SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
medication abortion
Wyoming Supreme Court Strikes Down First US State Ban on Abortion Pills
"Today's ruling affirms what we have always known: that abortion is essential healthcare," said one advocate.
Jan 06, 2026
The first piece of state legislation in the US explicitly banning the use of abortion pills was struck down on Tuesday as Wyoming's state Supreme Court ruled that it, along with the state's near-total abortion ban, violated the state's constitutional right to bodily autonomy.
Both laws were passed in 2023, following the US Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade. One of them banned abortion in nearly all cases, except when the pregnant patient's life is threatened or in cases of rape or incest—a measure similar to those in several other red states.
But while many states' abortion bans have effectively outlawed the use of abortion drugs like mifepristone and misoprostol, Wyoming's was the first to outlaw the use of these pills in its text.
According to a 2023 study by the Guttmacher Institute, 63% of abortions nationwide are done using medications.
In 2012, Wyoming voters approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing each competent adult the "right to make his or her own healthcare decisions."
Ironically, the amendment was heavily promoted at the time by conservatives who believed it would protect them from what they viewed as "undue governmental infringement" by former President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. But reproductive freedom advocates have since used it as a weapon to protect abortion.
In 2023, Wyoming's only remaining abortion clinic, Wellspring Health Access in Casper; the abortion rights group Chelsea’s Fund; and four women, including two obstetricians, sued the state, arguing that the laws violated this constitutional right.
The state's attorneys attempted to argue that the amendment did not apply to abortion, which they claimed is not "healthcare."
In November 2024, a district judge halted both laws, deeming them unconstitutional. Abortion has since remained legal in the state while the lawsuit went ahead.
In a 4-1 ruling, the Wyoming Supreme Court on Tuesday also sided with abortion rights advocates, ruling that both of these laws conflicted with the state’s constitution.
“A woman has a fundamental right to make her own healthcare decisions, including the decision to have an abortion,” the ruling states.
“The state did not meet its burden of demonstrating the abortion laws further the compelling interest of protecting unborn life without unduly infringing upon the woman’s fundamental right to make her own healthcare decisions,” the court added. “As such, the abortion laws do not constitute reasonable and necessary restrictions on a pregnant woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions.”
Wyoming’s Supreme Court is the state’s highest judicial authority, meaning that the pair of laws is permanently blocked. However, the court said “lawmakers could ask Wyoming voters to consider a constitutional amendment that would more clearly address this issue.”
Janean Forsyth, the executive director of Chelsea's Fund, said the court's decision "is a landmark victory for reproductive freedom in Wyoming, and we are gratified and heartened by the ruling."
"Today's ruling affirms what we have always known: that abortion is essential healthcare, and Wyoming women have the constitutional right and the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions without government interference," she added.
The ruling is a victory for abortion rights at a time when they have come under systemic attack by the Trump administration during his first year back in power, as the Center for Reproductive Rights documented in a report released Monday.
The administration has withdrawn federal guidance that directed emergency rooms to perform abortions in cases where the mother suffers deadly pregnancy complications, which have increased by as much as 50% in states with abortion bans.
A new policy at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), meanwhile, prevented veterans on VA health insurance from receiving abortions, including in cases of rape, incest, or severe risk to personal health.
The massive cuts to Medicaid under last year's Republican budget reconciliation bill have also resulted in the closure of at least 50 Planned Parenthood health centers across the nation, and reduced services at many more.
GOP attempts to restrict mifepristone access are also currently being litigated in Florida, Texas, and Missouri.
Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr said during a Senate hearing in May that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently reviewing its regulations on mifepristone, which was first approved by the FDA 26 years ago. That review has reportedly been delayed until after the 2026 midterm elections in November.
"Too many people wrongly believe that President Trump is done attacking abortion access, and that overturning Roe v. Wade was his endgame,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “But in his first year back in office, the Trump administration is not ‘leaving it to the states’ to decide abortion policy, but wielding federal power to go after abortion access even in states where abortion is legal."
She described "the looming fear that the FDA will soon gut access to abortion pills, which have been a lifeline in post-Roe America," adding that "the threat to further limit access to abortion throughout the nation is real and must be met with vigorous opposition.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
In a Post-Roe America, Knowledge Isn’t Just Power—It’s Survival
This is a critical moment in history for both patients and physicians alike to stay informed—because the moves happening now could reshape access to reproductive healthcare nationwide.
