ICYMI
ICYMI: Federal Court Hears Major Challenge to Medication Abortion With Nationwide Implications
ICYMI: Federal Court Hears Major Challenge to Medication Abortion With Nationwide Implications
This week, a federal district court in Louisiana held a hearing in Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where U.S. District Judge David Joseph considered whether to grant Louisiana’s request to reinstate medically unnecessary in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone, which could upend access to medication abortion and miscarriage management across the country—even in states where abortion is legal and constitutionally protected.
Brought by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, the case is part of a coordinated effort by anti-abortion extremists to ban abortion nationwide, using every level of government to make it harder or even impossible for patients across the country to access care. If the court grants Louisiana’s request and orders the FDA to reinstate nationwide outdated, medically unnecessary in-person dispensing requirements, it could effectively eliminate telehealth access to mifepristone by forcing patients to travel—sometimes hundreds or even thousands of miles—to obtain the medication in person at a clinic, hospital, or medical office.
Mifepristone has been FDA-approved for more than 25 years and has since been used by more than 7.5 million people in the United States to safely end an early pregnancy and as standard care for miscarriage management. It is now used in the majority of abortion care nationwide, which is exactly why anti-abortion extremists are targeting it from every angle. Despite this extensive record of safety and widespread use, anti-abortion extremists are seeking to impose sweeping, nationwide restrictions and asking the court to disregard decades of medical evidence and override voters in states that have chosen to protect abortion rights.
Leading medical experts agree that restricting access to mifepristone would have no safety benefit—it would just push care further out of reach, especially for communities who already face the most barriers: people of color, people with low incomes, rural communities, and survivors of intimate partner violence.
Last month, the Trump administration asked the court to pause the case until Trump’s FDA can complete its politically motivated “review” of mifepristone. But this is not an effort to preserve access. The administration has signaled its intent to restrict medication abortion—it simply prefers to do so outside the courtroom and after the midterms.
The judge did not indicate when he plans to rule in the case, but directed the FDA to file an additional briefing within seven days. A decision could come at any time and will determine whether anti-abortion politicians can use the federal courts to restrict medication abortion access nationwide. Attorneys for mifepristone manufacturers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro also cautioned that allowing Louisiana to reshape federal drug policy in this case could upend the entire pharmaceutical research and development ecosystem and invite baseless challenges to other FDA-approved medications.
The hearing also comes amid renewed attacks on mifepristone from anti-abortion lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Last month, the GOP-led Senate HELP Committee held a sham hearing to recycle disinformation about mifepristone and invited none other than Louisiana AG Murrill as their key anti-abortion witness. Yesterday, the chair of that committee, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), again attempted to cast doubt on the medication’s safety during the confirmation hearing for Trump’s pick for Surgeon General, pressing nominee Casey Means on whether the ability to access mifepristone should require an in-person visit to a health provider.
Means sidestepped in her response, but let’s be clear: the answer is no. The science is settled, and rigorous evidence has conclusively demonstrated that mifepristone, including when accessed through telehealth, is safe and effective.
The bottom line: Demanding unnecessary in-person requirements has nothing to do with patient safety and everything to do with chipping away at access until abortion care is completely out of reach for everyone, everywhere.
###
For over 55 years, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) has fought to protect and advance reproductive freedom at the federal and state levels—including access to abortion care, birth control, pregnancy and post-partum care, and paid family leave—for everybody. Reproductive Freedom for All is powered by its more than 4 million members from every state and congressional district in the country, representing the 8 in 10 Americans who support legal abortion.