Supreme Court Should Rule Against Dangerous Abortion Pills That Hurt Women

As we approach the end of 2023, pro-lifers are turning their attention to the Supreme Court. On December 13, the justices agreed to hear the pro-abortion Biden Administration defend the new REMS put in place in January. These changes eliminate the required in-person visit to pick up the pills, thus allowing mail order, but still maintain certain provider certification qualifications and impose a specific set of requirements for pharmacy certification.

But remember, the justices chose to hear the more limited 5th The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, not the decision of trial Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk.

The original case was brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of pro-life medical organizations and four doctors who say they treat women with mifepristone. Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk asserted that “both the initial approval of the pills in 2000 as well as recent FDA decisions allowing them to be prescribed via telemedicine, sent by mail and dispensed at retail pharmacies,” politics’s written by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Judge Kacsmaryk reserved his decision to allow an appeal to come in short order. The case was moved to the Fifth Circuit, an appeals court that oversees district courts in several states, including Texas.

In August 2023that court ruled that the statute of limitations on challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone had expired,” Rachel Robertson reported for MedPage. “However, mifepristone was ruled back on restrictions before 2016.”

please follow LifeNews.com on Feb for the latest news and information for life, free from social media censorship.

“The outcome,” Ryan Bangert wrote“is the Fifth Circuit’s decision would, if allowed to stand, re-establish the same prescription rules in place during all but the last year of the Obama administration.”

Judge Ho’s comments, part 5, are very important to noteth panel of the circuit court of appeals. He wrote

By the applicant’s own admission, the FDA used illegal procedures when it approved mifepristone. And subsequent agency regulations are also invalid—both under the APA as framed by the majority, and also under the Comstock Act. In sum, the regulations are “not in accordance with law” and should therefore be set aside. Accordingly, we must affirm.

His painful conclusion?

Scientists have contributed enormous amounts to improving our lives. But scientists are people like the rest of us. They are not perfect. None of us. We all make mistakes. And the FDA has done a lot.

[For more on the 5th Circuit’s decision, see here]

Robertson’s account is typical of the way the case is reported. In addition to diminishing the weight of the plaintiffs’ argument, taking the pro-abortion-at-the-hilt Medical Establishment, interviewing a pro-abortion law professor, no whisper of one of the main complaints brought of AHM and the physician plaintiffs, who challenged the soundbite claiming to be “safer than Tylenol”: it is not safe for women!

Christina Francis is chair of the board of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG). He has written extensively about the real danger—that posed by mifepristone/misoprostol. An example:

One of the largest studies to date, which analyzed high-quality registry data obtained from nearly 50,000 women in Finland, found that the overall incidence of immediate Adverse events are four times higher for medical abortions than for surgical abortions. The same study showed that about 7% of women will need surgical intervention — a large number when you consider that there are nearly 900,000 abortions each year in the US, 40% of which are medical abortions.

Dr. also mentioned Randall K. O’Bannon, NRL Director of Education and Research,

Other studies, even some by abortion advocates, have found something similar – that chemical abortions have a higher failure rate, that more of these women have complications. , that more women are showing up in the emergency room needing surgical treatment for bleeding, to deal with. “retained products of conception” – than Dr. Rebecca Miller report here.

[Dr. Miller is a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health.]

A lot is riding on this case. We’ll keep you updated throughout the new year.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared on National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button