DES MOINES (LifeSiteNews) — Lawmakers in Iowa have introduced legislation to ban the dispensing of abortion pills via telehealth, along with new informed-consent requirements 

Senate Study Bill 3115 would require abortion-inducing drugs to only be dispensed in-person and come with written consent after informing the woman about the medical risks of abortion drugs, the emotional trauma that can come from seeing one’s dead baby expelled, recommendations to follow-up with a doctor within two weeks of taking the drugs, and the process of abortion pill reversal (APR). It also requires physicians to report to the state detailed information on abortion pill complications.

Iowa’s heartbeat law bans abortions after six weeks except for cases of rape, incest, or alleged medical emergencies. So SSB 3115 would apply to abortions within that six-week window.

KTIV reports that the bill was approved by a Senate subcommittee Monday, over the objections of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Iowa and the state chapter of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, whose Dr. Francesca Turner incorrectly singled out abortion pill reversal as “not supported by medical evidence and rais[ing] significant safety concerns.”

The abortion pill mifepristone (better known as RU-486) works by blocking the natural hormone progesterone that developing babies need to survive. APR consists of administering extra progesterone to counteract mifepristone’s effects, ideally within 24 hours of taking the abortion pill.

Pro-abortion detractors claim that APR is unproven and potentially harmful, but as pro-life OB/GYN Dr. William Lile has explained, the technique is based on principles that are well understood from progesterone’s common, FDA-approved use in a variety of other pregnancy-related situations. According to the Abortion Pill Rescue Network, “initial studies of APR have shown it has a 64%-68% success rate.” Heartbeat International also publishes anecdotal, firsthand testimonials from women who have benefited from the technique.

Supporters said that the bill, while not the outright ban on abortion pills that pro-lifers would prefer, addresses a real and present danger to women.

“They’ll provide abortion drugs to anyone for little to no fee,” said the Family Leader’s Josiah Oleson. “Boyfriends who don’t want to be a dad, human traffickers who stand to lose money, and anyone can pretty well get these pills.”

Remote distribution of abortion pills has become arguably the abortion lobby’s most important tool for preserving abortion-on-demand without Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s most recent annual report revealed that, almost two years (as of April 2024) after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe and allowed direct abortion bans to be enforced for the first time in half a century, the nation’s largest abortion chain still operated almost 600 facilities nationwide, through which it committed 392,715 in the most recent reporting period. According to the Lozier Institute’s Prof. Michael New, that is a “record number of abortions for the organization and represents approximately 40 percent of the abortions performed in the United States.”

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has taken a number of pro-life actions primarily in the area of taxpayer funding, but concern has brewed among pro-lifers ever since he declared (amid a broader effort to soften the Republican Party’s pro-life plank) that he would not enforce a federal law banning abortion pills from being dispensed by mail, continuing a Biden administration policy that undermines state pro-life laws.

Pro-lifers were given hope in May that the White House’s position might change when U.S. Health & Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (another formerly pro-abortion figure who “moderated” during his own presidential bid) promised last May a “complete review” of the medical risks of abortion pills, though no timetable have since been announced. But no conclusions have yet emerged, and some pro-life leaders have called for the firing of U.S. Food & Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary over reports he is intentionally “slow walking” the review, which Makary denies.