Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Winter 2025 PDF
    • WINTER 2025 HTML
    • THE HUMAN LIFE REVIEW HTML COLLECTION PAGE
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2024: NEW MEDIA ADDED!
    • Great Defender of Life 50th Anniversary Dinner Ticket 2024
    • Great Defender of Life 50th Anniversary Dinner TABLE for TEN Ticket 2024
    • Great Defender of Life 2024 Young Adult / Pregnancy Center Staffer Tickets
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2024
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2024
    • ARCHIVE: GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2023
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Your Cart: Shipping is ALWAYS Free!

From the Website

Back to Spring 2023
0 Comment

Go to the Mattresses?

William Murchison
FDA and abortion, mifepristone
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 

Just when we thought the federal judiciary had given over its avocation of sorting through the moral questions that surround the issue of abortion, lo, the federal judiciary resumed its avocation of sorting through the moral questions that surround the issue of abortion.

As political controversies go—and the mifepristone flap is a political controversy, make no mistake about it—this one is a lulu; a lulu fraught with deadly consequences for the unborn, as well as for shall we say the moral commonsense of the nation.

The U.S. Supreme Court will have to address and perhaps, in some way, in some manner, some fashion—resolve the issue, though just how is hard at present to see. We are not back to 1973 and the incipience of Roe v. Wade, which is practically as well as theoretically dead, but the politics involved have not lost their fetid odor. We might want to keep our gas masks at the ready.

In two cases involving the Federal Drug Administration’s 23-year-old decision to approve use of a pill—mifepristone—that precipitates abortion, the complexity and perdurability of the abortion mess, so to call it, comes out of present-day shadows and into brilliant light.

No, abortion isn’t a constitutional right—enforced by the federal government—but the idea behind the right hasn’t lifted like Noah’s flood. Individual states, according to local consciences and worldviews, may enforce it, in part by making mifepristone available to prospective mothers.

Hold it right here, said a Texas federal judge—appointed by Donald Trump, as the media reliably inform us—the FDA’s ruling, however long ago it came down, wrongly approved use of the abortion pill.

Hold it yourself, a federal judge in Washington State countered, in essence, 20 minutes later. The FDA’s judgment deserved respect. The judge, as duly noted in the media, was appointed by Barack Obama. If you don’t get the politics of the matter, your eyes aren’t open: Democrats say yes to mifepristone; Republicans say no. Let’s fight it out, huh? The challenge couldn’t be clearer.

With the Supreme Court waiting figuratively in the wings to referee the squabble, we count on 2023 and 2024 as years of vitriolic controversy over the assumptions of the pro-life wing of American life versus those assumptions and views of the pro-choice wing. It will not be edifying. It will not be useful to the ending—if such is intended of our seemingly endless failures to deal with one another as reasonable people. Which perhaps could be because we’re not reasonable in the first place. On the other hand, American history by and large refutes the notion that a common mind on large questions—yes, even on slavery after a time; a rather long time—is beyond the reach of a scrappy people.

The fly in the buttermilk, unless my aging eyes fail me, is politics; or, rather the enthronement of politics and political perspectives as primary in human affairs. When you hang around politicians all the time, or those who live by their words and notions, you quickly get the idea that virtue resides in one brand of politics and unlimited vice in the other brands. You want—grrrrr—to stamp out the bad kinds. You’d rather look at polls than principles.

The politicization of the “choice” issue means you strive to put in power those who promise to work for your cause. It’s warfare—cut, slash, rat-a-tat-tat: sometimes for real.

Roe v. Wade wrested the abortion issue from any semi-peaceable context it might have enjoyed and delivered it into the keeping of judges backed by politicians with specialized views as to what constituents were entitled to do—and as to who, correspondingly, had jolly well better let ’em do as they please.

Abortion as a moral issue—involving obligation to principles and understandings higher than preference alone—too infrequently comes into view in our time: which suggests, in place of guerre à outrance, as we’re accustomed to observing all around us, the need for meetings, frequent ones, of minds and hearts.

We may yet get there once black robes, ear mikes, and cameras retreat even part way from the American scene: a big ask if ever there was one. Meantime, pull out the ear plugs. Hide the children. We live in a nasty time getting nastier by the hour, the minute, the millisecond.

__________________________________________

Original Bio:

 

William Murchison, a former syndicated columnist, is a senior editor of the Human Life Review. He will soon finish his book on moral restoration in our time.

 

36 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
William Murchison

William Murchison, a former syndicated columnist, is a senior editor of the Human Life Review. He will soon finish his book on moral restoration in our time.

Social Share

  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR
The-Human-Life-Foundation
DONATE TODAY!

Recent Posts

IVF: The Frozen Sleep Evading Time

07 May 2025

Report: "The Abortion Pill Harms Women"

05 May 2025

New York Pushes Asissted Suicide

30 Apr 2025

CURRENT ISSUE

Alexandra DeSanctis Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott Bernadette Patel Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke D. Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jacqueline O’Hara Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Marvin Olasky Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Matt Lamb Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Rev. W. Ross Blackburn Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro Wesley J. Smith William Murchison

Shop 7 Weeks Coffee--the Pro-Life Coffee Company!
Support 7 Weeks Coffee AND the Human Life Foundation!
  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • Annual Human Life Foundation Dinner

Follow Us On Twitter

Follow @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.