Today in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the Northern District of Texas suspended the 2000 approval of chemical abortion drugs. The stay will go into effect in one week.

The sixty-seven page opinion details the long and sorry twenty-five year history of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) failure to abide by the law, and recognize the risks to women of mifepristone and misoprostol—known as RU-486 by its French manufacturer.

Citing AUL’s brief on behalf of 67 Members of the U.S. Congress, the District Court recognized that in 2000 “[t]o begin, FDA ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem’ by omitting any evaluation of the psychological effects of the drug or an evaluation of the long-term medical consequences of the drug.”

The District Court held a preliminary injunction would serve the public interest of patient health and safety, and rejected the government’s argument that unaborted children of women who seek but cannot access abortion will have poorer school records, and more behavioral and social issues.

As the court writes, “But ‘[u]sing abortion to promote eugenic goals is morally and prudentially debatable’ … Though eugenics were once fashionable in the Commanding Heights and High Court, they hold less purchase after the conflict, carnage, and casualties of the last century revealed the bloody consequences of Social Darwinism practiced by would-be Übermenschen.”

We are grateful that the Northern District of Texas has protected American women and girls against these dangerous drugs, and finally held the FDA accountable for its lawless actions over so many years.

“Americans United for Life applauds the District Court for recognizing that the FDA unlawfully approved chemical abortion drugs,” said Steven H. Aden, AUL Chief Legal Office & General Counsel,“The preliminary injunction safeguards patient health and safety, protecting women and girls from the risks of chemical abortion drugs.”

“This is a great victory for the health and safety of women and girls across America,” states Carolyn McDonnell, AUL Litigation Counsel. “By subverting safeguards for new drug approvals, the FDA capitulated to big abortion interests and endangered patient welfare.”

“The FDA did not rely upon sufficient medical data when approving chemical abortion drugs and had absolutely no data on the drugs’ effect on adolescents,” explains Danielle Pimentel, AUL Policy Counsel. “By blocking these reckless actions, the District Court is safeguarding the health and safety of women and girls seeking chemical abortions across America.”