Pennsylvania mother who gave daughter abortion pill gets prison

a reply to: kaylaluv

You're right. Online pharmacist are the key.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: intrepid
I'd NEVER do is attempt to administer drugs to my kids that came in the mail.

Something you would never have need to consider if there was LOCAL access.

That's not an answer. Would you administer a drug you got in the mail to your grandkid?

Not an answer?

There would be NO QUESTION if this woman/teen had access to LOCAL help.

Are you saying "YES" I would administer this to my grand/child?

I'm not answering a question that should never have been. "Cart before the Horse".

However, I live on the Mexican border. Many parents walk across the border to get meds over the counter that they can only get by prescription in the US.

A Pill Available in Mexico Is a Texas Option for Abortion

www.nytimes.com...

NOTE: I have done many things I said I would never do. I don't say that anymore.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
And my nearest neurosurgeon is about 74 miles away. I guess I should order some equipment online and do my own kid's brain surgery?

I have NOT ONCE defended the mother's actions. If that's all you have, then don't bother. I said she should be punished. What she did was dangerous. But the laws in the state are draconian.

I have taken drugs I ordered online, by the way.

But you guys seem to be making her A). a martyr for the cause and B). forget the fact that such restrictions are not just an American issue. Other countries have similar regulations due to the potential life threatening complications of the procedure and/or medication.

Like in Texas--they wanted to pass a law where abortion doctors had to have admitting privileges in the local hospital. Certainly lawmakers may have been acting out of an anti-abortion mindset, I have to concede that point. However, all the law did was raise abortion providers to the same medical standards of other doctors who perform procedures of the same level of invasiveness--they have to have admitting privileges due to the potential complications of their clinic based procedures and could not legally do them without.

Because of the political nature of abortion, clinics were given a pass from the medical standards of care in the US--many other countries have more stringent standards, BTW--that applied to every other clinic that performs moderately invasive procedures.

Regardless of the underlying religious reason for the act, the medical and ethical reasons are sound and consistent with values neutral medical decision making.

Now, the problem is that many abortion providers would not meet the criteria to get admitting privileges and would not want to have them because that equates to longer hours (call usually comes with the privilege) and less pay (reimbursements are much better in clinic based procedures than hospital based procedures--you don't share the fee with the hospital.)

Yes, there is not simple altruism in providing this sort of procedure, it can be very lucrative--not that I disagree with being paid fee for service--just pointing out that the issue is not as black and white as people seem to make it out to be.

a reply to: Annee

Right. In other words you wouldn't. This woman should have put in more time and less online "easyout".

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: NavyDoc

That's what's happened in Texas, new construction standards which left everything but ambulatory clinics available, 6 in one of the largest states in the USA. Unfortunately policies can be superceeded by religiously backed politicians looking for reelection. Now it wouldn't surprise me if some women drive to Mexico to have an abortion, the same was true with the drug Ibogaine which cures addiction quickly and painlessly.
I'm not advocating we need to put a clinic in every town but there should be a safteynet in place to make sure those in need don't resort to dangerous, rash decisions. This is a situation that comes with a ticking clock attached.

But that would also put some onus on providers to maintain the proper facilities, credentials, and training. Certainly it would cost money to bring their clinics up to standard, but that would cost them money and hurt their profits, which is why they objected to the rule in Texas. I thought profit was evil for a doc, is that another exemption for an abortion provider?

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: kaylaluv

You're right. Online pharmacist are the key.

Well my point is, one can rationalize anything when they are desperate enough. She may have thought, yeah, I'm taking a risk here, but don't we all take risks when we take meds? We don't know what side effects we are going to have. I know you have seen the drug commercials that by law have to list all the potential side effects, like cancer and DEATH. Sometimes people feel the risk is worth it. Unfortunately, this woman and her daughter felt the risk was worth it. She may have thought it would be better than sticking a coat hanger up her daughter.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

No, not necessarily in a store but they are available via abortion and some medical clinics in most cities. One of the big issues with what this mother did was that this particular drug actually requires a follow up drug to induce contractions to make sure that everything is clear. Without that second drug, it ups the chance of failed termination and/or infection. So really very risky move on the mom's part. It's good that she took her daughter into the ER though the moment things didn't seem to be going ok.

The risks the mother took playing doctor here is what has me on the fence as to whether or not she should be facing jail time. There's nothing in the article noting whether she researched what all needed to be done to make it safe for her daughter including ordering that second drug. Incredibly risky.

I'm probably going to catch some flak here but I'd say that, considering the risks that she exposed her daughter to, giving the mother some jail time is necessary to deter this from repeating because RU-486 is, like you said, not the day after pill.

And that's the thing. It seems the issue is not some anti-abortion crusade but an untrained and unqualified person illegally getting a potentially dangerous drug and administering it without follow up, physical exam, history, etc--everything that a good healthcare professional does.

The daughter could have had some very serious complications.

Yep. That's how I see this. I don't fault the daughter's choice for opting to not have a child, nor do I fault the mother for supporting her daughter's choice. I find that commendable as parents are often too quick to roast their child in a variety of ways for being a dumb kid. What I fault is precisely as you said--obtaining and utilizing a drug that is not necessarily safe, can be dangerous and etc.

I find it terribly sad that this is what this mother felt like she had to do for her daughter. However, that's a whole other discussion in regards to whether or not abortions should be readily available to all women and not simply those who live in the right place or have enough money for one.

originally posted by: intrepid
This woman should have put in more time and less online "easyout".

You're really "stuck".

Maybe some self-righteous "un-stick" glue would be a good choice.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Don't get me started on what I think of the medical system in the US, too many times I see honest, caring, hard working doctors and nurses held with the same contempt for the entire system at large.
In all actuality the 'pill' in my eyes was created to circumvent the existing system of insurance/liability the US created, by pharmacologist's exploiting it's weaknesses. They just haven't figured out a way to make it inevasive enough yet. That is what they are doing, years ago people used to wait in line all morning for methadone, now 1 visit every 3 months with a psychiatrist and 1 trip to a pharmacy is all it takes. Soon this topic will no longer be in public scrutiny.
I hope someone appeals the case for her to at least ammend the charges. With enough notoriety it should happen soon enough. Then again I don't know what's worse offhand the abortion charge or child endangerment. Either way the poor teen that made the mistake will now be ostracized by all her peers, what a sad irony this is.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: intrepid
This woman should have put in more time and less online "easyout".

You're really "stuck".

Maybe some self-righteous "un-stick" glue would be a good choice.

I made a point. You made an insult. Think about it.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: intrepid
This woman should have put in more time and less online "easyout".

You're really "stuck".

Maybe some self-righteous "un-stick" glue would be a good choice.

I made a point. You made an insult. Think about it.

I actually see it in the reverse.

originally posted by: intrepid
Are you SURE what you bought is what you GOT.

Yes. I took my seizure medication for about a year and a half from an online source. There are ways to identify the meds.

I know what I got from my pharmacist. See the difference?

No. There's isn't 100% guarantee that everything is as it seems. I have also gotten the wrong Rx from my local pharmacy.

a reply to: xuenchen
Oh you are so funny.

I'm glad i miscarried naturally instead of going for an abortion, so i wouldn't have to listen to the likes of you.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
But you guys seem to be making her A). a martyr for the cause and B). forget the fact that such restrictions are not just an American issue. Other countries have similar regulations due to the potential life threatening complications of the procedure and/or medication.

I don't care what it seems like to you. "We guys" don't share a brain. My opinion is my own. Don't just lump us together and assume where we stand on this issue. I am not making her a martyr. She's alive and she's proof there are draconian laws in effect in Pennsylvania, as well as other states. I don't care about other country's restrictions. Childbirth is a potential life threatening situation. In fact, it's more dangerous than a safe abortion.

Each person should have autonomy and not have the government making laws that make it harder and harder for women to have this important medical procedure.

If this were about men, their penises and testicles, and whether or not that information should be public and have the government telling you what you can and cannot do regarding your sex organs, or if it was private and between men and their doctor - if we were making laws about how much control you have over your own body, we wouldn't even be discussing this!

Because of the political nature of abortion, clinics were given a pass from the medical standards of care in the US--many other countries have more stringent standards, BTW--that applied to every other clinic that performs moderately invasive procedures.

Abortion should NOT have a "political nature"! It's between a woman and her doctor!

I'm not sure what to think since im not aware of the types of pills exactly what they all do since there are various kinds. Obviously it shouldnt be illegal for her to get a abortion or be forced to get a workaround for her to do so but if its a pill that could be dangerous for her to take then i could see the trouble but i highly doubt this is about endangerment of misuse of pills its just political bs about the gov trying to control female bodies.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It's between a woman and her doctor!

Exactly and not the mailman.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Yeah.. that's what I was getting at by explaining it was a more serious medication and that the mother did deserve punishment (just not jail time or a year in jail). I knew a girl that had an abortion using a pill. She was given the option of a procedure or a pill that was effective later than the morning after. She took the latter.

I don't think they require a follow up, but likely the doctor has to make sure you aren't taking other medications or have any illnesses that might be affected by the medication. Also it would be on the record and there would be someone for the person to call if they did experience any other negative effects. From what the girl I know that took told me it basically causes an abortion that appears as a very heavy painful menstruation.

a reply to: Annee

That's actually not the issue here. I think it was that she endangered her daughter. I do think the jail time is way excessive. If it was about right to choose then the girl that had the abortion would be in trouble. The reason her mother is in trouble is because she obtained drugs that can't be legally purchased over the counter in this country, from another country, to have a seemingly secret abortion rather than just taking her daughter to the clinic for the same treatment in a safer setting.

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: Annee

That's actually not the issue here. I think it was that she endangered her daughter.

The issue for me is it never should have happened.

If she had LOCAL access to a women's clinic for her needs ----- it would not have happened.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: intrepid
Are you SURE what you bought is what you GOT.

Yes. I took my seizure medication for about a year and a half from an online source. There are ways to identify the meds.

I know what I got from my pharmacist. See the difference?

No. There's isn't 100% guarantee that everything is as it seems. I have also gotten the wrong Rx from my local pharmacy.

But would you switch to an anti-seizure med that you've not used before without consulting a doctor first? I was on methotrexate off and on for years and I'd be loathe to order it online and administer it to myself because of the potential risks involved. I certainly wouldn't order and administer even a similar drug such as Imuran to myself that I had never used without medical advisement/consultation.

Stripping away the abortion issues, this woman technically administered a drug to her daughter without prior medical consultation or prescription. That would be the equivalent of you switching to an anti-seizure med that you had never used without a neuro's input or my going on imuran.

That's pretty straightforward in my book and the mother should be penalized for that. However, the issue that created that scenario should be appropriately corrected. However, as Navydoc pointed out, there are a lot of people in the US that have made what others do with their own bodies their business and hence it's become "political". Saying that abortion is "political" doesn't mean that the fact that it has been politicized is right. It's just the sad fact that was the exact reason why this woman ended up ordering mifepristone online for her daughter.

Griswold v. Connecticut, Einstadt v. Baird, and Roe v. Wade--all three of those cases basically were Supreme Court opinions that point blank said that the government has no vested interest in what people do with their bodies or in their bedrooms (along as its consenting adults involved lol). However, that doesn't stop politicians from using the subject to drum up support upon what should be a done deal as per the Supreme Court. This woman should've been able to take her daughter to a gynecologist and received the prescription. It's not necessarily laws that create this scenario but pressure from groups. A lot of doctors won't even touch any of it at all due to fears of death threats. Why the nearest clinic was 74 miles away isn't necessarily just laws but a whole slew of other issues and mostly from people who think it's their business when it's not even the government's.