In 1988, French pharmaceutical company Roussel Uclaf introduced Mifepristone (RU 486), a pill which medically induces abortion, but withdrew the drug one month later after severe protests. The abortion pill caused transnational controversies from 1988 to 1993. This article examines these controversies as a gateway to the entanglements between biomedical research, economic interests, and social protests in the last third of the twentieth century, as the American antiabortion movement initiated protests against the drug's French producer and its German parent company after its market release in France. The movement used boycotts against French products and utilized discomforting references to Germany's Nazi past to put pressure on pharmaceutical executives. In contrast, German, French, and American feminists and family-planners relied on transnational networks to enable medical trials and ensure the global distribution of Mifepristone. The article highlights how feminist demands for individual choice and public health concerns clashed with the antiabortion movements’ demands and entrepreneurs’ concerns about crude Holocaust comparisons. It shows that actors on both sides of the abortion controversy employed nonmedical arguments to influence scientific research and social movements acted on a transnational level to influence the market introduction of new biomedical advances.

1988 年，法国制药公司 Roussel Uclaf 推出了米非司酮 (RU 486)，这是一种医学上可诱导流产的药丸，但在一个月后因强烈抗议而撤回了该药。从 1988 年到 1993 年，堕胎药引发了跨国争议。本文将这些争议作为通向 20 世纪最后三分之一的生物医学研究、经济利益和社会抗议之间纠葛的门户，因为美国反堕胎运动发起了反对堕胎的抗议活动。药物在法国上市后的法国生产商及其德国母公司。该运动通过抵制法国产品并利用对德国纳粹过去的令人不安的提及来向制药业高管施加压力。相比之下，德语、法语、美国女权主义者和计划生育者依靠跨国网络来进行医学试验并确保米非司酮的全球分销。这篇文章强调了女权主义者对个人选择和公共卫生问题的要求如何与反堕胎运动的要求和企业家对粗略的大屠杀比较的担忧发生冲突。它表明，堕胎争议双方的行为者都使用非医学论据来影响科学研究，而社会运动在跨国层面上采取行动来影响新生物医学进展的市场引入。这篇文章强调了女权主义者对个人选择和公共卫生问题的要求如何与反堕胎运动的要求和企业家对粗略的大屠杀比较的担忧发生冲突。它表明，堕胎争议双方的行为者都使用非医学论据来影响科学研究，而社会运动在跨国层面上采取行动来影响新生物医学进展的市场引入。这篇文章强调了女权主义者对个人选择和公共卫生问题的要求如何与反堕胎运动的要求和企业家对粗略的大屠杀比较的担忧发生冲突。它表明，堕胎争议双方的行为者都使用非医学论据来影响科学研究，而社会运动在跨国层面上采取行动来影响新生物医学进展的市场引入。