Prison is where she belongs. One hopes there are proximate relatives to properly care for her daughter, who's being wretchedly educated at this time.

Prison is where she belongs

Um...why?

dunno Amy... I'd bet this isn't legal in France either... this ISN'T Plan B over the counter, this is chemically induced abortion with RU-486 plus misoprostol... you might be needing a prescription in France too. There is certainly a danger that the daughter might have had a complication she could have died from, like a uterine rupture.

Had the kid used planB this would not have been an issue, but she got regular pregnant, and then wanted the abortion later...

Two issues are a law about abortions that is generally onerous, due to distances and such, and the potential that a person might be injured or killed by doing this.

I'm sure the mother figured that because she was a nurse, the potential for injury is low, but law doesn't make that kind of exception, and she should have KNOWN that.

This is an unfortunate individual case, but it is not indicative to anything larger. The 24hour wait period in the law and requirement to go to a regular provider could be changed, by the legislature, but it isn't inherently wrong. Rather an indication of how rare the legislature wants to make abortions.

Prison is mostly for stupid criminals. This woman passed the first three tests for being a stupid criminal.

She knew what the law was.

She ordered the pills anyway, and then when she took her daughter to the Emergency room, she blabbed about giving her daughter the drug, instead of shutting the fuck up.

Here is the thing I dont get.

The government routinely argues it has no duty to protect you from other citizens committing crimes against you.

And yet at the same time it argues it has the duty to protect you from yourself, often to the point of jailing people for ingesting things with out the proper government approval

The government routinely argues it has no duty to protect you from other citizens committing crimes against you.

And yet at the same time it argues it has the duty to protect you from yourself, often to the point of jailing people for ingesting things with out the proper government approval

Posted by: lujlp at September 8, 2014 10:09 AM

This wasn't a victimless crime. This was a crime against a minor child. The woman's own daughter.

Even if you think injecting yourself with heroin should be okie dokie, I hope you draw the line at a parent injecting their 16 year old son or daughter.

I can't find where they say how far along the girl was, but I'm betting this wasn't first trimester. In the time it took to wait for those pills to make it from Europe (I'm guessing a 2-week wait), she should have driven the 74 miles to the clinic and handled this the right way. I don't agree with elective abortions, but you just don't jeopardize your daughter's life by doing what this mom did.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/planned-parenthood-pushes-back-on-over-the-counter-contraception/article/2552999?custom_click=rss

Just another big money special interest group.

For those considering it, you don't want to take that stuff on your own. It is not fun and having someone there to help rub your back or help you into and out of a bath really really helps.

This is all very interesting and stuff, but the real question I have is when is she filing a lawsuit against the drug companies?

In this case, a parent was making a decision with her daughter.

A medical decision made with no expert guidance, no medical knowledge on the part of the woman or her daughter, and one that put her daughter in danger.

There's a reason why some pills are not over-the-counter.

==============================

This woman also turned to Europe for pills without the nannying.

This woman turned to Europe for pills without the medical expertise that was needed.

Why? To save a few bucks? What's her daughter's life worth? Apparently, it's worth between $255 and $555.

==============================

Whether she deserves to "spent 12 to 18 months in prison" is debatable.

And Pennsylvania should probably rethink a law that discourages people in trouble from seeking professional medical help when they're in trouble.

"But the girl experienced severe cramping and bleeding--a not uncommon side effect of misoprostol and mifepristone. Whalen took her to the local hospital, which is how the matter came to the attention of authorities."

Apparently, somebody missed this. Let me get this straight: Mom should be entitled to do this without penalty? Land her own kid in the hospital emergency room?

Even an abortion doctor knows it's important to not screw up the health of the patient!

-------

"The government routinely argues it has no duty to protect you from other citizens committing crimes against you.

And yet at the same time it argues it has the duty to protect you from yourself, often to the point of jailing people for ingesting things with out the proper government approval

luj, you're confused.

In the first case, that finding, most easily found by looking up Warren v. DC, recognizes the physical impossibility of providing absolute protection, and that the first lawsuit for failure of that protection would put a police deaprtment out of business, harming the public irrevocably.
In the second case, past performance of corporate entities has conclusively proven that consumer protection is necessary. I hope you're not going to claim you can test Chinese dog food for harmful chemical content.

So many here think that poor performance means the practice should be halted. Nope.

Whether she deserves to "spent 12 to 18 months in prison" is debatable.

