FDA's action has enabled a flood of abortion drugs to be released into society without any in-person interaction between the pregnant woman and a medical professional. A single "nonprofit asynchronous telemedicine service" mailed 118,338 abortion drug packs between July 2023 and September 2024.1 Yet FDA never considered the reality that many women will be coerced with these drugs if men, family members, and abusers can easily obtain them via remote means with no protection against coercion. Especially for women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV), bypassing the substantial health benefits of in-person interaction with a medical professional places women at increased risk of harm to their health, well-being, and safety. Telemedicine abortions make it less likely that women experiencing IPV will be able to escape that cycle of violence. FDA's analysis never once acknowledged this reality, much less explained how its fully remote regime could protect women subject to coercion. The threat before thousands of women just like Rosalie Markezich is that their partners will coerce them to obtain and take drugs that will end their children's lives without their consent. Because FDA's action ignores this real threat, it is arbitrary and capricious.
Trying to justify FDA's action (while also ignoring the risk of coercion), the abortion drug manufacturers rely on a recent "Special Communication" in a medical journal purporting to review FOIA responses about FDA's action then pronounce FDA's decision-making acceptable.2 For many reasons, this study is facially deficient: it has no empirical foundation or scientific method, does not examine the underlying scientific evidence, and is based on documents in which everything pertaining to FDA's decision-making process was subject to redaction as privileged. The study also ignores the obvious political pressure that led FDA to its action here, including express directives by President Biden and the HHS Secretary to expand abortions by drug delivery.
Because FDA's action endangers women by ignoring the connection between remote abortions and coercion, the Court should grant preliminary relief.
Intimate partner violence is a widespread public health problem that encompasses physical, psychological, and sexual violence by one's intimate partner or former partner.3 "Approximately 324,000 pregnant women are abused each year in the United States."4 "Approximately 1 in 4 women have been physically and/or sexually assaulted by a current or former partner."5
There is increased risk of violence during pregnancy,6 both as to frequency and severity.7 In one study, interviews with women revealed that some of the men had admitted to beating the women to cause an abortion or miscarriage.8
Examples of men beating women to cause the death of the unborn child can be found in the news media. Timothy Kindle beat his girlfriend repeatedly over several months until finally killing the unborn baby. He admitted that he was intentionally trying to end the pregnancy.9 "Injuring a female partner in a way that may cause a miscarriage" is an example of "reproductive coercion."10
Continue reading entire Brief:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/shu/LouisianaAmicus.pdf