The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday expressed interest in examining an Oklahoma law restricting the use of abortion-inducing drugs, raising the prospect of a ruling on an increasingly prevalent form of abortion.
The high court hasn't previously considered what kind of rules on drug-induced abortions might pass constitutional scrutiny. In the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling and subsequent decisions modifying it, the Supreme Court has said women have a right to an abortion, while upholding certain state restrictions, such as waiting-period requirements.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt
The justices announced in a short written order that they would review the Oklahoma case, but added an asterisk: Before the court would move forward, it wished to hear the Oklahoma Supreme Court's views on how the state's law works. That left open the possibility that the high court could delay action or drop the case altogether after the Oklahoma court responds.
The appeal before the Supreme Court centers largely on RU-486, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000 for use in terminating pregnancies.
Abortion-rights supporters say the drug and others like it expand women's access to abortion, because they are cheaper and less invasive than surgical abortions, can be taken privately and can be made available in areas where there are few or no abortion providers.
An Oklahoma law requires doctors to use FDA protocol when they administer RU-486 and other abortion-inducing drugs. The law's challengers—an abortion-rights group and a medical clinic—said in court documents that the state law effectively bans all abortions performed using the medication because doctors have developed better methods for administering the drugs that don't follow the original FDA protocol.
After Oklahoma enacted the law in 2011, state courts struck it down as unconstitutional, prompting Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in a bid to save the measure.
Mr. Pruitt said the state was trying to protect women from off-label use of abortion-inducing drugs, which Oklahoma officials say has led to eight deaths. Oklahoma says it isn't trying to ban drug-induced abortions outright.
"We look forward to the opportunity to defend Oklahoma's right to protect its citizens," Mr. Pruitt said.
Antiabortion activists praised the high court's indication it would consider the issue. "The Supreme Court has taken a first step toward protecting women and girls from the abortion industry's callous disregard for their health and safety when using life-ending drugs," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life.
Abortion-rights supporters say state restrictions on the drugs may tie doctors' hands and pose an undue burden on access to abortion. "This method has clearly been under attack," said Morgan Meneses-Sheets, program manager of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project. "Our opponents have been very creative and successful at carving away access."
Some 39 states require abortion-inducing drugs to be prescribed by a licensed physician. Four states—Arizona, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma—have passed laws restricting physicians to follow the FDA protocol.
Twelve states have required the prescribing physician to be present when the drug is taken, barring the use of telephones or video conferencing, although not all of those laws are currently in effect.
Write to Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@wsj.com and Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@dowjones.com
A version of this article appeared June 28, 2013, on page A7 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Abortion-Drug Case On Docket for Now.
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNEvKfqv-S_CeAPeTNN4z2Vu5zsoAg&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689204578571880134731290.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment