Pro-abortion radicals are furious about the new Supreme Court strategy by Pro-Lifers

Phil Roeder, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

The fight for life is continuing to heat up around the country.

And Pro-Life activists are taking the pro-abortion industry to court, and winning.

That’s why pro-abortion radicals are furious about the new Supreme Court strategy by Pro-Lifers.

In a decidedly pro-abortion piece in the left-wing media outlet Slate the author decries the Pro-Life movement’s “New Supreme Court strategy on abortion.”

Limiting the slaughter

Recent Pro-Life victories in courts across the country have the radical Left up in arms.

First there was the recent victory for free speech, and Pro-Life activists, when a federal appeals court ruled the arrest of the activists for simply writing on a sidewalk in chalk, was unconstitutional.

The court also ruled the arrest of the Pro-Lifers while ignoring violent BLM and Antifa vandalism was a clear unequal application of justice.

Now, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has voted to reimpose limits on the chemical abortion pill mifepristone. 

And according to Slate reporter Mary Ziegleir, that is simply horrendous.

“If the court had its way, the clock would turn back to 2016, when patients could get mifepristone for only seven weeks of pregnancy, and only after more than one in-person visit with a physician,” Ziegleir wrote.

In other words, how dare the court limit the access to dangerous drugs that have only one purpose – to kill innocent life.

While the court’s ruling won’t have an immediate impact due to a Supreme Court stay issued last spring that keeps the status quo in place, it is a good indication of what the courts are thinking, and what the Supreme Court might do.

Going much further than the Dobbs decision

As Zieglier wrote, “But even if this ruling doesn’t change anything on the ground, it represents conservatives’ best guess that the Supreme Court is going to go much further than it did in Dobbs in limiting abortion at a national level—even if not necessarily in this case.”

The case in question started when the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM), a group of Pro-Life doctors, filed in Amarillo, Texas.

The judge in the case, Matthew Kacsmaryk, is considered to be one of the most even-handed, fair, and Pro-Life judges in the nation.

AHM is represented in the case by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

They correctly argued that the Food and Drug Administration lacked the authority to approve the pill mifepristone all the way back in 2000. 

Last spring, Kacsmaryk issued a huge win for the group in a decision agreeing with this claim. 

Judge Kacsmaryk also embraced the legal view of fetal personhood. 

Then, an earlier, and different, 5th Circuit panel ruled the plaintiffs had waited too long to challenge the original approval of mifepristone, but also held that the plaintiffs would probably prevail on their claims that the FDA did not have the power to lift restrictions on mifepristone. 

The U.S. Supreme Court then issued a stay that keeps the status quo in place while litigation continues.

AHM also argues that under the federal Comstock Act that the FDA did not have the authority to permit access to mifepristone via telehealth. 

Of course, their legal footing is sound because mailing abortion pills is already a federal crime. 

Zieglier argues this is a very bad precedent, “In fact, if the Comstock Act is interpreted in this light, any abortion violates federal law: No procedure in the nation takes place without a drug or device going through the mail.” 

We can only hope she’s right.

Pro-Life Press will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.