Press "Enter" to skip to content

Cassidy, Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Prohibit Teleabortions

02.07.20

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) this week introduced legislation to protect the sanctity of human life by prohibiting chemical abortions from being performed without the supervision of a healthcare provider. U.S. Senators Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Steve Daines (R-MT), James Lankford (R-OK), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Tim Scott (R-SC), and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) joined Cassidy as original cosponsors of the bill.

The Teleabortion Prevention Act would make it a federal offense for healthcare providers to perform a chemical abortion without first physically examining the patient, being present during the procedure, and scheduling a follow-up visit for the patient. This legislation builds on the efforts of several states to curtail teleabortion and care for mothers throughout their pregnancy. 

The bill would also stop attempts by pro-abortion groups who use teleabortion to work around state law.

“Louisiana requires a physician performing an abortion to have admitting rights at a local hospital. This is for the safety of the mother. Teleabortion clearly does not comply,” said Dr. Cassidy. 

“Chemical abortions already put women at astonishing risk, and mail-order abortions put up even more barriers between women and critical medical care. If we really want to protect vulnerable women and children, we have to stop the dangerous trend of mail-order abortions,” said Kennedy.

“I firmly believe that advances in medicine should be used to save lives, not take them away,” said Inhofe. “Chemical abortions are already dangerous, but allowing chemical abortions to take place through telemedicine, creates even more risk. I applaud Sen. Cassidy for his leadership of the Teleabortion Prevention Act, which would make the performance of mail-order abortions a federal offense, and I am glad to support it as a cosponsor.” 

“Performing an abortion without the presence of a health care provider puts the lives of both the mother and unborn child in serious danger. Chemical abortions present serious risks, and health care providers need to be responsible stewards of that knowledge,” said Blackburn.

“Pregnant mothers deserve to be protected from dangerous teleabortions,” said Daines. “We must stop the radical abortion lobby’s reckless campaign to allow unsafe, do-it-yourself chemical abortions, without ever physically seeing a doctor.”

“Prescribing chemical abortions to moms over the internet without an examination or even physically seeing them is not healthcare,” said Lankford. “In addition to taking the life of an unborn child, chemical abortions can pose serious health risks and complications for pregnant women. The Teleabortion Prevention Act protects pregnant women by holding doctors accountable to make sure they are not circumventing patient care. The right to life is not a partisan issue; it’s a human issue—for both the mother and child.”

“Proponents of abortion say it should be a safe, rare decision made between a mother and a qualified doctor, but now there is a movement to provide abortions with little-to-no consultation with a physician. Killing an unborn child is wrong, and encouraging women to undergo that procedure without knowing the impact is egregious,” said Cramer. “Our pro-life legislation counters these efforts and works to protect mothers and unborn children.”

“I think with such an important decision with lifetime consequences, we should not allow teleabortions,” said Senator Tim Scott. “Not only are teleabortions unsafe, they pose a threat to the lives of mothers, putting them through unhealthy and unnecessary risks.” 

###



Go to Source
Author:

All Information was gathered from publicly available US Government releases. "§105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. ( Pub. L. 94–553, title I, §101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2546 .)" http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:17%20section:105%20edition:prelim)