Read Next
Analysis
This isn't health care: Induction abortion vs. inducing labor and delivery
Nancy Flanders
·Spotlight Articles
Abortion Pill·By Carole Novielli
HHS rep: FDA still intends abortion pill review to finish ahead of schedule
A Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson has suggested that the abortion pill safety review allegedly underway by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could be done 'sooner' than expected, reiterating previous statements made on the FDA's website.
The spokesperson's statement came in response to a ruling issued by U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph to 'stay' an abortion pill lawsuit filed by the State of Louisiana.
An HHS spokesman has reiterated the intent of the FDA to complete its abortion pill safety study "sooner" than the expected timeframe.
Earlier in April, a U.S. District judge sided with FDA by pausing Louisiana's lawsuit against the FDA, "pending completion of FDA’s ongoing review" but gave the FDA a "time limited period of deference to complete its review" which "will not remain open-ended."
Questions remain as to whether the FDA is closely monitoring any reported adverse events data on the abortion pill. Because of changes made by the Obama administration in 2016, only deaths have to be reported.
Several states that restrict abortion are suing the FDA over its rollback of safeguards (REMS) on the abortion pill, because the Biden FDA's changes to the REMS allowing the drugs to be dispensed by mail have negatively impacted these states and their citizens.
"The Trump administration is facing accusations from anti-abortion advocates and others that it’s slow-walking a review of mifepristone, a prevalent form of abortion medication, for fear of political blowback ahead of the midterms," Bloomberg Law reported.
Bloomberg reached out to HHS, and spokesperson Andrew Nixon stated the safety review could be completed sooner than expected:
US Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in response to the ruling that the FDA “is taking care to do this study properly and in the right way.” In academia, such studies “often take approximately a year or more to conduct. The agency plan is to have this study done sooner than that timeframe,” Nixon said.
This report confirms statements published on the FDA website in February 2026, which also claim the safety review is intended to be completed in one year or less.
The Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary has the authority to suspend an application for a drug's approval — including the abortion pill — if it is determined that the drug would be an 'imminent hazard to public health,' according to a previous response from the FDA in the Louisiana case.
An HHS statement issued earlier this month to the media outlet NOTUS claimed the FDA “is conducting its safety study of mifepristone, including the collection of robust and timely data, evaluation of data integrity, and implementation of the analyses, validation, and peer-review.”
NOTUS added:
“Once the FDA finishes its analysis of the data, the agency will decide whether to make substantive changes” to how abortion pills are accessed, the spokesperson continued. “The agency is taking care to do this study properly and in the right way.”
In October of 2025, the lawsuit State of Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration (which includes Plaintiff Rosalie Markezich) was refiled in the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division. Louisiana later filed for preliminary injunctive relief.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction over changes to the abortion pill's safety protocols (REMS) made in 2023, which enabled the mailing of abortion inducing drugs — an act already prohibited by federal law known as the Comstock Act.
On April 7, 2026, U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph sided with FDA by issuing a 'stay' in the case "pending completion of FDA’s ongoing review" but would only afford the FDA a "time limited period of deference to complete its review," writing that the "stay granted to FDA will not remain open-ended."
The Judge noted (emphasis added):
Should the agency fail to complete its review and make any necessary revisions to the REMS within a reasonable timeframe, the Court’s analysis – and the weight accorded to these factors – will inevitably change.
In 2016, the Obama FDA changed several things about the REMS, including:
Removing the requirement to report any abortion pill complications other than deaths
Allowing expanded use of the drug, increasing it from seven to 10 weeks gestation
Interestingly, the 2016 REMS erosion was not one that Danco, the drug's manufacturer, originally sought. In fact, at that time, Danco claimed it was short the millions of dollars to even attempt it.
The REMS change was instead pushed and financed by a pro-abortion coalition — including groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and others — who helped the manufacturer "raise money."
On April 7, 2026, NARAL (most recently renamed Reproductive Freedom for All), expressed concern over the Louisiana case ruling.
A written statement on the group's website reads:
In January, Trump’s Department of Justice asked the court to halt Louisiana’s lawsuit while the FDA rushes through its politically motivated “review” of mifepristone, signaling that the agency could be poised to impose medically unnecessary restrictions and roll back medication abortion access on its own once its sham “review” is complete.
Today’s court decision clears the way for that bogus process to continue without being immediately disrupted by any actions stemming from Louisiana’s baseless lawsuit. Several other cases aiming to limit access to medication abortion via telehealth are also still pending.
Emily Steinert McDowell, associate director of federal policy for Reproductive Freedom for All, told Bloomberg Law that the ruling “repeatedly incorporates anti-abortion disinformation about the safety and efficacy record of mifepristone without interrogating those baseless claims.”
Now, with Louisiana’s appeal, she claims the case will go to “a conservative circuit court with even more Trump-appointed judges,” adding, “We have to be ready.”
However, Erik Baptist, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represents a Plaintiff in the case, told Bloomberg Law that “Louisiana is temporarily hamstrung from enforcing its pro‑life laws while the FDA embarks on a study that has not even started and could easily surpass a year or more."
2000: FDA approved mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex.
2011: FDA placed the drug under a safety system known as REMS due to significant adverse events and deaths.
2016: Big Abortion conspired to erode the REMS on the drug. The Obama FDA weakened the REMS, even removing the requirement to report the drug's adverse events other than deaths.
2023: Despite a prohibition under the federal Comstock Act, Biden's FDA weakened the REMS again to remove the in-person dispensing requirement and allow for mail order and pharmacy dispensing of the drug.
May 2025: The Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) publishes an analysis, “The Abortion Pill Harms Women,” which examined insurance data. EPPC says the records reveal serious adverse events from mifepristone are happening about 22 times more often than the FDA reports. That same month the FDA Secretary asks FDA for a complete review.
September 2025: FDA Secretary tells Republican states that the FDA will conduct a new review of abortion pills.
November 2025: 175 members of Congress send a letter to FDA Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr and Commissioner Martin Makary, MD, asking for an investigation and review of the safety of mifepristone.
December 2025: The FDA Commissioner is accused of delaying the review. Since then, demands for the review have only grown louder.
February 2026: FDA claims the safety review would be completed in one year or sooner.
The decision to halt the reporting of non-fatal adverse events (complications) of the abortion pill in 2016 may have led to faulty conclusions that the drug is safe.
FDA's removal of the in-person requirement for the drug resulted in the online explosion of virtual abortion pill dispensaries, with what appears to be no oversight from either the FDA or the abortion drug's manufacturers.
Abortion pill manufacturers aiding and abetting of the unlawful mailing of mifepristone into pro-life states prompted several lawsuits seeking a reversal of the erosions to the abortion pill's safety regulations.
The chemical abortion drug now accounts for 65% of estimated abortions nationally.
"As with all drugs, the FDA continues to closely monitor the postmarketing safety data on mifepristone for the medical termination of pregnancy," the FDA claimed, stating (emphases added):
As with all approved drugs, when the FDA receives new information regarding adverse events, the agency reviews the new information and, as appropriate, takes necessary action. This could include, for example, providing updates to health care providers and their patients so that they have information on how to use a drug safely...
The FDA continuously reviews reports of adverse events to, among other things, determine whether they are known risks or whether they are signals of emerging safety concerns.
However, the latest document of reported adverse events published by the FDA is dated December 2024 — over a year ago.
The adverse events reporting requirement changes in 2016 were flouted in the abortion industry's deliberate attempt to hide complications from those required to report them. This then keeps the FDA in the dark about the real-world risks and complications from the abortion pill.
As Live Action News previously demonstrated, long before 2016 changes occurred, Big Abortion had schemed to hide complications by advising women at the point of sale to lie about their complications, should they ever need to visit the emergency room.
And while the Trump FDA moves to 'stay' multiple lawsuits against the abortion pill, pro-abortion advocates funded by abortion pill financial investors have renewed calls to make the chemical abortion pill available as an over-the-counter (OTC) drug.
For more information, read Live Action News' 'Dear FDA' series:
Abortion pill manufacturers abet unlawful mailing of drugs into pro-life states
Why are you aiding the breaking of federal laws about abortion?
For more on safety information surrounding the abortion pill:
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Abortion Pill·By Carole Novielli
HHS rep: FDA still intends abortion pill review to finish ahead of schedule
A Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson has suggested that the abortion pill safety review allegedly underway by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could be done 'sooner' than expected, reiterating previous statements made on the FDA's website.
The spokesperson's statement came in response to a ruling issued by U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph to 'stay' an abortion pill lawsuit filed by the State of Louisiana.
An HHS spokesman has reiterated the intent of the FDA to complete its abortion pill safety study "sooner" than the expected timeframe.
Earlier in April, a U.S. District judge sided with FDA by pausing Louisiana's lawsuit against the FDA, "pending completion of FDA’s ongoing review" but gave the FDA a "time limited period of deference to complete its review" which "will not remain open-ended."
Questions remain as to whether the FDA is closely monitoring any reported adverse events data on the abortion pill. Because of changes made by the Obama administration in 2016, only deaths have to be reported.
Several states that restrict abortion are suing the FDA over its rollback of safeguards (REMS) on the abortion pill, because the Biden FDA's changes to the REMS allowing the drugs to be dispensed by mail have negatively impacted these states and their citizens.
"The Trump administration is facing accusations from anti-abortion advocates and others that it’s slow-walking a review of mifepristone, a prevalent form of abortion medication, for fear of political blowback ahead of the midterms," Bloomberg Law reported.
Bloomberg reached out to HHS, and spokesperson Andrew Nixon stated the safety review could be completed sooner than expected:
US Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in response to the ruling that the FDA “is taking care to do this study properly and in the right way.” In academia, such studies “often take approximately a year or more to conduct. The agency plan is to have this study done sooner than that timeframe,” Nixon said.
This report confirms statements published on the FDA website in February 2026, which also claim the safety review is intended to be completed in one year or less.
The Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary has the authority to suspend an application for a drug's approval — including the abortion pill — if it is determined that the drug would be an 'imminent hazard to public health,' according to a previous response from the FDA in the Louisiana case.
An HHS statement issued earlier this month to the media outlet NOTUS claimed the FDA “is conducting its safety study of mifepristone, including the collection of robust and timely data, evaluation of data integrity, and implementation of the analyses, validation, and peer-review.”
NOTUS added:
“Once the FDA finishes its analysis of the data, the agency will decide whether to make substantive changes” to how abortion pills are accessed, the spokesperson continued. “The agency is taking care to do this study properly and in the right way.”
In October of 2025, the lawsuit State of Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration (which includes Plaintiff Rosalie Markezich) was refiled in the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division. Louisiana later filed for preliminary injunctive relief.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction over changes to the abortion pill's safety protocols (REMS) made in 2023, which enabled the mailing of abortion inducing drugs — an act already prohibited by federal law known as the Comstock Act.
On April 7, 2026, U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph sided with FDA by issuing a 'stay' in the case "pending completion of FDA’s ongoing review" but would only afford the FDA a "time limited period of deference to complete its review," writing that the "stay granted to FDA will not remain open-ended."
The Judge noted (emphasis added):
Should the agency fail to complete its review and make any necessary revisions to the REMS within a reasonable timeframe, the Court’s analysis – and the weight accorded to these factors – will inevitably change.
In 2016, the Obama FDA changed several things about the REMS, including:
Removing the requirement to report any abortion pill complications other than deaths
Allowing expanded use of the drug, increasing it from seven to 10 weeks gestation
Interestingly, the 2016 REMS erosion was not one that Danco, the drug's manufacturer, originally sought. In fact, at that time, Danco claimed it was short the millions of dollars to even attempt it.
The REMS change was instead pushed and financed by a pro-abortion coalition — including groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and others — who helped the manufacturer "raise money."
On April 7, 2026, NARAL (most recently renamed Reproductive Freedom for All), expressed concern over the Louisiana case ruling.
A written statement on the group's website reads:
In January, Trump’s Department of Justice asked the court to halt Louisiana’s lawsuit while the FDA rushes through its politically motivated “review” of mifepristone, signaling that the agency could be poised to impose medically unnecessary restrictions and roll back medication abortion access on its own once its sham “review” is complete.
Today’s court decision clears the way for that bogus process to continue without being immediately disrupted by any actions stemming from Louisiana’s baseless lawsuit. Several other cases aiming to limit access to medication abortion via telehealth are also still pending.
Emily Steinert McDowell, associate director of federal policy for Reproductive Freedom for All, told Bloomberg Law that the ruling “repeatedly incorporates anti-abortion disinformation about the safety and efficacy record of mifepristone without interrogating those baseless claims.”
Now, with Louisiana’s appeal, she claims the case will go to “a conservative circuit court with even more Trump-appointed judges,” adding, “We have to be ready.”
However, Erik Baptist, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represents a Plaintiff in the case, told Bloomberg Law that “Louisiana is temporarily hamstrung from enforcing its pro‑life laws while the FDA embarks on a study that has not even started and could easily surpass a year or more."
2000: FDA approved mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex.
2011: FDA placed the drug under a safety system known as REMS due to significant adverse events and deaths.
2016: Big Abortion conspired to erode the REMS on the drug. The Obama FDA weakened the REMS, even removing the requirement to report the drug's adverse events other than deaths.
2023: Despite a prohibition under the federal Comstock Act, Biden's FDA weakened the REMS again to remove the in-person dispensing requirement and allow for mail order and pharmacy dispensing of the drug.
May 2025: The Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) publishes an analysis, “The Abortion Pill Harms Women,” which examined insurance data. EPPC says the records reveal serious adverse events from mifepristone are happening about 22 times more often than the FDA reports. That same month the FDA Secretary asks FDA for a complete review.
September 2025: FDA Secretary tells Republican states that the FDA will conduct a new review of abortion pills.
November 2025: 175 members of Congress send a letter to FDA Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr and Commissioner Martin Makary, MD, asking for an investigation and review of the safety of mifepristone.
December 2025: The FDA Commissioner is accused of delaying the review. Since then, demands for the review have only grown louder.
February 2026: FDA claims the safety review would be completed in one year or sooner.
The decision to halt the reporting of non-fatal adverse events (complications) of the abortion pill in 2016 may have led to faulty conclusions that the drug is safe.
FDA's removal of the in-person requirement for the drug resulted in the online explosion of virtual abortion pill dispensaries, with what appears to be no oversight from either the FDA or the abortion drug's manufacturers.
Abortion pill manufacturers aiding and abetting of the unlawful mailing of mifepristone into pro-life states prompted several lawsuits seeking a reversal of the erosions to the abortion pill's safety regulations.
The chemical abortion drug now accounts for 65% of estimated abortions nationally.
"As with all drugs, the FDA continues to closely monitor the postmarketing safety data on mifepristone for the medical termination of pregnancy," the FDA claimed, stating (emphases added):
As with all approved drugs, when the FDA receives new information regarding adverse events, the agency reviews the new information and, as appropriate, takes necessary action. This could include, for example, providing updates to health care providers and their patients so that they have information on how to use a drug safely...
The FDA continuously reviews reports of adverse events to, among other things, determine whether they are known risks or whether they are signals of emerging safety concerns.
However, the latest document of reported adverse events published by the FDA is dated December 2024 — over a year ago.
The adverse events reporting requirement changes in 2016 were flouted in the abortion industry's deliberate attempt to hide complications from those required to report them. This then keeps the FDA in the dark about the real-world risks and complications from the abortion pill.
As Live Action News previously demonstrated, long before 2016 changes occurred, Big Abortion had schemed to hide complications by advising women at the point of sale to lie about their complications, should they ever need to visit the emergency room.
And while the Trump FDA moves to 'stay' multiple lawsuits against the abortion pill, pro-abortion advocates funded by abortion pill financial investors have renewed calls to make the chemical abortion pill available as an over-the-counter (OTC) drug.
For more information, read Live Action News' 'Dear FDA' series:
Abortion pill manufacturers abet unlawful mailing of drugs into pro-life states
Why are you aiding the breaking of federal laws about abortion?
For more on safety information surrounding the abortion pill:
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·
Analysis
Nancy Flanders
·
Abortion Pill
Bridget Sielicki
·
Abortion Pill
Nancy Flanders
·
Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·
Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·
Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·
Analysis
Carole Novielli
·Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·Analysis
Nancy Flanders
·Abortion Pill
Bridget Sielicki
·Abortion Pill
Nancy Flanders
·Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·Analysis
Carole Novielli
·