Reading Time: 3 minutes

State Rep. Lisa Subeck, D-Madison, this month introduced legislation requiring crisis pregnancy centers to obtain permission from clients before sharing their sensitive health information.

Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also known as unregulated pregnancy centers or pregnancy resource centers, provide some services for pregnant people but largely aim to dissuade clients from choosing abortion care. Importantly, most CPCs are not licensed medical facilities and are intentionally vague about their inability and unwillingness to provide abortions or make referrals. They attract clients with targeted advertising that promises free pregnancy testing, ultrasounds and options counseling.

Without the restrictions proposed by Subeck and more like it, Wisconsinites will continue to be victimized by this industry.

Since CPCs are not medical providers and do not charge for services,they are not subject to the same consumer protection laws and licensing requirements, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA.

Without confidentiality protections, CPCs are not required to protect sensitive client information and may misuse private client data with no accountability. Subeck’s bill would help close this loophole and ensure that client information is secure.

While this legislation would be a step in the right direction, privacy is just one of many instances in which CPCs violate medical ethics.

With the funding they receive from faith-based organizations, anti-abortion advocacy groups and taxpayer dollars, CPCs may present themselves in ways that resemble medical settings. Staff and volunteers may wear white coats, visit with clients in exam rooms and adopt language used by clinicians. But many of their services fail to meet evidence-based standards of care.

For example, CPCs have been reported to overestimate gestational age to convince clients they are too far along in pregnancy to legally access abortion. They also readily share medically inaccurate information about abortion.

CPCs across Wisconsin claim that abortion can lead to depression, substance abuse, nightmares, and future fertility issues. Major medical organizations say there is no evidence that abortion leads to mental illness or negative impacts on future fertility. In fact, research suggests that denying people abortion care is associated with worse outcomes to their long-term health and well-being.

Many CPC websites list “abortion reversal” as a service. This involves taking progesterone to “reverse” the effects of mifepristone, the first medicine used in medication abortion. University of California-Davis researchers attempted to test the effectiveness of this treatment, but the study was stopped early due to ethical and safety concerns. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has determined that abortion reversal is “not supported by science.”

Despite their questionable practices, CPCs in Wisconsin continue to benefit from public funding, and some state legislators want them to receive even more. In 2023, Sen. Robert Quinn, R-Birchwood, proposed legislation that would give $1 million a year to Choose Life Wisconsin, a statewide network of CPCs.

Funds raised through Choose Life license plates are also directed to CPCs. Meanwhile, some of Wisconsin’s legislative Republicans have not supported measures that would benefit pregnant people and new parents. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, repeatedly blocked proposals to expand postpartum Medicaid coverage, calling it “an expansion of welfare,” until the Assembly this session finally sent the bill to Gov. Tony Evers’ desk.

In Wisconsin, legitimate providers of abortion care must navigate a litany of restrictions. Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, or TRAP laws, are widely criticized by medical groups and exist only to make obtaining and providing abortion care harder. Yet CPCs are free to operate under limited regulations while they enjoy our tax dollars.

In other states, efforts to regulate CPCs have failed on the grounds that these organizations are protected under the First Amendment. But these centers are a growing public health risk, and protecting people’s health and safety should take priority. This is especially important as the network of CPCs continues to grow. In Wisconsin, there are just five clinics that provide abortion care, compared to an estimated 60 CPCs.

When pregnant people reach out for support, they deserve to be met with compassion, honesty and the opportunity to consider all of their options. The ongoing failure of our lawmakers to regulate these facilities is an affront to evidence-based sexual and reproductive healthcare. It is time that Wisconsin’s lawmakers uphold respect and humanity, not deception and manipulation.

Layne Donovan was born and raised in Wisconsin and holds a degree from Barnard College. She has studied the history of abortion in the United States, and currently works in reproductive health, rights, and justice. 

Opinion: Wisconsin must regulate crisis pregnancy centers to protect patients  is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

As telehealth access to abortion medication has grown in the years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, anti-abortion groups and attorneys general from states with abortion bans are accelerating efforts to ban access to the medication, including by attempting to revoke the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill sued the FDA in October and asked the district court to strike down a 2023 provision allowing telehealth prescriptions for mifepristone, one part of a two-drug regimen commonly used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks. Included in the lawsuit is Louisiana resident Rosalie Markezich, who said her boyfriend pressured her into taking the pills. 

Louisiana officials argue doctors in states without abortion bans should not be allowed to prescribe and mail the medication into a state where it is illegal, and say Markezich would not have been harmed if the 2023 provision hadn’t made it possible for the medication to be mailed to her boyfriend. Murrill asked the court to block the 2023 rule with a preliminary injunction, and if granted, it could limit access for people nationwide.

A ruling in that case is pending, along with another abortion pill lawsuit in Missouri about the FDA’s approval of a generic brand of mifepristone last year.

Aside from court cases, legislatures around the country are also considering legislation restricting or banning mifepristone, which is also used to treat miscarriage and high blood sugar for some patients. Louisiana designated the drug a controlled substance in the same category as Xanax and Valium, and South Carolina’s House of Representatives passed a similar bill in February.

Whether in court briefings or before state policymakers, plenty of talking points about abortion medication are repeated that are not based on scientific fact or evidence, according to experts. Here are some of the most common:

1. The rate of serious adverse events associated with mifepristone is less than 0.5%, according to extensive scientific study.

Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion interest groups have cited an April 2025 paper to argue that mifepristone is dangerous and results in a much higher rate of serious adverse events than the FDA reported. That paper, which was not peer reviewed, was published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative advocacy group that partners with groups like Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative legal firm that has led many anti-abortion lawsuits, including the Dobbs case.

The policy center’s report finds a nearly 11% rate of “serious adverse events” based on commercially available health claims data. Experts dispute that the center defined a serious adverse event the same way the FDA does, as a condition that requires hospitalization, is life-threatening, or causes disability and permanent damage or death.

Dr. Mitchell Creinin, an OB-GYN at the University of California Davis Health who has researched the safety of mifepristone since studies first began in 1992, said there is overwhelming evidence that the medication is safe and the rate of serious adverse events is extremely low. In a report published by the Society of Family Planning, Creinin identified errors in the way the policy center’s analysis calculated events, saying there was double counting of issues associated with the same patient, and found that the report was counting serious adverse events that don’t meet the FDA’s criteria, including going to the emergency room.  

“It’s all about playing with science to make it say what you want it to say,” Creinin said.

One of Creinin’s studies from 2015 combined all relevant published studies on mifepristone and misoprostol between 2005 and 2015, a total of 20 studies with 33,846 women through 70 days of gestation, and found severe outcomes requiring blood transfusion and hospitalization occurred in less than 1% of cases.

2. Testing for Rh blood status is unnecessary in early pregnancy.

A common argument from anti-abortion groups like Students for Life of America, including in its amicus brief to the Louisiana court, is that telehealth abortion care cuts off the opportunity for doctors to test a pregnant patient’s Rh status before an abortion, which they argue can threaten the health of future pregnancies. 

A doctor will test a pregnant patient’s blood at some point during pregnancy to determine if they are Rh-positive or negative. If a patient knows their blood type, such as A or O, the positive or negative sign associated with the type is the Rh factor. Sometimes the pregnant patient’s marker is positive and the fetus is negative, which can result in the patient’s body identifying the blood cells of the pregnancy as foreign. That can cause the pregnant patient to develop antibodies against the blood cells. There needs to be enough of these cells to create a reaction, which doesn’t occur until after the first trimester, around 12 weeks. A treatment can be given in those cases to prevent antibodies from forming. 

Those antibodies can also form after miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and abortion, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and it could affect future pregnancies.

But the organization said in its amicus brief to the court in Louisiana that the risk of serious outcomes related to Rh issues before 12 weeks’ gestation is low, and it affects a small minority of the population, so limiting access based on that rare outcome would be a “disproportionate response.”

Creinin said research shows there aren’t enough fetal cells in early pregnancy to mount an immune response, such as a 2023 study of 506 first-trimester abortion patients in which all but one of them were below the threshold for an immune response. Most countries worldwide do not recommend treatment in a patient with the condition in early pregnancy, and that is the recommendation in the U.S. as well.

“There’s all this really good evidence that says you don’t need to do it,” Creinin said.

3. A patient doesn’t need an ultrasound before taking mifepristone.

A pregnant person is not required to have an ultrasound or be seen by a provider in person in order to obtain mifepristone, according to the FDA. Ultrasounds weren’t required even before the FDA stopped requiring in-person visits, and most pregnant patients aren’t given an ultrasound for an early pregnancy until at least eight weeks’ gestation, even if they intend to keep it. Symptoms of ectopic pregnancy, when an embryo implants in a fallopian tube instead of the uterus, usually begin by seven to eight weeks of pregnancy, and mifepristone is only approved for use up to 10 weeks.

The mortality rate of ectopic pregnancy is extremely low, at less than 50 deaths per year, and if someone has significant risk factors for ectopic pregnancy, Creinin said, they should be evaluated earlier. That’s part of the counseling involved in a telehealth appointment.

4. Taking mifepristone at home does not disproportionately result in traumatic experiences.

Anti-abortion groups such as the Justice Foundation have submitted amicus briefs to the Louisiana court about people who said taking abortion medication and managing the treatment at home led to traumatic outcomes because they weren’t prepared for what they would see.

That can happen, said Jessie Losch, director of government affairs for the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, but most doctors will counsel a patient first on what to expect and what they might see after the pills are taken, including passing fetal tissue.

Losch acknowledged that there can be a gap between hearing about what to expect and seeing it in person, but that isn’t a reason to take the option away from those who benefit from being able to choose when and where the treatment occurs. That can be especially important for victims of abuse, Losch said.

“I understand why somebody might be taken by surprise at the reality of it, but we can’t control for that with legislation,” she said.

Although there are few recent scientific studies that specifically examine at-home abortion management, one Society of Family Planning study from 2022 with more than 3,100 participants found 98.4% were satisfied with the experience and about 95% thought self-managing was the right choice for them.

5. There is no evidence to support the idea that taking mifepristone is harmful for the environment.

This argument has largely come from the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, which says mifepristone pollutes the water supply and contends the FDA should have done an environmental review including effects on endangered species before easing restrictions on the drug. Multiple states have considered legislation to create environmental restrictions around the drug or bills requiring providers to instruct patients to collect fetal tissue in medical waste kits and return it to the provider rather than flush it.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may also conduct a review that could be used to restrict access in the future, States Newsroom reported.

Losch said she hasn’t found any evidence that mifepristone is either detectable in the water supply or that it has a detrimental effect on wildlife, including the hormonal structure of fish or other aquatic animals.

In 1996, the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research issued a finding of no significant impact on the water supply from mifepristone.

“The Center … has concluded that the product can be manufactured, used and disposed of without expected adverse environmental effects,” the finding stated. That included endangered or threatened species.

Some Republican lawmakers have routinely proposed criminally prosecuting women for getting abortions since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, despite bipartisan condemnation and criticism from national anti-abortion organizations. 

These bills never made it to the finish line, but they keep circulating in legislatures across the country. So-called “abortion abolitionists” who believe that abortion should be classified as homicide, and that fetuses, embryos and zygotes should have the same legal protections as people are often behind these measures, States Newsroom reported. 

This year, the Foundation to Abolish Abortion praised Republican lawmakers in Illinois, Kentucky and Tennessee who introduced bills that would punish people who get abortions. 

In Illinois, Republican Sen. Neil Anderson filed a bill that would have banned abortion from the moment of fertilization and classified abortion as homicide in the Democratic-led state. Anderson’s bill did not move past introduction, and he lost a leadership position in the chamber this month, Capitol News Illinois reported. 

In Tennessee, legislation concerning an anti-abortion monument was amended to criminalize abortion, potentially allowing women who seek abortion to be charged with murder. Sen. Mark Pody, the bill’s GOP sponsor, said he doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to pass the bill with the criminalization amendment, Tennessee Lookout reported. 

