Category: Abortion by Pill: Facts

Cytotec is another name for the drug misoprostol, which was originally developed to treat ulcers but is now used with the abortion pill, mifepristone, to cause abortions. Misoprostol causes the uterus to contract, causing a woman to expel her baby. Mifepristone kills the baby by separating the placenta and cutting off the child’s oxygen and nutrition supply.

The company that has the patent to misoprostol/Cytotec opposed its use in abortions. According to author Melissa Haussman:

“The owner of the Cytotec patent, the Searle Company, consistently lobbied against having its drug included in an official medical abortion procedure.… In August 2000, one month after the drug had gone off-patent, Searle sent a letter to medical practitioners to warn them that Cytotec was not FDA approved for labor or abortion induction, although practitioners already knew that. It has strongly been suggested that the timing of that action was linked to avoiding future liability. Until misoprostol went off patent in July 2000, Searle acted to push any potential US manufacturer away from making mifepristone, since misoprostol would be required as an accompaniment.”

Melissa Haussman Reproductive Rights and the State: Getting the Birth Control, RU-486, and Morning-After Pills and the Gardasil Vaccine to the US Market (Santa Barbara, California: Praeger, 2013) 99

So Searle felt that it was unsafe to use misoprostol to induce abortions or labor, and was afraid of lawsuits due to this.

However, Searle lost the battle to control the use of their drug.

From an interview with an abortion provider:

Interviewer: The most recent controversy to the abortion rights activists is that the FDA is now talking about limiting RU-486’s access when it does become available, by requiring special licensing of those dispensing the pill and that they be within a certain distance of a hospital. Do you think these proposed hurdles are justified?

Ab: yes, to some extent. If a patient begins to bleed heavily during a medical abortion, the patient might need surgical intervention. The uterus needs to be evacuated so we can clamp down and stop the bleeding. If everyone out there is prescribing RU-486 to people who do not have surgical access, then there’s bound to be some kind of a problem.”

David Morton, “Anonymous Abortion Provider” July 12-July 18. 2000 Alternative Weekly

Pro-Choice activists are adamantly opposed to regulating RU-486 and requiring doctors and clinics who dispense it to have surgical facilities available.

Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, who has tracked chemical abortifacients such as RU486 (mifepristone) for National Right to Life for a number of years, discusses the dangers of RU-486 in an article about a proposed law that would regulate facilities that offer it:

“It isn’t as simple as having a doctor pass out some pills. Women undergoing these chemical abortions will endure heavy bleeding, painful cramping, and various forms of gastro-intestinal distress, even if these are ‘successful.'”

Some women “hemorrhage and need emergency surgery,” O’Bannon noted. “A number of women have died in the U.S. after contracting deadly infections. The last thing you want is a doctor who is unprepared to deal with these outcomes.”

Missouri Abortion Clinic Law Enjoined National Right to Life News September 1, 2007

Dr. Susan Poppema, NAF president, discusses one problem with RU-486.

“Having a group of women doing a lot of bleeding and cramping in your office, when they would rather be home, doesn’t do much for the [patient] flow in your clinic.”

She argues that women should be sent home to abort alone – despite the risk to a woman’s health and the lack of medical attention should something go wrong. This is because she is concerned about  “patient flow” efficiency in her clinic.

Wendy Wright “The Deceit behind RU-486: Who’s Really in Control?” Family Voice, November/December 2000