Abortion

No, Abortion Drugs Aren't Banned in Oklahoma

But the state has imposed strict new rules on who can take them and how.

|

An Oklahoma judge said Wednesday that he won't block a state law concerning the use of abortion-inducing drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. Several news outlets, including Reuters, reported that abortion pills would now be banned in the state, but this is not correct. Under the new law, mifepristone and misoprostol—together known as the "Mifeprex regimen"—are still permitted as long as doctors prescribe them according to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protocol. 

Guttmacher Institute

This is, in itself, no win from a reproductive freedom standpoint: the FDA-approved regimen includes more restrictions on who can take the drugs and how they do so than is currently accepted medical practice. The Guttmacher Institute calls it "an outdated regimen" that "prohibits alternative, evidence-based protocols in wide use for at least the past decade." 

Under FDA protocol, which hasn't been updated since its approval in 2000, these medications can only be taken within seven weeks of the start of a woman's last period. Doctors and medical groups now say the drugs are safe and effective through the ninth week of pregnancy. 

The FDA-approved Mifeprex regimen also stipulates that all drugs be taken in the presence of a physician. Since the regimen requires taking the pills three days apart, that means a woman will have to make a repeat (and unnecessary) visit back to a clinic merely to swallow a pill. In most places it's permissible to take the first pill at the clinic and the follow-up pill at home.

The third major difference between now-typical protocol and the FDA regimen is dosage: the FDA requires a 600 milligram dose of mifepristone, while 200 milligrams is sufficient and standard. So under Oklahoma's new law, women seeking non-surgical abortions will be required to take more of a drug than is necessary for its effectiveness. 

Republicans in the Oklahoma legislature say all of this is to ensure women's safety. 

In 2011, the legislature passed a somewhat similar law, only this one banned all off-label use of abortion-inducing drugs. Because misoprostol was initially approved and introduced as an ulcer medication, this would have prohibited its use in inducing abortion. Aside from mifepristone, there are no other abortion-inducing drugs currently approved in America, and mifepristone only works properly in conjunction with misoprostol. So the 2011 law would have essentially banned non-surgical abortion. It was found unconstituional by a district court and eventually the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The new law—passed in April and scheduled to take effect November 1—"fixed the issues that the court had," said its author, Rep. Randy Graud (R-Oklahoma City).

District Court Judge Robert Stuart hasn't yet ruled on the merits of the law, but he indicated in court on Wednesday that he would deny a motion for temporary injunction brought by the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice and Reproductive Services of Tulsa. However, he said he will temporarily suspend portions of the law that subject physicians to legal liability. As written, the law allows not only women but also maternal grandparents and "the father of the unborn child who was the subject of the abortion" (if they're married) to bring an action against physicians who perform an abortion "in knowing or reckless violation" of the law.

NEXT: Crime Is Down, But Americans Are Convinced It's Rising

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let’s head off another tedious argument about abortion with this topical clip.

    1. Said the already born individual.

  2. This is, in itself, no win from a reproductive freedom standpoint

    Reproductive freedom being the freedom to reproduce, is abortion really an exercise of reproductive freedom?

    [Nota bene: I’m deeply conflicted on abortion, but not deeply conflicted at all about opposing the use of obfuscatory euphemism.]

    1. Yes. /debate

    2. Just as the freedom to speak implies an equivilent freedom to shut up, and freedomto reproduce would logically imply an equivilent freedom to NOT reproduce.

      Now, why wouldn’t that freedom extend to men? Based on recent history, it doesn’t seem to.

      1. But when an abortion occurs reproduction has already occurred.

        1. Reproduction has BEGUN.

          1. A distinction without a difference if you are the one being aborted.

          2. Why? It is there already. It has its own DNA. It is the result of reproduction.

            By the only other definition I can think of, we all are in the state of “reproduction” because we rely on others for our food and our cells “reproduce” to keep us alive.

            OK, so the mother has the reproductive freedom to have her cells divide. Or choose to die. She doesn’t have the right to choose whether or not another human being should.

            1. Consider the fetus either a welcome guest or a trespasser.

              What do all of you believe you get to do to trespassers?

              1. You made it, and now you consider it a trespasser? Do you think the little one has a choice in the matter?

                Even if she had no choice in making the little one, punishing the one who wasn’t involved isn’t justice. Shoot the rapist, give away the little one (to a loving family that will pay all your bills). That’s justice.