And Pennsylvania should probably rethink a law that discourages people in trouble from seeking professional medical help when they're in trouble.

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at September 8, 2014 12:49 PM

Pennsylvania got smeared by the national media over their lax clinic standards exposed by the Kermit Gosnell case.

I suspect the current law, was a reaction to them rightly being accused of allowing the murder of viable babies.

The Plan B pill is now available in the U.S. without a prescription (must present photo id) and fairly cheap.

The abortion drugs are different.

They are however pills that doctors often give women to take at home. It's a chemically induced miscarriage.

http://www.webmd.com/women/mifepristone-and-misoprostol-for-abortion

Washington county is a rural conservative area (two cross burnings that I know of in the 20 years I've been here) with all the privacy of a small town.

It's easy for me to imagine that a woman might want to protect her family's privacy by not asking a local doctor for the prescription. I hope telemedicine will arrive soon and expand the options for the folks in Washington and Beaver counties.

The trek from Washington county to Allegheny county (likely the closest abortion provider is in Pittsburgh) requires private transportation from a rural area into a city notorious for being nearly impossible to navigate, never mind the construction.

Then there's the expense of gas and parking, (low compared to first tier cities, but a lot if you're taking time off from work and making the trip twice), and possible fear of traveling into an unfamiliar city notorious for traffic accidents (more bridges than any city, no grid pattern, lots of tunnels).

And having to walk through a gauntlet of protesters. A Catholic university gives students course credit for protesting outside the clinic. Senior citizens regularly stand outside the Planned Parenthood office downtown, holding grisly images and saying crappy things. There are three abortion clinics in town that I know of, and at least one of them has an armed guard. Plus Anyone with a recording device can film you walking into or out of such a circus.

Mail order makes sense.

F*ck the Pennsylvania legislature for making abortion even harder.

"It's easy for me to imagine that a woman might want to protect her family's privacy by not asking a local doctor for the prescription. I hope telemedicine will arrive soon and expand the options for the folks in Washington and Beaver counties."

So instead she wound up in the local emergency room where apparently she told them which illegal drugs she had administered to her daughter, not realizing that the staff there, were required by law to report it as child abuse.

And of course, her conviction is now a national news story, instead of an issue that would fall under HIPPA if she had taken her daughter to either a doctor or a clinic.

Isab, if she expecte the worst she likely would have made choices. Not planning to avoid the worst case scenario is also how many people wind up pregnant/ getting someone pregnant.

"A medical decision made with no expert guidance, no medical knowledge on the part of the woman or her daughter, and one that put her daughter in danger."

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at September 8, 2014 12:49 PM

...the same terms can describe pregnancy. It is a life threatening condition. Women can get pregnant without medical or government approval. For the most part they should be able to get out being pregnant without government approval, unnecessary impediments, or prosecution.

Here is my lithmus test. Is this the drug the doctor would have prescribed the girl had her mother brought her in?

If so I dont see the problem. If not then I can see the problem.

But as I understand it the woman is NOT being prosecuted for child abuse or playing doctor sana licence, but for circumventing the hoops the legislature said she had to jump through

"... If she expected the worst she likely would have made different choices."

Cr@p typing.

@lujlp

"Whalen was charged by state police at Milton with a felony count of medical consultation and judgment and misdemeanor charges of unlawful acts – not licensed as a pharmacist, endangering the welfare of a child and simple assault. "

Her sentence will be served as probation and community service, and fines, not actual prison time.

...the same terms can describe pregnancy. It is a life threatening condition. Women can get pregnant without medical or government approval. For the most part they should be able to get out being pregnant without government approval, unnecessary impediments, or prosecution.

Posted by: Michelle at September 8, 2014 2:45 PM

So you would be perfectly ok, with Joe the Plumber doing that Appendectomy you need, on that appendix which got infected without medical or government approval?

This is about an idiot playing doctor with dangerous drugs, not your *right* to an abortion.

If women/girls treated pregnancy as a "life threatening" situation there would be less pregnancy.

If women/girls treated pregnancy as a "life threatening" situation there would be less pregnancy. ~ Posted by: Bob in Texas at September 8, 2014 4:03 PM

More likely that men would be charged with attempted murder.

She should name the so-called healthcare provider that ratted her out, lest other women suffer the same fate when they need help. There are clinics that won't do that, and if your city doesn't have one it should.