Elsewhere, proposals to crackdown on the availability of abortion medication — the most common way to terminate a pregnancy — are advancing in several Republican-led legislatures, while Democratic lawmakers are moving to fortify shield laws. 

Our reproductive rights reporting team will be tracking related bills through biweekly roundups as sessions continue this winter and into the spring. Depending on the partisan makeup of a state’s legislature and other state government officials, some bills have a better chance of passing and becoming law than others.

GOP legislators still introducing bills classifying abortion as homicide

Kentucky   

House Bill 714: Abortion is already illegal in Kentucky with no exceptions for victims of rape and incest. This bill, called the “Prenatal Equal Protection Act,” would go further by classifying abortion as homicide unless it’s needed to treat miscarriages or save a pregnant woman’s life. The penalties would be the same as those for killing a person, so violators could face anywhere from one year to life in prison. 

GOP Rep. Richard White introduced a similar bill last year that didn’t go anywhere. The Foundation to Abolish Abortion praised the new measure in a Tuesday news release. The organization criticized a Kentucky prosecutor’s decision last month to drop a fetal homicide charge against a woman who was accused of taking abortion medication.  

Status: Introduced in the House on Tuesday, Feb. 24, and sent to the Committee on Committees 

Sponsors: Republican Reps. Josh Calloway and Richard White  

South Carolina 

House Bill 3537: Legislation introduced by GOP Rep. Rob Harris would ban abortion from the moment of fertilization. Harris’ bill would also allow the prosecution of people who get abortions unless it’s necessary to manage miscarriages or save a pregnant person’s life. 

Harris filed this bill in previous legislative sessions, but it hasn’t gained traction, SC Daily Gazette reported. “Bills like these do nothing but terrify women out of wanting to get pregnant,” Tori Nardone, a woman who had to leave South Carolina to get an abortion for a fatal fetal anomaly, told lawmakers last month. “Please don’t make it worse than it already is.”

Status: Stalled in the House Judiciary Committee 

Sponsor: Republican Rep. Rob Harris 

South Dakota   

House Bill 1212: South Dakota bans abortion in most cases, but this bill would have codified abortion as fetal homicide in state law and defined abortion as a Class B felony, which carries punishment of up to life in prison and a fine of up to $50,000. The proposal included exceptions for miscarriage treatment or when a pregnant patient’s life is in danger.

The bill was deferred to the last day of the legislation session by the House Health and Human Services Committee, essentially preventing it from advancing.  

Status: Sidelined 

Sponsors: Rep. Tony Randolph and Sen. John Carley, Republicans 

Republican-led states push bills to crack down on abortion pills

Mississippi   

House Bill 1613: This legislation would make it illegal to sell, manufacture, distribute or dispense abortion-inducing drugs in the state, which bans all abortions unless the mother’s life or health is at risk, and if rape or incest is reported to law enforcement. 

Violators could face between one and 10 years in prison, and the state attorney general could enforce civil penalties against the person, too, Mississippi Free Press reported. The House passed the bill on Wednesday, Feb. 11. If the bill becomes law, it would take effect in July. 

Status: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee last week 

Sponsors: Republican Reps. Kevin Horan and William Tracy Arnold 

South Dakota  

House Bill 1274: The state House passed a bill this week that would make dispensing, distributing, selling or advertising abortion pills and any other abortion-related “instrument” or “article” illegal, South Dakota Searchlight reported. 

Under the measure, the attorney general could seek penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation, and the money would go in a fund used to pursue anti-abortion litigation, according to Searchlight. South Dakota’s AG is already involved in a legal battle with a New York-based nonprofit over abortion medication ads it ran at gas stations across the state last year. 

Status: Approved in the House on Tuesday, Feb 24; in the Senate State Affairs committee 

Sponsors: Republican Reps. John Hughes and Greg Blanc 

Democratic lawmakers move to strengthen abortion-rights protections 

New Hampshire   

Senate Bill 551: New Hampshire, which has a Republican trifecta in government, is the only state in New England without a law that protects abortion providers and patients from out-of-state investigations into reproductive health care. Legislation introduced by Democratic Sen. Debra Altschiller in February would secure the right to reproductive health care and prohibit law enforcement from cooperating with investigations into related health care, New Hampshire Bulletin reported. 

