On August 27th, 2025, UCLA Law Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy (CRHLP) and Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) at UCSF submitted a letter on behalf of more than 260 researchers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
On May 29-30, 2025, UCLA Law’s Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy, in partnership with the Center for Reproductive Rights, convened over two dozen scholars, advocates, practitioners, and experts on maternal health and birth justice.
The goal: To identify areas where constitutional protections are lacking or inconsistent and brainstorm how to develop and expand legal theories that support rights during pregnancy, birth, and postpartum.
 |
Convening Readings |
Legal and Maternal Health Background Materials
- Brief in Kaho‘ohanohano v. State (Hawai‘i midwifery law litigation) (2024)
- Comotion, Delivering Birth Justice: Transforming Maternal Health Through Midwifery and Community Care (2025)
- Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Ctr. (N.D. Fla. 1999)
Scholarship
- Karen A. Scott & Dána-Ain Davis, Obstetric Racism: Naming and Identifying a Way Out of Black Women’s Adverse Medical Experiences, American Anthropologist (American Anthropologist 2021)
- Keisha Goode & Barbara Katz Rothman, African-American Midwifery, a History and a Lament, American Journal of Economics & Sociology (The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 2017)
- The Legal Infrastructure of Childbirth (Harvard Law Review 2021)
Recent News Coverage
- Nearly 9 years after a Black mother's death at Cedars-Sinai, advocates say they haven't seen enough change, Libby Rainey, LAist (2025)
- Texas CPS took a newborn for three weeks. Now the family is suing, Candice Norwood, The 19th (2025)
- Lawsuits Allege Unlawful Surveillance of Pregnant Patients, Julia R. Livingston, Brennan Center, State Court Report (2025)
- Doctors Give Black Women Unneeded C-Sections to Fill Operating Rooms, Study Suggests, Sarah Kliff, The New York Times (2024)
 |
Additional Recommended Readings |
Articles, Guides, Reports
- Black Mamas Matter Alliance, In Policy and Practice
- Denae L. Bradley et al., “Because I Was a Criminal and Drug Addict.”: Experiences of Anti-Black Gendered Racism and Reproductive Injustice Among Black Pregnant and Postpartum Women with a Substance Use Disorder and Incarceration and Family Policing Histories
- Dorian S. Odems, et al., “It seemed like she just wanted me to suffer”: Acts of obstetric racism and birthing rights violations against Black women (SSM - Qualitative Research in Health 2024).
- Dorian S. Odems, et al., Manifestations of Anti-Black Racism and Worry About Pregnancy and Birthing While Black: A Cross-sectional Secondary Analysis of Giving Voice to Mothers (Journal of Racial & Ethnic Health Disparities 2025)
- Center for Reproductive Rights, The Constitutional Right to Reproductive Autonomy: Realizing the Promise of the 14th Amendment
- Elephant Circle Birth Justice Seed Library: Recommended Reading
- Elizabeth Kukura, Obstetric Violence (The Georgetown Law Journal 2018)
- Jordan Brooks, et al., Restoring the Soul to Birthing in Miami: A Call for Justice for Obstetric Racism in Miami–Dade County (University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review 2024)
- Movement for Family Power, Drug Policy Alliance, and NYU Family Defense Clinic, How the Foster System Has Become Ground Zero in the Drug War
- Operation Stop CPS, “Respond in Power” Guide
- Pregnancy Justice, The Role of the Viability Line in Pregnancy Criminalization
- Southern Birth Justice Network & Florida Health Project, Florida Maternal Health Guide
- Zoë Julian, MD, MPH, et al., Community-informed models of perinatal and reproductive health services provision: A justice-centered paradigm toward equity among Black birthing communities (Seminars in Perinatology, 2020)
Books
- Reproductive Injustice: Racism, Pregnancy, and Premature Birth, by Dána-Ain Davis (NYU Press)
- Birthing Justice: Black Women, Pregnancy and Childbirth edited by Alicia D. Bonaparte & Julia Chinyere Oparah (Routledge, Taylor & Francis)
- Sackred Birth: Mobilizing a New Quality Paradigm in Obstetric Care, by Karen A. Scott (Lexington Books)
- Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty, by Dorothy Roberts (Penguin Random House)
- Weighing the Future: Race, Science, and Pregnancy Trials in the Postgenomic Era, by Natali Valdez (University of California Press)
- Personhood: The New Civil War Over Reproduction, by Mary Ziegler (Yale University Press)
Our two legal trackers, the Mifepristone Litigation Tracker and Mifepristone Federal Action Tracker, provide timely, regularly updated, information on the status of current litigation and new federal administrative actions that could shape regulation of and access to mifepristone.
Background on Mifepristone
The Mifepristone Litigation Tracker
To date, mifepristone litigation includes:
7 cases filed to protect or expand current access:
- Three FDA Decisionmaking Cases addressing whether current FDA regulations on mifepristone are overly burdensome and restrictive given mifepristone’s safety and effectiveness
- Two Federal Preemption Cases addressing whether federal law preempts (supersedes) and invalidates additional state restrictions on mifepristone beyond FDA’s regulations
- One State Law Case addressing whether additional state restrictions on mifepristone are invalid under state law
- One Due Process Case seeking to prevent any enforcement of a court decision suspending FDA approval of mifepristone without due process
1 case filed to restrict current access:
- One FDA Decisionmaking Case challenging FDA’s decisions removing prior restrictions on mifepristone, including the in-person dispensing requirement, and seeking to reimpose those restrictions
The Mifepristone Litigation Tracker was last updated in August 2025. Download a PDF version here.
|
Case |
Court |
Date and Location Filed |
Summary of Challenge |
What’s at Stake |
Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (on appeal from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia)
|
January 25, 2023 |
GenBioPro, a manufacturer of generic mifepristone, argues that federal law preempts West Virginia laws banning abortion in almost all cases and banning prescription of mifepristone by telemedicine because Congress authorized only FDA to impose restrictions on access to mifepristone. GenBioPro also challenges as preempted West Virginia restrictions on mifepristone requiring counseling and a waiting period that are not currently in effect but would be reimposed if the state’s general abortion ban were struck down. GenBioPro argues that the state’s ban and restrictions also burden interstate commerce in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss GenBioPro’s claim related to West Virginia’s general abortion ban, reasoning that the ban restricts when an abortion may be performed rather than how mifepristone may be prescribed and thus is not in conflict with or preempted by FDA’s regulations. The court also concluded that the general abortion ban does not violate the Commerce Clase because it does not impede the flow of mifepristone nationally. The court dismissed GenBioPro’s claims regarding the counseling and waiting period requirements since they are not currently in effect. GenBioPro appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. |
This case could affect access to mifepristone by deciding whether states may impose burdensome restrictions on mifepristone beyond FDA’s regulations, including by banning mifepristone for its approved use in almost all circumstances and barring prescription via telehealth or otherwise making it more difficult to access. |
On July 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision below, leaving the state’s abortion ban in effect. The court held that federal regulation of mifepristone under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAA) did not preempt the field of abortion regulation and did not create a conflict that made it impossible for plaintiff to comply with both the state law and federal law. It held that West Virginia’s law prohibiting abortion is not preempted by or in conflict with federal regulation of abortion medication safety. It found that the FDA “has never been authorized to ‘regulate the practice of medicine’ or mandate that specific drugs be available.” The court further noted that its decision does not mean “FDAA lacks any preemptive effect. States are certainly not free to dilute federal safety standards where they have been clearly established.” |
|
|
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (on appeal from U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina) |
January 25, 2023 North Carolina |
Plaintiff, a medical provider in North Carolina, asserts that federal law preempts North Carolina laws imposing additional restrictions on mifepristone beyond FDA’s requirements. The district court upheld other challenged state requirements for an in-person advance consultation, ultrasounds, an in-person examination, blood type testing, and adverse event reporting to state health authorities, concluding that these provisions were not expressly considered and rejected by FDA or “focus more on the practice of medicine and a patient’s informed consent,” and thus are not preempted. Plaintiff, the defendant state Attorney General (who agrees with plaintiff that the state laws are preempted), and several legislative leaders (who have intervened as defendants in the case and argue that the state laws are not preempted) have all appealed the district court’s judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. |
This case could affect access to mifepristone by deciding whether states may impose burdensome restrictions on mifepristone beyond FDA’s regulations, including those barring administration via telehealth or otherwise making mifepristone more difficult to access.
