Contact: Amy Pedagno, 703-975-6508

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla., Aug. 21, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ -- Attorneys from the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project (JC-LOLP) yesterday afternoon, as authorized by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, filed a "friend-of-the-court" brief in that court on behalf of Oklahoma doctors specializing in obstetrics and gynecology in the case of Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice.  82 Oklahoma legislators were also permitted to file their "friend of the court" brief supporting Oklahoma's law regulating medication abortions.

In 2011, Oklahoma passed a law banning "off-label" use of the abortion-causing drug regimen known as RU-486.  The law was challenged by the abortion industry and made its way up to the United States Supreme Court, who granted certiorari to review the case this past June.  This past April, representing thousands of medical doctors from around the country, JC-LOLP submitted a "friends of the Court" brief to the United States Supreme Court supporting Oklahoma's law regulating RU-486, as well as Oklahoma's request that the United States Supreme Court grant certiorari and reverse the Oklahoma Supreme Court's cursory memorandum decision, rendered late last year without analysis or discussion, that Oklahoma's law regulating RU-486 constituted an undue burden on women's access to abortion as proscribed in the United States Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  

When the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, it directed the Oklahoma Supreme Court to answer the following two certified questions regarding Oklahoma's law:

Whether H. B. No. 1970, Section 1, Chapter 216, O.S.L. 2011 prohibits: (1) the use of misoprostol to induce abortions, including the use of misoprostol in conjunction with mifepristone according to a protocol approved by the Food and Drug Administration; and (2) the use of methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancies.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed further proceedings in this case until they receive a response from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

In response to the Oklahoma Supreme Court's schedule for briefing these certified questions and the invitation to submit a "friend of the court" brief in that court by the Oklahoma Attorney General, who has also filed his own brief, a group of Oklahoma doctors specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, represented by attorneys from JC-LOLP and the Alliance Defending Freedom, yesterday submitted their brief. These Oklahoma doctors advise the Oklahoma Supreme Court that the challenged law is a reasonable medical regulation enacted to protect women's health by requiring that RU-486 be administered consistently with the protocol approved in 2000 by the FDA.  The brief sets forth the substantial medical literature document that the abortion industry's off-label use of RU-486 poses significant well-documented health risks for women.  Based upon the existing state of medical knowledge, the law is rationally related to the protection of a pregnant woman's health and neither bans the use of misoprostol nor restricts the use of methotrexate in the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy.  Thus, the challenged statute does not on its face impose a substantial "undue burden" on a woman's access to abortion since it neither bans the use of RU-486 as approved for use by the FDA, nor does it ban the use at any time of surgical abortion that is always safer than RU-486 to terminate a pregnancy.

As documented by Oklahoma's Attorney General before the United States Supreme Court, eight women have died from bacterial infections following an RU-486 medical abortion administered according to one of the off-label protocols, whereas no women have died from such infections following use of the FDA-approved protocol.  Thus, the Oklahoma Legislature properly acted to address this serious health and safety problem by requiring that RU-486 and other abortion-inducing drugs be administered according to the FDA's prescribed protocol.

JC-LOLP's General Counsel, Sam Casey, said yesterday afternoon at the time the brief was filed:

"The abortion industry's longstanding opposition and ignorance of any reasonable safety regulation of two powerful drugs never intended by their manufacturers to be used for abortion, because of the industry's selfish desire to make more money while providing less than safe medical supervision for abortion is unconscionable. Hopefully, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma will accept our Oklahoma Doctors' 'friend of the court' advice that Oklahoma law properly reflects the sound medical evidence which demonstrates that the FDA-approved Mifeprex Regimen, including the use of misoprostol as prescribed in the FDA-approved Mifeprex Regimen, is safer than off-label uses of mifepristone and/or misoprostol to induce a medical abortion.  Since surgical abortion is always available as an option throughout the first trimester, and since it is safer and faster than medical abortion, the State's restriction of medical abortions from 63 to 49 days poses no undue burden on access to abortion.  Further, since treatment of ectopic pregnancy and medical abortion are considered separate procedures by the medical community, the Act's restrictions on medical abortions in no way restrict the use of methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancies.  Consequently, this Oklahoma law best protects women's health while constitutionally posing no undue burden on women's access abortion, as required by the United States Supreme Court."