The pill that's hard to swallow

Yale's recent decision to include RU-486 in the Yale University Health Services (YUHS) regular plan, putting tuition dollars toward a relatively easy method of abortion, has, of course, caused stir among pro-life and pro-choice advocates on campus.

MARISA BASS/YH

The issue at stake is that Yale has decided to fund this so-called "abortion pill" using students' money. I won't argue that abortion should never be covered by any health plan. After all, hardly anyone but the most adamant pro-lifers would protest an abortion necessary to save a mother's life. However, the current discussion regarding RU-486 has yet to reveal any true necessity for this method of pregnancy termination.

That's right, pregnancy termination. You won't hear me using the words "birth control" in relation to this pharmaceutical—that's not what it is. RU-486, in contrast to condoms, birth control pills, and other prophylactics, does not prevent pregnancy; it terminates it. Many people, however, consider it just another form of contraception, and this is where my largest problem with RU-486, and abortion in general, comes in. Despite the assertion by Caroline Barber, DC '02, president of the Reproductive Rights Action League at Yale that "abortion is never a desired means of contraception" [YH, 1/12/01], she nonetheless classifies it as a form of birth control, however undesirable it may be. Furthermore, the Mon., Jan. 8 issue of the Yale Daily News, students' first notice of the new health insurance policy, labels RU-486 a "birth control option" in the very first paragraph.

Why is the distinction so important? The answer should be clear: the difference between making every effort not to get pregnant and actually ending an existing pregnancy is substantial, and the choice to terminate a pregnancy should not be taken lightly. At Yale, before this recent change at YUHS, a woman seeking to halt a pregnancy had no option but to use what is called "vacuum aspiration abortion," a process considered invasive and therefore usually employed with much caution and forethought on the part of the recipient. Yet with this new, much less physically intrusive pill, women who have undesired pregnancies will be less likely to weigh the idea of abortion with as much care as should attend the decision to end a life.

Perhaps at some point RU-486 will become a vital option for women. As its use increases in the U.S., results may reveal that the "abortion pill" is a safer method of pregnancy termination, in which case it would make sense to include it in the health plan. But at the moment, data indicate that RU-486 is no safer than surgical abortion—both result in about one death per every 200,000 women who undergo treatment; nor is it currently cheaper. In addition, RU-486 is only effective during the first nine weeks of pregnancy. This limited applicability means that this pill will never fully replace other methods of pregnancy termination. RU-486 should not be offered under YUHS until evidence shows that it is a safer and more reasonable method than abortion.

Considering how many people are morally opposed to the idea of abortion, leaving RU-486 out of the health plan should be a no-brainer. Asking, no, requiring those who are pro-life to pay for easy abortion, is very different from requiring men to pay for gynecological treatment or requiring non-smokers to pay for lung cancer treatment; whereas such care is necessary to maintain health, abortion, in most cases, and especially at the stage when it can be provided by RU-486, is not.

Although I don't want to suggest the complete exclusion of abortion from YUHS, access to the RU-486 treatment is not necessary to the plan. Yale already offers abortions as well as the "morning after" pill, so the needs of women seeking to terminate pregnancy are covered. The inclusion of RU-486 in the YUHS plan is unreasonable in light of its superfluity and the widespread moral indignation attending it.

Andrea Giese-Sweat is a freshman in Pierson.

Back to Opinion...