|
The case is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The parties have filed briefs, but the case is temporarily suspended pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in GenBioPro, Inc. v. Raynes (Case No. 23-2194) (see above). |
|
|
U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii |
October 13, 2017 Hawaii |
Plaintiffs—a health care provider, Society of Family Planning, and the California Academy of Family Physicians—challenge FDA’s current set of restrictions (the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS)) on mifepristone as unduly burdensome and arbitrarily restrictive given mifepristone’s safety and effectiveness. Plaintiffs argue that these restrictions—which require patients to certify they have decided to take mifepristone to end their pregnancy and limit who can prescribe and dispense the drug by requiring providers and pharmacies to undergo a special certification process—delay care, deter qualified providers and pharmacies from prescribing and dispensing mifepristone because of the burdens related to certification, and impede research and training on mifepristone at academic institutions. Plaintiffs assert claims under the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging they are treated differently from other similarly situated parties without a sufficient state interest, and that FDA’s imposition of the REMS was not based on a reasoned decision or rational basis. |
The case could affect access by eliminating or leaving intact current restrictions on mifepristone that impede access by limiting the health care professionals who can prescribe it and the pharmacies that can dispense it. The case could also determine whether FDA may continue to require the patient agreement form, which plaintiffs assert presents privacy risks for patients and providers. |
The case is currently pending in federal district court in Hawaii. In October 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. In December 2024, defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed on the merits, and that plaintiffs lack standing. Oral argument on the motions for summary judgment were heard on August 22, 2025. |
|
|
Washington et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al., (Final judgment entered, case closed.) |
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington |
February 23, 2023 Washington |
17 states and Washington, D.C. (the States) challenge FDA’s mifepristone REMS as unduly burdensome and arbitrarily restrictive given mifepristone’s safety and effectiveness. The States argue that these restrictions—which require patients to certify they have decided to take mifepristone to end their pregnancy and limit who can prescribe and dispense the drug by requiring providers and pharmacies to undergo a special certification process—are unnecessary barriers that make it more difficult to access care. The States argue that FDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by imposing the REMS against evidence showing the restrictions are unnecessary, and violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment by treating providers, pharmacists, and patients who prescribe, dispense, or use mifepristone worse than those who prescribe, dispense, or use other medications. |
The case could affect access by eliminating or leaving intact current restrictions on mifepristone that impede access by limiting the health care professionals who can prescribe it and the pharmacies that can dispense it. The case could also determine whether FDA may continue to require the patient agreement form, which the States assert presents privacy risks for patients and providers. |
On July 8, 2025, the court issued a final decision in which it granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Based on the record before it, the court found that the FDA’s review and decision regarding the mifepristone REMS was reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious, and did not ignore any laws or regulations. The decision did not reach plaintiffs' equal protection claim. |
|
GenBioPro v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, et al., |
U.S. District Court for Maryland |
April 19, 2023 Maryland |
GenBioPro, a manufacturer of generic mifepristone, filed suit in April 2023 to prevent other federal court rulings (including those issued by the district court and Fifth Circuit in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA) from stripping FDA approval of generic mifepristone without following the required statutory and regulatory procedures for suspension of a drug’s approval. GenBioPro argues that suspending approval of mifepristone without proper process would violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the All Writs Act, and the due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. GenBioPro asserts that any enforcement action characterizing its mifepristone as misbranded and without an effective drug approval based on federal court rulings that did not provide a constitutionally adequate procedure for suspending drug approval would be unlawful. |
The case could affect access to mifepristone by determining whether court decisions may suspend its approval. |
This case was originally stayed while the Supreme Court resolved Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA. It was further stayed in light of a pending decision in Missouri v. FDA, Case No. 2:22-cv-00223, on motions to dismiss the case. As of August 19, 2025, the case was stayed until November 17, 2025, when the parties must file a joint status report proposing next steps. |
|
Whole Woman’s Health Alliance et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al., |
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia |
May 8, 2023 Virginia |
