I’m writing in response to Tuesday’s article, “RU-486 not an option for Olin ” (SN 4/24). I was surprised The State News referred to Olin Health Center’s inability to safely provide RU-486 as a “decision.”

I attended the ASMSU meeting where Dr. Glynda Moorer repeatedly explained Olin doesn’t even have the capability of offering RU-486 because it cannot meet the qualifications necessary to legally and safely provide the abortion drug to women. Those qualifications are there to protect the health and safety of patients who use the drugs.

I ask those of you who voted “no” to The State News poll question “Do you agree with Olin Health Center’s decision to not offer the abortion pill RU-486?”, do you care about the safety of women? If you do, then why would you want Olin to provide a service that it is medically incapable of offering?

Maybe it is helpful to explain that RU-486 is not simply a prescription pill that women can take to make their pregnancy disappear. RU-486 is a noninvasive abortion procedure that consists of two medications and does have side effects. Severe bleeding can occur, and the procedure is in no way 100-percent effective. The lack of 24-hour emergency care alongside with RU-486 puts women at risk.

Beyond that, Olin does not offer surgical abortions, nor does it honor the choice of women who choose to carry their pregnancy to term by providing prenatal care. Moorer mentioned services, such as dermatology, have long been desired at Olin. Why would RU-486 take precedence over these other services, especially when abortion is something many MSU students (including myself), faculty and staff find to be unacceptable?

Erin Andrews
psychology sophomore