RU-486 Finally Available in Canada

[On Guard for Thee]

Good point. Under Harper's watch, women finally get access.

You think it actually had anything to do with Harper?

[bush_cheney2004]

Good point. Under Harper's watch, women finally get access.

Agreed...it finally happened with PM Harper. Liberals never got it done while claiming to support women's choices in reproductive freedom.

[kimmy]

I'd like to see you back that one up since the application that was just approved was submitted in 2012.

Why did it take so long for that to happen?? I'd like to know the history behind that.

We have abortions, we should have access to them, now it's even easier, and can be done so early on that even the ethical questions about when a human is human aren't a factor, seems like a win win.

You'd think that most people would feel that way, but some people believe it should be protected from the moment of conception.

Why would Rona Ambrose "distance herself and the gov't" from this decision then?

She didn't "distance herself and the gov't" from the decision, she pointed out that the decision was made by Health Canada, not by politicians.

-k

[Big Guy]

It seems that the process is fairly simple by taking pills on one day.

What would keep a potential father from slipping this into the food or drink of his pregnant partner who has disagreed and wants to take the pregnancy to term?

What criminal charge could that potential father be susceptible to?

[kimmy]

Except it's not.

I still don't see one person opposing this.

Not here on the forum maybe, but Saskatchewan Conservative MP David Anderson has stepped up to the plate:

Conservative MP David Anderson has strongly condemned Health Canada’s July 29 decision to approve the controversial abortion drug RU-486, calling it a “dangerous combination of drugs.”

(...)

Anderson accused Health Canada scientists of failing Canadian women, stating that the battle to have the drug once more banned has just begun.

“This decision is wrong on many levels. The issues around this deadly drug combination will continue to be highlighted until it is recognized by Health Canada to be unfit for Canadians.”

“Health Canada scientists have failed Canadian women and children by making this decision.”

“Health Canada needs to reconsider and reverse the decision to approve this unsafe drug,” he said.

And of course the pro-lifers are angry, calling it "a human pesticide."

-k

[kimmy]

It seems that the process is fairly simple by taking pills on one day.

What would keep a potential father from slipping this into the food or drink of his pregnant partner who has disagreed and wants to take the pregnancy to term?

What criminal charge could that potential father be susceptible to?

I am sure there are already laws on the books against dosing people with drugs without their knowledge.

Fairly sure that if some guy gets himself a female accomplice to obtain the RU-486 for him, then succeeds in administering it, he and his accomplice have both committed several criminal acts.

-k

[WestCoastRunner]

The U.S. may have approved this long before Canada but it took President Clinton two terms to get it approved, no thanks to the anti-choice lobby on the part of the manufacturer and the delaying tactics used by the Republican majorities in both Congressional houses from 1994-2000.

From what I can glean from the numerous articles I have read, there are a number of reasons why it wasn't approved in Canada until now. One is the population of Canada vs the large sums of money it takes to bring a new drug to market. There was also one death in the clinical trials in Canada, which also caused the clinical trials to come to an abrupt end, even though there was proved to be no connection between the drug and the death.

Health Canada is also not transparent enough and operates in a cloak of secrecy, resulting in great difficulty in finding out why drugs are or are not approved.

Also, I do believe that the Minister of Health is trying to distance the government from the approval of this drug:

"The reality is the Minister of Health has an important role in the drug approval process. Health Canada is governed by the Food and Drugs Act and pursues its regulatory mandate under the Food and Drug Regulations. According to the Food and Drug Regulations, “No person shall sell or advertise a new drug unless the Minister has issued a notice of compliance to the manufacturer of the new drug in respect of the submission.” (Sec. C.08.002 of Food and Drug Regulations). In other words, the Minister had the final say on whether RU-486 could be sold or advertised in Canada.

In a subsequent section of the same Act we read: “The Minister shall, after completing an examination of a new drug submission issue a notice of compliance; or notify the manufacturer that the submission or supplement does not comply.” (Sec. C.08.004) It doesn’t get much clearer; Minister Ambrose has the ultimate authority and responsibility on which drugs are sold in Canada."

