The nationwide court battle over abortion will see its biggest week since June of last year when Roe v Wade was overturned.
The Abortion Pill Cases go to the Supreme Court
Late last week, Justice Samuel Alito, the supreme court judge who authored the opinion that declared abortion is not a federal constitutional right, issued a five day suspension of the district and appeals court rulings over the chemical abortion pill.
The temporary stay was meant to give the justices of the US Supreme Court the opportunity to properly review the lower court cases before issuing an opinion, and while the media and legal pundits heralded the stay as confirmation of their advocacy for the abortion pill, Alliance Defending Freedom, the lawyers for the pro-life doctors who brought the suit against the FDA, explained in a press release that the temporary stay is a normal procedure in complex cases.
On April 7th a federal district court judge in Amarillo, Texas issued a ruling striking down the FDA’s 20 year old approval of Mifepristone, the drug known as the abortion pill. In the initial ruling, Judge Kacsmaryk correctly highlighted the fact that the abortion pill had been rushed to approval by a series of unlawful steps rife with fraudulent manipulations of the federal laws instituted to insure the safety of drugs.
At the heart of the matter is the use of the FDA of “subpart H” a regulation passed by the FDA in 1992 that was intended to help the fast-track the approval of drugs necessary to treat life-threatening illnesses. Subpart H, was specifically passed with HIV/AIDS in mind, but was used by the Clinton administration to circumvent the rigorous testing required for drugs, especially drugs dealing with pregnancy. In order to make “subpart H” apply, the FDA considered pregnancy to be a life-threatening illness.
Within hours of the ruling being issued by judge Kacsmaryk, the abortion industry had a pro-abortion federal district court judge issue a competing ruling in the state of Washington, affirming the FDA’s original decision to approve the abortion pill.
The Biden administration, and Danco laboratories (the maker of the drug), immediately appealed the Texas ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which quickly issued an initial ruling that stopped short of the complete reversal of the initial FDA approval implemented by Judge Kacsmaryk, but acknowledged the illegality of the approval process and reversed the most recent moves by the Biden administration to use the COVID pandemic to allow the dangerous abortion drug to be shipped in the mail after a minutes long virtual consultation.
Justice Alito put a complete pause on the competing rulings but announced that the Supreme Court will issue a more permanent ruling on Wednesday.
Ohio “Reproductive Freedom” Amendment Lawsuit
The second pivotal ruling expected this week deals with the ballot initiative being proposed by the abortion lobby to amend the constitution of Ohio to make the killing of pre-born children through abortion a state constitutionally protected right.
Abortion advocates are attempting to put the amendment, styled after New York and California’s radical abortion laws, on the November 2023 general election ballot. To do so, they will required over 400,000 valid signatures on their petition to be turned in before July 5th. Paying circulators to collect signatures is allowed in Ohio, and it is expected that with the abortion lobby’s almost unlimited funds, the signature collection effort will be successful.
Several efforts are currently underway to stop the abortion lobby in Ohio.
The first is a traditional political campaign that will attempt to convince Ohioans that the California-style abortion amendment is too radical for Ohio. Unfortunately, a very similar amendment was passed with a wide margin in neighboring Michigan just last election, and it is unlikely that pro-lifers would be able to overcome the uniform media bias that amplifies pro-abortion messaging and mutes the pro-life side.
The second effort is making its way through the Ohio legislature and entails making it more difficult to amend the state constitution. A joint resolution has been introduced in the state legislature that would ask voters in a special election in August, whether the required vote to amend the state constitution should be increased from 50% +1, a simple majority, to 60%, a supermajority.
The third effort is a legal challenge to the decision of the Ohio Ballot Board’s finding that the amendment contains a single subject, as required by the state constitution.
Cincinnati Right to Life filed a lawsuit that questions the Ohio Ballot Board’s finding that such polar opposite actions such as killing a child through abortion and carrying a baby to term could be covered by a single subject. The pro-life organizations argue that the “Reproductive Freedom” amendment is seeking to enshrine a pro-abortion euphemism into the law. Pro-lifers argue that protecting the rights to contraception, miscarriage care, infertility treatment, and continuing with pregnancy can not possibly be considered a single subject along with the “right” to kill a developing child through an abortion.
Late last month, Thomas More Society attorneys filed an amicus brief in the case pointing out that Ohio state law specifically prohibits the practice of “logrolling”, or grouping popular subjects such as the right to “contraception” with controversial ones, such as the right to kill a developing child through abortion, in order to avoid confusing or tricking the voter into supporting the amendment.
The slim Republican majority at the Ohio State Supreme Court was recently retained when voters rejected all the Democrat candidates in favor of their Republican counterparts during the 2022 midterm elections.
A decision from the Ohio Supreme Court is expected this week.