By Dave Andrusko
As hard-core pro-abortionists, Sofia Resnick and Kellie Moseley-Morris can’t believe that anyone can oppose “medication abortion” [chemical abortions] for legitimate reason. Or offer an intelligent defense of their own position.
In their opening paragraph of their story, they cite the opposition of the usual suspects – “America’s major medical institutions and drug policy scholars–which have “roundly denounced as ‘pseudoscience’ many of the claims brought by anti-abortion groups in a high-profile federal lawsuit asking the Food and Drug Administration to revoke its 23-year-old approval of mifepristone, one half of a two-drug regimen that has become the most common form of pregnancy termination post-Roe v. Wade.”
They go further—“some of the evidence brought forward by plaintiffs consists largely of anecdotes, speculation, and cherry-picked studies brought by a handful of anti-abortion medical groups and doctors” — in attempting to diminish the work of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom.
But the usual appeal to authority (and it’s always the same authorities ) didn’t work with either the trial judge—U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk —or a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel that heard oral arguments Wednesday.
Of course Resnick and Moseley-Morris have their own “anecdotes, speculation, and cherry-picked studies.” My favorite is their critique of “a 125-page amicus brief with false claims that the drug approval was expedited by former President Bill Clinton,” as if the Clinton administration hadn’t worked overtime to facilitate its acceptance.
According to “Introduction of RU 486 in the USA: obstacles and opportunities” on January 22, 1993 President Clinton
directed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to rescind the restriction on RU-486 and to promote its testing, licensing, and manufacturing in the U.S. On February 24 a meeting was held between the FDA commissioner and the president of Roussel-Uclaf.
And so on and so on.
Maybe a little more commitment to accuracy and a little less advocacy journalism would help Resnick and Moseley-Morris make a stronger case.