Jul 02, 2025
Three years ago, I remember exactly where I was when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. My stomach sank. As an OB/GYN PA with more than a decade in reproductive care, I knew this wasn’t just devastating—it was going to reshape the healthcare landscape completely.
The conversations I’d been having with patients for years—about abortion, birth control, miscarriage, pregnancy loss, pain—were about to get harder, more complicated, and more dangerous.
I had the honor of joining over 100 incredible storytellers in Washington, D.C. for the Our Voices, Our Stories, Our Future: Free & Just Storyteller Summit, to mark three years since the deadly Dobbs decision.
In emergencies, minutes matter. I’ve been in those rooms. And I can tell you: When someone is crashing in front of you, the last thing you should be doing is calling legal.
I am still in awe of the number of people who were courageous enough to travel from across the country to tell their stories and fight for reproductive freedom. We laughed together, we cried together, and we shared our visions for a better future.
We also came to D.C. to meet with lawmakers to remind them that Dobbs didn’t just overturn Roe: It changed lives.
Although the fall of Roe didn’t end abortion in this country, it made it exponentially harder to access. It made it scarier. It deepened the segregation of healthcare access in America. If you’re wealthy enough to travel for care, you might still be okay. But if you’re not—if you’re young, uninsured, working class, Black, or Brown—you’re at greater risk. And we know abortion bans lead to higher maternal mortality, especially for Black women.
Let’s be clear: The anti-abortion zealots behind Dobbs were never going to stop there. In the three years since, I’ve watched extremists celebrate it as a win for “states’ rights,” while women are forced to flee their home states for basic care. “Leaving it to the states” doesn’t mean freedom. It means chaos. It means harm. It means people die.
That’s not an exaggeration—that’s reality.
And President Donald Trump? He doesn’t need to sign a national abortion ban to wreak havoc. He and his allies are already gutting protections through rollbacks, legal loopholes, and silence where there should be leadership.
Recently, Trump’s Supreme Court ruled that states can block people relying on Medicaid from choosing Planned Parenthood as their trusted healthcare provider, a devastating blow to abortion rights and reproductive healthcare—specifically, the freedom of millions of people who use Medicaid to choose Planned Parenthood as their healthcare provider.
The court put millions of Americans’ essential right to reproductive care at risk, and it will devastate communities all across the country just so Republicans in Congress can completely gut Medicaid for millions more Americans. Earlier this month, the Trump administration rescinded federal guidance that protected abortion access in emergencies. That guidance made clear what EMTALA—our federal emergency care law—already guarantees: If a pregnant patient shows up to the ER in crisis and needs an abortion to survive, they must get care.
Now that guidance is gone. And providers are left wondering if they’ll be sued—or even arrested—for doing their jobs.
In emergencies, minutes matter. I’ve been in those rooms. And I can tell you: When someone is crashing in front of you, the last thing you should be doing is calling legal.
And now they’ve set their sights on medication abortion—specifically mifepristone. This medication has been safely used by more than 8 million people over the last 20+ years. It’s not only essential for abortion care—it’s critical for miscarriage management too. But extremists don’t care about science, or safety. They care about control.
If they succeed in restricting mifepristone, it won’t just impact abortion access. It will gut miscarriage care. It could force providers to delay or deny treatment. And it could shut down clinics that rely on it to function—clinics already hanging on by a thread.
This is how they win. Not just with bans, but with quiet sabotage. With red tape. With fear. With confusion. With back-handed backdoor restrictions on our rights to bodily autonomy.
This is a critical moment in history for both patients and physicians alike to stay informed—because the moves happening now could reshape access to reproductive healthcare nationwide.
That’s why I started Take Back Trust—because people need more than outrage. They need answers, and they need tools. Patients need to walk into an ER or a clinic and know what to say, what to ask, and what their rights are.
Take Back Trust is a national resource hub helping people navigate this broken system. Whether you’re facing a miscarriage, scheduling a birth control visit, or trying to figure out if your state still protects you—we’ve got your back.
I am inspired by the words of former Vice President Kamala Harris, who surprised us via video at the Summit. “I know these are difficult times, and it requires a whole lot of courage, and it requires a level of optimism, to remember that we’re fighting for something, not against something,” the former Vice President reminded us. “And in that way we are doing good and important work that is about upholding fundamental rights, such as the freedom of an individual to make decisions about her own body and not have her government tell her what to do.”
As a clinician, a content creator, and a full-time reproductive rights advocate working at the intersection of medicine and movement, I’ll keep showing up. I’ll keep saying the quiet parts out loud. Because we’re not going back—and we’re not backing down.
We can’t afford to.
Lives are on the line. Not someday, today.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alarm as Texas Files State's First Criminal Abortion Charges Against Midwife
"Republicans are strategically targeting people they think the public won't rally behind," said rights advocate Jessica Valenti. "Let's make sure to prove them wrong."
Mar 18, 2025
A midwife in the Houston area on Monday became the first person to be criminally charged under Texas' abortion ban, with Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton accusing Maria Margarita Rojas of providing illegal abortion care and practicing medicine without a license.
If convicted, Rojas faces up to 20 years in prison under the state's near-total ban on abortion.
Writer and abortion rights advocate Jessica Valenti said Rojas is likely being "targeted" by Paxton, noting that the midwife provides "healthcare to a primarily Spanish-speaking, low-income community."
"Paxton, a political operator who picks cases strategically, likely chose Rojas because he believes Americans won't find her sympathetic—whether due to racism, classism, or the stories his office plans to spin," wrote Valenti. "In other words: Republicans are strategically targeting people they think the public won't rally behind. Let's make sure to prove them wrong."
Rojas owns and operates Clínicas Latinoamericanas, which includes four health clinics in the Houston suburbs of Spring, Waller, and Cypress. She has reportedly been a certified midwife in Texas since 2018 and was an obstetrician in Peru before immigrating to the United States.
According to The Washington Post, Rojas was first arrested on March 6 on charges of practicing medicine without a license, and was held on $10,000 bond. The new charges were added Monday, and Rojas and another employee of the clinic, Jose Ley, were being held in a jail in Waller County, with their bond set at a combined $1.4 million.
The New York Times noted that Waller County, where the charges were brought, is more conservative than Harris County, the largest county in Texas and the one where a majority of Rojas' clinics are located.
Court documents show that Paxton's office has accused Rojas of having "attempted an abortion on" a woman identified as E.G. in March.
"Paxton and Texas Republicans will be working overtime to paint Rojas as a villain, regardless of the truth. They know that abortion bans are incredibly unpopular, as is arresting healthcare providers."
Rojas was "known by law enforcement to have performed an abortion" on another occasion earlier this year, according to the attorney general, who has filed for a temporary restraining order against Clínicas Latinoamericanas "to prevent further illegal activity."
When she was first arrested, Rojas was "pulled over by the police at gunpoint and handcuffed" while she was on her way to the clinic and was taken to Austin and held overnight before being released, her friend and fellow midwife Holly Shearman told the Post.
Shearman said she did not believe Rojas is guilty of the charges against her.
Valenti emphasized that most details of Rojas' case at this point are being shared by Paxton's office, and warned that the vehemently anti-abortion attorney general will likely attempt to portray the midwife in a negative light to garner support—considering that a majority of Americans don't support criminal charges for health professionals who provide abortion care.
A survey last March by the KFF found that 8 in 10 Democrats, two-thirds of Independents, and about 50% of Republicans did not believe doctors who provide abortion care should face fines or prison time.
"You cannot trust any information coming from Paxton's office or Texas law enforcement," said Valenti. "Paxton and Texas Republicans will be working overtime to paint Rojas as a villain, regardless of the truth. They know that abortion bans are incredibly unpopular, as is arresting healthcare providers. They're not just fighting a legal battle here, but a PR one."
Valenti noted that when Paxton filed a civil lawsuit against Dr. Maggie Carpenter, a physician in New York who he accused of prescribing and sending pills for a medication abortion to a patient in Texas, he claimed the Texas resident "suffered 'serious complications' despite providing no evidence." Carpenter was fined more than $100,000 last month.
"There's every reason to believe Paxton's team will pull similar tactics here, coming out with all sorts of claims about this midwife and her practice," wrote Valenti.
Marc Hearron, interim associate director of ligation at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the Post that "Texas officials have been trying every which way to terrify healthcare practitioners from providing care and to trap Texans."
Hearron told The Cut that "doctors all across the state are saying that they are afraid that their judgment is going to be second-guessed, and all of these actions show that Paxton is chomping at the bit to go after anybody who provides an abortion."
"It's just a litany of situations where it shows the state of Texas does not care about women's lives," said Hearron. "What it cares about is stopping women from getting the care that they need, no matter what."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Attacks on Shield Laws Ramp Up as NY Doctor Fined $100,000 for Providing Abortion in Texas
The Louisiana attorney general also tried to extradite the physician for sending medication abortion pills to a patient in the state.
Feb 14, 2025
Republican-controlled states' testing of abortion rights "shield laws" that have been passed in eight states in recent years ramped up on Thursday as a judge in Texas ordered a New York doctor to pay more than $100,000 in fines and fees for prescribing medication abortion pills to a 20-year-old woman in the Dallas area last year.
On the same day, the physician, Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine (ACT), was subject to a demand for extradition to Louisiana after a state grand jury last month indicted her for mailing misoprostol and mifepristone, pills that are used in a majority of abortions in the U.S., to the state.
The charges in Louisiana are the first criminal charges filed against an abortion provider in a state with a shield law, which bar officials and agencies from cooperating with lawsuits and prosecutions against healthcare professionals who send abortion pills to patients in states that ban abortion care. The laws have been passed as advocates in states where abortion care remains legal fight to ensure Americans across the country can still obtain care after the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton did not file criminal charges against Carpenter, but accused her in a lawsuit of violating the state's near-total abortion ban by providing the medication to a resident through the mail.
In the country's first ruling on a case involving a shield law, State District Judge Bryan Gantt ordered Carpenter to pay $100,000 in fines and $13,000 in attorneys' and other fees. He also ruled that Carpenter, who did not attend Thursday's court proceedings, "is permanently enjoined from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to Texas residents."
Violating the ruling could result in a jail sentence for Carpenter.
Despite the ruling, ACT executive director Julie Kay told The Associated Press on Thursday that "patients can access medication abortion from licensed providers no matter where they live."
"ACT has and continues to stand behind New York and other shield laws across the country that enable the distribution of safe and effective telemedicine abortion care."
In December, ACT said medication abortion pills, which have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2000 and have "been proven safe and effective globally for decades," are "an essential part of women's healthcare."
The Texas case is expected to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where the right-wing majority could rule against legal protections for abortion providers who provide telemedicine for out-of-state patients—even as Republicans including President Donald Trump claim they believe abortion law should be left up to the states.
In Louisiana, Carpenter was indicted for allegedly violating the state's near-total abortion ban by sending pills for a girl who reportedly then experienced a medical emergency. The patient's mother has also been charged. If convicted, Carpenter could face up to 15 years in prison.
Republican state Attorney General Jeff Landry demanded her extradition to Louisiana, but New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, said Thursday that she "will not be signing an extradition order that came from the governor of Louisiana. Not now, not ever."
ACT said Thursday that "ongoing attempts by anti-abortion state officials to restrict access to abortion care are inconsistent with New York state law."
"ACT has and continues to stand behind New York and other shield laws across the country that enable the distribution of safe and effective telemedicine abortion care," said the group.
The Texas case also reflects a dynamic that could lead to new prosecutions against abortion providers: those resulting from legal challenges filed by men whose partners receive abortion care.
In the case of the 20-year-old Texas resident, the patient was taken to a hospital in July by a man identified in legal filings as the "biological father of her unborn child."
After the man "started to suspect" the patient had used abortion pills and found the medications that had been prescribed by Carpenter and ACT, he "filed a complaint with the Texas attorney general's office."
The New York Times reported that with Texas Right to Life, several men plan to file wrongful death lawsuits in the coming weeks against doctors and others who assisted their female partners in obtaining abortion care.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Texas Lawsuit Against New York Doctor Tests Abortion Provider Shield Laws
"It is important to remember that Dr. Carpenter did nothing wrong," said one legal expert. "Texas is trying to apply its laws extraterritorially."
Dec 13, 2024
"Time for shield laws to hold strong," said one reproductive rights expert on Friday as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against an abortion provider in New York.
Paxton is suing Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter, co-founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine (ACT), for providing mifepristone and misoprostol to a 20-year-old resident of Collin County, Texas earlier this year.
ACT was established after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, with the intent of helping providers in "shielded states"—those with laws that provide legal protection to doctors who send abortion pills to patients in states that ban abortion, as Carpenter did.
New York passed a law in 2023 stipulating that state courts and officials will not cooperate if a state with an abortion ban like Texas' tries to prosecute a doctor who provides abortion care via telemedicine in that state, as long as the provider complies with New York law.
Legal experts have been divided over whether shield laws or state-level abortion bans should prevail in a case like the one filed by Paxton.
"What will it mean to say for the GOP to say abortion should be left to the states now?"
"It is important to remember that Dr. Carpenter did nothing wrong," said Greer Donley, a legal expert and University of Pittsburgh law professor who specializes in reproductive rights. "She followed her home state's laws."
The Food and Drug Administration also allows telehealth abortion care, "finding it safe and effective," Donley added. "Texas is trying to apply its laws extraterritorially."
In the Texas case, the patient was prescribed the pills at nine weeks pregnant. Mifepristone and misoprostol are approved for use through the 10th week of pregnancy and are more than 95% effective.
The patient experienced heavy bleeding after taking the pills and asked the man who had impregnated her to take her to the hospital. The lawsuit suggests that the man notified the authorities:
The biological father of the unborn child was told that the mother of the unborn child was experiencing a hemorrhage or severe bleeding as she "had been" nine weeks pregnant before losing the child. The biological father of the unborn child, upon learning this information, concluded that the biological mother of the unborn child had intentionally withheld information from him regarding her pregnancy, and he further suspected that the biological mother had in fact done something to contribute to the miscarriage or abortion of the unborn child. The biological father, upon returning to the residence in Collin County, discovered the two above-referenced medications from Carpenter.
In the lawsuit, Paxton is asking a Collin County court to block Carpenter from violating Texas law and order her to pay $100,000 for each violation of Texas' near-total abortion ban.
Carpenter and ACT did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the case.
Caroline Kitchener, who has covered abortion rights for The Washington Post, noted that lawsuits challenging abortion provider shield laws were "widely expected after the 2024 election."
President-elect Donald Trump has said abortion rights should be left up to the states, but advocates have warned that the Republican Party, with control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, is likely to push a national abortion ban.
"The truce over interstate abortion fights is over," said legal scholar Mary Ziegler, an expert on the history of abortion in the U.S. "Texas has sued a New York doctor for mailing pills into the state; New York has a shield law that allows physicians to sue anyone who sues them in this way. What will it mean for the GOP to say abortion should be left to the states now?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Outrage as GOP AGs Argue Fewer Pregnant Teens Deprive States of Population Increases
"This is what potentially winning right-wing legal cases read like these days," said one progressive activist. "Dark stuff."
Oct 22, 2024
Opinion polls have repeatedly made clear that U.S. voters are turned off by the Republican Party's fixation on banning abortion care and controlling Americans' reproductive choices—but that didn't stop three GOP officials from writing in a court filing this month that they want to restrict abortion pill access because it would reduce teen pregnancy rates in their state.
"In my expert legal opinion, this is deeply gross and weird," wrote attorney and writer Madiba K. Dennie on Monday at Balls & Strikes, a news outlet focused on the judiciary.
Dennie was referring to a legal filing by Republican Attorneys General Andrew Bailey of Missouri, Kris Kobach of Kansas, and Raúl Labrador of Idaho in a case regarding mifepristone, one of two pills commonly used in medication abortions—which account for more than half of abortions in the United States.
As S.P. Rogers wrote at the newsletter Repro-Truth, attorneys general filed an amended complaint earlier this month in an effort to revive Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a case in which the plaintiffs argued in favor of severely restricting mifepristone access nationwide.
The three states had joined the case earlier this year, before the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the case based on the plaintiffs' lack of standing.
Because the high court didn't outright dismiss the case, the three attorneys general were able to file a complaint on October 11 seeking to prohibit mifepristone use for anyone under the age of 18 and overturn eased restrictions for the drug.
Bailey, Kobach, and Labrador argued that mifepristone access would could cause "injuries" to their states because it is "depressing expected birth rates for teenaged mothers."
"A loss of potential population causes further injuries as well: The [states'] subsequent 'diminishment of political representation' and 'loss of federal funds,' such as potentially 'losing a seat in Congress or qualifying for less federal funding if their populations are' reduced or their increase diminished," reads the court filing.
In other words, wrote Rogers, in the view of the Republican state officials, "teenage girls, which the states refer to as 'teenaged mothers,' exist for the purposes of churning out new citizens for the states."
"Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri are claiming to have a legitimate, sovereign state interest in forced birth—in teenage girls and women as breeders. It's an argument that positions everyone capable of birthing as brood mares—a scenario in which the state does not exist for the people, but the people for the state—and augurs a future claim for the prohibition of contraception," added Rogers.
Republicans including GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump have signaled their desire to roll back the right to contraception.
At Balls & Strikes, Dennie wrote that the GOP officials made clear that they believe "uteri are state slush funds, and girls owe the state reproduction once they are capable of it."
"A personal dislike of somebody else taking medicine is not a legitimate grievance," wrote Dennie. "So the states are trying to show that they are entitled to the population growth and accompanying funds that pregnant minors would produce, and the FDA is getting in the way of that."
