Collateral Damage and RU-486
Bill from IDC launches into some more kind of tirade against Michelle Malkin for her posting about the deaths of at least 4 women from the use of the abortion inducing drug RU-486. He, somewhat shrilly, indicts her for "shoehorning science and medicine in order to fit an ideological agenda, misrepresenting risk and utilizing hyperbole". How hypocritical.
He "demonstrates", based on numbers supplied by the company who produces the product (wonder if he gets his "tobacco is safe" info from RJ Reynolds) the supposed complications rate per application. He then compares this favorably to the higher death rates for an anti-depressant (which is taken daily for a whole year.) Lets see, one treatment, versus 365 treatments. OK, that works for libs. There are nearly as many women dying from this drug as were dying from the much ballyhooed "back-street abortions" before Roe v. Wade. So we're still killing women who want abortions, but the libs want to defend this with their lives, they're only satisfied as long as babies and women are killed the way they want. The goal is more abortion, women dying are just collateral damage.
Bill then goes on to compare the mortality rate versus that of giving birth. Again, a poor use of statistics. Several problems with this - first of all, almost 100% of the incidents of women with childbirth are reported. I would easily imagine, that many/most abortion clinics don't report complications from either an abortion or the use of the RU-486. They've not been the best source for this type of info in the past, it's doubtful they would have suddenly seen the light and decided disclosure and transparency were to their advantage. No, what they do is best done in the dark.
Secondly, comparing the health of a mother at 8 or 10 weeks of pregnancy, versus that of the mortality of taking the drug at this time is no contest. The mothers are much better off (not to mention the babies they are carrying.) Third, RU-486 doesn't affect the mortality rates of childbirth. It is generally the richer, healthier women that buy the drug, those that can afford good health care anyway. Their mortality rate is virtually nil due to their ability to have good medical care before and during delivery. It is the sick, poor, druggie, rural folks who still will experience the highest mortality rates and who will not be "given" RU-486.
The whole comparison is bogus to begin with.
In addition, RU-486 is not prescribed for an illness or is it medically necessary for the health of the patient(s). It in fact, has over a 50% fatality rate - which obviously is its goal. There simply is no medical, ethical or philosophical need for this drug. What Bill and other libs miss completely is that the women's deaths are unnecessary.
It is, for the conservatives, still an issue of life and protecting it, an issue of protecting both lives.
Update: Just came across this great medical discussion of the effects of RU-486 and a possible rationale for the deaths by infection. Good Read - Hyscience
He "demonstrates", based on numbers supplied by the company who produces the product (wonder if he gets his "tobacco is safe" info from RJ Reynolds) the supposed complications rate per application. He then compares this favorably to the higher death rates for an anti-depressant (which is taken daily for a whole year.) Lets see, one treatment, versus 365 treatments. OK, that works for libs. There are nearly as many women dying from this drug as were dying from the much ballyhooed "back-street abortions" before Roe v. Wade. So we're still killing women who want abortions, but the libs want to defend this with their lives, they're only satisfied as long as babies and women are killed the way they want. The goal is more abortion, women dying are just collateral damage.
Bill then goes on to compare the mortality rate versus that of giving birth. Again, a poor use of statistics. Several problems with this - first of all, almost 100% of the incidents of women with childbirth are reported. I would easily imagine, that many/most abortion clinics don't report complications from either an abortion or the use of the RU-486. They've not been the best source for this type of info in the past, it's doubtful they would have suddenly seen the light and decided disclosure and transparency were to their advantage. No, what they do is best done in the dark.
Secondly, comparing the health of a mother at 8 or 10 weeks of pregnancy, versus that of the mortality of taking the drug at this time is no contest. The mothers are much better off (not to mention the babies they are carrying.) Third, RU-486 doesn't affect the mortality rates of childbirth. It is generally the richer, healthier women that buy the drug, those that can afford good health care anyway. Their mortality rate is virtually nil due to their ability to have good medical care before and during delivery. It is the sick, poor, druggie, rural folks who still will experience the highest mortality rates and who will not be "given" RU-486.
The whole comparison is bogus to begin with.
In addition, RU-486 is not prescribed for an illness or is it medically necessary for the health of the patient(s). It in fact, has over a 50% fatality rate - which obviously is its goal. There simply is no medical, ethical or philosophical need for this drug. What Bill and other libs miss completely is that the women's deaths are unnecessary.
It is, for the conservatives, still an issue of life and protecting it, an issue of protecting both lives.
Update: Just came across this great medical discussion of the effects of RU-486 and a possible rationale for the deaths by infection. Good Read - Hyscience
posted by Judge William at 9:03 AM
<< Home