So you would be perfectly ok, with Joe the Plumber doing that Appendectomy you need, on that appendix which got infected without medical or government approval?

This is about an idiot playing doctor with dangerous drugs, not your *right* to an abortion.

Posted by: Isab at September 8, 2014 3:58 PM

I'm okay with me and mine choosing how to handle our life and death matters without the interference of legislators.

I'm with Isab on this one. The drugs she took can be deadly. There is good cause for a medical examination by a competent health care provider. Not to prevent abortions but to minimize complications like she had.

he same terms can describe pregnancy. It is a life threatening condition. Women can get pregnant without medical or government approval. For the most part they should be able to get out being pregnant without government approval, unnecessary impediments, or prosecution.

If you wish to 'get out of being pregnant', all you need do is wait some months and deliver a full term baby.

She could have gone to prison if the drugs were antibiotics.

I don't even buy Carepost online (generic Latisse used to make dem eyeball lashes bigger). I'm always surprised at the drugs people buy online.

I'm okay with me and mine choosing how to handle our life and death matters without the interference of legislators.

Posted by: Michelle at September 8, 2014 5:21

If you bothered to read the case you would find that she was charged with practicing medicine without a license, on an underage child.

The abortion regulations were just her excuse for the *do it yourself abortion* and she was not charged with violating the legislation.

So do you think parents who refuse to treat their kids for appendicitis except with *prayer* should be allowed to do that?
Or is abortion just a hot button topic for you?

Given the full-court press the anti-liberty bibble thumpers have used against abortion providers to shut down as many venues as possible, could it be true that the mother actually couldn't find a safe local provider?

For the hyperbole-inclined, is Mom just lying like a stereotypical feminist liberal Jesus-hating hellbound harlot?

Alternate acceptable answers include The Girl Was Asking For It, Liberals Eat Babies, and/or She's A Slut Who Cares.

Extra points for spelling and grammar.

I'm okay with me and mine choosing how to handle our life and death matters...

----

If you and yours are all mentally competent adults, have at it. But a 16-year-old is not old enough to understand and evaluate the risks inherent here, so there are safeguards put in place. If an adult wants to order questionable drugs off the internet for him/herself or hire a barber to pull his/her own teeth, that adult is an idiot but should be free to continue being that. If an adult decides to do those things for a minor child, that adult is a reckless, negligent parent at best and the child needs to be protected from that.

Given the full-court press the anti-liberty bibble thumpers have used against abortion providers to shut down as many venues as possible, could it be true that the mother actually couldn't find a safe local provider?

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 8, 2014 7:04 PM

Exactly. 74 miles round trip (or more, depending on your locale), from one to three times/ visits over 17 days, is not local.

Wait - why 1 to 3 times? Because the number of visits depends on what state you're in. On legislation. Not on science-based medical need.

~~~
Ppen - organic grass fed butter, mixed equally with coconut oil 1 tablespoon a day did wonders for my eyelashes after only three weeks. It's the only dairy I've kept in my diet.
~~~
If you and yours are all mentally competent adults, have at it. But a 16-year-old is not old enough to understand and evaluate the risks inherent here, so there are safeguards put in place.

Posted by: Jenny had a chance at September 8, 2014 7:17 PM

Odds are better in my house than in PA's house if representatives.

And PA has a law in place that requires 16 year old girls to get permission from their parents before getting an abortion - which this girl did. Failing that, 16 year old girls who want an abortion must appeal to a judge - not a doctor - who can send them off for an abortion with no promise of follow up care (nothing guarantees a 16 year old girl will show up for the follow up to be sure the miscarriage is complete).

