Trump FDA seeks pause on abortion pill lawsuit while it reviews drug’s risks

Share this article

By: Carole Novielli, originally published January 28, 2026, LiveAction.org

he Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Trump administration has petitioned a federal court to  pause  the state of Louisiana’s abortion pill lawsuit, which is seeking a review of the 2023 safety regulations on the drug.

The troubling motion comes just days after President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance spoke to pro-lifers gathered in Washington, D.C., for the annual March for Life. Both men  previously  stated they would not “block” the abortion pill, which has already ended the lives of over 7.5 million preborn babies since its original FDA approval just over 25 years ago.

Key Takeaways:

  • Trump’s FDA, which  recently approved  the second generic abortion pill, claimed Louisiana’s lawsuit seeking to put a “stay” on the 2023 REMS safety protocols (which allowed mail-order and pharmacy dispensing of the abortion pill) would “short circuit the [FDA]’s orderly review and study of the safety risks of mifepristone.”
  • The FDA asked the courts to ‘stay judicial review’ until the FDA completes its own review of the drug, which it claims will be done in less than a year’s time.

The Details:

On January 27, 2026, the FDA  petitioned the Court  to “stay all proceedings in this matter” while the agency “reviews the mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy.”

The accompanying  memorandum of law  reads in part:

The Court should stay further litigation until after FDA’s mifepristone REMS review is complete and deny Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice….

The rationale for deferring judicial review is simple: the “harm of moving forward” with judicial review of the 2023 REMS Modification outweighs the “harm of holding back.”

… And the same calculus confirms that granting preliminary relief would not be equitable at this time because it would disrupt FDA’s ongoing review.

In addition to a request that the Court “stay this case pending FDA’s review,” the FDA’s motion asked that the Court “deny Plaintiffs’ motion  without prejudice.”

The Backstory:

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed the lawsuit,  State of Louisiana v. FDA ,  on behalf of  the State of Louisiana and Rosalie Markezich, a woman whose “ex-boyfriend ordered mifepristone from a California doctor, received it by mail, and coerced Rosalie to take it, ending her baby’s life.”

The Plaintiffs challenged the 2023 REMS safety regulations on the abortion pill as “unlawful” and are seeking to “restore the in-person dispensing requirement.”

The 2023 REMS essentially removed the in-person dispensing requirement for the drug, enabling the deadly abortion pill to be distributed by mail and in pharmacies. This created a ‘wild west’ of sorts, in which pro-abortion states have begun to shield abortion providers who mail the drugs into pro-life states.

In addition, mail-order dispensing enabled incidents of coercion in which pregnant women were given the deadly pills without their knowledge or consent:

FDA to ‘reconsider the restrictions on mifepristone’

FDA is citing its own review of the abortion pill (mifepristone) as a reason for requesting the stay, calling “the validity of FDA’s restrictions on mifepristone” a “hotly contested legal and scientific issue that has been the subject of litigation for many years”:

Louisiana and Ms. Markezich are not the only plaintiffs to have challenged the current requirements for dispensing mifepristone. Indeed, five other states are challenging either the approval of mifepristone or subsequent actions easing restrictions…And aside from litigation, before the FDA are numerous citizen petitions—citing voluminous material and seeking mutually inconsistent relief, such as suspending approval of the drug, restoring previous REMS requirements, or eliminating the REMS entirely.

Given this widespread debate over the safety of mifepristone, FDA has concluded that the best path forward is for the agency to reconsider the restrictions on mifepristone based on all the evidence before the agency. As noted above, that evidence will include FDA’s own study. FDA has emphasized that it ‘is taking care to do this study properly and in the right way.

FDA: Louisiana’s request to stay REMS would “short circuit” review

At this time, “FDA continues to work on the collection of the robust and timely data that is necessary for a well-controlled study with adequate statistical power,” the FDA wrote:

Although studies like these “often take approximately a year or more to conduct,” FDA’s current plan is to complete the study “sooner than that timeframe.” And once FDA has analyzed the data from that study (as well as all other evidence before the agency), it will decide whether “substantive changes to the REMS” are necessary.

