Posted on Jul 11, 2022
State abortion bans may limit access to drug used to treat lupus and cancer
1.49K
37
23
5
5
0
Is this an unintended side effect?
State abortion bans may limit access to drug used to treat lupus and cancer
Posted from livescience.com
Abortion
Health
Law
Drugs
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
5
5
0
Maj John Bell
SGT (Join to see) - Such reports are anecdotal and UNCONFIRMED. Texas law S.B. 4, methotrexate is specifically listed as an "abortion-inducing drug," and as such, the law requires that those who dispense the drug follow certain protocols or else risk a felony charge.
As long as those protocols are followed, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in Texas SB $that stops a physician from for prescribing methotrexate for ANY condition other than pregnancy. It may STILL be prescribed to induce an abortion for a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy.
The press is pushing an agenda. They are lying to you.
"Sec. 171.063. PROVISION OF ABORTION-INDUCING DRUG. (a) A person may not knowingly provide an abortion-inducing drug to a pregnant woman FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING AN ABORTION [emphasis mine] in the pregnant woman or enabling another person to induce an abortion in the pregnant woman unless:
(1) the person who provides the abortion-inducing drug is a physician; and
(2) the provision of the abortion-inducing drug satisfies the protocol authorized by this subchapter.
(c) Before the physician provides an abortion-inducing drug, the physician must:
(1) examine the pregnant woman in person;
(2) independently verify that a pregnancy exists;
(3) document, in the woman's medical record, the gestational age and intrauterine location of the pregnancy to determine whether an ectopic pregnancy exists;
(4) determine the pregnant woman's blood type, and for a woman who is Rh negative, offer to administer Rh immunoglobulin (RhoGAM) at the time the abortion-inducing drug is administered or used or the abortion is performed or induced to prevent Rh incompatibility, complications, or miscarriage in future pregnancies;
(5) document whether the pregnant woman received treatment for Rh negativity, as diagnosed by the most accurate standard of medical care; and
(6) ensure the physician does not provide an abortion-inducing drug for a pregnant woman whose pregnancy is more than 49 days of gestational age.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.171.htm#171.063
SGT Mary G. PO2 Russell "Russ" Lincoln
As long as those protocols are followed, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in Texas SB $that stops a physician from for prescribing methotrexate for ANY condition other than pregnancy. It may STILL be prescribed to induce an abortion for a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy.
The press is pushing an agenda. They are lying to you.
"Sec. 171.063. PROVISION OF ABORTION-INDUCING DRUG. (a) A person may not knowingly provide an abortion-inducing drug to a pregnant woman FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING AN ABORTION [emphasis mine] in the pregnant woman or enabling another person to induce an abortion in the pregnant woman unless:
(1) the person who provides the abortion-inducing drug is a physician; and
(2) the provision of the abortion-inducing drug satisfies the protocol authorized by this subchapter.
(c) Before the physician provides an abortion-inducing drug, the physician must:
(1) examine the pregnant woman in person;
(2) independently verify that a pregnancy exists;
(3) document, in the woman's medical record, the gestational age and intrauterine location of the pregnancy to determine whether an ectopic pregnancy exists;
(4) determine the pregnant woman's blood type, and for a woman who is Rh negative, offer to administer Rh immunoglobulin (RhoGAM) at the time the abortion-inducing drug is administered or used or the abortion is performed or induced to prevent Rh incompatibility, complications, or miscarriage in future pregnancies;
(5) document whether the pregnant woman received treatment for Rh negativity, as diagnosed by the most accurate standard of medical care; and
(6) ensure the physician does not provide an abortion-inducing drug for a pregnant woman whose pregnancy is more than 49 days of gestational age.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.171.htm#171.063
SGT Mary G. PO2 Russell "Russ" Lincoln
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Maj John Bell Imagine yourself with an 8 year old daughter and having to take her to be examined and tested to see if she is pregnant and getting allow the paperwork presented just to get her medication. Oh and this will happen with every single refill. Acceptable to you?
