Ectopic pregnancy treatment is not the same as abortion. The medical definition of “abortion” is removal of an embryo and placenta from the uterus. This includes termination of unwanted pregnancy as well as otherwise normal pregnancy in which the fetus’ or mother’s life is in danger. Note the phrase “from the uterus” – the only place an embryo can develop into a baby. Logically, treatment cannot be generalized as “abortion,” particularly because many women with ectopic pregnancies planned to conceive and wanted to carry their pregnancies to term.
But I’m totally with you: I doubt the constituents for the legislative supporters of this Bill would recognize that distinction.
The sentence ends “performing or inducing an abortion on another person in violation of any state or federal law.” Under the current Missouri law (that will only take effect under certain circumstances that may happen) an abortion performed by a physician on a woman with an ectopic pregnancy would not be in violation of state or federal law. So the doctor would be safe - but he/she would almost certainly have to dispense the drug as was required by the FDA for mifepristone pre-COVID (you couldn’t get it at a pharmacy or by mail order - you had to get it in person at a clinic or medical office) Just found it the first dose of any abortion-inducing drug must be administered in the physical presence of the physician.
If you have an ectopic pregnancy , you aren’t likely to be going to a random doctor and asking for “an abortion pill”. Somebody told you the pregnancy was ectopic and is discussing options with you.
And methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy is given intramuscularly by injection. Sometimes several doses are given over the course of close medical supervision.
This is being injected by a nurse or doctor at a clinic or office, not something that is ‘called in’ and picked up or mailed.
The bill we are talking about would involve mail order “abortion” pills. Since abortion pills aren’t used for ectopic pregnancy then why are we even discussing ectopic pregnancies?
“Medication” may be used but not abortion pills. But now that any reference to ectopic pregnancy has been removed I expect the abortion crowd will come up with some new reason to oppose this bill.
The only part of the bill that has to do with “mail order” are the revisions to non-resident pharmacy licensing (Section 338.270 and 338.337) . In other words, out-of-state pharmacies need to be licensed to do business in Missouri and it will be unlawful for one of those to deliver abortion inducing drugs t a patient in Missouri via mail. In-state pharmacies already can’t legally dispense those drugs.
And as others have pointed out to you several times the phrases “trafficking” and “in violation of any state or federal law” make it clear that this bill does in fact have limited application.
Maybe they are merely trying to say that if the abortion in question was in violation of some other law in some other way, then it becomes a Class A felony if the pregnancy is more advanced than 10 weeks, but that doesn’t seem clear to me. Either way, it seems pretty obvious that there’s nothing about being “a licensed pharmacy/doctor in the state of Missouri” that would automatically exempt you from every provision of this bill.
I mean, I’m sympathetic to people who oppose abortion in general, but when they start opposing abortions that are 100% medically necessary to preserve the life of the mother, abortions of babies that have no chance of being born alive, then i can only conclude that they are evil misogynistic monsters.
No it doesn’t (although a different provision of Missouri law does make abortions illegal if performed after 8 weeks, but it has been enjoined).
I really don’t understand the apparent confusion about how this statute would work. It’s not a confusing structure.
Section 1 creates something called “trafficking abortion inducing devices or drugs” (“TAIDD”). TAIDD prohibits, very broadly, any person from handling drugs or devices in connection with any abortion that is performed “in violation of any state or federal law.”
Under Section 2, TAIDD is usually class B felony. But, under Section 3, "the offense of " TAIDD is a class A felony if there is one of eight aggravating factors – including if “the abortion [i.e., the abortion preformed in violation of any state or federal law] was performed . . . on a woman carrying an unborn child of more than ten weeks gestational age.”
“The abortion” in the aggravating circumstances very obviously refers to the abortion performed in violation of state or federal law that is a element of the basic offense of TAIDD. Even if you read “the abortion” to mean “any abortion, even one that is unrelated” (which is not a natural reading), you still need the underlying offense of TAIDD – one of the elements of which is an illegal abortion.
There is no plausible reading of the text of the bill that suggests that it prohibits abortions after 10 weeks or abortions for ectopic pregnancies (or abortions in motor vehicles, etc.). It would be like looking at 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A) (which provides for an enhanced penalty for a person who possesses a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence) and concluding that it prohibits all possession of firearms.
This seems like a non-sequitur. Nothing in the proposed or existing Missouri law seems to question the legality of abortions “necessary to preserve the life of the mother.” I haven’t really looked into it, but as far as I know, no one affiliated with the Missouri bill has indicated that they oppose such necessary abortions. And no one in this thread has argued that such abortions should be illegal – this peculiar side debate over whether they should be legal because they’re not “really” abortions or whether they should be legal as a permissible category of abortions seems like pointless semantics.
Doctors have opined that the Texas law makes it illegal to abort an ectopic pregnancy until the mother is in immediate risk. I don’t have a cite, it’s from interviews I heard on NPR when the law was in the news. This law seems to be in the same ballpark, and adds (or would have added, I guess there was enough pushback that they removed that part) extra special punishment for doctors or pharmacists who tried to abort an ectopic pregnancy promptly. Or at least, it would have created an environment where many would be afraid to do so.
If no one opposes these abortions, why was the language in the bill to begin with? Probably because the sponsor doesn’t know anything, and just wanted to say, “abortion bad!!!”. But you know, that’s how evil happens. People pushing an agenda with no regards for who it hurts.
I think this bill, and probably the legislators who proposed it, are deeply, profoundly evil.