Planned Parenthood of the Heartland won a small courtroom victory this week when a judge approved a temporary stay, which blocked an earlier ruling from the Iowa Board of Medicine that limited the organization’s ability to use videoconferencing system to dispense abortion-inducing pills in rural areas.
Planned Parenthood requested a temporary stay to block board rule, which was scheduled to go into effect this week. Polk County District Judge Karen Romano granted Planned Parenthood’s request until the court decides whether to permanently allow or bar the proposed rule. “Our No. 1 priority is the health and safety of our patients,” said Jill June, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland President and CEO, in a statement. “Allowing the rule to be ineffective during litigation will ensure that Iowa women can continue to receive safe health care, without delay, from the provider they trust.”
The videoconferencing system, operated by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland since 2008, enables doctors in Des Moines to consult with patients in rural clinics via closed-circuit video and remotely dispense medication that would induce an abortion.
Earlier this year, the state panel cited concerns about the videoconferencing system, voting in favor of a proposed administrative rule establishing new standards of practice for physicians who prescribe and administer abortion-inducing drugs.
In her ruling, Judge Romano acknowledged the board’s expertise in regulating the provision of medical care in Iowa, but stated that she was not entirely persuaded that the board’s proposed rule achieves its stated goal of ensuring the safe and healthy administration of health-care services.
“With respect to the lack of an in-person meeting, it is peculiar, as petitioners point out, that the board would mandate this for abortion services and not any other telemedicine practices in Iowa,” Romano wrote. “There is simply no evidence the court can rely on to come to the conclusion that the telemedicine abortion procedures, which have been offered for five years without issue, do not ‘protect the health and safety of patients.’
“Further, the court strains to understand how decreasing the number of apparently effective and safe abortion services offered to Iowa women pending the resolution of this case supports the public’s interest in receiving ‘adequate’ healthcare,” she added.
“If anything, the opposite is true; women who would be unable to attend one of the five remaining clinics that could maintain chemical abortion services despite the implementation of (the proposed rule) would not receive adequate healthcare as they would likely be unable to access those services,” the judge wrote in her stay order. Supporters of the videoconferencing system say Planned Parenthood’s practice is safe and patients get the same level of care as those who see a doctor in person. They maintain that the system was researched thoroughly to ensure it was in full compliance with Iowa law, and it provides access to healthcare for women in remote parts of the state who wouldn’t otherwise be able to obtain it.
Opponents contend abortion-related services were being provided without adequate guidelines and administered by medical assistants with minimal training. They also say woman are exposed to potentially dangerous drugs and their potential side effects without having a doctor readily available to help them.
Edited by
Cassandra Tucker
