Abortion Activists Want Joe Biden to Build Abortion Clinics in National Parks, Indian Reservations

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Dec 30, 2021   |   11:16AM   |   Washington, DC

With the Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade next year and allowing states to protect unborn children from abortion, abortion advocates are desperately trying to come up with other ideas to kill babies in abortions.

Writing in the New York Times, a couple of law professors have proposed an idea for Joe Biden to allow abortion clinics to be built on federal lands. That could include the building of abortion facilities in such places as Yellowstone National Park and other popular areas for vacationers. Essentially they want Americans to see the natural wonders of America — and after taking the kids to check out Old Faithful, stop by the abortion clinic to kill your baby.

Their theory is that federal lands would be different from abortion clinics operated in states that would ban abortions because the lands are subject to federal rather than state laws. With no federal law banning abortion, their proposal is to build abortion clinics on federal lands such as national parks in Indian Reservations to get past pro-life laws in the 25 or so states expected to ban abortions when Roe is reversed.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

They write:

Second, the Biden administration could lease federal property to abortion providers — for instance, allowing a clinic to operate out of a federal office building or a mobile clinic on federal land. Only a small set of state civil laws apply on federal land, and a civil abortion law like Texas’s S.B. 8 clearly does not fall within this group.

The pro-abortion professors also want Biden to aggressively promote the dangerous abortion drug mifepristone, which has killed dozens of women and injured countless thousands. They think it can be promoted despite abortions bans by appeals to courts that states can’t ban drugs approved by the FDA

A pre-emption argument could invalidate these laws. A similar argument previously worked for a different drug. When Massachusetts attempted to regulate a new opioid more stringently than the F.D.A. did, a court invalidated the law because it was inconsistent with the purpose underlying federal drug law. If Roe is overturned, federal pre-emption may even provide a way to challenge general state abortion bans, to the extent that they effectively prohibit the sale of an F.D.A.-approved drug. A clear statement from the F.D.A. affirmatively asserting that its regulations pre-empt state laws would further these arguments.

When it comes to state criminal law, things are a bit more complicated — but if the federal government has weighed in on the issue, either explicitly or implicitly, state criminal law should not apply. For this, the Biden administration could point to the F.D.A. regulation of abortion medication, as well as the various federal laws that regulate abortion, as evidence that state criminal laws are inapplicable on federal land.

The proposals are not surprising as abortion activists can’t see past making sure women can kill their babies in abortions to understand that they should instead provide actual help and supp;ort for pregnant women in the form of baby needs, education assistance, medical care, job placement and training, childcare, etc. They just want more abortions.