U.S. lawmakers, state attorneys general urge FDA to block mail-order abortion drugs

U.S. lawmakers, state attorneys general oppose mail-order abortion

Twenty-one state attorneys general, as well as dozens of U.S. senators and representatives, have voiced their support for Louisiana’s lawsuit challenging the Biden-era policy that enables abortion pills to be sent by mail.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy removed previously held safety rules that required in-person physician visits before the chemical abortion regimen could be prescribed.

Multiple studies have shown high rates of hospitalizations for women taking the abortion pill, leading pro-life advocates and Republicans to urge the Trump administration to take action. Though the FDA safeguards could be reinstated, the White House has failed to do so.

Mail-order pills, which can be shipped into every state even if they are illegal in the state in question, make chemical abortion easily accessible, with recent numbers showing that chemical abortions make up about two-thirds of all U.S. abortions.

Louisiana sued the FDA over the lack of safeguards in October 2025. Attorneys general of 21 states, meanwhile, filed a Feb. 13 amicus brief in support of Louisiana.

On the same day, 19 U.S. senators and 40 U.S. representatives also filed an amicus brief, saying the FDA violated federal law by removing mifepristone’s in-person dispensing requirements.

“The Biden FDA did not have a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that eliminating the in-person dispensing requirement was safe,” reads the legislators’ 23-page brief. “And because no in-person visit is required now, women cannot be meaningfully screened for serious contraindications for the use of this drug, such as ectopic pregnancy.”

“It also increases the likelihood that some women are being coerced into taking these drugs against their will,” the lawmakers continued.

The attorneys general made similar arguments in their 21-page brief, saying the Biden administration “targeted” pro-life states because the mail-in abortion drugs make it easy to “undermine” state laws.

Federal judge rules against Massachusetts pregnancy centers

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by a group of Massachusetts pregnancy centers arguing that the state violated their First Amendment rights by warning women of the alleged danger they pose.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled on Feb. 17 against the group of life-affirming pregnancy centers.

After Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, Massachusetts funded a “Reproductive Equity Now” campaign against crisis pregnancy centers, framing them as misleading and deceptive.

In 2024, the state’s Department of Public Health said in a press release that it was launching what it described as an “education campaign” to highlight “the dangers and potential harm” of crisis pregnancy centers.

The pregnancy centers argued in court that Massachusetts had violated their right to freedom of speech and religious exercise, as well as the right to equal protection against discrimination on the basis of religion and political speech.

West Virginia Senate passes mail abortion pill ban

The West Virginia State Senate recently passed a bill designed to protect women and unborn children by restricting mail-order abortion.

On Feb. 13, the state senate passed the bill by a vote of 31 to one. The measure now moves to the state House of Delegates.

The bill penalizes abortion distributors who mail abortion pills to West Virginia, and includes prison time for distributors who do so without a medical license

A bill also moved forward on Thursday that would authorize a government health support program to use funds for abortion pill reversal.

The state-funded West Virginia Mothers and Babies Pregnancy Support Program would provide support for abortion pill reversal, which is when a woman takes progesterone soon after taking the first abortion pill in order to provide nutrients to the unborn child.

New Hampshire considers repealing buffer zone law on free speech grounds

A bill to repeal New Hampshire’s buffer zone law that limits protests around abortion clinics has advanced at the state house.

The current law requires that protesters must remain 25 feet away from the entrance to abortion and “reproductive health” clinics.

Known as the Sidewalk Free Speech Act, the newly proposed bill would overturn this law.

The text of the bill states that “the right to free speech protects viewpoints which are controversial, unpopular, and offensive or otherwise inconvenient.”