FDA Says It Won’t Finish Abortion Pill Safety Review Until March of Next Year

Abortion, , ,

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it is still reviewing the safety of abortion pills along with possible changes to the federal rules that govern the drug. The FDA included that information in a status report that it filed in a federal court in Louisiana last week.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. As a result, abortion is prohibited in states like Arkansas except to save the life of the mother, and it is against the law to mail abortion drugs into many states. But under President Biden, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration adopted rules that let abortionists send abortion drugs like mifepristone through the mail. Pro-abortion lawmakers in other states have also enacted “shield laws” to prevent abortionists from being held accountable when they mail abortion drugs into states like Arkansas. All of this has created a dangerous industry of abortion-by-mail both in Arkansas and across the nation.

But the FDA has been pressured into conducting a safety review of the abortion drug mifepristone. Now the FDA says that review won’t be finished until next year.

In a report filed in federal court last Thursday, the FDA said, “FDA is on track to obtain study results by mid-December 2026. FDA will then need to review and evaluate/interpret the results and draft a report. FDA expects to complete that process not later than March 2027.”

The FDA says it is also reviewing the protocols that govern the abortion drug mifepristone. Once these reviews are finished, the FDA says it could change its abortion drug rules.

Abortion drugs like mifepristone are dangerous. These drugs hurt women, and they kill unborn children.

Research from the Ethics and Public Policy Center shows 11% of women experience serious health complications from abortion pills — including sepsis, infection, and life-threatening hemorrhage.

These drugs should not be available at all — much less through the mail without an in-person visit with a doctor.

Our federal government needs to recognize how serious this issue is and protect Americans from these abortion drugs. That is why we hope all pro-lifers will contact their leaders today in Washington today and ask them to reverse the FDA’s mail-order abortion policy. Click or tap here to contact Congress right now.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

READ MORE

Misleading Claims About Abortion Laws

Abortion, , ,

Every few months since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its 2022 Dobbs decision, another article claims that prolife laws are keeping women from essential medical care, and higher rates of maternal mortality are inevitable. The most recent example is an article in Propublica magazine, which asserted in its title: “Ectopic Pregnancy Deaths Have Nearly Doubled. It’s Worse in States With Abortion Bans.” 

Though the authors were careful to acknowledge other factors were involved, the clear insinuation of the article was that medical professionals in prolife states are either too afraid to offer proper care or are banned from giving it. According to the article: 

ProPublica analyzed the data collected from every state by the CDC to look for patterns. The analysis shows a growing divide for women in states with strict abortion bans compared with those without. While the uptick in ectopic deaths occurred nationwide, the climb has been much steeper in states that banned abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.  

Of course, the article ignores the first and central fact of any abortion, which is that every single one kills. The article also ignored other studies that found no correlation between legalized abortion and better health outcomes for women. As LiveAction summarized of one study that looked at the Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) around the world: 

Countries that have legalized abortion such as South Africa, India, Nepal, Cambodia, and Guyana have not seen the predicted maternal health benefits. By contrast, several countries that disallow abortion, such as Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Egypt, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Mexico, and Uganda have seen significant reductions in maternal mortality. 

For abortion advocates, abortion is healthcare. Thus, unlimited rights to an abortion is essential for any society that cares about women. Any regulation on abortion will inevitably lead to suffering for women. The conclusion must be that Dobbs is killing women.  

However, the data cited by Propublica simply does not support blaming the increased rates of maternal mortality on new prolife laws. In fact, it points to a different cause altogether. As Ryan T. Anderson summarized in a post on X, “The big jump in ectopic-related deaths occurs a year before Dobbs . . . and occurs in both pro-life and pro-abortion states.” Jamie Bryan Hall also addressed the numbers in an aritcle for National Review Online: 

In the 21 years from 1999 to 2021, the United States averaged 4.2 ectopic-pregnancy-related deaths per million live births. Suddenly, in 2021, this figure surged to a peak of 9.8. It has averaged 7.8 over the past five years, which are five of the seven worst years for ectopic-pregnancy-related deaths since 1999. 

In other words, how can post-Dobbs laws be blamed for what happened before Dobbs was decided? It can’t. In fact, another culprit better fits the timing. A far more likely explanation is that the sudden rise in chemical abortions in the last few years—which the same pro-abortion advocates claim is “as safe as Tylenol”-–is what is killing women.  

Even more suspicious is how the spike in maternal deaths corresponds to the FDA loosening regulations on the abortion pill regiment. Today, as Michael J. New explained for National Review Online, prescriptions no longer require an in-person visit, a follow-up visit, an ultrasound, or a visit to a local pharmacist. Prescriptions for the abortion pill regimen are often given via telehealth “visits” and delivered through the mail.  

Even if the FDA’s loosening of regulations is not the sole cause of this spike in maternal deaths, the first pill in the abortion regimen, mifepristone, is far more dangerous than advertised, with complications that include bleeding, and even death. When these side effects are tied to the already dangerous crisis of ectopic pregnancy, the outcome is darkly unsurprising.

Copyright 2026 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.

READ MORE

Three Things You May Have Missed About Last Week’s Pro-Life Lawsuits

Abortion, , , ,

Last week, the State of Arkansas joined Louisiana and Alabama in two new, multistate lawsuits over abortion drugs.

