The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments reviewing whether the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) followed proper protocol in loosening safeguards on the abortion pill mifepristone. If the court decides that the FDA acted unlawfully, distribution of the abortion pill would be significantly limited. Abortionists could no longer send the pill through the mail, even in pro-abortion states, and use of the pill would be limited to earlier in pregnancy.
This case was brought by four national medical associations, four doctors, and Alliance Defending Freedom, asserting that the FDA overstepped its authority in waiving safety guidelines.
The FDA first approved the abortive use of mifepristone in 2000 under President Bill Clinton. It could only be used up to 7 weeks in pregnancy and had to be distributed in-person by a physician. In 2016, the FDA eventually loosened these requirements, allowing use up to 10 weeks in pregnancy, despite the increased risk of complications that accompanies use later in pregnancy.
Most recently, the Biden-led FDA removed the in-person visit requirement, permitting chemical abortions to be sent in the mail.
The use of abortion pills has skyrocketed following FDA’s decisions to expand the guidelines. Abortion pills are the primary method by which abortions are performed in the United States. One in five women will suffer a complication due to taking an abortion pill and one in twenty will have to visit the emergency room. Of course, every successful abortion will result in the death of an innocent child. But the loosening of these safety restrictions additionally endangers women.
This lawsuit does not ask the court to take mifepristone off the market for all purposes. This ruling would only apply to its use in chemical abortions. While miscarriage treatment can involve similar procedures and drugs as elective abortion, removing a deceased child who passed away by miscarriage is legally and morally different than intentionally ending a child’s life, and is therefore not defined as an elective abortion.
A Pro-Life ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in this case could reduce abortions even in liberal states by limiting the drug’s use to earlier in pregnancy and requiring an in-person visit to a physician.
The court cannot change the status quo in Pro-Life states like Texas where the Right to Life of all preborn children is legally recognized. Elective abortion is illegal in Texas, but criminal activists traffic abortion pills into our state.
Even if the Supreme Court forces the FDA to heavily regulate chemical abortions, this will not slow down the tens of thousands of abortion pills illegally being mailed into Texas right now from foreign pharmacies via illegal websites.
We pray for victory at the Supreme Court, but we can’t forget the mission to save babies from illegal abortions.
As we now wait for the decision from the Supreme Court, we must pray they will boldly choose to protect mothers and preborn children from lethal abortion pills. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on this case by the end of June.
