The abortion industry, sensing a possible future legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, has begun pushing heavily for medication abortion — also known as the abortion pill — to be made available to women much more freely, and possibly without any medical supervision whatsoever. In California, legislators are even continuing to push for the abortion pill to be available to students of state universities on campus, despite the risks of hemorrhage and other possible complications — and this, after pro-abortion Governor Jerry Brown already vetoed a bill attempting to pass such legislation.
Despite the attempts to make abortion accessible without any physician care, Michigan legislators have just taken a step to make permanent a law (originally set to expire on December 31, 2018) banning physicians from prescribing the abortion pill regimen by telemedicine, also known as “webcam abortions.” This means that doctors will not be able to simply meet with patients over a video chat before they receive the pills. Appointments must be in person.
According to the Detroit Free Press, “The bill [SB 1198] was passed at about 2 a.m. Thursday on a mostly party-line 62-47 vote with one Republican, Rep. David Maturen, of Brady Township, joining all the Democrats in voting against the measure.” The news outlet also noted that in 2012, teleconferencing between doctors and their patients was made legal in the state, but abortion was excluded from this.
“The technology has become especially useful to patients in rural areas who have limited access to hospitals and specialized physicians,” writes the Free Press. While this may be true, having limited access to a hospital emergency room or a physician could be life threatening for a woman who has just taken the abortion pill. This is evident as one reads the risks of the abortion pill in the video below, explained by former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino:
Right to Life of Michigan notes, “To defend webcam abortions, abortion industry figures cite a study saying webcam abortions are even safer than when doctors physically examine the patients. Imagine that! The study’s lead author is Daniel Grossman, an abortionist who profits from abortions. He’s on the faculty of the University of California, San Francisco, which has a center on campus devoted to abortion advocacy. Abortion facilities object to even being regularly inspected by health officials, let alone allowing independent researchers who don’t financially benefit from abortions to gather unbiased data.”
Rep. Christine Greig, a Democrat, told the Free Press that there’s a doctor shortage in Michigan, and telemedicine is needed. But in the abortion industry, there always seems to be a shortage of doctors. As Right to Life of Michigan points out, the abortion industry doesn’t like the law banning telemedicine abortions, for two reasons: a shortage of doctors and a desire for greater profits:
The law poses a burden on the abortion industry, particularly Planned Parenthood. They already utilize the abortion pill as a cost-saving measure over a surgical abortion. There are not many abortionists, due to the unattractive nature of the profession’s involvement in taking human life. Many abortionists are “circuit-riders” who work at multiple abortion facilities, requiring these abortionists to drive long distances to see patients.
How much more money could the abortion industry save if the abortionist can be 500 miles away, dispensing abortion pills with the push of a button after a quick video conference?