Abortion providers in Virginia, Montana, and Kansas challenge FDA’s current mifepristone REMS as unduly burdensome and arbitrarily restrictive given mifepristone’s safety and effectiveness. The providers argue that these restrictions—which require patients to certify they have decided to take mifepristone to end their pregnancy and limit who can prescribe and dispense the drug by requiring providers and pharmacies to undergo a special certification process—are unnecessary barriers that make it more difficult to access care. Plaintiffs argue that FDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by imposing the REMS against evidence showing the restrictions are unnecessary, and violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment by treating providers, pharmacists, and patients who prescribe, dispense, or use mifepristone worse than those who prescribe, dispense, or use other medications. |
The case could affect access by eliminating or leaving intact current restrictions on mifepristone that impede access by limiting the health care professionals who can prescribe it and the pharmacies that can dispense it. The case could also determine whether FDA may continue to require the patient agreement form, which plaintiffs assert presents privacy risks for patients and providers. |
The case is currently pending in federal district court in Virginia. In October 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. In December 2024, defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed on the merits, and that plaintiffs lack standing and did not administratively exhaust their claims by first raising them with FDA. The court held oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on May 19, 2025. The court has not yet issued a decision. |
|
Missouri et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al., |
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
November 18, 2022 Texas |
Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho (the States) seek to revive a prior case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al., v. FDA, in which the States had intervened. In June 2024, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs in AHM v. FDA—anti-abortion doctors and activists who never prescribed and never experienced harm related to mifepristone—lacked standing, and all claims in AHM v. FDA were dismissed. In October 2024, the States filed an amended complaint in the same federal district court in Texas that presided over AHM v. FDA. The States claim FDA decisions in 2016, 2021, and 2023 relaxing prior restrictions on mifepristone and FDA’s 2019 approval of the generic form of the drug were not supported by adequate evidence and as a result violate the Administrative Procedure Act. The States seek to rescind the 2019 generic approval and reimpose restrictions on mifepristone that FDA has determined are medically unnecessary, including the pre-2021 requirement that it be dispensed in-person, and the pre-2016 restrictions requiring three office visits, limiting prescription of mifepristone to only certified physicians, indicating it could only be used for pregnancies up to 7 weeks (rather than 10 weeks), and requiring the reporting of all serious non-fatal adverse events to FDA. The States also seek an order prohibiting provision of mifepristone to adolescents. |
This case could affect access to mifepristone by imposing burdensome restrictions on mifepristone FDA has determined are medically unnecessary, including requirements for in-person dispensing and office visits (which would prohibit mifepristone’s administration via telehealth) and limitations on which health care providers can prescribe mifepristone. The case could also affect adolescent access to mifepristone. |
Defendants have moved to dismiss this case, arguing that it should be dismissed or transferred because the States have no connection to the Texas district in which they filed their complaint. Defendants additionally argue that the case should be dismissed because the States haven’t demonstrated they suffered any injury as a result of FDA’s decisions, failed to first raise their claims through FDA’s review process, and some of the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The parties have completed briefing on defendants’ motion to dismiss. Next, Judge Kacsmaryk, who previously ruled in favor of the anti-abortion doctors and activists in AHM v. FDA, will decide whether to dismiss the case. On August 22, 2025, Texas and Florida filed a motion to intervene. |
|
Birthmark Doula Collective v. State of Louisiana, |
Louisiana State Trial Court (19th Judicial District Court) |
October 31, 2024 Louisiana |
Plaintiffs—birth workers and other medical professionals, advocates, and a pregnant person—challenge a Louisiana law classifying mifepristone and misoprostol, safe medications with no risk of abuse or dependence, as controlled dangerous substances. Plaintiffs argue that this classification delays access to the medication, risking the health and safety of patients, including those carrying pregnancy to term and experiencing miscarriages. Plaintiffs assert that the law discriminates based on physical condition thereby violating Louisiana’s constitutional right to equal protection. Plaintiffs also argue that the legislature violated state constitutional requirements (the single object requirement and germane amendment rule) in amending a bill introduced to create the crime of coerced abortion to add the unrelated matter of classifying mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled substances. |
This case could impact emergency care for pregnant people in Louisiana. Classification of mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled dangerous substances delays access to care, posing a particular threat to the health and safety of people experiencing obstetric emergencies. |
The case is currently pending in Louisiana trial court. On May 15, 2025, the court held a hearing on defendants’ motion requesting dismissal of the case and ruled that plaintiffs’ challenge can proceed. |
The Mifepristone Federal Action Tracker
The Mifepristone Federal Action Tracker covers federal actions since January 1, 2025, and was last updated in August 2025. Download a PDF version here.
|
Date |
Summary of Action |
What’s at Stake |
Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
August 20, 2025 |
Sixteen states and Washington D.C. (“Petitioner States”) filed a Citizen Petition to join the “Multistate Citizen Petition” that California, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey filed in June 2025. |
This petition seeks to ensure access to mifepristone generally and increase access in the Petitioner States. In addition to joining the Multistate Citizen Petition (see June 5th filing detailed below), the Petitioner States request that FDA remove the Mifepristone REMS Program or choose not to enforce the Mifepristone REMS Program in the Petitioner States. The Petitioner States also submit additional evidence in support of this Petition that illustrates the importance of medication abortion in their states and the negative impact restrictions would have. |
FDA acknowledged receipt of the petition on August 21, 2025. FDA must respond to the petition within 180 days by granting or denying the request, or saying it needs more time to respond. |
|
July 3, 2025 |
GenBioPro files a Citizen Petition to request that absent new peer-reviewed studies or robust scientific evidence, FDA take no action that would restrict patient access to mifepristone or increase the burdens associated with prescribing or dispensing mifepristone. Additionally, GenBioPro requests that any change meet all rules and procedures afforded by law and regulation and that FDA will permit GenBioPro to continue to distribute and ship mifepristone until such procedures have been completed. |
This petition seeks to ensure FDA does not act without adhering to its rules and procedures, and only acts in reliance on robust scientific or clinical evidence. If FDA takes action to restrict, modify, or withdraw approval of mifepristone, in the absence of robust scientific or clinical evidence for doing so, it would create unnecessary burdens on patients who rely on the ability to access safe and effective medication through telehealth. Patients in rural or remote areas may be especially impacted, along with those who are unable to travel long distances to acquire the medication because of work or child care needs. |
FDA acknowledged receipt of the petition on July 7, 2025. FDA must respond to the petition within 180 days by granting or denying the request, or saying it needs more time to respond. |
|
June 5, 2025 |
California, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey file a Citizen Petition requesting FDA eliminate the current REMS for mifepristone or in the alternative, cease enforcing the restrictions as unnecessary. |
According to a representative of the states, in response to the filing of this petition, FDA will need to consider the ample scientific research of mifepristone’s safety and effectiveness, including newer research, and it cannot change its current regulation of mifepristone while the petition is pending. In response to the petition, FDA may decide to eliminate or leave intact current restrictions on mifepristone that impede access by limiting the health care professionals who can prescribe it and the pharmacies that can dispense it. FDA may also determine whether to continue to require the patient agreement form. |
FDA acknowledged receipt of the petition on June 6, 2025. FDA must respond to the petition within 180 days by granting or denying the request, or saying it needs more time to respond. On August 20, 2025, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia, and Josh Shapiro in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a petition to join the multistate citizen petition and submit additional evidence in support of it. |
|
May 14, 2025 |
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that he has ordered FDA administrator Martin A. Makary to conduct a “complete review” of mifepristone regulations. In response to a question from Senator Hawley, Kennedy agreed that FDA review of mifepristone is necessary in part because of a recent report on mifepristone released by anti-abortion activists that was not peer-reviewed or published in a medical journal. (Hearing on Fiscal Year 2026 Department of Health and Human Services Budget, May 14, 2025, 1:48:15-1:50:40) In contrast, more than one hundred scientific studies conducted over the last 30 years have conclusively proven mifepristone’s safety.
