Abortion

Abortion 'Reversal' Nonsense Spreads to South Dakota

Bill would require women prescribed abortion drugs to be told they can "reverse" the procedure after taking the first in a two-pill regimen.

|

South Dakota legislators plan to push four new abortion-related measures this season, including a 20-week abortion ban and a requirement that women undergoing medical abortion—a process that involves taking one pill (mifepristone) followed by a second pill (misoprostol) several days later—that they can "reverse" the abortion process if they act before taking the second drug. "We want them to know that if they change their mind after taking the first pill there can be some recourse to that," Rep. Fred Deutsch (R-Florence) told the Argus Leader.  

Last March, Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed a similar measure into law in Arizona. As I noted at the time

The controversial "reversal" contention is based on work from one anti-abortion physician-activist, George Delgado, who says he's been able to reverse mifepristone's effects with high doses of the hormone progesterone. No clinical trials evaluating this process exist. The only case studies of the process come from Delgado, who says four of the six women he's tried it on wound up carrying their pregnancies to term—a rate similar to that for women who take mifepristone but skip the second abortion pill (no progesterone needed). 

Doctors and medical groups say that using progesterone to "reverse" mifepristone's effects could come with mild to severe side effects for women and open physicians up to legal liability. It may also run afoul of the First Amendment by compelling doctors to make statements that neither they nor the medical establishment view as sound.

In June, the Center for Reproductive Rights, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, challenged Arizona's abortion reversal law in federal court, arguing that it violates patients' right to an abortion and doctors' free-speech rights. The court temporarily blocked the requirement as the case proceeds. 

NEXT: Government-Funded Scientists: Never Hide Anything from the Public

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. Who could object to reasonable. common-sense, abortion control?

  2. Save us, FDA. You’re our only hope.

    1. I’m not sure what copper mining has to do with this. Do they make coat hangers out of copper?

        1. Those are the old kind.

    2. Huh? What does Francisco have to do with this? I thought he was just a yokeltarian from Montana?

      1. He knows grizzlies always ride in single file to hide their numbers.

        1. See these blast points?
          *points up inside vagina*
          Only Planned Parenthood abortionists are so precise.

          1. You can’t win, Cecile Richards. If you abort me, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

      2. Yokel?

        No, he’s a full blown Cosmo with Italian shotguns and a murder tent.

  3. It may also run afoul of the First Amendment by compelling doctors to make statements that neither they nor the medical establishment view as sound.

    …and that normally the FDA would stomp you into oblivion for making.

    1. Of course the government compels speech all the time, with labeling requirements for various foods, nutritional supplements, etc. Not that it’s right, but that bridge has already been crossed.

      1. My point was that they’re trying to compel speech they would prohibit in other circumstances.

        1. Just like the statements for nutritional supplements, then. You can’t say anything about their effectiveness, other than the compelled disclosures.

  4. Look, who knows more about medicine, doctors or legislators who oversee the boards that license doctors?

  5. ho says four of the six women he’s tried it on wound up carrying their pregnancies to term

    OK, but what was the condition of the babies? Or the mothers?

    1. Odd that he doesn’t mention it.

      Moms, probably OK. Babies, probably tards.

      1. All babies are tards. You of all people should know this.

        1. Well, sure. But if they’re still tards when they’re 4, the oxytocin has worn off and it’s really irritating.

  6. North Dakota? South Dakota? What’s the difference?

    Can’t expect the Cosmotarians in DC to actually realize there are two Dakotas.

    1. Ugh, brain fart in typing the headline. Thanks

    2. Give me a NoDak anytime over a SoDak.

      Sure the NoDaks can’t drive, but they at least know how to fish for real game fish.

      Fucking SoDaks and Iowegians both think that bullheads are the epitome of sport fishing.

    3. I had a teacher when I was in middle school who swore there was no such place as South Dakota.

  7. It’s almost like all of this petty regulation and fuckery is designed to make abortion more difficult to get.

    1. I have this conversation with righties and lefties all the time. They don’t understand that they’re the same.

      You’re just trying to help make sure that the mother is “informed” but not trying to interfere with access to abortion? I don’t fucking believe you.

      You just want “common sense” gun laws but won’t trample on the 2nd amendment? I don’t fucking believe you.

      Different issues, exact same behavior. And both sides seem to get really mad when I point it out.

      1. That’s been my experience too. Of course that’s the fun of pointing it out, to watch the heads explode.

      2. “You’re just trying to help make sure that the mother is “informed” but not trying to interfere with access to abortion?”

        Who is saying this?

        I thought prolifers were saying they were doing whatever they could, within the parameters of Supreme Court precedent, to restrict abortion and abortion culture.

        Save as many lives as possible.

        The prolifers also trying to get the support of those split-the-difference “moderates” – *those* “moderates” are the ones you should be mad at, because *they’re* the ones who talk about halfway measures, banning abortion in this circumstance and permitting it in that circumstance.

        These moderates are like antebellum slavery supporters who wantedto restrict some of the worst abuses of slavery while leaving the institution of slavery itself intact. What they didn’t realize was that slavery was so closely connected to the so-called “abuses” that restricting the latter eroded the former.

        But the abolitionists never said, “don’t worry, we’re not going to take away your slaves.” That rhetoric was reserved for the moderates. But some of the abolitionists were willing to work with the moderates to reduce the abuses of slavery – eg, challenging the fairness of the Fugitive Slave Act, keeping slavery out of the Western states, etc.

        1. Save as many lives as possible.

          You know they’re all going to die though, right?

          So I think you really meant “prolong.”

          1. That logic would justify killing just about anyone at any time. They’re going to die anyway, amirite?

            1. If you said “save the date,” does that mean you think the date will be there forever?

              1. Also you technically can’t permanently kill someone who has an immortal soul.

            2. That logic would justify killing just about anyone at any time. They’re going to die anyway, amirite?

              I didn’t know “he’s never going to die” was supposed to be the reason not to kill people. Seems…problematic.

              1. Like I said, if you save your money you’re not saying it will never disappear. So your positing an opposition between “prolong” and “save” is not, IMHO correct.

                This mortal life will end at some point.

                Which doesn’t justify cutting someone’s mortal existence short on purpose.

                1. This mortal life will end at some point.

                  Which doesn’t justify cutting someone’s mortal existence short on purpose.

                  I never said it did. But why shouldn’t I criticize your rhetoric? Your claim that “salvation” and “living and suffering more” are the same is unsupported, but you use it because “saving” sounds good while “spending decades in pain before dying alone” sounds bad.

                  1. “Your claim that “salvation” and “living and suffering more” are the same”

                    Say, what now?

                    With all due respect, it sounds like you put some parts of Catholic theology through Google Translate several times, until it’s hard to recognize the original.

                    1. Yes, suffering, *endured in the right spirit,* can be spiritually helpful, but it’s not as if suffering in and of itself has any saving value.

                      And how did this discussion shift to “spending decades in pain before dying alone”?

                    2. And how did this discussion shift to “spending decades in pain before dying alone”?

                      Because that’s what you want everyone to do.

                    3. Because that’s what you want everyone to do.

                      Projection, thy name is Nikki. 😉

                    4. Here we go – much of what I learn about my faith is stuff I look up to put on H&R. So, thank you.

                      Scroll down to “offering it up.”

                    5. Or if you want to read the whole thing, that would be fine, too.

                    6. To clarify a remark of mine:

                      “it’s not as if suffering in and of itself has any saving value.”

                      That’s actually not for me to pronounce on, as the linked article clarifies – God permits suffering in all sorts of situations, and I don’t want to be too glib in summarizing a lot of material.

                    7. With all due respect, it sounds like you put some parts of Catholic theology through Google Translate several times, until it’s hard to recognize the original.

                      You claim that you want to “save lives,” but what you mean by that is that you want people to live and suffer more.

                      If I said abortions saved lives, you would call that a euphemism at best.

                      I am criticizing your euphemistic bullshit.

                      Then what was the point of your comment at 1:51?

                      He is responding to the argument you seem to be making.

                      My point was to criticize his rhetoric. He claims to want to “save” people. He can’t actually “save” anyone. He can only encourage them to prolong living.

                    8. “You claim that you want to “save lives,” but what you mean by that is that you want people to live and suffer more.”

                      Oh, I see, I hadn’t realized I believed that 🙂

                      Have a great day!

                    9. you want people to live and suffer more

                      Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but do you mean to say that life is suffering (maybe per Hobbes, “nasty, brutish, and short”)? If life is really so bad, then why are you still alive? Would you prefer to be dead?

                      He can’t actually “save” anyone. He can only encourage them to prolong living.

                      Ergo, no-one has ever had their life “saved”, unless Christ is right about eternal life.

                    10. He claims to want to “save” people. He can’t actually “save” anyone. He can only encourage them to prolong living.

                      Using the phrase “save a life” to mean “keep someone from dying in the very short term” is acceptable English usage. No one has ever used this phrase to mean “make someone immortal”.

                      Failed pedantry results in points deducted from Ms. Nikki’s account.

              2. Then what was the point of your comment at 1:51?

                He is responding to the argument you seem to be making.

