Washington State

Office of the Attorney General

Attorney General

Bob Ferguson

AGO 2004 NO. 1 >

An Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner may, when consistent with his or her professional license, lawfully furnish or prescribe a drug to a woman for the purpose of inducing an abortion where the drug may lawfully be prescribed and the woman seeks to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable or for the purpose of preserving the woman’s life or health

AGO 2012 NO. 7 >

RCW 19.68.010, Washington’s anti-rebate statute, precludes a donation by
a clinical laboratory to a physician for the purpose of paying a
portion of the cost of software for the physician’s electronic health
record system, in connection with the receiving physician either
continuing or establishing a referral arrangement with the donating

AGO 2005 NO. 13 >

RCW 19.68 permits a referring physician to charge patients for actual services performed by the physician for the patient, including reimbursement for the actual charges of pathologists performing services on referral, but the statute prohibits the referring physician from charging any amount greater than (1) the actual amount billed to the referring physician by the pathologist, and (2) charges for additional services performed by the referring physician for the patient.

AGO 1989 NO. 16 >

1.RCW 9.02.010 is still unenforceable insofar as it purports, in conjunction with RCW 9.02.060 et seq., to prohibit abortions occurring more than four lunar months after conception but prior to viability.2.Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs., 57 U.S.L.W. 5023 (1989) does not overrule Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973); the effect of Webster is to uphold provisions of Missouri statutes which have no counterparts in Washington statute; thus Roe still renders most of Washington's abortion statute (RCW 9.02.010 through .090) unenforceable.3.The conclusions reached in AGO 1973 No. 7, that Roe rendered several of Washington's abortion provisions unenforceable, remain valid after Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs., 57 U.S.L.W. 5023 (1989); we decline to speculate about the future direction of case law on abortion.4.There is no current law in Washington prohibiting the use of public funds for abortions; Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs., 57 U.S.L.W. 5023 (1989) does not change Washington law in this regard.