Lawmakers, attorneys general back abortion pill challenge DOJ wants to pause

WASHINGTON (OSV News) — Twenty-one state attorneys general and 60 members of Congress were among the Republicans who filed amicus briefs in support of Louisiana’s efforts to roll back the Biden administration’s eased restrictions on mifepristone, a drug commonly, but not exclusively, used for most first trimester abortions.

Those filings came after the U.S. Department of Justice under the Trump administration sought to pause the case.

In a Feb. 19 statement, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said, “I’d like to thank my fellow attorneys general and Republican members of Congress for supporting our lawsuit against the FDA.”

“This matter has immediate dangerous consequences for women and the unborn in our state,” Murrill said. “Abortions have tragically increased in Louisiana and other pro-life states because of the withdrawal of in-person dispensing requirements. Behind the statistics is a woman abandoned by an irresponsible doctor who dispensed these drugs without any medical oversight and a baby whose life will be terminated.”

Murril argued that the attorneys general and lawmakers see the dangers of “politically driven Biden-era rules,” and that the FDA “should withdraw this rule now for the health and safety of women and the unborn.”

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., a longtime Catholic lawmaker and co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus, and Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, filed an amicus brief in support of Louisiana’s lawsuit with 58 other members of the House and Senate. They argued the Biden administration’s action to eliminate the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone was “unlawful.”

That brief also raised concern that “a woman seeking an abortion may be facing coercion or intimate partner violence (IPV), and without an in-person evaluation, a provider’s ability to discern that is limited.”

It pointed to the case of Rosalie Markezich, a plaintiff in the case, as an example of such coercion by an intimate partner.

“A doctor did not examine Ms. Markezich nor detect the coercion she experienced,” it said. “Her boyfriend ordered mifepristone from a California doctor and coerced Ms. Markezich to take it, resulting in her great distress and the loss of her baby.”

“Chemical abortion drugs kill innocent children and put mothers’ lives at risk,” Cassidy said in a statement applauding Murrill’s lawsuit. “Safeguards protecting against coercion, such as the in-person dispensing requirement, must be reinstated immediately.”

In a separate brief, 21 attorneys general, led by Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, argued the Biden administration’s eased restrictions on mifepristone which allowed the drug to be distributed by mail, “was a direct attack on these States’ duly enacted laws, striking at the very heart of state sovereignty.”

In October, Murrill, alongside Markezich, sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over its 2023 policy permitting mifepristone to be distributed by mail. It contends that policy was key in enabling Markezich’s former partner to acquire the drug and then coerce her into taking it.

However, in a Jan. 27 court filing, DOJ lawyers 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,” it 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.”

“As the Supreme Court recognized in a unanimous ruling less than two years ago, it is the role of the FDA — not the federal courts — to evaluate drug safety data and impose appropriate precautions,” the spokesperson said.

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, while opponents argue there are significant risks to those who take it, particularly outside of medical settings, in addition to killing an unborn child early in its development.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research firm utilized by abortion providers, 63% of first trimester abortions involve the use of mifepristone and misoprostol, medications also used in combination sometimes for miscarriage care.

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.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Feb. 24.

Read More Respect Life

Trial begins in California’s lawsuit against pregnancy resource centers’ abortion pill reversal resources

USCCB and pro-life leaders: Abortion pills remain key post-Dobbs challenge

French bishops launch prayer novena ahead of key ‘assisted-dying’ vote

Bishops mark ‘sobering anniversary’ of Canada euthanasia law, call faithful to action

Pope Leo XIV calls defense of life the measure of a nation’s moral greatness in landmark parliament speech

Lawmakers back US bishops’ bid to block abortion from pregnant worker protection rules

Copyright © 2026 OSV News

 Print