safeguards

Proposed Missouri Amendment 3 on November Ballot Would Prohibit Abortion and Gender Transition Procedures for Minors

nancyvalko abortion, chemical abortions, conscience rights, culture, health care reform, law, medical, medical abortion, medical ethics, miscarriage, organ donation, pro-life, safeguards, transgender, transgender care

In a June 24, 2026 ACLU article titled “Fight for Abortion Rights Has Turned to States in Years Since Landmark Reproductive Rights Ruling, Breanna Diaz, writes that “Four years ago, the Supreme Court struck down the federal right to abortion. Since then, the fight has turned to the states.”

The ACLU also maintains that “Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade four years ago in the Dobbs v. Jackson case that ended the federal right to abortion, people across the country have felt the fallout, especially in the South and Midwest. Many have had to travel long distances to obtain abortion care in other states. Some have been denied urgently needed care at hospitals. Others have even lost their lives because of abortion bans.”

Although not perfect, I am proud that my state of Missouri now has now has Amendment 3, the “Prohibit Abortion and Gender Transition Procedures for Minors Amendment“ is on the ballot in Missouri as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2026.[1]

According to Ballotpedia:


A “yes” vote supports amending the Missouri Constitution to:
:repeal the constitutional right to reproductive freedom, which voters ratified in 2024 and prohibit abortions except in cases of “medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest,” and permit abortions in cases of rape or incest only through 12 weeks of gestation; 
prohibit gender transition surgeries for minors, as well as the prescription or administration of cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs to minors, with an exception for treatments “unrelated to the purpose of a gender transition;” and make other changes.
A “no” vote opposes amending the Missouri Constitution, keeping the existing constitutional right to reproductive freedom, and not adding provisions that prohibit abortion and gender transition surgeries and procedures.

Ballotpedia states that:

“This amendment would repeal Amendment 3, which was passed by voters in 2024. It amended the state constitution, providing for the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including abortion.

The amendment would then add a new section that would prohibit abortion, except in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest. For cases of rape and incest, the abortion could only be performed before 12 weeks. It would prohibit abortions based on a fetal disability diagnosis, except in cases of fetal anomaly. It would require parental or guardian consent for minors seeking an abortion and prohibit fetal organ harvesting. The amendment would also provide for the ability of a woman to access healthcare in cases of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.[1]

State Sen. Brad Hudson (R-33), who supports HJR 73, said, “From constituents and individuals that I’ve been talking to about this issue, they want another opportunity to weigh in on this. They don’t feel like that they were given an option in Amendment 3 that accurately reflects who they are and where they are on the life issue.”[2]

Margot Riphagen, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers Action, who opposes the measure, said, “The majority of Missourians want to make their own decisions about health care without interference from prying politicians … We will not stand for more political games at the expense of the thousands of patients in Missouri who could finally access care they need without crossing state lines. Missouri voters will once again send a clear message that enough is enough.”[3]

Abortion is currently legal in Missouri up to the point of fetal viability, which is defined in Missouri law as “that stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child may be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or artificial life-supportive systems.”[4]

and:

“Missouri was one of 14 states that placed a constitutional amendment on a ballot to amend the state constitution to provide for the right to an abortion. The first three states to pass these amendments were California, Michigan, and Vermont in 2022, the same year that Roe v. Wade was overturned following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization U.S. Supreme Court decision. Out of the 14 states, voters passed right-to-abortion amendments in 11 of them, and rejected amendments in three — Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota. After 2022, voters in one state — Nebraska — approved a measure to limit the timeframe during which an abortion can be performed.

With Missouri’s Amendment 3, this will be the first time voters will decide to repeal a right-to-abortion amendment.”

“The ballot measure would repeal Section 36 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution, and add a new section, Section 36a. The following underlined text would be added and struck-through text would be deleted”:

“Section 36(a).1. The state’s duty to protect public health and welfare includes protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession. The state’s interest in regulating the practice of medicine is even greater in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty or in areas that raise grave moral and ethical concerns, including abortion and gender transition procedures.

2. An abortion may be performed or induced upon a woman in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest. In the case of abortions performed or induced in cases of rape or incest, the abortion may be performed or induced no later than twelve weeks gestational age of the unborn child.

3. The general assembly may enact laws that regulate the provision of abortions, abortion facilities, and abortion providers to ensure the health and safety of the pregnant mother. These laws shall include, but not be limited to, laws requiring physicians providing abortion care to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital; laws requiring facilities where abortions are performed or induced to be licensed and inspected for clean and safe conditions and adequate instruments to treat any emergencies arising from an abortion procedure; laws requiring physicians to perform a sufficient examination of the woman to determine the unborn child’s gestational age and any preexisting medical conditions that may influence the procedure; and laws requiring ultrasounds to be performed only by physicians or licensed medical technicians.

4. No abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman based on a prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating a disability in an unborn child, except in cases of a fetal anomaly.

5. No public funds shall be expended for the purpose of performing, inducing, or otherwise assisting any abortion, except in cases of medical emergency, rape, or incest, as otherwise authorized by law.

6. Except in cases of a medical emergency in which consent cannot be obtained, no abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman without her voluntary and informed consent, given freely and without coercion. In the case of a minor under the age of eighteen years who is not emancipated, no person shall knowingly perform or induce an abortion, except in cases of a medical emergency in which consent cannot be obtained, unless the attending physician has obtained:

(1) the written consent of the minor and a parent or legal guardian; and(2) documentation of the consent is retained in the minor’s medical record. Licensed medical physicians shall be required to provide women with medically accurate information. The general assembly may enact laws to provide for the right of a minor to consent to an abortion as granted by a court order.

7. Fetal organ harvesting after an abortion is not permitted under any circumstances.

8. A woman’s ability to access health care in cases of miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other medical emergencies shall not be infringed by the state.

9. No gender transition surgeries shall be knowingly performed on children under eighteen years of age, and no cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs shall be knowingly prescribed or administered for the purpose of gender transition to children under eighteen years of age. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the use of such surgeries, drugs, or hormones to treat children born with a medically verifiable disorder of sex development or to treat any infection, injury, disease, or disorder unrelated to the purpose of a gender transition.

10. Any action challenging the validity of any state law relating to reproductive health care shall be brought in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri. If a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a state statute does not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity, the party bringing the action shall file a notice of constitutional question and serve it on the attorney general and the attorney general shall have the right to intervene in the litigation.

11. The general assembly shall have the authority to enact laws to carry out the provisions of this section.

12. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

(1) “Cross-sex hormones”, testosterone, estrogen, or other androgens given to an individual in amounts that are greater or more potent than would normally occur naturally in a healthy individual of the same age and sex;

(2) “Fetal anomaly”, a structural or functional abnormality in the unborn child’s gestational development that would make life outside the womb impossible;

(3) “Fetal organ harvesting”, collection of fetal tissue, organs, or fluids, including any biological material, for the purpose of selling or collecting for scientific purposes, but shall not include the utilization of fetal tissue, organs, or fluids to determine the cause or causes of any anomaly, illness, death, or genetic condition of the unborn child, the paternity of the unborn child, or for law enforcement purposes;

(4) “Gender transition surgery”, a surgical procedure performed for the purpose of assisting an individual with identifying with and living as a gender different from his or her biological sex;

(5) “Medical emergency”, a condition that, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate termination of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. A medical emergency shall include, but not be limited to, an ectopic pregnancy at any point following the diagnosis of such and treatment for a miscarriage;

(6) “Puberty-blocking drugs”, gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues or other synthetic drugs used to stop luteinizing hormone secretion and follicle stimulating hormone secretion, synthetic antiandrogen drugs to block the androgen receptor, or any other drug used to delay or suppress pubertal development in children for the purpose of assisting an individual with a gender transition;(7) “Reasonable medical judgment”, a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved.

13. All provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid.

It is expected that the vote will be close.

Share this:

California is Suing Christian nonprofits that Help Women Save Their Unborn Babies

nancyvalko abortion, adoption, bereavement, chemical abortions, Compassion & Choices, conscience rights, culture, education, family, law, media, medical, medical ethics, nursing, Planned Parenthood, pro-life, safeguards

In a disturbing op-ed in the July 30, 2026 edition of the Wall Street Journal titled “California’s Case Against Second Chances,” Archbishop Salvatore of San Francisco and Bishop Michael C. Barber of Oakland write that “The State is suing Christian non-profits that help women save their unborn babies.”

The Bishops write:

“Elizabeth Barrett, a young college dropout in Southern California, swallowed a pill the local abortion clinic had given her—and then, almost immediately after, changed her mind. An online search for advice on how to undo the chemical abortion led her to Heartbeat International, a Christian nonprofit that refers women to licensed doctors for treatment. It worked. Ms. Barrett is the mother of a healthy girl.

The state of California wants to be sure that such things never happen again. In an extraordinary case now unfolding at trial in state court in Oakland, California’s attorney general seeks an injunction and up to $20 million in fines against Heartbeat International and another small pro-life Christian nonprofit, RealOptions. Their offense is telling women who regret swallowing the abortion pill that there is a medical treatment that can sometimes save their babies.

Consumer fraud, the prosecutors are calling it. Legal scholars call it an abuse of power. “This novel use of California’s commercial-fraud statute seems designed to intimidate nonprofit organizations that—with no hope of commercial gain—seek to educate the public about services that are lawful but contrary to the ideological preferences of the government,” says Michael McConnell, a professor who teaches free-speech law at Stanford.

California isn’t alone in attacking these Christian groups. New York’s Attorney General Letitia James has filed a similar lawsuit against Heartbeat International and other pregnancy centers. The Thomas More Society, a Catholic public-interest law firm, is pursuing separate federal cases challenging the constitutionality of these prosecutions in federal courts.

California’s attorney general has found no evidence that any woman has complained of harm by the defendants. That didn’t dissuade the state, which is marshaling its taxpayer-funded resources to shut these ministries down.

The state argues that because the nonprofits raise money from donors, they are engaged in commercial speech. If the government wins, doctors may still prescribe the medication, but no nonprofit can tell women the treatment exists—a novel legal theory that would vastly expand lawfare against those who hold views with which the government disagrees.

One wonders whether the pro-abortion lobby has really thought this through. The prosecution’s theory “would expose any nonprofit in America” to “the same government overreach,” Paul Jonna, an attorney from the Thomas More Society, said in a news release. Don’t they worry that some future state attorney general in Mississippi might use similar tactics to go after Planned Parenthood?

Reading the depositions of these women is a painful experience. To be a Catholic priest these days, as we both are, is to have heard many similar stories of women who felt pressured to have an abortion they didn’t want.

Everyone should oppose this. But these women especially need support from the religious—those who hold that creation in God’s image means life is endowed with a dignity that can’t be trampled by a government determined to punish those who oppose unquestioned abortion.

Consider just the case of Ms. Barrett. In 2023, she was struggling financially, and she and her live-in boyfriend were experiencing increasing strain in their relationship. When she learned she was pregnant, “I panicked at the thought of spending 18 years in family court,” Ms. Barrett testified. She “struggled to imagine where I would be able to find funds to cover child-care costs.”

At the clinic, she told staff she was scared and thought she might want to keep her baby, hoping to talk through her options. “I was a huge supporter and donor to Planned Parenthood at the time,” she said. “I thought for sure that staff at the clinic would help me out.” Instead they urged her to take the abortion pill that day and warned that if she delayed, she might not be able to get another appointment. “With that scheduling pressure and overwhelmed by misgivings about getting the abortion—what if I wanted to proceed but couldn’t later?—I took the first of two pills for a chemical abortion.”

But before she left the clinic, her boyfriend texted her saying he wanted to keep the baby and raise their child together. That changed everything. So began a frantic search for anything to stop the abortion: “I was desperate, borderline hysterical, and willing to try just about anything.” Ms. Barrett found Heartbeat International online. Within an hour, she had a clinic appointment with a licensed California doctor to reverse her abortion pill. She’s a mother today thanks to this Christian nonprofit and its donors.

California v. Heartbeat International and RealOptions is a rare case that should bring together both sides of the abortion debate. In particular, it tests the souls of those who claim the platform of “pro-choice.” What kind of people see a pregnant woman who wants to reverse the effects of an abortion pill and think, “Let’s punish the nonprofits that informed her she has a choice”?

Are they really pro-choice, or do they just like killing?

Archbishop Cordileone is archbishop of San Francisco. Bishop Barber is bishop of Oakland.“

CONCLUSION

It is not just abortion clinics, it is also about teleheath abortions.

As I wrote June 4, 2026,

New Lozier Study Shows Chemical Abortions Are Largely Unregulated

 nancyvalko abortion, chemical abortions, education, law, medical, medical abortion, medical ethics, Planned Parenthood, safeguards

As a new June 4, 2026, National Right to Life article by Michael New titled “New Lozier Study Shows Chemical Abortions Are Largely Unregulated” just reported:

“Last week, the Charlotte Lozier Institute released a study by research associate Mia Steupert showing that organizations selling chemical abortion pills online are largely unregulated. Specifically, these organizations often fail to comply with existing laws, FDA regulations, and basic health and safety standards. The study considered entities that provide telehealth abortions through the formal U.S. health-care system. The study also considered overseas and online entities that sell abortion pills.

Here are some of the specifics. The Lozier study identified 80 organizations that provide telehealth abortions through the formal U.S. health-care system. Thirty-eight of these organizations are online only, and 42 are hybrid brick-and-mortar and online facilities. Again, these facilities are technically subject to FDA regulations. The study, however, provides strong evidence that these facilities frequently violate FDA policies, states’ pro-life laws, and basic health standards:

  • Only 15 of 80 report they will adhere to FDA rules and not ship abortion pills to pregnant women after 70 days gestation.
  • 43 of the 80 either had no age requirement for the woman obtaining abortion pills or did not publish this information. This would put them in violation of state parental involvement laws.
  • Only 39 of the 80 formally required women to take part in a video call to discuss their eligibility for taking abortion drugs.
  • Only 9 of 80 require that all women submit a form of identification before obtaining abortion pills. One additional organization required a form of identification only from women living in certain states.
  • Only 16 of 80 require a virtual follow-up after the abortion has taken place.“

Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, unregulated telehealth abortions have posed a serious challenge to the pro-life movement. These telehealth abortions undermine and weaken many of the strong state-level pro-life laws that have been enacted post-Dobbs. This new Lozier study highlights the extent to which chemical abortions are largely unregulated, posing serious public health concerns. The study also details ongoing litigation where women unknowingly took chemical abortion pills because their partners wanted their pregnancies terminated. Had appropriate regulations and safeguards been in effect, these women and their preborn children would have been protected.

The Lozier study identifies several policy tools that could be used to ban or limit telehealth abortions. The FDA could restore the rules that existed before the COVID-19 pandemic and require women obtaining chemical abortions to have an in-person meeting with a health-care professional. Multiple lawsuits are being filed by various state attorneys general, arguing that the new rules violate the FDA’s Administrative Procedures Act. Finally, the Comstock Act, which prevents abortifacients from being sent through the mail, could be enforced.

This important Lozier study demonstrates that stopping telehealth abortions should remain a top priority for pro-lifers.

This appeared at National Review Online and is posted with the author’s permission.“

Share this:

s

s

New Lozier Study Shows Chemical Abortions Are Largely Unregulated

nancyvalko abortion, chemical abortions, education, law, medical, medical abortion, medical ethics, Planned Parenthood, safeguards

As a new June 4, 2026, National Right to Life article by Michael New titled “New Lozier Study Shows Chemical Abortions Are Largely Unregulated” just reported:

“Last week, the Charlotte Lozier Institute released a study by research associate Mia Steupert showing that organizations selling chemical abortion pills online are largely unregulated. Specifically, these organizations often fail to comply with existing laws, FDA regulations, and basic health and safety standards. The study considered entities that provide telehealth abortions through the formal U.S. health-care system. The study also considered overseas and online entities that sell abortion pills.

Here are some of the specifics. The Lozier study identified 80 organizations that provide telehealth abortions through the formal U.S. health-care system. Thirty-eight of these organizations are online only, and 42 are hybrid brick-and-mortar and online facilities. Again, these facilities are technically subject to FDA regulations. The study, however, provides strong evidence that these facilities frequently violate FDA policies, states’ pro-life laws, and basic health standards:

  • Only 15 of 80 report they will adhere to FDA rules and not ship abortion pills to pregnant women after 70 days gestation.
  • 43 of the 80 either had no age requirement for the woman obtaining abortion pills or did not publish this information. This would put them in violation of state parental involvement laws.
  • Only 39 of the 80 formally required women to take part in a video call to discuss their eligibility for taking abortion drugs.
  • Only 9 of 80 require that all women submit a form of identification before obtaining abortion pills. One additional organization required a form of identification only from women living in certain states.
  • Only 16 of 80 require a virtual follow-up after the abortion has taken place.“

Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, unregulated telehealth abortions have posed a serious challenge to the pro-life movement. These telehealth abortions undermine and weaken many of the strong state-level pro-life laws that have been enacted post-Dobbs. This new Lozier study highlights the extent to which chemical abortions are largely unregulated, posing serious public health concerns. The study also details ongoing litigation where women unknowingly took chemical abortion pills because their partners wanted their pregnancies terminated. Had appropriate regulations and safeguards been in effect, these women and their preborn children would have been protected.

The Lozier study identifies several policy tools that could be used to ban or limit telehealth abortions. The FDA could restore the rules that existed before the COVID-19 pandemic and require women obtaining chemical abortions to have an in-person meeting with a health-care professional. Multiple lawsuits are being filed by various state attorneys general, arguing that the new rules violate the FDA’s Administrative Procedures Act. Finally, the Comstock Act, which prevents abortifacients from being sent through the mail, could be enforced.

This important Lozier study demonstrates that stopping telehealth abortions should remain a top priority for pro-lifers.

This appeared at National Review Online and is posted with the author’s permission.“

Share this:

s

ABORTION PILLS HEAD TO THE SUPREME COURT

nancyvalko abortion, culture, education, law, medical abortion, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life, safeguards

In a May 7, 2026 article in First Things by Jonathan Van Maren titled “Abortion Pills Head to the Supreme Court” , Mr. Von Maren states:

“Two judicial rulings over Mifepristone this month have set the stage for the most important legal battle over abortion since the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022—and the fight has exposed the growing divide between the pro-life movement and the Trump administration.

He explains:

“Central to this legal battle is the Biden administration’s decision to use the pretext of the COVID pandemic to temporarily suspend the requirement that abortion pills be dispensed in person by a certified healthcare provider or clinic in 2021; the change was made permanent in 2023. This created a massive mail-order market that has sent abortion pills flowing into states with pro-life laws, triggering a series of lawsuits. 

Louisiana launched a lawsuit last year challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s 2023 decision and arguing that the changes both lacked sufficient safety data and enable illegal abortions in their state, which has some of the most comprehensive pro-life protections in the country. 

On May 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with Louisiana that the mail-order abortion pills coming across state lines were a violation of the state’s pro-life laws. The court issued a temporary stay order in State of Louisiana v. FDA, reinstating the FDA’s pre-2021 requirement. The decision paused mail-order access to abortion drugs across the country.

“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ‘every unborn child is [a] human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person,’” the court’s decision states. The decision also notes that the FDA has admitted “it had failed to adequately study whether remotely prescribing mifepristone is safe,” and that Louisiana’s case was “strong.” 

Two pharmaceutical companies that produce the abortion pill, Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, swiftly petitioned the Supreme Court for emergency relief to restore access to the drugs, arguing that the stay would create chaos. On May 4, Justice Samuel Alito issued an administrative stay of the Fifth Circuit’s order, temporarily restoring telehealth and mail-order access until at least May 11 as the Supreme Court considers the case further.

Pro-life leaders have been exultant about the Fifth Circuit’s decision and optimistic that the Supreme Court’s administrative stay will be ultimately temporary. “Women and children suffer and state sovereignty is violated every day the FDA allows abortion drugs to flood the mail—harms that are no mere accident, but predictable outcomes of the FDA’s unscientific removal of safeguards like in-person doctor visits,” stated Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

In response to the Supreme Court’s stay, Alliance Defending Freedom—which joined Louisiana’s challenge to the FDA—was emphatic. “This is NOT a reversal of Friday’s decision,” ADF said in a statement. “Rather, it’s the run-of-the-mill pause that the Justices typically use to consider the issues raised in an emergency application. . . . We respect the Court’s desire to have time to consider the issues and will continue our fight to uphold this victory.”

Repealing the FDA’s 2023 change has become the pro-life movement’s primary goal since Dobbs. Thirteen states have strong pro-life protections for unborn children, but mail-order abortion pills have essentially nullified these protections; according to the Guttmacher Institute, 63 percent of abortions in 2023 (the latest year for which national data is available) were pill abortions. The abortion rate is rising for the first time in decades, and a quarter of abortions are facilitated by telehealth services.

Despite this, the second Trump administration has actively opposed the pro-life movement’s attempts to restore the pre-2021 status quo. The Trump Department of Justice has continued the Biden policy of defending the FDA against state-led lawsuits against the abortion pill, asking for dismissals or pauses as the FDA conducts a safety review of mifepristone. In the meantime, the Trump administration approved another generic abortion pill in October 2024. 

In sharp contrast to the strong record of the first administration, Trump’s approach this time around has been to keep the pro-life movement in the tent but off the platform. In 2024, the Trump campaign stripped the pro-life plank out of the GOP platform for the first time in decades; during the campaign, Trump stated that he supported access to the abortion pill. Vice President JD Vance has attended the March for Life twice to shore up support, but pro-life leaders long muted in their criticisms are now openly expressing their frustration with the administration. 

“Restore the in-person dispensing by a doctor of these drugs!” Dannenfelser told a protest outside the HHS department in January. “What a modest thing to do for the women and children of America. Restore that to the Trump 1 policy! The Biden COVID-era abortion drug policy has led to devastating moments of death for children and coercion and death for women. . . . Abortions have gone up since Dobbs, not down!”

She was blunter speaking to the Wall Street Journal last week. “Trump is the problem. The president is the problem.”

CONCLUSION

I have been writing about the dangers of the abortion pills in posts like the February 16, 2017, post “Are Mail Order Abortions Coming? my September 21 2019 post “Press Release: The National Association of Pro-life Nurses On Federal Judge Blocking North Dakota Law Informing Women of Abortion Pill Rescue Reversal” and my February 26, 2026, post “Safer Than Tylenol” is Deliberate Medical Abortion Disinformation.

Especially as nurses, we need to inform the public!

Share this:

The Supreme Court Rejects Challenge by Pro-life Doctors on Abortion Pill

nancyvalko abortion, culture, education, grief, law, medical abortion, medical ethics, miscarriage, pro-life, safeguards

As Life News reported on June 13, 2024:

“The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone, meaning the abortion drug will be widely available to continue killing babies and injuring doctors nationwide.

The 9-0 decision says the pro-life doctors who brought the case do not have standing – they were not injured, and so the court does not intervene. That’s even though they sued on behalf of women who were injured by the abortion drug by the thousands – including women who have been killed.” (Emphasis added)

The US Supreme Court decision acknowledged that the Mifeprex pill was approved in 2000 but also that:

“FDA placed additional restrictions on the drug’s use and distribution, for example requiring doctors to prescribe or to supervise prescription of Mifeprex, and requiring patients to have three in-person visits with
the doctor to receive the drug. ” (Emphasis added)

The Cout also acknowledges that the restrictions were relaxed further by the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) when:

“In 2021, the FDA announced that it would no longer enforce the initial in-person visit requirement. Four pro-life medical associations and several individual doctors moved for a preliminary injunction that would require the FDA either to rescind
approval of mifepristone or to rescind the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 regulatory actions. Danco Laboratories, which sponsors Mifeprex, intervened to defend FDA’s actions.”

Now as the Wall Street Journal reports:

“Twenty-six states and D.C. allow telehealth for medication abortion. The remaining states have restrictions that supersede federal guidance: 14 ban abortion throughout pregnancy, and the remaining 10 have various combinations of in-person requirements, such as mandatory ultrasounds and visits to doctors and counselors.” (Emphasis added)

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

As Dr. Christina Francis, an Ob-Gyn doctor herself, wrote in a May 2021 article titled “The government’s abortion pill policy puts mothers’ lives at risk”:

“One of the most significant reasons why an in-person visit has been required is for proper medical oversight as well as a physical exam and ultrasound. These visits are meant to accurately assess the gestational age of a woman’s pregnancy, as well as rule out ectopic pregnancy, which is life-threatening. The difference in size of an 8-week-old and 12-week-old preborn child is significant”

CONCLUSION

I have a personal interest in this because I had an unwed daughter who became pregnant and started bleeding without telling me because of embarrassment.

She went to a local ER where the doctors said she was just having a miscarriage and sent her home.

When the pain and bleeding increased, she called me. I took her back to the ER to demand an ultrasound.

As I suspected as a nurse, her pregnancy was ectopic and emergency surgery was performed.

Afterward, the surgeon showed me the picture he had taken (unasked) during the surgery to remove the then-deceased first-trimester baby, my grandchild. The picture was personally so sad to see but I was comforted that the surgeon cared enough to take a picture of this tiny person and show respect.

We need more respect and help for women with an unexpected pregnancy and their babies than a pill without medical safeguards!