US states prepare for battle over abortion pills
The anti-abortion movement in the United States has set its sights on a new target: doctors sending pills across state lines to help women end unwanted pregnancies.
Since the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn the federal protection of the right to an abortion, states like Texas and Louisiana have adopted tough anti-abortion laws.
Women seeking to end pregnancies, even victims of rape or incest, are now obliged to travel long distances or to seek the delivery of abortion pills from other jurisdictions.
And that measure is now under attack.
Texas and Louisiana are launching a legal case against a doctor in New York, a state which in turn has passed a "shield law" to protect its physicians from outside prosecutions.
"These are the first kind of cross-border fights that we've seen since Roe was overturned," said California legal scholar Mary Ziegler, referring to the 2022 Supreme Court decision.
"And those are just, I think in some ways, the tip of the iceberg. We're likely to see a lot more of these cross-border fights.
"From Texas or Louisiana's standpoint, they're saying: 'Why is this doctor mailing pills into our state?'" explained Ziegler, a professor at the law school at the University of California, Davis.
"And from New York's standpoint, they're saying: 'Our doctor wasn't doing anything wrong. Why are you trying to prosecute her?'"
- 'Chilling effect' -
In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton declared that "out-of-state doctors may not illegally and dangerously prescribe abortion-inducing drugs to Texas residents."
Margaret Carpenter, a New York doctor and a co-founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, was ordered to stop sending pills to Texas and fined $100,000.
In Louisiana, she faces criminal charges and the state has demanded her extradition, to which New York Governor Kathy Hochul responded: "Not now, not ever."
Hochul said the state's shield law was designed to "anticipate this very situation."
According to #WeCount, an initiative that collates abortion statistics nationwide, 10 percent of abortions in the second quarter of 2024 were conducted under the protection of shield laws.
This accounts for approximately 10,000 women each month.
In Louisiana, this was the solution chosen by 60 percent of women -- about 2,500 -- to terminate pregnancies in the second half of 2023, #WeCount estimates.
Now, abortion rights activists fear that individual doctors will be targeted.
"The tactic of going after providers, patients and helpers through the courts is definitely something that we are going to see them try more of," Amy Friedrich-Karnik, of the Guttmacher Institute, told AFP.
"And I think the goal is both to, you know, scare those individuals... and there's a chilling effect from that," said Friedrich-Karnik, a policy director at the pro-abortion rights think tank.
The legal battles will be long, and the results are far from certain. Some cases may get to the Supreme Court, and it is not clear whether President Donald Trump's administration will attempt to intervene.
"This is a long-lasting debate, even if it goes to the Supreme Court," Ziegler said.
"Because then what would happen is the next case that comes along will be different enough that whatever the Supreme Court has to say about these cases won't give us the answer necessarily," she said.
"There's not... going to be one clean solution that the Supreme Court reaches that resolves this once and for all."
- Procedure rejected -
Meanwhile, the attorneys general of Idaho, Kansas and Missouri have demanded that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) end prescriptions of the pill via online medical visits -- effectively restricting access nationwide.
A similar request was nevertheless rejected by the Supreme Court in 2024.
"There's uncertainty about what Trump is going to do. There's uncertainty about what power states have to project power outside of state lines. There's uncertainty about what the FDA is going to do," Ziegler said.
"Simply not knowing can impact patients and doctors. But that's the scenario right now -- there's a big question mark around a lot of it."
es/dc/sst
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
2024 – 2025 Supreme Court Term In Review
As the end of the 2024-2025 Supreme Court term draws near, so do the decisions of several precedent setting cases. From challenges to birthright citizenship to pornography bans, some hot button topics will have rulings expected to arrive in the coming weeks. Fox News contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Jonathan Turley, and constitutional lawyer Tom Dupree share their predictions on the outcome of these cases and discuss SCOTUS's recent verdict on gender-transition surgery for minors. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
Associated Press
4 hours ago
- Associated Press
DEA Judge Mulrooney's MMJ Marijuana Ruling May Be DEA's Last Stand Before the Constitution Strikes Back
Judge Mulrooney's decision may have handed MMJ BioPharma Cultivation a defeat inside the DEA's walls, but in doing so, he may have handed MMJ a powerful victory in federal court. The record of constitutional violations and DEA violations is now preserved - the 'Axon-Jarkesy defense' is primed - and the very administrative law judge system the DEA clings to may not survive scrutiny. WASHINGTON, D.C. / ACCESS Newswire / June 22, 2025 / In a move that now appears both unconstitutional and strategically reckless, the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney II has ruled against MMJ BioPharma Cultivation - not by adjudicating evidence, but by canceling the hearing altogether, shutting the courtroom door before any facts could be presented. This denial of due process is not just procedural misconduct. It stands in direct violation of recent Supreme Court precedent - namely, Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC (2023) and Jarkesy v. SEC (2024) - which fundamentally altered the authority of federal agencies to conduct internal administrative hearings shielded from constitutional scrutiny. Why DEA's ALJ System is Constitutionally Cracked In Axon v. FTC, the Supreme Court held that constitutional challenges to federal administrative adjudication systems need not wait until after the agency's internal process is complete. The ruling opened the door for early judicial review - precisely to prevent agencies like the DEA from causing irreparable harm to regulated parties before a federal court can weigh in. Justice