Christian Hypocrisy Over Abortion Is Mind Boggling
Kacsmaryk’s Texas court may soon ban the abortion pill — even in states where abortion is legal
For days we’ve been hearing about a right-wing Christian judge who has been given the task of ruling on whether the abortion pill will be removed from circulation in the United States — all states — not just states where abortion is illegal.
There are several reasons to be highly concerned — first, the judge.
Federal District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk has been the “go-to” judge for right-wing extremists since he was appointed during the Trump administration. His appointment (the brainchild of Mitch McConnell) was designed to do precisely what it’s doing — provide extremist right-wing plaintiffs a special place to take their cases with a virtual guarantee of success.
The LGBT community was vocal in its attempt to stop the nomination of Kacsmaryk for his lifetime appointment, fearing he would “. . . be incapable of treating LGBT litigants fairly . . . because he does not acknowledge LGBT people as having a right to exist.”
Even Susan Collins had the good sense to cast her vote against him, most likely after reading his scintillating attack on personal freedom, titled “The Inequality Act: Weaponizing Same-Sex Marriage.”
Here is the opening of his opus:
If enacted, the deceptively titled Equality Act would punish dissenters, giving no quarter to Americans who continue to believe that marriage and sexual relations are reserved to the union of one man and one woman.
Somebody should tell Kacsmaryk that allowing others to follow their personal beliefs and live a life that’s normal and natural for them does not constitute weaponry.
Nobody is telling Christians to practice same-sex marriage. Freedom means allowing people to be themselves. But Christians like Kaczmaryk want to punish the rest of us by forcing us to adopt their backward notions and live by their archaic rules.
And now, thanks to Trump and Mitch McConnell, Republicans have a federal judge who can be counted on to help them take our freedom in the name of theirs. The plan is simple: File their cases in Amarillo, Texas, and Judge Kacsmaryk will do the rest. Think of it as “judge shopping” on steroids.
Not only does Kacsmaryk consistently apply a narrow 17th-century view of the law to each judgment he makes, but he also incorporates his equally narrow Christian beliefs. While the rest of us are horrified, Republicans in Texas are elated.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way — even Kacsmaryk said as much.
During his confirmation hearings, Kacsmaryk told lawmakers it would be “inappropriate” for a judge to allow their religious beliefs to affect a matter of law. He pledged to “faithfully apply all Supreme Court precedent.”
But as with the three Trump-appointed SCOTUS judges who professed respect for stare decisis, insisted that Roe v. Wade was “settled precedent,” and then promptly overturned Roe v. Wade, we cannot take Kacsmaryk at his word. Ultimately, he is just another Trump-appointed judge who can’t be trusted.
In my attempt to understand their logic, I can imagine only one explanation for this stunning hypocrisy: Kacsmaryk thinks his religion is truth. Therefore, to Kacsmaryk, and the far-right members of SCOTUS, it’s not their personal belief system they are forcing on the rest of us — it’s just reality. That fact alone should scare the bejesus out of anyone who believes religion is a personal choice and that we should all have the right to practice according to our beliefs.
The unintended consequences of banning mifepristone
The second reason for concern is that the abortion pill is two drugs used together (mifepristone and misoprostol). Banning either drug could have disastrous consequences for research and treatment of other diseases because the FDA has already approved both drugs for use cases unrelated to terminating a pregnancy.
At a slightly higher dosage than the one approved for abortion, mifepristone is also FDA-approved to treat Cushing’s syndrome, a rare disease marked by excess cortisol.
“It’s a very good drug, and a very potent drug,” said Dr. Atil Kargi, an endocrinologist at the University of Miami who has been using mifepristone to treat his patients with Cushing’s syndrome since it was first approved for that use in 2012. “And there’s no long-term toxicity that we’re aware of.”
If mifepristone is outlawed for use in abortions, what happens when a doctor prescribes it for a different reason — for a patient of childbearing age?
Will the doctor be investigated to ensure he didn’t facilitate an illegal abortion? Will Texas vigilantes — already primed to seek a $10k payout for ratting on abortion providers, abortion seekers (or anyone assisting an abortion seeker) — start following women at pharmacies, hoping to catch someone violating the law?
Even more concerning is how physicians and pharmacists might behave once the fear of potential imprisonment is brought to bear on their willingness to prescribe these drugs.
These are real concerns. We’ve already seen catastrophic results from the Texas abortion law. Do we need more of the same?
Texas’ abortion law makes a mockery of the Hippocratic Oath
First, do no harm. Every doctor takes an oath promising to abstain from harming patients. How can a doctor adhere to this oath when legislators with no medical training override their healthcare choices?
How does a physician prevent harm when the very thing some patients need is a procedure politicians have outlawed? These are not rhetorical questions.
Even after learning that her fetus was not viable at 17 weeks, Amanda Zurawski was forced to wait until she became septic to receive abortion care. As a result, she spent days in the ICU and one of her fallopian tubes permanently closed.
When faced with the most painful scenario a loving mother-to-be could imagine, her doctor tormented her instead of providing medical care. Rather than abort the fetus and end the nightmare as quickly as possible, he refused to provide the care she needed. As a result, permanent damage was done to her body — reducing her chances of a future successful pregnancy.
