Louisiana Moves To Make Abortion Pills a Controlled Substance
The war on drugs meets abortion...

Outlawing abortion is only a first step for some conservative lawmakers, who keep dreaming up increasingly invasive schemes to ferret out and punish anyone trying to circumvent these bans. The latest example of this comes from Louisiana, where House lawmakers voted this week to make the abortion-inducing drugs mifepristone and misoprostol Schedule IV controlled substances.
That would make possession of these drugs a crime—punishable by a mandatory minimum prison sentence of one year and up to five years incarceration and a fine of $5,000—unless they were "obtained directly or pursuant to a valid prescription" for something other than abortion.
The alleged rationale for this bill is especially insane. State Sen. Thomas Pressly (R–Shreveport) brought in his sister, Catherine Pressly Herring, to testify about how her husband secretly slipped her abortion drugs when she was pregnant. "I share my story because no one should have abortion pills weaponized against them," Herring said at an April hearing.
But administering abortion pills is already illegal in Louisiana, where abortion is banned with few exceptions. The state wouldn't need a new law designating them a controlled substance in order to punish her husband's alleged deception.
There are also ways authorities could write a law to more narrowly target such behavior—which is in fact what Sen. Pressley is trying to do with Senate Bill (SB) 276, the larger bill to which the controlled substance change is attached. SB 276 "creates the crime of coerced criminal abortion by means of fraud to prohibit a third-party from knowingly using an abortion-inducing drug to cause, or attempt to cause, an abortion on an unsuspecting pregnant mother without her knowledge or consent," per the state legislature's website.
The True Target: Doctors and Pharmacists?
With or without this new crime, there is no reason the state needs to make abortion pills a Schedule IV controlled substance in order to target someone who secretly slips them into his pregnant wife's drink. But this is a common tactic used by lawmakers trying to grant the state new power: using an extreme and sympathetic example of wrongdoing to justify a wide-reaching change that will be used in matters way beyond that example.
In this case, the most likely target is doctors who prescribe mifepristone and misoprostol.
Both drugs have multiple uses beyond inducing abortions. In fact, misoprostol originally gained traction as an anti-ulcer drug. It also has a number of obstetric uses, including inducing labor and treatment after a miscarriage. And Mifepristone is prescribed to people with Cushing syndrome and uterine leiomyomas.
Prescribing mifepristone or misoprostol for non-abortion reasons is still legal in Louisiana and other states where abortion is banned. But abortion foes worry some medical professionals may use this to covertly prescribe it for abortions.
If these drugs are controlled substances, doctors will have to have a special Drug Enforcement Administration license to prescribe them and the state will be able to track when they're prescribed, to whom, and at what pharmacy these prescriptions are filled.
Effect on Health Care
"Louisiana law typically categorizes medications, such as opioids, as Category IV drugs because they are addictive and thus have a high potential for abuse," notes University of California, Davis School of Law professor Mary Ziegler at MSNBC:
To prescribe such drugs, physicians in the state need a special license, and the state tracks the patient, physician and pharmacy involved in each prescription. Therein lies one of the primary functions of the law: The state has had a hard time enforcing its abortion ban in part because it is hard to identify when and how pills change hands. At least when a prescription originates in state, this bill might give Louisiana prosecutors an extra edge in identifying people to prosecute.
The bill explicitly exempts pregnant women who have misoprostol or mifepristone for their own use from prosecution—another example of the weird paternalism involved in anti-abortion laws. I'm certainly glad most states don't want to criminalize women for attempting or having abortions, but it's also somewhat crazy to act like the woman here is not culpable for her actions but someone who helped her get abortion pills is.
While the law might not result in sending women to prison over abortion drugs, it could be bad for the health of women with miscarriages and other obstetric issues for which misoprostol and mifepristone are prescribed, as well as for people with ulcers and Cushing's disease.
Doctors are likely to be leery of prescribing these medications for people who need them, much in the same way that crackdowns on pain pills and ADHD medications have harmed people who legitimately need these medicines for health conditions.
