Unsafe abortion the preventable pandemic - thanks for
You are now logged in. Forgot your password? The Food and Drug Administration FDA will once again allow abortion-inducing drugs to be prescribed remotely and sent via mail. Typically, a patient seeking a medical abortion—that's the type induced via prescription drugs mifepristone and misoprostol—must be prescribed and receive the drugs at a physician's office, hospital, or medical clinic, per FDA rules. Last summer, a federal court temporarily suspended the in-person prescription requirement. The i n-person prescription requirement during pandemic times presents a "substantial obstacle" of the sort barred by Roe v. Wade to women seeking abortions, U. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled in July , issuing a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the FDA's in-person rules until at least 30 days after an end to the public health emergency was declared. unsafe abortion the preventable pandemic.
A constitutional right to an abortion means a right to have one for any reason.
That should also mean a woman can elect to tell her doctor — or not — why she wants an abortion. The law also made it a felony for doctors to defy the law. The Supreme Court guaranteed that right nearly 50 years ago in the landmark ablrtion of Roe vs.
FREE MINDS
Wade and has upheld it multiple times since then. Any restriction that makes it overly difficult to get an abortion or conflicts with the right to obtain one — such as limiting abortions to the first eight to 10 weeks of pregnancy — is typically blocked by the courts. And the recent passel of laws that bar women from having an abortion for certain reasons — for example, to select the child's gender or to avoid a genetic anomaly polygamy in Down syndrome — have often been blocked by courts as well. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction after lawyers for several medical service providers and a doctor in Ohio sued the state.
'I considered him one of my best friends'
But in a troubling decision, the U. Batchelder said the law neither bans a woman from seeking an abortion for a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome nor poses a burden that interferes with her getting the abortion. If the doctors don't know about the fetus' diagnosis, Batchelder reasoned, they aren't discriminating against the Down syndrome community.
But in fact, all the state has done is discriminated against the women who want to have a frank discussion with their doctors about whether they want to give birth to a baby that is expected to have Down syndrome. But by keeping mum about her motives, the judges argue, the woman relieves some of the stigma about Down syndrome. At the same time, it prevents the medical profession in particular and society in general from knowingly casting aspersions on individuals with Down syndrome — or, worst of all, celebrating the number of Down syndrome births averted.
And that helps no one; worse, it may be counterproductive. And did it occur to state legislators and the appellate judges that the more deeply and candidly a woman can discuss her options and possible decision with her doctor — who may also be the one performing the abortion — the more information she may get about Down syndrome, which could help to overcome the stigma the law cites?]
I apologise, but it absolutely another. Who else, what can prompt?
It was and with me.
I think, that you are not right. I am assured. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.
I am sorry, it does not approach me. There are other variants?