For the Left, it's politics first

For the Left, it's politics first

For the Left, it's politics first

Research and science continue to contradict abortion supporters as they try to convince courts that abortion is safe for women, and the politicization is obvious to pro-lifers.

A federal judge in Amarillo, Texas last week struck down the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of mifepristone more than 20 years ago, partly because the proper protocol was not used to make sure it was safe.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointment of Donald Trump, issued his decision Friday but ruled it would not take effect for seven days. By Monday, Biden's Justice Department had appealed.

Dr. Michael New of the Charlotte Lozier Institute says the Left is scrambling to convince people that mifepristone, which is one of two drugs used in chemical abortion procedures, is safe.

New, Dr. Michael New

"All these studies, in my opinion, aren't relevant, because the FDA has done many things that have increased the risks of all the chemical abortion drugs," he says. "They've allowed women to take these drugs later in pregnancy, with the gestational limit increased from seven weeks to ten weeks. They're also now allowing women to obtain chemical abortion drugs without an in-person medical exam, which poses health risks."

If a woman uses mifepristone to terminate an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy, for example, the consequences can be deadly for her.

Knowing the FDA continues to ignore those risks, Dr. New reasons that abortion drugs have been politicized.

"Approval of the chemical abortion drug in the year 2000 was rushed by the Clinton administration," he recalls. "They put it on an expedited track that's only reserved for drugs that are supposed to treat life-threatening conditions. Pregnancy is not a life-threatening condition, so it's very clear that the research was very politicized."

Meanwhile, Dr. New points out that "there is good research showing that these drugs do have serious health risks," so women are left to choose whether to believe the lying Left or the science-supported pro-lifers.

In Wyoming, office holders and pro-lifers want to intervene in a case defending their state's new Life is a Human Right Act as abortion providers and proponents have asked a state court to halt its enforcement.

Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray (R), state Representatives Rachel Rodriguez-Williams (R) and Chip Neiman (R), and Right to Life of Wyoming want to intervene to introduce evidence in defense of the law, including information about the development of unborn children as well as how the law protects Wyoming women and children from abortion.

The coalition is being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

Payne, Julia (ADF) Payne

"State supreme courts often look to one another in how to interpret state constitutions," notes ADF attorney Julia Payne. "So if Wyoming's pro-life law is upheld, it will set both legal and cultural precedent that entitles other states to pass and uphold pro-life laws as well."

This is the second of two cases over The Equality State's pro-life efforts.

"The prior case concerned Wyoming's trigger law, which went into effect immediately after Dobbs," Payne explains. "But Wyoming has now passed a new pro-life law that clarifies the protections for both women and babies. This case concerns the new law."

A decision on the motion to intervene may not come for another month or two.

Meanwhile, a temporary restraining order has been put on the law, which means abortions will continue for now as state law allowed before the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade.