"Funny how this outfit isn't interested in publishing the much longer list of deaths from pregnancy complications in women who decided to try to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term."
That is just a ridiculous statement. There would be NO difference in pregnancy complications from wanted/unwanted pregnancies.
If you are trying to bring in "life/health of the mother" issues here you need to sharpen your science. Most of those women wouldn't be taking RU486 in any event, I'm sure it is only indicated for healthy people. I doubt even the pro-aborts at the FDA approve of instigating a medical crises (miscarriage) in the already unhealthy.
I wasn't trying to imply that there is a significant difference in pregnancy related death rates between women who wanted to be pregnant and women who didn't. Although there would be some difference, as there are plenty of women who are trying not to become pregnant because they've been advised that some pre-existing condition would make it life-threatening for them -- for them RU-486 would certainly have a lower death rate than carrying pregnancies to term.
But my point was, given unwanted pregnancies, if all the women who had taken RU-486 had instead carried (or attempted to carry) the pregnancies to term, the death rate would almost certainly have been higher. Pregnancy and childbirth are not risk-free processes, and hollering about a tiny handful of deaths "associated with" (note, that is not the same thing as "caused by") RU-486 does not provide one iota of evidence that RU-486 is more dangerous than carrying a pregnancy to term.
It does not speak well of the anti-abortion movement as a whole, that this sort of junk science routinely gets an enthusiastic reception. It's not much different than the envirowackos, who enthusiastically applaud every little pseudo-study that claims to show we are on the brink of global disaster from human-caused global warming.