On Monday a federal judge sitting in Austin declared parts of Texas' new stringent anti-abortion law to be unconstitutional. In particular, Judge Lee Yeakel declared that the provision requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic would place an undue burden on women seeking to terminate their pregnancies.
On the other hand, Judge Yeakel let stand a provision requiring doctors to follow an 18-year-old FDA protocol for performing drug-induced abortions. He did point out, however, that doctors must still be allowed to adjust the protocol to protect the health of the woman.
The protocol does not allow doctors to use medications for so-called off-label purposes. In other words, doctors would not be permitted to use a drug to induce an abortion if that was not the intended use of the drug.
Ironically enough, such a prohibition on off-label usage of medications does not apply to the state's use of pentobarbital to murder inmates. Wouldn't it seem logical that if you're going to restrict a doctor's ability to use a drug for an off-label purpose when it's medically necessary that you would also restrict the practice when the use has no medical benefit?
Gov. Rick Perry and his merry band of wingnuts continue to bandy about the trope that they are out there doing their best to protect the sanctity of life. Yet they have absolutely no problem strapping down an inmate and pumping a lethal dose of pentobarbital into their veins. Likewise, they have no problem supporting a policy in which unmanned drones fire missiles into crowds killing scores of innocent men, women and children halfway around the world.
The state, of course, is appealing.
See also:
"Renewed showdown over Texas anti-choice law highlights state-by-state battle for abortion access," Democracy Now! (Oct. 30, 2013)
"Oklahoma Supreme Court rules medication abortion ban unconstitutional, sends case back to SCOTUS," RH Reality Check (Oct. 29, 2013)
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Friday, August 10, 2012
The government knows best
The State of Texas has decided it is qualified to tell doctors how to run their practices and what to tell their patients. According to a proposed rule for the state's Women's Health Program, doctors would not be allowed to provide abortion counseling for their patients.
The gag order would extend to other doctors in the practice - even if they aren't participating in the program - as well as to other patients who are not in the program.
The purpose of the rule is very clear. It's yet another attempt by the far right to limit women's access to abortion. It's yet another example of the government getting involved in an area in which it has no business being involved. Our beloved state legislators are barely capable of doing that job (and everyday I am thankful that they are only allowed to meet for 140 days every other year); they are not qualified to stick their noses in the conversations that doctors have with their patients.
I understand that there are those who are adamantly opposed to a woman's right to have an abortion. Ironically, most of them have no problem with the state murdering inmates - but that's another story for another day. Of course most of them are also opposed to the coverage of birth control under the Affordable Care Act - but intellectual consistency has never been the calling card of the far right.
The proposed rule would seem to run afoul of that little thing we refer to as the First Amendment. The rule would impose a limitation on the ability of doctors to speak freely with their patients. It would subject the doctor to penalties should he provide abortion counseling to his patient.
Once again we find the far right cheering on the government's attempt to invade the privacy of its citizens without any apparent irony considering the tea baggers' insistence that the power of the government must be limited.
The gag order would extend to other doctors in the practice - even if they aren't participating in the program - as well as to other patients who are not in the program.
The purpose of the rule is very clear. It's yet another attempt by the far right to limit women's access to abortion. It's yet another example of the government getting involved in an area in which it has no business being involved. Our beloved state legislators are barely capable of doing that job (and everyday I am thankful that they are only allowed to meet for 140 days every other year); they are not qualified to stick their noses in the conversations that doctors have with their patients.
I understand that there are those who are adamantly opposed to a woman's right to have an abortion. Ironically, most of them have no problem with the state murdering inmates - but that's another story for another day. Of course most of them are also opposed to the coverage of birth control under the Affordable Care Act - but intellectual consistency has never been the calling card of the far right.
The proposed rule would seem to run afoul of that little thing we refer to as the First Amendment. The rule would impose a limitation on the ability of doctors to speak freely with their patients. It would subject the doctor to penalties should he provide abortion counseling to his patient.
Once again we find the far right cheering on the government's attempt to invade the privacy of its citizens without any apparent irony considering the tea baggers' insistence that the power of the government must be limited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)