NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Was Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling “unprecedented and clearly ideological”?

by | Apr 11, 2023

By Dave Andrusko

Let me guess. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s decision to put the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone on hold is clearly an “ideological” decision, right? Ah, actually no, in spite of a silly op-ed authored by Chloe Atkins and Daniel Arkin arguing that it was.

Under the headline “Judge’s abortion pill decision embraces extreme language and ideology of anti-abortion movement, experts say” we read

In interviews, several legal and medical experts said Kacsmaryk’s decision was unprecedented and clearly ideological. His language and reasoning, they said, closely mirrored arguments and concepts put forward by the anti-abortion movement — at the expense of scientific consensus in some instances.

Before we pick apart this simple-minded essay we must remind ourselves that there is nothing—nothing— that the abortion industry and it sycophants in the media produce that ever gives their audience even a moment’s pause. And why would it?

Take JAMA Insights, published by the American Medical Association, which offers this whopper, clearly with the intent to even further dehumanize the unborn child [underlining mine]:

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved a medication abortion regimen in 2000, which consisted of mifepristone (a progesterone antagonist that causes pregnancy tissue to detach from the endometrium) and misoprostol (a prostaglandin that induces cervical softening and uterine contractions)…

Although cramping and bleeding diminish after the pregnancy tissue passes, light cramping is normal for a few days and light bleeding is common for a few weeks…

Retained nonviable pregnancy tissue occurs in less than 3% of cases and can be managed expectantly with repemisoprostol or with dilation and curettage based on patient preference…

We’ve posted several stories recently about how the Associated Press has gone over to the dark side. We discussed first how the AP’s Style Book banished “late-term abortions”:

“Do not use the term ‘late-term abortion,’” The AP intoned. “The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines late term as 41 weeks through 41 weeks and 6 days of gestation, and abortion does not happen in this period.”

The last week of a pregnancy is the ONLY time you can use “late-term abortion,” and, come to think of it, since “abortion does not happen in this period,” voila, no late-term abortion, right?

Back to the “extreme,” “ideological” opinion written by Judge Kacsmaryk. What non-PC language does he use?

According to Atkins and Arkin

In his ruling Friday, Kacsmaryk used various terms closely associated with the anti-abortion movement, according to the experts who were interviewed. Notably, Kacsmaryk referred to the two-pill regimen that is the most common way to terminate a pregnancy in the U.S. as “chemical abortion,” rather than “medication abortion.” The plaintiffs in the suit, a group called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, use the same term in their filings and messaging.

“‘Chemical abortion’ is absolutely not a scientific or medical term. It is something that has been utilized and propagated by those who want to ban abortion or restrict abortion,” said Dr. Jenni Villavicencio, an OB-GYN who is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ lead for equity transformation.

Talk about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! But she’s not done.

She also highlighted Kacsmaryk’s references to a fetus as an “unborn human” or an “unborn child.”

Kacsmaryk wrote that mifepristone “blocks the hormone progesterone, halts nutrition, and ultimately starves the unborn human until death.”

Plenty of pregnant women use the phrase “unborn child” to describe their experiences, Villavicencio said, but it “certainly is not a scientific term, and it is not a term that should be used when discussing science and medicine.”

You can practical hear her huffing and puffing, struggling to concede that we use “unborn child” all the time but not giving an inch [“it is not a term that should be used when discussing science and medicine”].

One other example of confusion times ten. Atkins and Arkin write

Kacsmaryk’s language implies a belief about when life begins — a question that continues to roil American society. Medical experts generally recognize around 24 weeks’ gestation as the point at which a fetus is able to survive outside the womb.

This confuses viability with when does life begin. Does anyone subscribe to the idea that life begins at “around 24 weeks’ gestation”?

 A silly essay made even sillier by sloppy thinking.

Categories: Judicial
Tags: