Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
AZ Law Restricts Doctors' Use of Professional Judgment When Prescribing Abortion Pill
In March, Arizona became the first state to undercut the FDA's new guidelines on use of the abortion-inducing drug Mifepristone when, one day after the guidelines were issued, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed into law a state measure requiring that the FDA's former, more restrictive, protocols be followed by clinics in that state. An earlier, similar, Arizona law had been struck down as an unconstitutional restriction on abortion rights.
Arizona's legislature passed the bill that became the new law prior to the FDA's new-guidelines announcement. It requires in-state abortion clinics to comply with the FDA guidelines on the administration of Mifepristone that were in place as of Dec. 31, 2015 ' these earlier guidelines suggested women should only be given the drug within the first seven weeks of pregnancy, and in higher strengths than the newer guidelines suggest. Most importantly, both iterations of FDA guidelines for the administration of Mifepristone were just that ' guidelines ' and a doctor was free to prescribe them in a different manner if it was advisable for the patient. This is what health care providers had been doing, sometimes prescribing the drugs more than seven weeks into a pregnancy, and ordering lower dosages. Arizona's new law, however, will make it impossible for doctors to follow the law and also use their professional judgment to change the manner of administration where necessary for a patient's health and well-being.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.