Leaving aside for the moment the (huge) issue of when life begins, I offer, two related thoughts on abortion, today, the first one having to do with the recent revelations of problems in the testing of some drugs such as the pain medications… (Vioxx, for example). The industry has been rocked by these recalls… Apparently the drugs were rushed through for whatever reason, if we take the word of the left which has been trying to nationalize healthcare for generations. (And let’s be nice guys and take their word for just the moment)

But I note that there is little if any question about such drugs as RU-486 being rushed through the same agency, the FDA, or of the distinct possibility of similarly disastrous results; indeed, a similar number of deaths are now on record, with a far smaller number of people taking said drug. Ever wonder why the different coverage?

On a similarly interesting note, we see the court system is slowly getting around to asking the questions others were asking three years ago; “But what of the health of the mother in an abortion situation?” (Speaking, this time of a ‘surgical abortion)

AP News is reporting that

Norma McCorvey, whose protest of Texas’ abortion ban led to the 1973 ruling, contends in a petition received at the court Tuesday that the case should be heard again in light of evidence that the procedure may harm women.

“Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen for witnesses and re-evaluate Roe v. Wade,” said McCorvey, who says she now regrets her role in the case.

And in what must be a first, the courts are at last admitting there’s some validity to the case…. Enough to send it up to the USSC.

“…in a strongly worded concurrence, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge Edith H. Jones criticized the abortion ruling and said new medical evidence may well show undue harm to a mother and her fetus.

The last major abortion decision by the Supreme Court came in 2000, when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down Nebraska’s ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortion because it failed to provide an exception to protect the mother’s health.

And this is interesting.  The court it seems to me, made it clear in the Nebraska Case, that they’re putting quite a lot of weight on the welfare of the mother. Which the case being brought by Norma McCorvey also does.  On that basis, this case will be heard; it’s a matter of when.

But it would also seem to weigh on the case of abortion drugs, ala RU486. Are drug companies willing to deal with the long trail of lawyers which will doubtless spring up out of holes in the ground once the connection is made between the abortion pill and any problems, subsequent to the fast tracking through the FDA…. The same fast tracking now being blamed for a lot of deaths of the Vioxx case?

In case you’re interested, there are several deaths on record with this drug. Deaths thusfar ignored.

Some bright legal beagle someplace is gonna pick up on this rather acute double standard… it’s just a matter of time… and the court is going to be forced to rule as such. And the McCovey case is one such opportunity.

No wonder the speakers at NARAL sounded so panicky the other day.