Evidence-Based Jurisprudence

A new ruling out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocks an Arizona law that would restrict medical abortions. Some background on the case:

The Arizona Legislature in 2012 passed a law requiring abortion providers to follow the federal Food and Drug Administration requirements for the medication. The FDA requirements restrict the medication to women who are seven or fewer weeks into their pregnancy and requires three visits to a physician. Arizona abortion providers had been using an evidence-based regimen that allowed the medication to be taken up to nine weeks of pregnancy and required two visits to a physician.

So the FDA requirements for this particular medication are contrary to what medical evidence indicates is appropriate use of it. The court ruled that these stricter standards place an undue burden on women seeking abortions, and does so for no good reason (other than, you know, making sure those sex-having sluts receive their proper punishment, I mean precious baby gifts, that God intended for them).

"Plaintiffs have introduced uncontroverted evidence that the Arizona law substantially burdens women's access to abortion services, and Arizona has introduced no evidence that the law advances in any way its interest in women's health," the order states. 

It goes on to describe the FDA regimen as "less safe, less effective."

Unfortunately, the Fifth and Sixth Circuits have ruled the opposite way in similar cases, setting up a likely showdown at the Supreme Court. I'm sure the undue burden standard and the medical evidence will be given all due consideration by all of the Justices on the Court.

Isn't it pretty to think so.