Medications that induce abortion would be more difficult to obtain in Iowa under a measure moved forward by a Senate subcommittee Monday.

Senate Study Bill 3115 would require abortion medications to be administered or prescribed in person, limiting the potential availability of telehealth and mail-order medications like mifepristone and misoprostol coming from medical providers outside the state. Doctors who dispense the drug in Iowa would have to provide specified information to the patient, some of which opponents argue is medically inaccurate.

Image

Since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing states to enact laws restricting abortion, many anti-abortion advocates have turned their attention to medications, which are being used more frequently throughout the country — including in states that have banned or enacted strict limits on abortion procedures. Beginning in 2024, abortions are banned in Iowa after cardiac activity can be detected in an embryo, occurring as early as six weeks of gestation. Iowa’s law has exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and when an abortion is necessary to save the life of the pregnant person.

Josiah Oleson with the Family Leader said since these state and federal changes have taken place, “the abortion industry has developed a network of abortion drug dealers that operate outside of the medical system.”

“They’ll provide abortion drugs to anyone for little to no fee,” Oleson said. “Boyfriends who don’t want to be a dad, human traffickers who stand to lose money, and anyone can pretty well get these pills.”

He said these “black market suppliers” do not care that women who take these medications may face adverse side effects and complications, and said he supported the measure as a means to provide safety through more involvement by doctors when someone is deciding to take this medication.

But Kyrstin Delagardelle with the Planned Parenthood Advocates of Iowa called the proposal “unnecessary government overreach,” preventing health care providers from engaging in best practices. Delagardelle told lawmakers health care providers already give patients verbal and written information when dispensing abortion medication, in addition to providing on-call resources and follow up support.

Image

In a statement, Delagardelle said “this bill is not about protecting patients — it’s about the government inserting itself into the exam room, creating confusion, and chipping away at access to essential health care.”

Speakers on both sides of the issue focused on safety, with medical professionals arguing the bill would delay or deny necessary medical treatment, especially in rural areas, and anti-abortion advocates disputing major medical organizations’ positions and research findings that the drugs are safe.

Maggie DeWitte, executive director of Pulse Life Advocates and a spokesperson for the Coalition of Pro-Life Leaders said while her organization “would support taking this drug completely off the market,” she believed the measure provides “common sense safeguards to ensure the safety of women who are ingesting this drug.”

In addition to the limits on providing abortion medication, the bill would require health care providers to gather information to provide to the state when women face medical complications after abortions caused by these medications. It also requires physicians provide patients information about the possibility of reversing “the intended effects of a chemical abortion,” a process medical professionals say does not have scientific backing.

Dr. Francesca Turner, a legislative chair for the Iowa section of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, said the bill uses “vague and medically inaccurate language” that would create confusion among health care providers, patients and attorneys, in addition to forcing physicians to provide potentially inaccurate information.

“Medication abortion reversal is not supported by medical evidence and raises significant safety concerns,” Turner said. “The only randomized controlled trial studying this practice was stopped early because of patient harm. There is no reliable evidence demonstrating safety or effectiveness. This bill would force physicians to offer information that is not evidence-based and conflicts with accepted medical standards.”

Turner also said the “risk reporting” requirements could expose providers and facilities involved in pregnancy care to harassment, even when these professionals are engaging in legal care.

The measure was approved by Sens. Jason Schultz, R-Schleswig, and Cherielynn Westrich, R-Ottumwa. Schultz said while there are certain aspects of the bill lawmakers may change that were brought up in the subcommittee meeting, he believed the measure is addressing a pressing health care concern.

“I can’t get past the idea that we’re dealing with probably a black market — unprescribed pharmaceuticals,” Schultz said.

Senate Minority Leader Janice Weiner did not sign off on the bill. Weiner said the bill was not about safety, but about making health care more difficult to access in Iowa, especially as the state faces shortages in maternal health care. When she spoke to Iowans in the past year, she said, their concerns about health care about the state’s rising cancer rates, the closing of rural facilities and high premium costs, not about abortion medication.

“Read the room, read the state: they didn’t ask for this bill,” Weiner said. “It’s a dangerous distraction.”