This girl fared better in the hands of her mother.

~~~
Isab, those are not equivalent. Plenty of women have miscarriages without medical supervision. The legislature created a barrier where there need not be one, and is interfering in a way that discourages agency - including seeking medical assistance.

"Exactly. 74 miles round trip (or more, depending on your locale), from one to three times/ visits over 17 days, is not local.

Wait - why 1 to 3 times? Because the number of visits depends on what state you're in. On legislation. Not on science-based medical need."

All I hear is Whaaaaaa.

Just because you think you are entitled to am immediate abortion doesn't mean you can force either the state or an MD to perform one... Anymore than you can force them to perform an immediate hip replacement.
(Just try that in Canada)

There are many many places in this country where you have to travel a hundred miles or more one way for advanced medical treatment because the doctors who specialize in those treatments only work at the big medical centers.

Science based medical need (which very few abortions qualify as) wont get you a heart or a kidney transplant without a long wait.
This girl was not in mortal danger until her mother put her there.

I guess I fail to see where an immediate non therapeutic abortion should qualify as some sort of medical constitutional right.

So much of a right, in fact that you should be able to break the law to administer an abortion drug without medical supervision.

It was stupid and criminal.

The mifepristone/misoprostol combo of abortion pills is not approved for use, or considered safe, past 8 weeks (or 9 weeks in a couple European countries) due to high rates of hemorrhaging and other complications associated with later use (there were studies done on this). There is also a much higher risk of infection from retained tissue and the further along you are the less likely the medication is to terminate the pregnancy. If you go to any doctor or abortion provider they will do an ultrasound to date the pregnancy to make sure you are not farther along than 8 weeks. If you are you then require a D&C/D&E. Even my state, which does not restrict abortions, follows this protocol.

A 74 mile round trip is not particularly prohibitive in terms if distance to not be termed local. It's less than an hour one way. Hell, I used to drive more than that to and from work at a job that was considered to be local as I was in a suburb of the major city the job was in. It's just an excuse to not follow the medically responsible, legal steps in obtaining an abortion.

As far as this whole situation, if they didn't want to be in violation of the law, then perhaps the mother (or daughter) should have kept their mouth shut when they went to the ER, instead stating she was having a miscarriage and not complications from an illegal abortion with online pills. Or, they told the doctor precisely what happened because they recognized the seriousness of the situation after the fact.

"This was a crime against a minor child. The woman's own daughter."

"Prison is where she belongs."

"...when she took her daughter to the Emergency room, she blabbed about giving her daughter the drug, instead of shutting the fuck up."

"...if they didn't want to be in violation of the law, then perhaps the mother (or daughter) should have kept their mouth shut when they went to the ER, instead stating she was having a miscarriage and not complications from an illegal abortion with online pills. Or, they told the doctor precisely what happened because they recognized the seriousness of the situation after the fact."

Of course that last sentence is correct.

The article said the girl went to the ER because of "severe cramping and bleeding". I suppose if mother and daughter had some idea about why daughter was experiencing severe cramping and bleeding it would be wise for them to share that information with the ER doctors who were treating her; the diagnostic tests and procedures to treat cramping and bleeding caused by side effects of misoprostol and mifepristone might be different than for cramping and bleeding caused by a miscarriage, an ectopic pregnancy or who knows what else. Not sharing such pertinent information with the ER doctors would have been stupid.

It was foolish for Whalen to give drugs as risky as misoprostol and mifepristone to her daughter without the guidance and backup of a doctor. But those drugs are widely represented by abortion providers and advocacy groups as being very low risk and safe to use, so it's not hard to see how she could reasonably believe that she was not endangering her daughter.

The mother is a nurse's aid, not a nurse. Nurse's aids work hard, but they don't make very much money. If mother and daughter are living on the income of a nurse's aid then they would struggle to pay for barely decent food, shelter and clothing - let alone the cost of an elective abortion and multiple trips to and from a clinic that's 74 miles away - one way, not round trip. The difference between $45 to get the drugs online and $300 plus to get them from a clinic would be a lot harder for them to pay (maybe even impossible) than for the people passing judgment on them.

Most people do the best they can to meet their needs with what they have. Sometimes people who have less than we do have to take risks we wouldn't take to get something they need. The greater the risk, the greater the chance they'll make a mistake.

I don't see anything to indicate that Whalen wasn't just trying to do the best she could with what she had to get what she thought her daughter needed. If she had malicious intent, or was motivated by chintzyness and greed, then as suggested above she could have covered her ass by not telling the ER doctor that she'd given her daughter drugs she'd acquired without the government's permission.

