{"id":485,"date":"2021-04-19T08:41:10","date_gmt":"2021-04-19T12:41:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/gender-journal\/?page_id=485"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:10:40","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:10:40","slug":"abortion-exceptionalism-in-the-regulation-of-telemedicine-medication-abortion-care","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/gender-journal\/online\/volume-xxii-online\/abortion-exceptionalism-in-the-regulation-of-telemedicine-medication-abortion-care\/","title":{"rendered":"Abortion Exceptionalism in the Regulation of Telemedicine Medication Abortion Care"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Abortion exceptionalism is the trend of singling out abortion care for special treatment through government policy. One example of this phenomenon is the Food and Drug Administration\u2019s (FDA) excessive regulation of access to mifepristone, a prescription drug used for medication abortion care during the first ten weeks of pregnancy. Historically, the FDA has required that mifepristone is \u201conly available to be dispensed in healthcare settings . . . by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.\u201d Although the FDA recently paused this restriction due to COVID-19 pandemic related health risks, the policy remains an example of blatant abortion exceptionalism.<\/p>\n<p>Keep Reading: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/gender-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2021\/04\/Final-Draft_Article-3_Rhea.Shinde.pdf\">Abortion Exceptionalism in the Regulation of Telemedicine Medication Abortion Care<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Abortion exceptionalism is the trend of singling out abortion care for special treatment through government policy. One example of this phenomenon is the Food and Drug Administration\u2019s (FDA) excessive regulation [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5459,"featured_media":0,"parent":943,"menu_order":15,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-485","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/gender-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/485","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/gender-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/gender-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/gender-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5459"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/gender-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=485"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/gender-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/485\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":577,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/gender-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/485\/revisions\/577"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/gender-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/943"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/gender-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}