Louisiana Takes a Stand Against Mail-Order Abortion Drugs

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has launched a legal challenge against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which demands the reinstatement of stricter regulations for mifepristone, a drug used in medical abortions.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, the lawsuit argues that the FDA’s loosened rules have fueled an alarming rise in illegal mail-order abortions, undermining Louisiana’s pro-life protections.

Mifepristone, once tightly regulated, required in-person dispensing, ultrasounds, and follow-up care to ensure patient safety. These safeguards established when the FDA approved the drug in 2000, mandated a physician’s involvement and a direct doctor-patient relationship.

Under the Obama and Biden administrations, these protections were dismantled. By 2023, the FDA eliminated requirements for in-person visits, physician prescriptions, and complication reporting, allowing mifepristone to be mailed without medical oversight. AG Murrill calls these changes “arbitrary,” pointing to risks like sepsis, hemorrhaging, and even death, particularly when women with contraindications take the drug without proper screening.

The consequences are stark and are highlighted in a recent case in Louisiana that saw a man order mifepristone using his pregnant wife’s email, hiding the pills in her food to induce an abortion without her consent. Unfortunately, such coercion isn’t isolated.

Studies show 84% of mail-order abortion drugs are shipped to states with pro-life laws, this is the exploitation of regulatory gaps. Meanwhile, “shield laws” in states like California and New York protect abortion providers from prosecution. This creates a legal tug-of-war with red states like Louisiana.

Some have made this case to solely be about state sovereignty; it’s not, it’s about public health.

Without in-person oversight in the administration of the abortion pill, women face serious risks, and the lack of follow-up care leaves complications unaddressed.

Thankfully, Murrill’s lawsuit is comprehensive and highlights several of the disturbing trends including the FDA’s recent approval of a generic version of the pill, despite the fact that it admitted the Biden-era rules lacked data-driven justification.

This move, made amid a looming government shutdown, has raised questions about the agency’s priorities.

Louisiana’s case is one which challenges a federal agencies priorities; are they really pursuing safety or is there an ideological hangover from previous administrations?

Regardless of the answer to that question, the outcome of this case could reshape the national debate on abortion drugs, proving that states can protect their citizens when federal oversight falters.

Thank you for your support.

If you appreciate the work we do to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, please consider giving a gift to help us continue this work. Maranatha!