                1. That’s the problem. You can’t solve this issue by discovering when personhood (and the rights thereof) begins. The only real way to approach it is to consider all outcomes and weigh them practically and morally.

                  If personhood begins sometime in the first trimester, then we have to force women to give birth against their will, even if they were raped, and we also have to send women who get abortions to prison forever, as they would be baby murderers.

                  These are not, practically or morally, good outcomes, at least according to the prevailing attitude of modern people.

                  1. “Personhood” is a meaningless term invented by the Supreme Court. All live human beings (human DNA, not a part of a human being, regulated cell growth) has rights even if the government and mother don’t think it does.

                    Practicality is a very dangerous term to use when it comes to whether or not humans are “persons”, see Dred Scott. Morality is the only way to do it.

                    Your absolutely logically indefensible line will be drawn and redrawn as “viability” (when it can exist outside the mother) changes. Eventually, “viability” will change to become conception as tech improves.

                    I didn’t use force on her, the rapist did. The rapist forced her to give birth to an innocent child. The child is not guilty, and therefore can’t be punished.

                    We would have to have mothers who killed their children (regardless of age) to have their day in court and let the jury decide. It doesn’t matter how old, young, ugly, beautiful, etc. the human is, it still has rights. You may not aggress against it.

                    1. All live human beings (human DNA, not a part of a human being, regulated cell growth) has rights even if the government and mother don’t think it does.

                      Does that include shed skin cells? Are fetuses not a part of another human? The very question at hand is what counts as a person with rights, and the only thing that can determine that for everyone is law.

                      We would have to have mothers who killed their children (regardless of age) to have their day in court and let the jury decide.

                      Even hauling women who get abortions to court offends the moral sensibilities of most sane people. But if juries tend to decide that these women have committed a lesser crime than infanticide, then they aren’t really declaring fetuses the same as persons. This isn’t a question that can be answered by science alone, so we’re stuck with prevailing moral attitudes. All we can do is consult that and avoid hypocrisy. And unless pro-lifers want one-third of all women getting life in prison or lethal injections, then they aren’t being consistent.

                    2. Does that include shed skin cells? Are fetuses not a part of another human?

                      Where’s the other part? A skin cell is a part, there is a whole (or a dead whole, or a decomposed whole). The little one is a whole, with its own DNA, who eventually grows into something even you agree is a “person” if you leave it alone.

                      Even hauling women who get abortions to court offends the moral sensibilities of most sane people.

                      Apparently I’m not most or not sane (I’d love to see a poll on that). Killing a little one is considered murder if the mother doesn’t do it.

                      Science has nothing to say about morality in anything. If murder is wrong (and let’s assume that it is), it’s the highest wrong we can see and it violates ALL of the victims rights, permanently. If there is a purpose for govt (I’m not sure there is), it is to protect our rights and murder would be the one that there would be the least argument about. The only question that remains is “is it murder?”

                      I don’t want to prosecute women who’ve already murdered their children while they were still inside, just to prevent the furthering of the murder. Also, any new law wouldn’t cause that because the law only applies to acts AFTER it comes into effect.

                    3. Lets say for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person at the moment of conception. Does the fetus as a person have a claim on the mother? Does any person have a claim on their mother or any other another person? If the fetus is a person then it doesn’t matter if the conception was consensual or not, the fetus would still have the same rights as a person no matter how it was created. So we can’t say that a fetus of a rape has less rights then a fetus of consensual relations. The question is does a person have a claim on a mothers body for nine months if the person’s very existence depends on it?
                      Does a 1 month old child have a claim on a mothers organs/blood ect. if the baby needs a transplant or transfusion to survive? Do I have a claim on my mothers organ’s if I need them to survive? What if I just need one quart of her blood for a surgery and she will not give it to me? What if I will die with out the one quart of blood? Do I have a right to it? No.Would my mother be murdering me if she refused to give me one quart of blood and I died? No. If a fetus has a right to a mothers body, then the fetus has rights that supersede the 1 month old child, or me or anyone.I do not have a right to anyone else’s body even if my very survival depends on it, and neither does the fetus (even though it’s a person). The right to anyone’s body is voluntary no matter the circumstances. I think abortion is horrible, but that doesn’t mean a fetus has more rights then the rest off us.

