Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Abortion Pill Restrictions
In the first abortion-related ruling since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barret, the Supreme court voted 6-3 to overturn a previous ruling from Federal Judge Theodore Chuang. Judge Chuang had previously blocked a restriction on the abortion pill, mifepristone, which requires that women seeking to end the life of their unborn child must pick up the drug in person. The basis of overturning the restriction was that it is unsafe to travel due to covid; therefore, the in-person requirement for mifepristone presents and undue burden to a woman’s so-called “right to abortion.” With the Supreme Court ruling, the restriction was reinstated.
However, Chief Justice Roberts stated that this ruling was not about abortion. Rather it was “related [to] contexts concerning government responses to the pandemic. [M]y view is that courts owe significant deference to the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence and expertise to assess public health.’”
However, the liberal dissenters stated that this ruling was irrational and infringes upon a woman’s right to kill her child. Furthermore, they stated that abortion is being treated exceptionally. Whereas opioids can be delivered to the front door, a pregnant mother must go in person to pick up the pill.
Both Roberts and the dissenters miss the point that abortion is a moral issue that has no basis in an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. It would be very inconsistent, indeed, if the pill being restricted did not serve as aid to ending the life of an innocent. However, mifepristone ends a life; therefore, it should be treated differently than opioids which may result in death or complications, but not necessarily so.
Additionally, while it is wise to listen to experts, the FDA, the presumed “politically accountable entities” to which Roberts referred, are not accountable to the voters. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephan Hahn is not an elected official. He does not have to care what his constituents think about him.
Several of the Justices on the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue at hand. Abortion is immoral, results in the death of American unborn babies, and is not constitutionally protected. Of course, the liberals just don’t care. They view abortion as essential to women’s rights and have abandoned the original meaning of the Constitution. While is necessary to find creative ways to defend the unborn in a post-Roe America, and while conservatives should praise God for action which hampers abortion even a tad, the moral focus of the issue must not be lost.
