@NCCapitol

@NCCapitol

Physicians decry NC 'abortion reversal' bill

Posted February 24

— A bill in the state House that would regulate medical abortions suggests a process that not all doctors agree should be used.

House Bill 62 would require doctors to tell women who choose what's known as a medical or drug-induced abortion that they can reverse the procedure. Both the American Medical Association and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say there's no scientific evidence that trying to do so would be safe or effective.

So-called "abortion reversal" laws are on the books in Arkansas and South Dakota, despite testimony from medical experts that they're scientifically flawed. A similar law enacted in Arizona was blocked by the courts and eventually repealed.

North Carolina's legislation, which is modeled after some of those other laws, would require doctors to inform patients that, if they change their minds after taking the first of two drugs, they can reverse the abortion by not taking the second drug and getting a shot of hormones. It would also require women to return to the doctor's office and undergo a second exam before being given the second drug.

Anti-abortion groups claim that hundreds of "reversals" have resulted in healthy children, but there's no body of peer-reviewed research to back that up.

Dr. Matthew Zerden, the associate medical director at Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, said politicians shouldn't be telling doctors to recommend unproven procedures.

"We strive to provide medically accurate information to our patients. That's how we provide care. So, if we are forced to provide medically inaccurate information, inserted by politicians and driven by a political agenda, that hurts women," Zerden said.

Several sponsors of the bill declined to comment Friday. One of the sponsors, Rep. Beverly Boswell, R-Dare, has also filed a bill that would outlaw abortion entirely in the state.

Zerden said about a quarter of all abortions are drug-induced, and they can be performed only in the first 10 weeks of a pregnancy.

"It’s a very safe and effective way," he said. "We support them having that choice. Parts of this bill would take away from that choice by creating additional obstacles, perhaps additional visits."

14 Comments

Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • RB Redmond Mar 1, 3:59 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    - Many unwanted by the mother are also unwanted by the father.
    Instead of condemning an unwanted child to life, how about taking better care of the children already born living in poverty and despair.

  • RB Redmond Mar 1, 3:57 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    - EXACTLY!!!

  • RB Redmond Mar 1, 3:55 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    - Well, because in the US, it's illegal to slip a chemical into someone's food or drink when they don't know about it. ;o)
    smh

  • RB Redmond Mar 1, 3:53 a.m.
    user avatar

    That's what happens when legislators try to tell doctors what to do.

  • Robert Richardson Feb 27, 10:40 a.m.
    user avatar

    You can definitely tell the conservatives who are against abortion. They readily accept the lies from their politicians, who are NOT doctors, to be told to women asking about abortions.

  • George Orwell Feb 26, 11:49 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Yes. Thank you. That was way too much for the average Anti-Choicer to comprehend but one can always hope.

  • Michael Bawden Feb 26, 9:01 a.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    4th circuit just banned guns.
    The STATE(Supreme Court) took away a religious definition of marriage based on the Bible and REDEFINED it to stomp on definition that was defined long before the Supreme courts existence. Civil Union was not even accepted as a remedy for 14th amendment. The STATE had to re-write the Bible just like they did changing Obamacare's mandate to a tax. Talk about infringing on a basic right.

  • John Archer Feb 25, 8:58 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    I see no one taking your guns or your religious freedom. As your your money, the government always takes as much of that as they can, so nothing we can really do about that. As for the "murder" charge, I don't happen to agree it's murder, but it is a crime of some kind, just as if he slipped her a mickey raped her. He's taking away her right to consent to whatever it is. And you can try to paint me with whatever label you want, but the terms liberal and conservative are not really the grave insults you might think.

  • Michael Bawden Feb 25, 8:32 p.m.
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    Why is it murder if man slips the morning after pill into a womans drink to force an abortion because HE did not want the baby? After all it is just a "clump of cells"?

  • Michael Bawden Feb 25, 7:15 p.m.
    user avatar

    "If people would stop interfering in other peoples lives so much, we might get along much better".
    You sound like a conservative. Stop trying to take other peoples money, guns, and religious freedoms and we might get along better.
    Of course liberals know better than anyone else concerning moral and cultural issues.

More...