Conference turris::womannotes-v3

-.1 -

Okay, I'll bite. Yes, RU486 is apparently being banned in the US. The FDA has
established an "import alert" to prohibit individuals from bringing RU486
into the country for their own use. This action, resulting, according to
Wyden, from political pressure from anti-abortionists, has intimidated the
manufacturer from supplying the drug to US researchers even if the research
has nothing to do with abortion. 

I find it scary that anti-abortionists (or anyone else for that matter)
could be powerful enough -- or even want -- to block research on this drug,
which is highly promising in the treatment of several deadly diseases,
including AIDS (though one of the diseases, breast cancer, admittedly
affects only women...) 

One researcher on breast cancer stated that "enforcement of the import 
alert means that I no longer can obtain RU486 for basic research of 
progesterone receptor action in breast cancer...Enforcement of the import 
alert is an insult to patients, to their physicians and to scientists."

The article ends with a quote from Eleanor Smeal, president of the Fund for 
the Feminist Majority, calling attempts to thwart research on RU486 
"medical McCarthyism---you'd think this was the Dark Ages."

D.

   And it is even more scary when you consider that the proper use of
RU486 may not even be considered "abortion" since it seems to work best 
before an embryo is completely formed.

   The reaction of Anti- Abortionists to this drug would appear to 
indicate that they do, indeed, consider what the mother carries a human
being even at the moment the egg is fertilized. This, in turn, indicates that
they are not interested in allowing women choice in this matter at any time
during the nine- month cycle, despite what some of them say.

   And this, in turn, keeps me firmly on the side of the Pro- Choicers, 
despite my personal feelings about abortion.

                                                         -Robert Brown III

    << Ru486 has been used in more than 50,000 French Woman to induce a
    safe abortion, medical studies show.>>
    
    Now thats something to be proud of! The U.S. had that many die in 
    Vietnam, and we erected a Wall for them!

    It is something to be proud of!  France is rightly proud of its defense
    of the rights of those women.  Note, however, that very few societies
    honor living women over dead soldiers; thus, expect no monuments.  But
    that's another topic, anyway.
    
    DougO

    re: 4   It seems to me that the men who died in Viet Nam had little
            choice in the matter.  I fail to see how there is any
            connection between full grown men being shot and RUwhateveritis
            being used for research purposes or for abortion, for that 
            matter.  Would you have women exist as they did in the past -
            in virtual slavery because they had no choice or control over
            their own bodies??????  Perhaps you would like to discuss this
            in mail offline with me rather than in notes.  Feel free.
    
            Sue
     
            

  Today, the New Hampshire Senate voted 13-9 (with, presumably, 2
  members not voting or absent) to endorse the testing of RU486 in
  New Hampshire for its medical effects (as opposed to its use as
  an abortifacient).

  The succesful vote in the Senate comes as something of a surprise
  because, as recently as yesterday, the Senate was believed to be
  deadlocked, 12-12.  Yesterday, Peg Dobbie, executive director of
  the National Abortion Rights Action League of New Hampshire was
  quoted as saying, "We've got 12 votes we can count on at this
  point.  We're desperately seeking number 13."

  The New Hampshire House had already voted in favor of the bill,
  211-130, back in March.  The non-binding resolution does not require
  Governor Gregg's signature, although he has said he would never sign
  this resolution if asked to do so.

                                   Atlant

         <<< CNOTES::DISK$NOTES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]NEW_HAMPSHIRE.NOTE;2 >>>
                             -< The Granite State >-
================================================================================
Note 1657.71                      RU-486 in NH                          71 of 71
SMURF::WALLACE "Life's a beach, then you dive!"      71 lines  25-MAY-1991 23:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Manchester Union Leader - May 24, 1991
    
    ABORTION PILL RESOLUTION FIGHT MAY GO TO COURT
    By Donn Tibbetts
    State House Bureau Chief
    
    CONCORD - Pro-life activists called on Attorney General John Arnold
    yesterday to "impound" the Senate-House adopted resolution inviting
    clinical trials of the French abortion pill RU486 to be conducted in
    New Hampshire.  But yesterday afternoon Arnold told the Union Leader
    that after reviewing the issue, he found no reason to impound the
    controversial resolution.
    
    However Right to Life legislative chairman Kathy Souza stood her ground
    and indicated she's ready to take the issue to the state Supreme Court.
    "Basically, I view HCR 11 as a legislative statement of intent which
    has no force of law," said AG Arnold.  "It's an appropriate issue for
    the Legislature which imposes no affirmative obligation on anyone,"
    determined Arnold.  "I think it's an issue which is more political in
    nature than legal and I would defer to the legilative counsel and
    governor's counsel if they should take exception to it," he said.
    
    Souza contends that the resolution mandates that the congressional
    delegation "shall" forward copies of the resolution to the federal Food
    and Drug Administration.  "'Shall' is an instruction," she said. 
    "Since the attorney general doesn't want to touch it, I guess we will
    have to approach the (state) Supreme Court for a determination not just
    on this but on other resolutions already passed and future resolutions
    which attempt to bypass one branch of government and circumvent the
    check-and-balance system," Souza told the Union Leader.
    
    Earlier this session, the Legislature adopted resolutions calling for a
    balanced federal budget and an end to unfunded state mandates which did
    not go to the governor.  "That resolution (HCR 11) was a bogus
    invitation," insisted Souza asserting that the state Constitution
    requires the Legislature's resolution go to Gov. Judd Gregg to be
    vetoed.  Opposed to abortion, Gregg said he would have vetoed such a
    proposal if it were a bill which came to him because it was "a stupid
    idea."  He asserted that the votes to pass it were based "on emotion
    rather than on logic."  However, his legal counsel Art Brennan said
    there is no attempt to enter the constitutionality issue.  "Let
    sleeping dogs lie is the message we're hearing and we want to arouse
    them," said Souza.
    
    House Concurrent Resolution 11 was adopted by the Senate 13-9 after the
    House approved it 211-130.  The resolution also requires the signature
    of Senate President Ed Dupont, R-Rochester, and House Speaker Harold
    Burns, R-Whitefield, and requires them to send copies of the document
    to the RU486 manufacturer in Paris.  "I'll have to look at it," said
    Dupont yesterday.  "It won't be my postage that sends it."
    
    House Majority Leader Caroline Gross, R-Concord, said with his wife's
    illness, Speaker Burns has more important matters on his mind.  Gross
    was unaware the resolution required the speaker's action.  Souza, in
    concert with the New Hampshire Right to Life political action committee
    and the Christian Action Council of Western New Hampshire, insisted
    yesterday in writing to the AG that Article 45 of the state
    Constitution mandates "clearly that every resolve must be treated like
    a bill and presented to the governor for his approval or veto."
    
    Secretary of State William Gardner believes that this is a first
    impression challenge and that legislative practice has been to not send
    resolutions to a governor when they have no force of law.  "Concurrent
    resolutions and constitutional amendment resolutions are not sent to a
    governor," said Gardner yesterday.  "Most resolutions direct the
    secretary of state to transmit them, but this one does not.  The
    resolution came herer today from Legislative Services and was sent to
    the House clerk's office," said Gardner.  House Clerk Jim Chandler said
    he couldn't say that such a resolution had never gone to a governor but
    certainly none during his experience dating back to 1971.