Tough pill to swallow

I would like to quash a perceived campus controversy. Some people at this University think they are engaged in the good fight. But instead, they are just misinformed and misdirected.

The Food and Drug Administration approved RU-486 in September, and the 'Prince' started grilling McCosh, calling everyone ever associated with abortion for charged comments. To say that McCosh "decided not to offer" RU-486 — as the Dec. 5 'Prince' claimed — inflames the reality. More accurately, McCosh chose not to invest significant resources into providing a service unlike any to which it has previously been committed.

Known as the "abortion pill," RU-486 terminates a pregnancy using a combination of two pills. Mifepristone blocks production of progesterone, a hormone necessary to sustain pregnancy. Misoprostol causes the uterus to contract, thus expelling an embryo. In approving RU-486, the FDA required that both pills be administered by a physician within the first 49 days of pregnancy.

The French pharmaceutical company that developed and distributes mifepristone in Europe, Roussel-Uclaf (hence "RU"), donated RU-486 patent rights to the Population Council, an international, nonprofit institution that researches reproductive health and population growth. The Population Council, in turn, sought a distributor and was approached by Danco Laboratories LLC. Because of the controversy surrounding abortion in this country, other established drug companies were hesitant to take on mifepristone production. Though it was created specifically to produce and market mifespristone — under the brand name Mifeprex — Danco does not manufacture the drug and has not divulged such information.

Prior to approval, RU-486 was seen by both supporters and opponents alike as holding the potential to change the face of abortion in this country. RU-486 was long the Holy Grail for the pro-choice movement. Because the procedure is medical, rather than surgical, many pro-choice activists foresaw abortion as achieving the privacy they believe it deserves. They envisioned a woman getting some pills from her own physician and exercising her choice in the comfort of her own home.

Some thought RU-486 could take abortion out of the clinics — and away from protesters and violent attacks — and bring privacy to a woman's right to choose. It had the potential to expand access for those women who live in areas without surgical abortion facilities. Furthermore, if all doctors could prescribe mifepristone, abortion providers would no longer be targets of the violent wings of the pro-life movement.

But the FDA's action did not allow pro-choice activists to celebrate as they had imagined, nor did it threaten the pro-life movement in the way that was expected. In the heat of an election capable of placing power in either party's hands, the FDA bowed to everyone. Pro-choicers applauded approval. Pro-lifers cheered restrictions. In typically politicized fashion, RU-486 was approved with strings attached. RU-486 could be distributed only by physicians equipped to accurately determine the pregnancy stage and to ensure that the pregnancy was not ectopic or tubal.

The FDA restricted distribution to doctors equipped to perform surgical abortions — or able to refer patients to such doctors — if medical abortion failed. Though medical abortions boast a 92- to 99-percent effectiveness rate, when they fail, they must be followed by surgical abortions because of the increase in birth defects associated with use of RU-486. In addition, Mifeprex costs are expected to approximate current costs of surgical abortion, thereby derailing the pro-choice movement's hopes that the drug might end economic discrimination of choice.

According to the 'Prince' article, 14 out of 55 reported pregnancies on campus were referred for termination last year. I count myself among the staunchest supporters of reproductive rights, and I believe that uneven access is one of the greatest obstacles to real choice. But the precedent on campus does not demand the investment that providing RU-486 would require. Abortion providers exist in close proximity to campus. Planned Parenthood has a branch just down U.S. Route 1, and began distributing RU-486 in mid-November, further alleviating any potential demand on McCosh.

RU-486 still holds the potential to expand reproductive freedom through increased access, both geographic and economic. But McCosh — or a health center on a demographically similar campus — is not the arena in which such a battle ought to be waged. Independent of University politics, there is not a sufficient demand for it.

Pro-choice activists did not hail RU-486 for its potential to increase the options for women who, like those at Princeton, already live in areas of greater relative reproductive freedom. RU-486 can eliminate the barriers to reproductive choice in populations for which Roe v. Wade has made no practical difference, but such a transformation would require an FDA free of political pressure. Currently, that sort of FDA does not exist.

So Princeton: Stop creating controversy on campus and start fighting the real good fight. Julie Straus is a Wilson School major from Potomac, Md. She can be reached at straus@princeton.edu.