Like the writer, I see no reason why states can’t prohibit abortion drugs if they choose. It seems to me, however, that abortion drug bans raise practical issues that abortion bans do not.
For example, do all the same arguments against alcohol and narcotic prohibition apply? Or, assuming a state makes abortions illegal, does that automatically make the use of abortion drugs illegal? Or, what penalties might a woman who uses an illegal abortion drug face?
These and other issues are bound to become topics of discussion in the near future.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
As the pills must be used before 12 weeks, unless a state bans abortion earlier than that, it should not be an issue.
The date a person is present is what matters, not the method before that threshold.
LikeLike
RE: “As the pills must be used before 12 weeks…”
I don’t understand how the pills work biologically, but I imagine an absence of doctor-performed abortions — where that occurs — will change how abortion drugs are used.
RE: “The date a person is present is what matters, not the method before that threshold.”
I agree that the personhood of the fetus is a valid domain for moral argument. I think an equally valid domain arises from a mother’s awareness of the fetus inside her.
LikeLike
“. . . it should not be an issue.”
Of course, it should not be an issue. But, it will become one. We are talking about ChristoFascists who demand that everyone conform to their Theocratic state.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is an instance where the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does come into play. Don made the point in another thread that it would be wrong for federal pro-choice laws to use the Commerce Clause to allow reproductive health laws of the states to be overcome.
Several states have legalized recreational marijuana use/possession. You can drive from Nebraska to Colorado to purchase. Nebraska cannot stop you from doing that. You can be arrested for possessing it, but not for traveling to do so. Interstate commerce, including abortifacients, cannot be stopped. If that were the case the proliferation of internet purchasing of “boner pills” would be illegal.
If states are allowed to prevent its residents from purchasing FDA-approved medications, the next step for the anti-choice GOP legislatures would be to outlaw interstate travel. Is that really where we want to go?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe the issue is only should states that ban abortion ban all means to do so including this pill. I see no reason why states can’t treat the sale of abortion pills like the sale of pot. That doesn’t stop someone from crossing the border, buying one and taking it there but if they bring it back they could face trouble. Not knowing much abt it, I doubt anyone would notice unless you intend to traffic large quantities of it.
LikeLike
Some of those same medications for abortion are also used to induce contractions to aid in a natural miscarriages. The problem is that the drugs are FDA approved. Pot is not.
Interestingly, the anti-abortion states are making a big deal out of the laws that do not prosecute women for getting an abortion.
Why, even in the cases of self-medicated abortions? Probably because there are a lot more women voters than abortion provider voters.
A cynic might say that a woman who “murders” her own fetus is not as evil as the one who recommended a provider or where to get medication. Until the elections are over, of course.
But that would be a cynic.
LikeLiked by 2 people