RU-486 is the recently approved abortion pill. It affords women an opportunity to have a non-surgical abortion within the first seven weeks of pregnancy. The guidelines require for the woman to have multiple doctor visits, as well as counseling – so this is a bit different then the morning after pill. Controversy surrounds RU-486 on many levels. Firstly, there are the possible side effects as well as the slight failure rate (from which a woman would still need to have a surgical abortion). Also, the availability, and the attempts to control it, is another issue. Finally, the political sparks created, as well as the Republican effort to limit the pill is another issue. On the whole, since RU-486 was approved in late September, the number of debates surrounding it has multiplied. Of course, the major issue is not whether a woman can or cannot have an abortion, but whether non-surgical abortion is a viable option for a woman.
             One side of the coin feels that a woman should under no circumstances have an abortion. During the days of surgical abortions, this could be a more valid argument, given the extensiveness of the surgery – as well as the under minded ways of having a surgical abortion (i.e. the horrible coat hanger stories). This standpoint extends into the age of the fetus, and which trimesters should a woman is able to abort in. Recently, this argument has also taken on the morning after pill, saying it is possible for a woman to have fertilized an embryo by the morning after. There is talk of making the morning after pill over the counter, and there is adversity to that as well. The people on the side of anti-abortion are not recognizing the benefits RU-486 may have to a woman.
             The other side of the coin is those people – politicians, medical practitioners, activists – who see RU-486 as a benefit to women. "Nearly nine in ten women who live outside of major metropolitan areas have no close access ...