![](https://christianactionleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/pills-1.jpg)
By L.A. Williams
Christian Action League
June 7, 2024
Abortion pill regulations designed to protect the health of North Carolina women and to give their unborn babies a better chance at life have been struck down by a federal judge. U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles on Monday ruled that mifepristone can be taken outside of a clinical setting, that it can be provided by medical practitioners other than licensed physicians and that the state cannot require follow-up appointments.
Responding to a lawsuit filed in January 2023 by Dr. Amy Bryant of UNC Health, Judge Eagles agreed with Bryant’s contention that the Food and Drug Administration’s less stringent usage requirements for the death-inducing drug preempt state laws.
“This ruling represents a significant departure from the values and beliefs held by many pro-life individuals, including myself,” said the Rev. Mark Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League.
“As someone who advocates for the protection of unborn life, I find it deeply troubling that the regulations surrounding medication abortion are being loosened in this manner. Such a ruling is genuinely painful for everyone who understands that a helpless and precious human being in its earliest stages dies because of this.”
Mifepristone, marketed as Mifeprex, is typically the first of two drugs given in the performance of a chemical abortion. By blocking progesterone, it deprives the embryo of the oxygen and nutrients necessary for life. The second drug, Misoprostol, causes uterine contractions to expel the embryo. Severe complications, such as heavy bleeding, can result from the medications. Even so, Judge Eagle’s ruling, issued earlier in the form of a temporary injunction and made final this past week, went so far as to strike down the portion of N.C. law that required non-fatal complications caused by the drug to be reported to the FDA.
“Allowing mifepristone to be taken outside of a clinical setting and provided by pharmacies raises serious ethical and moral questions about the sanctity of human life and the responsibility of medical professionals to ensure the well-being of both the mother and the child,” Creech said.
“Furthermore, the elimination of requirements for in-person follow-up appointments and reporting of complications to the FDA undermines crucial safeguards that exist to protect women’s health. What a wicked thing to suppress this kind of information! It reminds me of that passage in Scripture: ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness…’(Romans 1:18).”
Legal interpretations and precedents aside, Creech said that our society should “uphold the dignity and God-given rights of every individual, including the unborn.”
“This shouldn’t only upset conservative evangelicals like myself; it should bother everyone because without the right to life vigorously defended, no other right of any kind is safe,” he said.
“It is my hope that both the legislative and judicial branches will reconsider the implications of this kind of ruling. As a society, we must strive to find compassionate and life-affirming alternatives that support women in crisis while upholding the sanctity of human life.”
Eagles’ ruling did not strike down state requirements for an in-person examination, an ultrasound, and blood testing. Nor did it remove the 72-hour waiting period between the patient consultation and the abortion.
The ruling is among several abortion-related verdicts expected this month.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a Duke University OB-GYN are suing North Carolina over laws that require abortions after 12 weeks to take place in hospitals and that make physicians document the existence of an intrauterine pregnancy before performing an abortion. Judge Eagles heard that case on Wednesday.
Meanwhile the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings on two abortion cases. The first involves Idaho’s abortion law which bans the procedure with limited exceptions to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. The Department of Justice claims the ban violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). That 1986 law prohibits hospitals from turning away patients who are experiencing a medical emergency.
Kristi Hamrick with Students for Life says the Biden administration is misusing EMTALA to interfere with a state’s right to regulate abortion.
“What Idaho is saying is that ‘We see the mother and child both as patients and abortion is not healthcare. If your healthcare kills people on purpose, you’re doing it wrong. We’re not turning people away. We’re offering stabilizing care and treating two patients.’ And the state is well within its rights to do so,” she told the media.
The second case involves the FDA’s relaxed regulations on mifepristone. The High Court heard arguments in March in an Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine lawsuit contending that FDA rules that allow abortion pills to be shipped by mail and prescribed without a face-to-face doctor visit put women at risk of serious complications. Doctors allege that the FDA relaxed the rules around the abortion pill without carrying out the proper protocols to make sure they were not increasing patient risks.