The bill would make it illegal for the governor to comply with extradition requests for abortion providers and patients. It would also ban insurers from penalizing reproductive health care providers and let residents sue people or agencies that attempt to interfere with their reproductive rights, the Bulletin reported. 

Status: The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 on Tuesday, Feb. 17, that the bill was “inexpedient to legislate.” 

Sponsor: Democratic Sen. Debra Altschiller

Oregon   

House Bill 4088: An Oregon law approved in July 2023 protects providers who offer reproductive health care from losing their licenses, and shields patients and providers from related out-of-state investigations. Legislation introduced this year would beef up those safeguards. 

This bill would bar the governor from accepting extradition requests from other states against providers who offer legally protected reproductive health care and prohibit law enforcement from cooperating with interstate investigations into related care, Oregon Capital Chronicle reported. It would also block state officials from revoking midwifery licenses for people who face prosecution for reproductive health care in other states. 

Status: Approved by the House on Monday, Feb. 16; approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, Feb. 25

Sponsors: Rep. Lisa Fragala and Sen. Lisa Reynolds, Democrats 

There is a content warning on page 7 of a friend-of-the-court brief recently submitted in a high-stakes abortion medication case by women who say they were injured or traumatized from taking the pills. 

“Warning: these accounts are raw, graphic and real.”

About 30 mostly anonymous people recount their medication abortions, saying they were uninformed about what they would experience mentally and physically. The graphic accounts and bloody portraits are meant to bolster the argument that the practice is a barbaric and gruesome one that states have the authority to ban. The brief argues the problem is perpetuated by telehealth abortion. 

“We call it a particularly gruesome and barbaric procedure, the pill, because Dobbs allowed particularly gruesome and barbaric procedures to be prohibited by the states,” said attorney Allan Parker of the Justice Foundation.

It’s one of many arguments made in the main complaint, though not the focus of Tuesday’s oral arguments over a preliminary injunction that could, if granted, halt access to telehealth abortion throughout the country. But it’s one with a winning history for the anti-abortion movement, whose leaders are frustrated with rising abortion rates and the Trump administration’s failure to restrict the pills. 

But reproductive legal experts who support abortion rights say the gruesome or barbaric argument mischaracterizes the realities of medication abortion, which is approved to induce a miscarriage within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. 

Abortion opponents are focused on disrupting national access built largely on shield laws and a Biden-era policy that has allowed women to have first-trimester abortions via medication at home with a remote physician consultation, even in states with bans. 

The Justice Foundation, which co-authored the brief alongside the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, recruits women who regret their abortions to testify in court and before legislatures and has collected nearly 5,000 legally admissible affidavits, according to the brief. 

The lawsuit was originally filed last year by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and co-plaintiff Rosalie Markezich, who said her partner ordered pills without her consent and then coerced her to take them.

The complaint cited the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart that upheld a federal ban on an abortion procedure called intact dilation and extraction, which at the time some doctors said was a preferable method for ending certain pregnancies, typically in the second trimester, without damaging the woman’s cervix. The anti-abortion movement effectively rebranded the method “partial-birth abortion.” In upholding the ban on this method, the Supreme Court opinion, which was referenced in the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning federal abortion protections, included a reference to it as “gruesome and inhumane.” 

While the intact dilation and extraction method was used later in pregnancy and in a minority of terminations, telehealth abortions early in pregnancy made up 27% of abortions in the U.S. in the first half of December, according to the Society of Family Planning.  

“What it feels like is happening with some of these briefs is that they’re going back to the last argument that worked in shaping popular opinion,” historian and law professor Mary Ziegler said. “Because while they managed to overturn Roe, that was not a success from a popular opinion standpoint.”

The argument that abortion is barbaric and gruesome is not likely to touch public opinion the same way it did two decades ago, she said, because unlike with intact dilation and extraction abortion, most women have experienced a medication abortion or a miscarriage and know what it’s like.  

