Sam Farr: “I know it's late, but I rise in opposition to this, because, first of all, using telemedicine by FDA I don't think is…”

“I know it's late, but I rise in opposition to this, because, first of all, using telemedicine by FDA I don't think is, one, illegal, or ill-wise. Secondly, I think what the gentleman is going to talk about is a legal drug in the United States. It's been a legitimate drug in the United States after it met all of the rigorous FDA process in 1996 and has been available since 2000 in this country. I remember vigorous debates in this committee about the conditionality by which FDA would license this drug. It is legal and available in all 50 States in the United States, in Washington, DC, in Guam, and in Puerto Rico. It's a prescription drug which is not available to the public through pharmacies. Instead, its distribution is restricted to specifically qualified licensed physicians. To use it, a woman must go to a doctor's office. Whatever controversy surrounded the introduction of RU-486 in the United States was settled years ago, and there's no reason for this amendment other than to stir up the controversy over the reproductive rights of women. I think by the gentleman's comments, you can see that that's what he's trying to do. I would urge us all to oppose this amendment. And frankly it doesn't have anything to do with USDA funds, because we don't do telemedicine abortions. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).…”