The circus is in town and the clowns are wearing lab coats.
For years, we were told that abortions must be dragged out of the dirty, dingy alleyways and into the safe sanitary offices of doctors.
Remember that?
Well, they didn’t mean it. People who call themselves “Women’s rights advocates” are advocating for abortions to be taken out of doctor’s offices and be done through the mail. So, I guess, that whole business about the safety of women was just a ruse, huh?
Two judicial rulings this month on mifepristone have lit the fuse on what could be the most seismic legal showdown over abortion since the Supreme Court finally kicked Roe v. Wade into the dustbin of history in 2022. And brother, it’s tearing open a glorious, messy rift between the pro-life warriors and the very administration many thought would ride to their rescue.
At the heart of this saga is the Biden regime’s rather convenient little maneuver during the great COVID caper of 2021. Under the sacred banner of “public health emergency,” they waved away the common-sense rule that these powerful abortion pills had to be handed over in person by an actual doctor or certified clinic. Poof. Gone. Made permanent in 2023. Suddenly, BIG PHARMA was delivering death in discreet little packages across the republic, flooding states that had dared to affirm the sanctity of unborn life with the chemical equivalent of a back-alley procedure by mail-order.
Louisiana, God bless them, wasn’t having it. With some of the strongest pro-life protections in the land, the state sued the FDA, arguing the changes were rushed, dangerously under-studied, and amounted to federal bureaucrats actively aiding and abetting the circumvention of democratically enacted state law.
Then, on May 1st, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit looked at this pharmaceutical sleight-of-hand and said, “Nope.” They slapped a temporary stay on the mail-order abortion bonanza in State of Louisiana v. FDA, reinstating the old in-person safeguards. The court didn’t mince words, saying every abortion enabled by the FDA’s bureaucratic wand effectively nullifies Louisiana’s solemn declaration that every unborn child is a human being, a legal person, from the moment of conception. They noted the FDA itself had confessed it hadn’t properly studied the safety of doling out these drugs like Amazon parcels. Strong case, they said. Very strong.
Cue the predictable hysteria. The two companies making bank on these pills—Danco and GenBioPro—rushed to the Supreme Court begging for emergency intervention, warning of chaos and collapse. On May 4th, Justice Samuel Alito issued an administrative stay, pausing the pause, restoring the telehealth-mail-order pipeline for now, at least until May 11th while the bigger brains deliberate.
The pro-life movement, as you can imagine, is not exactly weeping into its herbal tea. They see this as a long-overdue reclamation of reality, science, and state sovereignty. Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America put it plainly: women and children are suffering, state sovereignty is being trampled, and none of it is accidental. The FDA’s removal of basic safeguards was never some innocent oversight. It was a predictable, perhaps even intended, outcome.
Alliance Defending Freedom, standing shoulder to shoulder with Louisiana, were equally unflinching after the Supreme Court’s administrative stay: “This is not a reversal.” Just the usual judicial breathing room while they weigh the arguments. The fight, they say, goes on.
And so here we are, friends. Once again, the machinery of power finds itself in conflict with flesh-and-blood realities, with states trying to protect what they believe is sacred life, and with a Supreme Court caught in the crossfire.
It’s not merely a legal battle. It’s a philosophical earthquake. Who decides? The people through their states, or faceless regulators in Washington? What is a human life worth in the age of convenience and mail-order everything?
The circus is in town, and the clowns are wearing lab coats.
May 22, 2026 at 5:37 pm
The one group of people whom you will permanently deny ANY ability to make any decisions at all are pregnant women.
Just admit that you agree with Thomas Aquinas that women are absolute garbage who should be sold at age 12 to whatever male pays the most for her and then kept constantly pregnant until she dies at 20 and can be replaced by a new model.
May 25, 2026 at 5:08 am
To Karen,
While I am not an expert on St Thomas I feel safe in saying you have mis quoted him in regards to women.
I do not believe any Catholic Church teaching refers to women in the nature you represent.
Personally I do not see where you get that from this story.
I fail to see where killing an already created baby is the only way to prevent constant pregnancy. Of course the only truly effective method, not having sexual relations to begin with is not even open for discussion I suppose.
May 28, 2026 at 8:36 pm
Aquinas adopted all of Aristotle and Aristole said women were all defective males incapable of reasoning. Aquinas allowed that women were useful for breeding purposes and did have souls which he also said were mostly damned.
The Catholic church HATES. women. Your stupid assertion that Mary disproves this is refuted by the fact that you insist that God is entirely male. God is superior to humans and males, God’s equivalent on Earth, are entirely superior in every single respect to women. Women in. Catholicism exist to have as many babies as she can and die before her husband is ever assaulted by a single grey hair or extra pound. Creativity and intelligence are in Catholic doctrine exclusively male; women are nothing but mindless dirt. Any woman who stays Catholic is an idiot.
May 28, 2026 at 8:05 pm
I know Muslims are ok with child brides and Infidel sex slavery. Maybe that’s what you are thinking about.
But what passage of Aquinas were you quoting, Karen?
May 28, 2026 at 10:19 pm
So, yes, the age of consent was 12 for women and 14 for men, but “sold” is not accurate because a valid marriage required then, and still does require, the consent of both parties, the man and the woman. So she is treated as an equal in that respect; the difference in age is due to the later onset of puberty in men.
Yes, there were contracts and pressure to keep them, but this would impede consent if marriage were forced. So (I answer that, ) that marriage would be null and void.
That is a difference in kind and degree from “sold into marriage “
So, Aquinas did not adopt Aristotle, so much as adapt him, since he gave the woman the same right of consent as the man.
Now if you want rights for women, or for men, then they come either from inherent dignity bestowed by God, or they are an illusion arbitrarily bestowed by the state.
Our Declaration of Independence went with the former. Since life begins at conception ( hate that if you will; but you then are denying science and reason, which, pace, Aristotle, he’d probably nod, knowingly. Aquinas would be horrified because he’s not Aristotle)
women’s rights begin at conception, say the Catholics, and that’s a strange kind of hatred towards women isn’t it?
May 29, 2026 at 10:12 pm
No, the Catholic Church HATES women. Your church teaches as official doctrine in Rerum Novarum and Casta Conubii that wives should never, ever have jobs or money and that they should be mindlessly obedient to their husbands. The priesthood is restricted to males because women cannot be the Imago Christi. Christ is God, so therefore women cannot be the image of God. Catholic practice and official teaching is that women are in all respects inferior to men and our ONLY purpose is to be 3D printers for new males.
Just admit that you think women are disgusting. Your hypocrisy stinks.
May 30, 2026 at 10:45 am
Not Imago Christi. We are all in the image of God. A priest performs his duties in the sacraments as Persona Christi: In the person of Christ that is why he doesn’t say, This is His body. He says this my body.
As far as hating women? Why would the Church have declared more female saints Doctors of the Church than men? Oh…and the Church hates women SO much that he made one the Queen of Heaven. Actually its not the Church that hates women…I’m beginning to suspect that you hate yourself beCAUSE you’re a woman.
May 30, 2026 at 9:27 pm
I’ve heard of Chinese and Indian cultures disposing of their girl babies; this was also done by the Inuit in the Yukon. Catholicism condemns this; Muslim girls? Open season , abuse, polygamy . Christian girls in Islamic countries? Does Boka Haram ring
a bell? Europe is suffering from the ideology of Muslim immigrants who feel entitled to rape non Muslim women.
That stuff can well be called, “hatred toward women “
None of the discrimination against women in the West even comes close to this, and not because the cultural makeup is superior; it isn’t; it’s the influence of the Catholic Church.
It has been that men want to use women in the West and walk away from the one-flesh bond. The pill provides the means, and abortion is just society giving women walk away ability. Some prize, eh?