NRO Downplays Danger Of Oklahoma’s Restrictive Anti-Abortion Law

   < < Go Back
from Media Matters,

National Review Online is downplaying the seriousness of an Oklahoma law currently before the Supreme Court that forces doctors to ignore safe and accepted medical practice when prescribing the drug RU-486 for medication abortions.

In response to a New York Times blog by legal expert Linda Greenhouse highlighting Oklahoma’s appeal of a state supreme court decision that held its new restrictions on the use of RU-486 blatantly violated reproductive rights precedent, the NRO accused Greenhouse of “put[ting Supreme Court Justice Anthony] Kennedy on notice of how he will be treated by the liberal media if he doesn’t toe their line in this term’s controversial cases.”

But in discussing the Supreme Court’s decision to review Cline, NRO fails to mention that in order to “adopt[] the determination of the FDA,” doctors will have to follow guidelines that most consider to be woefully outdated.

When RU-486 was first approved in 2000, the FDA initially recommended that doctors prescribe 600 milligrams of the drug. Research over the last 13 years, however, has shown that just 200 milligrams of the drug is safe and effective. NRO ignored Greenhouse’s observation that “[t]he 200-milligram regimen is so widely accepted that the 600-milligram dose is now considered bad medicine, and many doctors would refuse the procedure entirely rather than follow the old guideline.”

Unsurprisingly, doctors have chosen to give their patients less medication by prescribing these “off-label” dosages, a common practice that occurs in the years following any drug’s introduction to the market, after more research indicates better ways to administer the drug.

More From Media Matters: