Read Next
Guest Column
City of Snyder in Texas becomes 100th ‘Sanctuary City for the Unborn’ in US
Mark Lee Dickson
·Spotlight Articles
Abortion Pill·By Carole Novielli
'Swords disguised as shields': Lawsuit goes after states protecting lawbreaking abortion businesses
A multistate lawsuit filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by the states of Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana is challenging abortion “shield laws” in New York, California, and Massachusetts, calling them "swords disguised as shields and driven into pro-life states."
In addition, the three Plaintiff states have filed a civil lawsuit against abortion organizations, which they refer to as an "Illegal enterprise," for "Violating Federal Public Nuisance Common Law."
Pro-abortion shield laws do not protect women who take abortion drugs, who are coerced by others who order the drugs online without their knowledge, or who are injured or die due to reckless prescribers seeking profit alone. Shield laws protect the abortion industry.
The laws, filed in states controlled by extremely pro-abortion lawmakers, were put in place shortly after the Dobbs Supreme Court decision overturned Roe v. Wade, as explained in the court document filed by pro-life Plaintiff states. It reads:
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this Court “heed[ed] the Constitution and return[ed] the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” States that favor abortion are thus free to deregulate as they see fit, and pro-life states are just as free to regulate as they see fit.
... After Dobbs, however, pro-abortion states immediately began to enact so-called telehealth “shield laws” aimed at facilitating abortion in pro-life states that have restricted or banned abortion.
... The power of a state’s shield law rests not in any one provision within that law but in the combined effect of all its provisions, which attempt to predict—and eliminate—all legal or professional problems a shield law state resident might otherwise face for violating pro-life states’ laws.
By embedding such provisions throughout their legal codes, shield-law states seek to assure their residents that they may, in fact, violate pro-life states’ laws without any fear of repercussions.
The lawsuit comes as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is under court order to respond regarding the timeline for its safety review of the abortion drug mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex.
Plaintiff states claim “shield laws” violate the Constitution and federal law by "promoting and facilitating the distribution of thousands of illegal abortion drugs through the mail and preventing pro-life states from enforcing their own laws," their press release stated.
Their Bill of Complaint to the Supreme Court began:
This case arises from one of the most serious interstate aggressions in our Nation’s history, violating, among other things, the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the states...
Telehealth shield laws attempt to immunize health care providers, pharmacies, and other actors that illegally dispense abortion drugs into pro-life states from both liability in those states and professional repercussions in shield-law states.
... [S]hield-law states seek to assure their residents that they may, in fact, violate pro-life states’ laws without any fear of repercussions.
"And that is the avowed purpose of the shield laws: to facilitate abortions not in shield-law states but in pro-life states. For that reason, 'shield laws' are not shields at all—they are swords disguised as shields and driven into pro-life states," the Court document stated (emphasis added).
Plaintiff states also noted:
The Biden Administration’s action opened the door to a broad-scale, mail-order abortion scheme that would allow organizations, prescribers, and pharmacies in pro-abortion states to prescribe and mail abortion drugs into pro-life states.
The problem with that scheme is that it would plainly subject the out-of-state actors to civil and criminal liability in pro-life states and expose them to professional repercussions in their own states. That is why shield laws exist.
"Although shield laws take different forms across various pro-abortion states, the shield laws adopted by New York, Massachusetts, and California and challenged in this case are a representative cross-section," they stated, adding:
Predictably, organizations, prescribers, and pharmacies in shield-law states—emboldened by the promise of protection—have seized the opportunity to illegally mail abortion drugs into pro-life states with impunity.
They do so openly through websites advertising the sale and shipment of abortion drugs in prolife states. They are just as open about their “scheme to undermine [this Court’s] decision in Dobbs.”... The results are striking. According to one report, Louisiana is experiencing approximately 1,000 abortions a month despite Louisiana’s abortion ban; Arkansas is experiencing approximately 300 every month; and Alabama is experiencing approximately 700 every month.
According to the same report, each abortion results from out-of-state drugs.
The Plaintiff states are asking the Supreme Court to hold that these abortion "shield laws" violate:
the federal common law of public nuisance
They are asking the Court to "enjoin officials in New York, Massachusetts, and California from enforcing their shield laws."
The three states have also filed a civil suit in the Western District of Louisiana against 30 defendants for violating federal public nuisance common law as well as state consumer-protection laws.
