Blog #265 Abortion Drug Makers Care About Money, NOT Women!
https://x.com/i/status/2051426524654624931
Abortion Drug Makers Admit They Care About Money, Not Women
Jordan BoydMay 6, 2026
A Fifth Circuit court of Appeals ruling granted Louisiana a stay that pauses the FDA’s mail-order permissions for mifepristone, while the larger case challenging those rules remains active. The court saeid louisiana had shown it would suffer irreparable harm without a stay-not just from potential safety risks to women and pregnancies, but also from ongoing financial costs tied to emergency treatment covered by Medicaid.
The opinion addressed arguments from Danco Laboratories (the company that produces mifepristone) claiming any pause would cause major financial losses and that the state’s concerns were outweighed by the FDA’s regulatory process. The appellate panel rejected those points, concluding Danco’s predicted losses were minor compared with Louisiana’s interest in protecting public health and its laws. It also found Danco had little ability to monitor adverse events because it lacked a direct relationship with patients.
The article further asserts that mail-order access has increased opportunities for misuse and for people to obtain the medication without appropriate medical oversight, and it describes side effects and complications associated with mifepristone. It notes congressional and pro-life efforts to restore restrictive safeguards (such as in-person doctor requirements), and criticizes the FDA leadership’s pace in acting on data the FDA says it needs before revisiting the drug-safety measures.
The company responsible for manufacturing the most popular abortion pill on the market are more concerned about its profits than the harm its drugs are inflicting on women and babies.
The confession from mifepristone maker Danco Laboratories came in its defense against Louisiana’s landmark lawsuit targeting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s “mail-order abortion scheme.” The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously granted Louisiana’s request for a stay, effectively pausing the FDA’s mail-order abortion drug permissions. While the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted the 5th Circuit’s block just two days until both parties can brief the court, the case is considered ongoing.
Tucked in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling on Friday are Danco’s suggestions that its “substantial financial interest” in selling abortion drugs should outweigh Louisiana’s claims that mail-order abortion pills pose a danger to women and babies. The abortion pill manufacturers’ concerns about “compliance costs and mifepristone profits,” however, pale in comparison to the financial and physical harm that the 5th Circuit agreed Louisiana and abortion pill poisoning survivor Rosalie Markezich demonstrated in their lawsuit.
“Louisiana argues the district court erred by finding its irreparable harms are outweighed by FDA’s interest in continuing its review and Danco’s financial interests in selling mifepristone. We agree,” the 5th Circuit panel wrote.
For Louisiana to successfully secure a stay, the state had to demonstrate it was “irreparably harmed without a stay” and that “its harm is not outweighed by harm to other parties.” As outlined in original filings, Louisiana and Markezich recognized the severe and life-threatening effects the Biden administration’s radically relaxed abortion pill policies, which allowed virtually anyone to secure the drug without seeing a doctor, had on women and their babies.
Chemical abortion, the most prevalent means for ending pregnancy in the U.S., comes with a host of side effects such as bleeding, “fast, weak pulse,” “trouble breathing,” diarrhea, dizziness, headache, vomiting, “pain” across the back, arms, neck, and abdomen. One recent analysis of insurance data suggested that more than one in 10 women who take mifepristone suffer a serious adverse event such as hemorrhage or infection. The risk of contracting a life-threatening side effect linked to pill-induced abortion is at least 22 times higher than what the FDA and Danco claim, especially when a mother whose pregnancy is further along than the recommended 10 weeks uses mifepristone.
The prevalence of mail-order mifepristone also paved the way for abuse and injury to plague women who wanted to keep their pregnancies. A majority of abortions, 70 percent, are believed to be unwanted, coerced, or inconsistent with the mother’s values and desires.
Not only did the plaintiffs prove the physical damage wrought by mail-order abortion, but Louisiana also showed a significant financial burden presented by the taxpayer-funded treatment of women who needed emergency care due to taking mifepristone unsupervised. The 5th Circuit agreed, despite Danco’s protests that “Louisiana waited too long to sue and seek a stay,” that “Louisiana’s financial harms are also irremediable.”
“Louisiana has shown the 2023 REMS causes it daily irreparable harm by
undermining its laws and costing it irremediable Medicaid funds. ‘Those costs are
ongoing . . . and more than sufficient to satisfy the irreparable harm standard in this
circuit,’” the panel quoted.
Danco also suggested it would suffer as the result of a stay that stopped the profitable sale of abortion drugs by mail. The abortion drug manufacturer even tried to undermine claims of an increase in severe adverse events by stating it is required to report such complications to the FDA.
The 5th Circuit did not buy it. The panel ultimately determined that Danco’s “potential financial losses pale beside Louisiana’s sovereign interest in its laws protecting the unborn and the public’s interest in not exposing women to unsafe medical procedures.”
“While we acknowledge a stay would impose costs on Danco, cf. Alliance II, 78 F.4th at 252, the company exaggerates by predicting a stay would destroy any ‘valid legal framework for distributing’ the drug. To the contrary, a stay would only pause a method of prescribing
mifepristone that began five years ago and was formally approved only three years ago,” the panel wrote.
The appeals court also agreed with plaintiffs that Danco “had no direct relationship with Mifeprex patients and little ability to track [adverse] events.”
Polling suggests a majority of likely voters want the FDA to protect women from the dangers of abortion pills. Polling also shows seven in 10 Americans want the FDA to reinstate in-person doctor visits as a requirement to obtain abortion pills.
For years now, Congress and pro-life organizations called for the FDA to at least roll back Biden-era expansions that make it easier for people to obtain and take mifepristone without medical evaluation. Sen. Josh Hawley even introduced legislation to ban the popular abortion drug and give survivors a legal remedy against foreign abortion pill makers.
In their March 25 letter to Mifeprex maker Danco Laboratories, GOP Sens. Bill Cassidy, Steve Daines, Lindsey Graham, Cindy Hyde-Smith, and James Lankford expressed concerns that “Danco is not ensuring the REMS requirements are met, especially as it pertains to the online prescribing of Mifeprex.”
“It seems unlikely that Danco is effectively enforcing compliance with the Mifepristone REMS Program when it appears to actively facilitate access to its drug outside of the window for which it is approved by FDA,” the letter stated, noting that it is also “unclear how an online prescriber could adequately explain the risks of the mifepristone treatment regimen to the patient in accordance with the existing REMS.”
Both U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Commissioner of Food and Drugs Marty Makary pledged throughout 2025 to review the data suggesting the abortion pill drug regimen. Their promises, however, have fallen short and resulted in calls from pro-life organizations for Makary to be fired.
As the Wall Street Journal reported this week, Makary “has said publicly that his agency is working on the data acquisition needed to finish the review” but privately “told others in the administration that he can’t produce the study until a new drug-safety data-monitoring system, known as Sentinel 3.0, is up and running.”
No review is required for the FDA to reinstate some of the common-sense abortion pill safeguards, such as an in-person doctor visit, that were removed at President Joe Biden’s direction. Yet, the FDA was firm that it does not plan to act on those REMs until it concludes its official abortion drug evaluation.
Until then, women across the nation like Rosalie Markezich, one of the plaintiffs in the landmark case, are susceptible to the injuries and even death linked to mifepristone, whether they take it under duress, without medical supervision, or both.
Jordan Boyd is an award-winning staff writer at The Federalist and producer of “The Federalist Radio Hour.” Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
Read More From Original Article Here: Abortion Drug Makers Admit They Care About Money, Not Women