WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — The Supreme Court ruled against pro-life doctors and others who challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to loosen restrictions on the distribution of dangerous chemical abortion drugs.
The plaintiffs lack standing to sue to stop the law, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the unanimous decision in the case titled FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, released on Thursday.
“Here, the plaintiff doctors and medical associations are unregulated parties who seek to challenge FDA’s regulation of others,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.
“Specifically, FDA’s regulations apply to doctors prescribing mifepristone and to pregnant women taking mifepristone. But the plaintiff doctors and medical associations do not prescribe or use mifepristone,” the decision stated. “And FDA has not required the plaintiffs to do anything or to refrain from doing anything.”
He wrote further:
Because the plaintiffs do not prescribe, manufacture, sell, or advertise mifepristone or sponsor a competing drug, the plaintiffs suffer no direct monetary injuries from FDA’s actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone. Nor do they suffer injuries to their property, or to the value of their property, from FDA’s actions. Because the plaintiffs do not use mifepristone, they obviously can suffer no physical injuries from FDA’s actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone.
Rather, the plaintiffs say that they are pro-life, oppose elective abortion, and have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to mifepristone being prescribed and used by others. The plaintiffs appear to recognize that those general legal, moral, ideological, and policy concerns do not suffice on their own to confer Article III standing to sue in federal court.
The Food and Drug Administration made the decision as part of the Biden-Harris agenda to make abortion as widely available as possible. The administration has ignored longstanding federal law against the military funding abortions as well as mailing the dangerous drugs.
“The FDA’s decision to weaken commonsense safeguards, removing doctors from the process, shows they prioritize ending unborn life over the health and safety of women,” board-certified OB/GYN Ingrid Skop previously stated on the case.
The administration made the decision to remove basic standards, like requiring a doctor to check that a woman does not have an ectopic pregnancy, in 2021.
Pro-lifers stress, however, that there is no such thing as a “safe abortion,” since it always unjustly kills at least one innocent preborn baby.
In addition to directly ending an innocent human life, abortion drugs are also dangerous for women.
For example, during a rally earlier in the year outside of the Supreme Court, one woman shared her story of being harmed by abortion drugs:
She said:
I was utterly alone, terror-stricken, and certain that I would die. In fact, I wanted death to come to relieve me from the agony that felt never-ending. My body shook violently with tremors, and I sweated profusely. I cried in agony, for I had never experienced such physical attacks to my body. I was petrified and completely alone, not knowing how long this would last.
“I didn’t end my life when I had my chemical abortion, but I wanted to,” Leslie Wolbert said. “I wanted the pain to be over, because it was all so unbearable and disorienting. Had the means been available to end my life, I may have.”
The Supreme Court has yet to rule on another abortion-related case. The court will likely release a decision in the coming days on Biden’s plan to force Idaho, and other states with that restrict abortion, to allow abortions under the guise of “medical necessity.” The Biden administration is reading a novel interpretation into the Emergency Medical Treatment & Active Labor Act (EMTALA).
The EMTALA is not about abortion but rather about providing basic medical care to anyone who needs it. It also explicitly recognizes unborn children.