The only reason for this blatant lack of care was fear. Fearing his medical judgment would be questioned by antiabortionists, her doctor waited until Zurawski was near death before removing the fetus from her womb. In other words, he almost killed her.
For days this poor woman was required to suffer unnecessary emotional and physical pain because her doctor didn’t have the guts to do the right thing. And he’s not the only one.
Doctors in Texas are so fearful of the repercussions of the new abortion law that they are voluntarily violating their Hippocratic Oath. In Texas, where citizens can be rewarded for reporting suspected cases of abortion to the authorities, doctors are doing the unthinkable: they are putting their self-interests above the welfare of their patients.
We should have seen this coming when Texas Republicans decided the punishment for doctors who perform abortions would be a fine of up to $100k and life in prison. Is it any wonder why doctors in Texas are willing to let a woman suffer to the brink of death before delivering life-saving treatment?
Five brave women are suing the state of Texas
Five women are now suing the state of Texas — not for damages or pain and suffering — they are suing for something we should be able to take for granted — they are suing in order “to affirm that doctors can use their best medical judgment without fear of criminal penalty.” Let that sink in.
Five women who just experienced a hell I can’t even imagine are fighting — not for themselves — but to ensure no other women in Texas will have to endure what they endured.
My heart goes out to these women, but why is this fight left to them? Why aren’t doctors suing the state? Why didn’t they stand up to this law the second the law was passed and say, we can’t do our jobs with this law in place?
Is it because they’re Texans — or is it because they’re Christians? Or is it because most of them are men? Either way, it’s a sad commentary on our patriarchal society when men cause the problem, and the women traumatized by it are left to fix it.
Arbitrary, nonsensical, and hypocritical arguments made in secret
The hearing in Judge Kacsmaryk’s court was deliberately held in secret.
“The Court’s attempt to delay notice of and, therefore, limit the ability of members of the public, including the press, to attend Wednesday’s hearing is unconstitutional, and undermines the important values served by public access to judicial proceedings and court records,” said a letter sent to the judge Monday by the News Media Coalition.
No press was invited, and no one was allowed to record the proceedings. What we know about the arguments made and the evidence used to support them is mainly limited to what was leaked to the Washington Post. But it’s enough.
Despite the failed attempt to keep it on the down-low, as it were, the absurdity of the arguments made by the equally absurdly named Alliance Defending Freedom (a group consisting of conservative antiabortion organizations committed to taking away the freedom to choose if and when to have a child) were almost unbelievable.
Mifepristone isn’t safe — The FDA approved it 20 years ago. Mifepristone is not only safer than surgical abortion (or pregnancy) but safer than penicillin or Viagra. “Risk of death by taking Viagra — used to treat erectile dysfunction — is nearly ten times greater . . .” mifepristone is safest when used in conjunction with misoprostol, as intended. If the plaintiffs in this case succeed, they will force abortion-seekers to rely solely on misoprostol, which would be less effective and more dangerous than the abortion pill on the market today. (Proof that safety isn’t the plaintiff’s concern.)
Mifepristone isn’t effective — Wrong again. The abortion pill has a 96% success rate.
Mifepristone is robbing physicians of the much-needed patient base they would otherwise have from caring for mothers-to-be — Think about that. The medical groups fighting to ban mifepristone believe that pregnancies should be brought to term so doctors can grow their businesses. They said that — in court — I’m not making this up.
And now for the hypocrisy
I am constantly amazed when Christians cite freedom of religion in the same breath as they claim the right to shove their religious beliefs down our throats.
Here is the text of the main page of the website for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the plaintiffs in the mifepristone case:
Defend Your Religious Freedom
Government officials — including those in the Biden administration — are getting bolder. Together with the Far-Left, they’re trying to create a radically different America.
We see unprecedented levels of government overreach across the nation, and we must fight it. But to do that, we need your help.
Most people would be powerless to defend themselves against their own government. But praise God that because of you, your fellow Americans have hope. They have allies who will stand with them and fight for them.
Thank you for giving generously. (emphasis, mine)
Let’s start at the top. First, abortion has been legal for 50 years, and mifepristone has been FDA-approved for 20. How does this translate into a “radically different America”? Where have these people been living for the last 20–50 years? Over 60% of Americans believe in the right to choose — in all or most cases. The only ones pushing a radical viewpoint here are the antiabortionists.
Second, how is the freedom to choose “government overreach”? And how does a group calling themselves the Alliance Defending Freedom justify using the courts to restrict our freedom?
Third, when did any of them (or us) have to defend ourselves against our government? They’ve never shown up at my door. What am I missing here?
Arguments based on false premises should not win in court
All of these arguments are based on false assumptions. Nobody is telling Christians to get an abortion. Nobody tells anybody to get an abortion — even Planned Parenthood doesn’t recommend them — they offer a choice.
The Alliance Defending Freedom has gone to court to force its religious beliefs on people who do not share them. In a country that has celebrated the separation of church and state since its founding, a victory for the plaintiffs would be a much more decisive step toward “a radically different America” than allowing the laws of the past 20-50 years to stand.
Hopefully, Judge Kacsmaryk is capable of separating fact from fiction — but so far, he has reportedly shown an openness to the plaintiff’s arguments. Unfortunately, there will be nothing but shame on him if he rules to outlaw mifepristone. Let’s hope he understands this before he makes a monumental mistake that will cause unnecessary pain and suffering for millions.