Law Didn’t Keep Up With Science On Abortions [Or Didn’t Want To Keep Up With It].

In 2000, the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approved the use of medications to perform abortions, and medication abortions now account for 41 percent of all first-trimester abortions performed at Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide. This less invasive procedure is particularly important for victims of rape or sexual abuse as well as women with medical issues which make surgical procedures more difficult. Arizona passed a statute and regulation which require doctors to adhere to the FDA-approved labeling instructions for administering the medication. Even before the FDA approved the drug’s labeling instructions, studies already showed that a different less rigorous regimen was safe and effective. Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. and others were denied their request to enjoin enforcement of Arizona’s statute, and the federal trial court denied the injunction request. The Ninth Circuit reversed, stating: “Here, the medical grounds thus far presented are not merely feeble. They are non-existent. On the current record, the Arizona law imposes an undue—and therefore unconstitutional-burden on women’s access to abortion. We therefore conclude, at this stage of the proceedings, that plaintiffs have shown that they are likely ultimately to succeed on the merits of their undue burden claim,” and ordering the trial court to issue the requested preliminary injunction. (Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Humble (Ninth Cir.; June 3, 2014) (Case No. 14-15624).)