WASHINGTON (BP) – The U.S. Justice Department is fighting Florida and Texas challenges to the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone, compounding the Trump administration’s resistance to pro-life challenges by at least four other states.
In addition to the federal challenges, Jewish plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit secured a preliminary injunction March 5 blocking enforcement of Indiana’s abortion ban, arguing that the ban violates Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Jewish plaintiffs argued that their religious beliefs deem life begins when babies take their first breath after birth, and that the life of the mother takes precedence over the life of the unborn child.
The Indiana ruling only applies to the certified class and the unnamed plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
In the Trump administration’s filings, the Justice Department asked a Texas federal district court on March 13 to either stay or dismiss Florida and Texas challenges to mifepristone, arguing that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reviewing the drug’s safety. The federal filing follows the administration’s active attempts to stay or dismiss similar challenges to mifepristone in Louisiana, Missouri, Idaho and Kansas.
“Given this widespread debate over the safety of mifepristone, FDA has concluded that the best path forward is for the agency to undertake a new review based on the evidence before the agency,” the Justice Department said in its March 13th filing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. “At this time, ‘FDA continues to work on the collection of the robust and timely data that is necessary for a well-controlled study with adequate statistical power.”
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Commission (ERLC) said the federal government should allow the state action to proceed.
“Once again, the Trump administration has moved to counter efforts to protect moms and uphold the sanctity of life. This was a disappointing move – the third time it has happened this year,” said Katy Roberts, ERLC senior policy manager. “The DOJ should allow these lawsuits to progress even while the FDA’s safety review is outstanding.
“Unfortunately, even though an abundance of clear safety data already abounds, the FDA has yet to complete the so-called ‘necessary’ safety review it promised to complete within the year. Whether due to bureaucratic inefficiency or some other reason, staying or dismissing the lawsuit are not conscionable options.”
The ERLC has long advocated for life, following the will of Southern Baptists.
“Southern Baptists believe that from the moment of conception, every human life is valuable and worthy of protection. It is out of this conviction that we seek to advance the pro-life cause in every possible arena: legislative, administrative, and judicial,” Roberts said. “We urge the Trump administration to not turn a blind eye to the precious lives at stake and to allow efforts to protect life to proceed through the courts instead of blocking them.”
The Justice Department argued in its court filing that the states “suffer no sovereign injury” because they are still free to enforce pro-life policies, and that the Justice Department is not preventing the states from enforcing abortion laws against out-of-state prescribers of mifepristone.
Additionally, granting a stay would not inconvenience the states, the Justice Department said, since states have already “waited 25 years to challenge the approval of mifepristone, nearly 10 years to challenge FDA’s 2016 action, seven years to challenge approval of the first generic equivalent, and nearly three years to challenge the elimination of the in-person dispensing requirement.
“Having delayed so long,” the Justice Department said of the states, they “cannot seriously claim prejudice from the additional time necessary for FDA to complete its ongoing review.”
Indiana injunction
In the Indiana case, Judge Christina R. Klineman sided with Jewish plaintiffs who said an abortion ban limits their religious freedom, permanently enjoining the state from enforcing its abortion ban upon the certified class and unnamed plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Otherwise, the Indiana ban stands.
Miles Mullin, ERLC’s executive vice president and chief of staff, disagreed with the Indiana ruling.
“Southern Baptists are staunch defenders of life and of religious liberty. We believe in ‘the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death,’” Mullin said, citing Article 15 of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. “We also support the right of people to live their lives according to the convictions of a conscience informed by religious beliefs.
“But there is a reason that the ERLC lists life before religious liberty when we discuss the four areas of our work. The right to life is the most basic right, and the state has a responsibility to defend it above all other rights when the two come into conflict.”
Klineman reasoned instead that RFRA and Indiana’s abortion ban “are in conflict, and that the state has not met its burden of showing a compelling state interest in prohibiting abortions for religious exercise … .
“The court finds that the threatened injury to plaintiffs outweighs harm to the defendants, because the abortion law already has exceptions and there has been no showing that this limited exception for religious exercise would somehow explode the number of abortions sought in contradiction of their stated interest.”
Mullin disagrees.
“In this particular case, the plaintiffs are arguing that their religious convictions allow for the intentional taking of life, but we believe that one person’s deeply held religious beliefs can never trump another person’s right to life,” Mullin said. “Let’s ardently pray that the appellate court applies the right judicial logic here, overturns this injunction, and protects precious preborn lives.”