Abortion does not support women’s health. Courtesy | Piqsels
When Roe v. Wade was overturned, the pro-choice push back throughout the country created a polarizing opinion of abortion, which has been heightened with the U.S. Supreme Court’s discussion of the abortion pill, mifepristone, this week. While the overturning of Roe v. Wade was a great win for the pro-life movement, it has been an uphill battle against those advocating for the killing of infants.
A Texas judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, suspended the Food and Drug Administration approval for medicated abortions on April 8. This was another win for the pro-life movement as the case was brought to the Texas courts by Alliance Defending Freedom, a faith-based nonprofit focused on legal advocacy, on behalf of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The organization consists of pro-life doctors and medical groups, who seek to defend human life and advocate for doctors to uphold their oath to do no harm.
The lawsuit claimed that the FDA did not have the authority to approve the drugs needed for at home medicated abortions. According to a New York Times Times article regarding the suspension of the drug, mifepristone is used to terminate pregnancies up to 10 weeks. And paired with a second drug called misoprostol, the Mifeprex two-pill regimen accounts for nearly half of abortions nationwide. This decision came April 7, and was kept quiet from the public due to fear of protestors. According to Amarillo Globe-news in an article reporting on the court ruling, the Women’s March held a protest outside of the courthouse. The Women’s March leader Amanda Chavez Barnes spoke about the Saturday protest in Amarillo regarding the Karymarks ruling and said “For us all, seeing that Judge Kacsmaryk is acting like a politician in a robe and using his court as a way for special interests is a perversion of our court system and basic democracy,” The Texas judge ruled to suspend the approval by the FDA’s for the safety of mifepristone. His opinion regarded the drug being marketed as safe when it was not in the final stages of determining that it should be given to mothers seeking to abort.
Kacsmaryk expressed in a statement regarding the ruling that “The court does not second guess FDA’s decision-making lightly.” The suspension was based on the grounds of “The FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns — in violation of its statutory duty — based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions,” as remarked in Kacsmaryk’s statement.
The suspension of the drug could potentially inhibit access of the drug nationwide. However, immediately as the ruling became public the Washington state federal judge issued a contradictory ruling, which set the case on the path to the Supreme Court. Likewise, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued an official statement saying he “strongly disagreed” with Kacsmaryk’s ruling. Along with push back from the Biden administration, Kacsmaryk is facing public scrutiny because of the ruling. Many are claiming that the specific case was brought to Kacsmaryk’s district knowing he would suspend approval based on his outspoken Christian-conservative background and pro-life stance. This has caused many to accuse ADF for intentionally filing the lawsuit within Kacsmaryk’s district to manipulate the system to get a ruling that would align with their ideology.
But the lawsuit filed by ADF seems very intentional in rendering a verdict for the pro-life movement. While the polarizing topic is claimed to be an infringement of rights for both sides of the aisle, the issue can be interpreted as human rights distinction between humans, the mother or the child. Due to this sharp disagreement, both movements claim unconstitutional action is taken to further the other’s agenda. While both movements claim the extreme of the other, pro-lifers actively involve themselves in the legislature to seek change for the ultimate ban. However, this is a feat that seems to be far-fetched.
At the core of the arguments for those who tend to be pro-choice there is a fundamental irony in their lack of objectivity. Although studies have showcased the mental and physical trauma associated with abortions, this is not enough for those to advocate for their choice rather than admitting to the necessity of lifestyle changes. The pro-life movement is at the forefront of educating people on the long-term traumatic effects of abortions of any kind, but there is an unwillingness to make a change for the benefit of women’s health and livelihood. This is because there is a fundamental disregard for women’s health within the pro-choice movement and merely remains to a portion of the moral decline of our country masked by the claims of being “pro-woman.”