The woman made a big mistake. What's done can't be undone. Whether they punish her or not, it's not likely she'll ever do that again. So what's the point in punishing her? They should cut her some slack and let her go.

While I agree the mother is in the wrong, I dont see how a year of jail is in anyones interest.

I read some of the basics wrong - the girl lives in Washingtonville, in Montour County (not Washington County). The closest abortion provider is in Harrisburg (easier to navigate, but first you have to get there - and google maps lists no public transportation method between the two locations).

The 74 mile trek takes an hour and a half - each way. So this is a three hour round-trip drive each way, two or three times within 17 days.

This travel is required solely due to legislation, not medical realities.

Pennsylvania law requires that "Only a physician may provide mifepristone to induce an abortion, and that must take place in a facility registered with the Department of Health to provide abortions."

http://www.riskworld.com/pressrel/2000/00q4/PR00a086.htm

So it's not enough to get the pill prescribed by a qualified doctor - this pill has to be handed to you in a facility registered to provide abortions.

And there has recently been a spate of regulations about the layout and equipment of those facilities that has required them to be more like hospital suites - driving up costs and forcing some places to shut down.

Why are these regulations necessary prerequisites for giving someone a pill she takes before going home to have a miscarriage? *They aren't.*

The FDA has much more relaxed requirements:

"6. What qualifications must doctors have to obtain mifepristone?

Doctors must have the ability to date pregnancies accurately and to diagnose tubal pregnancies. Doctors must also be qualified to provide any necessary surgery, or have made arrangements for any necessary surgery. Doctors must ensure that women have access to medical facilities for emergency care [...]

8. Can health care providers other than doctors dispense mifepristone?

Some states allow physicians to supervise other health care practitioners, such as certified registered nurse practitioners and nurse midwives, and these states may allow a supervised health care provider to dispense mifepristone. Health care providers should check their state law provisions."

from: fda (dot) gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm111359.htm

Pennsylvania legislature has passed a lot of laws that drive up the costs for these pills, putting them literally and financially out of reach for a lot of people - and then punishes people who have to find alternative means to get the drugs they need.

Artificially driving up the cost of a drug for reasons that are not medically necessary and then punishing poor people for trying to make a purchase they can afford from a willing seller - how is this ethical? How is this medicine?

"I'm okay with me and mine choosing how to handle our life and death matters without the interference of legislators."

Wow. You apparently can diagnose medical conditions and prescribe medication capable of fatal side effects with accuracy. You can also determine end-of-life means without undue burden to the public, and so forth.

What are you doing posting here? You should be out saving lives!

You know what's still practically free and relatively easy to get? Birth control and condoms.

All the parents in this case shoulda made sure the kids (because there's a teenage boy and his parents out there who had a part to play in this) had access to those. And made sure that they were using them. Seems to me a little education PRIOR to her daughter having sex might have gone a lot further than trying to 'fix it later.' This was an act of stupidity and ignorance all around. Do I think it warrants jail time? I can't say. But it most certainly requires some accountability. She could have killed her daughter because she was unwilling (not unable) to go through the protocal for legal and safe abortion.

As I've said before, there is NO excuse for teenage, unplanned pregnancy and certainly no excuse for teenage abortion with all the methods of prevention that are out there.

Abortion isn't a "right". It's an unecassary medical procedure, much like plastic surgery, and is very rarely used because the mothers life is in danger. Abortion is about conveniance. It's just as regulated as any other OPTIONAL medical procedure. Can you imagine the horror if mom had followed prodecure and her daughter had ended up another victim of a botch doctor? Pretty much every pro-abortion supporter would be screaming for the doctors head, the mothers head and for more regulation to make sure it didn't happen again. You (general) people really need to pick a stance and stick to it.

What are you doing posting here? You should be out saving lives!

Posted by: Radwaste at September 9, 2014 6:21 AM

I'd rather do what I can to keep people free to save their own lives.

While I agree the mother is in the wrong, I dont see how a year of jail is in anyones interest.

Posted by: Nicolek at September 9, 2014 3:08 AM

She didn't get a year in jail. She got a form of supervised detention that allowed her to keep her job, and community service.

This whole case has about as much relationship to Pennsylvania's statutes regarding abortion clinics, as *stand your ground* did in the Trayvon Martin case.

It is a red herring thrown up there for political purposes, for the *War on Wimmins*

"Oh, and I would venture that it is far more health-risking to give birth at home than to take this pill at home. Anybody sending those women to jail?" Amy...

becasue certainly millions of years of evolution have made the survival of the human race, fraught with peril, amiright? Don't be obtuse.

