The Beginning of the End for the Abortion Pill: A Call to Prayer and Action

 In Articles, Drenda On Guard, Government

If you just read the headlines from the mainstream media, you’d think that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) just retracted its overturning of Roe v. Wade and “approved” the abortion pill, Mifepristone. While the SCOTUS took no such stance, its recent action did not advance the protection of life for the unborn either.

First of all, what is Mifepristone? When I first heard of it over 20 years ago, it was known as RU-486, “the abortion pill.” It is now the first drug taken in a two-step chemical abortion protocol, also known as “abortion by medication,” which is the most prevalent abortion method in the United States, accounting for more than half of all abortions.[1]

Women first take Mifepristone to block progesterone, which “halts nutrition, and ultimately starves the unborn child until death.” As Mifepristone is typically insufficient to complete the abortion, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates a second drug be taken, Misoprostol, which then induces labor “to expel the unborn child from the mother’s womb.”[ii]

The legal history of this case is short but complex, so I will try to make it as simple as possible. In November 2022, the legality of the FDA’s approval of Mifepristone came before Texas Federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk via a request for a preliminary injunction filed by numerous plaintiffs, including the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (collectively “AHM”), a group of “doctors and national medical associations that provide healthcare for pregnant and post-abortive women and girls.”[iii]

Finding that the FDA had not properly assessed the risks posed by Mifepristone before approving it, Judge Kacsmaryk issued a temporary order staying its approval pending the final decision of the lawsuit challenging its safety and legality. As part of Kacsmaryk’s decision, he noted:

[O]ne thing is clear: the lack of restrictions resulted in many deaths and many more severe or life-threatening adverse reactions. Due to FDA’s lax reporting requirements, the exact number is not ascertainable. But it is likely far higher than its data indicate for reasons previously mentioned. Whatever the numbers are, they likely would be considerably lower had FDA not acquiesced to the pressure to increase access to chemical abortion at the expense of women’s safety.[iv]

Unconcerned with the health of women or the legitimacy of the FDA-approval process, the Biden administration and Danco Laboratories, maker of Mifepristone, appealed to the SCOTUS claiming that “chaos” would ensue were Judge Kacsmaryk’s order to take effect.[v]

Without analysis or explanation, the SCOTUS issued a one-paragraph order on April 21, 2023 staying the enforcement of the Texas district court’s preliminary injunction revoking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of Mifepristone pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit and, perhaps ultimately, to the SCOTUS.[vi] In other words, the Mifepristone abortion pill would remain available for sale and use pending the appeals process. A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit is to hear oral arguments on the appeal on May 17, 2023.

The Court’s ruling to allow Mifepristone to stay on the market is certainly troubling, but we need not speculate whether the SCOTUS was showing their hand on future abortion rulings. Time will soon tell.

Now is the time to take action both in the heavenly and earth realms!

Join me in praying for:

  1. God’s blessing and favor over AHM and their counsel as they argue before the Fifth Appellate District on May 17th to advocate for the protection of women and their unborn children.
  2. The panel of judges on the Fifth Circuit to do justice and affirm Judge Kacsmaryk’s order.
  3. The FDA’s approval of Mifepristone to be legally revoked.
  4. The SCOTUS will protect the unborn and uphold the revocation of the FDA’s approval of Mifepristone and all other abortion pills should this case come before it on appeal.

Further, while Mifepristone is obviously designed to end the life of the unborn, it is also harmful and life-threatening to the women who take it.

Let’s pray that the spirit of abortion will be bound in this country and that women who may seek abortion will be convicted by the Holy Spirit to choose life! 

Finally, I encourage you to contact your federal and state senators and representatives and share the position that Mifepristone and any other chemical abortion pill should be outlawed. You can find your congressional representatives here.

If every believer would act and pray, I believe that we would put an end to abortion in this country. We cannot wait for the courts or the government to do the right thing. The church is called to “rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter” (Proverbs 24:11, ESV).

In my book, Fight Like Heaven! A Cultural Guide to Living on Guard, I cover the national scourge of abortion from its genocidal roots to the Dobbs decision and how we need to take this moral territory for the Kingdom. Get your copy here.

Be sure to SUBSCRIBE to my YouTube channel, Drenda on Guard, where you will hear the uncensored truth and a Kingdom perspective on news and current events that affect you.

[1] Mimi Nguyen Ly, “Federal Judge Orders FDA to Freeze Approval of Abortion Pill Mifepristone,”, April 9, 2023.

[ii] Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Admin et al., Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z, Doc. 137 at p 2. ND Texas Abortion Pill Ruling 2023-04-07.pdf (

[iii] Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Admin et al., Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z, Doc. 137 at pp. 2-3. ND Texas Abortion Pill Ruling 2023-04-07.pdf (

[iv] Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Admin et al., Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z, Doc. 137 at pp. 57-58. ND Texas Abortion Pill Ruling 2023-04-07.pdf (

[v] Nathaniel Weixel, “Biden Administration, Drugmaker Ask Supreme Court to Pause Abortion Pill Restrictions,”, April 14, 2023.

[vi] Danco Laboratories, LLC et al. v. Food and Drug Administration et al., 598 U.S. _____ (2023), 22a901_3d9g.pdf ( Justices Thomas and Alito dissented on the grounds that the FDA failed to show “irreparable harm” pending appeal.

Recent Posts

Start typing and press Enter to search