In a sharply critical opinion piece, David Bereit questioned why the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued in federal court that the coerced use of abortion pills does not constitute “immediate harm.” The argument arose in a lawsuit brought by the state of Louisiana and by Rosalie Markezich, a woman who says her boyfriend used her personal information to obtain abortion medication by mail and then pressured her into taking it, ending her pregnancy against her will.
According to the column, the DOJ’s position came as it sought to pause or dismiss the lawsuit, which challenges the distribution of abortion drugs through the mail. The administration argued that mail-order abortion pills do not impair states’ ability to enforce their own laws protecting unborn children. Bereit portrays this stance as dismissive of both Markezich’s experience and Louisiana’s legal authority, framing it as a broader failure to defend women and state sovereignty.
The opinion piece situates the dispute within the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned abortion regulation to individual states. Bereit contends that while the ruling was celebrated by pro-life advocates as a victory for state authority, that promise is being undermined. He argues that federal regulators have weakened safeguards surrounding chemical abortion drugs, thereby allowing providers and activists in states where abortion remains legal to bypass restrictions in states that have banned or limited the procedure.
A central focus of the critique is the Food and Drug Administration’s decision, under the Biden administration, to eliminate the requirement that patients obtain mifepristone in person from a medical provider. That change enabled wider access to abortion pills through telehealth and mail delivery. Bereit notes that chemical abortions now account for a majority of abortions nationwide and claims that the Trump administration has not reinstated the in-person dispensing requirement that was in place during Trump’s first term.
Beyond the legal and political debate, the article raises safety concerns. Bereit argues that without an in-person medical evaluation, women may not be screened for ectopic pregnancies or accurately informed of gestational age. He also contends that mail-order access increases the risk of coercion, citing Markezich’s case as an example of how abusive partners could obtain the drugs without oversight.
The column further claims that adverse events linked to mifepristone are more common than official data suggest, referencing insurance claims analyses that report higher complication rates than those acknowledged by the FDA. Bereit describes cases of hemorrhage, infection and sepsis, asserting that women may experience serious complications without medical supervision.
In response, several Republican state attorneys general have taken legal action. The piece highlights investigations and lawsuits in Kentucky and Louisiana aimed at stopping out-of-state groups from distributing abortion pills into states where they are restricted. It also notes that more than 20 state attorneys general have criticized the FDA’s regulatory decisions, calling them unlawful and unsafe.
Bereit concludes that federal agencies are obstructing rather than supporting states that seek to enforce abortion restrictions. He calls for the reinstatement of in-person dispensing requirements and other safeguards, arguing that such steps would uphold both women’s safety and states’ constitutional authority. According to the author, restoring those policies would clarify the administration’s commitment to pro-life principles and resolve ongoing legal conflicts over mail-order abortion drugs.