“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,” FDA claimed.

They would have this Court set aside the 2023 REMS Modification—all without the benefit of FDA’s expertise, and even as the agency is already reconsidering the matter in its review. And Plaintiffs’ requested relief may prove as unnecessary as it is disruptive, if FDA ultimately decides that the in person dispensing requirement must be restored.

FDA: Defer judicial review until agency’s review is complete

The FDA asked the court to defer judicial review until its review of mifepristone is complete, claiming that “awarding preliminary relief to these Plaintiffs could easily prompt other plaintiffs to seek a conflicting injunction that would sow administrative and judicial chaos.”

FDA went on to suggest that if the court hearings continue, it will “waste judicial resources.” They alleged that it would not be “far fetched” for a back-and-forth “disruption” in the courts, with one side getting relief and the other filing for conflicting relief.

To prevent that disruption, the Court should exercise its inherent authority to stay this litigation pending the outcome of FDA’s review of the mifepristone REMS. FDA’s review will necessarily result in a new agency decision that could supersede the 2023 REMS Modification, obviating any need to consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ arguments challenging the validity of the 2023 REMS Modification.

Any party adversely affected by the new agency decision on mifepristone may seek judicial review at that time. And in the event of a further REMS modification, adherence to FDA’s normal process will create far less disruption than the abrupt, judicially imposed change sought by Plaintiffs.

FDA: Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge 2023 REMS

In its motion, the FDA claimed the Plaintiffs “lack standing” to challenge the 2023 REMS because these claims are “not traceable” to “defendant” (the FDA):

Louisiana suffers no sovereign injury because it remains free to make and enforce its pro-life policies after  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org …

Nor are Defendants standing in the way of Louisiana enforcing its abortion laws against out-of state prescribers of mifepristone.

Yet, the Plaintiffs have made several  important points  describing the harm the 2023 REMS has on the state, on the taxpayers, and on women, including the following:

  • “Louisiana has suffered, and continues to suffer, a classic pocketbook injury from the 2023 REMS  in the form of hundreds of thousands of dollars in increased Medicaid costs attributable to mifepristone-induced abortions that have required emergency care  —  costs that would not be incurred but for the 2023 REMS .”
  • “… Rosalie is not alone. Consider the well-known story of Margaret Carpenter, a New York doctor who mailed mifepristone to a Louisiana woman who forced the drug on her pregnant teenage daughter… The teen faced a medical emergency alone at home, called 911, and was rushed to the hospital in an ambulance after delivering a dead fetus…”
  • “[C]onsider data from the Louisiana Department of Health showing that over $92,000 in Medicaid dollars were paid for emergency room care and hospitalization resulting from just two mifepristone-induced abortions in 2025 …”

The FDA claimed:

Plaintiffs ask the Court to make the very sort of difficult scientific judgment about the 2023 REMS Modification that Congress entrusted to FDA while the agency itself is considering the same issues.

The agency suggested that if the Plaintiffs prevail before the FDA review is complete, “it could prompt the sponsors of mifepristone to file supplemental applications seeking modifications to the REMS.”

Commentary:

In response, Senior Counsel and Director of the Center of Life Erik Baptist told Live Action News:

“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 years to study the known harms of abortion drugs and restore commonsense safeguards.

In its brief, the government does not defend the Biden FDA’s reckless decision to allow mail-order abortions —a decision that jeopardized women’s safety and undermined the rule of law. That politics-driven decision by the Biden administration has cost the lives of untold numbers of unborn babies and caused real, ongoing, and documented harms to countless women whose trust the FDA betrayed. What’s more, men can now order these drugs and coerce or trick women into taking them.

There is no reason to leave in place the concededly unlawful, dangerous removal of a vital protection for women while the FDA takes another year or more to conduct a study confirming what the FDA already knows—that these are high-risk drugs and that mail-order abortions increase the risks to women. In this case, justice delayed truly is justice denied.

