Ban RU-486? Hell no! Ban pregnancy...and Denny's.
But the statistics simply don't back up the opponent's arguments. As Binky points out in an excellent post at Bloodless Coup, if the goal is to mitigate women's health risks, then pregnancy should be first to go. Or...if you're interested reducing deaths per instance of usage, then we should probably do away with Viagra before we get rid of RU-486. And finally, if the goal is to reduce deaths per unit time, then I'd recommend banning eating in Denny's since 4 people have died over 3 days in 3 separate shooting incidents at Denny's restaurants in Southern California.
No matter how you slice it, the opponents of RU-486 don't have a leg to stand on.
How about banning cars, since most deaths are attributed to automobile accidents than the other three examples combined?
Hey! Watch it...
...and to work in Denny's.
Ron, I'm all for banning cars. Freakin' dangerous form of transportation, and while we're at it we probably need to ban Amtrack a well. Damn trains are going off the tracks on an almost daily basis.
Helen...Yeah Vioxx was a tragedy, but oddly some users are really bitter that it's gone because it was so damn effective. My mother was on Vioxx and now can find a substitute that does as good a job. Strange...
Not to sound like a nerd, but everyone should be required to take a statistics course (or two) in their lifetime. Then the average Joe (or Jane) will be able to understand the concept of "statistical insignificance."
Mike's right, and this is what we need to guard against. Along with contraceptives, the options for terminating a pregnancy continue to narrow.