|
If FDA were to impose additional restrictions on mifepristone, whether reimposing prior restrictions or creating new ones, it could decrease access throughout the country, including in states where abortion is legal. |
Kennedy indicated FDA review of mifepristone is ongoing. (Hearing on Fiscal Year 2026 Department of Health and Human Services Budget, May 14, 2025, 1:48:15-1:50:40) |
|
May 12, 2025 |
An individual, James Brinkruff, files a Citizen Petition requesting immediate suspension of the approval of mifepristone for medication abortion, an FDA study of mifepristone when used via telehealth, and imposition of requirements for in-person dispensing and a follow-up appointment. |
If FDA were to suspend approval of mifepristone for medication abortion, it would severely affect access to abortion throughout the country—medication abortion is currently used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States. Imposing additional restrictions on mifepristone would also decrease access throughout the country, including in states where abortion is legal. |
FDA acknowledged receipt of the petition on May 14, 2025. FDA must respond to the petition within 180 days by granting or denying the request, or saying it needs more time to respond. |
|
March 6, 2025 |
Dr. Marty Makary (then-nominee, now head of the FDA), states during his confirmation hearing that he would review whether FDA should re-impose an in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone. |
FDA’s imposition of an in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone would significantly decrease access, particularly for rural and underserved communities, and those who can’t travel or take time away from work. |
Kennedy has since indicated that FDA review of mifepristone is ongoing. (Hearing on Fiscal Year 2026 Department of Health and Human Services Budget, May 14, 2025, 1:48:15-1:50:40) |
|
January 31, 2025 |
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society of Family Planning, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine submit a Citizen Petition requesting FDA eliminate the current REMS for mifepristone or in the alternative refrain from taking any action that would further reduce patient access to mifepristone or increase the burdens associated with prescribing or dispensing mifepristone. |
FDA may decide to eliminate or leave intact current restrictions on mifepristone that impede access by limiting the health care professionals who can prescribe it and the pharmacies that can dispense it. FDA may also determine whether to continue to require the patient agreement form. |
FDA acknowledged receipt of the petition on February 4, 2025. FDA must respond to the petition within 180 days by granting or denying the request, or saying it needs more time to respond. On July 28, 2025, FDA issued an interim response letter stating that given the complexity of the request, a decision had not yet been reached.
|
|
January 29, 2025 |
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (then-nominee, now Secretary of Health) states during his confirmation hearing: “President Trump has asked me to study the safety of mifepristone. He has not yet taken a stand on how to regulate it. Whatever he does, I will implement those policies.” |
If FDA were to impose additional restrictions on mifepristone, whether reimposing prior restrictions or creating new ones, it could decrease access throughout the country, including in states where abortion is legal. |
Kennedy has since indicated that FDA review of mifepristone is ongoing. (Hearing on Fiscal Year 2026 Department of Health and Human Services Budget, May 14, 2025, 1:48:15-1:50:40) |
|
January 7, 2025 |
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists submit a Citizen Petition noting that there had been news reports that mifepristone’s manufacturer had planned to apply to add miscarriage management as an indication for mifepristone, and requesting that if FDA approve that indication it establish a REMS prohibiting telehealth, requiring an in-person follow-up appointment with an ultrasound, and requiring reporting of all adverse events. Students for Life of America had also filed a Citizen Petition in December 2024, requesting that FDA refrain from modifying the approved usage of mifepristone to include miscarriage care. |
Currently, mifepristone is commonly prescribed off-label for miscarriage management. In all areas of medicine, “off-label” use of medications to reflect evolutions in evidence-based practice is permissible, common, and necessary to ensure that clinical care is not undermined by scientifically outdated labeling. Imposition of stricter restrictions than currently exist for mifepristone’s use to treat miscarriages—as requested by this petition—would unnecessarily limit access and burden providers and patients. |
On June 4, 2025, FDA denied the petition filed by American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, stating that to the extent there is any pending application to add miscarriage management as an approved indication for mifepristone, FDA had not issued a final determination to approve it and consideration of the issues presented in the petition outside FDA’s approval process would be procedurally improper. Citing the same reasons, FDA denied the petition filed by Students for Life of America on May 21, 2025. |
On March 6-7, UCLA Law’s Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy, in partnership with Yale Law School and Temple Law School, convened legal scholars and experts for a series of discussions on rebuilding constitutional foundations for equality and reproductive rights and justice post-Dobbs.
Participants explored and debated theories and strategies to advance reproductive and sex equality rights grounded in constitutional and doctrinal principles, fresh historical analysis, and novel legal arguments.
Scholarly Essays on Legal Pathways
In connection with the convening, eleven scholars contributed thought-provoking essays for a Balkinization Symposium on Legal Pathways Beyond Dobbs (April 10, 2025).
