Costco will not sell abortive pills in its pharmacies

Below is a summary of recent news related to life and abortion in the United States.

Costco will not dispense abortive pills in its pharmacies

Costco will not dispense the mifepristone abortive pill in its pharmacies, after the pressure of investors to refuse to sell the drug in its stores.

With more than 500 pharmacies, the chain indicates that the company has not seen demand for the pill by consumers, according to Bloomberg News.

Last year, a coalition that included the Legal Group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and Inspire Investing, based in Idaho, publicly urged the company not to store medicines. In the statement, Costco did not comment if the coalition influenced his decision not to offer the drug.

Chemical abortions represent approximately half of the abortions In the United States every year.

ADF’s lawyer, Michael Ross, described Costco’s decision as “a very significant victory” and said the group expects to “take advantage of” this victory during the next year.

An important online abort supplier is mentioned in a demand for negligence death in Texas

Recently, a demand for death from negligence was filed against a significant supplier of abortive drugs online after a texas man allegedly poison his wife already his son not born with drugs he obtained from the company.

According to the demand, the man threw abortive pills in the drink of his unborn son, killing the fetus and sending the mother to the emergency department.

The lawsuit states that Christopher Cooprider killed his own son not born with AID Access abortive drugs, a group that sends abortive drugs to states such as Texas, where abortion is generally prohibited.

The lawsuit appoints the founder of AID Access, Rebecca Gomperts, and Cooprider as defendants.

The file contains a series of texts in which Cooprider seems to try to press his son’s mother to abort.

“You have told me a thousand times that you try to stress me to lose the baby,” the mother wrote. “But I am looking forward to that beautiful baby, if it’s alive.”

Although the mother “had no intention of aborting,” Cooprider put the abortive pills in his hot chocolate on April 5, according to the demand, which caused the baby’s death.

Pro family groups present demand opposing constitutional right to abortion in Montana

Two Pro Montana groups continue to oppose the provision of abortion in the constitution of the State, in a district court.

He Montana Life Defense Fund and the Montana Family Foundation They filed a lawsuit at the Yellowstone district court earlier this week.

The groups asked Judge Thomas Pardy to declare the constitutional initiative invalid because the full text was not printed in the Balota.

The Constitution of Montana guarantees the right to abortion until the moment of the viability of the fetus (around the 22nd gestation).

The defenders challenged the approval of the measure claiming a two -year prescription period. Initially, the Montana Supreme Court ruled against the groups, but decided to continue opposing the measure.

Indiana Appeals Court confirms Provida Law

This week, Indiana’s Court of Appeals confirmed a Provida Law of Indiana that protects children not born throughout pregnancy with some exceptions.

In it 31 -page failurea panel of judges decided to confirm the law that demands that abortions be carried out only in hospitals and surgical centers and protect the life of the fetus, except in cases of serious risk to the health or life of the mother, a lethal fetal anomaly or cases of rape or incest.

Planned Parenthood Great Northwest opposed the law in demand, arguing that if a pregnancy put the mother’s health at risk, suppliers could be afraid to abort the fetus for fear of legal repercussions.

In addition, the plaintiffs opposed the law to demand that the abortions be carried out in hospitals or surgical centers, not in independent clinics.

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the law, arguing that the circumstances presented before them “do not require abortion to treat those risks.” The Judges Panel added that, since abortions are only allowed in “an extreme medical scenario”, the hospital norm “does not represent a significant burden” for the constitutional law of the State to abortion.

Indiana attorney general, Todd Rokita, described the ruling as a “resounding triumph for life“And he said he is committed to” protect the most vulnerable and defend the values of our state. “

Translated and adapted by the ACI Press team. Originally published in CNA