Brief filed in case against FDA says mail-order abortion pill enables abusers

An amicus brief filed this month in the ongoing lawsuit of The State of Louisiana v. FDA on behalf of the plaintiffs gives further insight into how so-called “telehealth abortions” worsen and perpetuate intimate partner violence.

Key Takeaways:

• The Family Research Council and Dr. Martha Shuping filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs in Lousiana's case against the FDA's abortion pill protocols.

• In their brief, FRC and Dr. Shuping focus on the link between intimate partner violence and coerced abortion, and how unregulated mail-order abortion — now allowed by the FDA — makes this problem worse.

The Details:

The brief was filed by the Family Research Council (FRC; a D.C.-based non-profit seeking to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy from a Biblical worldview) and Martha Shuping, M.D. (a psychiatrist with over 35 years of experience, who works with survivors of intimate partner violence and patients with PTSD from experiences including abortion).

The brief focused on the strong correlation between mail-order abortion pills, abortion coercion, and intimate partner violence (IPV).

The link between Intimate partner violence and coerced abortion

The brief notes that IPV is widespread, with approximately one in four women experiencing it at some point, according to one study. IPV is worse for women who are pregnant.

The brief cites a news story documenting how Timothy Kindle “beat his girlfriend repeatedly over several months until finally killing the unborn baby.” Kindle "was intentionally trying to end the pregnancy.”

 Live Action News has discussed similar stories of violence perpetrated against pregnant women and their unborn babies, and such stories are unfortunately all too common.

Often, women in coercive relationships want to keep their babies, but are pressured or forced by their partners to undergo abortions.

The brief quotes Daniel Callahan, a previous pro-choice researcher with the Population Council, who affirmed this fact:

"That men have long coerced women into unwanted abortion when it suits their purposes is well-known but rarely mentioned. Data reported by the Alan Guttmacher Institute indicate that some 30 percent of women have an abortion because someone else, not the woman, wants it."

Abortion coercion is linked to mental health problems, including suicidal ideation, for women, the brief notes.

IPV is strongly linked to repeat abortions, meaning that if a woman is coerced into having one abortion, there is a high chance that she will have another. Abortion does not help a woman leave her abuser; in fact, abortion often enables more abuse and violence, perpetuating what the brief calls “a repetitive cycle of abuse.”

The research bears this out, as the brief states:

Although some abortion advocates claim that abortion is essential to prevent IPV survivors from being trapped in an abusive relationship, this is not borne out in research. In a systematic review with meta-analysis of 74 studies of IPV, nine studies showed women who reported IPV were more likely than the comparison group to have a history of multiple abortions. “The highest quality study found that women presenting for a third TOP [termination of pregnancy] were over two and half times more likely to have a history of physical or sexual violence than women presenting for their first.

In a study of 1,318 Boston-area males that was included in the meta-analysis, perpetrators of IPV were more likely to have been involved in three or more pregnancies ending in abortion.

Unregulated mail-order abortion pills enable and worsen intimate partner violence

Confidential and private screening for IPV is essential for ending the violence, yet abortion pills are sold on the internet without any reliable screening performed.

The brief notes that the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that health providers screen women and girls at their appointments — including at first appointments for abortions — for intimate partner violence and reproductive and sexual coercion.

However, concerns over screening are set aside when it comes to the online sale of the abortion pill. 

Even if a woman is screened via telehealth to receive abortion pills, she may not receive confidential and private screening, which is essential to ensure that the woman is not being coerced into taking the abortion pills. For example, an abusive partner could be sitting, off-camera, beside a woman who is speaking to an online provider in a video call.

Members of ACOG violate their own policies regarding confidentiality when they perform video screenings during abortion appointments, the brief points out.

Like the FDA, ACOG ignores the issue in its chemical abortion practice bulletin.

In-person, private, and confidential evaluation of a pregnant woman by a medical professional before an abortion would help the provider determine whether or not a woman is a victim of intimate partner violence and/or coercion. These in-person appointments can prevent unwanted abortions and also provide victims of IPV much-needed education and resources to help them escape their abusers — information that these women may not get of if they never see a provider in-person.

Dr. Shuping has firsthand knowledge and experience of this.

As stated in the brief:

Dr. Shuping has treated patients who have experienced IPV. One woman had an abortion because she already had one child, and was afraid if she had a second child, she would be unable to protect both of them from the violence of her partner. But after the abortion, she experienced profound grief and distress, and sought emotional and spiritual recovery.

By the time Dr. Shuping met her, she had left the abusive relationship. Had she left sooner, she might have had the child whose loss she was grieving. Had she been assisted with screening and education at an earlier time, she might have been equipped to use resources to achieve safety for herself and both of her children.  

The mail-order abortion pill process lacks reliable screening, and without the FDA’s in-person dispensing requirement for the abortion pill (which was rescinded by the Biden administration in 2021 and permanently removed in 2023), abusers are enabled to purchase abortion pills online and force them upon women.

The brief recounts some of the stories of men who have been charged in the United States with forcing abortion pills on their partners:

• Manishkumar Patel, a Wisconsin man, was sentenced to 22 years in prison, plus four years of extended supervision, after slipping the abortion pill to his girlfriend, who miscarried.

• Jeffrey Smith, another Wisconsin man, slipped the abortion pill in his girlfriend’s water bottle and pled No Contest to a Charge of Attempted First Degree Homicide of an Unborn Child.

• Mason Herring, a Houston lawyer, attempted to force misoprostol (the second drug in the abortion pill regimen) on his wife seven times, and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Watch Catherine Herring tell about her experience of coerced chemical abortion here.

• John Welden, a pre-med student, forged a prescription for misoprostol, tricked his girlfriend into taking it, and caused the death of the unborn child, against the mother's will.

These horrific stories demonstrate how easy it is for abusers to order abortion pills online under current FDA guidelines and to then force abortions on their partners — even in states like Louisiana, where abortion is illegal.

Rosalie Markezich, a plaintiff alongside Louisiana and the State’s Attorney General, Liz Murrill, has a similar story of abortion pill coercion; her boyfriend ordered abortion pills online by using her identification and received them in the mail from California abortionist Remy Coeytaux — despite the fact that Markezich was excited about the pregnancy. Markezich’s boyfriend forced her to take the pills, and she lost their baby.

The Bottom Line:

As the Louisiana plaintiffs and the amicus brief filed by the FRC and Dr. Shuping assert, the abortion pill poses a serious threat both to women and their unborn babies and to the sovereign power of the state, which is entitled to protecting its best interests by regulating the illegal flow of abortion pills across state borders.

While the abortion pill remains unregulated and easily accessible online, women will continue to suffer from intimate partner violence in the form of chemical abortion coercion, and the lives of their unborn children will also be threatened.

The devastating effects of abortion coercion on a woman’s psyche and health are incalculable, as are the unrepeatable lives of the unborn babies whose lives are ended by chemical abortions.