(The Center Square) – A federal judge in Louisiana heard arguments on Tuesday challenging a mail-order abortion drug rule, finalized in 2023 by President Joe Biden’s Food and Drug Administration.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and plaintiff Rosalie Markezich, filed a lawsuit against the FDA for removing the rule that ensured women receive an in-person office visit before taking abortion drugs, including mifepristone.
“If the Biden FDA had not removed in-person dispensing, my then-boyfriend would not have been able to obtain abortion drugs and pressure me to take them against my will,” Markezich told Alliance Defending Freedom.
According to Murrill, Markezich was one of many women whose boyfriends or family members ordered abortion drugs from out of state and coerced or tricked them into taking them.
“Out-of-state abortion drug peddlers are violating the criminal laws of Louisiana and other states across the country that choose life,” Murrill told the Alliance Defending Freedom. “They aren’t providing healthcare; they’re drug dealers.”
In January, the U.S. Department of Justice asked the district court to halt the lawsuit, saying that Louisiana’s case lacked standing since Markenzich was not actively suffering immediate harm. With 60 members of Congress and 21 attorneys general in support of Louisiana’s lawsuit, the court hearing proceeded in Lafayette, Louisiana, on Tuesday.
Those in support of the FDA rule cited the Supreme Court decision that overturned the right to abortion provided by Roe v. Wade. Danco Laboratories, which is a New York distributor of mifepristone, was in support of the FDA rule.
“Making it a federal crime to mail drugs for lawful medical purposes contravenes nearly a century of precedent and all indicia of Congressional intent,” Danco Laboratories wrote. “It would also significantly interfere with states’ traditional power to enact their own ‘health and welfare laws.’”
Murrill argued that the FDA rule caused a contradiction with Louisiana’s strict abortion restrictions, allowing abortion drugs to be trafficked into the state from California and New York, endangering women.
“This is not about the mifepristone pill itself; it’s about the removal of in-person dispensing requirements that the Biden administration effectuated by rule during [the COVID-19 public health emergency],” Murrill said at a news conference Tuesday. “The in-person dispensing requirement protects women, and it protects babies, and there’s absolutely no reason why the FDA should have ever removed that requirement.”
Louisiana is not the only state challenging either the approval of mifepristone or subsequent actions easing the restrictions for mailing abortion pills. Missouri, Idaho, Kansas, Florida and Texas have challenged the ease of restrictions.
“They were seeking the same relief. And so it wasn’t until that litigation started to run into obstacles in its ability to proceed that we decided we needed to go ahead and proceed,” Murrill said.
Trump’s FDA has been hesitant to further restrictions on abortion drugs and other abortion-related measures, despite Murrill’s belief that they would reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement.
“Unfortunately they have not done it quickly, and I think that that should change,” Murrill said.
“We will continue to pursue enforcement of our laws, both civilly and criminally, against anybody who has facilitated the distribution of these drugs for the purposes of causing an abortion,” Murrill said. “It is a violation of our criminal laws, and we will pursue them and hold everyone accountable.”
