老澳门开奖结果

INDIANAPOLIS 鈥� Earlier today, a federal district court an Indiana measure forcing health care providers to share false and misleading information with their patients about 鈥渞eversing鈥� a medication abortion, a bogus claim that may lead some patients to end a pregnancy based on the mistaken belief that its effects can later be undone.

There is no scientific evidence that a medication abortion can be reversed after a patient has taken the first medication, and leading medical organizations laws that require health care providers to inform their patients of this false and misleading claim. Forcing providers to give their patients this misinformation is both unethical and unconstitutional; courts in, , and have blocked similar restrictions.

鈥淲e are thrilled that the judge has blocked implementation of this law until we have a chance to fully challenge it in court,鈥� said Parker Dockray, executive director of All-Options. 鈥淧roviders should not be forced to give patients inaccurate and dangerous misinformation about "reversing" an abortion. Pregnant people deserve better 鈥� they need accurate information about all their options, and support to make the decisions that are right for them.鈥�

The lawsuit 鈥� 鈥� also challenges a 2021 ban on patients鈥� ability to obtain medication abortion via telemedicine. A nearly identical ban is already being considered by a federal district court judge in separate litigation 鈥� Whole Woman鈥檚 Health Alliance v. Rokita 鈥� a host of abortion restrictions in Indiana.

鈥淲e celebrate the court鈥檚 decision to uphold evidence-based practices for abortion care in Indiana,鈥� said Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman鈥檚 Health Alliance. 鈥淭his ruling is a relief for our providers and our patients. The freedom to offer counseling rooted in science and safety is of the utmost importance 鈥� not only to people seeking care, but also to eradicate the misinformation and stigma around abortion in Indiana.鈥�

These are not the only ongoing legal challenges to the myriad obstacles and indignities Hoosiers face when they need an abortion.

• Patients and health care providers are Indiana鈥檚 restriction forcing health care providers to dispose of embryonic and fetal tissue from miscarriage and abortion patients like they would a deceased person 鈥� either through interment or cremation.
• All-Options, Whole Woman鈥檚 Health Alliance, and other health care providers are a host of abortion restrictions, including (1) targeted regulation of abortion provider (TRAP) laws; (2) laws that deny abortion patients the benefits of scientific progress by placing medically-unnecessary limitations on the use of medication abortion; (3) biased counseling and waiting-period laws; and (4) laws that criminalize abortion care. was held in that challenge in March 2021.
• An individual health care provider is challenging a law that would have banned the standard method for abortion care starting in the earliest weeks of the second trimester. A federal district court blocked that ban in 2019.
• Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai鈥榠, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky (PPGNHAIK) is challenging a law providing that even if a court exempts a minor from Indiana鈥檚 parental consent requirement because it determines the minor is mature, a parent must still be notified of the minor鈥檚 abortion 鈥� thus allowing a practical veto of the minor鈥檚 decision. A federal district court blocked that requirement in 2017. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has twice the injunction, and the state has twice petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. An injunction blocking the law remains in effect.
• PPGNHAIK is also challenging invasive reporting requirements that single out abortion providers, a restriction which has been blocked.

鈥淭oday was a big win for people across Indiana because access to accurate and honest information about abortion prevailed. This law is meant to shame and confuse patients seeking access to a safe, legal medical procedure,鈥� said Chris Charbonneau, CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai鈥榠, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky. 鈥淭he bottom line is abortion is still legal in Indiana, and we must do everything within our power to protect access to reproductive health care. The courts made the right decision and further protected our patients鈥� ability to trust that we are providing them with scientific and evidence-based medical information.鈥�

鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling ensures pregnant Hoosiers won鈥檛 have to receive false and harmful information from their doctors,鈥� said Sneha Shah, litigation counsel at the Lawyering Project. 鈥淧eople in Indiana face far too many state-sanctioned restrictions when they need an abortion. Today鈥檚 decision makes clear that the state cannot put abortion patients in harm鈥檚 way. We will continue to stand with our partners to ensure Indianans can get the high-quality, dignified care they need and deserve."

鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is a win for providers and patients, who deserve the highest quality care we can offer, including factual, honest counseling. Indiana鈥檚 biased and scientifically unsound 鈥榗ounseling requirement鈥� would have forced providers to lie to their patients and parrot the harmful rhetoric of anti-abortion politicians,鈥� said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America. 鈥淚 applaud Judge Hanlon鈥檚 decision to side with science and block this medically inaccurate, insulting, and potentially dangerous law.鈥�

鈥淗oosiers should be able to get the health care they need, and doctors 鈥� not politicians 鈥� should provide medical advice to patients,鈥� said Ken Falk, legal director at the 老澳门开奖结果 of Indiana. 鈥淵et this law would put words in the mouths of health providers and force them to share dangerous, false, and misleading information about abortion reversal. Judge Hanlon鈥檚 decision is an affirmation that politicians cannot ignore the First Amendment rights of medical providers. Patients rely on their providers to help them make informed medical decisions and no one benefits from forcing providers to share misinformation.鈥�

The challenge to these measures was in May 2021. Plaintiffs include,,, Women鈥檚 Med Group Professional Corporation and individual physicians. They are represented by,,, and Katherine D. Jack of the Jack Law Office LLC.