We are honored to stand with Louisiana and Rosalie Markezich in holding the FDA accountable and restoring the rule of law.”

The Context:

Three lawsuits involving six states are challenging the expansions of the abortion pill. The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) was the initial  challenge; however, in 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court  ruled  that the plaintiff doctors in AHM  did  not have standing  to sue, and they eventually dropped their challenge.

  • January 2025 :  Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk  ruled  the states of  Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho  could intervene in AHM’s case and file a complaint in Amarillo, Texas.
  • May 2025 : Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ)  called  for dismissal of the lawsuit.
  • August 2025 : States of Texas and Florida first  petitioned the court  to  intervene  — and one month later ( September 2025), Louisiana along with  Rosalie Markezich   filed a motion  to do the same. Markezich claimed in her complaint that her boyfriend ordered abortion pills from a California provider and coerced her into taking the pills. Her baby died.
  • August 2025 : Judge Kacsmaryk  denied  motions by Texas, Florida, and Louisiana and  moved  the venue to Missouri.
  • October 2025 : Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)  refiled  the  lawsuit   in  State of Louisiana v. FDA  (along with  Rosalie Markezich) in the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division.
  • December 9, 2025 : A new  lawsuit,  State of Florida and the State of Texas v. FDA , was  filed  in the Northern District of Texas, Wichita Falls Division.
  • December 17, 2025 : Louisiana  filed  for  preliminary injunctive  relief.
  • January 27, 2026:  FDA  filed a motion  to stay the case.

Go Deeper:

Live Action recently  rele a sed  a  white paper  documenting the history and horrors of the abortion pill, including Big Abortion’s deliberate and lengthy scheme to hide adverse events from the FDA.

Editor’s Note, 1/28/26: A quote from ADF counsel has been added to this post since original publication.

Carole Novielli is an author at LiveAction News with over thirty years of research experience on abortion, Planned Parenthood and eugenics.

< Older Post Newer Post >

Recent Posts

Abortion pill advertisement at US Open leaves golf fans appalled: ‘Gross and divisive’

By Melanie Wade • June 24, 2026
By: Ryan King, originally published June 22, 2026, The New York Post Golf fans attending the third round of the US Open at Shinnecock Hills Saturday were left stunned when an airplane buzzed the course towing an advertisement promoting obtaining abortion pills by mail. The ad was paid for by Mayday Health, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit dedicated to highlighting the… The post Abortion pill advertisement at US Open leaves golf fans appalled: ‘Gross and divisive’ appeared first on Cincinnati Right to Life.

When Protecting Life Loses Its Heart

By Melanie Wade • June 12, 2026
By: Amy O’Donnell, originally published June 11, 2026, Society of St. Sebastian For nearly fifty years under Roe v. Wade, abortion was treated as a constitutional right deeply embedded in American law, politics, education, and culture. Organizations like Planned Parenthood aggressively promoted it, especially in low-income and minority communities. Meanwhile, pro-life advocates worked incrementally to save… The post When Protecting Life Loses Its Heart appeared first on Cincinnati Right to Life.

Why a viral tweet about maternal mortality shouldn’t be taken as fact

By Melanie Wade • June 12, 2026
By: Nancy Flanders, originally published May 15, 2026, LiveAction.org A recent post on X regarding maternal mortality has gone viral, but the post uses a source from nearly two years ago that has already been debunked. Despite this, the misinformation is now making the rounds on social media and has racked up more than 8.7 million views. Yet,… The post Why a viral tweet about maternal mortality shouldn’t be taken as fact appeared first on Cincinnati Right to Life.

Trump FDA finally begins abortion pill review after pressure from pro-lifers

By Melanie Wade • June 10, 2026
By: Calvin Freiburger, originally published June 5, 2026, LifeSiteNews.com The Trump administration Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has finally begun its review of the data on abortion pill harms, more than a year after the move was promised to frustrated pro-lifers. In May 2025, the Trump administration promised to review abortion pill data, but a year without… The post Trump FDA finally begins abortion pill review after pressure from pro-lifers appeared first on Cincinnati Right to Life.

