A recent victory at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that stopped mail-order abortions was seen as a hopeful victory for moms and babies suffering in silence from the dangers of abortion drugs. Sadly, when the opportunity came for the United States Supreme Court to consider the issue, the Court granted two stays, with the last leaving the pro-life community waiting possibly months until the Court decides to take up the case on the merits officially. Nearly four years after the Dobbs decision determined that states have the right to protect life in the womb, one thing has remained the same: abortion pill shipments remain a subversive method for women across the country to have an abortion. Even with states like Texas having strong laws that protect life at conception, our state has had to pass additional laws to make it clear that abortion drugs cannot and should not be sent in the mail. Our pro-life laws in Texas have successfully closed some of the largest Planned Parenthood locations in the state, notably in Houston.[1] 

​

 

But the true test of how effective our pro-life laws have been is the “Plan C” effort to mail abortion pills into states that have complete protection of unborn life. A couple of years ago, a group of pro-life doctors associated with the group the Hippocratic Alliance for Medicine sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under medical conscience grounds in an effort to reinstate the safety requirements that would essentially ban the drugs being sent through the mail.  The doctors also wanted the FDA to put in the safety requirements that would require a woman to visit a doctor in person before obtaining Mifepristone. That case did not bring desired success due to an issue with the doctors in the suit lacking standing. However, recently, Louisiana put the issue of challenging abortion pills back on the table with its 2025 lawsuit against the FDA, The State of Louisiana v. FDA. The case made its way to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals where the 5th Circuit temporarily blocked a rule from the Biden administration that allowed for abortion pills to be mailed to women without an in-person doctor visit.[2] Which brings us to today, where the U.S. Supreme Court did not decide to take up the issue on the merits, and the dangerous practice of mail-order abortions continues. The question then remains: Will the Supreme Court ever rule on the issue of mail-order abortions? Dobbs made us hopeful that the answer was simple. At the very least, if the federal government or courts don’t ban Mifepristone completely, they should agree that it should only be given after visiting a doctor, having an ultrasound, and testing for medical complications. But the dissenting opinions of the two most pro-life justices on the Supreme Court reveal what is really at play: an effort to undermine Dobbs.  

 

​

Justice Thomas Dissent

 

The anticipated response from the Supreme Court on the ruling from the 5th Circuit was a continued stay that would allow for abortion drugs to be sent in the mail. Because this was a response to an emergency appeal, the 7-2 decision was not signed and did not offer reasoning for the decision.[3]However, two justices wrote brief dissents. The first was by Justice Clarence Thomas, who raised an interesting point that has been raised by many national pro-life groups. Justice Thomas began his dissent by stating that “it is a criminal offense to ship Mifepristone for use in abortion.”[4] What is his source for this opinion? Thomas notes that the Comstock Act bans using the mail to ship any drug for producing abortion.[5] While unknown to many people, there are laws on the books that prohibit the mailing of abortion pills. Enacted in 1873, the Comstock Act (18 U.S.C § 1461) indeed makes the “mailing of anything that could produce abortion” a crime punishable by fine or time served in prison. [6] It is difficult to understand why abortion pills have been mailed to women for years when such laws exist. Presumably, Roe v.  Wade would have affected the enforcement of the Comstock Act, as Roe essentially decided that there could be no federal laws restricting abortion. Thankfully, Roe has been overturned. But other cases protecting the right of privacy, like Griswold v. Connecticut, have not.  That said, it is a matter of waiting to see if the federal government will take the initiative to enforce the Comstock Act. Justice Thomas’s dissent might be the pleasant nudge that they need. As Justice Thomas said, the abortion providers, Danco Labs, “are not entitled to a stay of an adverse court order based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise”. [7]

 

 

​

Justice Alito Dissent  

 

Justice Alito found that Danco Labs and the abortion providers did not meet their burden to be granted a stay: they faced no irreparable injury.[8] In fact, Alito provides evidence that the abortion drug companies will face no harm, as history has shown that the FDA has prolonged safety reviews and failed to enforce safety requirements.[9] Notably, Justice Alito exposed the FDA’s silence on the matter earlier in his dissent.[10]

 

It is the statement with which Justice Alito opens his dissent that provides the concern that many in the pro-life movement fear. Justice Alito says, “What is at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), which restored the right of each State to decide how to regulate abortion within its borders”.[11]

