Abortions induced through medications will remain legal in Arizona for now,
reports the Arizona Capitol Times. The Supreme Court declined to overturn an appeals court ruling that blocked the law, which attempted to place restrictions on a drug used to induce abortions through the ninth week of pregnancy.
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning rejected a bid by attorneys for the state to overturn a federal appellate court ruling which had concluded the limits illegally infringe on the constitutional right of women to terminate a pregnancy. The justices gave no reason for their decision.
But the fight may well continue since federal appeals court rulings in Texas and Ohio upheld similar restrictions, which may cause a showdown at the Supreme Court.
Those other rulings ultimately could force the justices to decide which legal approach is correct.
The 2012 Arizona law relates to RU-486, or mifepristone, which is taken in combination with misoprostol 24 to 48 hours later in order to terminate a pregnancy. The combination is typically effective in the first nine weeks of pregnancy. But the law attempted to place more regulations on how and when the drugs could be administered.
The law, however, says any medication used to induce abortion must be administered “in compliance with the protocol authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.” And the company’s FDA-approved labeling for the drug says RU-486 can be used only for the first seven weeks – and only when given in two doses on separate days, each one administered by a physician.
While a federal judge originally determined the law to be legal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the restrictions overly burdensome.
The judges said there was evidence that the law would make medication abortions off-limits to hundreds of Arizona women a year – particularly those who do not discover they are pregnant until after the seventh week – forcing them instead to undergo more complicated surgical abortions.
And here's another big surprise:
[T]he judges said attorneys for the state never provided any evidence to show the restrictions were necessary to protect the health of women.