by Family Research Council
July 9, 2012
Today, the U.S .9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear a civil suit challenging Idahos ban on getting out-of-state abortifacient drugs on the Internet. This heated case was brought about by the arrest of Jennie McCormack, a single mom who aborted her 5 month-old unborn child with the harmful and damaging abortifacient drug called RU-486. When police came to her home to arrest her, they found frozen remains of her innocent unborn child in a box on her barbecuecriminal evidence that can make any rational human being cringe with disgust. Accordingly, police charged Ms. McCormack with a felony last year.
What exactly is RU-486? It is an abortion-inducing regimen that consists of two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. The first drug, mifepristone, blocks progesterone from binding to its receptor sites in the endometrium of the uterus and essentially thwarts progesterones pregnancy-preserving actions. As a result, this drug destroys the uterine lining through horrific chemical means, and thereby starves and kills the implanted embryo. The second drug, misoprostol, is taken two days after RU-486 and induces contractions to expel what leftists call a blob of tissue. This two-part killer medicine has been known to cause pelvic infections, hemorrhaging, abdominal pain, excessive bleeding, cardiopulmonary problems, allergic reactions, and severe psychological repercussions, such as clinical depression. Knowing these life-threatening effects of this procedure, it is hard to believe that RU-486 was approved by the FDA under the guise of advancing reproductive justice and womens health.
When Ms. McCormack took RU-486, she was 20 weeks pregnant with her unborn child. This is shocking and dangerous, because these drugs should only be taken up to 9 weeks of pregnancy according to the FDAs approval. Since Ms. McCormack was able to purchase the abortion drug regimen over the internet without doctor consultation, she was able to use the drug in an off-label way (after the time frame approved by the FDA). However, when Ms. McCormack purchased the drug on the internet, she broke a few state laws, including the ban on obtaining RU-486 out-of-state. She also violated Idahos ban on 20 week abortions as well as a 1972 law that prohibits self-induced abortionsactions that truly go against the very notion of motherhood.
Now, her attorney Richard Hearn, also a physician, wants to take her case to the Supreme Court. Her civil suit with the U.S.9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the first step in doing so. Just as Jane Roe challenged Texas pro-life law some forty years ago, Jennie McCormack is fiercely challenging Idahos ban on obtaining out-of-state RU-486 drugs in an attempt to be the 21st century Roe. Isnt it ironic that Ms. McCormack is a mother of three children, yet would file a civil suit to allow for more leniency for the dangerous abortion drug regimen, RU-486? Although Ms. McCormacks case is highly disturbing, it should motivate us to further our efforts in protecting the unborn from deadly chemical abortions.