Women who say they experienced harm from abortion pill push Blanche to settle suit on FDA policy
Pro‑life groups urged Acting DOJ chief Todd Blanche to support Louisiana’s lawsuit against federal mifepristone mail‑dispensing policy before his Senate confirmation hearing. Blanche has been acting head of the DOJ since President Trump removed Pam Bondi and has been asked to block state challenges to the Biden administration’s eased restrictions on the abortion pill. The federal policy allows mifepristone to be delivered by mail, a measure that Louisiana and other states argue violates their abortion laws and may enable coercion. A July 8 letter from women alleging harm by abortion drugs, including a case of coercion, was sent to Blanche, urging him to consider the safety of the medication.
3 months ago
Women who say they were harmed by the abortion pill are urging Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche to side with states challenging the FDA’s mail‑order policy for mifepristone as his Senate confirmation hearing approaches. The group’s letter argues that the policy endangers women and calls for a settlement that would signal respect for state abortion restrictions and women’s safety concerns. 1
The Biden administration eased restrictions on mifepristone, allowing it to be dispensed through the mail. Several states, led by Louisiana, have sued the FDA, claiming the policy violates state abortion laws and enables coercion. The Department of Justice has asked courts to dismiss or pause these lawsuits, a move that has frustrated pro‑life advocates who seek a safety review from the FDA. 1
A letter dated July 8, signed by women who say they suffered harm after taking abortifacient drugs, was sent to Blanche. The signatories, organized by Susan B. Anthony Pro‑Life America, describe personal experiences of pressure and lack of medical care, and they ask Blanche to settle the case to protect women from “dangerous drugs” and to honor state laws. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group’s president, emphasized that the drugs “do not belong where they can easily get into the hands of abusers.” 1
Todd Blanche has served as Acting Attorney General since President Donald Trump removed Pam Bondi from the role. Trump nominated Blanche for the permanent position, but his confirmation requires a Senate Judiciary Committee vote. Republicans such as Sen. Josh Hawley have asked Blanche about his plan for the mifepristone lawsuits, while Sen. Thom Tillis’s support is seen as pivotal. No Democrats are expected to back the nomination. 1
Manufacturers and supporters argue that mifepristone, approved by the FDA in 2000, is statistically safe when used under medical supervision. Opponents contend that the drug poses significant health risks, especially when obtained through mail‑order, and that it facilitates abortions, which the Catholic Church opposes as a direct ending of unborn life. The same drug combination is sometimes used in miscarriage care, a use the Church deems morally licit. 1*
Examine Catholic doctrine on abortion medication regulation
Catholic doctrine treats abortion as intrinsically wrong, so “regulating abortion medication” (in civil policy, medical protocols, or institutional practice) is evaluated not only by medical outcomes but—more fundamentally—by whether the measures directly or indirectly facilitate the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
Catholic teaching distinguishes lawful healthcare from abortion: “Abortion … is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion” (and Catholic institutions “are not to provide abortion services”).
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) also teaches that direct abortion (abortion willed as an end or means) is always gravely disordered; no purpose or law can make it licit.
Catholic doctrine grounds civil law in protecting the vulnerable. In the CDF clarification on procured abortion, it is stated that when civil power denies protection due to the unborn, the foundations of a state based on law are undermined, and the law must provide penal sanctions for deliberate violations of the child’s rights.
A recurring theme in the Church’s moral analysis is that procedures must be judged by their moral object (what they are doing), and by the intention behind seeking or prescribing certain drugs. For example, the CDF explains that even when scientific explanation is incomplete, anyone who seeks to prevent implantation of an embryo that may have been conceived generally intends abortion.
Catholic ethics does not treat all fertility/menstrual drugs as morally identical. A key distinction is between contraceptive, interceptive, and contragestative effects.
The Church emphasizes a real distinction between contraception and abortion, while also noting that certain “contraceptive” methods can be abortifacients (preventing implantation after fertilization). The UK bishops’ statement explains that some forms of so-called contraception “work … by preventing the embryo from implanting in the womb” and that, morally, these are abortifacients (not merely contraception).
Pope John Paul II likewise states that contraception and abortion are “specifically different,” but “closely connected,” and points to chemical products and other biomedical technologies that function as abortifacients “in the very early stages.”
The CDF’s Instruction on Certain Bioethical Questions gives the clearest moral taxonomy relevant to drug regulation:
The instruction states plainly that means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral.
It further explains that when menstruation is delayed, contragestatives used to “re-establish menstruation” in reality effect “the abortion of an embryo which has just implanted.”
The Pontifical Academy for Life states that from an ethical standpoint the unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures applies also to distributing, prescribing, and taking the morning-after pill; those who cooperate directly are morally responsible.
The CDF’s framework places morning-after pills among interceptive methods (e.g., those interfering with implantation).
In the same CDF bioethics framework, RU‑486 is given as an example of a contragestative method that causes embryo elimination after implantation.
Catholic doctrine does not ask healthcare regulators to treat abortion drugs as ordinary consumer products; it demands regulation consistent with the moral prohibition against abortion and the obligation to protect the unborn and the vulnerable.
Because abortion is intrinsically illicit, policies that facilitate “access to chemical abortion through the FDA” are presented by Catholic bishops as contrary to the duty to protect life.
Likewise, Catholic healthcare directives forbid institutions from providing abortion services (even when “material cooperation” arguments are invoked).
Catholic bodies arguing in the public square do not only assert “it’s wrong”; they also press for safeguards for women’s health and truthful consent. For example, a 2025 USCCB joint letter to the FDA urges improved safety protocols and health protections concerning telemedicine chemical abortions and frames FDA decisions removing key safeguards as contributing to risks and ethical failures.
The letter’s specific recommendations include reinstating safeguards (e.g., in-person consultations, ultrasounds, adverse-event reporting) and ensuring transparency and accuracy in patient information to uphold informed consent and patient safety.
Importantly, even when “women’s health” is invoked, Catholic moral logic does not allow shifting the analysis into “good intentions make abortion permissible.” The underlying prohibition remains.
Catholic healthcare directives explicitly mention institutional duties about scandal: Catholic institutions should be concerned about scandal in any association with abortion providers.
That matters for regulation in the sense that state policy and medical ecosystems should not normalize or facilitate participation in abortion as routine healthcare.
Even while rejecting abortion, Catholic doctrine urges active support for women and families facing difficult pregnancies—so that “abortion appears as a quick solution” is met with real alternatives.
Pope Francis teaches that abortion is never the answer and calls for pastoral action that provides “networks of love” and support for families in anguish.
He also states that the Church cannot “change her position” on the intrinsic wrongness of resolving problems by eliminating a human life, while acknowledging the real suffering that can make abortion seem tempting.
Catholic doctrine supports regulation that is consistent with three principles: