Despite a request from the Donald Trump administration, the Supreme Court refused, at least for now, to reinstate a policy that required physicians to examine and meet with patients in person before prescribing the abortion pill.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a dissent, stating that the majority has been inconsistent in its rulings in regard to pandemic specific cases. For example, the court has refused to lift the restrictions on churches imposed by states but has supported increasing abortion access.

“In response to the pandemic, state and local officials have imposed unprecedented restrictions on personal liberty, including severe limitations on First Amendment rights,” Alito wrote. “Officials have drastically limited speech, banning or restricting public speeches, lectures, meetings and rallies. The free exercise of religion also has suffered previously unimaginable restraints, and this court has stood by while that has occurred.”

In order to increase abortion access during the pandemic, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other groups have utilized the services of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to challenge and remove the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS), which is the highest level of restriction that the FDA can put on prescription drugs.

The Federal District Court in Maryland agreed, and gave physicians across the country permission to ignore the REMS for abortion-minded women across the country and prescribe the abortion pill without ever examining the patient. The abortion industry considered it necessary to remove this reasonable safeguard because it would “delay women from accessing the abortion care they need.” 

The judge agreed.

After the Fourth Circuit denied a stay on this new requirement, the Trump Administration asked the justices to review the case. Sadly, they’ve agreed with the abortion industry.

It’s incredible that a court of law is determining a medical practice as dangerous and ill-managed as abortion, where women are routinely maimed, emotionally scarred and some even die from abortion related injuries. Especially as those championing the lower court’s decision are pro-abortion organizations that have been interested in expanding abortion access for years.

The ACOG, despite its name and stated purpose to advance women’s health, is a pro-abortion organization. “ACOG supports women’s access to safe abortion care, which hinges upon the availability of sufficient numbers of trained abortion providers.”

It also wants to increase abortion access. An article entitled “Increasing Access to Abortion” states, “The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists calls for advocacy to oppose and overturn restrictions, improve access, and mainstream abortion as an integral component of women’s health care.”

The pandemic gave organizations like the ACOG and pro-abortion groups the perfect opportunity to do so, and the court went along for the ride.

Photo from Shutterstock


Visit our Election 2020 page