safeguards

ABORTION PILLS HEAD TO THE SUPREME COURT

nancyvalko abortion, culture, education, law, medical abortion, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life, safeguards

In a May 7, 2026 article in First Things by Jonathan Van Maren titled “Abortion Pills Head to the Supreme Court” , Mr. Von Maren states:

“Two judicial rulings over Mifepristone this month have set the stage for the most important legal battle over abortion since the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022—and the fight has exposed the growing divide between the pro-life movement and the Trump administration.

He explains:

“Central to this legal battle is the Biden administration’s decision to use the pretext of the COVID pandemic to temporarily suspend the requirement that abortion pills be dispensed in person by a certified healthcare provider or clinic in 2021; the change was made permanent in 2023. This created a massive mail-order market that has sent abortion pills flowing into states with pro-life laws, triggering a series of lawsuits. 

Louisiana launched a lawsuit last year challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s 2023 decision and arguing that the changes both lacked sufficient safety data and enable illegal abortions in their state, which has some of the most comprehensive pro-life protections in the country. 

On May 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with Louisiana that the mail-order abortion pills coming across state lines were a violation of the state’s pro-life laws. The court issued a temporary stay order in State of Louisiana v. FDA, reinstating the FDA’s pre-2021 requirement. The decision paused mail-order access to abortion drugs across the country.

“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ‘every unborn child is [a] human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person,’” the court’s decision states. The decision also notes that the FDA has admitted “it had failed to adequately study whether remotely prescribing mifepristone is safe,” and that Louisiana’s case was “strong.” 

Two pharmaceutical companies that produce the abortion pill, Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, swiftly petitioned the Supreme Court for emergency relief to restore access to the drugs, arguing that the stay would create chaos. On May 4, Justice Samuel Alito issued an administrative stay of the Fifth Circuit’s order, temporarily restoring telehealth and mail-order access until at least May 11 as the Supreme Court considers the case further.

Pro-life leaders have been exultant about the Fifth Circuit’s decision and optimistic that the Supreme Court’s administrative stay will be ultimately temporary. “Women and children suffer and state sovereignty is violated every day the FDA allows abortion drugs to flood the mail—harms that are no mere accident, but predictable outcomes of the FDA’s unscientific removal of safeguards like in-person doctor visits,” stated Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

In response to the Supreme Court’s stay, Alliance Defending Freedom—which joined Louisiana’s challenge to the FDA—was emphatic. “This is NOT a reversal of Friday’s decision,” ADF said in a statement. “Rather, it’s the run-of-the-mill pause that the Justices typically use to consider the issues raised in an emergency application. . . . We respect the Court’s desire to have time to consider the issues and will continue our fight to uphold this victory.”

Repealing the FDA’s 2023 change has become the pro-life movement’s primary goal since Dobbs. Thirteen states have strong pro-life protections for unborn children, but mail-order abortion pills have essentially nullified these protections; according to the Guttmacher Institute, 63 percent of abortions in 2023 (the latest year for which national data is available) were pill abortions. The abortion rate is rising for the first time in decades, and a quarter of abortions are facilitated by telehealth services.

Despite this, the second Trump administration has actively opposed the pro-life movement’s attempts to restore the pre-2021 status quo. The Trump Department of Justice has continued the Biden policy of defending the FDA against state-led lawsuits against the abortion pill, asking for dismissals or pauses as the FDA conducts a safety review of mifepristone. In the meantime, the Trump administration approved another generic abortion pill in October 2024. 

In sharp contrast to the strong record of the first administration, Trump’s approach this time around has been to keep the pro-life movement in the tent but off the platform. In 2024, the Trump campaign stripped the pro-life plank out of the GOP platform for the first time in decades; during the campaign, Trump stated that he supported access to the abortion pill. Vice President JD Vance has attended the March for Life twice to shore up support, but pro-life leaders long muted in their criticisms are now openly expressing their frustration with the administration. 

“Restore the in-person dispensing by a doctor of these drugs!” Dannenfelser told a protest outside the HHS department in January. “What a modest thing to do for the women and children of America. Restore that to the Trump 1 policy! The Biden COVID-era abortion drug policy has led to devastating moments of death for children and coercion and death for women. . . . Abortions have gone up since Dobbs, not down!”

She was blunter speaking to the Wall Street Journal last week. “Trump is the problem. The president is the problem.”

CONCLUSION

I have been writing about the dangers of the abortion pills in posts like the February 16, 2017, post “Are Mail Order Abortions Coming? my September 21 2019 post “Press Release: The National Association of Pro-life Nurses On Federal Judge Blocking North Dakota Law Informing Women of Abortion Pill Rescue Reversal” and my February 26, 2026, post “Safer Than Tylenol” is Deliberate Medical Abortion Disinformation.

Especially as nurses, we need to inform the public!

Share this:

The Supreme Court Rejects Challenge by Pro-life Doctors on Abortion Pill

nancyvalko abortion, culture, education, grief, law, medical abortion, medical ethics, miscarriage, pro-life, safeguards

As Life News reported on June 13, 2024:

“The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone, meaning the abortion drug will be widely available to continue killing babies and injuring doctors nationwide.

The 9-0 decision says the pro-life doctors who brought the case do not have standing – they were not injured, and so the court does not intervene. That’s even though they sued on behalf of women who were injured by the abortion drug by the thousands – including women who have been killed.” (Emphasis added)

The US Supreme Court decision acknowledged that the Mifeprex pill was approved in 2000 but also that:

“FDA placed additional restrictions on the drug’s use and distribution, for example requiring doctors to prescribe or to supervise prescription of Mifeprex, and requiring patients to have three in-person visits with
the doctor to receive the drug. ” (Emphasis added)

The Cout also acknowledges that the restrictions were relaxed further by the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) when:

“In 2021, the FDA announced that it would no longer enforce the initial in-person visit requirement. Four pro-life medical associations and several individual doctors moved for a preliminary injunction that would require the FDA either to rescind
approval of mifepristone or to rescind the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 regulatory actions. Danco Laboratories, which sponsors Mifeprex, intervened to defend FDA’s actions.”

Now as the Wall Street Journal reports:

“Twenty-six states and D.C. allow telehealth for medication abortion. The remaining states have restrictions that supersede federal guidance: 14 ban abortion throughout pregnancy, and the remaining 10 have various combinations of in-person requirements, such as mandatory ultrasounds and visits to doctors and counselors.” (Emphasis added)

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

As Dr. Christina Francis, an Ob-Gyn doctor herself, wrote in a May 2021 article titled “The government’s abortion pill policy puts mothers’ lives at risk”:

“One of the most significant reasons why an in-person visit has been required is for proper medical oversight as well as a physical exam and ultrasound. These visits are meant to accurately assess the gestational age of a woman’s pregnancy, as well as rule out ectopic pregnancy, which is life-threatening. The difference in size of an 8-week-old and 12-week-old preborn child is significant”

CONCLUSION

I have a personal interest in this because I had an unwed daughter who became pregnant and started bleeding without telling me because of embarrassment.

She went to a local ER where the doctors said she was just having a miscarriage and sent her home.

When the pain and bleeding increased, she called me. I took her back to the ER to demand an ultrasound.

As I suspected as a nurse, her pregnancy was ectopic and emergency surgery was performed.

Afterward, the surgeon showed me the picture he had taken (unasked) during the surgery to remove the then-deceased first-trimester baby, my grandchild. The picture was personally so sad to see but I was comforted that the surgeon cared enough to take a picture of this tiny person and show respect.

We need more respect and help for women with an unexpected pregnancy and their babies than a pill without medical safeguards!