There is a brouhaha afoot in Lafayette with respect to the local Planned Parenthood which apparently dispenses RU-486 pill (Mifepristone). The pill is USFDA approved to terminate pregnancies of up to 49 days gestation. Per Wikipedia:
Mifepristone was approved for abortion in the U.S. by the FDA, in September 2000.[46] It is legal and available in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico.[47] It is a prescription drug, but it is not available to the public through pharmacies; its distribution is restricted to specially qualified licensed physicians, sold by Danco Laboratories under the tradename Mifeprex.
I haven’t read a legal brief or anything by Indiana Right to Life which is raising this issue, so I can’t conclude from the J&C story the precise contours of its legal position, if it is taking one, but generally speaking, they complain that Planned Parenthood is providing the pill without being licensed as an abortion facility. IC 16-21-2-2.5 speaks to the State Department of Health’s development of rules for licensure of abortion clinics. However, “abortion clinic” is a term defined by the Indiana Code under IC 16-18-2-1.5:
Abortion clinic
Sec. 1.5. (a) “Abortion clinic”, for purposes of IC 16-21-2, means a freestanding entity that performs surgical abortion procedures.
(b) The term does not include the following:
(1) A hospital that is licensed as a hospital under IC 16-21-2.
(2) An ambulatory outpatient surgical center that is licensed as an ambulatory outpatient surgical center under IC 16-21-2.
(3) A physician’s office as long as the surgical procedures performed at the physician’s office are not primarily surgical abortion procedures.
As added by P.L.96-2005, SEC.2.
Under that definition, a facility would not become an “abortion clinic” by virtue of giving a pill that induces abortion because providing that pill does not constitute a “surgical abortion procedure.”
Indiana Right to Life’s letter to Attorney General Zoeller is here (pdf).
Our request stems from concern that women’s health and safety may be in jeopardy due to the fact that these abortions are occurring in a facility that is not inspected or licensed as other abortion clinics are required to do by law.
So, their concern does appear to be directed at Indiana’s abortion clinic licensure requirements; but, as I say, it looks fairly clear that the definition of “abortion clinic” under the Department of Health licensure provisions concerns itself with facilities that provide surgical abortions.
I’m can’t use my google-fu right now, but I believe a similar challenge was made in Wisconsin. The rhetoric equates a pill that induces miscarriage VERY early in pregnancy to the outpatient surgery, in hopes that the courts will limit healthcare providers’ ability to dispense RU-486.
Shorter current anti-abortion game plan: “Looking for any excuse or loophole possible to limit abortion rights, veiled in mock concern for women.”
This cr*p cuts both ways:
Democrats want higher teacher pay out of mock concern for children – not so unions can kick back campaign contributions.
Republicans want bizarre code-and-safety regulations for abortions, out of mock concern for the health of women – not so they can cram their religious views down our throats.
Democrats want “reasonable” gun laws out of mock concern for crime and safety – not to create a populace completely dependent on government.
Republicans and Democrats want a huge Defense budget to fight for The American Way – not so they can rake money from arms contractors.
Yeah, the Mock Concern strategy is crap when any group employs it.
I don’t think you’re going to find anyone really disagreeing with that.
Except in the Democrats’ case, it’s not mock, and the ulterior motives you attribute to them are basically false.
Why are you so eager to make up blatant lies?
Gene,
What about atheists who are against abortion? For pro-life atheists, being against abortion obviously isn’t about “cramming religious views” down people’s throats. . I’d say that’s true with most people who are pro-life, it’s not a religious view, but rather based on awfully strong medical facts about prental life.
Atheists against abortion? Could you give us an estimate of the size of this exceptionally crucial demographic?
Agreed. That would make for fantastic discussion that I’d love to simply observe.
I suspect (hope) a Venn diagram of Atheists that are proponents of protecting animals and Atheists against abortion have a large overlap, since even a embryo can be categorized as an animal.
Wow, uhhh…I don’t have statistics but that seems like a small group. I could be wrong.
A Venn diagram with a lot of overlap: people in favor of liberal abortion laws, yet who oppose euthanasia of shelter animals.
That might well be the case. If so, it comes from a philosophical difference of opinion in how and why we value life. Those who advocate for criminalizing abortion but aren’t terribly concerned about animal euthanasia seem more likely to see the value as coming from the mere fact of being biologically human. Those who are pro-choice but want more laws against animal cruelty see the value in life as coming from something other than human biology.
Those advocating banning abortion don’t value life at all, since for the most part their arguments apply equally well to tumors, so they’re obviously pro-cancer.
Are you trying to be sarcastic, and I’m just missing it, or are you truthfully making that assertion?
I’m quite correct in my statement.
Ok, so I suppose if there is a type of cancer that doesn’t kill the host and will become a full human, then yes, I suppose they are for that type of cancer.
ah, but pregnancy sometimes kills the host, and yet there are many who would ban abortion even in those cases.
In response, I post this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
(in response to Steely Dan)
You’ll have to forgive me–I’ve only seen Billy Madison once, several years ago, and I live in a rural area where dial-up is the only service available so actually viewing the video content itself isn’t really an option.
The law requirements should be changed. Abortion, may it be surgical or medical, is still abortion. It is just my opinion.