It seems as if introducing legislation dictating what women are allowed to do for their health and bodies has become a trend in Missouri politics.
Missouri House Bill 1274, sponsored by Rep. Andrew Koenig, R-District 88, is the latest addition to that and aims to restrict the use of RU-486 and other abortion inducing drugs.
RU-486, or mifepristone, is a drug that, when used in combination with Misoprostol blocks progesterone, a hormone vital to pregnancy, causing a woman’s body to expel the embryo. This effectively terminates the pregnancy without the need for a surgical procedure, according to the Federal Drug Administration.
Although the bill seems like a beneficial, health-oriented initiative on the surface, a closer look reveals that it is actually an unnecessary, tiresome hindrance on women’s reproductive rights and a backtracking, costly burden on a presently safe and cost-effective process. This bill does nothing but further inhibit access to basic reproductive health care for women.
Currently, in Missouri, the drug can only be obtained through prescription and can only be administered by a qualified physician in a hospital or medical facility.
Meanwhile, Bill 1274 adds restrictions that have no necessity for their implementation. These provisions include: requiring the prescribing physician to administer a physical exam in addition to the present requirement of fulfilling all the informed consent requirements 24 hours in advance, requiring all medication to be dispensed at the abortion facility or hospital rather than only the first medication, and requiring physicians who perform medicinal abortions to have surgical privileges as opposed to clinical privileges mandated by current law.
There is no scientific indication that a health exam would decrease the risks associated with the medicinal procedure, and any need is further nullified by the fact that the procedure is a safe and legal one. With the passing of the bill, women would have to visit the facility four times instead of three, and it forces women to administer the drug in a much less private process. Most women who choose medicinal abortion choose it to have the ability to privately control the timing and location of the abortion. As for the surgical privilege requirement, there is no need.
The FDA currently requires all prescribers of RU-846 have the ability to provide surgical intervention in cases where the abortion is incomplete or severe bleeding occurs, or have made plans to provide the care through other sources, and assure the patient access to medical facilities able to provide blood transfusions and resuscitation if necessary. Thus Missouri law would go much further than the FDA decided was necessary. The necessary travel cost to find a provider who does have surgical privileges would have a negative effect on women of lower incomes.
The thing is, women who feel the need for an abortion will get one. Why not make it easier, safer and less costly?
Abortion becomes a much more dangerous process as time passes, and this bill is meant to ensure that women must endure as many obstacles as possible to obtain an early and safe abortion.
The bill does not even carry much weight for anti abortion rights advocates. Rather than directly target the law allowing for abortions, this bill finds a temporary solution that does not fully end the abortion practice.
Instead of introducing vague, restrictive legislation that is contrary to recommended medical practice, it would seem wisely prudent for the bill’s supporters to focus on more pressing issues to the state of Missouri, such as the economy. Yet here we are; the bill has passed in its committee.
Those who refuse to support a bill that only increases restrictions on a woman’s ability to provide for her health and well-being, call your state representative and make it known that you do not want this caddy, burdensome attempt at legislating a social issue to pass.
