State attorneys are trying to decide whether to appeal a federal judge's decision declaring unconstitutional an Idaho law that requires a doctor to dispense the abortion drug RU-486.
The ruling flies in the face of the Federal Drug Administration's (FDA) instruction to only administer the drug during the first trimester of pregnancy and to require two doctor visits -- the first before a patient takes the pill to assess the age of the baby, and the second after use of the drug to make sure that all of the baby has been evacuated from the mother to protect her health and life.
"Those protections are now vacated by the pen of a federal judge … who has not carefully considered the consequences to women and girls of that action," laments David Ripley of Idaho Chooses Life.
He is among those who do not understand how the law could be considered unconstitutional.
"The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that it is not unconstitutional to require a physician involvement in an abortion procedure," Ripley notes. But "part of the difficulty is that we live in the Ninth Circuit," he concludes, citing the liberal nature of that appeals court.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
