(OSV News) ─ Lawyers for the state of Louisiana asked a federal judge to roll back Biden administration-era eased restrictions on mifepristone, a drug commonly, but not exclusively, used for most first trimester abortions, at a hearing Feb. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
The hearing in Lafayette, Louisiana, came after the U.S. Department of Justice under the Trump administration asked the judge to pause the case.
In a video message posted on social media Feb. 24, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said she asked the court to "Issue a preliminary injunction against the FDA Biden administration-era rule that relieved manufacturers of abortion pills from having to require in-person dispensing by doctors."
"We think that that is a very dangerous action that has posed great risk to women and certainly to the babies that we've been trying to protect under our state laws in Louisiana," she said.
A decision on the matter is expected within the next month and a half, Murrill told reporters.
In October, Murrill, alongside plaintiff Rosalie Markezich and attorneys from the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over its 2023 policy permitting mifepristone to be distributed by mail. Their lawsuit contends that the policy was a key factor in enabling Markezich's former partner to acquire the drug and then coerce her into taking it, killing their unborn child.
Murrill has argued that by ending the in-person dispensing requirement, the Biden administration undercut state laws restricting abortion.
However, in a Jan. 27 court filing, DOJ lawyers in the Trump administration said a safety review of mifepristone is underway, and that such studies often take about one year. The plaintiff's request to end mail-order distribution of the drug, the filing said, "may prove as unnecessary as it is disruptive, if FDA ultimately decides that the in-person dispensing requirement must be restored."
"Plaintiffs now threaten to short circuit the agency's orderly review and study of the safety risks of mifepristone," that filing said.
A DOJ spokesperson previously told OSV News that the department was "committed to advancing President Trump's pro-life agenda" and "simply requested more time from the court for the FDA to complete its review."
In a memo published Feb. 23, just prior to the hearing, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) said, "This hearing is about whether anti-abortion politicians can use the courts to impose restrictions on medication abortion nationwide -- regardless of what voters in individual states have decided, and regardless of decades of medical evidence."
Proponents of the drug argue it is statistically safe for a woman to take, and attempts to restrict it are an attempt to ban abortion outright. In contrast, opponents argue there are significant risks to those who take it, particularly outside of medical settings, in addition to ending the life of an unborn child early in its development.
An amicus brief from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in opposition to Louisiana's suit argued, "Mifepristone -- whether dispensed in person or not -- is extremely safe. More than two decades, hundreds of medical studies, and vast amounts of data have confirmed mifepristone's safety and efficacy for abortion care and miscarriage management."
However, an amicus brief in support of Louisiana's effort from the American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYNs (AAPLOG) argued, "studies largely required in-person, pre-abortion testing, so the studies do not reflect real-world use enabled by FDA."
"None offered a statistically significant comparison involving wholly remote abortion," the AAPLOG brief said.
The Catholic Church teaches that all human life is sacred from conception to natural death, and as such, opposes direct abortion. Church leaders have called for restricting mifepristone's use in abortion, while noting that the drug's more recent usage in medical protocols for miscarriage care, where an unborn child has passed away, would be a morally legitimate scenario.
After the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, Church leaders also reiterated the Church's concern for both mother and child and called to strengthen available support for those living in poverty or other circumstances that can increase the risk of abortion.
In comments to reporters on a Feb. 23 press call the day before the hearing, leaders of several national pro-life groups characterized the case as critical to their efforts to reduce abortion.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who was among the lawmakers who filed an amicus brief in support of Louisiana's lawsuit, said on that call, "We really want the Trump administration to return to the requirement for that in-person visit."
"Why? Because of that in-person visit, we can avoid these human tragedies of someone being coerced, someone taking it after the window which it's theoretically 'safe,' or someone whose boyfriend or husband is forcing them to take the medicine," he said.
- - -
Kate Scanlon is a national reporter for OSV News covering Washington. Follow her on X @kgscanlon.
