Ohio House committees consider bills that could impact abortion medication, access

Two Ohio bills that may have effects on abortion medication and access were considered in separate Ohio House committees this week.

Opponents of a bill to further regulate medication that could include abortion drugs deeply criticized a study used by supporters of the measure, and argued about the unintended consequences held in the legislation.

Ohio State University epidemiology professor Dr. Alison Norris said a study on the safety of abortion drug mifepristone cited by supporters of the bill to prove the dangers of the drug was “deeply flawed,” causing concern about the types of evidence sources the bill would allow the Ohio Department of Health to use in determining drug risks.

The study counted the number of emergency room visits for any reason as part of the “adverse effects” of mifepristone, Norris said, leading to a conclusion that stands in contrast to “more than 100 peer-reviewed studies from over 25 years …that create a strong scientific evidence base to show mifepristone is safe.”

Citing other studies and data from the CDC, Norris said the risk of giving birth was 14 times more likely to result in death than having an abortion.

“The example of mifepristone regulation that proponent testimony offers shows how H.B. 324 could tie Ohioans’ medical care to misleading and poorly analyzed data,” Norris told the House Health Committee on Wednesday. “It could lead to a change in standard medical care that would harm Ohioans.”

The bill in question, House Bill 324, seeks to identify medications that have “severe adverse effects” in more than 5% of users. Data from the FDA, insurance claims and patient reports would be used by the state health department to determine the risk level of a prescription and over-the-counter drugs, particularly the risk of death, hospitalization from infection or hemorrhage, organ failure or sepsis, according to the bill.

Categorization of a drug as having severe adverse effects in more than 5% of users would require the drug to be given out only after an in-person exam and also would require a follow-up appointment be scheduled. This would limit the ability for Ohioans to use telehealth for certain medications.

Mifepristone is only one of many drugs that could be affected by the legislation, and not being able to prescribe drugs through telehealth could impact rural communities and older Ohioans as well as those looking for reproductive care, advocates at the committee hearing said.

“The bill’s extremely broad definitions could impact access to drugs such as Plavix, Wellbutrin, metformin, atorvastatin, amoxicillin and ibuprofen, to name a few,” said Lora Miller, director of governmental affairs and public relations for the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants.

Plavix is a medication used to prevent blood clots, Wellbutrin is an antidepressant, metformin is used in diabetes treatment, atorvastatin treats high cholesterol, amoxicillin is an antibiotic, and ibuprofen is a common over-the-counter pain reliever.

“Patients managing common conditions could face unnecessary costs and delays, especially those with limited insurance coverage,” Miller said.

Republicans on the committee sought to clarify the regulations in the bill, emphasizing that any medication under the 5% risk threshold wouldn’t be impacted. State Rep. Angela King, R-Celina, listed the specific adverse effects included in the bill after Miller named effects from drugs like amoxicillin and Wellbutrin, from vaginal hemorrhage to urinary tract infections. King made a point to note the bill mentioned hospitalization for infection, not just the infections themselves.

“Urinary tract infection can definitely put someone in the hospital,” Miller responded. “I can tell you that because it put me in the hospital.”

Miller said low-income patients will be particularly hard hit by the bill as written “by added visits, costs and travel requirements.”

“The bill unintentionally widens health disparities across Ohio communities,” she said. “The absence of any exceptions virtually ensures that existing barriers to care and medication access will be exacerbated.”

The legislation may be duplicative as well, according to opponents. Miller and Norris both said federal law and the FDA already dictate the risks of various drugs, and “very robust systems” of medical training, ethics codes and laws already in place exist to ensure “health care providers balance the risks versus the benefits of the medicines that they prescribe,” according to Norris.

“This law seems not necessary to me because it’s inviting an extra level of scrutiny, and because it has methodological problems deeply embedded in it,” Norris said.

Medicaid funding

In another committee, supporters praised a bill that would eliminate state Medicaid funding to reproductive health clinics who provide abortions. Federal law already prohibits Medicaid funding from being used for abortion services, but religious and anti-abortion groups indicated that doesn’t go far enough in barring the indirect funding of abortion services.

Ohio Right to Life legislative director Katie DeLand began her testimony for House Bill 410 in the Ohio House Medicaid Committee by thanking the General Assembly for allocating $20 million to pregnancy resource centers in the most recent state operating budget. Pregnancy resource centers are largely religiously based centers who provide services such as ultrasounds and post-birth supplies like diapers.

Grants through the state that have gone to pregnancy resource centers specifically bar any funding from going to facilities who promote or conduct abortion services, and the centers, also called crisis pregnancy centers, have been criticized for providing medically debunked information to discourage abortion to clients.

“House Bill 410 builds directly on this work, drawing a clear line: while Ohio will invest in prenatal and family resources, we will not finance abortion services that end a child’s life,” DeLand said.

The bill DeLand and others stood in support of this week seeks to keep state Medicaid funding from going to any facility that includes abortion services as part of their operations, even funding for things like “administrative overhead” or “referral activities.”

“Redirecting these funds away from abortion providers ensures that Ohio’s resources are invested in true health care and life-affirming services, like the pregnancy resource centers that received funding earlier this summer,” DeLand told the committee.

The Catholic Conference of Ohio also spoke in support of the bill, calling abortion “among the most, if not the most, contentious subjects of our times.”

“While the majority of Ohioans voted in a measure which amended the constitution to allow abortion, it is also essential to consider the consciences of the 1.6 million Ohioans who did not,” said Marsha Forshon, associate director of the CCO.

The pieces of legislation are two of several currently active in the Ohio General Assembly that cause pro-abortion rights advocates to once again question whether the legislature is respecting the 57% vote in 2023 that enshrined reproductive rights including abortion into the Ohio Constitution.

This story is republished from the Ohio Capital Journal. View the original article.