“It would be hard, I think, to convince people that a procedure that’s happening in week seven, is equally barbaric,” Ziegler said. “The whole success of partial-birth abortion as a strategy is in the name, right? The argument was, This is happening late enough in pregnancy and close enough to birth that it resembles infanticide. And with abortion pills, for many people, it’s going to much more closely resemble a very early miscarriage.”

The potential to unleash chaos

Attorneys on either side of the abortion rights divide agree that the stakes are high in the Louisiana case, because a ruling would likely apply nationally and once again shake up the abortion access landscape in the U.S. If the court grants Louisiana’s request to force the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to reinstate old restrictions while litigation continues, the action could effectively ban telehealth abortion appointments, medication dispensation at retail pharmacies, and the mailing of abortion pills even in states where abortion remains legal.

Katie Keith, founding director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the O’Neill Institute at Georgetown University, said a ruling in plaintiffs’ favor could “unleash chaos and confusion in the market.”

“What would happen to medication that’s already on the shelves?” she asked. “And how quickly could folks move from telehealth to in-person dispensing again? And what guidance would FDA give? And how quickly would all this get appealed?” 

It would be extremely disruptive in a year when abortion providers have already seen a lot of chaos, she said. 

Dr. Angel Foster is the co-founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, which provides telehealth abortion to all 50 states. She said plaintiffs’ claims do not match up with national and international data on medication and telehealth abortion or with her experience as a provider. 

“Louisiana has taken things that are exceptional and presented them as common, has tried to put the ugliest face on the abortion process as possible, and has mischaracterized the kind of care that telemedicine medication abortion providers are offering,” Foster said. 

Her organization has served more than 40,000 patients seeking abortion care since 2023, she said, 95% in states with abortion bans. Patients are counseled on what to expect in terms of pain and what they might see, and are screened for potential coercion and other issues. 

For example, if a patient lists her husband’s email address, Foster said she would call the patient directly to confirm the abortion is her choice. She said a bad actor could try to bypass their screening and force someone to take abortion pills without consent, which is already a criminal offense under existing law. 

“I don’t think that the remedy is to say that nobody should be able to get abortion pills by mail,” Foster said.  

National domestic violence awareness groups have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Louisiana case asking the court to deny plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. They note that reproductive coercion is not limited to abortion pressure but can also include a partner barring access to birth control or other health care. 

Beyond the federal courts, states continue to try to pass laws to ban or further restrict medication abortion. Attorneys general in Louisiana and Texas have led the charge in suing shield law providers in states without abortion bans. Texas’ attorney general filed a new lawsuit on Tuesday against California physician Rémy Coeytaux, telehealth abortion nonprofit Aid Access and its founder Dr. Rebecca Gomperts. 

Foster said she has not yet been sued but that her attorneys have been in close communication with Massachusetts’ attorney general over whether the state’s shield law would protect their practice depending on how the judge rules. 

“Our intent is to continue to provide medication abortion care with mifepristone and misoprostol for as long as we can legally do so,” she said. 

Will a federal judge let the Trump administration delay?

For now, Louisiana v. FDA is in limbo. After Louisiana filed its preliminary injunction request, the Trump administration asked the court to delay while it continues to review abortion pill safety — a review that was prompted by pressure and controversial research from the anti-abortion movement. 

Trump-appointed district Judge David Joseph on Tuesday did not indicate when he might rule on Louisiana’s request for an injunction but gave the federal government’s attorneys seven days to file a brief explaining how the FDA would take emergency action if the agency discovered mifepristone presents a public health risk during its review.

Anti-abortion activists have been frustrated with the administration’s efforts to delay the Louisiana case. 

“We are disappointed that the Trump administration is asking the court to pause our case and deny our clients immediate relief while the FDA takes another year to study the known harms of abortion drugs,” said Erik Baptist, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Markezich, in a written statement.

With the approaching midterm elections, Ziegler said she’s curious what the administration will finally say about its position on abortion pills. 

“It’s our first look at what the Trump administration will do if the court doesn’t respond by just giving them more time,” Ziegler said. “Because so far, they’ve been essentially just avoiding it, by saying they’re thinking about it, and they need more time, and they’re studying the matter, and, you know, not really taking a side.” 

A hearing is set for Tuesday in a federal lawsuit led by Louisiana seeking to further restrict access to mifepristone by asking the courts to stop abortion pills from being mailed across the country. 

The Department of Justice has argued plaintiffs lack standing to bring the case and asked the judge to halt legal proceedings until the Food and Drug Administration wraps up a review of the medication. 

Hundreds of studies have concluded that the drug is safe and effective for abortions early in pregnancy, but a paper released by a conservative think tank last year compelled Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to order a reevaluation of mifepristone.  

The state of Louisiana and a woman who said her ex-boyfriend made her take abortion medication sued the FDA in October and asked for a preliminary injunction against a 2023 rule that allows abortion pills to be prescribed through telehealth or mailed to patients, and pharmacies to apply for certification to dispense mifepristone. 

Julie Kay, the founder and CEO of legal advocacy group Reproductive Futures, told States Newsroom the lawsuits in Louisiana and elsewhere are “thinly veiled attempts” to block access to telehealth medication abortion. 

“We’ve seen that telemedicine abortion has become incredibly popular in all 50 states and particularly vital for women in under-resourced areas,” Kay said. 

Missouri, Idaho, Kansas, Texas and Florida are also suing the FDA over mifepristone’s regulations and asking the courts to restrict or rescind approval of the drug altogether.

Nearly 30% of abortions provided in the first half of 2025 were through telehealth, according to the Society of Family Planning’s latest #WeCount report. 

By June 2025, about 15,000 abortions per month were provided by physicians shielded by state laws, allowing them to prescribe abortion medication remotely to people living in states where abortion is banned or restricted, the report found. Shield laws protecting health care professionals from out-of-state investigations have held up in court so far, despite efforts from prosecutors in Texas and Louisiana. 

Republican Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill vowed to defend anti-abortion laws in her state, which has had a ban with no exceptions for rape or incest since August 2022. She indicted a California doctor in January, accusing him of mailing abortion pills to Rosalie Markezich, a plaintiff in the lawsuit before federal courts. 

Lawyers for Louisiana argue that the Biden administration’s decision to nix the in-person dispensation requirement for mifepristone is an affront to states that ban abortion. 

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erik Baptist framed the lawsuit as an intimate partner violence issue, saying Markezich’s former boyfriend ordered abortion pills online from Dr. Rémy Coeytaux in California without any in-person interaction. 

“So what this lawsuit would do is protect women across the country, in particular in Louisiana, from this mail-order abortion scheme that enables and emboldens people in coercive situations, such as men and abusers who can now obtain these drugs through remote means,” Baptist said. 

Reproductive coercion — when an abusive partner controls a person’s bodily autonomy — has been brought up in recent legal challenges to abortion pill access by other GOP attorneys general in bids to restrict mifepristone, according to Rachel Rebouché, a University of Texas at Austin law professor who specializes in reproductive rights. 

“There’s really not evidence that people are being coerced or forced into taking pills. It’s, of course, awful if someone has felt coerced, but I’m not sure it changes the argument of what the FDA should do as an agency committed to reviewing evidence,” Rebouché said. 

For their part, DOJ attorneys have said an injunction would interfere with the FDA review and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies, setting off an avalanche of other lawsuits. 

“Plaintiffs now threaten to short circuit the agency’s orderly review and study of the safety risks of mifepristone by asking this Court for an immediate stay of the 2023 REMS Modification approved three years ago,” they wrote in a memo filed on Jan. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. 

Kay said she views the Trump administration’s motion to pause the case as a legal delay tactic that is more about politics than science, because most Americans believe abortion should be accessible. A Pew Research Center poll from June 2025 showed 63% of respondents said abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

“This federal administration is very aware of that popularity, and I think they’re saying they want to wait until after the midterms,” Kay said.

Baptist said the FDA can conduct their review while the in-person requirement is restored. 

Mifepristone’s manufacturers intervened in the case earlier this month, Louisiana Illuminator reported. But unlike the federal government, GenBioPro and Danco, the companies behind the generic and name brand versions of the drug, asked the court to dismiss Louisiana’s lawsuit entirely. 

