The American Medical Association Is Suing North Dakota Over ‘Scientifically Unsound’ Abortion Laws
The American Medical Association is suing the state of North Dakota over abortion laws that the AMA claims are scientifically unsound.
The AMA sued the state of North Dakota on June 26 over a law passed in March and signed by Republican North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, according to an AMA press release. The law, H.B. 1336, requires doctors to tell patients that medication abortions can be reversed.
The AMA filed a lawsuit against North Dakota in collaboration with the last abortion clinic in North Dakota, Red River Women’s Clinic and the Center for Reproductive Rights, according to WaPo.
“The patient-physician relationship is the cornerstone of health care, and depends upon honest, open conversations about all of a patient’s health care options,” said AMA President Patrice A. Harris, according to the AMA press release.
“North Dakota’s law undermines this relationship by requiring physicians to mislead and misinform their patients with messages that contradict reality and science. The AMA will always defend science and open conversations about all health care options available to patients.”
H.B. 1336 requires health care providers tell women who wish to receive abortions “that it may be possible to reverse the effects of an abortion-inducing drug if she changes her mind, but time is of the essence.” The law is set to go into effect on August 1.
The AMA says that doctors under North Dakota law would be forced to provide misinformation and scientifically unsound advice. (RELATED: These Abortion Survivors Have A Message For Planned Parenthood’s Leana Wen)
Molly Duane, the lead lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, told WaPo that the North Dakota laws force doctors to recommend experimental treatment.
Both the AMA and Red River Women’s Clinic are also contesting an already existing provision that requires the doctor to tell patients that abortion will “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”
The plaintiffs claim this language is biased and “forces physicians to act as the mouthpiece of the state,” according to the Washington Post.