Dishonest abortion activists sidestepped the will of the Ohio Legislature last week, overriding the red state’s laws with Issue 1’s radical protections for abortion. But California Gov. Gavin Newsom has a different tactic for forcing unwanted abortions on red states.
Recently, Newsom signed into law what are supposedly protections for California-based doctors and pharmacists who break other states’ laws by distributing chemical abortion pills. This regimen for death includes two drugs: mifepristone (which blocks the hormone progesterone to kill the preborn baby) and misoprostol (which induces contractions to flush the child out of the woman).
When chemical abortion pills are advertised online and sent through the mail without testing, women become distanced from life-saving care and consultation as they are exposed to the risk of injury, infertility, or death from these dangerous drugs. Abusers can easily take advantage of the abortion-by-mail process to keep their victims from help.
Despite clear risks for women, California is actively seeking to extend its serial murdering spree into states that do have protective measures in place, via pharmacists filling online orders for abortion pills. Newsom assures these pharmacists the state will protect them should legal action arise.
Yet pharmacists should beware: The state of California is attempting to set a dangerous precedent.
Take this plausible scenario for an example: A pharmacist in California mails abortion drugs to a state where they are illegal. The patient on the receiving end of this transaction was never physically examined by a physician (and certainly not by the person prescribing the pills) — a perilous practice that is gaining traction. Tragically, such a lack of oversight leads to the patient experiencing complications, and her life, along with her preborn child’s, is ended.
The laws governing the dispensing of chemical abortion pills are clear and unequivocal in this late patient’s state, and now the California pharmacist who prescribed the drugs faces charges of negligent homicide.
Can you really see a scenario in which a skillful lawyer stops pursuing these charges simply because California wants to claim that its laws hold “more weight” than those of another state?
Consider also the recent, heartbreaking case in Nevada where CVS pharmacists accidentally gave a woman who was undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) pills that caused a direct abortion, killing her twin preborn children. Timika Thomas was supposed to be picking up medication that would support the two lives growing inside her, yet instead experienced “extreme pain” both mentally and physically after taking the wrongfully given drugs.
An investigation found that a series of mistakes led to the disaster. According to a report on the incident, one clinical technician entered the wrong drug name into the prescription, incorrectly thinking she knew the generic name for the brand-name drug prescribed by Thomas’ doctor. One pharmacist also did not catch the error, and when Thomas came to pick up her medication, another pharmacist failed to follow protocol and counsel her on the pills as it was her first time receiving the drug.
Will California ensure that when mistakes like this are made, the pharmacist experiences no legal repercussions or loss of license?…
From the Federalist
Sue ’em right into the stone age….
Yes, our “brother” governor is endangering pharmacists. But, at least he’s protecting the Communist Chinese dictator and got rid of the homeless for the occasion of a meeting in San Francisco with our other “brother” Joe. Solution to homelessness: invite the Chi Comms and the cops clear out all the unhoused in hours. That’s liberal/progressive compassion for sure.
Chow mein.
Always check medication you receive at a drug store or through the mail. Make sure you get what you are supposed to take. If you have doubts about a change in color or size, ask the pharmacy why that is so before you take a pill. Count your pills. I have gotten some that were one pill short and at other times one too many. At another time I received only half a prescription, but the label said I had gotten the total amount. I called them, and they said they had run short and made up the different days later. If I had not noticed and called, I may never have received them.
And never take abortion pills.
Gruesome Newsom will never be President.
The story begins: “Dishonest abortion activists sidestepped the will of the Ohio Legislature last week, overriding the red state’s laws with Issue 1’s radical protections for abortion.”
What is “dishonest” about submitting a constitutional amendment to state voters in a lawful election? If the people want to vote for a law that would nullify other laws that the legislature has enacted, that’s legitimate. Pro-lifers don’t like the result of a lawful election, so they cast aspersions on it.
dishonest? Laws that kill the unborn are dastardly and dishonest. America Repent.
So, you are publishing the ideas of The Federalist now. For a national group with original ties to the Yale Law School, they have interesting ideas about the nation’s legal system. No state has the authority to set laws about what happens in other states. California is simply saying that another state can’t accuse a California citizen of a crime not committed in their state.
The first sentence of the article tells of the bias in the reporting: Dishonest abortion activists sidestepped the will of the Ohio Legislature. The article makes 57% of the voters in Ohio dishonest activists. It is the duty of the people to “sidestep” the will of the legislature if they think the legislature made a bad law. The legislature reports to the people, not the other way around.
If anything was dishonest, it was the article and the headline.
“So, you are publishing the ideas of The Federalist now.” Bob One, this is the beginning of an ad hominem argument. The issue is not the source, but the content of the article that should be scrutinized. And now to this:
” California is simply saying that another state can’t accuse a California citizen of a crime not committed in their state.”
So a man from Ashland, Oregon near the border with California comes across the border to California and commits a murder, and is caught. So now Oregon cannot extradite the man for trial because the state cannot accuse him of the crime?
“The article makes 57% of the voters in Ohio dishonest activists.” Not at all, Bob One, as most of those voters would not fall into the category of “activist.” True, there may have been a smaller group of activists pushing for the death peddlers who may have convinced the 57% that killing babies up to birth was a good thing.
Oregon cannot prosecute him for the crime.
Maybe pot would be a better example.
Can West Virginia prosecute a citizen of West Virginia for smoking pot in Ohio?
No.
I
Gruesome Newsom puts California in danger..