In a memo filed on Tuesday, Feb. 17, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the 2023 regulatory change “was intended to authorize a direct attack” on anti-abortion states. 

The filing also rejects arguments that Louisiana and Markezich lack standing in the same way that a group of anti-abortion doctors did in a lawsuit against the FDA over mifepristone’s previous regulations, according to a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Justices rebuffed the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine’s requests but did not rule on the merits of the case.

Baptist also said judicial panels on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana — a conservative-leaning court where this lawsuit could go next — have twice ruled that it was “arbitrary and capricious” for the FDA to allow abortion medication without an in-person doctor visit. 

In Louisiana’s corner are major anti-abortion players: Students for Life of America, 60 Republican members of Congress, 21 GOP attorneys general and the Ethics and Public Policy Center filed briefs backing the state. 

Rebouché, the University of Texas professor, said there would be conflict between the federal courts if the district court judge rules in favor of Louisiana. There are nearly a dozen lawsuits over abortion pills seeking to restrict and deregulate mifepristone, States Newsroom reported.

Guttmacher Institute Principal Federal Policy Adviser Anna Bernstein said in a statement Friday that reinstating the in-person dispensation requirement for mifepristone would hinder abortion access. 

“If access to telehealth and mifepristone by mail is curtailed, more patients would be pushed toward in-clinic care, straining provider capacity and increasing wait times in an already chaotic landscape,” she said. “Given that travel is out of reach for many people, the result would likely be increased delays and more people unable to get the abortion care they need and deserve.” 

Kelcie Moseley-Morris contributed to this report. 

Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) is proposing that Wisconsin require crisis pregnancy centers to get express written permission before releasing a person’s private health information. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) is proposing that Wisconsin require crisis pregnancy centers to get express written permission before releasing a person’s private health information. Those who have given permission would also be able to withdraw their permission at any time under the bill. 

“Many people assume that when they seek care for pregnancy or other reproductive health services that that information is protected, just like any other medical records under HIPAA, and while that is true at your doctor’s office or at the hospital, it’s not always true when you visit other providers,” Subeck said at a press conference Thursday.

Concerns about information being gathered about women’s reproductive health, including by crisis pregnancy centers, have surged in the years since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, especially in states where abortion has been criminalized. 

A 2022 TIME Magazine report found that crisis pregnancy centers have been collecting information including sexual and reproductive histories, test results, ultrasound photos, and information shared during consultations, parenting classes, or counseling sessions, from women they interact with through telephone and online chats. They are not required to follow federal health data privacy laws. The report led to U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren requesting an examination of the practices by crisis pregnancy centers.

The bill, coauthored by Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee), would also require centers to disclose in “plain language” that they are not a HIPAA-covered entity for the purpose of federal privacy regulations as well as disclosing any data breach that exposes individual digital health information.

Subeck said the centers can “look and feel an awful lot like a traditional medical clinic,” noting that they might offer ultrasounds, pregnancy tests and claim to have counselors on staff. However, she said “many of these centers are not licensed medical providers, and therefore they are not covered by HIPAA privacy protections.”

Subeck said that changes in reproductive health laws have raised concerns about the misuse of health related information and data. She said the bill would not close unregulated pregnancy centers, limit the services they can provide or limit speech. Rather, she said, it “simply sets some basic privacy expectations and protections for unsuspecting individuals.”

Subeck noted that lawmakers in other states, including Pennsylvania, have introduced similar measures, though none have become law.

Subeck said the violations of the provisions in the bill would be treated as “unfair and deceptive practices” under existing state law.

Laura Hanks, an OB-GYN and legislative chair for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said at the press conference that the bill shouldn’t be political.

“It’s about privacy, honesty and safe, medically accurate care. Unregulated pregnancy centers often look like clinics, but they aren’t held to the basic medical privacy rules,” Hanks said. “This means they lack regulation, medical oversight or standard confidentiality rules. Too many people are walking in and assuming their health care information is protected when it isn’t. This bill sets commonsense guardrails.”

The headline on this report has been revised for clarity. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE