As reported by Lifesite News: It is just possible that chemical abortions — more than half of all U.S. abortions — soon could be outlawed nationwide.

A Texas judge’s decision that could revoke the FDA’s approval of abortion drugs is expected soon. Or the judge could at least nullify FDA decisions in 2016 and 2021 that allowed at-home and mail-order chemical abortions.

The case of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA argues that the FDA’s approval of abortion drugs in 2000 was based on flawed and inadequate testing procedures. The FDA bowed to pressure from the Clinton administration at that time to make drug safety secondary to a politically driven abortion agenda.

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. Northern District of Texas announced to lawyers on Friday that the first oral arguments in the case will be heard on Wednesday March 15.

To be clear, while the abortion drugs have huge health risks, the court is not being asked to play medical expert. It is enough for the court to find that the FDA failed to conduct the kinds of drug testing that are legally required by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. According to the lawsuit, the FDA failed in its legal duty to evaluate drug safety under real-world conditions and to consider significant health risks, including risks unique to pregnant adolescents.

Bottom of Form

The FDA put politics over health

Before the year 2000, a French manufacturer of the abortion drug, then known as RU486, was reluctant to market the drug in the U.S. for numerous reasons, including liability concerns relating to the health risks. The Clinton administration orchestrated a series of interventions to bring chemical abortions to the U.S., including FDA approval that bypassed some of the legally required safety testing.  

Abortion politics reasserted itself in 2016 when the FDA allowed at-home chemical abortions. In 2021, the Biden FDA used the COVID pandemic as an excuse for mail-order chemical abortions without any medical supervision. This was another case of a federal agency using COVID as an excuse for government overreach without fully considering the risks.

The Texas case argues several key points:

1. FDA approval in 2000 was based on a legal procedure known as “accelerated review authority” that was specifically limited to drugs for the treatment of “serious or life-threatening illnesses.” This should not have applied to abortion drugs since pregnancy is not an “illness.”
2. The abortion drug testing did not meet legal standards, including required testing under real-world conditions and special requirements for drugs to be used by adolescent girls. The FDA then went a step further in 2016 and 2021 by eliminating critical safeguards that had been conditions for the original drug approval.
3. The FDA authorized the mailing and interstate delivery of chemical abortion drugs in violation of a federal law known as the Comstock Act.

The court in Texas has received legal briefs filed by numerous interested parties elaborating on legal and practical considerations, including physical, psychological, financial, and societal harms from the abortion drugs. Supporting briefs have been filed by 22 of the 50 American states, 67 members of Congress, numerous women’s, health, pro-life, business, and other organizations.

Court filings emphasize that the FDA did not study the safety of the abortion drugs under the approved conditions of use and that it has gradually eliminated necessary safeguards. The FDA ignored evidence that chemical abortion drugs cause more complications than surgical abortions. And it ignored federal law that required it to study the unique impacts of abortion drugs on the developing bodies of adolescent girls.

Of course, there are opposing briefs arguing the FDA’s position, insisting that chemical abortions are safe and that abortion access should be preserved at all costs.

Abortion drugs are dangerous for pregnant women

According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, as many as 20% of the women who undergo chemical abortions suffer complications, four times that of surgical abortions. Chemical abortions are over 50% more likely than surgical abortions to result in an emergency room visit, affecting 5% of women. As many as 5% of chemical abortions fail to expel all the tissue, requiring surgery to complete the abortion.

A 2020 open letter from a coalition of pro-life groups to the FDA commissioner noted that the FDA’s adverse reporting system showed more than 4,000 reported adverse events since the year 2000, including some maternal deaths. These adverse events are notoriously under-reported, especially since the FDA only requires abortion pill manufacturers to report maternal deaths, not other injuries.

 

Chemical abortions are particularly dangerous in cases of ectopic pregnancy, approximately 1-2% of all pregnancies. The FDA’s own data reports the deaths of multiple women taking the abortion pills with ectopic pregnancies. Shockingly, the FDA does not require any in-person evaluation or ultrasound as a safeguard to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy beforehand.

Not surprisingly, mainstream media sources have been parroting pro-abortion talking points, saying that the abortion pills are “safer than Tylenol.” Not true. In fact, a recent study from the pro-abortion research group Gynuity provides evidence that emergency room and urgent care visits for women taking abortion drugs are 107 times higher.

This move by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk to lead the ban for this poison packaged as a drug is highly commendable. Women’s bodies shouldn’t be used as crude experiments for these drugs that do more harm than good.

Rather than feminists condemn these drugs, they massively promote it under some misguided guise of ‘choice’ and ‘My body is mine’.

American Conservatives should rally around this brave Texan Judge to ensure that this good law sees the light of day in the best interest of the generations yet unborn not only in America but all over the world especially in Africa which has been under brutal siege by the callous liberals.