THIS SUMMER: The Supreme Court of the United States released 3 decisions that are particularly relevant to us as we seek to protect unborn lives from the horrific reality of abortion.
Case #1: On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court released a decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, deciding that that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would not have to reinstate critical safeguards for abortion drugs. It is important to note that the decision was procedural in nature, and not decided on the merits. But in this instance, the Court found the Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory actions regarding the abortion drug, mifepristone.
For context, in 2016, the FDA retracted one of its safeguards that prevented chemical abortions after 7 weeks, allowing women to take these drugs up to 10 weeks gestation. In addition, in 2021, the FDA recklessly removed a safeguard that required women take these drugs with in-person care, thereby leaving more women to take these drugs alone.
The FDA’s own label notes that about 1 in 25 women who take these drugs go to the emergency room, experiencing complications such as hemorrhaging and infection.
Because of the reckless removal of these chemical abortion drugs, doctors asked the Supreme Court to reinstate these necessary safeguards in order to better protect women from life-threating complications.
Just in June, the Supreme Court decided that the FDA does not have to reinstate these important protections as the court found the Plaintiffs/doctors had no standing to challenge the FDA’s regulatory actions. However we are encouraged that the Court did find that ‘[f]ederal law fully protects doctors against being required to provide abortions or other medical treatment against their consciences.’”
Ultimately, we are disappointed by this decision as this will cause more women to take dangerous chemical drugs without the in-person care of a doctor and will continue to end unborn lives, the very lives we seek to protect. But we are confident that it increased awareness on the dangers of abortion drugs and further proved we must continue to fight for life.
Case #2: In Moyle v. United States of America, the Biden/Harris administration sued Idaho to override their Defense of Life Act, a law aiming to protect unborn lives.
The Biden/Harris administration initiated the lawsuit, alleging that the federal law, Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), requires doctors to perform abortion in order to ensure people receive ample care in emergency situations in accordance with EMTALA. EMTALA requires hospitals that accept Medicare to determine if the person has an “emergency medical condition” through providing “an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department.” EMTALA explicitly accounts for the health of both the mother and her “unborn child” throughout the text. If it is determined that an emergency medical condition is present, under EMTALA, the hospital must either treat them or transfer them to another facility that can provide the necessary care.
Therefore, the Idaho law does not conflict with EMTALA, as it ensures that both mom and baby’s health are prioritized. The Idaho law protects unborn children from abortions that are not critical to saving the life of the mother and would not stop treatment for miscarriage management, ectopic pregnancy, etc. Doctors under EMTALA and Idaho’s law can treat both mom and baby, relying on good-faith medical judgment to care for both.
EMTALA should not be distorted as a tool to push abortion access, but the Biden/Harris administration argued that their pro-abortion interpretation of EMTALA should reign supreme. On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court decided to send the case back to the 9th Circuit for further consideration, asserting that the case should not have reached the Supreme Court.
We hope the 9th Circuit will recognize the Biden/Harris Administration’s radical misstep and preserve Idaho’s ability to protect the life of both mom and baby. Americans should be able protect the lives of women and their unborn children without fear of the government pushing an unjust pro-abortion agenda.
Case #3: In Loper Bright v. Raimondo, Atlantic Herring faced an unfair financial burden placed upon them by a federal regulatory agency, leading them to initiate the lawsuit to highlight the agency’s overreach.
Plaintiffs argued that regulatory agencies should not have as much power to determine how laws are carried out if not clearly outlined by the law, taking aim at agencies that would seek to mandate according to their understanding and political agenda.
On June 28, the Supreme Court decided that the regulatory state cannot enforce unreasonable regulations outside of their designated authority, thereby overturning “Chevron deference”—a doctrine that granted agencies the ability to interpret statutes. Courts now rightfully have the responsibility to determine whether an agency has overstepped in its interpretation of a law instead of allowing agencies to exercise unconstitutional authority and overreach in its implementation of a statute.
This decision will help prevent pro-abortion unelected bureaucrats from using agencies as a mechanism to push the abortion agenda in ways not explicitly designated by Congress.
A recent example of this agency overreach was seen in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The EEOC interpreted the PWFA to mandate that private employers must provide “reasonable accommodations” for elective abortions, which was contrary to clear legislative intent, and the plain meaning of the statutory text is an example of the an administration distorting existing laws to push their own agenda.
We are grateful for this decision as federal agencies will now be held accountable for abusing their power to push anti-life policies and principles.
As the Summer draws to a close, we thank you for your partnership as we continue to educate fellow Americans on the need to protect life, whether it be before Congress or the Supreme Court of the United States.
