Judge Kacsmaryk's medical abortion ruling more theology than law
A legal education is clueless about when life begins
United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, wears judicial robes. But his April 7, 2023, Memorandum Opinion in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, reads more like theology learned in seminaries than law taught in law schools.
Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision invalidated the FDA’s approval of a chemical abortion regime featuring mifepristone. In reaching that conclusion, the Judge made clear that he believed abortion is murder, and that life begins at conception. Thus, the FDA’s approval aided and abetted murder.
Among other things, Judge Kacsmaryk sermonized that mifepristone “starves the unborn human into death.” The Judge-Priest added that mifepristone is used “to kill the unborn human, followed by misoprostol to induce cramping and contractions to expel the unborn human from the mother’s womb.”
The Judge also likened abortion to eugenics, asserting, “Though eugenics were once fashionable in the Commanding Heights and High Court, they hold less purchase after the conflict, carnage, and casualties of the last century revealed the bloody consequences of Social Darwinism practiced by would-be Ubermenschen.” He hysterically conflated eugenics involving coercion or force with a knowing and voluntary choice for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or otherwise, like conflating despotism with freedom.
In any event, how did Judge Kacsmaryk come to believe the life begins a conception. It was not proclaimed as self-evident in the Declaration of Independence. A legal education is clueless as to when life begins short of birth. I spent three years at Harvard Law School and graduated knowing no more about the beginning of life than when my legal education commenced. My law professors were no experts in the field. There were no legal textbooks on when life starts. That is because the issue is philosophical, not legal.
Judges, however, are confined to expounding the law when they are wearing judicial robes and not preaching from a pulpit in vestments.
If the unborn are indistinguishable from the born, as Judge Macsmaryk postulates, then they logically should enjoy the right to file a lawsuit to redress grievances, the right to prevent an abortion that kills them, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to a free education, the right to privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures, and a right against unwanted touching in the womb. But the Judge stopped short of endorsing such extravagance recognizing that at this time discretion was the better part of valor. But he surely would be eager to step into the shoes of Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada if given an opportunity.
The good news is the 100 percent certainty that Judge Macsmaryk’s handiwork will be reversed.
The bad news is that the Judge remains on the federal bench eager to mistake theology with law like Iran’s Ayatollahs.
Judge Kacsmaryk prefers the term 'unborn human' over 'fetus,' which may suggest that his rulings are influenced by his religious beliefs. This has the potential to raise concerns about the impartiality of legal decisions. Alarming.