Category Archives: Health

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, November 21, 2022:  

The public interest law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed the first lawsuit of its kind on Friday. It sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), claiming that for decades the agency has operated outside its legal boundaries, has failed to protect young pregnant women, and has ignored science in favor of politics in the process:

The FDA failed America’s women and girls when it chose politics over science and approved chemical abortion drugs for use in the United States.

 

And it has continued to fail them by repeatedly removing even the most basic precautionary requirements associated with their use….

 

Plaintiffs … ask that the Court hold [the agency’s actions] unlawful, set them aside, and vacate them.

The use of RU-486, aka mifepristone, was successfully blocked by pro-life groups for years after it was developed in France. But during the Clinton administration, then-president Bill Clinton instructed the FDA to promote the testing, licensing (for profit), and manufacture of the drug.

This led to the French pharmaceutical company that held the patent on the life-ending drug to donate it for free to the Rockefeller Foundation-sponsored Population Council. From there it was a short hop to approval by the FDA. By September 2000, the FDA had approved the council’s application, and abortion by ingesting poisonous chemicals became legal in the United States.

There was major pushback against the FDA, including two citizen petitions, both of which were ignored for years by the agency before finally being rejected. Along the way the agency continued to make the drug ever more accessible, finally even making it available by mail.

Ironically, one of the plaintiffs in the case, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, has adopted its own version of the Hippocratic Oath:

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) upholds and promotes the fundamental principles of Hippocratic medicine.

 

These principles include protecting the vulnerable at the beginning and end of life, seeking the ultimate good for the patient with compassion and moral integrity, and providing healthcare with the highest standards of excellence based on medical science.

This is a softer, kinder, gentler version of the original Hippocratic Oath:

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

 

Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly, I will not give to a woman a pessary [prosthetic device] to cause abortion.

The lawsuit reminds the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where it was filed, that the only way the FDA was able to approve the drug was to lie:

The only way the FDA could have approved chemical abortion drugs was to use its accelerated drug approval authority, necessitating the FDA to call pregnancy an “illness” and argue that these dangerous drugs provide a “meaningful therapeutic benefit” over existing treatments.

 

But pregnancy is not an illness, nor do chemical abortion drugs provide a therapeutic benefit over surgical abortion.

 

In asserting these transparently false conclusions, the FDA exceeded its regulatory authority to approve the drugs.

 

What’s more, the FDA needed to disavow science and the law because the FDA never studied the safety of the drugs under the labeled conditions of use despite being required to do so by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

 

The agency also ignored the potential impacts of the hormone-blocking regimen on the developing bodies of adolescent girls in violation of the Pediatric Research and Equity Act (PREA).

 

And the FDA disregarded the substantial evidence that chemical abortion drugs cause more complications than even surgical abortions.

The FDA knew then, and knows now, that administering RU-486/mifepristone has a complication rate four times higher than surgical abortions. In fact, one in five pregnant women who use the chemical to force the abortion of her living child will suffer complications requiring further medical attention, perhaps facing severe vaginal bleeding, life-threatening infection, and/or becoming sterile, and often requiring a blood transfusion followed by a hysterectomy.

According to ADF senior counsel Erik Baptist, the FDA’s approval has always been based on questionable ethical and legal grounds:

The FDA’s approval of chemical abortion drugs has always stood on shaky legal and moral ground, and after years of evading responsibility, it’s time for the government to do what it’s legally required to do: protect the health and safety of vulnerable girls and women.

 

On behalf of the national health care organizations and physicians we represent, we ask the court to hold the FDA accountable for its reckless, unlawful behavior.

 

We urge the court to reject the marketing and distribution of dangerous chemical abortion drugs so that the health, safety, and welfare of women are protected.

The lawsuit claims that the FDA knew all of these things and approved the drug anyway, cowing to political pressure from the White House and the profit motive of the pharmaceutical companies to which it owes its loyalty and allegiance:

In addition to the legal and scientific infirmities referenced above, all of the FDA’s actions on chemical abortion drugs — the 2000 approval, the 2016 major changes, the 2019 generic drug approval, and the two 2021 actions to eliminate the in-person dispensing requirement — failed to acknowledge and address the federal laws that prohibit the distribution of chemical abortion drugs by postal mail, express company, or common carrier.

 

Instead, the FDA’s actions permitted and sometimes even encouraged these illegal activities.

 

After two decades of engaging the FDA to no avail, Plaintiffs now ask this Court to do what the FDA was and is legally required to do: protect women and girls by holding unlawful, setting aside, and vacating the FDA’s actions to approve chemical abortion drugs and eviscerate crucial safeguards for those who undergo this dangerous drug regimen.

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, August 15, 2022:  

In a split decision, the Idaho state Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the state’s near-total ban on abortions may take effect, along with the state’s “heartbeat” law. The abortion ban (with narrow exceptions for rape or incest) will become effective in 10 days, while the heartbeat bill became effective immediately.

The state’s highest court ruled that the civilian enforcement part of the heartbeat law is also effective immediately. That provision allows relatives of the fetus or embryo that was murdered in the mother’s womb to sue the abortionist and his or her staff. If convicted, those parties could be fined up to $20,000 and/or serve up to five years in prison.

Abortion provider Planned Parenthood, along with a local abortionist, brought the suit against the state of Idaho, the speaker of the house, and the president pro tempore of the Senate, along with the entire Idaho state Legislature. It was filed three days after the Supreme Court of the United States made its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on June 24.

That ruling reversed the high court’s previous decisions in Roe v. Wade (decided in 1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (decided in 1992). The court ruled in Roe that the 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provided a “fundamental right to privacy” that protected a pregnant woman’s freedom to abort her unborn child. The decision in Casey upheld that alleged right.

Following the reversal, the Idaho Supreme Court noted that what the “petitioners [Planned Parenthood and the abortionist bringing the suit] are asking this court to ultimately do is to declare a right to abortion under the Idaho constitution when — on its face — there is none.”

This is the same flaw that ultimately tripped up Roe and Casey: nowhere in the federal Constitution is abortion even mentioned. And the 10^th Amendment specifically reserves to the states the power to make decisions on issues not mentioned — nor powers granted to the federal government — in the Constitution.

To make that point crystal clear, Justice Robyn Brody wrote in the majority opinion:

[E]ven if Petitioners have carried their burden of demonstrating that irreparable harm will flow from immediate enforcement of the [state’s] Total Abortion Ban, this alone cannot permit the extraordinary remedy Petitioners seek….

 

As noted in our June 30, 2022 order, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs has “altered the landscape” of long-standing federal constitutional law.

 

In Dobbs, the Supreme Court held that the United States Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly contain a right to abortion and returned the “profound moral question” of abortion to the “people and their elected representatives.”

To emphasize the point further, Justice Brody quoted from that monumental Dobbs decision:

We hold that [Roe v. Wade (1973)] and [Planned Parenthood v. Casey, (1992)] must be overruled.

 

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

The issue of abortion is one of life and death, a “profound moral question” that the Constitution doesn’t address. Said the U.S. Supreme Court:

Abortion presents a profound moral question.

 

The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion.

 

Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

The issue isn’t settled yet, though, as the Biden administration is suing Idaho over its pro-life laws. And other states with similar laws that became effective following the Dobbs decision, including Wyoming and Louisiana, are being sued by Planned Parenthood. So, the issue remains unsettled and will likely remain so until the moral side of the issue is resolved, and the culture of death is excised from the body politic.

But for Blaine Conzatti, president of the Idaho Family Policy Center, Friday was a day for celebration:

This is the day that the pro-life movement has worked towards for decades!

 

Precious children with beating hearts now finally have legal protection in the state of Idaho — and to God be the glory!

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, August 3, 2022:  

The lawsuit announced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the first of many likely to emanate from that federal department. It’s suing to invalidate Idaho’s nearly complete ban on abortion due to become effective on August 25.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was fulfilling a promise to use every tool at his disposal to neuter or invalidate as many of these state laws as he could:

On the day Roe and Casey were overturned, we promised that the Justice Department would work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom. That is what we are doing, and that is what we will continue to do.

 

We will use every tool at our disposal to ensure that pregnant women get the emergency medical treatment to which they are entitled under federal law. And we will closely scrutinize state abortion laws to ensure that they comply with federal law.

The federal law that Garland claims overrides Idaho’s pending law is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) that provides funds to state hospitals under Medicare — along with the obligatory federal strings that are always attached to such grants of federal largesse.

EMTALA requires, says the department, “hospitals that receive federal Medicare funds to provide necessary stabilizing treatments to patients who arrive at their emergency departments … state law cannot prohibit the provision of that care.”

That “stabilizing care,” according to the department, might include an abortion, and Idaho’s pending law “directly conflicts with EMTALA and stands as an obstacle” to implementation of that federal law.

Said Garland:

Every hospital that receives Medicare funds must provide necessary stabilizing treatment to a patient who arrives in an emergency room suffering from a medical condition that could place their life or health in serious jeopardy.

 

In some circumstances, the medical treatment necessary to stabilize the patient’s condition is abortion.

In response, Idaho’s governor, Brad Little, said he will “vigorously uphold state sovereignty” against what he described as “federal meddling.”

The DOJ’s 17-page complaint makes it clear that that is where the battle will be fought: over “state sovereignty.”

The Supremacy Clause — Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, what if that law — the EMTALA — is found to be unconstitutional? If the Supreme Court gets the opportunity to hear this case on appeal, it very well might be, according to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution:

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Garland and his department are just assuming that the Supremacy Clause will allow them to ride roughshod over Idaho’s pending abortion law. But if the phrase “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” is taken literally (as intended by the Founders), then EMTALA is unconstitutional, as such “meddling” (Brad Little’s word) involves powers “not delegated to the United States” and not “made in pursuance” of the Constitution.

The present complaint isn’t likely to make it to the Supreme Court. It will probably be settled — hopefully in favor of Idaho — at a lower level. But given the high court’s ringing endorsements of what the Founders intended in Dobbs and other recent decisions, it is likely that such federal overreach will be exposed for what it is: unconstitutional federal tyranny over the states and their citizens.

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, May 5, 2022:  

The latest Fox News poll reflects a pro-life trend that has been growing for years. In a poll completed just before Politico announced the leak of the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Monday, Fox reported that a majority thinks abortion should be illegal “all (11%) or most of the time (43%).” Those who think abortion should be legal “is [at] a record low and it’s also the first time the portion saying ‘illegal’ has been above 50% on a Fox News poll.”

The trend favoring the pro-life position has been apparent for years. Back in 1998, Gallup asked, “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” At the time, 15 percent said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. Ten years later, that percentage was 18 percent, and since then it has moved higher, to nearly 20 percent.

According to the Pew Research Center’s latest polling results, 39 percent say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Last June, Gallup found that 52 percent of Americans take a pro-life position on abortion, wanting all (19 percent) or almost all (33 percent) abortions made illegal. That same poll found that only 32 percent of those polled think abortions should be legal up to the moment of birth.

A January 2021, a Marist poll found a majority of those polled were pro-life and oppose all or nearly all abortions. A poll conducted later that year by CBS News reported that 55 percent of Americans say abortion should either be more limited or should not be permitted at all.

A Morning Consult poll conducted last year found that a majority of those polled want abortions to be made illegal either in all cases or only legal in very rare cases such as rape or incest, or when the pregnancy directly affects the life of the mother. Those exceptions constitute less than two or three percent of all abortions, which means, as Steven Ertelt of Life News put it, “Most Americans support making virtually all abortions illegal.”

Another measure of growing opposition to abortion comes from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, which reported that since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, states have imposed more than 1,300 restrictions on the procedure, including more than 100 last year alone.

At least one of them — Texas SB 8, the “Heartbeat Law” — made headline news, especially as other states such as Oklahoma and Idaho passed nearly identical laws.

In commenting on the Texas law, former Texas congressman Dr. Ron Paul pointed out that

It is no coincidence that Roe v. Wade came at a time when respect for natural rights of life, liberty, and property, was on the decline.

 

Roe contributed to the decline….

The ultimate solution, Dr. Paul wrote, was to reverse the trend by recognizing that abortion is the taking of an innocent life:

The way to reverse these developments is to restore respect for the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property, of all human beings, both born and unborn.

 

The cause of life is inseparable from the cause of liberty.

It’s taken 50 years, but the trend, and the momentum, is unmistakable. The Supreme Court “leak” is now propelling forward the conversation that states and their citizens must have on the issue. And they’re increasingly moving back to the Declaration of Independence’s crystal-clear statement:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, April 27, 2022:  

In a terse statement, a federal appeals court has dismissed all lawsuits pending against Texas state officials and administrators who have challenged the state’s “heartbeat” law:

Having received the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court that named official defendants may not enforce the provisions of the Texas Heartbeat Act … this court REMANDS the case with instructions to dismiss all challenges to the private enforcement provisions of the statute and to consider whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge.

Put another way, the ruling dismisses all attempts by pro-abortion advocates and providers to overturn Texas’ “Heartbeat Act.” And it requires the lower court to consider whether those bringing those challenges even have legal standing to do so.

In short, this ends the matter: Texas’ “heartbeat” law stands, and will continue to save an estimated 100 babies from being murdered in their mothers’ wombs every day.

The Texas law prohibits Texas officials from enforcing the law but allows private citizens to do so. It empowers them to sue anyone suspected of aiding or abetting an abortion after a heartbeat is detected (usually after six weeks of pregnancy). That would include physicians and their assistants, those providing advice and counsel to a woman considering ending her pregnancy, and those providing transportation to and from the abortion clinic.

The penalties against those providers are tough and have, for all intents and purposes, ended the abortion holocaust in the Lone Star State.

More than 20 lawsuits have been filed since the law became effective last September, and 14 of them were filed against Texas Right to Life (TRL). Said TRL President Jonathan Saenz:

This final federal court decision for life leaves no doubt that the Texas Heartbeat Act is the law of the land in the Lone Star State. We are grateful to the federal courts for upholding this groundbreaking law and protecting pre-born babies.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott celebrated the ruling: “Another legal loss for those challenging SB8 — the pro-life law that is saving babies every day.” So did Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, tweeting:

Very proud of my team for bringing win after win for the unborn in Texas! The Texas Heartbeat Act is one of the greatest pro-life laws in the nation, and I’m glad to defend it. Tens of thousands of babies have been saved in Texas because of SB 8 and our victories in court!

One lawsuit — Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson — sought to exploit an opening the Supreme Court allowed back in December: that anti-life challengers could bring action against state licensing officials. That opening has now been firmly shut.

All eyes are now on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, heard by the Supreme Court in December with an expected ruling in June. Optimists are hoping the high court will overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue of abortion to the states, where it rightfully belongs.

But they could be disappointed, as the Supreme Court is only considering “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

For now, pro-life supporters are celebrating, as well as thousands of babies who have been saved from the holocaust since the Texas Heartbeat Act became effective last September.

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 24, 2022:  

Coinciding with Friday’s March for Life attended by thousands in Washington, D.C., South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s announcement of two new anti-abortion bills adds to the pro-life momentum continuing to build across the land. From her office she announced:

Today, as tens of thousands of pro-life Americans participate in the annual March for Life in Washington, DC, Governor Kristi Noem announced the text of two pro-life bills to protect unborn lives.

 

The first will ban abortions once a child’s heartbeat can be detected; the second will ban telemedicine abortions in South Dakota.

Noem’s first bill is the third so-called heartbeat law in the country, succeeding those passed by Texas and Mississippi. Texas bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, usually around the 10th week of pregnancy, while Mississippi’s law bans abortions after 15 weeks. A lawsuit challenging the Mississippi law — Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — is currently under review by the Supreme Court.

Noem’s announcement also coincides with the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that “discovered” the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy. The court doubled down on that highly controversial decision years later.

Said Governor Noem in announcing the new bills:

Every human life is unique and beautiful from the moment it is conceived. Every life is worthy of our protection, worthy of the right to live. We hope that this year’s March for Life will be the last and that the Supreme Court will finally protect every unborn life. But until that comes to pass, these bills will ensure that both unborn children and their mothers are protected in South Dakota.

The South Dakota law is modeled after the Texas heartbeat law in that only private citizens can bring civil action against abortionists or those aiding them in performing an abortion. This has so far successfully thwarted the abortion industry from obtaining a court’s injunction against enforcement of the law.

South Dakota’s new law has teeth: There is a minimum $10,000 penalty against the abortion provider, along with legal fees and other financial penalties if the lawsuit is successful. This aspect of Texas’ heartbeat law has virtually shut down abortions in that state.

Thanks to South Dakota’s already-strong stand against taking the life of an unborn infant, abortions in that state have been reduced by 80% over the last ten years.

Gov. Noem reinforced that South Dakota is a strongly pro-life state:

The Constitution clearly delegates defending the lives and safety of the people to the [state] government as its chief role. That includes defending the rights and the lives of unborn children.…

 

As soon as the High Court overturns Roe v. Wade, our state laws already in place should protect every unborn South Dakota child….

 

Science tells us that an unborn child’s heart starts beating as early as six weeks after conception. Any abortion after that point stops that heartbeat — stops that life — stops that gift from God.

The second bill announced by Noem bans so-called “telemedicine” abortions: abortions facilitated by two drugs, mifepristone (which deprives the fetus of nutrients) and its follow-up drug, misoprostol (which induces labor to expel the remains of the dead infant). These were formerly available online, but this bill would effectively codify Noem’s executive order issued last September banning the purchase of such drugs over the internet.

Under the new bill, those drugs may only be prescribed during an in-person consultation with a physician licensed in the state. The bill also bans the drugs from being delivered by mail, and forbids them from being provided in schools or on state properties.

These two bills follow eight other pro-life bills Governor Noem signed into law last year, including a ban on abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome, and a bill protecting the life of an infant born alive, regardless of the circumstances of that child’s birth.

In addition, South Dakota has a “trigger law” enacted in 2005 that would ban all abortions at any time “on a date that the states are recognized by the United States Supreme Court to have the authority to regulate or prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy.”

That’s one of the most egregious aspects of Roe v. Wade: The high court overruled every state’s power granted under the Constitution to regulate abortions, thus unleashing a tsunami of abortions — an estimated 65 million lives have been lost in the holocaust that began back in 1973.