The Supreme Court vs the Abortion Pill

Does Our Judicial System Have the Obligation to Follow Divine Law?

Saint Thomas of Aquinas defines law as “a certain rule and measure of acts that guides or limits human behavior.” Accordingly, law is closely tied to reason, precisely divine reason first, and then human reason when it aligns with God’s purpose. Therefore, it is inherently aimed at the good, especially the common good. It is not just for individuals but for the benefit of the community or those responsible.

For good order to exist in society, there cannot be contradictory laws governing it. Therefore, a properly ordained civil code must follow the higher law established by God. For example, murder and theft are immoral, so they are illegal, as there must be a cohesive and logical continuity between civil and moral law. It follows then that the Supreme Court must rule with the same logic.

The Federal Supreme Court has the moral imperative to uphold the Fifth Commandment and restrict the nation’s primary method for abortion, the abortifacient mifepristone. It is the principal drug used in medication abortions today and can be obtained via online prescriptions and from local pharmacies.

This has been a growing debate since the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals directed the FDA to reinstate restrictions on mifepristone in 2023, leading to troubling changes in how women access medication abortions.

It delves into administrative law and the role of federal courts in overseeing specialized agencies. Beyond the legal jargon, this confrontation is the latest battleground in the ongoing national abortion debate that has been gaining steam after the reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

During his State of the Union address, “catholic” President Biden criticized Republicans for overturning Roe v. Wade, a pivotal case that attempted to safeguard abortion as a woman’s constitutional “right.”

The anti-abortion movement has faced challenges from mifepristone, a pill that any doctor can prescribe, enabling women to commit abortion without surgical procedures and, in many circumstances, without even seeing a doctor. This has raised the ire among anti-abortion groups as it offers a way to bypass the ban on this sin in certain states.

Ensuring women visit a clinic to get and use the drug could restrict access to abortion in banned states and add barriers in states where it is legal. The recent lawsuit against mifepristone was not by patients or providers but by a conservative Christian group.

The lawsuit, filed in Amarillo, Texas, was overseen by a judge who ordered the drug off the market. Despite appeals, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court found that the FDA’s actions since 2016 regarding mifepristone lacked justification.

During recent arguments, the spotlight has shifted to the ideological core of the conservative court: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Roberts did not back the 2022 decision on abortion rights, while Kavanaugh, who supported it, emphasized that the ruling does not ban abortion nationwide but shifts policy to states.

Barrett, at times, leans more towards a moderate stance than her conservative peers.

Conversely, the court’s trio of liberal justices are expected to contest re-imposing restrictions on mifepristone, consistent with liberal beliefs. Some conservative justices advocate for limiting access to the drug while the case is pending.

As oral arguments commence, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, suggests dismissing the suit. She argues that the case lacks concrete injuries, emphasizing that doctors not involved in abortion procedures have no stake in the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone. She conveniently omits any reference to being consistent with upholding moral law and the injury to God’s rights.

Prelogar asserts that even if the plaintiffs had legal standing, overturning the FDA’s safety measures would set a risky precedent, potentially hampering access to mifepristone without valid safety concerns. In a feeble argument, she points out that the reported deaths associated with mifepristone had alternative causes unrelated to the drug. Again, she refers to matters of safety concerning a mother’s health but conveniently omits addressing the safety of the defenseless child in the womb.

In her brief, Prelogar stresses the FDA’s safety assessments of mifepristone and warns against unnecessarily restricting access to it. This argument is indicative of a materialistic mentality as it only concerns itself with the physical well-being of an individual, not the psychological, moral or spiritual effects of murdering one’s child. Perhaps Prelogar would do well to familiarize herself with the abundant testimonies of those who committed abortion and have admitted to the permanent psychological scars, grief, sorrow and pain from this sin.

In 2016, the FDA extended mifepristone's approval for pregnancy termination to ten weeks from the prior seven weeks. This change also slashed mandatory doctor visits from three to one. Moreover, it empowered prescription and dispensing by providers beyond doctors in states permitting it. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine appointments facilitated the drug’s prescription and mail delivery, and Prelogar’s insights influenced the FDA’s 2021 decision to remove the in-person dispensing mandate.

Erin Hawley, representing Alliance Defending Freedom, raised concerns over the risk posed to her doctor’s clients by the FDA’s actions. Hawley highlights the potential moral and psychological conflicts for doctors opposed to abortion treating mifepristone patients needing urgent care.

She contends that complicity in elective abortions will likely harm her clients, providing legal grounds to challenge the FDA. She argues that permitting mifepristone mail delivery breaches the Comstock Act of 1873. This act criminalizes any use of the U.S. Postal Service to send any items considered obscene. The word obscene is explicitly understood here as vulgar, indecent, filthy and contraceptive or something for preventing conception.  This includes an abortifacient that may be a medicine or means for producing or facilitating a miscarriage or an abortion.

This case is not the first time mifepristone has reached the Supreme Court. In a reversal of roles, the FDA opposed increased access to mifepristone for women in 2020.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine gained popularity, allowing remote doctor appointments to curb the spread of the disease. However, despite efforts to ease regulations, the FDA faced backlash for maintaining strict rules on mifepristone under the Trump administration. This led to a legal battle with medical groups, culminating in a divided Supreme Court ruling just before Trump’s term ended. As a result, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the importance of not undermining FDA decisions during crises.

The Supreme Court faces the wrath of either position regarding this decision. Ultimately, it should do as the profession demands: Make a decision using logic and facts devoid of emotion. There is an overwhelming abundance of legal opinions supporting the decision to make unlawful any means of procured abortion, and the gravity of this decision requires it to be consistent with Divine law.

According to Saint Thomas, civil law is not meant to eradicate all vices but is designed for the unvirtuous majority. It targets the more severe vices, like sacrilege, blasphemy, abortion, murder and theft.

Attempting to legislate perfection would only breed hostility towards the law. However, the Supreme Court has the moral obligation to uphold moral law and declare that it is a crime to murder through abortion, knowing full well that there will always be those who prefer to sin and go to Hell rather than obey the Commandments.