Trump administration asks Supreme Court to stay lower court injunction against rule protecting women undergoing chemical abortions

By Dave Andrusko

Last week, in a 34-page opinion, Federal Judge Theodore Chuang, as expected, maintained his nation-wide injunction against the FDA rule that required a woman to have an in-person doctor’s visit before she undergoes a chemical abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

His response followed an October 8th one-page opinion from the Supreme Court in which the Justices “said the government should first ask a federal trial judge in Maryland [Chuang] to consider modifying or lifting his order blocking the in-person requirement,” according to Bloomberg News’ Greg Stohr. “At the time, the justices said they weren’t making an assessment on the merits.”

Well, Judge Chuang did just the opposite of modifying or lifting his order. He doubled down, as we wrote December 10.

Yesterday, also as expected, the Trump administration asked “the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate a requirement that women visit a medical facility to obtain abortion-inducing pills, seeking to lift a lower-court order that has allowed delivery by mail during the pandemic,” according to Stohr.

In the new filing, acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall wrote 

continued enforcement of FDA’s two-decades-old safety requirement during the pandemic does not create a substantial burden on abortion access, and is thus constitutional  under  the  framework  established  in  Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey.  The evidentiary  proceedings this Court  requested have made the district court’s earlier error especially stark,  and  highlight  the continuing need  for relief  from this Court.

Stohr pointed out, “The Food and Drug Administration has always required that mifepristone, approved in 2000, be dispensed at a medical office, clinic or hospital.”

As NRL News Today reported, the government’s position has been backed by 11 states in an amicus brief  filed in the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals. They argued that rules such as the requirement that mifepristone [the “abortion pill”] be dispensed only in a clinic, medical office, or hospital protects women’s health and “are not unduly burdensome even in the current public health emergency.“

“When a woman ingests mifepristone for the purpose of aborting a fetus, she not only ends the life of her unborn child, but also undergoes significant risks to her own body,” Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill wrote. “Federal and state laws require physical examinations and in-person dispensing of mifepristone to ensure that physicians check for contraindications and that women fully understand the risks” [https://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/2020/08/eleven-states-file-amicus-brief-defending-fdas-protective-rule-on-medication-abortions].”

In addition, more than 20 pro-life leaders, including NRL President Carol Tobias, wrote to the head of the FDA urging Dr. Stephen Hahn “to protect American women and preborn children by removing the abortion pill from the US market.”

The letter thoroughly and systematically disputed the conclusion reached by Judge Chuang, an Obama appointee, that such self-administered abortions are safe.

As anyone with eyes to see understands (and which pro-abortionists come close to conceding in those rare moments of candor), the legal challenge is at the heart of the ongoing pro-abortion campaign to force the FDA to permanently cease requirements that protect women who are undergoing chemical (“medication”) abortions. Judge Chuang is doing his part to facilitate the Abortion Industry’s end game: “Do It Yourself” abortions performed at home.