Arizona abortion law - required to lie about abortion being reversible

[Vanyali]

Normally I'd agree with you, but it's kind of an outlandish lie that no one with any semblance of normal brain capacity would believe.
It'd be like requiring your doctor to tell you Santa exists. I'd assume normal people would just give the doctor a weird look or a giggle and ignore them.

the problem is that there are people that are fundamentally uneducated in normal body processes (as witnessed by our very own politicians) that are easily fooled. This is in large part to our sex ed being a waste of time and space, being that it neither prevents nor protects people unless you count "be abstinent always!"

[Phookah]

the problem is that there are people that are fundamentally uneducated in normal body processes (as witnessed by our very own politicians) that are easily fooled. This is in large part to our sex ed being a waste of time and space, being that it neither prevents nor protects people unless you count "be abstinent always!"

This is true. We can only hope that the first time someone gets an abortion and tries to reverse it and can't they try to sue the balls outta the state, which would be amazing.

[adamzz]

abortions with the RU-486 pill are reversible with progesterone. no one is lying.

Took 16 comments before someone could figure it out, everyone else was full out kneejerking.

Guys above post #17, maybe you should read 5 more words after the bold part.. It clearly says it's about drug induced abortions..

[Vanyali]

Took 16 comments before someone could figure it out, everyone else was full out kneejerking.

Guys above post #17, maybe you should read 5 more words after the bold part.. It clearly says it's about drug induced abortions..

"Dr. Kathleen Morrell, an abortion doctor and advocate at Physicians for Reproductive Health, said the procedure is not evidence-based and has not been well-researched."

From the article.

It's not something that has been proven to actually occur, but it *might* be reversible, so they're required to say that it IS.

[stabetha]

"Dr. Kathleen Morrell, an abortion doctor and advocate at Physicians for Reproductive Health, said the procedure is not evidence-based and has not been well-researched."

From the article.

It's not something that has been proven to actually occur, but it *might* be reversible, so they're required to say that it IS.

so an ideolog says it isn't true so must not be true. I guess informing people is bad when it isn't the information you want them to know.

[adamzz]

Except it's not an "abortion" until the pregnancy is actually terminated.

If they want to say that the effects of a certain pill can be reversed before the pregnancy is actually aborted, then fine. Don't say that an abortion can be reversed.

Whether you think abortion means when the fetus is out or not doesn't matter.
The fact is that they count it as an abortion when you take the drug and it can be reversed if you act quick.

Sure the reversal procedure is not well-researched but there are women that has done it and succeeded.

some .gov source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23191936

[Vanyali]

so an ideolog says it isn't true so must not be true. I guess informing people is bad when it isn't the information you want them to know.

If it was an anti-abortion person saying it wasn't evidence based or well researched, I'd agree with them to.

If you want to say something is medically possible, please have evidence.

Otherwise, nightshade is a cure for insomnia. It's not well researched or evidence based, but I said it.

[Kujako]

Whether you think abortion means when the fetus is out or not doesn't matter.
The fact is that they count it as an abortion when you take the drug and it can be reversed if you act quick.

Sure the reversal procedure is not well-researched but there are women that has done it and succeeded.

So they're saying "abortion starts with consumption"?

[stabetha]

so now the problem is mainly just about semantics?

[Felya]

If it was an anti-abortion person saying it wasn't evidence based or well researched, I'd agree with them to.

If you want to say something is medically possible, please have evidence.

Otherwise, nightshade is a cure for insomnia. It's not well researched or evidence based, but I said it.

Belladonna is great to make your eyes wider... Used to be super popular too... Why would something called beautiful woman be bad?

/sarcasm

[Vanyali]

so now the problem is mainly just about semantics?

It's not semantics to say "this is something that will happen" when you have no evidence to do so.

The sky will turn green today. <-- the equivalent of what he said.

The sky will turn green today if you take these pills and your brain decides it's green today. It might not though. We're not sure what exactly will happen to you yet. <-- what actually happens.

[Felya]

so now the problem is mainly just about semantics?

Yes, semantics between might work and does work......

[adamzz]

If it was an anti-abortion person saying it wasn't evidence based or well researched, I'd agree with them to.

If you want to say something is medically possible, please have evidence.

Otherwise, nightshade is a cure for insomnia. It's not well researched or evidence based, but I said it.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...42ca000000.pdf

There, read that research paper and then tell me there is no evidence to support the reversal.

[adamzz]

So they're saying "abortion starts with consumption"?

Drug induced abortion takes time, yes.

When you take the pill the abortion process has started but not finished, but you can reverse it.

- - - Updated - - -

Pro tip: No one said "no evidence".

Pro tip: you should read better.

[Vanyali]

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...42ca000000.pdf

There, read that research paper and then tell me there is no evidence to support the reversal.

"Progesterone competes with mifepristone for the progesterone receptor and may reverse the effects of mifepristone."

"Four of 6 women who took mifepristone were able to carry their pregnancies to term after receiving intramuscular progesterone 200 mg"

"A PubMed literature search from 1996 to May 2012 did not reveal any trials or case studies evaluating the efficacy of progesterone use to reverse the effects of mifepristone. "

When even the abstract attacks the shit out of your argument, you're pretty off base.

It's roughly half the cases, MAY reverse, and from '96-'12 no trials or case studies were done.

Sounds like it might be... not well researched or evidence based.

[stabetha]

from the AZ senate

Prior to 2000, the only type of abortion available in the United States was a surgical abortion. That changed in late 2000 when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved RU-486, which acts as a chemical abortion. The FDA laid out a specific protocol for administering RU-486, and part of this protocol involves two separate pills that are taken 48 hours apart. The first pill is designed to choke off nutrition to the preborn child, and the second pill is designed to expel the pregnancy. RU-486 should only be administered through the first seven weeks of pregnancy, but Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers openly publicize that they administer them through the first nine weeks.

In recent years a new protocol has been developed to reverse the effects of a chemical abortion for women who have taken the first pill but have changed their mind and not wanted to continue to take the second pill. In order to reverse the effects of the first pill, time is of the essence for women to be put in contact with a doctor who is trained in the reversal protocol.

The reversal protocol involves administering a high dose of progesterone to undo the lethal effects of the antiprogesterone medication. Although the protocol is fairly new, there have been 86 healthy births, and there are 61 current pregnancies due to the reversal protocol.

In order to ensure women are fully informed before making the decision to have an abortion, SB 1318 requires abortion clinics to tell women that should they change their mind after taking the first pill of a chemical abortion, it may be possible to reverse the effects but time is of the essence. The bill also requires the Arizona Department of Health Services to publish information on its website on how to obtain information on the Abortion Pill Reversal.

so their you go they aren't saying "abortions are reversible" they are saying the affects of ru-486 are.

[Beery Swine]

Stupid tag on but I'm all for the govt not paying women to have things like birth control, I mean tax dollars should go to things that further the community not fix your one night stand while you were drunk. Now if the woman has the baby then cool tax dollars can go towards that because subjective or not it's furthering the human race and helping the public in ways.

Yeah, because chicks who can't afford abortions who try with a coat hanger or maybe just go thru with it not wanting the kid to begin with makes for a much better community.

[AndaliteBandit]

"Progesterone competes with mifepristone for the progesterone receptor and may reverse the effects of mifepristone."

"Four of 6 women who took mifepristone were able to carry their pregnancies to term after receiving intramuscular progesterone 200 mg"

"A PubMed literature search from 1996 to May 2012 did not reveal any trials or case studies evaluating the efficacy of progesterone use to reverse the effects of mifepristone. "

When even the abstract attacks the shit out of your argument, you're pretty off base.

It's roughly half the cases, MAY reverse, and from '96-'12 no trials or case studies were done.

Sounds like it might be... not well researched or evidence based.

Let's put it this way.

If a pill was found to induce abortions in four of six women, would adamzz feel comfortable with requiring doctors to inform women that this option exists? But that they're not required to inform women of how much, or rather, how little evidence there is to support this new technique?

[Wells]

Normally I'd agree with you, but it's kind of an outlandish lie that no one with any semblance of normal brain capacity would believe.
It'd be like requiring your doctor to tell you Santa exists. I'd assume normal people would just give the doctor a weird look or a giggle and ignore them.

I don't trust anyone to know when their doctor is lying or not. People are dumb.

[stabetha]

if you took ru-486 and then changed your mind wouldn't you want to know there was an option even if it only worked 66% of the time?