Query from an overseas reader:

I see that your FDA has recently approved a new, generic variety of the abortion pill.  Some commentators say that under the law, the FDA couldn’t have done otherwise, while others say approval could have been blocked.   An article in The Washington Examiner says this is the most anti-life Republican administration in history (though not as anti-life as the other party).

What do you think of the fact that Vice President Vance seems to be on board with the decision?  I ask as someone who is trying to navigate murky waters in my own country.

Reply:

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this is the most anti-life Republican administration in history.  After all, during his first term Mr. Trump nominated the Supreme Court justices who provided the majority to overturn Roe v. Wade.

But it is getting there.  The FDA’s decision is a betrayal.  Most abortions are now carried out by means of abortion pills.  Since they are sold across state lines, to say that the overturning of Roe “returned the issue to the states” is grossly misleading.  And yes, the agency could have done otherwise.  As the article you mention points out, the FDA began a new safety review of the drug in September.  It could have delayed its decision until the review was complete, but it didn’t.

This is deeply disturbing.  A new analysis of insurance data finds that more than one in ten of the women who take the abortion pill experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another “serious adverse event.”  The only reason regulators tolerate such a high level of danger to the mother is that the ability to kill her baby cheaply and conveniently trumps all considerations.

In the meantime, the administration promotes in vitro fertilization, which produces large numbers of unwanted embryonic children and then destroys all but those few which are implanted.

What does Mr. Vance think of all this?  Consider five possibilities, ranked not in order of probability but from worst to best.

(a)  Perhaps he thinks these things are a good thing in principle.

(b)  Perhaps he thinks they are bad things, but doesn’t care enough to do anything about them.

(c)  Perhaps he opposes them, but thinks it isn’t yet feasible to ban them, because doing so would cause a backlash which would ensure the victory of politicians who actually promote abortion.

(d)  Perhaps he opposes them, but is biding his time, because as the evidence of their harm continues to roll in, banning them might soon become feasible.

(e)  Perhaps he opposes them, but since he serves a president who doesn’t think it is feasible to ban them, he is working behind the scenes to persuade him.

In charity, I don’t believe his thinking is like (a).  I hope his thinking isn’t like (b), although such attitudes do typify faux pro-lifers.  I don’t understand how the president thinks, but in speaking to life advocates, Mr. Trump himself has made a few remarks suggestive of (c), and it is possible that Mr. Vance agrees.  Ideally, Mr. Vance would be thinking along the lines of (d) or (e), though if he were, it is unlikely that he would tell us, because blabbing to the rest of us might doom his efforts to change his boss’s mind.

I hope his bishop and confessor are speaking earnestly to him.