RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals Paperback – July 1, 2013

This drug is a miserable, horrible chemical being pushed on young women as a way to have a convenient “natural” abortion. It is anything but natural. The makers of this awful chemical poison are the same company that produced Zyklon B the chemical used to murder millions of Jews, Christians, Gypsies, and other’s considered “unfit” in Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. It’s a shame that the physical, mental, and spiritual health of women is being compromised by this nasty concoction of chemicals so that the liberal pro-choice agenda can be implemented in our culture. This drug is anything but safe and to promote the idea that critics of the pill are against a women’s right to choose to have an abortion is shallow and severely neglects the truth regarding the safety of these drugs. Women’s rights advocates should want women to be SAFE when making there choices regarding abortion and there health. They should not be so consumed with the ethical question of abortion and proving that women SHOULD have a right to choose to have one that they callously disregard the safety of this drug and the many women that have died or have been injured by it. I have a freind who took this and lost her life. It is poison. There are lots of factors that make this chemical concoction unsafe and hazardous. It’s more complicated than a liberal person versus a conservative person and pro-life versus pro-choice. Big pharma at its best reducing the population and killing off the undesirables.

I don't know what the new "100-page preface" says, but if the rest of the book has not changed from 1993, the outdated and inaccurate views in it should be discounted.The 1993 book was based partly on misinterpretation of the literature at the time, and certainly the literature and evidence that has accumulated since then has discredited the book. The author's opposition comes from a strong opposition to what they call "reproductive and genetic engineering" - which is a bias that slants their views and conclusions. The authors strongly overstate the advantages of surgical suction abortion while whitewashing some of its inconveniences and problems, and they do the same but vice versa with mifepristone. Both methods have some positives and negatives, but both are equally safe and effective.It should be noted that the views of Lynette Dumble and Janice Raymond were refuted by expert opinions from David Grimes and Paul Van Look back in 1993. MS Magazine also featured a written debate with rebuttals at the time. Earlier this year in New Zealand, material from this book was used in an advertising campaign against the opening of a Family Planning clinic's early medical abortion service. The NZ pro-choice group ALRANZ brought a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority and the complaint was upheld (although the advertiser is appealing the decision).It is no accident that anti-choice activists are almost the only cheerleaders for this book. The pro-choice movement and most feminists do not support it, and certainly not the experts who are actually involved in reproductive healthcare. Many of the latter opposed the authors' views in conferences and in writing in the early 1990's. It seemed like these feminists authors then became inactive on the issue and things quietened down. But if the authors remain opposed to mifepristone in this reprint, which seems to be the case, their views should be disregarded because of how they twisted and distorted the research and science - in much the same way as the anti-choice movement has always done.The use of prostaglandin with mifepristone did have its problems in the early days, but there has now been three decades of practice and research on medical abortion and WHO guidance (World Health Organization) that should be treated as the legitimate source of information on the very well-established safety, efficacy, and acceptability of medical abortion. The reprint of this book represents a serious disservice to women and their reproductive health.