One could only imagine the attitude of the usual pro-abortion newspapers—The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Texas Tribune—if a judge they liked asked the parties involved in a an abortion case not to tell the world of the timing of their first appearance in court. But if they disapprove—as they most certainly do of U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk—there is nothing he could say or do that would not be “very irregular,” or “part of a series of highly unusual steps,” or “unprecedented.”
So what was Judge Kacsmaryk’s motive in what the newspapers insist is “limiting transparency”?
According to the Washington Post, in a conference call last Friday
Kacsmaryk told the attorneys that he also wanted to delay publicizing the hearing because courthouse members have received threats in the wake of the lawsuit, according to the people familiar with the call. Several people close to Kacsmaryk say the judge and his family have faced security threats since he ascended to the federal bench in 2019, and those threats have intensified ahead of the abortion pill ruling.
The New York Times added
The judge also said that court staff had faced security issues, including death threats, and that the measure was intended to keep the court proceedings safe.
Kacsmaryk “asked them not to disclose that information and said he would not enter it into the public court record until late Tuesday evening,” Katie Benner and Pam Belluck of The New York Times reported.
Understand that Judge Kacsmaryk did not issue a gag order which bars participates from sharing the information. “Rather, he asked them to keep the information secret ‘as a courtesy,’” the Post reported.
Right. That didn’t last long. So much for “courtesy.”
HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
The case was filed last November by the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of four pro-life medical organizations and four doctors who’ve treated patients with mifepristone. They “seek to revoke the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in a “medication” [chemical] abortion.
The lawsuit argues that the FDA “never should have approved mifepristone back in 2000, claiming the government purposely ignored what the plaintiffs contend are harmful side effects,” The New York Times reported. The FDA “has repeatedly deemed the two-step medication abortion protocol to be safe and effective.”
At the March 15th hearing, “ lawyers representing the plaintiffs, the F.D.A. and a manufacturer of mifepristone will present arguments for and against an injunction,” Benner and Belluck reported. “It is unclear if the judge will decide whether to issue an order that day or sometime later.”
