• Shortlysts
  • Posts
  • Red State Rebellion: Louisiana Takes the FDA to Court Over Abortion Drug Access

Red State Rebellion: Louisiana Takes the FDA to Court Over Abortion Drug Access

Louisiana sues the FDA over abortion pills by mail, testing the limits of state power, federal oversight, and legal grey areas.

What Happened

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has filed a federal lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration over its approval and mailing of mifepristone, a widely used abortion drug. The suit argues that the FDA acted outside the law by allowing mifepristone to be shipped by mail, especially into states like Louisiana, where abortion via medication is banned.

Murrill describes the FDA's policy as 'blatantly unlawful' and asserts that it violates both federal law and Louisiana's pro-life legislation. The central issue in the legal challenge is the FDA's 2023 decision to ease restrictions on mifepristone distribution.

Under the updated policy, pharmacies and providers are permitted to mail the drug to patients without requiring in-person doctor visits. The lawsuit contends this change conflicts with the federal Comstock Act, which prohibits mailing abortion-related drugs or devices.

The case includes a woman named Rosalie Markezich, who reports that her boyfriend ordered abortion pills from California and pressured her into taking them in Louisiana, where such pills are illegal. Her account is included to illustrate the state's argument regarding the effects of the FDA's decision.

Louisiana is not the first state to file a lawsuit regarding mifepristone, but this lawsuit has a narrower focus. Instead of challenging the drug itself, it questions the legality of the FDA's authorization of its delivery. The complaint alleges that the agency exceeded its authority and did not sufficiently address state laws prohibiting chemical abortions.

Why It Matters

This case is a direct challenge to the federal government’s ability to set nationwide rules on abortion medication. If Louisiana succeeds, it could limit the reach of the FDA's approval and give individual states more power to block abortion access within their borders.

Elon Musk: “Robots Will…Do Everything Better”

That’s what Elon says. And it’s already happening. 

Just look at fast food. Miso Robotics is already delivering an AI-powered fry-cooking robot called Flippy that can cook perfectly and never calls in sick.*

As restaurants grapple with 144% labor turnover rates and $20/hour minimum wages, it’s no surprise brands like White Castle are turning to Miso. Now, after selling out the first run of its first fully commercial robot in one week, Miso’s scaling production to 100,000+ US fast food locations in need. 

In fact, with its US-based manufacturing ramping up now, Miso is currently finalizing its latest major brand partnership and other significant announcements.

And you can join as an investor before these pivotal next steps. Become a Miso shareholder by October 23, the final day to invest this year.

This case spotlights a legal grey zone after Roe v. Wade was overturned. While the Supreme Court ultimately left abortion regulation to the states, the federal government still controls drug policy. This lawsuit asks the question of what happens when those two powers collide.

The case also raises debate about the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law that has reemerged in discussions around abortion. The law's language remains in effect, though it has not been widely enforced in recent decades. Louisiana asserts the FDA must consider the act, and if the courts agree, the subsequent consequences are likely to affect more than one state.

The case could force a re-evaluation of the FDA’s regulatory process, as the lawsuit claims the agency made its decision without enough scientific backing or public input. That accusation could affect more than abortion policy and ripple across how the FDA handles all controversial medications.

How It Affects Readers

For individuals in conservative states, this case could tighten restrictions on abortion pills, even through the mail. Pharmacies, doctors, and online providers may have to change how they operate, depending on the court’s decision.

For everyone else, this case is about more than abortion. It’s about who sets the rules when state and federal laws clash. A win for Louisiana could open the door for states to reject or override other federally approved drugs or health policies.

The case also suggests that opponents of abortion are adjusting their legal approach; rather than pursuing broad legal battles over Roe or personhood, they are now focusing on specific agencies and policies. This could make legal disputes far more targeted, while remaining significant. 

Regardless of your stance on abortion access, the outcome of this case will say a lot about how much authority Washington has. It will also show how much control states can take back.

*This is a paid advertisement for Miso Robotics’ Regulation A offering. Please read the offering circular at invest.misorobotics.com.