Pro-Life Gets BIG Win At SCOTUS… Pro-Abortion Big Pharma Schills Are LIVID

[You can find a ‘TL;DR’ summary at the bottom of the page]

For anyone confused by the fact that the total number of abortions in America could be on the rise despite red states enacting pro-life limits on when and how an abortion can be performed, the answer is simple: mail order abortion pills.

Supposing you don’t actually need an in-person doctor’s visit to get an abortion pill, and they can be discreetly sent through the mail, getting an abortion becomes as simple as ordering bottle of vitamins from Amazon.

Except this one, when taken correctly, results in a planned fatality.

There have been a series of rulings at different levels in this case including one where the standing of the plaintiffs had been called into question insofar as they could not show they had suffered any harm. The fact that this approach was being explicitly used as a workaround to bypass existing abortion laws in Louisiana was used by Louisiana to revive the case.

Details are described here:

In October 2025, Louisiana filed its own lawsuit in federal court to seek the reinstatement of the in-person dispensing requirement. It emphasized that it had standing to sue because it had “incontrovertible evidence that … doctors and others are (as the Biden administration intended) sending streams of mifepristone by mail into Louisiana for the express purpose of causing thousands of abortions in Louisiana every year. That conduct directly violates Louisiana’s abortion laws, which – subject to very narrow exceptions (such as to save the life of the mother) – bar virtually all abortions, and prevents Louisiana from protecting the lives of unborn babies despite the promise of Dobbs” v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to an abortion. “That conduct has directly generated medical emergencies that harm Louisiana women,” the state wrote, “and emergency room visits that harm the state.”

Rosalie Markezich, an individual plaintiff who joined the state’s lawsuit, said that in 2023 she was coerced into taking abortion drugs “that her boyfriend obtained via the U.S. Postal Service from a doctor in California.” If the in-person dispensing requirement had been in effect, she said, she “would have received the protection of a private in-person medical appointment,” during which she would “have been able to tell a doctor that she did not want an abortion.”

After a federal judge put the case on hold while the FDA conducts its own review of mifepristone’s safety, Louisiana went to the 5th Circuit, asking that court to re-impose the requirement while litigation continues. The court of appeals ruled that Louisiana has a right to sue because, by allowing mifepristone to be prescribed by telehealth and sent by mail, the “FDA ‘opened the door for mifepristone to be remotely prescribed to Louisiana women,’” even though Louisiana generally bars abortion. — SCOTUSBlog

Clearly, both sides are biased, since one side sees every abortion as the violent end of a human life, and the other side has at the micro level a belief this is a question of personal liberty to avoid an unwanted responsibility and at the macro level, a great deal of both financial and political capital at stake.

The pro-abortion side claims the pills are safe and any restriction of sending them by mail to red states that has enacted laws limiting abortion access is a violation of [insert one of several fallback arguments here].

They would claim that concerns about medical risks to the mother are overblown, or dismiss them entirely as ‘junk science’.

The Pro-Life side, would reply with examples like this:

While proponents of mifepristone argue that it is a safe and effective method of abortion, there are numerous dangers associated with its use. These include:

Incomplete Abortion: In some cases, the abortion pill may not fully terminate the pregnancy, leading to the need for additional medical intervention.
Hemorrhage: Mifepristone can cause heavy bleeding, which can be life-threatening if not properly managed.
Infection: The use of mifepristone can increase the risk of infection, which can also be life-threatening if left untreated.
Ectopic Pregnancy: If a woman is unknowingly experiencing an ectopic pregnancy, or a pregnancy outside of the uterus, the use of mifepristone can lead to a life-threatening medical emergency.
Psychological Effects: Women who undergo an abortion, including with the use of mifepristone, may experience psychological effects such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
In a study of 42,619 Finnish women receiving chemical abortions up to nine weeks gestational age, the overall adverse events were fourfold higher in chemical (20.0%) versus surgical abortions (5.6%). Women hemorrhaged more commonly after chemical abortion (15.6% compared with 2.1%). They also had incomplete abortions more often in chemical abortions (6.7% versus 1.6%). The rate of surgical (re)evacuation was higher after chemical abortions (5.9%) than surgical abortions (1.8%).

Today, in-person medical visits for a pregnant woman is not necessary for her to terminate her child with the abortion pill. Yet, without examination, there is no way for a doctor to know if she is further along than 10 weeks or unknowingly experiencing an ectopic pregnancy. Tragically, this is one of the reasons why 1 in 25 women who take the abortion pill end up in the emergency room with complications. — Americans United For Life

The ‘Trust the Science’ tropes we all heard through COVID won’t help with the ‘just trust us’ it’s safe, especially when there is so VERY much on the line, not just ethically, but also politically and economically.

The fight isn’t over yet.

SUMMARY:

Louisiana went to court over national providers offering telemedicine and sending abortion drugs to patients without requiring an in-person visit, even in states where in-person doctors could not lawfully give such a prescription.

SCOTUS had put a ‘stay’ on Mifepristone being sent by mail, or prescribed without an in-person visit, this injunction will prevent prescriptions-by-mail to be sent throughout the country, while the case is being decided.

The drug manufacturers, not surprisingly, are fighting this ruling.

The final decision has yet to be rendered