Since 2022, Arkansas law has generally prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother, and it is a crime for an abortionist to mail abortion drugs into Arkansas. But Biden-era policies and state “shield laws” enacted by pro-abortion legislatures have made it possible for abortionists in other parts of the country to mail abortion drugs into states like Arkansas.

Last week’s federal lawsuits challenge this dangerous mail-order abortion industry. But many of the news stories about the lawsuits overlooked important facts pro-lifers need to know.

Below are three things you may have missed about last week’s pro-life lawsuits:

1. These are Actually Two Lawsuits Addressing Abortion Pills from Two Different Angles

Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama filed two different lawsuits that address abortion pills from two different angles.

The lawsuit Louisiana v. New York was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court against the States of New York, Massachusetts, and California. It argues that these three states have created legal systems specifically designed to protect abortionists who break abortion laws in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alabama, and it asks the Supreme Court to strike down their state “shield laws.”

The second lawsuit is Louisiana v. Nouhavandi, which was filed against 29 people and organizations in federal court in Louisiana. It alleges the people and groups named in the lawsuit are part of a nationwide network that ships abortion pills through the mail. Louisiana v. Nouhavandi says these organizations and individuals committed deceptive trade, designed their operations to avoid state medical laws, and have harmed women and girls.

The Louisiana v. Nouhavandi lawsuit includes approximately 90 exhibits it says support these claims.

Most of the media coverage seems to be focused on the Louisiana v. New York lawsuit that asks the U.S. Supreme Court to stop pro-abortion states from giving special protection to abortionists who send abortion pills through the mail.

Overturning these pro-abortion “shield laws” would be a huge victory, but winning the deceptive trade case in Louisiana v. Nouhavandi could be just as important.

2. Louisiana v. Nouhavandi Says Abortionists and Their Associates May Have Engaged in Racketeering

The Louisiana v. Nouhavandi lawsuit accuses 29 individuals and organizations of “a sweeping, coordinated scheme to violate” abortion drug and consumer protection laws in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama, writing:

“The scheme is simple. The organizations operate websites advertising abortion drugs in Plaintiff States [Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama]. The organizations use a short questionnaire in which website users (anonymous men, women, and children) can represent (or misrepresent) their alleged pregnancy status. The website users then pay a fee for the abortion drugs or represent that they cannot afford the fee (in which case most organizations will assume the cost). Some organizations then use mail-order pharmacies to ship the drugs (predominantly from California) to addresses in Plaintiff States; others handle their own shipments after ‘pill-packing parties fueled by pizza and wine.’ The drugs are then used to abort babies in Plaintiff States and, in documented instances, send women to emergency rooms with severe bleeding and excruciating pain.”

The lawsuit goes on to argue that this scheme not only violated consumer protection laws, but also may have broken state and federal laws against racketeering.

On page 85, the lawsuit says:

“Given the allegations in this complaint, Plaintiff States believe that Defendants—or at least a subset of Defendants—are violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act (RICO) and its state law counterparts. At this time, however, Plaintiff States lack a complete picture of the full extent of Defendants’ conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff States reserve their rights to amend their complaint to add federal and state RICO claims if discovery confirms Plaintiff States’ belief that Defendants are violating RICO. In addition, Plaintiff States reserve their rights to amend their complaint to add further corporate entities and individuals that discovery reveals to be implicated by the schemes detailed above.”

In lawsuits like this one, the “discovery” process gives the lawyers at the attorney general’s office an opportunity to subpoena documents, conduct depositions, and collect evidence.

The Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama attorney general offices seem to believe that racketeering has occurred and that the discovery process will show just how much.

3. A Third Lawsuit Is Coming “Soon” Against an Abortion Pill Seller Overseas

The Louisiana v. Nouhavandi consumer protection case mentions Aid Access — an abortion pill seller that Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin sent a cease-and-desist letter to in 2024.

Aid Access advertises that it provides “abortion services” to all 50 states by selling abortion pills online and working with abortionists to send the pills through the mail.

But Aid Access is located in Amsterdam, and it is not included as a defendant in the Louisiana v. Nouhavandi lawsuit. However, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama apparently plan to sue Aid Access soon.

A footnote on page 35 of the lawsuit says, “Due to unique issues surrounding foreign service of process, Plaintiff States will soon file a separate lawsuit against Aid Access.”

In other words, at least one more lawsuit is still on the way.

Conclusion

We appreciate Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin working with Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall on this important issue.

Abortion drugs are dangerous. They hurt women, and they kill unborn children.

Research shows nearly 11% of women experience serious health complications from abortion pills — including sepsis, infection, and life-threatening hemorrhage.

These drugs should not be available at all — much less through the mail without an in-person visit with a doctor. That is why Family Council is encouraging pro-lifers everywhere to ask the federal government to stop letting abortionists deliver abortion drugs through the mail.

Arkansans should be proud of their pro-life leaders at the Attorney General’s office and in the state legislature.

We are confident our federal courts ultimately will recognize how dangerous these abortion drugs are and let states like Arkansas enforce their pro-life laws.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

READ MORE