A federal appeals court scaled back Obama and Biden administration policies late Wednesday that allowed abortion pills to be used later in pregnancy and to be mailed without an in-person visit.
The changes to mail-order abortions and the reduction from 10 weeks to seven weeks will take effect immediately. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to temporarily keep mifepristone on the market when used for elective abortion.
The appeal partially upholds and partially blocks a decision last Friday from a U.S. district judge in Texas stating that the FDA failed to follow proper protocol during the initial approval and subsequent changes to the rules for using an abortion pill to end the lives of preborn children.
While Wednesday’s ruling does not protect preborn children from chemical abortions entirely, Texas Right to Life is optimistic that lives will be saved as the case goes forward.
“We are confident that this case will result in a significant Pro-Life victory where countless preborn children and pregnant mothers will be rescued from abortion,” Texas Right to Life President Dr. John Seago responded. “While its scope is disappointing, this order does make it clear that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals takes the accusations against the FDA seriously and will fairly examine the myriad of arguments made about their negligent and politically-motivated approval of this dangerous abortion drug.”
Wednesday’s order does not change the status quo in Pro-Life states like Texas where the Right to Life of all preborn children is legally recognized, but in several other states without strong prohibitions on abortion, this order does restore multiple safety guidelines on the use of mifepristone, safeguards that had been waived by pro-abortion presidential administrations.
TOP DEMOCRATS REACT TO COURT’S ABORTION RESTRICTIONS
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of two drugs in 2000 to cause chemical abortions. The first drug, mifepristone, kills the preborn child by starving him or her to death, while the second, misoprostol, causes the woman to deliver the deceased baby. Under President Obama in 2016, the FDA approved the abortion pills for use later in pregnancy, from seven weeks to 10 weeks, despite the increased risk of complications. In 2021, the Biden-led FDA removed the requirement for pregnant women to visit a doctor in person in order to determine the age of the preborn child and examine the mother for ectopic pregnancy, Rh incompatibility, or other conditions that contraindicate the abortion pill regimen.
Appellate judges agreed that the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 decisions should be reversed, which would bring the approved window for mifepristone down from 10 weeks to seven weeks and would require an in-person visit for abortions nationwide instead of being mailed.
With a contradicting lawsuit happening at the same time on the West Coast trying to preserve the FDA’s loose restrictions, this case is likely to be fast-tracked to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Every abortion ends the life of an innocent preborn child, but chemical abortion is additionally dangerous for the pregnant mother. Studies show that 1 in 5 women experience an adverse event following a chemical abortion, the rate of complications for chemical abortions is four times higher than surgical abortions, and they require follow-up surgical abortion in 3-8% of cases. This type of abortion takes much longer and involves more bleeding and pain, and complications increase exponentially with the baby’s increasing gestational age.
Doctors should not be concerned about changing their protocol for treating miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies. This lawsuit does not ask the court to take mifepristone off the market for all purposes. Thus, the ruling can only apply to chemical abortions. While miscarriage treatment can indeed involve similar drugs and procedures as elective abortion, removing a deceased child who passed away by spontaneous miscarriage is legally and morally different than intentionally ending that child’s life, and it is therefore not defined as an abortion.
Pro-Life laws in every state contain exceptions for instances in which the life of the mother is threatened. The law requires that the threat be foreseeable and doctors therefore may act within their reasonable medical judgment as soon as the threat is identified. Pro-Life policies do not require physicians to delay necessary care until the danger is imminent in order to treat a mother.
As this case progresses, Texas Right to Life will continue working in the Texas Legislature to stop dangerous new trends like anti-Life groups mailing abortion drugs illegally through the mail or trafficking them over our southern border. Texas Right to Life is also spearheading efforts to increase resources for pregnant women and families, such as making adoption affordable, removing barriers for student parents at universities, and funding Alternatives to Abortion.