Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Why the Early Abortion Pill Has Not Revolutionized Abortion Care

New York Magazine:  Why the Abortion Pill Didn't Change Everything, by Ann Friedman:

In 1993, Time magazine declared mifepristone — the abortion pill that’s often called RU-486 — “The Pill that Changes Everything.” In 1999, The New York Times Magazine called it a “little white bombshell” with “enormous political consequences.” On a political level, activists hoped that it would allow women to sidestep clinic protests and make abortion less controversial. Advocates hoped — and anti-abortion groups feared — that the abortion pill would be prescribed by regular doctors, family practitioners and OB/GYNs, allowing women to have an abortion in the privacy of their home, far from the picket lines. It would move abortion toward the mainstream realm of routine health care. And on a medical level, women were curious about the method: taking a pill seemed to promise a more convenient, less invasive experience.

By 2013, though, it’s become clear that the pill hasn’t revolutionized the way most women get abortions; it’s become just another front in the legislative and legal battles over reproductive rights, one more method pro-choice activists must fight to defend. . . .


Abortion, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why the Early Abortion Pill Has Not Revolutionized Abortion Care:


Post a comment