More than 100 Republican lawmakers have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging justices to reinstate restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, warning that current federal policy allowing the drug to be mailed without in-person oversight has enabled cases of coercion and forced administration.
The brief was led by Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., Senate Majority Leader John Thuna, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., backing Louisiana's legal fight to restore an in-person dispensing requirement for the drug.
What the Left Is Saying
Abortion rights advocates have pushed back against restrictions on mifepristone access, arguing that in-person requirements create barriers for women in rural areas and those seeking discreet care. Groups including Planned Parenthood have noted that medication abortion has a safety record established over two decades of use, with serious complications occurring in fewer than 1% of cases.
The brief points to allegations that loosened federal rules have enabled coercion, citing Rosalie Markezich as a plaintiff who says her boyfriend ordered mifepristone from a California doctor and coerced her into taking it. The lawmakers argue such cases are more likely under a system allowing pills to be prescribed online and shipped without face-to-face medical screening.
What the Right Is Saying
Cassidy said safeguards should be restored immediately. "Chemical abortion drugs kill innocent children and put mothers' lives at risk," Cassidy said in a statement accompanying the filing. "Safeguards protecting against coercion, such as the in-person dispensing requirement, must be reinstated immediately. The Fifth Circuit got this right, and I urge the Supreme Court to affirm that decision."
Smith cited claims that more than one in 10 women experience complications such as infection or hemorrhaging when using the drug. "There are legitimate concerns about these drugs putting women and girls at significant risk," Thuna said. "I urge the Supreme Court to reinstate the safety guardrails that were in place before the Biden administration while the Department of Health and Human Services reviews these drugs."
What the Numbers Show
The amicus brief references FDA data on adverse events associated with mifepristone use. The lawmakers argue the agency relied on insufficient safety data when it removed the in-person requirement, weakening adverse-event reporting standards before using limited data to justify expanded access.
The filing comes after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Louisiana and reinstated the in-person dispensing requirement while litigation continues. Lawmakers argue the FDA "overstepped its authority" by allowing abortion drugs to be distributed through the mail, saying the policy conflicts with the Comstock Act, which prohibits mailing items "designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion."
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court is now weighing emergency requests from both lawmakers and manufacturers. Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, the makers of mifepristone, have filed separate appeals warning that the lower court ruling is causing "immediate confusion and upheaval" across the country.
Danco argued the decision disrupts access and forces providers, pharmacies and patients to navigate rapidly changing rules. The companies are asking justices to block the ruling while litigation proceeds, setting up a high-stakes legal battle that could reshape how the abortion drug is distributed nationwide. The outcome will determine whether mifepristone remains widely available by mail or returns to in-person medical oversight requirements.