It is the Minister of Health's responsibility to push for drugs that enhance the health of Canadians and that would include the RU-486.

[WIP]

Why would Rona Ambrose "distance herself and the gov't" from this decision then?

I believe that's likely because Conservative parties in Canada are following the US example of trying to cultivate a socially conservative, crackpot religious right base, as the ground troops for their campaigning and other political objectives. It's hard to get libertarians and money voters to get all that excited about increasing tax cuts for business and upper incomes! Rona Ambrose knows the Conservative Party's anti-abortion extremists will blow a gasket with the approval of RU-486, and she has been tasked with that difficult balancing act of keeping the fundagelicals vigorously campaigning for Conservatives and speaking on their behalf at their churches/ while recognizing that she doesn't live in Kansas! And there are very few places in this Country where the right position on abortion cinches an election.

In provincial politics, the takeaway lesson for many Ontario PC's from Mike Harris's re-election back in the 90's was that his support was a mile wide, but an inch deep because his Government refused to get footsy with religious conservatives and their social issues. Harris tried to keep to libertarian fiscal matters...though it has to be noted he was never as conservative as portrayed...which mostly came from opposition leaders and Liberal newspaper columnists (Toronto Star). Harris had good economic numbers to run with, since an increase in Ontario's economic output was more than enough to make up for tax revenue losses from the income tax cuts. And even with a good economy, he had to struggle to win the next election. If the numbers were bad, he would have been toast!

The problem in Ontario is that the vast majority of voters are not evangelicals, or likely to cast votes against their economic interests, just to support candidates that want to ban abortion, birth control...gay marriage etc..

In Ontario, the PC's have a real dilemma now, because lunatics have taken over the asylum! So, first it's Tim Hudak, who flubs two chances to defeat a not-very-popular Liberal Government because he won't shut up about issues not enough voters care about, and then the grassroots puts another religious conservative (Patrick Brown) in charge. Though Brown seems to be a little smarter than Hudak, and is trying to make his MPP's follow the Stephen Harper approach: don't put too much flesh on the bones of God&Country talk, and provide an opening for the opposition.

Edited August 2, 2015 by WIP

[WIP]

Patently false of course...as several "developed" nations had/have bans and restrictions on human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research.

hESCs position groupings:

A (Prohibition): Italy, Slovakia, Tunisia.

B (Restrictive Compromise): USA – use of federal funds under President Bush.

C (Permissive [Compromise]): numerous countries including Australia, Canada, China (Hong Kong), Denmark, France, Iran, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Taiwan, USA – use of federal funds under President Obama.

D ([Very] Permissive):Belgium, Israel, Japan, UK, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, certain states in USA using private funds.

Restrictive by Default: New Zealand, Romania, Turkey.

Unlegislated: Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland.

https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no-1399/6236

Nice off topic try....and deflection from why a backward Canada didn't get RU-486 until now.

Not off-topic. It's another example of how the nutcase "pro life" cause places more value on the life of a zygote or fertilized egg cell, than on the health, safety, and personal freedoms of adult women!

I had to go back to that ridiculous stem cell drama, because I used to be more conservative thinking back then, and was active on an American conservative forum...until about 10 years ago, when the only issues of great importance were: stopping the teaching of evolution, teaching global warming as fake science, stopping Mexicans from crossing the border, and the freeing the thousands of frozen fertilized embroyos at fertility clinics, so that they could be born....like the small group of children that Dubya did a photo-op with when he banned (that's what cutting off federal funding meant!) research on new lines of embryos.

I did enough of my own research back then to discover that it was a ridiculous sham of a case (just like the over-inflated risks of RU-486). The process for fertility clinics was to culture and store as many embryos as possible, so that the healthiest and most viable ones could be implanted and come to term with as few complications as possible. The frozen and should have been discarded embryoes were filling up cold storage lockers at the clinics because of idiots who declare that almost completely unviable embryos have to be considered "unborn babies."