 

 

​

The Abortion Industry’s Next Stop: Live Births

 

While abortion drug providers may have received their desired outcome for now, many abortion advocates were already prepared for their next frontier: misoprostol-only abortions. Pro-life and pro-motherhood advocate Isabel Brown made a video on the social media platform X, about a Cosmopolitan article that was preparing women for the possible ban on mailing Mifepristone.[12] The Cosmopolitan article tells women, “Yes, because misoprostol can end an unwanted pregnancy on its own. If you take misoprostol by itself, a pregnancy will typically end within 24 hours of taking it”. [13] Clearly, they are downplaying the situation. What they are suggesting is quite severe. Mifepristone, the first drug, ends the life of the baby by depriving the baby of essential nutrients. Once the baby has died, a woman will take misoprostol to expel the baby. But without ending the pregnancy before expulsion, there is certainly a risk that a woman will expel a living baby in her toilet or bathtub. Sadly, there is little chance that the baby could survive or that the woman who took the pills would help the baby survive. Of course, Cosmopolitan gives a misleading disclaimer about the possibility of a woman seeing fetal remains in the toilet. “If the abortion happens around 11 or 12 weeks, aka toward the end of the first trimester, there’s a chance you may see a small embryo.”[14] What the ‘Cosmo girl’ is suggesting is incredibly unsafe, as research has shown that women who undergo misoprostol-only abortions often must have a follow-up surgery due to complications or inability to empty their uterus.[15] Clearly, abortion advocates have moved on from “safe and legal” to a new standard of “any means necessary.”

​

​

Conclusion

 

The extended stay on the Louisiana case may appear like a setback after the historical Dobbs decision. The knowledge that there are ways that abortionists are still mailing abortion drugs to women even in pro-life states can be a hard pill to swallow. Nevertheless, there is still hope that the Supreme Court will revisit the issue on the merits. Until then, individual states should enforce their pro-life laws with gusto and the federal government should restore the safety requirements before another woman or baby is harmed.

​

​

_____________________

[1] Steven Ertelet, Planned Parenthood Closes Houston Abortion Clinic that was Largest in America, Life News, Sep. 30, 2025, https://www.lifenews.com/2025/09/30/planned-parenthood-closes-houston-abortion-facility-that-was-biggest-in-america/, accessed May 17, 2026.

[2] Steven Ertelt, Federal Appeals Court Blocks Mail Order Abortions, Life News, May 1, 2026,  https://www.lifenews.com/2026/05/01/federal-appeals-court-blocks-mail-order-abortion-pills/, accessed May 17, 2026.

[3] Daily Signal Staff, Supreme Court Lets Abortion Pill Mail Delivery Continue, The Daily Signal, May 14, 2026, https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/05/14/supreme-court-lets-abortion-pill-mail-delivery-continue/, accessed May 17, 2026.

[4] Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Louisiana, 608 U.S. _ (2026) (Thomas, dissenting).

[5] Id.

[6] 18 U.S. Code § 1461 (1873).

[7]Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Louisiana, 608 U.S. _ (2026) at 2. (Alito, dissenting).

[8] Id at 4.

[9] Id at 4.

[10] Id at 3 quoting “FDA takes no position on this matter, even though it concerns the question whether an important rule that it has found to be flawed will remain in force for some unknown period of time”.  

[11] Id at 1.  

[12] Isabel Brown(@theisabelb), X (May 13, 2:34 p.m.) Isabel Brown on X: "Cosmopolitan Magazine published this INSANELY dangerous piece this week suggesting if the “abortion pill” of mifepristone is banned, you should just take the second pill misoprostol all by itself and it will still “end your pregnancy.” Misoprostol will dilate your cervix and https://t.co/WhGfxD8OvO" / X .

[13] Colleen De Bellefonds, Your Complete Guide to Misoprostol Abortions, Cosmopolitan, May 14, 2026, https://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/a60308934/misoprostol-only-abortion-pills-guide-faq/, accessed May 17, 2026.

[14] Id.  

[15] Ingrid Skopp, Induced Abortion with Misoprostol Alone, Charlotte Lozier Institute, May 18, 2023, https://lozierinstitute.org/induced-abortion-with-misoprostol-alone-2/,  accessed May 14, 2026.

​

​