Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of the abortion pill mifepristone, has filed an emergency appeal to the US Supreme Court, requesting an immediate halt to a court decision that would mandate an in-person examination before the medication can be prescribed. The appeal, submitted on Saturday, comes just hours after the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily reinstated the requirement, effectively blocking telemedicine providers from prescribing the drug via mail. This move responds to a legal challenge from Louisiana.
Emergency Filing Seeks to Prevent Confusion
In the filing dated May 2, Danco argued that the circuit court's ruling "injects immediate confusion and upheaval into highly time-sensitive medical decisions" and would force Danco, healthcare providers, patients, and pharmacies "all to guess at what is allowed and what is not." The company warned that the ruling would cause "chaos" in the healthcare system.
Louisiana's Argument and Court Ruling
Louisiana contends that allowing the drug to be dispensed through the mail ignores the potential risks of complications from mifepristone, such as sepsis and hemorrhaging. The state also argues that mail-order delivery enables women to circumvent abortion bans. In its ruling, the three-judge panel of the circuit court agreed with Louisiana, stating that the looser rule "facilitates nearly 1,000 illegal abortions in Louisiana per month." Currently, mifepristone is used in nearly two-thirds of pregnancy terminations nationwide, including in states with abortion restrictions.
FDA Review and Ongoing Legal Battle
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently reviewing the safety of mifepristone 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 FDA review is complete. However, the circuit appeals court blocked that request and reinstated the in-person dispensing requirement while Louisiana appeals the earlier judge's decision.
In its emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, Danco argued that Louisiana's lawsuit shares similar flaws with a previous challenge brought by anti-abortion doctors. Danco stated that "Louisiana's complaint should have been dismissed outright" and noted 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."