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SGT (Join to see) - I can only guess at the details of your intended scenario. If your narrative is for an 8-year-old girl, suffering from one of the non-prescription ailments which the FDA has licensed methotrexate, no it will not happen every single refill. Read the law again. There is nothing in the Texas code that requires a pregnancy test if the drug is being prescribed for ANYTHING OTHER THAN PREGNANCY.
If someone has an 8-year-old daughter that they think might be pregnant:
1) Healthcare professionals are REQUIRED reporters of suspected child abuse or sexual assault of a minor. Failure to report a pregnancy in a child under the age of consent (17 in Texas) will result in the loss of the healthcare provider's medical license. If an 8-year-old girl is repeatedly possibly pregnant, why is she not being removed from that home and put some place safe?
2) Texas law allows for abortion if the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother. I don't think any competent physician would say that it is perfectly safe for an 8-year-old girl to go through a full-term pregnancy.
Would you care to present a more plausible scenario?
If someone has an 8-year-old daughter that they think might be pregnant:
1) Healthcare professionals are REQUIRED reporters of suspected child abuse or sexual assault of a minor. Failure to report a pregnancy in a child under the age of consent (17 in Texas) will result in the loss of the healthcare provider's medical license. If an 8-year-old girl is repeatedly possibly pregnant, why is she not being removed from that home and put some place safe?
2) Texas law allows for abortion if the pregnancy endangers the health of the mother. I don't think any competent physician would say that it is perfectly safe for an 8-year-old girl to go through a full-term pregnancy.
Would you care to present a more plausible scenario?
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Unintended by whom? Not doing thorough research before passing laws that will kill people is unintended? I doubt it. I know people who have it prescribed for arthritis, and for lupus. And I know young women who have been diagnosed with those medical conditions. Years ago my sister didn't know her pregnancy was ectopic and endangering her life until she ended up in the hospital. According to the article the pharmaceutical seems to be used for many medical conditions, that do not seem closely related.
There really is no "one size fits all" when pro-birth, instead of pro-life is used for age-discrimination purposes.
There really is no "one size fits all" when pro-birth, instead of pro-life is used for age-discrimination purposes.
(4)
(0)
PO2 Russell "Russ" Lincoln
Sgt (Join to see) - check your facts, Salk first started his study in 1950. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/salk-announces-polio-vaccine
Dr. Jonas Salk announces polio vaccine
On March 26, 1953, American medical researcher Dr. Jonas Salk announces on a national radio show that he has successfully tested a vaccine against
(0)
(0)
PO2 Russell "Russ" Lincoln
Sgt (Join to see) Here's another document for your perusal. https://www.history.com/news/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-jonas-salk-and-the-polio-vaccine
8 Things You May Not Know About Jonas Salk and the Polio Vaccine
Explore eight surprising facts about the groundbreaking polio vaccine that Dr. Salk developed.
(0)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
PO2 Russell "Russ" Lincoln - Check your facts. Salk wasn't the only one working on the vaccines, Russ.
The poliovirus was discovered in 1908. Early vaccine projects started in the 1930's. Salk's vaccine was pulled after it started giving people polio and killing people and Sabin's was used in the end.
The poliovirus was discovered in 1908. Early vaccine projects started in the 1930's. Salk's vaccine was pulled after it started giving people polio and killing people and Sabin's was used in the end.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
All of the panicking and fear mongering reminds me of 1999. We were told that at midnight January 1,2000 every computer would crash, the power grid would fail, the banks would lose all records of your money and the wold would end. Except it didn't
(not that the government would lie to you again)
(not that the government would lie to you again)
(3)
(0)
CW4 Guy Butler
Having been on alert 31 Dec 1999, there’s a reason it didn’t. It took a lot of work prior to December 1999 to update the BIOS of computers nationwide, and it prevented the “1900” reset.
Made for a sucky New Year’s Eve, though.
Made for a sucky New Year’s Eve, though.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google