They allege defendants engaged in "deliberately bypassing safeguards," "misrepresented the safety, efficacy, legality, and FDA status of the drugs they sell," left out "material information about serious complications, the limitations of remote screening, and what can happen when a woman needs emergency care."
In our constitutional system, the sovereign, co-equal states are endowed with the power and responsibility to regulate within their borders for the health and safety of their citizens..
This case involves a sweeping, coordinated scheme to violate such laws through individuals and organizations who do not reside in the forum states and swear to never set foot in those states. They instead advertise illegal services online in the forum states, accept payments for certain products from individuals in those states, and then illegally ship those products to addresses in those states.
This is not accidental or incidental: They acknowledge that their conduct is illegal— some even do business only in states where their conduct is illegal, and others send 95% of their monthly shipments to such states.
Referring to this as the the "pill pipeline," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told Fox News Digital that investigators have conducted controlled purchases and received pills packaged in small bags, sometimes in quantities she said exceeded what would ordinarily be prescribed.
"We've seen it for ourselves," Murrill said. "There's no supervision, there's no healthcare, there's no communication whatsoever. It's all done online."
"These are not healthcare providers, they are illegal drug traffickers," she stated.
Calling it an "illegal enterprise," Plaintiff states alleged that the following organizations or individuals, "through a sweeping, coordinated scheme, have flooded illegal abortion pills into pro-life states by advertising, prescribing, dispensing, and shipping abortion drugs," directly into pro-life states.
"They are some of the defendants in this case—and their mission is 'to operationalize [their] middle-finger rage,' 'thwart red-state attorneys general,'" Plaintiffs wrote. They named the following:
Brandon Nouhavandi; Jessica Nouhavandi; JBN Operations LLC; Cambridge Reproductive Health Consultants (d/b/a The Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project); Angel Foster; Susan Yanow; Maureen Paul; Remy Coeytaux; Margaret Simeone; A Safe Choice Inc.; A Safe Choice Network Inc.; Remy Coeytaux, MD, PC (d/b/a Choix Reproductive Health); Optio Women’s Health, Inc.; Abuzz, LLC; Manisha Kumar; Ishani Village LLC; Christie Pitney; Christie Pitney Nursing and Reproductive Health Inc. (d/b/a Forward Midwifery, Nursing, and Reproductive Health); Forward Midwifery PLLC; Robin Tucker; R. Tucker Limited (a/k/a R. Tucker Chartered, a/k/a Metro Area Advanced Practice Healthcare); Metro Area Modern Reproductive Care, LLC (d/b/a Roxy Clinic); Charlene Eisenberg Reproductive Health Collaborative, Inc. (a/k/a CE Repro, a/k/a CE Repro Fund); Pea Conn LLC (d/b/a Southern Woven); Southern Woven Health PLLC (a/k/a Woven Health Partners); One Plus Four LLC (d/b/a We Take Care of Us); Robin Hewlett; CSA ASC LLC (d/b/a We Take Care of Us); Timothy Paik-Nicely; and With Open Arms Center for Reproductive Choices, Inc. (d/b/a Choices Rising)
The Plaintiff states claim that the listed individuals and organizations "made false or misleading representations concerning the safety, effectiveness, legality, risks, and appropriate use of abortion-inducing drugs, including minimizing potential complications and the need for in-person medical care. In Louisiana alone, their actions have resulted in the hospitalization of women and the deaths of thousands of unborn babies."
The lawsuit added that "abortions have proliferated by the thousands within Plaintiff States' borders," but "not because of local doctors and nurses, or even underground abortionists, risking arrest by violating those laws." Instead, they blame "an army of individuals and organizations in other states like California, New York, and Massachusetts fixed on perpetrating "a scheme to undermine [the Supreme Court's] decision in Dobbs."
The Plaintiffs point out the fact that deception is rampant throughout the entire process:
The organizations carry out this scheme by widely advertising that abortion drugs are “safer than Tylenol” or even “driving a car.”
They also severely downplay the rate and nature of adverse reactions to abortion drugs that frequently demand emergency care.
And if emergency care is necessary, they actively encourage women to lie to healthcare providers in Plaintiff States by saying that they are simply suffering a miscarriage.
The lawsuit contends that "Plaintiff States are incurring classic quasi-sovereign harms within their borders. Their laws are intended to protect the lives of unborn babies in Plaintiff States from the moment of conception—and yet Defendants’ conduct terminates those lives in violation of Plaintiff States’ laws," adding:
At least some Defendants know this because they routinely receive communications through their online platforms confirming that they have succeeded in terminating unborn babies’ lives.
