# 
Menu
  + Foundational
    - 
  + 
# Breaking: US Supreme Court Rules Against Pro-Life Docs in Chemical Abortion Case
**Supreme Court Rules Pro-Life Doctors Cannot Challenge FDA on Abortion Drug Regulations**
In a significant setback for the pro-life movement, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that pro-life doctors lack standing to challenge the FDA’s removal of safety restrictions on abortion drugs. The unanimous decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is terrible news for the protection of the preborn and for vulnerable women’s health from the ever growing use of chemical abortions to end the life of preborn children.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, delivering the opinion of the Court, acknowledged the plaintiffs’ strong legal, moral, and ideological objections to elective abortion and the FDA’s effective deregulation of mifepristone. However, he stated that because these doctors do not prescribe or use mifepristone, they cannot sue the FDA over its actions.
The FDA’s 2016 and 2021 decisions to deregulate mifepristone, an abortion drug, have made it alarmingly easy for doctors to prescribe and for women to obtain. These changes include reducing the number of required doctor visits, allowing mail-order distribution, and eliminating the need to report nonfatal complications. These relaxed regulations compromise women’s safety and obscure the true risks associated with the drug.
The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, led the challenge that ended up at the US Supreme Court. They argued that the FDA’s actions betray the fundamental principles of protecting the vulnerable, particularly the unborn, and ensuring high standards of medical care. ADF senior counsel Erin Hawley criticized the FDA for removing crucial safety protocols, stressing that women should have ongoing medical supervision when taking high-risk abortion drugs.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion, emphasized the procedural nature of the ruling, stating that just as abortionists lack standing to assert the rights of their clients, doctors who oppose abortion cannot assert the rights of their patients. This is in stark contrast to decades of precedent where abortion doctors challenged pro-life laws asserting that very type of standing to sue.
Procedural barriers such as the difficulty in obtaining standing to defend the rights of the preborn, highlight some of the more technical legal hurdles faced by pro-lifers in a legal system that, even after Roe has been overturned, is stacked against those seeking to defend the right to life of the preborn.
This decision comes nearly two years after the Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs ruling, which overturned Roe v. Wade. Despite that great legal victory, the pro-life movement now faces new challenges as the federal government under the Biden administration continues to promote abortion across the board.
Legal experts such as Heritage Foundation legal fellows Thomas Jipping and Melanie Israel have emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not confirm or support the safety or effectiveness of mifepristone, underscoring the need for future pro-life policymakers to prioritize women’s safety and demand adherence to stringent safety protocols.
For pro-life advocates, this decision represents a significant setback in the ongoing battle to protect unborn children and ensure that women are not left vulnerable to the dangers of unregulated abortion drugs.
The ruling is a call to action for continued vigilance and advocacy to defend the sanctity of life against the growing use of chemical abortion.
#### 1 comment on “Breaking: US Supreme Court Rules Against Pro-Life Docs in Chemical Abortion Case”
1. !
   The lack of “standing” in this case could have been cured if the Court had wanted. Most people have not heard that the Court denied a motion last February to join a class of unborn babies in the case… unborn babies with a legal right to life in many states. Surely those potential victims of abortion would have had enough of a stake in the outcome of this case to provide legal “standing.”
   The Court in the Dobbs case said it would defer to the states on abortion issues. With many states now extending legal rights to the unborn, the Court should have joined the unborn as co-plaintiffs to be heard in this case.
   The Court’s refusal to hear from unborn children who are protected in some but not all of the states was especially wrong when a big issue in the case was whether abortion drugs can be shipped from one state to another.
   With Roe now gone, the Court should have followed numerous past decisions acknowledging the right of unborn children to be represented in Court when those children have a personal stake in the outcome of a case. Legal protections for a woman’s future descendants can be found in numerous and diverse areas of the law. See <
   It would seem that the Court in this case orchestrated its own lack of standing by refusing to join the unborn as a party.
Comments are closed.
