Victory or Defeat? The Supreme Court’s Abortion Pill Ruling Is Neither.
The U.S. Supreme Court released a unanimous ruling on the abortion pill mifepristone on Thursday, and there’s good news and bad news.
The bad news is that women will still be able to receive a dangerous drug (one designed to force a miscarriage) in their mailboxes without ever having seen a medical professional in person. The good news is that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t actually make a decision about the way the abortion pill is administered or the FDA’s lax requirements for obtaining and using the drug — it just told Alliance Defending Freedom and the doctors from the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine suing the FDA that they had no standing to do so. (READ MORE from Aubrey Gulick: Elon Musk and OpenAI Are at War. Your Data Is at Stake.)
But that latter piece of good news has been drowned out by the anti-life abortion advocates in the media.
One NPR article recorded the “relieved” reaction of mifepristone providers who had been stockpiling the drug in case the Supreme Court decided that the FDA needed to reevaluate its safety; CNN informed readers that “[t]he ruling is a significant setback for the anti-abortion movement” (that’s “pro-life movement” to you, CNN); and the Washington Post framed it as a win for the Biden administration (although it recognized that the battle is nowhere near over yet).
It’s not a win or a defeat for either side — it’s a stalemate. Essentially, the U.S. Supreme Court told the pro-life movement that, if we’re going to debate mifepristone, we need a case where the doctors suing the FDA have experienced harm. They need to have skin in the game, and not just hypothetically. That’s important because we need an air-tight precedent that will last beyond the next time a Democrat appoints left-wing justices to the court.
The case doesn’t deny that the conversation about mifepristone is worth having. The drug is quite risky — there have been at least 32 deaths associated with it since 2000 and many women have ended up in the emergency room with serious complications. But that hasn’t stopped the FDA from making it progressively easier in the last 20 years to receive it (it wasn’t until 2021 that patients could receive the drug in the mail without an in-person visit, which makes abortions much easier to administer in states where it isn’t legal) and from promoting it as a “safe and effective” way to obtain the death of an unborn child.
One of the biggest issues with having the FDA endorse mifepristone is that it risks putting women in a position where they trust the medical establishment to get them out of a difficult situation without realizing that there are serious risks involved.
This is a column dedicated to exposing artificial intelligence’s Left-wing bias and I have every intention of working ChatGPT-4o into this conversation. One of the useful things about ChatGPT (and artificial intelligence in general) is that it does a great job of capturing the mainstream narrative of any particular issue. At times it can be difficult to note the biases. When we’re talking about abortions, that’s not the case at all. Take for instance this response:
Prompt: Explain the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in the mifepristone case. Detail the controversies surrounding the use of the abortion pill and discuss the long-term impacts the ruling will have in 300 words.
ChatGPT-4o: In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in the mifepristone case, a highly contentious issue concerning the use of the abortion pill. The Court decided to keep mifepristone available while legal battles over its FDA approval continue, upholding a stay on lower court rulings that sought to impose severe restrictions on the drug.
The controversy centers on the FDA’s approval and regulation of mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions. Critics argue that the FDA’s decision to approve the drug and later expand its accessibility, including allowing it to be dispensed via mail, was flawed and exceeded its authority. They claim these actions neglected necessary safeguards for women’s health and statutory limits. Supporters, however, emphasize that mifepristone has been safely used for over 20 years and plays a critical role in reproductive healthcare, especially in the post-Roe v. Wade landscape where medication abortion has become increasingly vital (SCOTUSblog) (Center for Reproductive Rights).
The Supreme Court’s decision to maintain the status quo has significant long-term implications. If future rulings uphold the FDA’s authority, it would reaffirm the agency’s role in regulating pharmaceuticals, which is crucial for maintaining a consistent, science-based approval process. Conversely, a ruling against the FDA could set a precedent for increased judicial interference in drug approvals, potentially undermining the agency’s regulatory stability and impacting the availability of numerous medications beyond mifepristone (Fierce Pharma).
Furthermore, this case highlights the ongoing national debate over abortion rights. The outcome could either secure or further restrict access to abortion services, depending on how future legal decisions unfold. This decision underscores the fragile state of reproductive rights in the U.S., with potential nationwide ramifications for women’s access to healthcare (Fierce Pharma) (Center for Reproductive Rights).
Usually I leave the response here and let you critique it in the comments section — but I want to point a few things first.
The biggest issue with the bot’s response is in the second paragraph, where it tells us that “critics…. claim” that women’s health and statutory limits are at issue, but “[s]upporters … emphasize” mifepristone’s safety over the last 20 years. That’s a granular difference in language, but its the kind of distinction that makes an impact on the unconscious and unobservant reader. Effectively, it undermines the “critics” argument while suggesting that the “supporters” are relying on well-established fact. Let me just point out that the FDA is the one reporting those 32 deaths.
The second issue has to do with sourcing. All of the sources — SCOTUS Blog, Fierce Pharma, and Center for Reproductive Rights — are left-wing or have ties to BigPharma (and therefore an interest in promoting prescription drugs). This may just end up being a reoccurring complaint of mine, but any journalist will tell you that balanced sourcing is key. (RELATED: A Quandary For Those Touting the ‘Rule of Law’)
With those critiques lodged, I’ll now hand it over to readers in the comments section. What are your thoughts on the bot’s response? Is it more or less biased than you thought? And are there carefully worded phrases that could influence the unobservant reader?
This is a weekly column at The American Spectator dedicated to exposing the left-wing bent of generative AI machines. If you enjoyed it and want to see what else ChatGPT comes up with, feel free to leave ideas for prompts in the comments section below!
The post Victory or Defeat? The Supreme Court’s Abortion Pill Ruling Is Neither. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.