U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico said in an opinion on Saturday that a Colorado law banning so-called medication abortion reversal treatment likely violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom. His order stops the state from enforcing the law against Bella Health and Wellness, which sued to block it, or against anyone else working with Bella Health, while he considers the medical center’s challenge to the law.

The office of Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, which defended the law, declined to comment.

Medication abortion begins with the drug mifepristone, which blocks the action of the hormone progesterone, crucial for sustaining pregnancy, and is completed with a second drug, misoprostol. Proponents of the so-called medication abortion reversal say that if a woman changes her mind after taking mifepristone but before taking misoprostol, the pregnancy can be continued by administering a high dose of progesterone.

There are no large controlled studies of the treatment, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has said that its safety and efficacy are unsupported by science.

  • girlfreddy@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Someday it would be nice to see judicial decisions on women’s healthcare be supported by science instead of a Constitution written by mostly men.

          • LazaroFilm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It should say right on the top of the box.

            FAITH ITEM - NOT MEDICINE

            or something like that.

            • littletoolshed@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are you suggesting that a massive dose of progesterone should not be considered medication? Because that’s what this article is about.

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                He’s suggesting that “medicine” has effects backed by some reasonable amount of scientific study. Telling people to ingest random substances that don’t have that is essentially witchcraft, not medicine.

                • littletoolshed@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But if you want to label progesterone as “faith items”, don’t they become even less controlled? If they are labeled as a medical item (or whatever makes sense to keep nut jobs from ‘prescribing’ it) wouldn’t they fall under more observation and inspection and control? The whole reason I’m asking these questions is because it seems like you all want to give religious nut jobs the ability to dose people with hormones as part of a religious ritual. Is that what you all are saying? I did say at the beginning that I might be misunderstanding.

                • littletoolshed@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah, it’s a hormone. Which is why I imagine any synthesis of it would be controlled like a medication and not declared as a faith item. But maybe I misunderstand

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, imagine if it was any other religion. Hell I’m not dumb enough to throw money at fighting for proven medical procedures that my religion blesses

    • PrefersAwkward@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      If biology for humans were such that both participants had an unpredictable, uncontrollable, 50/50 chance to carry the baby, abortion access for all and would be a non-issue.

      Alternatively, if Jerry Falwell never existed, it still wouldn’t be nearly as contentious an issue.

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Humans in any meaningful numbers never fail to find a group of their own to single out, marginalize, and persecute out of schadenfreude.

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re supposing the judge obeyed the Constitution here. He did not; freedom of religion is not freedom to defraud, and the people selling this drug are committing fraud.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      *mostly white men who would be rather confused by the whole thing.

      Partly because abortions were common if not particularly talked about.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    One wonders, how many people have asked for this treatment? I’m guessing it’s not super common, and quite possibly the lawsuit is wishful thinking.

    • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The first time someone has an adverse reaction, it’s over. The medical community is protected by the fact that things are heavily tested and regulated. If you have a complication related to a treatment, it will be a known risk. When you give someone snake oil and they die from it, you’re done.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was asking how frequently people want to reverse abortions in the first place, not how safe it was.

        (Which, it’d safety would be impossible to test ethically. “Well we’re going to give you the first part of an abortion pill and then try to reverse it… your baby should be fine” )

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I assume the few legitimate reversals are derived more from family/friends finding out and being shamed for not wanting a baby. If that ever happens at all.

            24-48 hours isn’t a lot of time for things to suddenly get better, but I suppose it is possible. That said, this wouldn’t be the first time lawsuits have been brought because people”might” be affected