Professors Cary Franklin and Mary Ziegler, make powerful cases for further interrogating and resisting the Court’s history-and-tradition approach in Dobbs and other recent cases. As Ziegler argues, relying on history and tradition allows conservative movement leaders and their allies in the judiciary “to speak through past actors to whom they claim to defer . . . to conceal the policy choices they face in critical areas” where they lack support, including criminal abortion bans, interpretation of the Comstock Act and fabrication of “fetal rights.” And, as Franklin proposes, because “too many regulatory traditions violate contemporary understandings of equality for courts to adhere consistently to the results of the history-and-tradition test,” there may be “contexts in which the Court is less willing to disregard concerns about sex equality and basic rights to life and health.” Offering a different tack, Professor Michael C. Dorf encourages progressives to pursue “ideological jujitsu” and “evade the history-and-tradition test” altogether by building out claims to reproductive and sexual freedom grounded in enumerated rights. And with vivid analogy to the fictional monster Cthulhu (imagined by notoriously xenophobic novelist H.P. Lovecraft), Professor Evan D. Bernick argues that modern attacks on reproductive rights and birthright citizenship, like prior incarnations of similar “[m]onstrous institutions and ideas,” such as the Fugitive Slave Act, Chinese Exclusion Act and Comstock Act, can be, and have been, thwarted through a combination of legal and community-based resistance strategies.
Several scholars offer compelling arguments, and cautionary notes, for theorizing ways that equality doctrine or values can vindicate rights related to reproduction, bodily autonomy, gender identity, and family formation. Professor Jessie Hill argues grounding abortion rights in a “right to equality in health care, or a right to health care nondiscrimination,” while recognizing this “equality lens” also “requires dismantling the elective-therapeutic distinction regarding abortion” as itself a product of sexism. Professor Laura Portuondo, observing that the “Supreme Court has extended a broad new vision of equality to religious conservatives,” through recent free exercise decisions, proposes a strategy of extending this First Amendment “anti-devaluation theory of equality” to achieve reproductive justice ends. Meanwhile, Professor Cahill exposes how Dobbs’s revisionist use of “footnote twenty from Geduldig, which held that pregnancy discrimination wasn’t sex discrimination” is an example of “precedent manufactured in real time – and therefore, by definition, not a precedent at all – that lacks grounding in text, history, and actual precedent.” And Professor Douglas NeJaime calls out the need to more “clearly name” how legal appeals to biological or “natural” parenthood hide animus and “smuggle in arguments that rely on sex-based stereotypes” to harm LGBTQ families and women alike. More skeptically, tracing the Court’s methodological inconsistency in case after case, Professor Neil S. Siegel cautions that in the current political moment, it is unlikely the Court will adhere to its interpretive commitments when it comes to equality rights for disfavored groups, particularly transgender people.
Finally, responding to the rise of “fetal personhood” arguments in law and public narratives, Professors Kimberly Mutcherson and Meghan Boone urge autonomy and equality responses to these efforts to erase the personhood of pregnant people. Mutcherson argues that those who would legally “subordinate pregnant women to the nascent lives they carry” cannot offer a secular account for this deprivation of bodily integrity and Boone urges advocates to call this out for what it is – “arguments against women’s equality.”
Collectively, these essays offer multiple pathways for advancing reproductive and sex equality rights under law, with special attention to the Court’s history-and-tradition approach, the realities and challenges of our modern judiciary, and the need for liberty, autonomy, equality, and health rights that redress the related threats to reproductive, racial, and economic justice.
Read the essays in full:
- History & Tradition’s Equality Problem, Cary Franklin
- The History & Tradition of Criminalization, Mary Ziegler
- Enumerating a Post-Dobbs Pathway, Michael C. Dorf
- Cthulhu and the Constitution, Evan D. Bernick
- Abortion Rights as Health Care Rights as Equality Rights, B. Jessie Hill
- Anti-Devaluation as Reproductive Justice, Laura Portuondo
- The Other Footnote, Courtney Cahill
- Biological Parenthood and Inequality, Douglas NeJaime
- The Fate of Bostock’s Formalism After $215 Million Spent on Anti-Trans Ads, Neil Siegel
- The Shared DNA of Roe and Dobbs: Potential Life as a Tool of Subordination, Kimberly Mutcherson
- The Question of Female Personhood, Meghan Boone
The Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy (CRHLP), in partnership with Yale Law School’s Program for the Study of Reproductive Justice and Temple University Beasley School of Law, invites you to Resistance and Reimagining: Perspectives on Reproductive and Gender Justice from the Academy, Advocacy, and Public Service.
This event will feature a panel moderated by CRHLP's Legal and Policy Director, Diana Kasdan. The panel will include Professor Khiara M. Bridges from UC Berkeley School of Law, Leila Abolfazli, Senior Director of National Abortion Strategy at National Women's Law Center, Mary Bonauto, Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, and Karli Eisenberg, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, CA AG's Office for Healthcare Rights and Access. This event is in person and will be streamed over Zoom, refreshments will be served.