While the argument is "shocking in its brazenness," added Dennie, it shouldn't come as a surprise in a country where the Republican Party has shown no sign of backing down from its goal of banning abortion, even as news reports mount about children who have been forced to give birth and pregnant patients who have died or become gravely ill because healthcare providers have refused to treat them for fear of prosecution.
The legal complaint, said Dennie, "is a natural outgrowth of the conservative legal movement's efforts to subordinate women."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Trump Is to Blame': Louisiana to Classify Abortion Pills as 'Dangerous' Drugs
"When Donald Trump says abortion should be left to the states, this is what he's advocating," said former Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards.
May 24, 2024
Abortion rights advocates on Thursday said former Republican President Donald Trump bears responsibility for Louisiana's newly passed law that would classify two drugs used in medication abortions as controlled dangerous substances—a product, the critics said, of Trump's efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, his advocacy for government surveillance of pregnant Americans, and his push to leave abortion laws up to the states.
The state Senate passed the bill Thursday, sending it to the desk of Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, who has indicated he plans to sign it.
State Sen. Thomas Pressly (R-38) is the lead sponsor of the bill, which principally aims to make it illegal to use mifepristone and misoprostol to induce an abortion in pregnant person without their knowledge and consent—an incident in which Pressly's sister was a victim in 2022 in Texas, but not one that Republicans found had ever happened in Louisiana.
After the original bill passed in the Senate, Pressly added a number of amendments including one classifying the medications as "controlled dangerous substances" and placing them alongside drugs including Flunitrazepam—which is marketed as Rohypnol and has been used to sedate victims of sexual assault—in Schedule IV in the state's drug scheduling system.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said the bill is proof that the right-wing push to restrict and ban abortion care has "always been about controlling women's bodies and futures," while Vice President Kamala Harris said that "Donald Trump is to blame" for a bill that could carry penalties including years of jail time for people found to have misoprostol and mifepristone without a prescription.
The amendment prompted outcry from more than 200 healthcare professionals across Louisiana as well as Louisiana Society of Addiction Medicine, which noted the drug scheduling system is meant to classify drugs based on their potential for abuse and takes into account their medical benefits.
In addition to being used in medication abortions—which are illegal in Louisiana under the state's near-total abortion ban—misoprostol is used regularly to induce labor, to prep a patient's cervix for an intrauterine device insertion, and to stop postpartum hemorrhaging, which is a leading cause of maternal mortality. Lousiana has among the highest maternal mortality rates in the nation.
Mifepristone is also approved by the Food and Drug Administration to help manage Cushing's syndrome, a disease in which a patient produces excess cortisol.
But with the two medications reclassified as dangerous drugs, medical professionals would be required to have a special license to prescribe them, and rural clinics may have limited access to them as they would have to be stored in specific facilities.
"When Donald Trump says abortion should be left to the states, this is what he's advocating," said former Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards as the Republican runs for a second term in the White House.
State Sen. Roy Duplessis (D-5) said the bill will "lead to further harm down the road" for pregnant people.
"There's a reason we rank at the bottom in terms of maternal health outcomes, and this is why," he said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Louisiana GOP Moves to Classify Abortion Pills as 'Controlled Dangerous Substances'
"Mischaracterizing misoprostol... as a dangerous drug of abuse creates confusion and misinformation, and harms women seeking high quality maternal care," said more than 280 healthcare providers.
May 21, 2024
Ignoring the pleas of nearly 300 doctors and other healthcare professionals, the Republican-controlled Lousiana state House on Tuesday was poised to vote on a bill that would reclassify two drugs used in medication abortions as "controlled dangerous substances"—and potentially limiting healthcare providers' access to the frequently prescribed pills.
Senate Bill 276, originally proposed by state Sen. Thomas Pressly (R-38), centers on making it a crime in the state to use the pills to induce an abortion "on an unsuspecting pregnant mother without her knowledge or consent," but after its passage in the Senate, Pressly added amendments to reclassify mifepristone and misoprostol.
Under the legislation, a person found with the pills without a prescription could be convicted of a felony, punishable with up to 10 years in prison.
Healthcare workers across Louisiana have called on Pressly to reconsider his amendments, which were co-written by the powerful pro-forced pregnancy group Louisiana Right to Life, and have warned they could dangerously delay or eliminate care for other health conditions for which the medications are prescribed.
"Mischaracterizing misoprostol, a drug routinely and safely used on labor units throughout the state, as a dangerous drug of abuse creates confusion and misinformation, and harms women seeking high quality maternal care," wrote more than 280 health professionals in a recent letter to Landry.
The doctors emphasized that with one of the country's most stringent abortion bans in place in Louisiana, healthcare workers have not recently been prescribing misoprostol for abortion care.
But the drug is used on a daily basis in the state's hospitals and doctor's offices, they said, to treat people who have suffered miscarriages, to induce labor, to prepare the cervix for intrauterine device (IUD) insertions, and to stop postpartum hemorrhaging—the third leading cause of maternal mortality.
"Misoprostol is such a literal life-saver," New Orleans OB-GYN Dr. Nicole Freehill told Rolling Stone on Tuesday. "It's a very inexpensive medication and very effective at preventing hemorrhage, for IUD insertions, for endometrial biopsies, to prep a patient's cervix when they have a miscarriage. It's utilized for so many things and on a very regular basis."
State Rep. Mandie Landry (D-91) called the effort to reclassify mifepristone and misoprostol as dangerous drugs "harmful and malicious."
"It is purely the product of Louisiana Right to Life and their politics," Landry told Rolling Stone. "Doctors and common sense are all against it."
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) said that the "first-in-the-nation" bill would further endanger pregnant people in a state where a near-total abortion ban has already "ravaged reproductive healthcare."
A report released in March by Physicians for Human Rights showed that unnecessary cesarean sections have been performed more frequently under the ban in cases of preterm labor, in order "to preserve the appearance of not doing an abortion" and to protect physicians from potential prosecutions. The pregnant patients were not given a choice regarding whether to have the major abdominal surgery. Doctors in the state have also begun delaying routine prenatal care until the second trimester to avoid suspicion, in the case of a miscarriage, that they performed an abortion.
"Patients across the country should be put on notice—we know Republicans across the country will soon feel emboldened to follow in Louisiana's footsteps and criminalize abortion medication too," said Ahbi Rahman, communications director for the DLCC. "The DLCC will continue to sound the alarm on egregious attacks on women and healthcare providers—in Louisiana and across the nation. State legislatures are the battlegrounds determining the whole spectrum of reproductive care."
On Monday, the Louisiana Society of Addiction Medicine submitted a letter to state House Speaker Phillip R. DeVillier (R-41), saying Pressly's proposal "goes against the spirit of the drug scheduling system, which is designed to classify drugs based upon their danger, potential for misuse, and medical benefits."
"Simply put, S.B. 276 represents a clear and worrying interference in the patient-clinician relationship that will negatively impact populations that we serve," said the group.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Over-the-Counter Birth Control a Step Forward, But What About the Abortion Pill?
The approval of over-the-counter birth control is a landmark victory for reproductive rights advocates, but true bodily autonomy can only be achieved when individuals have unimpeded access to the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.
Mar 22, 2024
In recent years, there has been a monumental shift in access to reproductive healthcare, marked by the availability of the first over-the-counter birth control at pharmacies, convenient stores, and grocery stores: Opill. This significant milestone has empowered individuals to take control of their reproductive health like never before. However, as we celebrate this progress, it's crucial to recognize that there's still much work to be done, particularly concerning the accessibility of abortion pills.
The approval of over-the-counter birth control is a landmark victory for reproductive rights advocates. It signifies a departure from antiquated regulations and underscores the importance of ensuring equitable access to contraception. By eliminating the need for a prescription, individuals are granted greater autonomy over their reproductive choices, which is a fundamental aspect of bodily autonomy and gender equity.
As we reflect on the progress made in reproductive healthcare access, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to advancing reproductive justice for all.
Yet, while over-the-counter birth control represents a significant step forward, it also serves as a stark reminder of the glaring disparities in reproductive healthcare access. Despite its efficacy and safety, the abortion pill remains inaccessible to many individuals due to restrictive regulations and bans. Mifepristone, one of the two medications used in medication abortion, has been proven to be safer than commonly available drugs like Tylenol, Penicillin and Viagra. However, its distribution is heavily regulated, placing unnecessary barriers in the path of those seeking abortion care with a medication that has been approved by the FDA and known to be safe and effective for over 20 years. In the meantime, Walgreens and CVS have begun steps to stock and prescribe Mifepristone at many of their locations in states where abortion is legal.
Currently, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) faces a pivotal decision regarding the accessibility of the abortion pill. The question at hand is whether Mifepristone can continue to be prescribed and mailed to individuals in the same manner as other medications. This decision holds immense implications for reproductive rights, particularly for marginalized communities who already face significant challenges in accessing healthcare services.