“The happiest people on Earth’: Down syndrome families flood social media after YouTuber aborts baby due to Down syndrome diagnosis

By Melanie Wade • June 5, 2026
By: Mary Rose, originally published June 5, 2026, The Loop/Zeale News. Parents of children with Down syndrome took to X June 4 to share stories of love and advocacy, responding to a viral post by YouTuber Jesse Ridgway in which he announced he and his wife aborted their unborn child after learning the baby had… The post “The happiest people on Earth’: Down syndrome families flood social media after YouTuber aborts baby due to Down syndrome diagnosis appeared first on Cincinnati Right to Life.

Detransitioner Chloe Cole urges Congress to ban gender ‘transition’ procedures for minors during heated Senate hearing

By Melanie Wade • June 5, 2026
By: Elise Winland, originally published June 4, 2026, The Loop/Zeale News Chloe Cole, a 21-year-old detransitioner, urged Congress during an emotional June 3 hearing to ban gender “transition” procedures for children, alleging that doctors lied to her family and left her with irreversible physical and emotional harm. Cole — who began “transitioning” at age 12… The post Detransitioner Chloe Cole urges Congress to ban gender ‘transition’ procedures for minors during heated Senate hearing appeared first on Cincinnati Right to Life.

Study: 64 Online Abortion Pill Vendors Ignore 10-Week Gestational Limit

By Melanie Wade • June 5, 2026
By: Dan Hart, originally published May 27, 2026, The Washington Stand A startling new study has revealed that the vast majority of online abortion drug vendors are shipping the pills to women whose unborn children are past the point of 10 weeks’ gestation, in violation of the FDA’s federal safety limit. The report, released by the… The post Study: 64 Online Abortion Pill Vendors Ignore 10-Week Gestational Limit appeared first on Cincinnati Right to Life.

Announcing Cincinnati Right to Life’s 2026 Poster Contest Winners!

By Melanie Wade • June 3, 2026
Congratulations to the winners of this year’s Pro-Life Poster Contest!! We received 510 submissions! The students very brilliantly depicted this year’s theme “One Nation Under God, Protecting Life For All.” Here are the 20261st, 2nd, & 3rd Place Winners: Thank you to all those who participated!! The post Announcing Cincinnati Right to Life’s 2026 Poster Contest Winners! appeared first on Cincinnati Right to Life.

ACTION ALERT! Call and Email State Senators!

By Melanie Wade • June 1, 2026
From Right to Life Action Coalition of Ohio State Senators are HESITATING on SupportingSub. H.B. 485, Enact the Baby Olivia Act  IMMEDIATE ALERT to CALL and EMAILThursday, May 28Friday, May 29Monday, June 1 CALLSenate Education Committee Members Sen. Andrew Brenner, Chair  614-466-8086 ohiosenate.gov/andrew-o-brenner Sen. Louis Blessing, III, Vice Chair 614-466-8068 ohiosenate.gov/louis-w-blessing-iii Sen. Al Cutrona 614-466-8285 ohiosenate.gov/al-cutrona Sen. Steve… The post ACTION ALERT! Call and Email State Senators! appeared first on Cincinnati Right to Life.

Republicans demand answers from Planned Parenthood on abortions, ‘gender transitions’ for minors

By Melanie Wade • May 31, 2026
By: Calvin Freiburger, originally published May 21, 2026, LifeSiteNews WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — Top Republicans on the U.S. House Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency are seeking information from Planned Parenthood affiliates around the country on the abortion giant’s abortion practices and work “transitioning” gender-confused children. The Daily Signal reported that the committee chairman, Republican Reps. Tim… The post Republicans demand answers from Planned Parenthood on abortions, ‘gender transitions’ for minors appeared first on Cincinnati Right to Life.
Show More