The administration requested that a federal court halt a Louisiana lawsuit regarding abortion restrictions, reports Politico. Louisiana v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) seeks to slow the abortion process through mail-in drugs by reestablishing the in-person dispensing requirement.
The government wants the case to wait until after the FDA completes their safety review of the drug. This is happening at a time where the administration is considering keeping current federal policies that allow abortion drugs to be accessed through the mail, retail pharmacies, and telemedicine.
The administration says the Louisiana case will only complicate the FDA’s work and might prove to be useless if the FDA decides to change their policies. And they put the blame on the doctors providing the abortion pill across state lines, stating that the state should go after them rather than the administration.
Christina Francis is the CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG). She spoke with on Tony Perkins on Washington Watch about the FDA’s assertion to wait for the review. She thinks the administration’s stance is ridiculous.
“I'm very glad that the FDA is commenting publicly once again that they are, in fact, doing a safety review, but this Louisiana case is asking for something that is very common sense. They're just asking that the in-person dispensing requirement be put back into place before a woman can obtain the abortion drug,” states Francis.
Furthermore, she points out that the requirement was in place for two decades after the drug was first approved. Then, the FDA previously halted the provision in response to COVID-19. And after a review of FDA’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) in 2021, it was officially removed in January 2023 under the Biden administration.
Been here before
“It was what was in place under the first Trump administration. There's no reason that the FDA couldn't immediately reinstate that in-person dispensing requirement while, at the same time, doing a thorough safety review to see if more safeguards need to be put back into place,” says Francis.
Critics point out how the case is not asking to stop abortion but to put back in place the previous protective practice. Furthermore, they accuse that what the FDA is allowing is a failure to enforce the Comstock Act of 1873 (18 USC 1461), which prohibits mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter, including that related to producing an abortion.
Meanwhile, they also ask how long does it take the FDA to do a review? Because it has been over a year.
“If the FDA had started their safety review when we were promised that they were, then that should be completed by now or at least close to completion. My understanding from the legal brief that was filed is now they're saying it could be another year,” informs Francis.
She says that the result of waiting will be hundreds of thousands of preborn children losing their lives and tens of thousands of women harmed. She cites information from a Guttmacher Institute study and the FDA approved Mifepristone label. The study found that 63% of abortions in 2023 were caused by the drug, and according to the label, 2.9%-4.6% (1 in 25) women will be in the emergency rooms because of serious adverse reactions.
And this is what Francis calls a conservative estimate and numbers.
“That still is 30,000 women a year ending up in the emergency room with severe complications,” she says. “Every day that the FDA waits to do what it needs to do to do its job, more women are being harmed, and more children are losing their lives.”
Critics: Poor timing for poor decision
Critics note that the change in the FDA’s policy came after the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022, allowing it to undermine the individual pro-life laws of a state. On the same note, the Trump administration has the power to overturn it like they did with other policies, but they have not.
Francis comments that there is no reason from a medical standpoint to stop the in-person dispensing requirement from being reinstated.
“This is frank medical malpractice, what's happening. Not only are women not receiving appropriate evaluation before they get this high-risk drug, but doctors in other states are shipping these high-risk drugs into states where abortion is illegal. And they're then being shielded from the consequences of their actions,” states Francis.
She reiterates how the Louisiana case is honestly not asking for much, especially since the woman’s health and safety should be paramount. The life of the preborn child, she says, should be paramount.
“They're just asking that a woman be evaluated by a physician before she takes this drug so that she can receive fully informed consent about her individual risks related to this drug, so that she can understand about the humanity of that child that's growing inside of her,” explains Francis. “And, so that we can ensure that abusers are not getting their hands on these drugs to force abortion.”
Not always the woman’s ‘choice’
For example, in the Louisiana case, the individual plaintiff Rosalie Markezich was forced to take the pill by her boyfriend after he acquired the drug. Francis also references a different Louisiana case, reported by CBS News, where a mother acquired pills from a New York doctor and forced her teenage daughter to take them, resulting in a medical emergency.
The abortion drug was designed to be used early in a pregnancy, and using it otherwise creates big complications. The women and girls who take the pills, whether they got them for themselves or from someone else, are often poorly educated about possible adverse effects. Francis draws from her own experience working as an obstetrician in Indiana, where abortion is largely restricted.
“I have gone down to our emergency room along with my partners multiple times to provide care for women who are suffering horrific complications after taking this drug. And in fact, one specifically said to me, ‘Why did nobody tell me that this was a possibility? They didn't tell me that it was going to be like this.’ So, this is a very real thing that's happening to women,” says Francis.
She says that AAPLOG is against abortion because it ends the life of one patient and injures the other. Even so, she thinks that everyone should stand against what the FDA is doing.
“With what's going on right now with Mifepristone, no matter what somebody's position on abortion, they should be opposed to the medical malpractice that is happening. We all should be demanding that the FDA do its job and ensure the health and safety of women and children across this country,” Francis said.