Gorsuch put it plainly: 'A proceeding that has already happened cannot be undone.' But that is exactly what happened to MMJ BioPharma Cultivation. Despite spending seven years pursuing a legally sound registration to grow marijuana for FDA-sanctioned clinical trials, MMJ was denied the chance to be heard. Judge Mulrooney ruled - without trial - that the case could be decided on the papers, ignoring contested facts, ignoring ex parte communications concerns, and ignoring the constitutional structure of justice itself. Jarkesy and the Death Knell for DEA's Shadow Court The Supreme Court's decision in Jarkesy v. SEC went even further. The Court ruled that administrative adjudications violate the Constitution on multiple fronts: The DEA's administrative system which allowed Judge Mulrooney to operate unchecked, issue rulings without testimony, and sabotage a life sciences company without judicial oversight - now sits squarely in the crosshairs of both Axon and Jarkesy. MMJ BioPharma Cultivation: The Victim of an Unconstitutional Machine MMJ BioPharma Cultivation is not a fringe operation. It is the only DEA applicant actively pursuing pharmaceutical-grade cannabinoid therapies under FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) protocols, including a manufactured softgel formulation for Huntington's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. Despite this, Judge Mulrooney's June 2025 ruling canceled a long-scheduled hearing without any opportunity for MMJ to introduce its DEA-compliant facility documentation, binding supply agreements, or evidence of DEA ex parte interference. Even worse, the company was never formally noticed of the pretrial decision - a basic requirement of any fair proceeding. Instead of adjudicating facts, Mulrooney rubber-stamped DEA's bureaucratic inertia. What's Next? The Courts Must Clean Up the DEA's Mess The Supreme Court has been crystal clear: agencies like the DEA do not have unreviewable authority over people's rights, livelihoods, or innovations. Congress did not create 'mini-courts' within executive agencies to bypass the Constitution. Judge Mulrooney's decision may have handed MMJ a defeat inside the DEA's walls, but in doing so, he may have handed MMJ a powerful victory in federal court. The record of constitutional violations is now preserved - the 'Axon Side-Step' is primed - and the very administrative law judge system the DEA clings to may not survive scrutiny. If MMJ's case advances to the D.C. Circuit or even the Supreme Court, it may well be the case that dismantles the DEA's internal adjudication regime once and for all. In the end, the question is no longer whether MMJ BioPharma has been mistreated. The question is whether the DEA's system can survive the Constitution. MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan. CONTACT: Madison Hisey [email protected] 203-231-8583 SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings press release
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
SCOTUS' trans ruling: Letters to the Editor — June 23, 2025
The Issue: The Supreme Court upholding Tennessee's ban on gender transition surgery for minors. On the day of the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Tennessee ban on transitions for minors, the mainstream media (especially PBS) was quick to cry out what a 'setback' this ruling was for 'trans' rights ('Trans sense,' June 19). The agonies brought on by impulsive decisions made by addled youngsters were not discussed. Advertisement This ruling is a victory, not a 'setback,' for biological common sense. Twenty seven states now have similar bans as Tennessee. One might ask why the remaining 23 states are so far behind the curve toward sanity? Anthony Parks Advertisement Garden City The only disappointing thing about the SCOTUS gender decision is that it wasn't unanimous. It means that six Justices have common sense, and three don't. Nevertheless, a generation of young boys and girls have been saved from the 'gender-affirming' cultists. By the way, when did the far left change its mind on childhood genital mutilation? It seems like only yesterday the left was firmly against the practice for young girls in certain African countries. Advertisement Dennis Rhodes Naples, Fla. Since minors are considered to be too young to vote or serve in the military, then they are also too young to make these kinds of life-changing decisions. By the time they become adults, they may have changed their minds about all of these choices. Advertisement Ray Starman Albany Thanks to the Supreme Court for ruling against this idiotic ideology of 'gender affirmation.' It reaffirms what scripture tells us: Namely that the creator made two sexes, male and female, and no one should desecrate this. Frank Brady Yonkers The high court ruling to allow banning transgender care for minors is simply common sense. Sometimes kids go through phases. And life-changing decisions for minors could lead to regret and emotional and psychological struggles in later years. Advertisement My only hope is that other states will join the ban. Kids just need to be kids. They should not be allowed to make adult decisions. The legal age to drink is 21. The age to vote is 18 and to drive is 16. Waiting until the age of 18 for trans treatment is not asking too much. In fact, it's smart. Joann Lee Frank Clearwater, Fla. Advertisement The Issue: City Hall's plan to spend $929.1 million to house the homeless and migrants in hotels. Mayor Adams needs to go ('A Fetid $1B Hotel Deal,' Editorial, June 20). He cannot justify spending nearly $1 billion for this cause. How many of the 86,000 who need housing are actually homeless citizens, the ones he should have been taking care of from Day 1? That money could have been divided for other vital services that need to be addressed, such as cleaner streets, an overhaul of the Administration for Children's Services, more cops — because we really don't need more commuters to be stabbed during a Grand Central morning rush hour — or a number of other issues needing urgent attention and upgrades. Advertisement Susan Cienfuegos New Rochelle I really think that New York taxpayers and citizens have had enough of Eric Adams' nonsense. Along with the corruption allegations, he has continued to destroy New Yorkers' quality of life. Now he's planning to spend nearly $1 billion in taxpayer money on shelters for immigrants and homeless. Advertisement When is this gonna stop? Enough already, Adams. Gene O'Brien Whitestone Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
