2 years after overturning Roe, SCOTUS preserves pill that helps kill unborn children

The Blaze ^ | June 13, 2024 | Cortney Weil

[Twotone]

The U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled unanimously to keep a controversial abortion drug on the market even after the court ruled two years ago to overturn Roe v. Wade.

In FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a group of pro-life medical practitioners and their organizations had sued the FDA for relaxing restrictions on mifepristone, the first of two drugs used in a medical abortion. The plaintiffs argued that these relaxed standards would "jeopardize women’s health across the nation."

SCOTUS justices apparently considered the case on technical grounds rather than on the ethical issues regarding killing unborn children and ruled 9-0 that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the FDA. Writing on behalf of the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee who voted to overturn Roe, claimed that "federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions."

Kavanaugh did acknowledge that the plaintiffs in this case have "sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone." However, such objections do not amount to legal standing, he explained.

"A plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue."

President Joe Biden — who has long supported unfettered access to abortion even though the Catholic Church, of which he is a member, considers abortion a "moral evil" — gave a tepid response to the ruling. "It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states," he said.

"But let’s be clear: attacks on medication abortion are part of Republican elected officials’ extreme and dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide."

Several outlets believe that Democrats view abortion as a winning issue this November, and recent referenda in traditionally red states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio indicate that Americans as a whole still support allowing women to kill their unborn children.

[Pajamajan]

It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs kill her baby, is imperiled, if not impossible in many states , he said.

Fixed it. Abortion is not "treatment" or "reproductive care".

If voters in individual states, decide that women can have their babies killed, under whatever circumstances outlined in the various state's laws- Pro life will have to continue making their case, that women should let their babies live.

The reason "abortion" is controversial is because, in reality, it IS baby killing.

Calling it what it is, defines the issue clearly.

Examples:

Should a woman be able to have her baby killed up to the moment of birth, (or even after), when the baby can feel pain?

(Should "doktors" be able to make profits off of the sales of the babies body parts?)

OTOH:

Shoud a woman be able to have her baby killed if her life is edangered from the pregnancy, or if she was raped, or is the victim of incest?

The abotion pill kills the baby, but in the earliest stages of development. Should women be able to kill their babies this way? The states have to decide.