Abortion pill maker asks US supreme court to halt ban on mail-order access

Original article by Edward Helmore

A manufacturer of the abortion pill mifepristone, Danco Laboratories, filed an emergency appeal to the US supreme court on Saturday asking it to halt a court decision that would require an in‑person exam before the medication can be prescribed.

The request came hours after the fifth US circuit court of appeals temporarily reinstated the requirement blocking telemedicine health providers from prescribing to patients by mail in response to a challenge from Louisiana.

In an emergency filing on 2 May, the mifepristone maker asked the court to immediately pause the lower court’s ruling limiting access.

In the filing, Danco said the circuit court’s ruling “injects immediate confusion and upheaval into highly time-sensitive medical decisions”, and would force Danco, providers, patients and pharmacies “all to guess at what is allowed and what is not”.

Danco warned that the ruling would cause “chaos”.

Louisiana argues that allowing the drug to be dispensed through the mail ignores the threat of complications from mifepristone, such as sepsis and hemorrhaging, and that delivery by mail allows women to get around abortion bans.

In its ruling, the three-judge circuit court said it agreed with Louisiana that the looser rule “facilitates nearly 1,000 illegal abortions in Louisiana per month”. The pill is currently used in nearly two-thirds of pregnancy terminations, including in states that have enacted abortion restrictions.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reviewing the safety of the drug after nearly two dozen Republican attorneys general requested a review last year. Earlier this year, the Trump administration petitioned a judge to pause Louisiana’s challenge until the review is complete.

But the circuit appeals court blocked that ruling and said the in-person dispensing requirement should be reinstated while Louisiana appeals the judge’s decision.

Danco, in its emergency appeal, told the supreme court that Louisiana’s lawsuit shares the same problems as the challenge brought by the anti-abortion doctors.

In its appeal, Danco said: “Louisiana’s complaint should have been dismissed outright,” adding that “never before has a federal court purported to immediately enjoin a several years’ old drug approval; restrict a distribution system for that drug that manufacturers, providers, patients, and pharmacies have all been using for years; or reinstate conditions that FDA determined do not meet the mandatory statutory criteria”.