        2. I am one of those so called “moderates” on abortion. Not because it isn’t a big deal, but because at one end, it appears to be a complete intrusion on a individual’s right to decide what to do with their own body. But on the other end, there are obviously 2 individuals involved.
          I honestly don’t know if we will ever square this circle. So it seems to me that the best way to legally to deal with this, to maximize Liberty for all involved is to stay hands off early, but as the pregnancy develops, to allow more restrictions. I know this is messy. But frankly, i don’t see how one can argue for restricting a woman’s right to remove a zygote that was fertilized 6 weeks ago (or in the case of “plan B”, 24 hours ago, from her body. Equally, however, the argument that a 28 week fetus isn’t a baby is remarkably obtuse.

          1. But frankly, i don’t see how one can argue for restricting a woman’s right to remove a zygote that was fertilized 6 weeks ago (or in the case of “plan B”, 24 hours ago, from her body.

            All living humans have NAP protection? That’s a very simple argument.

            Now, whether or not the government or anyone else knows [A], she’s pregnant or [B], she killed it on purpose, well that’s a different question entirely.

            1. I absolutely agree that all humans deserve to be treated according to the NAP. The catch is when it becomes a human.
              Understand, I am not making an argument as to when that is definitively. Rather I am saying that the benefit of the doubt should shift as pregnancy progresses. At least in terms of what is considered legal.
              As a side note, I have always self-identified as moderately “prolife”. But I suppose I could equally be called moderately “prochoice”.

              1. I’m radically pro NAP. Which is to say I agree with you completely. The true question is when is it a person.

                I doubt conception. Certainly birth.

                1. Didn’t say the nebulous “person”. I said “human”. It is alive, it has human DNA, it isn’t simply a part of a human, ergo, it’s human.

                  1. My blood cells are alive. They are also have human DNA. They grow. They reproduce….

                    My blood cells have no rights.

                    People have rights.

                    1. My blood cells are alive. They are also have human DNA. They grow. They reproduce….

                      They are a part. A tiny human is not a part. A hand has no rights. If you cut my hand, you have not violated NAP against my hand, but against me. Disanalogous.

                    2. the “tiny human”, is part of the mother. It is attached to the mother, like her hand. It cannot survive long without the mother (at least not prior to ~22 weeks), like her hand. A great deal more energy and nutrients are required before the “tiny human” can survive without the mother, before it can become its own individual entity.

                    3. the “tiny human”, is part of the mother

                      It has it’s own DNA, it’s not a part. It is attached, yes. But more to the point, even conjoined twins cannot (often) survive without the other, does that mean the one of them has no rights?

                      A great deal more energy and nutrients are required before the “tiny human” can survive without the mother, before it can become its own individual entity.

                      Scenario: I am traveling through Antarctica with my newborn. At this point, I decide that I’m just sick and tired of this little thing that just whines at me. So I put it down in the snow and leave it there.

                      Now, I haven’t assaulted it in any way or negatively deprived it of anything. Have I murdered it?

                      Now, instead of a newborn, let’s assume that I’m traveling through my own land with Stephen Hawking, who happens to fall out of his chair. I say, “Sucks for you” and leave him there. Then I threaten to shoot all people who try to trespass on my land to save him. Have I murdered?

                    4. I agree that Christopher Hawking and your newborn are both persons with a right to life. I disagree that a zygote is a person. That’s kind of the point of this whole discussion.

                      Having its own DNA isn’t interesting. There’s plenty of cells in the mother’s body that are human cells with unique DNA. There is no biological reason to think that a fertilized egg is a person with a right to life. It takes magical thoughts to come to that conclusion, given everything else that has to happen to grow an infant.

                      Also, have you thought about the consequences of legislating based upon the belief that a fertilized egg is a person? Many, if not most pregnancies end in miscarriage. Should law enforcement treat each of these as a potential homicide in order to catch the million or so miscarriages that were deliberately induced?

                    5. I disagree that a zygote is a person. That’s kind of the point of this whole discussion.

                      I answered your one objection completely. Just because you owe it something, either because you created it or invited it onto your property, doesn’t mean it is “stealing” from you.

                      You may define “person” however you like. It is a meaningless term, at this point. In the same way, the Dred Scott decision decided that those who weren’t “citizens” had no rights.

                      There is no biological reason to think that a fertilized egg is a person with a right to life.

                      Having answered the “person” nonsense, let me just say that there is no biological reason to think that anything has a right to life.

                      Many, if not most pregnancies end in miscarriage. Should law enforcement treat each of these as a potential homicide in order to catch the million or so miscarriages that were deliberately induced?

                      Having failed to argue your point, you’ve moved to “how would you enforce it?” If you look at my first post, you’ll see I already said that’s a different issue entirely. If the majority of bruises aren’t from assaults, should law enforcement investigate all bruises as if they were? It’s just as ridiculous a question as you asked.

                      To answer directly, “probable cause”. And if you’re going to investigate this particular thing, the judge that signs that warrant better be darned sure of it!

                    6. Perfectly analogous. Human cells. Completely unaware of their existence, until they are….

                      …(read) person.

                    7. Perfectly analogous. Human cells. Completely unaware of their existence, until they are….

                      …(read) person.

                      No, a part is not the whole. Also, I’ve met several drivers on the highway that are apparently unaware of their own existence. That doesn’t mean I may kill them at a whim.

                    8. Two cells is not a whole, either. Nor 4 or 8….

                    9. Two cells is not a whole, either. Nor 4 or 8….

                      Nor 100 trillion…

                      Two cells is not a whole, either. Nor 4 or 8….

                      Except when it is…

              2. The catch is when it becomes a human.

                Again, it is alive, it has human DNA, it isn’t simply a part of a human, ergo, it’s human.

                What part of humanness do you think it’s lacking?

                1. Depends on what you mean by human. The word “humanity” usually means more than just having the DNA of Homo sapiens.

                  And a lot of libertarians would argue that self-ownership is a more fundamental principle than the NAP. And part of self-ownership, it seems to me, is the right to control what goes on in your body as you see fit.

                  1. The word “humanity” usually means more than just having the DNA of Homo sapiens.

                    It’s also a collectivist word. It has little meaning.

                    And a lot of libertarians would argue that self-ownership is a more fundamental principle than the NAP.

                    There is only one right, the right to not be aggressed against. All other “rights” stem from this right. Even if others would argue that self-ownership is the actual basis, they still would have a hard time arguing why you can’t assault others (I own me, and me happened to be punching your face…). At this point, in order to make any sense, they would have to adopt NAP anyhow. As NAP is more simple, Occam’s Razor.

                    And part of self-ownership, it seems to me, is the right to control what goes on in your body as you see fit.

                    You mean, like a penis? Or do you mean that you have the right to a certain result of having decided to allow that penis in? (As for rapists, let them suffer for their own violation of NAP, not the innocent child.)

                    1. There is only one right, the right to not be aggressed against.

                      So then, as the zygote begins extracting nutrients from the mother, why does this not count as a violation of the NAP? Does the zygote enjoy all the rights of being a human (person), but none of the responsibilities?

                    2. So then, as the zygote begins extracting nutrients from the mother, why does this not count as a violation of the NAP?

                      The tiny human has no choice in the matter. The mother had the choice to create it or not to*. Ergo, when you create a human, you owe it something, even if just survival until another can keep it alive.

                      *In cases of rape, the rapist owes it it’s living. Extract all that is owed him as you wish.

                      Does the zygote enjoy all the rights of being a human (person), but none of the responsibilities?

                      If that were the measure, then abortions up to age 2-5 should be allowed. In some cases, even older.

                    3. It’s a collective word, not a collectivist one. In any case, it has the other meaning of what it is to be human, which is the one I was using.

                      There is only one right, the right to not be aggressed against. All other “rights” stem from this right.

                      You may say that, but many people see self ownership as the basis of all other rights. This is hardly a settles issue, and it probably never will be.

                      You mean, like a penis?

                      I mean like anything a person wants to put into or take out of their body they have an absolute right to do, period. Yes, in the case of abortion you may run into a conflicting rights situation, depending on what you consider the moral status of the fetus to be. I guess we have different ideas on whose rights come out on top.

                    4. I guess we have different ideas on whose rights come out on top.

                      If your extraction becomes an aggression then you don’t have the right to do it. If you don’t like the consequences of you actions (babies), then don’t do them.

                    5. Ace I’m with you on the idea that if you don’t want a child, don’t take the obvious steps necessary to produce said child.

                      You and Eddie keep arguing the good argument, but your position is too high level for many readers here.

                      Again I commend you, but prefer to take my arguments somewhere more useful.

                    6. your position is too high level for many readers here.

                      Uh. I don’t think that’s the problem. People who don’t agree that abortion is murder aren’t simply idiots who can’t comprehend your brilliant proclamations that there can be no possible argument about the moral status of a fetus because it has human DNA.

                      Reasonable people can disagree here. But pretending that your opponents just can’t comprehend your “high level” positions is fucking moronic.

                      Out of curiosity, where do you suppose your arguments are more useful? I don’t think there are many places where you are going to get a more thoughtful discussion on this or any topic than here.

                    7. You see, what we are discussing here is whether or not you have a right to do that. You are assuming the answer you prefer up front, and you also seem to think that the fact that a zygote has human DNA is a slam dunk argument that hasn’t already occurred to absolutely everyone, so I guess I shouldn’t bother.

                    8. You are assuming the answer is “hard” and therefore fits your “whatever, I don’t really care” theory. My theory is that NAP is actually simple, fitting Occam’s Razor quite well. Yours is complicated. Even if I only stalemate the debate, I still win the logic.

                      you also seem to think that the fact that a zygote has human DNA is a slam dunk argument that hasn’t already occurred to absolutely everyone

                      Those who want abortion to be legal therefore say, “No, it’s not that it’s a human, it that it’s a person.” Then they define “person” in such a way as to not include all humans they want to be able to kill. They do this because they want to be right, not that they want the truth.

                      Veritas Liberabit Vos.

        3. Of course that’s the fun of pointing it out, to watch the heads explode.

          ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
          Case in point.

          1. Yep. And I could do the same thing at HuffPo over guns. Could, but won’t.

    2. It’s almost like all of this petty regulation and fuckery is designed to make _____ more difficult to get.

      Guns?

      A ride from point A to point B?

      Etc. ad infinitum.

  8. I want common sense legislation control.

    1. First you will need common sense voters. Not gonna happen.

      1. First you will need common sense voters. Not gonna happen.

        1. You’re all wrong. What we’re looking for is uncommon sense. If it were common, we’d be seeing more of it.

  9. Before anyone tries to reverse an abortion I hope they are forced to watch an interview with Blair Walsh’s mother. Her story about the dangers of reversing an abortion (along with the untold sorrow that will happen as a result) needs to be heard.

    1. Good point – it would be much better not to have the abortion all, so you won’t have to worry about changing your mind in the middle of the process.

    2. What trimester was that in? The 70th or so?

    3. C’mon man, Blair Walsh scored 9 points in that game despite the fact that he had a holder who didn’t know which side of the ball had laces on it. How many points did Peterson or Bridgewater or the entire rest of the damn team score? You want to blame the guy who scored 100% of Minnesota’s points because he didn’t score 133% of the points?

      1. Blair Walsh scored 9 points in that game despite the fact that he had a holder who didn’t know which side of the ball had laces on it.

        I noticed that. The holder was intentionally putting the laces toward the kicker on every kick. I assumed the kicker preferred it that way, even though I always thought the laces went away from the kicker.

        1. The spin I have heard today is that because of the cold, any attempt to spin the ball was resulting in the ball spinning like a top on the frozen field during warm ups so they just had to put it down and go for it.

          Sort of makes sense. The problem with that attempt was where he put his plant foot. It was way closer to the ball than his normal placement.

      2. Yeah, that was my take, too. Everyone will blame Walsh for missing one of his four kicks but not Peterson for getting a measly 45 yards on 23 carries when he’s the superstar who’s supposed to bring in all the points.

        1. Forget the yards. Peterson coughed up the ball (again) in a critical situation because he wasn’t doing the basics.

          That fumble led directly to the go ahead touchdown. AP has shit to answer for.

  10. I refuse to participate in any abortion thread.

  11. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”–
    So sayeth the (greatest/most overrated) prog rock band of all time!
    *checks calendar, sees its Monday so checks greatest*

  12. a requirement that women undergoing medical abortion?a process that involves taking one pill (mifepristone) followed by a second pill (misoprostol) several days later?that they can “reverse” the abortion process

    Huh? It appears, Elizabeth, that you mistakenly omitted the phrase “be tattooed with the knowledge”.

  13. If the doctors object then they shouldn’t participate in the state medical board and/or voluntarily allow the government oversight of their profession.

    You lay down with dogs…

  14. this is one i don’t understand form the pro-lifers….. they want to force doctors to tell women they can change their mind….. wouldn’t that mean more women would go ahead with it, if they were on the fence before? (and then 30% of the kids die if they do change their mind). it is a policy that is ridiculous in very way…. before you even get to the poor science part…. it encourages more abortions, and higher fetus mortality if the woman changes her mind…. versus waiting to make up her mind in the first place.

    1. That’s a good point. It may well encourage some fence sitters to take the plunge.

  15. Hi, every time i used to check webpage posts here in the early hours in the break of day, since i enjoy to learn more and more.
    I am truly happy to read this web site posts which includes plenty of valuable data, thanks for providing such data.
    Pengobatan Herbal Kencing Manis Obat Penyakit Asam Lambung

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.