Did the recent unanimous Supreme Court ruling on chemical abortion really "uphold access to mifepristone abortion pill" or did it just provide a clear path for a permanent anti-abortion victory?
Would the same court that just two years ago overturned Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), suddenly reverse course?
While the court's decision was unanimous, it did not rule on the merits of the case, which alleged the Food and Drug Administration illegally approved of the dangerous drug mifepristone.
The court merely said that the the "doctors and medical associations" bringing the suit did not have standing to sue because they are a third party and neither "prescribe or use mifepristone" nor are required by the FDA "to do anything or to refrain from doing anything."
Therefore, they are not directly injured by the FDA's drug approval.
So it is not as if the conservative, anti-abortion justices repented in order to join the eugenic ideology of their pro-abortion counterparts.
The goal now is to argue the case with a plaintiff directly injured by the Biden FDA's irresponsible deregulation in 2021, when the "FDA again relaxed the requirements for ... mifepristone . . . [and] announced that it would no longer enforce the initial in-person visit requirement."
This is a ruling that in the long run, will open the door to overturn previous abortion rulings and bar future ones that are based on abortion providers, or other abortion businesses, standing as a third party on behalf of imaginary women harmed by any potential abortion restriction. Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion said, " . . . a plaintiff cannot establish an Article III case . . . by asserting another person’s rights.
So, just as abortion providers lack standing to assert the rights of their clients, doctors who oppose abortion cannot vicariously assert the rights of their patients."
The courts wrongly accepted third party abortionists to stand in for the alleged reproductive rights of women over the last 50 years which the court is signaling will no longer be tolerated.
Translation: "What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
It's understandable that some who are anti-abortion would be disappointed with the ruling. However, we need to see past the fact that the Court did not sanction the FDA’s failure to perform due diligence on mifepristone safety.
We must view this golden judicial path as the silver lining to ultimate judicial victory.
This battle reminds me of the scene in the C.S. Lewis’ "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," when the white witch broke out in cackling glee when she thought she killed Aslan the Lion (the Christ figure) only to see him emerge victoriously.
Similarly, the three pro-abortion judges may feel they have won. But sometimes you must strategically lose a battle to win the war.
The question for arguing the merits of the case that the FDA’s approval of chemical abortion for sale in the U.S. harms women and babies simply means you have to find a parent of a minor who was harmed by chemical abortion, a trafficked girl forced to abort pregnancies to keep her on the sex slave market, a pregnant woman drugged by her husband or boyfriend with mifepristone, a hospital ER experiencing miscarriage inflation because the telehealth abortionists are telling women to lie to the emergency room doctor that she is miscarrying, etc.
Meanwhile, pro-abortion rights politicians and states seek to protect their pet industry that gives them millions in campaign money.
And not for nothing, the high court ruling said zero regarding whether the sale and shipment of mifepristone is legal.
In fact, based on the questions asked by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas during oral arguments, they know it is not.
According to the federal Comstock Act, chemical abortion shipment across the U.S. border and state lines remains illegal. U.S. Atty. General Merrick Garland criminally refuses to uphold his oath of office to enforce the laws duly enacted by the legislature.
Virtually all instances of Mifepristone exist by virtue of shipment across the U.S. boarder and state lines, making nearly all of the 630,000 chemical abortion last year illegal.
This Supreme Court decision did not change that fact.
All they said was, find a plaintiff with standing and we will hear the merits of the case. And in so doing, signaled to those anti-abortion which cases can be abandoned, appealed, or begun. And if the abortion industry is paying attention, they should be very worried.
With abortion causing a 44% increase in the risk of breast cancer, a 52% increase of future pre-term births, a five-fold increase risk of suicide — with chemical abortion increasing the likelihood of an emergency room visits by 500% with sepsis, hemorrhage, or complications with an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy, it's just a matter of time before big abortion falls with the high court signaling their willingness to hear the merits of the harm done to women from chemical abortion.
And with Merrick Garland in such hot water for Contempt of Congress, perhaps when he is finally impeached and joins Steve Bannon in jail, a new U.S. attorney general would be willing to enforce the Comstock Act and fine everyone in the abortion industry, including those complicit in conspiring to circumvent federal law.
With racketeering, the fines alone would not only bankrupt the abortion empire but could offset a significant percentage of the national debt.
The Rev. Jim Harden, CEO of CompassCare, an anti-abortion medical network based in Buffalo, New York, is married with 10 children. He passionately exposes unequal enforcement of the law and immoral public policy. Read more of the Rev. Jim Harden's Reports — Here.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.