U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott on Wednesday ruled that an Ohio law (HB 126) that would restrict the use of Danco Laboratories' Mifeprex to induce a medical abortion is unconstitutional because it is vague and could jeopardize women's health, the AP/Akron Beacon Journal reports (AP/Akron Beacon Journal, 9/28). FDA in 2000 approved Mifeprex -- known generically as mifepristone -- to be taken in conjunction with the drug misoprostol to induce a medical abortion up to 49 days' gestation. Under the law, physicians in Ohio would have had to follow FDA guidelines for the drug and would not be allowed to administer mifepristone beyond seven weeks' gestation or at doses other than the approved 600 milligrams. However, physicians sometimes administer the drug at lower doses up to 63 days' gestation. The law also would have required physicians to perform a full medical examination on women before prescribing mifepristone and misoprostol and closely monitor patients after they have taken the drugs. Three Planned Parenthood Federation of America clinics and Preterm, the operator of an abortion clinic in Cleveland, in August 2004 filed a lawsuit against the state, saying that the law provides no exception to protect the health or lives of pregnant women. A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February ruled 3-0 to uphold a lower court's order preventing enforcement of the law but did not rule the entire law unconstitutional (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 2/28). State officials said the law was implemented to protect women in compliance with FDA guidelines. However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists -- which joined the lawsuit this year -- said that the law criminalized practices and interfered with medical decisions that could be in the best interest of a woman's health (AP/Akron Beacon Journal, 9/28). Al Gerhardstein, an attorney for PPFA, said, "This is another piece of legislation that is intended to scare doctors away from providing reproductive health care." State Attorney General Jim Petro (R) said the law is intended to protect women from a potentially dangerous drug and is a "sensible and mainstream" measure. Dlott in her ruling wrote that the law in its entirety is unconstitutional and confusing and that "[p]hysicians ... could not possibly be expected to understand its requirements and prohibitions." The state could appeal the decision to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer (Horn, Cincinnati Enquirer, 9/28).

"Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.