#### Search
Search for:
#### Recent Posts
#### Archives
#### Categories
Scroll to top
# Alabama Couples Seek Ruling Against Law Shielding IVF Clinics
Two Alabama couples whose embryos were destroyed at a Mobile hospital are now challenging a state law that shields in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics from lawsuits, arguing that it is unconstitutional. The ongoing legal battle in this politically charged case underscores the fundamental pro-life principle that embryos deserve the same fundamental legal protections as any other children.
In March, the Alabama legislature rushed through a controversial law which attempted to exempt IVF clinics from all criminal or civil liability. That law was enacted in response to pro-abortion backlash against the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that recognized embryos as as children under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.  affirmed the personhood of embryos, acknowledging their right to life and protection under not just the Wrongful Death Act but also the state’s recently approved Human Life Amendment.
> Proud of the Alabama Supreme Court for acknowledging the science and using basic reason and fairness to decide that a baby conceived via IVF should have the same legal protections as a baby conceived naturally. 
>
> — Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) 
“These statutes constitute unlawful attempts at abrogating rights and remedies which were excepted out of governmental power when the People of Alabama voted in November 2018 to amend our Constitution’s Declaration of Rights with constitutional guarantees protecting unborn children,” argued James and Emily LePage and William and Caroline Fonde in their 166-page brief filed Monday in Mobile County Circuit Court.
The LePages and Fondes, whose embryonic children were killed due to the carelessnes of the IVF clinic, are challenging the constitutionality of the new state law that exempts IVF clinics from all civil and criminal liability, asserting that such blanket immunity for IVF clinics violates fundamental rights, including the right to life, the right to raise and rear children, and the right to equal protection under Alabama law. The parents contend that the legislature cannot strip unborn children involved in the IVF process – or their parents – of all the protections afforded by Alabama law, including the remedies provided by the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act and the Human Life Amendment.
The Center for Reproductive Medicine and Mobile Infirmary Medical Center were previously sued for wrongful death, negligence, and breach of contract by the LePages, Fondes, and Scott Aysenne and Felicia Burdic-Aysenne in separate lawsuits in 2021. The destruction of the couples’ embryos was caused by a wandering hospital patient who attempted to take the embryonic children.
In a new court case, Mobile County Circuit Court Judge Jill Parrish Phillips is being asked by the LePages and Fondes to rule the recent IVF law is unconstitutional. Judge Phillips had previously ruled against the couples, stating that frozen embryos are not children and dismissing the wrongful death claim. However, her decision was overturned by the Alabama Supreme Court, which rightly recognized embryos as having legal protections under Alabama law. That decision, while criticized by the mainstream media and even by many Republicans, was in fact, a critical affirmation of the pro-life belief that life begins at conception.
These cases in Alabama has drawn national attention and created a wave of fear mongering from the unregulated IVF industry. The Alabama Legislature’s subsequent legislation exempting IVF clinics from lawsuits was welcomed by many Republican with Texas Senator Ted Cruz even introducing federal legislation to protect the IVF industry.
> IVF should be protected at the federal level.
> My legislation makes it clear that no state can ban IVF. 
> — Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) 
However, many pro-lifers saw the politically motivated move to provide blanket immunity to the IVF industry as a betrayal of the state’s commitment to pro-life principles.
> This is madness. So now an IVF clinic can recklessly destroy embryos, with no recourse for the parents?
> Do we value human lives so little?
> Every single AL rep who voted for this should be ashamed & the State Senate must stop this bill before it kills living human children <
The legal battle surrounding this case highlights the fundamental conflict between the current unregulated practice of IVF in America and a consistent pro-life ethic.
As this case progresses, it raises crucial questions about the sanctity of life, the rights of parents, and the ethical implications of unregulated reproductive technology. The outcome could have profound implications not only for IVF practices in Alabama but also for the broader national debate over the personhood and rights of embryos.
From a personhood perspective, this case is a pivotal to ensure that every human life, from conception, is afforded the full protection and dignity it inherently deserves.