In the ever-escalating cultural and constitutional war over abortion in America, the fight over mifepristone—the so-called “abortion pill”—has emerged as ground zero. Recently, Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri filed a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s loosened restrictions on mifepristone, arguing that federal approval and telehealth access undermine their pro-life laws. President Trump’s Department of Justice is asking the court to toss the suit on technical grounds: lack of standing, improper venue, and expired deadlines.

At first glance, this might seem like a dry legal dispute. But for those of us who believe in both the sanctity of life and the rightful authority of states, this is anything but minor. It strikes at the core of two vital truths: that life begins at conception, and that the federal government has no business micromanaging states into submission when it comes to protecting unborn children.

The States’ Constitutional and Moral Standing

Let’s be clear—Idaho, Missouri, and Kansas are not rogue players trying to insert themselves into a federal matter. They are sovereign states with duly enacted laws that reflect the values of their citizens. In Idaho, abortion is completely banned except in rare circumstances. Missouri recently passed constitutional protections for life. Kansas, even with more lenient abortion laws, still has restrictions. When the FDA allows mifepristone to be distributed through mail-order prescriptions and telehealth consultations, it creates a direct conflict between federal action and state law.

This isn’t just a theoretical problem—it’s a practical one. How can a state enforce its abortion laws if the federal government allows a woman to bypass them with a Zoom call and a mailbox? That’s not health care; that’s an end-run around democracy and morality.

The Bible speaks clearly about the value of life. “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” (Jeremiah 1:5). If God acknowledges life before birth, how dare we allow federal agencies to facilitate its destruction?

The Federal Government’s Argument: Procedure Over Principle

Now, the Trump DOJ is saying these states missed the deadline to sue, filed in the wrong jurisdiction, and haven’t demonstrated a clear injury. Legally speaking, that might be sound. The modern federal judiciary tends to focus obsessively on procedure—filing windows, jurisdictional boundaries, technical proof of harm. That’s understandable; the courts are designed to follow rules.

But as any Christian knows, just because something is “legal” doesn’t mean it’s right.

There’s a troubling trend here: unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the FDA are making decisions that override state sovereignty and facilitate moral evil, all while hiding behind layers of process and paperwork. It’s government by clipboard, not by the consent of the governed.

And to be frank, if the courts are saying states can’t defend their own laws because of an arbitrary statute of limitations or filing location, then maybe the problem isn’t the states—it’s the system.

The Stakes: Not Just Legal, but Eternal

This is about more than legal standing. This is about where we stand as a country. If states are stripped of the ability to defend their own moral laws, then we don’t have a federal system anymore—we have a central government imposing one-size-fits-all secularism. And if we as Christians don’t stand up and say “Enough!” then we’re complicit in allowing a culture of death to spread unchecked.

Mifepristone, we’re told, is “safe and effective.” Well, maybe it’s safe for the woman (though even that is debatable), but it is 100% lethal for the baby. That’s not health care—that’s a death sentence. The Bible warns us not to call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). Yet that’s exactly what’s happening when federal agencies champion abortion access while ignoring the destruction of innocent life.

States Must Have the Right—and the Duty—to Sue

The conclusion is simple and firm: these states should absolutely have the right to sue. Not only is their legal authority being trampled, but their moral responsibility is being undermined. When a state enacts a law to protect life, it must have the ability to enforce it—otherwise, what’s the point of law at all?

If the courts say otherwise, then it’s time we rethink the legal doctrines that allow evil to go unchallenged. Our founding fathers never envisioned a bloated federal bureaucracy overriding state morality by executive fiat. And as Christians, we must remember we answer to a higher court than any in Washington.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about principle. And the principle is this: life is sacred, and states must be free to defend it.