Register here to attend in person or virtually: HTTPS://BIT.LY/March6thRSVP
Read our Experts Q&A, Policy News, Legal News and Food for Thought where we share articles, books, and media you might have missed.
Past Newsletters
July 19, 2025
- Commentary by Cathren Cohen Published in Journal
- New Update to Shield Law State Law Guide
- Policy News: New study on decline in obstetric services
- Legal News: CO parental notification lawsuit, WV mifepristone law update
July 5, 2025
- United States v. Skrmetti: Turning Back the Clock on Gender Equality by Diana Kasdan, Legal and Policy Director
- Legal and Policy Blows to Reproductive and Maternal Health Care Access for Low-Income People by Melissa Goodman, Executive Director
- New Resource: Mifepristone Litigation Tracker and Federal Action Tracker
- Policy News: Study on early miscarriage in Texas, new #WeCount report released
- Legal News: WI abortion ban struck down, NJ crisis pregnancy center case
June 21, 2025
- Special Edition Academic Year CRHLP Progress Report
June 7, 2025
- Ask the Experts Q&A with Summer Legal Fellow Rebecca Nathan
- Policy News: TX license plate surveillance, EMTALA federally revoked
- Legal News: Petition to FDA to remove Mifepristone restrictions, MI Planned Parenthood abortion care forced to pause
May 24, 2025
- Video Case Explainer: Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel by Cathren Cohen, Staff Attorney
- Policy News: CA budget revisions, new report on Medicaid and public health, Propublica report on the fetal viability line
- Legal News: FL ruling on parental consent law
May 10, 2025
- Case Explainer: Missouri v. FDA by Amanda Barrow, Senior Staff Attorney and Sofia Espinoza, Legal Fellow
- Policy News: Study on abortion bans' effect on pulmonary care, Mifepristone access rollback bill introduced
- Legal News: Lawsuit filed in MI regarding parental consent to care
April 26, 2025
- Commentary: Yellowhammer Fund v. Marshall - The History and Tradition of the Right to Travel by Diana Kasdan, Legal & Policy Director
- Policy News: Research on maternal mortality post-Dobbs, report on rising level of violence against abortion providers
- Legal News: ND judge rules on religious exemptions for worker accommodations, NV ruling on parental notification law
April 12, 2025
- What Amici Have to Tell the Court: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, by Tarj Patel, CRHLP Legal Extern
- Policy News: 100+ HHS employees fired, TX abortion rule clarification bill introduced
- Legal News: AL rules state's threats to prosecute are unconstitutional, GA drops charges against woman who miscarried
March 29, 2025
- Ask the Experts Q&A with the Legal Fellow Sofia Espinoza on the Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCTs) for Pregnant and Newly Parenting People brief
- Policy News: GA woman arrested after miscarriage
- Legal News: TX provider arrested for providing care, NY blocks TX prosecution of NY doctor
March 15, 2025
- Policy News: WY enacts new abortion requirements, study shows decline in OBGYN access in restrictive states
- Legal News: MT strikes down abortion laws, AZ 15-week abortion ban blocked
March 1, 2025
- Ask the Experts Q&A with Research Data Analyst Leslie Serrano
- Policy News: New state law dataset on medication abortion
- Legal News: Supreme Court declines to hear anti-abortion activist challenge
February 15, 2025
- A Message from Executive Director Melissa Goodman
- Policy News: New study on the effect of abortion bans on infant mortality
- Legal News: TX fines NY doctor, SC hears arguments on state's abortion ban
January 30, 2025
- Ask the Experts Q&A with the Senior Staff Attorney for the Southern California Legal Alliance for Reproductive Justice, Amanda Barrow
- Policy News: Study on use of Ella as an abortion medication, NY governor launches cash assistance program
- Legal News: VT child welfare agency facing lawsuit, Trump Admin moves to limit prosecutions under the FACE act
January 13, 2025
- A Message from Executive Director Melissa Goodman
- Ask the Experts Q&A with CRHLP Legal and Policy Director, Diana Kasdan
- Policy News: ACLU report on reproductive justice while incarcerated
- Legal News: Brittany Watts files lawsuit against hospital and OH law enforcement, ID files lawsuit to continue care under EMTALA