Abuzz, for example, has received pictures like (and including) the following from all over the country:
The States also wrote that they have reports and even sworn affidavits nothing that healthcare providers are treating abortion pill complications "on a daily basis," with complications like "hemorrhaging requiring blood transfusions," "incomplete abortions" requiring further treatment, blood transfusions, and more.
"Defendants well know the severe consequences of their conduct because they routinely receive communications through their online platforms confirming the symptoms women are experiencing," including this photo, sent to Abuzz:
Plaintiff States requested that the Court enter an order and judgment that grants the following relief and "that the conduct alleged herein constitutes a public nuisance under federal common law."
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall wrote on X that "This is a coordinated scheme by bad actors from out of state to defy Alabama law and harm people in our state... If state sovereignty means anything, it means Alabama cannot be forced to accept the death of unborn children and the harm it causes to mothers because someone outside our borders disagrees with our choice to protect life.”
Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill told Fox News Digital, "This is drug dealing and it's illegal. And we're going to continue to do everything that we can to enforce the laws in our states."
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin wrote on X, "The rule of law matters, and with this action, we are taking action and sending a clear signal that our states take our laws seriously."
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!
Mark Lee Dickson
·
Abortion Pill
Cassy Cooke
·
Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·
Abortion Pill
Bridget Sielicki
·
Abortion Pill
Nancy Flanders
·
Guest Column
Liberty Counsel
·Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·
Investigative
Carole Novielli
·
Investigative
Carole Novielli
·
Investigative
Carole Novielli
·
Investigative
Carole Novielli
·Abortion Pill·By Carole Novielli
'Swords disguised as shields': Lawsuit goes after states protecting lawbreaking abortion businesses
A multistate lawsuit filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by the states of Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana is challenging abortion “shield laws” in New York, California, and Massachusetts, calling them "swords disguised as shields and driven into pro-life states."
In addition, the three Plaintiff states have filed a civil lawsuit against abortion organizations, which they refer to as an "Illegal enterprise," for "Violating Federal Public Nuisance Common Law."
Pro-abortion shield laws do not protect women who take abortion drugs, who are coerced by others who order the drugs online without their knowledge, or who are injured or die due to reckless prescribers seeking profit alone. Shield laws protect the abortion industry.
The laws, filed in states controlled by extremely pro-abortion lawmakers, were put in place shortly after the Dobbs Supreme Court decision overturned Roe v. Wade, as explained in the court document filed by pro-life Plaintiff states. It reads:
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this Court “heed[ed] the Constitution and return[ed] the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” States that favor abortion are thus free to deregulate as they see fit, and pro-life states are just as free to regulate as they see fit.
... After Dobbs, however, pro-abortion states immediately began to enact so-called telehealth “shield laws” aimed at facilitating abortion in pro-life states that have restricted or banned abortion.
... The power of a state’s shield law rests not in any one provision within that law but in the combined effect of all its provisions, which attempt to predict—and eliminate—all legal or professional problems a shield law state resident might otherwise face for violating pro-life states’ laws.
By embedding such provisions throughout their legal codes, shield-law states seek to assure their residents that they may, in fact, violate pro-life states’ laws without any fear of repercussions.
The lawsuit comes as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is under court order to respond regarding the timeline for its safety review of the abortion drug mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex.
Plaintiff states claim “shield laws” violate the Constitution and federal law by "promoting and facilitating the distribution of thousands of illegal abortion drugs through the mail and preventing pro-life states from enforcing their own laws," their press release stated.
Their Bill of Complaint to the Supreme Court began:
This case arises from one of the most serious interstate aggressions in our Nation’s history, violating, among other things, the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the states...
Telehealth shield laws attempt to immunize health care providers, pharmacies, and other actors that illegally dispense abortion drugs into pro-life states from both liability in those states and professional repercussions in shield-law states.
... [S]hield-law states seek to assure their residents that they may, in fact, violate pro-life states’ laws without any fear of repercussions.
"And that is the avowed purpose of the shield laws: to facilitate abortions not in shield-law states but in pro-life states. For that reason, 'shield laws' are not shields at all—they are swords disguised as shields and driven into pro-life states," the Court document stated (emphasis added).