So, the couples trying to conceive their own children were the ones burdened with the costs that the clinics had to pick up by expanding their cold storage to accommodate thousands of frozen embryos! Needless to say, neither Dubya, the Catholic Church&evangelical campaigners, nor the ground-level activists waving the signs could understand the absurdity of the situation!

Like the so called abortion drug, the stem cell research quandary was created by crackpots with the crackpot idea that they should accord full human rights when a sperm cell fertilizes an oocyte cell.

[TimG]

It's another example of how the nutcase "pro life" cause places more value on the life of a zygote or fertilized egg cell, than on the health, safety, and personal freedoms of adult women!

From where I am sitting I see no difference between people who are willing to sacrifice the well being of people living today because of hypothetical consequences of CO2 emissions for future generations and people who want to ban abortion because of the harm to future generations. It is exactly the same kind of moralizing with a different focus. Edited August 2, 2015 by TimG

[WIP]

Not here on the forum maybe, but Saskatchewan Conservative MP David Anderson has stepped up to the plate:

And of course the pro-lifers are angry, calling it "a human pesticide."

-k

I'm going to predict that...if Harper loses his re-election gambit, the same church crowd is going to take over the Federal Tories that runs the Ontario Party and likely most others as well. Then, there will be no restraining influence keeping the social conservatives away from microphones. They'll be trying to ban RU-486 and then move on to an American conservative strategy for defunding and restricting abortion.

[The_Squid]

From where I am sitting I see no difference between people who are willing to sacrifice the well being of people living today because of hypothetical consequences of CO2 emissions for future generations and people who want to ban abortion because of the harm to future generations. It is exactly the same kind of moralizing with a different focus.

Because positions based on the best science (climate change) are exactly the same as crackpot religious ideas. That's a demented way of looking at science. It's funny that people like you only look at science in that way when it disagrees with your politics.... what a coincidence...

[TimG]

Because positions based on the best science (climate change) are exactly the same as crackpot religious ideas.

The decision on what to do about CO2 is *purely* a moral question that has absolutely no connection with science. The fact that climate change moralists invoke a twisted understanding of "science" instead of the "bible" when justifying their positions does not make them superior in any way. It just means the climate change moralizers are more deluded.

I also find it interesting that thinking that human life is sacred is a "crackpot religious idea". All that comment does is prove that you are just another type of religious zealot that dislikes competing religions.

As for ignoring science: I am looking forward reading your posts standing up for the scientific consensus supporting GMOs and nuclear power. I suspect I will have to wait a long time given your personal willingness to ignore science when the conclusions do not match what you want to believe.

Edited August 2, 2015 by TimG

[The_Squid]

The decision on what to do about CO2 is *purely* a moral question that has absolutely no connection with science. The fact that climate change moralists invoke a twisted understanding of "science" instead of the "bible" when justifying their positions does not make them superior in any way. It just means the climate change moralizers are more deluded.I also find it interesting that thinking that human life is sacred is a "crackpot religious idea". All that comment does is prove that you are just another type of religious zealot that dislikes competing religions.As for ignoring science: I am looking forward reading your posts standing up for the scientific consensus supporting GMOs and nuclear power. I suspect I will have to wait a long time given your personal willingness to ignore science when the conclusions do not match what you want to believe.

It is certainly a crackpot idea to consider a few cells as a human being.

[WIP]

The decision on what to do about CO2 is *purely* a moral question that has absolutely no connection with science. The fact that climate change moralists invoke a twisted understanding of "science" instead of the "bible" when justifying their positions does not make them superior in any way. It just means the climate change moralizers are more deluded. I also find it interesting that thinking that human life is sacred is a "crackpot religious idea". All that comment does is prove that you are just another type of religious zealot that dislikes competing religions.

As for ignoring science: I am looking forward reading your posts standing up for the scientific consensus supporting GMOs and nuclear power. I suspect I will have to wait a long time given your personal willingness to ignore science when the conclusions do not match what you want to believe.

The pessimists among the climate research community are mostly quietly pondering whether or not we're already past the point of no return and human extinction is inevitable.

