Texas Judge’s Controversial Abortion Pill Order Sparks Debate

Recently, a judge from Texas made an important ruling that prevented women from getting abortions with the most popular method. This judge was previously an attorney for a conservative organization dedicated to protecting religious freedom.

Two judges, one appointed by Donald Trump and the other by Barack Obama, gave opposite rulings on a major decision. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said no to federal approval of mifepristone while Judge Thomas O. Rice said yes at almost exactly the same time. Their opposing decisions pushed the issue closer to being settled by the United States Supreme Court.

Kacsmaryk was a lawyer for the conservative First Liberty Institute and he got appointed as a judge in 2019 despite all the protests by Democrats. These protests were because Kacsmaryk had an opinion that went against LGBTQ rights. This appointment of judges by President Trump and Senate conservatives is part of their effort to change the American judiciary system so it goes more towards the right side.

He is the only judge in charge of a district court in Amarillo, Texas. He has to look at all the cases that are brought up there. Since becoming the judge, he has disagreed with some decisions made by President Biden such as on immigration and LGBTQ rights.

Different kinds of interest groups have been trying for a long time to sue people who see things the same way as them. In Amarillo, TX there were lots of lawsuits filed by conservative people and some say they only did this so they could talk to Judge Kacsmaryk cause they think he’d agree with them.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor from the University of Texas said: “If these people are so certain that their claims will win, why would they bring them to Amarillo? It’s not like it’s close by. This should worry the judges since it looks like litigants are deliberately picking their court.”

The Justice Department quickly took the decision of Kacsmaryk to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, it looks like the drug that was allowed by the Food and Drug Administration way back in 2000 will keep being available despite the different rulings from Texas and Washington.

Mifepristone is a medicine used to end pregnancies that are up to 10 weeks along. It works by blocking the hormone progesterone in your body and it often needs to be taken with another drug called misoprostol. The Alliance Defending Freedom, who were also involved in the Roe v. Wade case, filed a lawsuit about this in Texas.

Legal experts said that the lawsuit made bad arguments and wrong facts, but Kacsmaryk agreed with what the plaintiffs were saying, especially that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) didn’t check if the drug mifepristone was safe or not. However, medical groups feel differently and mention that millions of women have been using this drug for almost 23 years now, with very few complications happening compared to other procedures like getting your wisdom teeth taken out or having a colonoscopy.

Before becoming a judge, Kacsmaryk told lawmakers that it would be wrong for a judge to let their own religious beliefs affect the way they handled legal matters. He promised to use all Supreme Court laws how they were written, not how he wanted them to be.

Kacsmaryk said “As a judicial nominee, I don’t act as a lawmaker or an advocate – I just have to follow the law exactly as it is.”

Kacsmaryk was involved in a legal battle concerning President Trump’s “Stay In Mexico” policy. This policy required lots of people wanting to request asylum in the U.S. to wait in Mexico until attending their hearings with immigration court.

In 2021, the U.S government decided to bring back a policy, but it was overruled by The Supreme Court and said that the Biden administration can end the policy which happened in August last year. However, in December, Kacsmaryk stated that the administration didn’t follow rules when they stopped this practice and that was something that Supreme Court did not look at.

The judge said that it is against the law for teenagers who are under 18 to get birth control without their parents’ permission at clinics which are funded by the federal government.

The Biden administration was not allowed to discriminate against people because of their gender identity or sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the judge ruled against the Biden Administration when it tried to stop employers from telling workers which bathroom they could and couldn’t use depending on their gender identity.

Recently, the Department of Labor was sued by states. The Justice Department wanted to move this case away from the judge in Amarillo, and wrote in their court filing that it’s like “judge shopping”. However, Judge Kacsmaryk said no and stated that law does not force judges to guess why plaintiffs choose that spot to file the lawsuit.

Daniel Bennett, a professor from John Brown University in Arkansas and the author of a book on conservative Christian legal movements, said that Kacsmaryk’s decisions follow what many conservatives hope for and what many progressives fear. He added that this judge won’t be the type to sit on the fence.

People who oppose Kacsmaryk have said that his earlier writings and legal work showed that he held extreme opinions and was against gay and transgender people. In articles before he was chosen for the nomination, he wrote negatively about Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling which gave women the right to do abortions anywhere in the US, as well as the Obergefell ruling which made same-sex marriage a nationally accepted thing.

In 2015, he strongly opposed a plan to give federal protections based on gender identity and sexual orientation. He argued that doing so would be unfair to people who wanted to keep their religious beliefs which state that marriage and physical relationships must only happen between one man and one women.

A year later, he wrote a letter that said there is a belief that some people feel like they have been put into the wrong body and this can be thought of as an irrational, fixed opinion which could be seen as a kind of made-up idea. Some people think he was treated badly.

Mike Davis, the founder of a group called Article III Project which supports judges who are conservative, said Kacsmaryk has not shown any signs of being unfair. He also pointed out that the American Bar Association believed Kacsmaryk was “qualified”, which means they thought Kacsmaryk demonstrated high standards of honesty, knowledge and fairness on the bench.

Davis said that the claims about his bias are totally wrong and not true. Democrats in politics are telling Christians and religious people that they do not belong in public life.

Before becoming a judge, Kacsmaryk was an assistant attorney in Texas and handled cases such as prosecuting Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari. He was from Saudi Arabia and had tried a plan to make a bomb but failed.

In 2014, Kacsmaryk joined the First Liberty Institute, an organization that fights for religious freedom for everyone in America. He received recognition for the fact that the group has defended people of all faiths. One example is a case where he represented an Oregon bakery who didn’t want to make a cake for a same sex-couple’s wedding.

Bennett said that lots of people who lean to the left side may be disappointed in recent decisions, but those who are more conservative are pleased. He also added that it’s typical for hot-button issues to cause such a divide between opponents.