PHOENIX — A state law requiring doctors to tell women their abortions may be reversible essentially makes women “subjects in an experiment” without their consent, attorneys for abortion providers told a federal judge Tuesday.
The lawyers said it would be one thing if there were an honest disagreement within the medical community about whether large doses of progesterone, administered part-way through a medication abortion, could halt the process.
But in legal briefs they told U.S. District Court Judge Steven Logan the law approved earlier this year is based on “untested claims by two physicians” that the procedure can be stopped part-way through the medication process. By contrast, they said the vast majority of physicians say there is no basis for the claim that Arizona lawmakers are requiring women to be told.
“Defendants have not produced any credible evidence that establishes an actual medical disagreement about whether a medication abortion can be reversed,” they wrote. And that, they argued, makes the law illegal and unenforceable.
People are also reading…
Medication abortions, an alternative to surgical procedures, are available in Arizona through the ninth week of pregnancy.
It involves two drugs: one designed to kill the fetus and a second to expel it from the womb. But there also is some evidence that the first drug, by itself, is not effective in all cases.
The new law is based on the claim that the procedure can be stopped if a woman is given high doses of progesterone, a hormone, before the second drug is administered.
Based on that, the law requires doctors and others to personally inform women at least 24 hours before the procedure that “it may be possible to reverse the effects of a medication abortion if the woman changes her mind but that time is of the essence.”
Doctors who do not comply face suspension or revocation of licenses; clinics found in violation can be closed.
No doctor is in danger of being pursued and potentially losing their state license — at least not yet. That’s because state officials agreed to suspend enforcement after Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers sued.
Logan is set to hear arguments next month.
Supporters of the law have conceded there have been no studies on humans to show that large doses of a hormone can stop a medication abortion once it has started. But they cited other studies, some on mice and some involving use of progesterone in other circumstances, to say there is medical evidence to support the law.
The anti-abortion Center for Arizona Policy also has cited anecdotal evidence of about 100 live births following the reversal protocol.
But the team of attorneys challenging the statute said none of that is sufficient to justify the law. And they said it certainly does not meet the standards for forcing doctors to tell patients something they do not themselves believe is true.
“The act misinforms patients about the state of the science and steers patients toward an unproved treatment,” the lawyers wrote.
That practice, they said, amounts to “making (women) subjects in an experiment that is proceeding without the required ethical safeguards.”
That, however, is not the only problem the lawyers cited with the law. They said it creates uncertainty where it should not occur.
“The act also undermines an important part of the informed consent process: the patient understanding that she should not proceed with medication abortion unless she is firm in her decision to terminate her pregnancy,” they wrote.
The lawyers also told Logan that he should not equate the views of two doctors cited by defenders of the law as sufficient to say the Legislature could adopt the measure because there is “medical disagreement” about whether the procedure is reversible.
They said letting a standard be set by two doctors would mean “there would be no limit to what the state could require women seeking to have an abortion be told.”
On Twitter: @azcapmedia
