URGENT: For every dollar given, 34 more people can be reached with the truth about abortion. Will you join us in this life-saving work as a monthly donor today?

“Like other medical procedures, the state may regulate who may perform abortions without infringing on a patient’s right to receive a pre-viability abortion,” he told the court. “Plaintiffs get it wrong when they suggest the state doesn’t have a role in setting such scope-of-practice rules.”

“Fundamental rights do not attach to seeking medical care from unlicensed providers,” he added.

Hillary Schneller from the Center for Reproductive Rights, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, countered that it is a private choice for a woman to decide who her abortionist will be. “Medical decisions must often and necessarily be made in partnership with a health care provider. And so it is critical that the individual has control over who that provider is to fully effectuate their right to make this decision and to access care,” Schneller said.

In his arguments, Mead also pointed out that doctors are equipped to provide emergency medical care if a woman starts hemorrhaging following an abortion, but nurses would have to dial 911 and transport the patient to the hospital if such a situation arises. These situations are not simply anecdotal; though the mainstream media is often silent on such tragedies, Live Action News has documented many instances of abortion injuries resulting in 911 calls and ambulance transport to a local hospital.

Abortion includes many potential risks, including infection, hemorrhaging, damage to the cervix and uterus, scar tissue, damage to the uterine lining, and even death. When the procedure is performed by someone who is not a medical doctor, women are placed in even greater danger.

Following the arguments, Justice Mike McGrath told the attorneys the court would “take this matter under advisement and issue an opinion in due course.”

URGENT: For every dollar given, 34 more people can be reached with the truth about abortion. Will you join us in this life-saving work as a monthly donor today?

“Like other medical procedures, the state may regulate who may perform abortions without infringing on a patient’s right to receive a pre-viability abortion,” he told the court. “Plaintiffs get it wrong when they suggest the state doesn’t have a role in setting such scope-of-practice rules.”

“Fundamental rights do not attach to seeking medical care from unlicensed providers,” he added.

Hillary Schneller from the Center for Reproductive Rights, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, countered that it is a private choice for a woman to decide who her abortionist will be. “Medical decisions must often and necessarily be made in partnership with a health care provider. And so it is critical that the individual has control over who that provider is to fully effectuate their right to make this decision and to access care,” Schneller said.

In his arguments, Mead also pointed out that doctors are equipped to provide emergency medical care if a woman starts hemorrhaging following an abortion, but nurses would have to dial 911 and transport the patient to the hospital if such a situation arises. These situations are not simply anecdotal; though the mainstream media is often silent on such tragedies, Live Action News has documented many instances of abortion injuries resulting in 911 calls and ambulance transport to a local hospital.

Abortion includes many potential risks, including infection, hemorrhaging, damage to the cervix and uterus, scar tissue, damage to the uterine lining, and even death. When the procedure is performed by someone who is not a medical doctor, women are placed in even greater danger.

Following the arguments, Justice Mike McGrath told the attorneys the court would “take this matter under advisement and issue an opinion in due course.”