RU486 in Australia
cathryn
Australia has become more about abortion vs anti-abortion rather than
the central issues of efficacy and safety.
Anti-abortionists have taken the opportunity to wave their tired old
flags, and Howard eagerly agrees with them. From todays ABC news
website " Prime Minister John Howard has indicated he does not agree
with removing control of the abortion pill RU486 from the federal
Health Minister Tony Abbott. Mr Howard has signalled he would prefer Mr
Abbott to continue to have the power to ban the use of the abortion
drug and he is not in favour of having the Therapeutic Goods
Administration (TGA) approve it."
In other words, he would prefer that men like him and his cronies
continue to have control over women's bodies. This, in the face of
clear evidence that RU486 is at least as safe if not safer than
surgical abortion, more cost effective, and less traumatic. And what
the f*ck would Howard or Abbott know about abortion? If Howard's
daughter required an abortion, does this mean he would prefer her to
have it using the least safe, most expensive and most traumatic method?
Whether you like it or not, Australia provides access to abortions. The
only issue up for debate should be whether RU486 is safe, and the
literature is replete with evidence that it is. That it has taken more
than 20 years evidence from other countries yet we still have not
adopted it here in Australia is nothing short of disgraceful.
Cathryn.
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.