Abortion Drug Restrictions Are Upheld by Appeals Court in Case Bound for the Supreme Court. A federal appeals court upheld a Trump administration rule that greatly restricts abortion access. By prohibiting clinics that receive federal funding from making referrals for the procedure.
The decision, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court. It is the first appeals court ruling on the so-called gag rule. Which was finalized last year and has been blocked by lower courts.
Abortion Drug Restrictions
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on Wednesday upheld a set of abortion restrictions in Arkansas. Including a provision that would ban medication abortion.
The ruling is likely to set up a Supreme Court showdown over abortion access. As the justices are already considering whether to take up a case from Louisiana that challenges a similar law.
The Arkansas law, which was passed in 2015, includes a number of abortion restrictions. Including a ban on medication abortion, a requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a local hospital and a provision that prohibits abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The law was challenged by a group of abortion providers. Who argued that it would impose an undue burden on women seeking abortion.
A federal district court agreed with the abortion providers and struck down the law. But the Eighth Circuit reversed that ruling.
In a 2-1 decision
the Eighth Circuit ruled that the law does not impose an undue burden on women seeking abortion.
The court also ruled that the medication abortion ban is constitutional. That the admitting privileges requirement is not yet enforceable.
The court’s ruling likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The justices are already considering whether to take up a case from Louisiana that challenges a similar law.
If the Supreme Court takes up the Arkansas case. It could have a major impact on abortion access in the United States.
The Future of Abortion Drug Restrictions Upheld by Appeals Court in Case Bound for the Supreme Court: Emerging Trends and Prediction
Efficacy and Safety of medication abortion
The efficacy and safety of medication abortion now well established. In 2000. The FDA approved mifepristone (Mifeprex) for use in the United States in conjunction with another medication, misoprostol, to end a pregnancy.
The FDA label for Mifeprex (mifepristone) indicates that it indicated for the medical termination of intrauterine pregnancy through 70 days gestation.
There has been a dramatic increase in the use of medication abortion in the United States in recent years. In 2005, medication abortion accounted for only 11 percent of all non-hospital abortions; by 2014, that number had risen to 31 percent.
The reasons for this increase are likely multifactorial. But may include the fact that the medication abortion is non-invasive. This can performed early in pregnancy, and is often less expensive than surgical abortion.
In March 2016, the FDA released updated labeling for Mifeprex that included new information on the recommended dosage and administration. As well as updated safety information.
The FDA label now recommends a lower dose of Mifeprex and a shorter interval between taking the two medications. In addition, the FDA has requires the manufacturer of Mifeprex to develop a Medication Guide that must give to patients at the time of dispensing.
Termination of Early Pregnancy
Despite the fact that medication abortion is a safe and effective option for termination of early pregnancy. There has been a concerted effort by anti-abortion groups to restrict access to this care.
In 2013, Arizona, North Dakota, and Texas enacted laws that bans the use of telemedicine for provision of medication abortion. These laws require that the medication dispensed in-person by a healthcare provider.
In 2014, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a committee opinion that opposed such restrictions. Stating that they “impose unnecessary barriers to women seeking early pregnancy termination.” In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down a similar law in Oklahoma.
Despite these legal challenges, many states have continued to enact laws that restrict access to medication abortion. In 2015, Arkansas, Kansas, and Kentucky enacted laws that require that the provider who dispenses the medication also be present when the patient takes it.
These laws are based on the false premise that patients might not take the medication as directed, or that they might experience complications that only a provider can manage.
International Study Abortion
There is no evidence that this is the case. A large, international study of over 4000 women found that the vast majority of women who underwent medication abortion took the medication as directed, and experienced no complications.
In fact, the complication rate for medication abortion is lower than that of many common medical procedures, such as tonsillectomy or childbirth.
The latest attack on access to medication abortion comes from the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which upheld a Missouri law that requires that providers who dispense the medication also be present when the patient takes it. This law is currently being challenged in court, and is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The future of access to medication abortion in the United States is uncertain. However, it is clear that there is a concerted effort to restrict access to this safe and effective option for termination of early pregnancy.
What is the basic issue in the abortion drug case?
The basic issue in the abortion drug case is whether the government can prevent a doctor from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to a patient.
How did the lower court rule?
The lower court ruled that the government could not prevent a doctor from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to a patient.
How did the appeals court rule?
The appeals court reversed the lower court’s ruling and said that the government can prevent a doctor from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to a patient.
What is the significance of the case?
This case will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, which will ultimately decide whether the government can prevent a doctor from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to a patient.
What is the government’s position?
The government’s position is that it should be able to prevent a doctor from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to a patient.
What is the position of the ACLU?
The ACLU’s position is that the government should not be able to prevent a doctor from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to a patient.
What are the arguments of the parties?
The government’s argument is that the abortion-inducing drugs can be dangerous to a woman’s health. The ACLU’s argument is that the government should not be able to interfere with a woman’s right to choose an abortion.
What is the likely outcome of the case?
It is difficult to predict the outcome of the case, as it will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. However, the fact that the appeals court reversed the lower court’s ruling suggests that the government is more likely to prevail.
How will the case affect women’s access to abortion?
If the government prevails in this case, it will become more difficult for women to obtain abortion-inducing drugs. This could potentially make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions.
What are the implications of the case?
The implications of the case are far-reaching, as it could potentially restrict women’s access to abortion.
Supreme Court To Hear Arguments on an Abortion Case
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld abortion restrictions in Texas that could force more than three-fourths of the state’s clinics to close. A ruling that will send the most significant abortion case in a generation to the Supreme Court.
The decision was a victory for Texas and other conservative states that have passed strict abortion regulations in recent years. And it will intensify the already passionate debate surrounding the issue in an election year when control of the Senate is at stake.
The New Orleans-based court said the restrictions requiring abortion clinics in Texas. To meet the same building standards as hospital-style surgical centers and forcing doctors performing abortions. To have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals were legal under the Constitution. They did not put an undue burden on women’s rights.
Appeals Court in Case Bound for the Supreme Court
Abortion drug restrictions are a critical part of many state’s abortion regulations. These restrictions limit the availability of medication abortions. Or the “abortion pill,” by requiring that it be dispensed in person by a licensed physician.
Many abortion rights advocates argue that these restrictions are an unnecessary burden on women seeking abortions. As they often require multiple trips to a clinic. In some cases, this can make it all but impossible for women in rural areas to access the medication.
Additionally, these restrictions can increase the cost of an abortion. As women must pay for the physician’s time as well as the medication itself.
In The Bottom Line
Abortion drug restrictions are an unnecessary burden on women seeking abortions. These restrictions can make it difficult for women in rural areas to access the medication. This can increase the cost of an abortion.
