IBJNews

Indiana Senate panel backs limits on abortion pill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Senate committee on Wednesday approved a proposal to tighten laws on how women can receive the so-called abortion pill even though doctors testified that the measure mandates prescription of a more dangerous higher dosage.

The Senate health committee voted 5-4 in support of the bill that requires that a doctor examine a woman in person before giving her RU-486, provide written information about the physical risks of abortion and to schedule a follow-up ultrasound for her two weeks later. Doctors who don't follow those steps could face a misdemeanor criminal charge if the proposal becomes law.

Supporters said such requirements are meant to help protect the health of the women because of the potential risk of heavy bleeding and other side effects in the days after the drug is taken.

The bill also requires doctors to follow federal Food and Drug Administration guidelines for administering the drug.

Dr. John Stutsman, the medical director of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and an Indiana University medical professor, told the committee that those FDA guidelines issued in 2000 call for a 600-milligram dose, while studies since then have found a 200-milligram dose is sufficient.

He said the higher dosage requirement would increase the chances of side effects and that he was against setting into law specifics of how doctors should treat their patients.

Bill sponsor Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle, said he would talk with doctors and others about changing the dosage requirement in the proposal before it is considered by the full Senate.

Republican Sen. Vaneta Becker of Evansville, who joined the committee's three Democrats in voting against the bill, said she believed the proposal wrongly intervened in the doctor-patient relationship and didn't think the proposal improved patient safety.

The abortion pill proposal follows the Republican-dominated Legislature's passage last year of law aimed at cutting off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions and imposed tighter abortion restrictions. A federal appeals court is considering whether to lift a federal judge's order that was issued in June that blocked the funding cutoff.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Unchecked power
    An unchecked political power is more dangerous than any economic crisis, and in this case, only serves to ignore the needs and wishes of those who they represent.

    When we elected the Republicans in 2010, I had no idea this is how they would function. Oddly enough, I thought they were going to work to better our state, not propose Creationism education reform and RU-486 dosage requirements. I won't even get started on divisive RTW issue and the mess it's made in our legislature.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. A Tilted Kilt at a water park themed hotel? Who planned that one? I guess the Dad's need something to do while the kids are on the water slides.

  2. Don't come down on the fair for offering drinks. This is a craft and certainly one that belongs in agriculture due to ingredients. And for those worrying about how much you can drink. I'm sure it's more to do with liability than anything else. They don't want people suing for being over served. If you want a buzz, do a little pre-drinking before you go.

  3. I don't drink but go into this "controlled area" so my friend can drink. They have their 3 drink limit and then I give my friend my 3 drink limit. How is the fair going to control this very likely situation????

  4. I feel the conditions of the alcohol sales are a bit heavy handed, but you need to realize this is the first year in quite some time that beer & wine will be sold at the fair. They're starting off slowly to get a gauge on how it will perform this year - I would assume if everything goes fine that they relax some of the limits in the next year or couple of years. That said, I think requiring the consumption of alcohol to only occur in the beer tent is a bit much. That is going to be an awkward situation for those with minors - "Honey, I'm getting a beer... Ok, sure go ahead... Alright see you in just a min- half an hour."

  5. This might be an effort on the part of the State Fair Board to manage the risk until they get a better feel for it. However, the blanket notion that alcohol should not be served at "family oriented" events is perhaps an oversimplification. and not too realistic. For 15 years, I was a volunteer at the Indianapolis Air Show, which was as family oriented an event as it gets. We sold beer donated by Monarch Beverage Company and served by licensed and trained employees of United Package Liquors who were unpaid volunteers. And where did that money go? To central Indiana children's charities, including Riley Hospital for Children! It's all about managing the risk.

ADVERTISEMENT