(Originally published in Western Journal.)
On Aug. 3, a U.S. district court judge in Illinois overturned a law targeting the free speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers opposed to abortion-causing contraception.
The law would have enabled the Illinois attorney general to fine pregnancy centers $50,000 for each instance of what the state considers “misinformation” or failure to communicate the state’s message on abortion and contraception.
The battle over abortion and abortion-causing contraception continues to heat up ahead of not just the presidential election, but also an anticipated 5th Circuit ruling potentially outlawing chemical abortion.
On July 11, fears the 5th Circuit will overturn the FDA’s illegal approval of chemical abortion resulted in the FDA’s approval of the cancer-causing contraceptive Opill for sale over the counter, without a doctor’s prescription.
Along with the illegal approval of the “chemical coat hanger” Mifepristone, FDA approval of a Group 1 carcinogen to be sold to adolescent girls is yet another tragic demonstration of a politicized FDA willing to sacrifice women’s health on the altar of abortion.
In support of the decision is the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, tacitly admitting abortion is being used as birth control while arguing for its need in post-Roe America.
It is no wonder that on the day of the FDA approval, Vice President Kamala Harris revealedthe Biden administration’s investment in “population reduction.” Apparently, the FDA’s mission to “protect the public health” is going to be accomplished by reducing the public.
Peer-reviewed medical studies still demonstrate that the once-a-day pill under consideration carries a “carcinogenic risk … at least comparable to the risk of [combined oral contraceptives].” The World Health Organization has listed oral contraceptives as Group 1 carcinogens along with plutonium, causing increased risk of breast, cervical and liver cancer. One study reveals that breast cancer incidences have increased 242 percent since 1970, coinciding with the widespread use of hormonal birth control. Additional risks include heart attack and stroke.
Peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating the extreme health risks to women was presented in a case before the Supreme Court when the Department of Health and Human Services mandated that all employers, including the Roman Catholic nonprofit Little Sisters of the Poor, cover these drugs, even against their deeply held religious convictions. The expert medical testimony to the court revealed that the pill increases the risk of the most aggressive, triple-negative breast cancer in girls 18 and under by 6.4 times.
Sidestepping science, the FDA’s so-called expert advisory panel was stacked with abortion activists, according to the assessment of the Life Legal Defense Fund. Dismissing the dangers, the committee recommended the FDA sanction the over-the-counter sale of Opill in a unanimous vote.
The vote appears to be a purely political move, responding to the possibility that the 5th Circuit and Supreme Court may overturn the FDA’s Clinton-era illegal fast-track approval of the dangerous chemical abortion drug Mifepristone.
Not only does the logic of the committee’s decision tacitly reveal that abortion is being used as contraception, but it once again shows a willingness on the part of the FDA to tie women to the tracks of the oncoming abortion train. The decision to expose women and girls to high-risk hormone therapy without physician oversight or parental guidance recklessly holds their health hostage to a political narrative. Apparently, risking women’s health is a small price to pay for the pro-abortion political elite to further their agenda.
Additionally, calling the pill “hormone therapy” is a misnomer, as it is a synthetic steroid designed to create an inhospitable environment so a newly formed baby cannot implant in the uterine lining, thus aborting the baby.
But then there is the pharmaceutical company Perrigo, the manufacturer of Opill, whose stock prices jumped at the prospect of a spike in sales. However, it does not appear the U.S. government is providing Perrigo immunity from any medical injuries caused by the pill like it did for manufacturers of experimental COVID vaccines.
Will the U.S. provide immunity to pharmacies for failure to communicate the extensive risks and side effects? And what about the 17-member FDA advisory committee irresponsibly ignoring the clinically established life-threatening dangers?
Will any of them be held liable when an 18-year-old girl dies of triple-negative breast cancer?