Plaintiff states also noted:
The Biden Administration’s action opened the door to a broad-scale, mail-order abortion scheme that would allow organizations, prescribers, and pharmacies in pro-abortion states to prescribe and mail abortion drugs into pro-life states.
The problem with that scheme is that it would plainly subject the out-of-state actors to civil and criminal liability in pro-life states and expose them to professional repercussions in their own states. That is why shield laws exist.
"Although shield laws take different forms across various pro-abortion states, the shield laws adopted by New York, Massachusetts, and California and challenged in this case are a representative cross-section," they stated, adding:
Predictably, organizations, prescribers, and pharmacies in shield-law states—emboldened by the promise of protection—have seized the opportunity to illegally mail abortion drugs into pro-life states with impunity.
They do so openly through websites advertising the sale and shipment of abortion drugs in prolife states. They are just as open about their “scheme to undermine [this Court’s] decision in Dobbs.”... The results are striking. According to one report, Louisiana is experiencing approximately 1,000 abortions a month despite Louisiana’s abortion ban; Arkansas is experiencing approximately 300 every month; and Alabama is experiencing approximately 700 every month.
According to the same report, each abortion results from out-of-state drugs.
The Plaintiff states are asking the Supreme Court to hold that these abortion "shield laws" violate:
the federal common law of public nuisance
They are asking the Court to "enjoin officials in New York, Massachusetts, and California from enforcing their shield laws."
The three states have also filed a civil suit in the Western District of Louisiana against 30 defendants for violating federal public nuisance common law as well as state consumer-protection laws.
They allege defendants engaged in "deliberately bypassing safeguards," "misrepresented the safety, efficacy, legality, and FDA status of the drugs they sell," left out "material information about serious complications, the limitations of remote screening, and what can happen when a woman needs emergency care."
In our constitutional system, the sovereign, co-equal states are endowed with the power and responsibility to regulate within their borders for the health and safety of their citizens..
This case involves a sweeping, coordinated scheme to violate such laws through individuals and organizations who do not reside in the forum states and swear to never set foot in those states. They instead advertise illegal services online in the forum states, accept payments for certain products from individuals in those states, and then illegally ship those products to addresses in those states.
This is not accidental or incidental: They acknowledge that their conduct is illegal— some even do business only in states where their conduct is illegal, and others send 95% of their monthly shipments to such states.
Referring to this as the the "pill pipeline," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told Fox News Digital that investigators have conducted controlled purchases and received pills packaged in small bags, sometimes in quantities she said exceeded what would ordinarily be prescribed.
"We've seen it for ourselves," Murrill said. "There's no supervision, there's no healthcare, there's no communication whatsoever. It's all done online."
"These are not healthcare providers, they are illegal drug traffickers," she stated.
Calling it an "illegal enterprise," Plaintiff states alleged that the following organizations or individuals, "through a sweeping, coordinated scheme, have flooded illegal abortion pills into pro-life states by advertising, prescribing, dispensing, and shipping abortion drugs," directly into pro-life states.
"They are some of the defendants in this case—and their mission is 'to operationalize [their] middle-finger rage,' 'thwart red-state attorneys general,'" Plaintiffs wrote. They named the following:
Brandon Nouhavandi; Jessica Nouhavandi; JBN Operations LLC; Cambridge Reproductive Health Consultants (d/b/a The Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project); Angel Foster; Susan Yanow; Maureen Paul; Remy Coeytaux; Margaret Simeone; A Safe Choice Inc.; A Safe Choice Network Inc.; Remy Coeytaux, MD, PC (d/b/a Choix Reproductive Health); Optio Women’s Health, Inc.; Abuzz, LLC; Manisha Kumar; Ishani Village LLC; Christie Pitney; Christie Pitney Nursing and Reproductive Health Inc. (d/b/a Forward Midwifery, Nursing, and Reproductive Health); Forward Midwifery PLLC; Robin Tucker; R. Tucker Limited (a/k/a R. Tucker Chartered, a/k/a Metro Area Advanced Practice Healthcare); Metro Area Modern Reproductive Care, LLC (d/b/a Roxy Clinic); Charlene Eisenberg Reproductive Health Collaborative, Inc. (a/k/a CE Repro, a/k/a CE Repro Fund); Pea Conn LLC (d/b/a Southern Woven); Southern Woven Health PLLC (a/k/a Woven Health Partners); One Plus Four LLC (d/b/a We Take Care of Us); Robin Hewlett; CSA ASC LLC (d/b/a We Take Care of Us); Timothy Paik-Nicely; and With Open Arms Center for Reproductive Choices, Inc. (d/b/a Choices Rising)
The Plaintiff states claim that the listed individuals and organizations "made false or misleading representations concerning the safety, effectiveness, legality, risks, and appropriate use of abortion-inducing drugs, including minimizing potential complications and the need for in-person medical care. In Louisiana alone, their actions have resulted in the hospitalization of women and the deaths of thousands of unborn babies."
The lawsuit added that "abortions have proliferated by the thousands within Plaintiff States' borders," but "not because of local doctors and nurses, or even underground abortionists, risking arrest by violating those laws." Instead, they blame "an army of individuals and organizations in other states like California, New York, and Massachusetts fixed on perpetrating "a scheme to undermine [the Supreme Court's] decision in Dobbs."
The Plaintiffs point out the fact that deception is rampant throughout the entire process:
The organizations carry out this scheme by widely advertising that abortion drugs are “safer than Tylenol” or even “driving a car.”
They also severely downplay the rate and nature of adverse reactions to abortion drugs that frequently demand emergency care.
And if emergency care is necessary, they actively encourage women to lie to healthcare providers in Plaintiff States by saying that they are simply suffering a miscarriage.
The lawsuit contends that "Plaintiff States are incurring classic quasi-sovereign harms within their borders. Their laws are intended to protect the lives of unborn babies in Plaintiff States from the moment of conception—and yet Defendants’ conduct terminates those lives in violation of Plaintiff States’ laws," adding:
At least some Defendants know this because they routinely receive communications through their online platforms confirming that they have succeeded in terminating unborn babies’ lives.
Abuzz, for example, has received pictures like (and including) the following from all over the country:
The States also wrote that they have reports and even sworn affidavits nothing that healthcare providers are treating abortion pill complications "on a daily basis," with complications like "hemorrhaging requiring blood transfusions," "incomplete abortions" requiring further treatment, blood transfusions, and more.
"Defendants well know the severe consequences of their conduct because they routinely receive communications through their online platforms confirming the symptoms women are experiencing," including this photo, sent to Abuzz:
Plaintiff States requested that the Court enter an order and judgment that grants the following relief and "that the conduct alleged herein constitutes a public nuisance under federal common law."
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall wrote on X that "This is a coordinated scheme by bad actors from out of state to defy Alabama law and harm people in our state... If state sovereignty means anything, it means Alabama cannot be forced to accept the death of unborn children and the harm it causes to mothers because someone outside our borders disagrees with our choice to protect life.”
Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill told Fox News Digital, "This is drug dealing and it's illegal. And we're going to continue to do everything that we can to enforce the laws in our states."
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin wrote on X, "The rule of law matters, and with this action, we are taking action and sending a clear signal that our states take our laws seriously."
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!
Mark Lee Dickson
·Abortion Pill
Cassy Cooke
·Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·Abortion Pill
Bridget Sielicki
·Abortion Pill
Nancy Flanders
·Guest Column
Liberty Counsel
·Abortion Pill
Carole Novielli
·Investigative
Carole Novielli
·Investigative
Carole Novielli
·Investigative
Carole Novielli
·Investigative
Carole Novielli
·NEW: Three state attorneys general are taking abortion “shield laws” directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas are challenging laws that prevent pro-life states from enforcing their own laws and protecting preborn children. This is a major post-Dobbs Show more
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (@AGLizMurrill) (R) announces legal action to punish mail-in abortion medication into Louisiana: "We will not allow activist states, activist providers or distributors profiting from killing babies to threaten Louisiana sovereignty."
Today I joined @AGLizMurrill and @AGTimGriffin in suing dozens of out-of-state providers and distributors for mailing abortion pills into our states in violation of our laws. These drugs are dangerous for women who take them, and these companies knowingly break our laws.
Louisiana plans to sue me because I won’t extradite a doctor for providing an abortion. @AGLizMurrill: Go fuck yourself. California will never help you criminalize healthcare.
Today I joined @AGLizMurrill and @AGSteveMarshall to protect mothers and babies by suing 29 defendants for shipping abortion pills into our respective states, in violation of our laws. Nothing about the deceptive conduct of these abortion pill providers is health care. Abortion Show more
“Shield laws” aren’t shields at all; they’re swords driven into pro-life states. Now, pro-life states are fighting back. Great work by my colleagues @AGTimGriffin, @AGSteveMarshall, and our staffs.