In the meantime, the great hope of environmentalists 20 to 25 years ago...that the people...especially the rich people who run oil companies...would wake up to the threat and do something before it's too late, appears to be badly mistaken, as too many in the rich, developed world decide they love short term comforts too much to make any longterm sacrifices to save future generations from disaster. And they can create whatever obfuscating bullshit arguments they want to excuse their choices, but Planet Earth has already started into a major extinction cycle for a number of factors, including the rapid carbonization of the atmosphere, and it is highly unlikely that there will be a place for humans after the extinction has cleared the table and starts all over again.

*I just have to add that since a certain someone considers comparing RU-486 with the US stem cell debacle to be off topic, we sure as hell have gone right off the rails in this latest round!

Edited August 2, 2015 by WIP

[-1=e^ipi]

Why would Rona Ambrose "distance herself and the gov't" from this decision then?

Is Rona Ambrose on these forums?

[-1=e^ipi]

Anyway, this drug would have been available in Canada sooner if our procedure for passing drugs did not follow the precautionary principle.

Maybe we should have a more intelligent methodology to allowing drugs into Canada than the precautionary principle.

Btw, this is the same principle that climate alarmists use to avoid empirical evidence when trying to justify extreme mitigation policy.

[WestCoastRunner]

Anyway, this drug would have been available in Canada sooner if our procedure for passing drugs did not follow the precautionary principle.

Maybe we should have a more intelligent methodology to allowing drugs into Canada than the precautionary principle.

Btw, this is the same principle that climate alarmists use to avoid empirical evidence when trying to justify extreme mitigation policy.

And you are participating in a thread that you didn't think was conducive to a discussion?

Before you write off a thread that doesn't meet up to your standards of discussion you should hold off and see what takes place. If anything, your comments discourage posters from initiating threads which in my opinion are sadly lacking.

Edited August 3, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[The_Squid]

Is Rona Ambrose on these forums?

Reallly? You never, ever speculate on the motivations of a politician or a political party?

[-1=e^ipi]

And you are participating in a thread that you didn't think was conducive to a discussion?

I pointed out that given that everyone on this forum is likely going to be in favour of this drug, what is there to discuss other than the fact that we agree? It creates about as much discussion as a thread on the Earth being round. Sure, there may be a tiny fraction of people somewhere on the planet who still think the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean creating a thread about the Earth being round will create much discussion.

If anything, your comments discourage posters from initiating threads which in my opinion are sadly lacking.

I can play the 'my feelings are implicitly hurt' game too. Your comments discourage posters from participating in threads and asking questions, which in my opinion are sadly lacking.

[WIP]

I pointed out that given that everyone on this forum is likely going to be in favour of this drug, what is there to discuss other than the fact that we agree? It creates about as much discussion as a thread on the Earth being round. Sure, there may be a tiny fraction of people somewhere on the planet who still think the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean creating a thread about the Earth being round will create much discussion.

Quit being coy and tell us what your objections to RU-486 really are.

[-1=e^ipi]

Quit being coy and tell us what your objections to RU-486 really are.

I don't have any objections to RU-486.

[kimmy]

I pointed out that given that everyone on this forum is likely going to be in favour of this drug, what is there to discuss other than the fact that we agree? It creates about as much discussion as a thread on the Earth being round. Sure, there may be a tiny fraction of people somewhere on the planet who still think the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean creating a thread about the Earth being round will create much discussion.

First off, it's a big assumption to assume everybody would be in favor of this.

Secondly, even if not, the morality of the drug itself isn't the only issue to discuss. For example, why did this take so long, and what are the political ramifications.

If you aren't personally interested in the topic, why not move along instead of being a crybaby? Complaining that somebody started a thread that you don't personally find interesting is a diva move.

-k

[cybercoma]

What would keep a potential father from slipping this into the food or drink of his pregnant partner who has disagreed and wants to take the pregnancy to term?

The same thing that prevents him from pushing her down the stairs or punching her in the stomach?

[cybercoma]

It is certainly a crackpot idea to consider a few cells as a human being.

An acorn is an oak tree. /s