Tuesday, February 28, 2023


While the issue of chemical abortion in Guam - or more precisely - the requirement for performance of the informed consent component of the law before baby-killing chemicals can be administered, has now worked its way up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, two lawsuits relative to chemical abortions, with national implications, are also working their way through the courts.

The first is Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Information on exactly what this lawsuit is about is difficult to find since the usual Media is pretty much ignoring the facts of the suit and appears to be much more interested in hanging the word "Trump" around the judge's neck in this matter. 

So here's what the Alliance website says:

By illegally approving chemical abortion drugs, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women. The FDA never studied the safety of the drugs under the labeled conditions of use, ignored the potential impacts of the hormone-blocking regimen on the developing bodies of adolescent girls, disregarded the substantial evidence that chemical abortion drugs cause more complications than surgical abortions, and eliminated necessary safeguards for pregnant girls and women who undergo this dangerous drug regimen.

The "Alliance" website has posted all of the filings in the matter for the public to educate itself.

Meanwhile, twelve "blue states" are suing the same FDA for placing “'burdensome restrictions' on mifepristone, the first of two drugs used in a chemical abortion," according to the Daily Caller.

Note that the Daily Caller properly refers to the use of drugs to end a pregnancy as a "chemical abortion," and not a "medical abortion," as the pro-aborts adamantly term it. Medicine is meant to cure and promote health, not kill someone. Chemicals can do either.

The Caller says this about the suit from the "blue" states:

Twelve blue states filed a lawsuit Friday against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for placing “burdensome restrictions” on mifepristone, the first of two drugs used in a chemical abortion.

The lawsuit claims that current Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) restrictions on mifepristone, which include limits on “who can prescribe and dispense the drug” and documentation of the patient’s use “for the purpose of abortion,” violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In the same paragraph, the Caller, in an act of responsible reporting, makes known the opposite suit:

The debate around abortion pills is increasingly prompting legal action from states, lawmakers and advocacy organizations, with nearly every state taking sides in a separate Texas case brought by pro-life medical organizations against the FDA that could overturn the agency’s approval of abortion pills altogether.

The Caller then goes on to note:

An amicus brief filed in the Texas case by Human Coalition notes that there have been “1,048 hospitalizations, 604 blood transfusions, and 414 infections (including 71 severe infections)—with a total of 4,213 adverse events” reported after using the pill as of June 2022. Other opponents cite concerns of coercion that could result from dispensing the pill without restrictions.



Now, please permit me to personally wander into a bit of common sense - or just stop reading here. 

  • Every living thing is designed to reproduce. Designed by who or what is a different matter.
  • Since reproduction is the most basic function of every living thing, it is also the most natural.
  • Anything that interrupts this most natural function is by definition: contrary to nature. 
  • Anything contrary to nature usually has a consequence - a damaging one (i.e. "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature").
  • When a woman becomes pregnant, everything in her body "naturally" orients itself to support that new life. (Of course there are exceptions. But they are exceptions.)
  • To suddenly and violently interrupt a pregnancy, regardless of how it is done, suddenly and violently interrupts nature at its most primitive and basic level: the life impulse - "the force" itself...if we want to avoid religious language.
  • Abortion is an absolute abuse of one's body, no different than abuse via alcohol, narcotics, gluttony, sloth, or any other life-damaging things. (This assumes that the person procuring the abortion insists that it is "her body.")
  • Nature will require a price. Just like those things.
  • And a price will be paid.
  • To the intelligent, there is no need for "studies." As a wise man once said: "God forgives. Man forgives. Nature NEVER forgives."

But just in case you are looking for studies to refute what I have just shared, never mind. I've already done it. It either won't be found or it will be contradicted. Abortion is a politically protected issue, so we really can't expect the truth from anyone or anywhere. However, the point is: listen to your body, listen to "nature." And ask yourself the question: "Since when is ingesting chemicals to counter if not attack what my body is designed to do naturally a good thing?"

Spoken "like a man?" Yes.

No comments:

Post a Comment