In today's era where medicated contraceptives are easily accessible in convenience stores and other methods, many people still are not aware of the dangers these drugs can have on women. The most common drug used for abortions is mifepristone used along with the combination of the drug misoprostol. "Mifepristone diminishes the biological availability of progesterone, the hormone needed to sustain pregnancy. It is typically used in combination with misoprostol, which helps empty the uterus by inducing uterine contractions (Winikoff 1)." Mifepristone has a rather sketchy past as well. It has been available since around 1988 but was banned in the United States. The FDA approved this drug finally in 2000 but the approval of it was rather questionable. Raising many concerns seeing how many women take this drug to induce abortions. While it is important to acknowledge that there is certainly a benefit of medicated abortions there are also many dangers. This debate has roared on from pro-life advocates because these drugs in their eyes stop children from being born as well as harm the mother. It is very difficult to discuss morality on this controversial topic and seeing how morality is such a big factor in the fight against these drugs; it is important to include the values of these protestors. Many pro-life advocates see these drugs as murdering children before they even have a chance to breathe. It is absolutely insane to think that the ability to take/prevent one's life is reduced to the action of taking a small pill. It is actually an insult to morality by reducing the significance of that act. However, the debate from that point begins with whether the rights of a woman outweigh the rights of an infant. Medicated abortion and contraceptives such as mifepristone should be regulated more heavily by the FDA because of the dangers these drugs present to the women who take them and the religious viewpoints and arguments that go along with it. 

Mifepristone or RU-486 has been known to cause major health issues in women who have taken this drug. This drug was originally banned in the United States until the FDA approved it. However, years later, it was discovered that this drug was actually very dangerous to women and did not go through the proper amount of testing. In 2005 four women died due to an infection that was contracted after taking mifepristone. Because of this discovery, an investigation was initiated and the final conclusion was the immediate removal of the drug from the market. This drug was passed under the provisions that it was to be used only in the situation of a serious or life-threatening condition. (Gress 2). The question that many propose is: How is a pregnancy a life-threatening situation in any way? Answer: It is not. Therefor the use of this drug for abortions violates the terms of which the drug was able to be passed under. The FDA should be held more responsible for allowing this drug to be on the street. "Over one thousand adverse events from RU-486 have been reported to the FDA. The most frequent were hemorrhage and infection. Most disturbing are seven deaths. In addition, as of 2006, the FDA reported nine life-threatening incidents, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection. This is the minimum number since many people, including doctors, are not willing or unaware of how to report adverse events (Wright 3)." It is completely unacceptable that a federal administration would allow this drug to be on the market seeing all the problems that it has caused.

With all of this evidence proving that these pills are dangerous the FDA just passed new rules making it easier than ever to gain access to the abortion pill. "The change allows women to use the drug further into pregnancy and with fewer visits to the doctor (Tavernise 1)." This is viewed as a victory for the Obama administration but it is not a victory at all because now with these medicated abortions to progress longer into pregnancy and with fewer doctor checkups it is far more likely that complications can and will occur. Instead of easing up on the restrictions they should have tightened up. While fully banning mifepristone or RU-486 would be ideal it is unlikely it will ever happen. Also it will eventually be rendered useless because there are many other drugs similar to mifepristone that may be trying to hit the markets too. 

A new drug named Ella is attempting to hit the market as well. This drug is sold as a "Morning after pill" which is a pill that is taken after intercourse has occurred but before conception so that conception can be prevented entirely. The issue with this pill is that it combines the abortion effects of mifepristone and combines them with a morning after pill which could potentially create a whole bunch of new health problems. The dangers of the day after pill come over multiple uses. After a single use there is little to no side effect however, the chemicals build up in your body and stay there until enough collects to actually cause serious health problems (Wright 3). Morning after pills are available the public to help prevent pregnancy within the first couple of days but the issue with Ella is that it causes abortions as well. Because of this unique combination, sadly it can easily be abused severely. 

These drugs that have so much power over the fragile first steps of life can easily be allowed to get in the wrong hands. Many people, mostly men, have been known to purchase drugs to slip to their partners in order to induce an abortion without the knowledge of their partner. The people who do this sometimes get away with it and in some cases when they are caught they can even be charged with homicide just like Manish Patel. 

"Over one thousand adverse events from RU-486 have been reported to the FDA. The most frequent were hemorrhage and infection. Most disturbing are seven deaths. In addition, as of 2006, the FDA reported nine life-threatening incidents, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection. This is the minimum number since many people, including doctors, are not willing or unaware of how to report adverse events (Wright 6)."

Patel is just one of many cases of people who have abused these drugs. Due to the ease of access that these drugs have almost anybody can get them and ruin people's lives by preventing a life from entering theirs. It is this abuse of the medication that terrifies the public. If the FDA restricted the availability of these drugs, horrible incidents like what Patel did to his wife can be prevented. What is important to note is that when Patel purposefully gave his wife the drugs to abort his unborn twins, he was charged with first-degree homicide. Why is it legal for a woman to abort her baby if she wants to but when a man aborts the baby it is technically a murder? When does life actually begin and when can it be considered murder? This is where lines of morality get blurred due to religion and laws. Because of these "moral objections" a number of pharmacists around the country have started to refuse to dispense emergency contraceptives (Preface to 'Can 1). 

The pro-life debate has been around for a very long time and has not ceased even with all the new medical advances of family planning drugs. The pro-life and abortion's biggest battle was the supreme court case that legalized abortions in the United States giving women the right to do what they want with their body. However, debates still occur today over whether the rights of a woman should outweigh the rights of a child even if it is unborn or not. From the pro-life standpoint and the Catholic standpoint, "The comparison between a baby's rights and a mother's rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother's lifestyle; as opposed to the baby's life. (The Rights of 1)." When looking at it from the perspective of just two lives, ignoring age, one should not be allowed to choose whether the other can live or die even if it effects the other's in a dramatic way. Life is a gift that should not be allowed to be taken or snuffed out by a tiny drug. One that can harm not only the baby but the mother herself. This is what makes pro-life advocates so upset and emotional when discussing the topic. However, there is another side of this topic.

The pro-choice advocates support the mentality that the mother's rights are more important than her unborn child's. These people argue that it is vital to have access to safe medical abortions because surgical abortions in lower developed countries are far more likely to result in deaths and injuries. One important piece of information that is vital to many pro-choice supporters is the antiabortion fallacy. The antiabortion fallacy is the argument against what pro-life supporters believe. "It is also true that we cannot simply invoke a woman's "right to choose" in order to avoid the ethical issue of the moral status of the fetus. If the fetus really did have the moral status of any other human being, it would be difficult to argue that a pregnant woman's right to choose includes the right to bring about the death of the fetus, except perhaps when the woman's life is at stake (Singer 3)." Singer continues to describe how pro-life supporters are correct in saying that a fetus is living but then tries to claim that just because a fetus is a human life that it does not warrant it any special treatment. This means that they are degrading the value of life of all humans which is ridiculous and insulting. Overall this argument is rather weak because it lacks real support and evidence of any reason that a mother should have rights over her body rather than a fetus but rather just degrades the value of life in general. 

The debate between pro-life and pro-choice continues but there are many people who question whether religion should have any say in this topic at all seeing how it is a government decision. Lynn Zott discusses the topic of how religion should have no role in the decisions being made about women's health care. Zott explains how this can be seen from when women are sometimes denied medical attention because of the rules that catholic affiliated hospitals must follow. These rules are called the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services. Zott explains that, " ... women who go to a Catholic-affiliated hospital may not only be denied basic reproductive care but also may not even be informed of the full range of health care options available to them (Religion Should Have 2)." While this is rather odd and inconvenient it seems that these situations can easily be avoidable if patients just simply went to different hospitals when in need of medical treatment. Zott explains how only the only issue with these hospitals denying patients is in regards to extreme reproductive situations such as abortions and in vitro fertilization. One important argument against religion that acts as a double edge sword in a way is that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to religious freedom but by doing this it also protects the right to not practice any faith. Therefore, because that amendment guarantees the right to religion as much as the right to oppose religion there are many controversies. 

The argument for religion having a say in government matters covers some of the same reasons. The first amendment is by far one of the most important arguments for religion. This amendment says that the government cannot make any laws that directly interfere with its values. Taking away a whole entire community's right to protest is immoral especially when considering how big of an influence that community has across the whole world. Michael McConnell wrote a piece on why religion should have a legitimate role in decisions about reproduction. McConnell's standpoint is very important to note because he states that he is not a Catholic and he does not agree with their teachings about contraception however, he still supports the role of religion. Taking religion out of the argument is physically impossible due to all the organizations that are partnered/related to. McConnell writes that, " ...  there can be much doubt that requiring religious institution to pay for services that it regards as immoral or evil is a burden on the exercise of religion (McConnell 3). This quote can relate to many stores and companies being forced to provide contraception and other services to its employees even though it went against the company's values. This leads into a very popular discussion that is happening in today's media about whether religious freedom allows companies to deny their employees certain healthcare. 

 With Obamacare and the new necessity of healthcare has caused issues with some companies with religious affiliations. What Obamacare has done is that they are forcing employers to provide birth control as part of their health care plan. Many people view this as the government overstepping their lines because with organizations made up of nuns you cannot simply force them to be on birth control and the church will never give in and supply it to their nuns. The solution for the nuns was actually offered all they had to do was opt out but instead, "The Little Sisters told the Supreme Court that even filing that form would make them a part of the scheme, and thus draw them into support for abortions or abortion-related services (Epps 2)." The nuns are only one example of groups trying to get out of a situation like this. Hobby Lobby was also trying to avoid paying for its employees contraceptives and it even went about bringing it to court. " ... the pending claim by Hobby Lobby stores that a for-profit corporation has a "free exercise" right to block its employees from being compensated for contraceptive methods their employers object to. [The Hobby Lobby case,] which will be argued on March 25, was brought by corporations owning two retail chains (Epps 2)." The Hobby Lobby and the nuns are both examples of religious affiliated organizations that have the right to express their beliefs. 

While the getting rid of these destructive drugs would be ideal it is just not likely or practical. The hope for the prolife side of the contraceptive and abortion debate is that these drugs receive some restrictions on the use of them and who can obtain them. Medicated contraceptives physically harm women and can potentially get abused. While sometimes practical in very rare situations, these medications can almost always be avoided through means of natural family planning and even the use of condoms. The religious viewpoint of this topic makes it very sensitive and opinionated but it is important that it never gets left out because it is an essential piece to the debate. 