                    4. “And unless pro-lifers want one-third of all women getting life in prison or lethal injections, then they aren’t being consistent.”

                      So do you support amending all murder and manslaughter statutes to exclude the death of the fetus caused by a third party? You do want to be consistent, don’t you?

                    5. I think you can be consistent while believing that abortion should be legal but aborting someone else’s fetus against her will should not.

              2. “What do all of you believe you get to do to trespassers?”

                So you support stand your ground laws now, right? That double standard blade sure is sharp.

                1. We’re baby boomers, we don’t do responsibility.

      2. Thanks, CSP.

        Object to the characterization of freedom to abort as reproductive freedom is hereby withdrawn.

        Carry on.

      3. Now, why wouldn’t that freedom extend to men?

        In what way?

        1. All prospective fathers will be issued a steep flight of stairs at the state’s expense.

          1. It’s my hot body, I’ll do what I want.

          2. SF, I take back everything I ever said about your writing. You sir, are a national treasure.

          3. Hey, don’t forget the bottle of whiskey.

            1. Those freeloaders can buying their own whiskey. I’m still a libertarian, after all.

              1. I always knew you were a Republican who wanted to smoke pot!

                1. [cough, cough] Whut?

                  1. You are the worst bogart, man.

                    (Note: not the worst, period. That’s obviously Nicole.)

                    1. INTERCEPTION!

                    2. OK, now you might be the worst.

                      (breaks out one-hitter and hides it from NutraSweet’s view)

                    3. Fine!

                      I’ll just be over here eating an especially magical chocolate bar.

                    4. I always secretly suspected you were Maureen Dowd.

                    5. See now, this is why there are no female libertarians.

                      Besides, she couldn’t even eat one properly; I made this one, myself.

        2. Let’s say that reproductive freedom means that you should not be forced to be the parent of offspring if you don’t want to be.

          Women have the option of exercising this freedom by just getting rid of the fetus. Men don’t, because doing so would mean forcing the mother to have a medical procedure.

          So, why not allow men to just unilaterally terminate all their parental rights and responsibilities?

          The usual answer is that we want the men to be on the hook for financial support. Because this financial support benefits the child.

          However, denying men reproductive freedom because doing so benefits the child seems an odd fit not denying women the same freedom for the same reason.

          The analogies are difficult, to be sure, because of biology. There does seem to be a certain asymmetry here, though.

          1. So, why not allow men to just unilaterally terminate all their parental rights and responsibilities?

            I’ve always thought it’s weird that we don’t.

            1. Sane women give this option to the fathers. Slaver-women don’t.

              1. This. If you are involved with a woman who is moral and has intellectual integrity, she will offer you this choice herself.

                1. It’s just too bad that morally bankrupt females can run crying to the state to enforce their feelings.

                  Seriously, why would you want a man in your and your kid’s life who doesn’t want to be there?

                  1. Seriously, why would you want a man in your and your kid’s life who doesn’t want to be there?

                    They don’t necessarily want the man to be present at all.

                    They just want his money. And the mother can easily get that without having to allow him anywhere near her child.

            2. It’s an easy fix. Stop thinking of the child’s “ownership” as being determined at conception (a 50/50 split of genetic material) and more as an unimproved property gaining value through the mixing of labor. A squirt and scoot “father” only has a minuscule ownership in the child (say, the average value of a one-off sperm donation) while a stay around father who provides nutrition, shelter, healthcare, etc) is working toward rights parity with the mother (who is unquestionably providing the sweat equity of “building” the child.)

              And for a Y-donor who wants to quit-claim, it as easy as signing a few papers.

            3. If men had that option, it would incentivize abortions.

              1. I agree that this would be an end result. The state of the family would probably also be worse off.

            4. It’s not weird if you realize that, to most feminists, it’s not about equality.

          2. Short version:
            A woman has the choice to have the child or not.
            The man gets stuck with the woman’s choice.
            Because men have all the privilege, therefore they don’t need rights.

            1. Anybody who thinks that men today have all the privilege is an historical illiterate.

              That would include pretty much every Feminist Activist I have ever read about or heard of.

              1. “Anybody who thinks that men today have all the privilege is an historical illiterate.”

                I would never state this BUT,

                anyone who claims Females don’t usually end up being the ones having to raise and care for children…and even sick adults…..is not looking at the evidence!

                Percentages do matter. I’d venture a guess that 80% plus of the hours spent raising kids and taking care of sick family matters falls to the fairer sex.

                That means something.

                1. Maybe. But it shouldn’t mean a legal system where, for example, a man who has DNA proof that a child isn’t his still has to support it. And that’s what we now have. The system is skewed by the “men are in power, so every chance tomscrew them must be taken to balance matters” narrative. And that narrative is as bad as men having all the rights. Some changes are clearly in order.

              2. It is a phenomenon of human psychology that one’s own relative privilege is hard to objectively see. (“Yeah I have a yacht, but I’m not rich. It doesn’t even have a helipad!”) So privilege is best measured by outcomes. All else being equal, your maleness affords you a bigger paycheck, a better shot at a given job, etc.

                The problem is particularly evident here, where people don’t seem to appreciate the privilege that comes with never having to, like, be pregnant.

          3. The usual answer is that we want the men to be on the hook for financial support. Because this financial support benefits the child.

            Not in my neighborhood. Last evening on the bus, I encountered the ubiquitous 24-year-old mom with four kids in tow. The only male supporting those kids is me and others like me.

        3. Why do men have no say on abortions when they are on the hook for child support?

            1. Every example of “Social Justice” I have ever hear or read of has boiled down to “We who now have a little power are mad at somebody we can’t get at, so we’re going to screw somebody we can”

              1. Name one thing heterosexual white men in America can’t do now that they could do in the past that isn’t some form of treating other humans poorly with impunity.

                1. Openly carry the latest in firearm technology.

                  Take in whatever substance they wanted.

                  Speak their mind (in some places they still can).

                  Be left alone as long as they don’t hurt others.

                  Get blamed for everything.

                  True, all but the last one is true for all people.

                  1. *NOT get blamed for everything

                    Need edit button.

                    1. That looks like a big fat nothing.

                    2. Everyone is oppressed and you think that’s “a big fat nothing”.

                      Seriously? Is that even an argument?

                    3. I asked what straight white men (specifically) can’t do now that they could do in the past. This was a conversation about men “getting screwed” by social justice, not about general freedoms you think everyone has lost. So, how are men being screwed?

                    4. Then why take my bait? Why answer in the first place?

                      All have lost rights, some more than others. Some have had rights they always had recognized by more people and governments.

                    5. So have men lost more rights than others? Or is the claim that social justice have screwed men total bullshit?

                    6. Well, the only place I can see they’ve lost more rights than others is in the court system where women have more rights in divorce cases (for some stupid reason). My first reply was just pointing out how everyone has lost rights and you asked the question wrong.

                  2. “Openly carry the latest in firearm technology.”

                    Certainly brandishing of machines designed specifically to kill and horribly injure other human being COULD meet the criteria of:

                    “that isn’t some form of treating other humans poorly ”

                    Just saying……

                    I can’t drive an armored personel carrier down the street either, but that’s certainly not a measure of real freedom.

                    There is a disease going around where certain men seem to think the founders of this country walked down Market Street in Philadelphia or Broadway in NYC brandishing the newer weapons and were proud of it.

                    It never happened. They were civilized.

                    1. Certainly brandishing of machines designed specifically to kill and horribly injure other human being COULD meet the criteria of… treating other humans poorly

                      Police and military must break this all the time. No, it isn’t. It isn’t assault any more than standing next to my car is a threat.

                      I can’t drive an armored personel carrier down the street either, but that’s certainly not a measure of real freedom.

                      Actually, you probably can. And no, it is precisely the measure of “real” freedom.

                      There is a disease going around where certain men seem to think the founders of this country walked down Market Street in Philadelphia or Broadway in NYC brandishing the newer weapons and were proud of it.

                      Some, quite a few, actually did. And that’s why they were civilized.

                      “As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. ” Thomas Jefferson

          1. “Why do men have no say on abortions when they are on the hook for child support?”

            Oh, they have lots of say before that – absolute say. In many things, like jumping off a cliff or veering into oncoming traffic, you only get one good chance to avoid.

            1. So why do men get fewer chnces to avoid then women?

              1. “So why do men get fewer chnces to avoid then women?”

                Cause they are generally hornier bastards….

                Like a moth to flame, men are drawn to…..well, you know.

  3. How dare the conservatives make other people’s health care choices for them! Progressives would never do that?

    1. Of course not!

      Only conservatives know about the vast differences between killing the sperm on the way in, killing the whole deal the next morning or killing it 2 weeks later.

      GOD has entered the ZYGOTE at the time some priest claims…….being as said priest has wasted his billions of sperm in tissues (likely), he had to declare to THE PEOPLE that life begins at….well, when he says it does!

      Since Conservatives are FreeDoom loving, they do stuff like make sure Big Gubment rules are followed….like in this case…as opposed to other best evidence ways.

      1. Ok, I happen to believe that humanity is a learned trait, rather than one that exists at conception. But I don’t think I can prove it. In fact I have never encountered an argument that I thought would convince me if I didn’t believe what I believe already.

        Shall we accept for the moment that the vast majority of politicians in both parties probably don’t care one way or another? That leaves their constituants. Some believe what I believe, and some believe that a fetus is human. The “conservatives” are courting the former, and the”liberals” the latter. On the political side of this, both groups have used whatever tools came to hand to have their way. Neither side is any too clean.

        1. Contd.

          Right now the “conservatives” have an advantage because the “liberals” screwed up royally in the Kermit Gosnell case. As the ones who want abortion it was their job to make sure that ghouls like Gosnell didn’t get away with what he got away with for so long. Since they didn’t, the “conservatives” can believably claim that the process of getting an abortion needs more regulation. Are they doing that because they want fewer pregnancies terminated? Sure. Are we. Entitled to expect something else? No.

      2. I wish I could respond to that, but I am not entirely sure you are speaking English

    2. In what way are progressives making people’s healthcare choices for them? Do you mean giving them the choice of having healthcare?

      1. They don’t have a choice of having heathcare…you either get it or you pay a tax.

        1. Sounds like a choice to me.

          1. Right, much like “Your money or your life” would be in a mugging.

          2. Tony, you love seeing the government bully people to domthing of which you approve. Thus pretty much has to be because you believe that it will never bully YOU to do something yiu don’t want to.

            That marks you as a fool.

            1. Of course I believe it can make me do something I don’t want to do. That’s why I believe in the value of electing people who agree with me.

              You’re the fool because you presume that you can wish away power altogether.

              1. As long as the force of arms is used to your liking then you’re fine with it.

                1. I prefer civilized behavior like having elections and passing laws rather than “force of arms.” That’s your arena–unless you think people should be able to openly carry the most powerful firearms they can get their hands on as a fashion statement.

                  1. How do you think your laws are enforced?

                    Carrying a big gun is NOT the same as using it against another person. In fact, the places everyone can carry big guns (and small guns) have violent crime going down, rather than up. And yes, people have the right to display and carry all kinds of weapons.

                    1. What about surface-to-air missiles? Or is it only what you can carry?

                      Laws are enforced with force or threat of force. It’s right there in the word. How are things enforced in your candyland? Asking nicely?

                    2. The Constitution says all militia weapons (and so does the Court, US v Miller).

                      Laws are enforced with force or threat of force.

                      Yep. And I’m doing neither, just playing with my more expensive toys. Which of us is violating the other’s rights?

                    3. So you don’t believe in having enforceable laws?

                    4. NAP. That’s what govt should do (if anything). They don’t initiate force. This is libertarianism in a nutshell.

                  2. “I prefer civilized behavior like having elections and passing laws rather than ‘force of arms.'”

                    Detail precisely how a lynch mob does not constitute a democratic majority.

  4. i buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people aren’t aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the
    best deals is..=========== w?w?w.M?o?n?e?y?k?i?n.c?o?m?

  5. Libertarians shouldn’t be pro-abortion. If anything, they should be pro-life. Embryology has proven to the world that human life begins at conception. From the moment of the union of the sperm and the egg, a new human being exists, and that life form is deserving of every protection that you and I enjoy.

    Nothing to do with religion. Everything to do with human rights.

    And for the record, you do not have the right to drugs which are designed to end the lives of unborn children.

  6. my co-worker’s mother makes $71 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $17334 just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here

    —————-http://shorx.com/onlineatm

  7. my co-worker’s mother makes $71 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $17334 just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here

    —————-http://shorx.com/onlineatm

  8. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

    http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

  9. There are so many option available for terminate of the pregnancy mainly abortion pill like Misoprostol and Mifepristone or RU486 or Cytotec or abortion kit.
    termination of pregnancy

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.