No licensed pharmacy in this state shall be required to perform, assist, recommend, refer to, or participate in any act or service in connection with any drug or device that is an abortifacient, including but not limited to the RU486 drug and emergency contraception such as the Plan B drug.

- 95th General Assembly of the Missouri House of Representatives (Bill no. 266)

The radical notion that women should possess the ability to dictate the fate of their own bodies is once again under attack. Proposed and supported by that political party that prides itself upon the pursuit of individual liberty, the measure serves not only to quash the ability of women to procure emergency contraceptives from a pharmacy, but also provides a direct contradiction to its incessant assertion that women should not be given a choice at all.

According to Rep. Ed Emery (R-Lamar), the author of the amendment, the motivation behind its proposal is to prevent forced distribution of emergency contraceptives and other related abortifacients from pharmacists that object to the practice. Supporter Rep. Cynthia Davis (R-O’Fallon) states, “I just have trouble understanding why anybody who is an American, who is not in favor of communism, would want us to dictate what we’re going to say people can and cannot stock.” The argument is made by both that private businesses should not be dictated to by the government on matters of what they must or must not sell.

Of course, on March 04, 2008 Emery supported an amendment to House Bill 1619, which eventually passed, dictating that Mifepristone (RU486) should be considered a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance, the result of which legally prevents prescriptions being written for its use, therefore preventing the distribution of the drug by pharmacies. Is this hypocrisy on the part of Emery?

According to the guidelines for the listing of a drug into the ‘Schedule 1′ category:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

None of the three criteria listed above are applicable to RU486, but let us focus specifically on (B) and (C), since it is clear that a political argument can be made for (A) rather easily by simply ignoring the lack of psychiatric evidence for such a claim.

As for (B), it is abundantly clear even apart from the evidenced-based research found in medical journals that Mifepristone has an accepted medical use, for if it did not then it would cease to be prescribed by physicians, and thus cease to be distributed by pharmacists, a result of which would most certainly not be an amendment banning its perscription. Of course, if this is not enough Emery could direct his attention to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ evidenced-based clinical guideline on the matter [pdf], which is the most easily accessible report on the topic and whose contents is mirrored by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. As for (C), according to an article appearing in the September, 2005 journal ‘Contraception‘, “The safety of mifepristone is high; few serious medical complications occur in routine clinical use.”

So, it would appear that RU486 meets none of the three critera for categorization as a Schedule 1 drug. As such, this would make Emery’s support of an amendment asserting its status as Schedule 1 a political, not scientific, attempt at preventing a private business from selling what it wishes, in this case a perfectly health and effective drug with known medical use.

It is abundantly obvious this amendment is nothing more than Emery’s attempt at forcing his religious beliefs on others. Emery has absolutely no regard for the health of the public he supposedly represents, and only serves to solidify the relationship between the ‘representative’ and the voter as one of authoritarian dication on the part of the former.

There are many problems with both private business and the government, but a woman’s access to emergency contraceptives is not one of them.