CV NEWS FEED // Pro-life leaders and organizations are responding to a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that allowed chemical abortion pills to remain on the market.
On June 13, the Supreme Court ruled on FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, upholding access to the chemical abortion pill and stating that the pro-life plaintiffs did not have the standing to legally challenge the pro-abortion FDA’s actions in that particular case.
As CatholicVote previously reported, CatholicVote Director of Governmental Affairs Tom McClusky said the decision was “not surprising.”
“It is not up to the courts solely to correct the problems created by past administrations, it is up to Congress and the next President of the United States, Donald Trump,” McClusky commented.
Other pro-life leaders offered similarly measured responses to the ruling.
In an emailed news release, Americans United for Life (AUL) highlighted that “[t]he Court’s opinion is based on matters of procedure and not on the merits of FDA authority to approve and promote abortion drugs.”
AUL Litigation Counsel Carlyn McDonnell said that while the ruling represented a “disappointing loss on standing, three states have intervened in the case in the district court to help address the standing issue, which means litigation will continue and the fight is not over.”
AUL Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel Steven H. Aden added: “The use of mifepristone to end human life in the womb continues to be illegal in over a dozen states, and the act of mailing these pills into those states continues to be illegal under federal law.”
“We expect that when the lower courts take up this matter again, they will have to reckon with the consequences of a federal regime that permits the use of a drug that remains unlawful under most circumstances,” he concluded.
LiveAction foundress and President Lila Rose acknowledged on her X account that “[t]he ruling is procedural & fails to engage the Admin’s unlawful actions. Those unlawful actions will be back at SCOTUS soon.”
Politico published an article on June 13 arguing that the ruling can actually benefit the pro-life movement in several ways. The article pointed to the language of the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the concurrence written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Both writings, the Politico piece noted, “contained suggestions for other ways abortion opponents could bring legal challenges or pursue restrictions on the pills in Congress or through the executive branch.”
Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins highlighted the Politico article on her X account and stated that “there is good news in today’s ruling.”
In a separate news release from Students for Life of America, Hawkins pointed out that a new approach in challenging the chemical abortion pill is through environment-focused arguments.
“The Biden Administration allowed distribution of Chemical Abortion Pills in a way that exposes women to injury, infertility, and death, as well as empowers abusers and created abortion water pollution,” Hawkins stated:
Right now, chemically tainted blood, placenta tissue, and human remains are flushed into our waterways in record numbers. This is a hazard that can harm us. Now, that’s what I call “Standing.” We’ll be back.
National Association of Pro-Life Nurses President Dorothy Kane said in an emailed news release that the ruling is “a devastating blow to women’s health” that “[ignores] the mounting evidence of the significant risks associated with these drugs.”
Kane added that nurses witness first-hand the “devastating impact” of chemical abortion pills.
“The elimination of in-person doctor visits endangers women, particularly those at risk for ectopic pregnancies,” Kane stated, later concluding:
We urge lawmakers to prioritize the safety and well-being of women over political expediency, while working towards a higher standard of patient care that includes robust informed consent and ongoing medical supervision for all women considering abortion.
The post Pro-life leaders react to SCOTUS chemical abortion ruling appeared first on CatholicVote org.