Columbus, Ohio, Nov 13, 2019 / 03:20 pm (CNA).- Two Democratic lawmakers in Ohio have introduced legislation that would prohibit the state from requiring doctors to provide patients with information that is not recognized by expert medical associations or supported through peer-reviewed research.
The bill challenges another piece of proposed legislation in the state, which would require physicians to inform patients seeking a medication abortion about the possibility of an abortion reversal. Supporters of the abortion reversal protocol argue that initial research indicates it increases the survival rate of a baby after the first part of a two-pill medical abortion regimen has been administered, without risk of harm to the mother or baby.
On Nov. 12, State Reps. Beth Liston (D-Dublin) and Allison Russo (D-Upper Arlington) introduced a bill that would prevent the state from requiring doctors to give patients information that they deem to be lacking evidence-based support, peer-reviewed research, or backing from medical organizations, as well as information they consider inappropriate for the patient’s circumstances.
“Government shouldn’t force healthcare providers to lie to their patients,” Liston said. “People should be able to trust their doctors and nurses to give them accurate and complete information.”
Earlier this month, the Ohio senate passed a bill that would require doctors administering medication abortions to inform women about the option to pursue an abortion reversal if they changed their minds.
Liston criticized that legislation in May, saying it was based on inaccurate medical information and “an extreme ideology.”
“Abortion pill reversal is not true medicine,” Liston said at the time. “This is legislation that interferes with standard practice and inappropriately puts politicians between doctors and patients.”
Other states – including Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Utah – have passed laws requiring that patients undergoing medication abortions receive information about the possibility of a reversal. These laws have frequently been met with legal challenges.
Medication abortions have become an increasingly common method of abortion in the United States, making up 30-40% of all abortions.
Medical abortions involve the taking of two pills – the first pill, mifepristone (RU-486) blocks the progesterone hormone, which is essential for maintaining the health of the baby. The second pill, misoprostol, is taken 24 hours after mifepristone and works to induce contractions in order to expel the baby.
Some women, after taking the first pill (mifepristone), experience regret and do not want to follow through with the abortion by taking misoprostol.
The abortion reversal protocol, administered after the mifepristone is taken, floods a woman’s system with more progesterone, in the hopes of overriding the progesterone-blocking effects of the drug she has in her system.
A study published in April 2018 in Issues in Law and Medicine, a peer-reviewed medical journal, examined 261 successful abortion pill reversals, and showed that the reversal success rates were 68% with a high-dose oral progesterone protocol and 64% with an injected progesterone protocol.
Both procedures significantly improved the 25% fetal survival rate if no treatment is offered and a woman simply declines the second pill of a medical abortion. The case study also showed that the progesterone treatments caused no increased risk of birth defects or preterm births.
The study was authored by Dr. Mary Davenport and Dr. George Delgado, who have been studying the abortion pill reversal procedures since 2009. Delgado also sits on the board of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Delgado told the Washington Post that he thinks more research should be done on abortion pill reversal, but that he believes there should be nothing to stop doctors from using the progesterone protocol in the meantime.
“(T)he science is good enough that, since we have no alternative therapy and we know it’s safe, we should go with it,” he said.
Advocates of the abortion reversal protocol stress that progesterone is a naturally occurring hormone in pregnant women that has been used for decades to treat women at risk of miscarriage.
Nurse practitioner Dede Chism, co-founder and executive director of Bella Natural Women’s Care in Englewood, Colo., stressed that hundreds of successful abortion pill reversals that have been documented in the U.S., without evidence of risk to the mom or baby.
Chism told CNA last year that it is common practice in medicine to share information about protocols that have yet to undergo even more rigorous prospective studies, if they have been shown to be safe and effective in case studies.
“We’re not causing harm, and even if the possibility of saving a baby is small, even if the population who desires it is small, is it not worth it to recognize it?” she said. “Isn’t it beautiful that there could be a possibility that just maybe could change and help you out when you’ve made a decision that you’ve regretted?”
“To be able to tell a patient that it may be possible in some circumstances to reverse an abortion pill, I think that is simply informed consent,” she added.
[…]
Prayer and fasting. Always good. Thousands of roses? I am sure. It did make the florists very happy.
Archbishop Cordileone asks us to pray and fast. I ask him to actually DO something. He has indicated that he is still in dialog (I hate that word) with Speaker Pelosi. If he has been doing this for all the years he has been bishop of San Francisco, it apparently has not done much good. She just pushed through the House the most drastic abortion bill ever – 218 democrats for and 210 republicans against. To solve a problem you have to accurately identify it. Those voting numbers show where the problem is in eliminating abortion. I don’t recall seeing that addressed by the bishops.
