It is time to catch up… a lot can happen in one month. As older subscribers know, I attempt to search various sources for the most important current events and keep them informed as situations evolve. We should try to be informed and coordinate our actions to make a difference.

There are many very strong nation-wide organizations with resources to mobilize the pro-life community for in-person and on-line events and for petitioning our representatives. Herein, I attempt to keep the subscriber informed on some of the most important and far-reaching actions that are a threat to our belief in the sanctity of life and the dignity of every person, especially the pre-born person.

At the same time, I wrote my book Building a Culture of Life in order to explore the fundamental topics and present a depth of knowledge which is presumed when I comment herein. If, the subscriber needs to know more, I hope that tool may be useful.

One of the most interesting recent events was the ruling by a federal judge in Amarillo, Texas. The ADF https://adfmedia.org/ filed a lawsuit in November 2022 claiming that mifepristone was improperly classified as a drug used “in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses” to “provide meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments.”

“But pregnancy is not an illness, nor do chemical abortion drugs provide a therapeutic benefit over surgical abortion,” their lawsuit reads. “In asserting these transparently false conclusions, the FDA exceeded its regulatory authority to approve the drugs.” “The FDA never studied the safety of the drugs under the labeled conditions of use, ignored the potential impacts of the hormone-blocking regimen on the developing bodies of adolescent girls, disregarded the substantial evidence that chemical abortion drugs cause more complications than surgical abortions, and eliminated necessary safeguards for pregnant girls and women who undergo this dangerous drug regimen.”

The Judge agreed https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/07/texas-abortion-drugs-fda-ruling/ calling abortion providers “abortionists” and describing the use of mifepristone as killing or “starv[ing] the unborn human until death” and ordered that the drug would become an “unapproved” drug as it is currently authorized by the FDA under its description and without adequate proof of safety. The judge’s order also prohibits abortionists from sending chemical abortion drugs through the mail.

However, it was immediately noted that the FDA is not obligated to prevent the manufacturing, selling, or dispensing of unapproved drugs. Furthermore, a federal judge in Spokane, Washington ruled nearly simultaneously that “federal officials could not hinder access to mifepristone in at least 17 of the states where Democratic attorney generals had sued to maintain availability.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/analysis-4-questions-answered-about-the-courts-and-the-abortion-medication-mifepristone .

In response to an emergency appeal regarding these conflicting rulings, the US Supreme Court has issued an order that the Texas judge’s ruling is “administratively stayed” until April 19. This is standard procedure in a case like this. It allows the Court time to hear the parties’ arguments and to examine existing laws and case histories before making a ruling.

Unlike the ruling in Dobbs that the 10th Amendment gives the states the authority to regulate abortion, the issue here is whether a federal agency has violated its own policies, thus violating federal law, in approving mifepristone without safety studies and with inappropriate labeling. In addition, the issue of sending the product by mail (with or without prescription and without physical exam and counseling in person by a licensed health care professional) should be settled.

I will continue to follow this story and provide updates as they emerge.

There are many other interesting developments recently, which I will summarize in a separate post soon.