Medication abortion reversal is "devoid of scientific support," judge rules in North Dakota (Barf)

CBS NEWS ^ | SEPT, 11, 2019 | Kate Smith

[Morgana]

A judge in North Dakota ruled against the state's recent law requiring physicians to tell patients that their medication abortions may reversed, a claim he called "devoid of scientific support, misleading, and untrue."

In a 24-page decision issued Tuesday morning, Judge Daniel Hovland granted the American Medical Association and Red River Women's Clinic — North Dakota's only abortion provider — a preliminary injunction against North Dakota House Bill 1336, which would have required physicians to tell patients "that it may be possible to reverse the effects of an abortion-inducing drug if she changes her mind, but time is of the essence," according to the law's text.

"State legislatures should not be mandating unproven medical treatments, or requiring physicians to provide patients with misleading and inaccurate information," Judge Hovland wrote. "The provisions of [this law] violate a physician's right not to speak and go far beyond any informed consent laws addressed by the United States Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, or other courts to date."

[Morgana]

FReepers this is total BS!! Women have reversed the abortion pill and had a baby with great success. It has to be done quickly but it can be done.

These people just want every baby a dead baby.

[Pontiac]

"The provisions of [this law] violate a physician's right not to speak and go far beyond any informed consent laws addressed by the United States Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, or other courts to date."

I wonder if the Informed Consent statement for an abortion states that “the procedure will lead to the death of your child”

[kingu]

I don’t think the court is the source of your bovine droppings; the state legislature and the governor hold that particular field bingo square. The legislation should never have been passed in the first place.

You can’t have it both ways; either the FDA authorizes medications which have gone through trials and shown to be effective for the condition it is prescribed, or everything the FDA does is invalid within the state.

Since in every other manner the state follows the FDA, this off label experiment can’t be mandated as an optional next step. The court was right to quash the mandated speech.

Conversely, the passing and the quashing are undoubtedly going to raise awareness of the experimental treatment to undo chemical abortions. A little silver lining, I suppose, but one which the taxpayers of North Dakota shouldn’t have had to foot the bill for.

[gasport]

So a lawyer is telling physicians how to practice medicine.

[Skywise]

Uh no - effective means at least a reasonable chance of success. If the efficacy of the abortion pill takes several hours to trigger the abortion than another chemical process can easily stop it.

That’s called actual science.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don’t know — when I first heard this, I thought it was the pro-abortionists that pushed this language, because it just makes it easier to TAKE the medication, because yOU THINK you can change your mind — but you aren’t going to change your mind.

Better to tell the woman the truth — that if you take this pill, you are terminating the life of another human being, who is totally dependent on you to protect them.

[Morgana]

A Conversation with a Former Abortionist: What about Abortion Pills?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FntbJh_6Fco

Dr. Anthony Levatino shares important information about medical abortion involving the pills mifepristone (RU-486) and misoprostol. Topics covered include failure rates and adverse effects to the mother. For more information visit AbortionProcedures.com

_____________________________________________________________________

1st Trimester Medical Abortion: Abortion Pills

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRDnVSMr5j0&list=PLRCroccSjXWR9HVr_ooA3ErEAR0SifdwY&index=3

First trimester medical abortion, “the abortion pill,” explained by former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino.

____________________________

The second explains it but the first give more info on this.

[TigersEye]

The court was right to quash the mandated speech.

And it always is no matter what speech the government is attempting to mandate.

[texas booster]

So a lawyer is telling physicians how to practice medicine.

Is this better or worse than an insurance clerk approving or denying a doctor required medical procedure?