yup, it ain't perfectly safe, even in hospital, but neither is it FORCING A MISCARRIAGE, on a body that is not tending towards one.

Which is why she HAD to go to the hospital.

This story is all about choices an adult made, likely full well knowing, as a nurse's aid, what the consequence was. D'ya think she had help choosing what drugs and where to get them from by one of the nurses, or perhaps doctors she worked with? Do you imagine they told her there would be trouble if anyone found out?

All the choices made by multiple parties leading up to all of this were also less than stellar, byt the two kids starting all this off, certainly.

But why would a nurse's aid not have taught her daughter the COST of getting preggers, and made sure to drill her on the bad outcomes? She probably sees it every day.

The boya that got all this in motion, certainly needs a lesson too, but that is out of scope for this conversation.

condoms are cheap and used as needed. The pill is also cheap, and could be proscribed by the doc this nurse's aid works for.

The law is unfair, perhaps, but so is the seatbelt law. You still have to follow it until/if you can get it repealed.

"I'm okay with me and mine choosing how to handle our life and death matters without the interference of legislators." Michelle.

Oh, yeah? And what if the interference of those legislators is the very thing that keeps you alive? That is just the other extremity from BigBrotherKnowsBest.
EVEN IF you put your trust in law, bad things can happen, See: Kermit Gosnell where everyone was looking the other way.

Regardless if the law was right/wrong this mother violated it, and almost paid with her daughter's life.

I have hope that maybe the harshness of what has happened will wake the parties up to the magnitude of life and death decision making, and help them to choose wisely.

Perhaps a vain hope indeed.

Given the full-court press the anti-liberty bibble thumpers have used against abortion providers to shut down as many venues as possible, could it be true that the mother actually couldn't find a safe local provider?

The Bible-thumpers are pointing out the obvious: hiring perverted gynecologists to dismember unborn children or soak them in caustic brine is characteristic of a society populated with psychopaths.

"The Bible-thumpers are pointing out the obvious: hiring perverted gynecologists to dismember unborn children or soak them in caustic brine is characteristic of a society populated with psychopaths. "

You left out the part where I specifically addressed the hyperbole-inclined.

"Only a physician may provide mifepristone to induce an abortion, and that must take place in a facility registered with the Department of Health to provide abortions."

If the action created by taking these pills is so "safe" that it does not need to be done in a facility "registered" to provide abortions why did the girl have problems? Good thing there was a hospital nearby.

You undergoing a procedure that can be medically problematic. If it requires TIME from your busy schedule then OMG take the time.

Too bad your gutless Dems could not force drive-thru abortions (want fries w/those pills?) back when they controlled the Presidency and Congress.

"Which is why she HAD to go to the hospital."

If the reason for making a law to require women to use this pill under medical supervision is to encourage women to use this medication under medical supervision in order to protect women from the possible side effects, then don't press criminal charges when they seek medical attention because they want assistance handling the side effects.

Slap a warning label on the drug and dispense it from a pharmacy on demand. A bottle of over the counter pain killers or an ill advised home repair project could also kill you - even if you're not using them in an ill advised effort to end a pregnancy, as women have been known to do.

You left out the part where I specifically addressed the hyperbole-inclined.

No hyperbole in my game.

"If the reason for making a law to require women to use this pill under medical supervision is to encourage women to use this medication under medical supervision in order to protect women from the possible side effects, then don't press criminal charges when they seek medical attention because they want assistance handling the side effects."

You are ignoring the issue that this adult, did not take the drug herself, she gave it to a 16 year old.

This woman went to great lengths and spent a considerable amount of time to acquire a drug available in the US by prescription only to be used only in the first eight weeks of pregnancy, and only under medical supervision, from an online pharmacy based in France.

If she had given her daughter *any* controlled drug or any illegal drug that had put her in the emergency room! she would have been charged with the same crime.

For the last time, this case is not about this particular drug. And it is not about access to abortion, it is about playing doctor, with controlled and dangerous substances.

The law has to be very general to cover people who would literally poison their kids treating them with folk remedies, or giving small children alcohol or Benedryl to make them sleep.

You cant carve out an exception for abortion drugs just because it is your favorite medical procedure.

In general, I think drug laws are way too restrictive, on a lot of things that should be over the counter,

This particular drug combination is not one of them.

This woman worked really hard to evade the law, and is probably darn lucky she didn't get charged with murder.

"If the reason for making a law to require women to use this pill under medical supervision is to encourage women to use this medication under medical supervision in order to protect women from the possible side effects..." Michelle

