortion industry. You mentioned that you were “reminded, yet again, of the double standard that seems to exist for the abortion industry.” But what in the Times report, other than that the same company makes RU-486, made you think this accident is somehow linked to pro-abortion forces? It seems to be linked to shoddy production standards in China. You closed by noting: “Once again, it’s a question of women’s health and well-being, and once again, it’s not the pro-lifers who don’t care.” But why force this into a pro-life / pro-choice dichotomy. As the Times story notes, the contaminated medication was for cancer; the abortion pills weren’t affected. In fact, the abortion pills were made in a seperate factory an hour away from the one where the accident took place. The Times went on to note:
But in a statement, the agency said the RU-486 plant had passed an F.D.A. inspection in May. “F.D.A. is not aware of any evidence to suggest the issue that occurred at the leukemia drug facility is linked in any way with the facility that manufactures the mifepristone [RU-486],” the statement said.The director of the Chinese F.D.A.’s drug safety control unit in Shanghai, Zhou Qun, said her agency had inspected the factory that produced mifepristone [RU-486] three times in recent months and found it in compliance. “It is natural to worry,” Ms. Zhou said, “but these two plants are in two different places and have different quality-assurance people.”
You asked “why was the F.D.A. afraid to identify the maker of the abortion pill.” The Times says it was because of “security concerns stemming from the sometimes violent opposition to abortion.” Pro-lifers probably don’t like being reminded of this, but there have been some bad apples in the barrel, and they’ve done some terrible things, like bomb abortion clinics. Imagine what might have happened had the F.D.A. publicly announced, back in the early part of this decade when the debates surrounding RU-486 were fierce, the name of the company selling the drug to the U.S. Protests and boycotts, certainly, but is it that inconceivable that someone would have used a deadly utilitarian calculus to conclude that taking out one drug-production plant would eliminate RU-486 from reaching the hands of thousands of abortion clinics?
Why hasn’t the F.D.A. been more forthcoming? Probably to save face, and to wait til they have all the facts in. But, again, this doesn’t seem unique to abortion or the abortion pill. What happened when the Times asked the F.D.A. if the Shanghai Pharmaceutical Group exported other drugs to the US? “After repeated requests, the agency declined to provide that information; it did not cite a reason.” Could it be because other drugs from the company are on our shelves and the F.D.A. isn’t certain of their quality? Could it be because the F.D.A. was only willing to take the risk with this company with the abortion pill? We just don’t know yet.
I guess I’d just caution pro-lifers to resist the urge to use any story where a tragedy occurs that is somehow connected to abortion as a chance to score culture-war points. You’re right, there’s definitely a lot of fishy business going on with the abortion industry, F.D.A. regulations, and RU-486 in particular. But there just doesn’t seem to be good reason, at the present moment, to be making such a strong link between this incident and that debate.
