After the Trump administration appealed, a federal judge put on pause a lawsuit filed by the state of Louisiana that challenges the federal policy of allowing mail-order abortion pills.
U.S. District Judge David Joseph in Lafayette, Louisiana, ruled that the challenge be paused pending the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s review of the safety of the drug but noted that the state could continue the challenge after the review was completed.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed a lawsuit in late 2025 to challenge the 2023 deregulation of mifepristone, which is used in chemical abortions. The 2023 rule changes, initiated during former president Joe Biden's administration, allowed the drugs to be delivered through the mail and prescribed without any visits to a doctor.
In January of this year, President Donald Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion with a federal district court to pause the suit, pending a review by the FDA of the chemical abortion drug.
Louisiana had filed the lawsuit after residents — including Rosalie Markezich, who is named in the lawsuit — said they were coerced into taking abortion pills that were obtained through the mail. In Markezich's case, she said her boyfriend forced her to take it.
Study: Maternal mortality decreased in states that protect unborn life
A recent study published by JAMA Network Open found a decrease in maternal mortality in states that protect unborn children from abortions as well as in states with permissive abortion laws.
The study considered 22 million births and more than 12,000 pregnancy-related deaths from 2018 to 2023, with 14 states with abortion bans and 37 control jurisdictions.
"This cohort study found that abortion bans were not associated with statistically significant overall or state-specific increases in pregnancy-associated mortality," the study read.
In states with strong pro-life laws, on average, maternal mortality rates declined slightly faster than pro-abortion states.
Illinois pregnancy centers continue to appeal for conscience rights
A court heard arguments on Friday from Illinois pregnancy centers that are appealing an Illinois district court decision that affirmed a law requiring pregnancy centers to refer women for abortions.
The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three Illinois pregnancy centers appealed after an April 2025 court ruling found that requiring pregnancy centers to refer pregnant women for an abortion was not a violation of speech and conscience rights.
"No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions, and compelling people to refer others for abortions does that," said Alliance Defending Freedom Counsel Erin Hawley. "The U.S. Supreme Court held in NIFLA v. Becerra that forcing people to promote abortion is unconstitutional."
Maryland bill to force hospitals to offer abortions goes to governor's desk
A Maryland bill that would force hospitals to offer abortions, even against their conscience, in some circumstances, heads to the state's governor after the state Legislature passed it this week.
The bill would require "a hospital to allow the termination of a pregnancy in certain circumstances" under the federal 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which ensures that emergency care is offered regardless of a patient's ability to pay.
The bill would also require a hospital to screen patients for "emergency pregnancy-related medical condition[s]" and to provide "transfer of a patient who has an emergency pregnancy-related medical condition."
"This bill will result in a new government-created loss of valuable highly trained and experienced emergency department physicians, nurses, providers, and staff," said Dr. James Kelly, representing the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. "The legislation will increase the already existing severe shortages of qualified medical staff and will decrease access to emergency medical care, and endanger the health and safety of patients seeking emergency medical care."