The primary law in question is that abortions must be preformed by doctors. The drugs are for inducing abortions, so when you give them to a kid, it's an abortion. And her mom was NOT a doctor.

Do you want somebody who is not a doctor to operate on you?

She procured drugs that must be prescribed, without a prescription over the internet. This is also illegal.

She endangered the life of her daughter by giving her those drugs without a doctor being involved.

Those reasons are why this is a criminal case. Had the daughter died, probably at least manslaughter or murder 2nd...

The other whys and wherefores are secondary to that.

I drove 70 miles from where I live to take my daughter to get her wisdom teeth removed. I did not get it done the same day. I had to go there first and get a consult on her, make sure the xrays were done, make sure I paid my co-pay up front. And then we came back a second time about 3 weeks later. Not sure what the big hairy deal is about driving a distance to go to an abortion clinic or having to go multiple times. This is not unusual for medical procedures. You would wait 2 weeks during pregnancy for those illegal, dangerous pills to arrive, but not go ahead and have this taken care of under medical supervision? I still fail to see exactly how far along this child was, and I also cannot find where the pregnancy actually terminated or not. Bad idea on the mom's part. Bad idea.

74 miles round trip? Jesus, where do all you people live that you think that is a loooong way to go? Where these folks live seems to be country (Washingtonville, Pennsylvania - population 273 during the 2010 census) - you have to drive that far to get anything anyway.

Spend 45 bucks instead of 300-400 hundred when dealing with something that directly affects your daughter's health or life? That doesn't sound very smart to me. I know money is tight for some people; but, still, eat beans and rice for a month to save some money.

I'm not sure what prompted this mom to think that was the "best" thing to do. But, I'd be willing to bet that it has something to do with the attitude of "just take a pill for whatever ails you."

Sorry, this type of medicine isn't quite that simple and should be supervised by medical professionals.

Thank God that the mother wised up and took her daughter to the local hospital when things got really bad.

Jail time would not be in this family's best interest. (and it most likely won't be prison anyway). But, still, this wasn't a well thought out thing to do.

"No hyperbole in my game."

Yeah, I'm gonna call 'bullshit' on that one.

"You are ignoring the issue that this adult, did not take the drug herself, she gave it to a 16 year old."

Posted by: Isab at September 9, 2014 12:58 PM

I'm not ignoring that. We disagree on this matter.

SwissArmy, RU-486 is referred to in medical terms (as in, FDA website, etc.) as a medical abortion, as distinct from a surgical abortion. Taking RU-486 at home is not analogous to taking out one's appendix at home.

I know many people who have to avoid taking aspirin products so that they don't bleed out.

I also know women who have miscarried at home - awful, scary amounts of blood - and called in to the doctor. And had a telephone consult, with advice to make sure one does not run a fever or feel flu-like, and the option of coming in for a check up.

Pennsylvania's legislature - not a medical body - created requirements far more stringent than those created by the Federal Drug Administration. Despite the fact that the FDA's requirements are already *unusually* restrictive:

"Paul Blumenthal, medical director of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, stated that FDA was making unprecedented demands on physicians prescribing RU-486. According to Blumenthal, “what they have recommended in terms of the kind
of certification and licensing of providers before they can provide the drug is beyond what they do with any other drug. ... [It] certainly seems that a different standard is
being used for [RU-486].”44 Generally, FDA either approves or does not approve a drug, and only rarely does the agency place restrictions on how a drug can be used by doctors. Lars Noah, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in FDA issues, could only identify two cases in which severe restrictions were placed on the use of a drug, Acutane (acne drug) and thalidomide (AIDS and leprosy treatment), both because of the risk of birth defects.

Abortion rights advocates were also concerned about requiring that only physicians trained in providing surgical abortions be allowed to prescribe RU-486. The number of physicians trained in performing surgical abortion has been steadily
declining. Many attribute the decline to terrorism from groups opposed to abortion. Pro-choice advocates, on the other hand, agreed with FDA that “providers need specific training in how to administer the drug, counsel patients on its use and provide surgical backup in case there are complications or the drug fails to work, which happens in 5% of cases.”

source: http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL30866.pdf

...at (pages) CRS-8 and -9.

Most prescription medications have limitations in what they are to be used and prescribed for. That's why there are approved uses and contraindications for each drug. The main issue with abortion pills is that it is a combination of medications that need to be taken as neither of the two is that effective on their own. You take mifepristone to inhibit progesterone receptors so the fetus can't survive and the uterine lining deteriorates. You take misoprostol to cause the contractions that expel the fetus and other uterine contents. This combo is roughly 85% effective. However, misoprostol is known to cause uterine hyperstimulation, severe contractions, heavy bleeding, and risk of uterine rupture. It's not just some harmless medication.