Gulf Pine Catholic

20 Gulf Pine Catholic • October 25, 2024 The Official 2025 Directory of the Diocese of Biloxi $12 Place Your Order Now! To receive your copies, you must pre-order. Deadline for pre-orders Dec. 20, 2024. Delivery January 2025! Directory includes information about diocesan ministries and services, parishes, Mass schedules, schools, priests, deacons, seminarians, sisters, and brothers. Mail coupon & check to: Gulf Pine Catholic, 1790 Popps Ferry Rd., Biloxi, MS 39532 NAME _____________________________________________________ ADDRESS __________________________________________________ CITY________________________ STATE_________ ZIP___________ No. of directories ordered _______ Amount enclosed______ Make checks ($12 per directory) payable to: Gulf Pine Catholic clip & mail # 10-25-24 Understanding Abortion Pills From page 11 In April 2021, early in the Biden administration, the FDA said it would not enforce the requirement for an in-person visit during the COVID pandemic. In December it made this decision permanent, allow- ing consultation and diagnosis by “telemedicine” and distribution of the drugs by mail. In so doing, the FDA rejected most of the latest Citizen Petition , and violated federal statutes barring the use of the U.S. mail, express companies, or other common carriers to ship abortion drugs. 12 These latest chang- es increase risks to women by removing the oppor- tunity for professional assessment of factors such as the stage of pregnancy and whether it is ectopic, and by preventing meaningful follow-up. They also make abortion drugs more readily exploited by abus- ers and human traffickers. What is the status and importance of this controversy? Ironically, by rejecting the Citizen Petitions of 2002 and 2019, the FDA has enabled medical groups and physicians to claim standing to sue on behalf of themselves and their female patients. 13 The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine ’s case is ongoing, and will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2024. 14 The issues at stake are of great importance. Say Plaintiffs: “The FDA ’s actions have exposed women and girls to suffering physical pain, medical compli- cations, and emotional trauma -- and continue to do so. In addition, these actions harm doctors and their medical associations by causing them to respond to the FDA ’s failure to protect women and girls. The vital public interest in protecting women, girls, and their doctors from the harmful effects of chemical abortion…. is particularly strong where the unlawful actions likely were undertaken with the unlawful purposes of bringing into being an illegal market -- in this case, a nationwide mail-order abortion indus- try.” 15 In that market, potentially harmful drugs would be mailed directly to girls and women who did not see a medical professional in person and may be injured or killed without public knowledge of the cause. This case is also important to an Administration pledged to maximize nationwide access to abor- tion 16 , as chemical abortions now make up a majori- ty of all abortions in the U.S. 17 For both sides, the stakes are especially high since the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision over- turning Roe v. Wade . 18 Many states have responded by enacting laws against abortion, which could be explicitly overturned or rendered ineffectual by a federal mandate to allow delivery of abortion drugs through the U.S. Postal Service. This case will help determine whether abortion is promoted throughout the country as a routine form of “medication.” 1 G.D. Searle’s FDA-approved drug labeling, “Cytotec miso- prostol tablets: WARNINGS” (Feb. 2018), www.accessdata. fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/019268s051lbl.pdf. All online materials accessed in February 2024. 2 Charlotte Lozier Institute, “Abortion Pill Reversal: A Record of Safety and Efficacy” (Sept. 24, 2021), lozierinsti- tute.org/abortion-pill-reversal-a-record-of-safety-and-effica- cy; G. Delgado et al., “A case series detailing the successful reversal of the effects of mifepristone using progesterone,” Issues in Law & Medicine 33 (2018), pp. 21-31, pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/30831017/; P. DeBeasi, “ Mifepristone Antagonizaton with Progesterone to Avert Medication Abortion: A Scoping Review,” The Linacre Quarterly 90 90 (2023), pp. 395-407, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC10638961/pdf/10.1177_00243639231176592.pdf. 3 FDA , “Mifepristone U.S. Post-Marketing Adverse Events Summary through 12/31/2022,” www.fda.gov/media/ 164331/ download. 4 U. Upadhyay et al., “Incidence of emergency department visits and complications after abortion,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 125 (2015), pp. 175-183, Incidence of emergen- cy department visits and complications after abortion -- PubMed (nih.gov). 5 M. Niinimaki et al., “ Immediate Complications After Medical Compared With Surgical Termination of Pregnancy,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 114 (2009), pp. 795-804, journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2009/ 10000/Immediate_Complications_After_Medical_ Compared.14.aspx. 6 See Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction (henceforth “Plaintiffs’ Brief”), Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division (Case No. 2:22-cv-00223-Z), Nov. 18, 2022, dm1l19z832j5m.cloudfront.net/pub- lic/2022-11/Alliance-for-Hippocratic-Medicine-v-FDA- 2022-11-18-Brief-in-Support-of-MPI.pdf. 7 Plaintiffs’ Brief, pp. 14-15, citing 21 C.F.R. § 314.500 (emphasis added). 8 Id., p. 18. 9 The FDA later incor- porated these standards into a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to be included in the manu- facturer’s Medication Guide. See Danco Laboratories, “NDA 20-687 MIFEPREX (mifepristone) Tablets, 200 mg” (2011), www. accessdata.fda.gov/ drugsatfda_docs/rems/ Mifeprex_2011-06-08_ Full.pdf. 10 Plaintiffs’ Brief, p. 19. For the 2016 changes to the REMS see www. accessdata. fda.gov/drugsatfda_ docs/nda/2016/ 020687Orig1 s020RemsR.pdf. 11 Plaintiffs’ Brief, pp. 21-23. 12 “18 U.S.C. § 1641 prohibits the mailing or delivery by any let- ter carrier of ‘[e]very article or thing designed, adapt- ed, or intended for pro- ducing abortion’ and ‘[e]very article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing, which is advertised or described in a manner calculat- ed to lead another to use or apply it for producing abor- tion’…18 U.S.C. § 1462 forbids the use of ‘any express company or other common carrier’ to transport chemical abortion drugs ‘in interstate or foreign commerce’.” Id., pp. 20-21. For the current (2023) REMS see www.accessdata. fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/rems/Mifepristone_2023_03_23_ REMS_Full.pdf. 13 Plaintiffs’ Brief, pp. 8, 11, citing 21 C.F.R. § 10.45. 14 For an ongoing record of developments in the case see Alliance Defending Freedom, “Case Documents,” at adflegal.org/case/alliance-hippocratic-medicine-v-us- food-and-drug-administration. 15 Plaintiffs’ Brief, pp. 24-25. 16 Statement by Vice President Harris on 5th Circuit Decision in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, The White House, Aug. 16, 2023, www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ statements-releases/2023/08/16/statement-by-vice-president- harris-on-5th-circuit-decision-in-alliance-for-hippocrat- ic-medicine-v-fda/. 17 Guttmacher Institute, “Medication Abortion Now Accounts for More Than Half of All U.S. Abortions,” Jan. 1, 2022, www.guttmacher.org/node/33429/printable/print. 18 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/19- 1392/#tab-opinion-4600822. Models used for illustrative purposes only. iStock.com/ Prostock-Studio; iStock.com/kitzcorner. Copyright © February 2024, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved.