Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On October 21, 1993, Drs. Mitchell Creinin and Phillip Darney of the University of California at San Francisco publicized the results of their study of methotrexate as an abortifacient. The study, published in the journal Contraception, involved ten women, eight of whose pregnancies were successfully terminated. (Since the original study, more than fifty women have undergone the experimental procedure.)

The most significant aspect of the UCSF study, according to Nancy Tompkins, editor of the pro-choice newsletter Choosing Choice, is the fact that methotrexate is already on the market and FDA-approved for other purposes. Before its use as an abortifacient can be anything other than experimental, however, someone has to apply for a “supplemental indication” approval, which is generally easier to get than a new-drug approval.

Others are less optimistic than Tompkins. Thus far, no drug company has publicly requested a supplemental indication approval, and according to Wayne Koberstein, editor of Pharmaceutical Executive, “it is very unlikely that any large brand-name company will take this on.” Ironically, what may prevent methotrexate from becoming widely available for abortion is its low cost (four dollars per dose compared to two hundred dollars for RU 486). Because of this, methotrexate is unlikely to be a big profit-maker, and companies may be unwilling to risk the wrath of antiabortion groups by marketing it. Even if a company does take this chance, the drug’s approval is probably at least one or two years away.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate