The Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in case to ban chemical abortion drugs, and the FDA was in their crosshairs

This case could be one of the most significant since the high court overturned Roe v. Wade.

That’s because chemical abortions now account for almost 60% of all abortions.

The Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in a case to ban chemical abortion drugs, and the FDA was in their crosshairs.

Government bureaucrats recklessly ignored women’s safety when they approved the chemical abortion drug mifepristone.

Violating rights and federal law

And by doing so they blatantly violated both federal law and conscience rights.

At least that was the argument made by pro-life physicians at the Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, the Biden administration argued that the court should not overturn the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the deadly chemical, because doing so “harms women,” “harms the pharmaceutical industry,” and, of course, would violate the radical leftist principles of equity.

The pro-life doctors and medical professionals who sued the FDA, however, say the approval process violated all standard processes and reduced requirements to report adverse effects of the drugs to the federal government. 

The Supreme Court Justices weighed both sides’ arguments for 93 minutes during oral arguments in FDA v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine.

And the arguments became intense.

“Do you think the FDA is infallible?” asked Justice Samuel Alito.

The pro-life doctors, who prevailed in lower courts, said the chemical abortion pill harms women and can induce severe bleeding. 

And shockingly, in more than 3% of the cases, the child survives, requiring emergency room physicians to carry out an abortion to save the woman’s life or health.

Under questioning from Justice Amy Coney Barrett about that issue, Biden’s Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar was forced to admit, “There was some evidence that there were increased ER visits” after the Obama and Biden administrations removed the requirement for an in-person visit with a doctor before the chemical abortion drug could be given.

These visits screened mothers for ectopic pregnancy and other health concerns that could preclude use of the drug.

“That did trouble me”

Even radical leftist Justice Sonia Sotomayor confessed, “That did trouble me.”

Disgustingly, the Biden administration responded by trying to minimize women’s suffering. 

“Half of the women who went to the emergency room didn’t get any treatment at all. Many women might go because they’re experiencing heavy bleeding, which mimics a miscarriage, and they might just need to know whether or not they’re having a complication,” said Prelogar.

Pro-life advocates argued that was a very weak and disturbing argument. 

“My question for her would be, ‘How is a woman who is not a physician supposed to know if her heavy bleeding is hemorrhaging? How is she supposed to know if she’s in a life-threatening situation? Shouldn’t that burden be on the person who gave her that abortion drug?’” asked Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council, on Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.

“The FDA’s own label lists that between 2.9 and 4.6% of women who take mifepristone will need to go to the ER following the use of that drug,” Szoch went on. 

Those numbers mean between 18,638 and 29,564 of the 642,700 chemical abortions carried out last year ended in an emergency room visit.

“That’s not something that’s ‘as safe as Tylenol,’” as abortion activists regularly assert, Szoch told Perkins. “Of course, we know that every use of the abortion drug is tragic because it takes an unborn child’s life. But this removal of the safety standard makes it especially tragic.”

And it’s impossible to know the full extent of the chemical abortion pill’s damage to women, since the Obama administration weakened federal mandates so that the only requirement now is to report death from the drug.

Why is reporting a bad thing?

Justices asked the abortion pill manufacturer why they sued to block tighter reporting requirements of women’s pain and suffering. 

“Why would that be a bad thing?” Justice Alito asked Jessica Ellsworth, who represented mifepristone manufacturer Danco Laboratories. “You don’t want to sell a product that causes very serious harm to the people who take your product, relying on your tests and the FDA’s tests. Wouldn’t you want that data?”

Ellsworth weakly replied by not actually answering the question, “That data is certainly something that we are looking for all the time,” so Danco said they have “a 1-800 number on our website” for people to report adverse events to the manufacturer.

Both Justices Alito and Clarence Thomas questioned the Biden administration about whether the FDA violated applicable federal law by allowing abortionists to mail mifepristone directly to mothers. 

“Shouldn’t the FDA have at least considered the application of 18 U.S.C. 1461?” asked Alito. 

That portion of the U.S. Code, known as The Comstock Act, bars individuals from sending any “article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion” through the U.S. mail.

“I think that the Comstock provisions don’t fall within FDA’s lane,” replied Prelogar.

But Erin Hawley of Alliance Defending Freedom, who represents the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, responded, “We think that the plain text of that [law], Your Honor, is pretty clear.”

Much of the case revolved around the issue of whether the plaintiffs had legal standing to lodge the case. 

“Is there anybody who could challenge in court the lawfulness of what the FDA did here?” Alito asked Prelogar. 

The Biden administration, who argues President Trump has no immunity, argued it enjoyed “sovereign immunity” from any number of the plaintiffs, including doctors and women who suffered dangerous side effects from chemical abortions.

At one point, Alito asked Danco’s lawyer if this was all about profits, “You think you’re going to sell more [abortion pills] if the restrictions that previously were in place were lifted?”

“Yes,” Ellsworth replied.

“So, you’re going to make more money?” Alito stated.

And in her closing argument, Solicitor General Prelogar pleaded with judges not to overturn FDA approval of the chemical abortion drug, even though it is injuring tens of thousands of women, because “it harms the pharmaceutical industry.”

So it comes down to money.  And the abortion industry and big pharma make a lot of it by killing babies.

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

Leave a Reply

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