In Abortion Pill Case, ACLJ Highlights How Abortion Is Used To Exploit Women

In the landmark Dobbs case, the ACLJ filed three amicus briefs dismantling pro-abortion arguments. The Supreme Court in Dobbs proceeded to overrule the notorious 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision, a stupendous victory for life, but that is not the end of the battle. The legal fight for life continues in the states as well as in the federal courts. In one such federal court case, the ACLJ has filed an amicus brief drawing upon our work in Dobbs to highlight the horrific use of abortion as a means of exploiting women. The case is Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In AHM v. FDA, pending in federal district court in Texas, the central issue is whether the federal government was legally out of bounds in approving the use of abortion pills, and then progressively abandoning various measures to safeguard mothers who take the pills. The case is part of a larger messaging war in which the abortion industry claims that abortions are good, healthy, safe, and necessary for women. That claim is a lot of hogwash, but as attorneys, our task is to lay out the evidence and arguments against the pro-abortion canards.

Our amicus brief in AHM v. FDA is upfront about this:

This case is about the FDA’s approval of, and subsequent loosening of regulations surrounding, abortion drugs. A key premise of such approval and relaxing of restrictions is the assertion that availability of abortion drugs is somehow beneficial to women. The recurrent assumption is that women want and need abortion and that ready access to abortion, including with abortion drugs, is therefore a “pro-woman” position. Such a view, however, completely disregards the reality that all too often abortion is a means of exploitation of women – typically by men or others wielding power over those women. The ACLJ addresses this oft neglected side of the equation herein.

Our brief points to studies that show countless women have abortions because someone else wants them to abort. We then lay out specific scenarios in which abortion is used as a tool by third parties, exploiting rather than empowering women. In particular, we point to the following situations:

• Human trafficking and sexual exploitation, where pimps and traffickers make the women under their control abort their babies to serve the overlords’ financial interests
•  Sexual predators who use abortion to cover up their misdeeds
• Domestic abusers who coerce their victims into aborting
• Irresponsible men who use abortion to escape liability for child support (or commitment to the woman they have impregnated)
• Heartless employers who are focused on the economic bottom line of their companies and who do not want their staff taking time off for childbearing or childcare
• Eugenicists and racists who view abortion as a tool for keeping down the numbers of people they deem “undesirable,” specifically racial minorities and those with disabilities

Facilitating “access” to abortion pills, we point out, makes it that much easier for abusers to make the woman abort since they do not even need to visit a medical office. As we note, “[I]t is much easier for an abuser to force a woman to ingest abortion pills than to drag her to a facility for a surgical abortion.” Moreover, “‘[E]asy access’ to abortion pills also means easy access for shiftless and sneaky men as well,” a point illustrated by many reports of males slipping abortion pills into the mothers' drinks.

Abortion apologists market abortion as “liberating” for women. Sadly, they ignore that “many women, if not an overwhelming majority of women, ‘choose’ abortion because they are pressured – or coerced – by others.” That is a crucial point that needs to be made . . . which is why we made it!