Wednesday, April 12, 2023


By Tim Rohr

There has been much in the news about a federal judge's recent ruling blocking the sale of the baby-killing drug "mifepristone." 

The name of the drug should sound familiar to Guam residents.  The drug is how those two Hawaii doctors (Raidoo and Kaneshiro), at the invitation of Governor Lou Leon Guerrero, have been killing Guam babies and intend to kill many more. 

President Biden, a communion-going "Catholic" (thanks to his liberal bishop friends) has moved to block the judge's ruling.

One thing you will not see or hear in the news is WHY the judge chose to engage the suit brought against the FDA by ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE, et al. two decades after the drug's approval by the FDA.

At the outset of the ruling, the judge states:

Over twenty years ago, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved chemical abortion (“2000 Approval”). The legality of the 2000 Approval is now before this Court. Why did it take two decades for judicial review in federal court? After all, Plaintiffs' petitions challenging the 2000 Approval date back to the year 2002, right?

Simply put, FDA stonewalled judicial review - until now. Before Plaintiffs filed this case, FDA ignored their petitions for over sixteen years, even though the law requires an agency response within “180 days of receipt of the petition.” 21 C.F.R. § 10.30(e)(2)). But FDA waited 4,971 days to adjudicate Plaintiffs' first petition and 994 days to adjudicate the second. See ECF Nos. 1-14, 1-28, 1-36, 1-44 (“2002 Petition,” “2019 Petition,” respectively). Had FDA responded to Plaintiffs' petitions within the 360 total days allotted, this case would have been in federal court decades earlier. Instead, FDA postponed and procrastinated for nearly 6,000 days.

All. for Hippocratic Med. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 2:22-CV-223-Z, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2023)


NOTE: Guam, like it was in 1990, is interestingly once again at the forefront of the abortion war nationally. Two years before the new ruling against mifepristone, Guam was already embroiled in a federal case involving the use of the drug to kill Guam babies remotely: a prescription for the baby-killing drug after a zoom consultation with one of two Hawaii doctors who were only licensed to practice in Guam after being invited to do so by LLG's abortion lieutenant, Jayne Flores - of course at LLG's orders.

While pro-lifers may shake their heads at how LLG and JF, both communion-going Catholics like Biden, can, in apparent "good conscience" advocate for the wholesale chemical slaughter of Guam's unborn, the real head-shaking needs to be directed at the "Catholic" communion-going voters who elected LLG and the clergy that continue to cower. 


A description of mifepristone by the judge:

Mifepristone - also known as RU-486 or Mifeprex - is a synthetic steroid that blocks the hormone progesterone, halts nutrition, and ultimately starves the unborn human until death. ECF No. 7 at 7-8. Because mifepristone alone will not always complete the abortion, FDA mandates a two-step drug regimen: mifepristone to kill the unborn human, followed by misoprostol to induce cramping and contractions to expel the unborn human from the mother's womb. Id. at 8.

All. for Hippocratic Med. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 2:22-CV-223-Z, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2023)

The judge also attacks the head-fake use of the word "fetus:"

Jurists often use the word “fetus” to inaccurately identify unborn humans in unscientific ways. The word “fetus” refers to a specific gestational stage of development, as opposed to the zygote, blastocyst, or embryo stages. See ROBERT P. GEORGE & CHRISTOPHER TOLLEFSEN, EMBRYO 27-56 (2008) (explaining the gestational stages of an unborn human). Because other jurists use the terms “unborn human” or “unborn child” interchangeably, and because both terms are inclusive of the multiple gestational stages relevant to the FDA Approval, 2016 Changes, and 2021 Changes, this Court uses “unborn human” or “unborn child” terminology throughout this Order, as appropriate.

All. for Hippocratic Med. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 2:22-CV-223-Z, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2023)

No comments:

Post a Comment