The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

75° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat


New AZ abortion law faces criticism


Courtesy of Monica Casper

A new abortion law claiming that abortion is reversible thanks to a certain amount of progesterone has come under fire. Criticism of the law centers around its scientific validity.

A new abortion law in the state of Arizona, based off a study that suggests medically induced abortions may be reversed using shots of progesterone, has received the attention of abortion rights activists.

“The current law is solely about punishing women who seek to terminate their pregnancies,” said Monica Casper, a UA professor and head of the gender and women’s studies department. “Our politicians should not play doctor, nor should they pass legislation that files in the face of evidence.”

This new law will inform women seeking abortions, via medication in Arizona, that they are able to reverse the effects of the first dose of RU-486.

“This is a ridiculous, dangerous law … as it directly interferes with the relationship between a pregnant woman and her physician as established in Roe v. Wade,” Casper said.

The shots of progesterone block the hormone and are supposed to reverse the effects of RU-486, which is the first of two drugs administered to induce an abortion.

Marisa Calegari is a senior studying gender and women’s studies and psychology, and is a current intern at the Women’s Resource Center. Calegari said the state of Arizona’s sex laws are problematic “because they assume women cannot make decisions about their own bodies and work to limit women’s access to health care.”

Calegari, who has been an intern at WRC’s Feminists Organized to Resist, Create and Empower since 2012, added that she does not believe the new law will provide women with more options in regards to their own bodies.

“Legislation that places restrictions on the relationship between women and their doctors is not progressive,” Calegari said.

She stated that the treatment is not supported by a large scientific body of evidence, which leads to women’s bodies being put in danger.

“I think if a woman is not physically capable of carrying a child in a healthy way … they should have the right to decide whether or not to have that child,” said Sean Gallagher, a chemistry sophomore.

A few weeks ago, the law was signed by Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, and is expected to be put into effect in July. The criticism surrounding this new law mainly arises from a lack of substantial scientific investigation.

Ana Hernandez, a linguistics sophomore, stated that despite her not believing in abortions, this method “sounds like a good option. … I think there are a lot of women that might regret having an abortion. … With this law, it gives them time to think about the consequences.”

Cody Blagg, a microbiology senior, said he believes the new state law regarding abortion will have a positive effect in the long run.

“While I understand there are different situations in which a woman would choose to get [an abortion], such as, rape, health concerns or simply an unwanted pregnancy, I find it ultimately immoral and it should not be legal,” Blagg said.

When it comes to physical health, Hernandez said she believes “it is still up to the woman to decide what actions to take regarding her body.”

Additionally, Casper described Arizona’s state laws as being regressive and repressive. She added that if lawmakers actually cared about women’s health and the well-being of babies, they could be expanding health care coverage, funding clinics and working on decreasing infant mortality rates.


Follow Terrie Brianna on Twitter.

More to Discover
Activate Search