Archbishop Cordileone *is* doing something. Instead of privately begging NP to change her support of abortion, in utter defiance of Church teaching, as his predecessors have done to no avail, he is putting this out in the public. He gives no doubt as to his defense of Catholic teaching and his desire to save her soul from hell, and for attempting to prevent her from leading others into scandal and mortal sin. I’m not sure what else he can possibly do to get through to NP. It is certainly an Act of Mercy for him to ask for prayers and fasting for her soul and for the end of all abortion in the USA. I admire him for his courage and especially for his service to the Church.
In the history of biblical interpretation, the Book of Revelation’s 666 and antichrist has been wrongly and notoriously read to mean one’s enemy or anybody one detests: the Pope, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, Obama, or Trump, etc. Similarly, Archbishop Cordileone here grotesquely implies by association that those who uphold abortion rights are Satanic.
Are you attempting to grotesquely imply that those who support infanticide are sanctified?
It certainly violates the 10 commandments, and the two commandments He gave us while here.
He is not “implying” it. He is openly suggesting it. And he is correct, Those who uphold infanticide are in the grip of Satan, whom they willingly serve.
I would also note that Satan has achieved the goal of convincing these poor dullards that he does not exist and thereby condones a belief that any action of hums that fulfills their desires is permissible.
Every now and then a statement such as yours causes me to bring up one of my favorite comebacks from about 50+ years ago in the Chicago Tribune by either Dear Abby or Ann Landers in response to an unusually moronic statement from one of her readers:
“You may have a point but if you keep your hat on maybe no one will notice.”
Pope Francis granted Nancy a private audience yesterday. That would be encouraging, if one actually believed that he confronted her about her support for abortion, which he recently termed as “murder.” It is more likely that he was “pastoral” rather than “political,” which would leave her with the impression that she is doing just fine. I think Jesus would have been “pastoral” and told her that she was endangering her eternal soul with her stance. That would be the most pastoral thing to do, as “pastoral” is not a synonym of “being nice.”
First, it is important that we are passionate to stop the murder of the innocent – especially defenseless children in the womb – is grounded in our love of God and His commandments (all of His commandments), including “Thou shalt not kill.” I fear too much of the time the passion of the Pro-Life movement is more about the movement, more about the cause, than the reason for the movement and cause – the eternal God and His commandments. We should be as passionate to change other evils in society as we are to change the evil practice of abortion (murder of innocent children in the womb). I know this will ruffle feathers of some, but it is intended to cause reflection on the real motivation behind the passion, and to ask for that same passion in defending the laws of God in every area of life and society.
Second, Moloch (also known as Molech, Milcom, Milkim, Malcham, Malik) was the name of the national god of the Ammonites, to whom children were sacrificed by fire. While those who support and/or practice the evil of abortion, which is nothing less than child sacrifice, may not believe they are worshiping Moloch (in effect worshiping demonic forces and even Satan), their beliefs in and practice of abortion is evidence they are submitting to the rule of Satan and demonic forces, in effect worshiping Moloch.
I would like to make some follow-up comments addressing Susan K.’s statement that Archbishop Cordileone is doing something. We have different concepts of what “doing” something is. He has been Pelosi’s bishop for nine years. I by no means think that Archbishop Cordileone is stupid. But there is an old saying that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Obviously what he has been doing for nine years has not worked. Pelosi is more pro-abortion now than she was nine years ago.
Doing something would be enforcing Canon 915 of Canon Law – that she cold not receive the Eucharist. Doing something would be saying that being pro-abortion is a disqualifying issue for being elected to any office. These types of actions may have some positive effect on her. Even if not, it may have some effect on the 50% of Catholics who vote for pro-abortion politicians. As it stands, there seem to be many Catholics who believe that since nothing happens to the pro abortionists, then it must be OK to vote for them.
I would also like to see a little outrage in the bishops’ statements regarding the murder of millions of unborn babies. A little “Woe to you pharisees (pro-abortionists) might go a long way.
This doesn’t have to do with Archbishop Cordileone, but I just saw today that Pelosi had a meeting with the pope over the weekend. Several smiling pictures of the two together. But there was also a news item that she attended mass in Rome on Sunday, and the heckling made her leave church. There is a video of the priest saying that he was sorry she had to leave, as she was going to do the second reading. Good Grief!
To be fair, let’s keep in mind that the president and Speaker of the House both claim that they are opposed to abortion, but they do not think that it is helpful to use government power to stop it.
good