If SCOTUS decides in favor of allowing continued access to abortion pills by mail, it would represent a monumental victory for reproductive justice. It would signify a recognition of the importance of protecting equitable access to abortion care, regardless of one's geographic location or socioeconomic status. However, failure to do so would only exacerbate existing disparities, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities who often lack access to abortion clinics.
In this critical moment, organizations like the Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Program (WRRAP) play a crucial role in bridging the gap in access to abortion care. Since April 2022, WRRAP has been funding access to the abortion pill by mail, providing crucial support to individuals in need. Our success rate speaks volumes about the effectiveness of this approach, demonstrating that it is not only safe but also incredibly impactful in expanding access to abortion care.
As we reflect on the progress made in reproductive healthcare access, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to advancing reproductive justice for all. Over-the-counter birth control is undoubtedly a significant achievement, but it cannot be the end goal. True bodily autonomy can only be achieved when individuals have unimpeded access to the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.
It's time for SCOTUS to recognize the importance of protecting access to the abortion pill and take a meaningful step towards ensuring equitable access to abortion care for all.Keep ReadingShow Less
Post-Dobbs Abortion Pill Surge Highlights Stakes of Looming Supreme Court Case
"Next week as we hear oral arguments in the FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case, remember who will be impacted," said one group.
Mar 20, 2024
As abortion bans and restrictions have taken hold in at least 21 states since the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade nearly two years ago, Americans' reliance on medication abortion became increasingly clear—with the use of abortion pills reported in 63% of all abortions that took place within the formal healthcare system in 2023.
Medication abortion represented 53% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2020, signifying a substantial increase since the court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
The Guttmacher Institute released the results of its Monthly Abortion Provision Study on Tuesday, a week before the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Food and Drug Administration, et al., Applicants v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine, et al., a case brought by the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of anti-abortion doctors.
The group filed the case aiming to revoke the FDA's approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions, more than two decades after it was approved following years of research.
"As our latest data emphasize, more than 3 out of 5 abortion patients in the United States use medication abortion," said Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy for Guttmacher. "Reinstating outdated and medically unnecessary restrictions on the provision of mifepristone would negatively impact people's lives and decrease abortion access across the country."
Right-wing Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled last year in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that mifepristone's registration should be invalidated, a decision that was quickly put on hold by the Supreme Court.
Next week, the Supreme Court will hear the U.S. Department of Justice's appeal of Kacsmaryk's decision with a focus on two issues: whether the Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine has legal standing and whether the FDA did adequate research before it expanded access to mifepristone in 2016 and 2021. A ruling is expected this summer.
Guttmacher's research showed a 10% increase in all abortions in the U.S. between 2020-23, with a rate of 15.7 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age last year—the highest rate and number of abortions in more than a decade.
States without total abortion bans saw a 25% rise in abortion care compared to 2020, and the increase was even sharper in states bordering those with bans—37% between 2020-23.
"Next week as we hear oral arguments in the FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case, remember who will be impacted," said Whole Women's Health, which runs reproductive health clinics in several states.
Rachel Jones, principal research scientist for Guttmacher, said the group's findings show that "as abortion restrictions proliferate post-Dobbs, medication abortion may be the most viable option—or the only option—for some people, even if they would have preferred in-person procedural care."
Reproductive rights advocates and medical experts including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have long warned that restrictions on mifepristone—adopted by the FDA under pressure from the pro-forced pregnancy movement—are medically unnecessary and aim only to stop people from receiving care.
Advocates fear that the Supreme Court could rule that the FDA's 2021 decision to allow mifepristone to be dispensed via telemedicine and the mail violates the Comstock Act, a law that dates back to 1873 and prohibited the distribution of "obscene" materials through the mail.
"The modern anti-abortion movement wants to reinvent the Comstock Act as an abortion ban," University of California, Davis, law professor Mary Ziegler told Ms. magazine on Tuesday.
If healthcare providers can no longer dispense mifepristone via telemedicine, people seeking abortions would be forced to go in person to get care, "exposing them not only to delays and increased costs but also to harassment, threats, and other types of violence from anti-abortion extremism, which has increased dramatically since the fall of Roe," reported Ms.
Ahead of the Supreme Court's hearing in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine's "groundless case challenging FDA approval of mifepristone," said Guttmacher, "mifepristone is available and the facts remain clear: medication abortion is safe, effective, widely used, and critical to bodily autonomy for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy