There are many fail-safe ways to begin an argument.

Insulting a person’s mother usually will achieve that end. Throwing a punch will usually cause a physical argument.

But if you want a truly heated argument, state an opinion about the morality of abortion.

Roe v. Wade is the most well-known court case in America, and the moral argument over abortion will often edge its way into a debate that is solely about policy.

A perfect example of this were the Senatorial elections that took place after the Senate considered the ban on partial-birth abortions.

Many of the Senators who rejected the bill did so because they opposed the policy of banning it in every case, desiring it to be allowed in cases where the mother’s life was in danger. They did not argue the immorality of the procedure.

However, when the elections came up, these Senators were lambasted for supporting an immoral procedure. Moral arguments imposed themselves upon policy arguments.

Ever since the introduction of the ‘abortion pill,’ RU-486, policy and morality have again begun to overlap.

The latest example of this is the campus aspect of RU-486. Many collegiate health services provide medication or prescriptions, in addition to their services.

Where does RU-486 figure into this policy?

At the U. of Pennsylvania, this topic has found an easy solution to a difficult consideration.

According to the state’s Department of Health, only facilities that are registered to provide abortions have the ability to distribute RU-486, thereby excluding the U. of Pennsylvania’s Student Health Services.

This state policy makes much sense. While abortion is a medical procedure and RU-486 merely a drug, the differences blur when you consider how the pill works.

Two drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, work together. The former blocks fetal development, while the latter causes the uterus to contract and expel the fetus. This reaction is akin to a natural miscarriage.

There are differences between a surgically-induced miscarriage and a chemically-induced miscarriage, but they both fit the definition of an abortion. It then makes sense that only places that provide abortion should provide RU-486.

The morality of these procedures will always be debated, and the campus policies on the new drug are going to vary. That being said, there are colleges that go both ways on this issue.

But the way Pennsylvania has gone about this issue makes the most sense. It cuts out the moral debate, and puts forth a logical policy that observes the line between counsel and provision.