Telemedicine RU-486 prescriptions.
What's next, remote control D&C's?
Posted on 07/02/2013 3:13:39 AM PDT by iowamark
DES MOINES — The Iowa Board of Medicine pushed ahead with a new rule that would end so-called telemedicine abortions despite the objections of its legal director and representatives from the Iowa Attorney General’s office.
“There’s been no investigation, no research,” board legal director Kent Nebel told board members shortly before they voted 8-2 Friday afternoon to accept a petition to outlaw the practice. “In my 15 years in serving the board, this is unprecedented.”
At issue are state regulations that allow doctors to prescribe Mifenpristone, also known as RU-486 or the “morning-after pill,” to women via a remote-controlled system to conduct medical assessments. The systems generally are used in rural areas of the state where people don’t have easy access to medical facilities.
“This falls outside of what we’ve done in the past,” said Board Chair Gregory Hoversten, who called for a vote. “Never before have we had this much salience on an issue.”
The petition in question reportedly contains the signatures of 20,000 Iowans to “Stop Webcam Abortions.” It specifically asks the board to “make adjustments in their guidance and rules to end webcam abortions in Iowa.”
The affirmative vote starts a process in which the board can take comments on the petition in advance of a public hearing, which likely will be scheduled for the end of August if the board publishes the notice by July 5. Board Executive Director Mark Bowden said it would.
The earliest a vote on new rules could be taken, Bowden said, is 90 days from publication. The latest is 180 days.
“That’s almost half of a year,” he said.
Still, Assistant Attorney General Theresa Weeg said the board was moving too quickly. Weeg, who serves as a legal liaison to the board, said state code contains specific timelines for the rules process and rushing the decision could open the board to lawsuits.
“It’s against my advice,” Weeg said.
But Brenna Findley, an attorney for Gov. Terry Branstad, said the board has discretion in these cases because state code says the board has only to advise petitioners of the timelines.
“We all have personal views, but we have public responsibilities as well. This seems very unusual,” said board member Ann Gales, an attorney and one of the two dissenting votes.
She argued the board should take time to seek input and investigate the petition before voting to accept it.
But Daniel McConchie, vice president of government affairs for Americans United for Life and one of three members of the public who addressed the board – two for an immediate vote, one against – stressed the matter is urgent.
“With Iowa being ground zero for the phenomenon of so-called ‘web-cam abortions,’ it is appropriate for the Board of Medicine to consider whether the standard of care of patients in the state is compromised by this practice,” he said.
He said treating women remotely is a lower standard of care than women who are treated with in-person visits.
State Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroschell, D-Ames, traveled to Des Moines for the hearing. An abortion rights supporter, she was disturbed by the swiftness with which the board acted.
“The less public input the better, don’t you think?” she asked sarcastically.
“The less public input the better, don’t you think?” she asked sarcastically.
Is that analogous to nine unelected Justices, without Constitutional authority, throwing out statutes in all 50 states and writing their own, after discussing it strictly among themselves, resulting in 50 million or so murders to date?
Good for Iowa.
In a state that won’t even allow midwives to help deliver healthy babies to healthy mothers at home, because supposedly it presents some sort of health hazard. Madness.
One of those things I doubt most people realize goes on. It was banned in Michigan late last year.
Telemedicine RU-486 prescriptions.
What's next, remote control D&C's?
I wonder how much this system actually gets used.
A big factor in the decision to get pregnant with a baby one does not want is the ease of access to abortion mills. I would think that women in rural areas where there are no convenient abortion mills would be a lot more likely to avoid pregnancy.
I can’t say I’m overly concerned with the health of those using remote abortion services. However, I would be curious as to how the death and complication rate compares between tele-abortion and on-site abortion. I’d want to say that the tele-abortion would have more complications, because there is no medical staff on hand to handle them... but the same can be said about most abortion mills.
The death rate is virtually 100% in both cases.
You are correct.
I should have specified that I meant death rate of the mother.
So few children survive abortion that the death rate is effectively 100% for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.