Huh?

This article is so short and the headline claims so much it is confusing. Why it has a Cincinnati dateline is very strange. If anti-abortion "scientists" are putting out a study claiming RU486, then yes I think a different headline is warranted. I think far more detail is needed to now what report was issued, and who really issued it. It should also be a warning sign that the report is not very credible when it is only good enough for a website, not a print medical journal. If people want to talk about bias, this article existence is a sign of bias, its lack of detail is a sign of either lack of time or bad reporting.