Will SCOTUS Undermine Federal Law on Chemical Abortion?

The Supreme Court is expected to publish another major abortion ruling any day now that could carry greater implications than the decision to overturn Roe two years ago.

The chemical abortion case heard before the Supreme Court on March 26 titled Food and Drug Administration (FDA) v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine not only carries the potential of more severe impact on the abortion industry than even overturning Roe, the case may also be moot.

The case is moot because under the Comstock Act (reviewed and updated in 1971), the shipment of abortion-causing agents across the U.S. border or state lines is illegal, a point brought up during oral arguments by both Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

But liberal court watchers are hoping the Court will deny standing to the doctors bringing suit, thereby ignoring the large scale illicit abortion drug trafficking encouraged by the Biden administration’s refusal to prosecute.

Instead of ruling on whether doctors have standing to file suit against the FDA and its illegal approval of chemical abortion, the Supreme Court should take this case as an opportunity to say that the will of the people through the legislature is being unconstitutionally ignored by the executive branch tasked with enforcing the laws duly enacted.

Given that nearly all instances of chemical abortion were shipped across the U.S. border from China and then shipped again across state lines, virtually every instance of chemical abortion in the U.S. represents a violation of federal law.

And since chemical abortion now represents approximately 63% of all U.S. abortions, that means nearly 650,000 abortions in 2023 were illegal. So, what does it matter if the FDA did or did not follow their protocols for drug approval?

What does it matter if doctors do or do not have standing to sue the FDA? The Supreme Court should take this opportunity to issue a mandate for the executive branch to stop undermining the Congress with politically motivated selective law enforcement.

Perhaps this is why both Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas brought up the Comstock Act during oral arguments, wondering why abortion drug manufacturer, Danco Labs, is being permitted to violate this federal law, which they recognize clearly prohibits the shipment of these types of drugs.

In light of a refusal to enforce the Comstock Act, this case puts the legal cart before the horse. How can U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland get away with simply refusing to enforce this law?

An AG can’t pick and choose which laws to enforce as if the U.S. legal code were a box of political chocolates!

Abortion-rights politicians likely realize the terrifying truth that they can’t get 60 votes in the Senate to repeal the Comstock Act. And if the Democrats lose the White House and a new Republican administration begins to prosecute under this law it could make the January 6 investigation look like a walk in the park.

Virtually all hands on the deck of the abortion empire’s boat have touched chemical abortion process. Enforcement of the Comstock Act could be the torpedo sinking their ship.

Based on the assessment of scores of senators, congressmen and 22 state attorneys general, violations of the Comstock Act can be prosecuted for up to five years after the fact with a $250,000 fine per incident and up to 10 years in jail, amounting to $157 billion, just for violations in 2023.

Moreover, conspiracy to circumvent federal law by pharmaceutical companies, online purveyors, pharmacies, abortionists prescribing, and abortion-rights politicians facilitating measures to protect the chemical abortion trade could amount to racketeering and federal money laundering charges, which triples the fines totaling nearly half a trillion dollars, also just for 2023 alone.

Successful prosecution would bankrupt and imprison the vast majority of those involved in the abortion trade.

An interesting wrinkle in all this is that the FDA and Danco Labs are arguing their case using similar arguments to the infamous Dred Scott case of a slave suing for his freedom.

Lawyers for the FDA insist that the doctors filing suit, like Dred Scott, do not have standing in court to sue. The hauntingly similar pre-Civil War Supreme Court case at the time was Scott v Sandford.

Generally considered technically the worst decision ever published by the high court, Scott v Sandford set the three co-equal branches of government at odds. Majority opinion author for the ruling, Chief Justice Roger Taney, ignobly denied the power of state or federal legislation to confer citizenship upon Dred Scott, nullifying his standing to sue in court.

Failure to acknowledge current federal law clearly articulating the criminality of the chemical abortion industry also weakens the legislative branch of government and removes the peoples’ only direct representative in the governmental process.

Further, this would establish a dangerous precedent that the laws passed by Congress can be ignored by the executive branch, undermining the constitutional rule of law.

Only after a Civil War and the ratification of the 13^th and 14^thAmendments was the freedom of all Black people recognized and protected. A wise Supreme Court will not make the same mistake the Scott v Sandford Court made.

Any decision that weakens the legislative branch or fails to mandate enforcement of current law by the executive branch will only serve to undermine the Constitution the Court exists to protect.

Ultimately, a personhood amendment may be the only way to protect the rights of all women and preborn boys and girls from a profiteering abortion trade masquerading as reproductive freedom.

America is facing a crisis of government not unlike the dilemmas that precipitated the Civil War. To avert the crisis, we ought to remember the warning is Abraham Lincoln, quoting Jesus after He freed a man enslaved by demons, saying, “any house divided against itself will not stand.”