What's Next
The bill seems likely to pass.
Louisiana's Senate passed S.B. 276 without the controlled substances amendment by a unanimous vote back in April.
It defines the crime of coerced abortion by means of fraud as "a person knowingly and intentionally engages in the use or attempted use of an abortion-inducing drug on a pregnant woman, without her knowledge or consent, to cause an abortion," and prescribed a punishment of five to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $75,000 if the woman was less than three months pregnant and 10 to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000 if the pregnancy was further along than three months.
It also amends the state's prohibition on "criminal abortion by means of abortion-inducing drugs" to include not just causing an abortion by "delivering, dispensing, distributing, or providing a pregnant woman with an abortion-inducing drug" but also with attempting to cause an abortion by these means.
S.B. 276 passed the House, with the amendment, on Tuesday, by a vote of 64-29. This version contains an amendment declaring "any material, compound, mixture, or preparation containing any detectable quantity of mifepristone or misoprostol" to be a Schedule IV controlled substance in Louisiana.
The measure now goes back to the Senate for another vote.
More Sex & Tech News
• Florida is micromanaging what massage therapists can wear in the name of "cracking down on human trafficking." Under a new law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis last week, their clothing must be "fully opaque and made of non-translucent material." The law also stipulates that window coverings at massage businesses must allow in 35 percent of light. This is the kind of law that will do naught for "human trafficking" or labor exploitation, of course. But it does give authorities more pretense to investigate, sanction, and shut down massage businesses of the sort disfavored in many communities.
• The Woodhull Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to find Texas' age-verification mandate (part of H.B. 1181) unconstitutional.
• California is the latest state to advance an age verification measure.
• Washington and Silicon Valley are gearing up for a war over AI.
Today's Image

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe people should stop voting for politicians “who keep dreaming up increasingly invasive schemes” before they find themselves entirely oppressed.
Too late.
Call me when you find an electorate like that.
I don’t really care. Unless you’ve forgotten, the US is a Republic though you wouldn’t know it now days. Who cares what Louisiana does. I don’t live there.
Also, by definition, the population affected by this law are child bearing aged women in Louisiana, that may have gotten pregnant, and don’t want to have a baby. Ok, so what?
There are much bigger issues than how Louisiana classifies abortion pills, although I’m sure some commentator out there will claim this is a war against women. Give me a fucking break.
"I don’t really care." about having a free-market/nation/state is the problem.
"I don't care" is how we got where we are.
If you really support individual liberty you need to care. Each law granting more power to government is a step toward taking the liberty of all people.
If you're just another conservative who wants a powerful theocratic federal government to force your ideas on others then I really have no fucks to give about what you do or don't do. In fact the less you do the better.
Ah, but if someone wants abortion to be illegal then they want politicians who dream up such tyrannical schemes to ban abortion. Just like those who want guns outlawed want politicians who dream up such tyrannical schemes to ban guns.
They want the tyrants who promise to lock up the people they want locked up. Unfortunately both seem to be getting their way.
I often think of abandoning the People's State of California. But then I see what Alabama (in this case), Idaho, Texas, and any number of other states are doing... maybe it's a case of the devil you know.
Please keep talking up how bad states like Alabama, Idaho, and Texas are for the progressives leaving Cali and New York. Nothing but a bunch of religious bigots trying to make real the Handmaidan's Tale. You'd best stay clear. Relocate to Canada.
Those states are also full of morons who think everyone who lives in California is drowning in streets full of shit. It’s actually pretty nice here and has probably the best food/nightlife/hiking in the country.
Exactly. California is really a paradise. Only those ignorant hicks in red states think otherwise. They are just jealous of the great things Cali and New York have to offer.
Are you being serious? Too much LSD? I lived in the Bay Area for 61 years. It sucks.
Poe's law, dude.
Also food trucks!!! How could I forget about all the great food trucks in Cali!?!
You seem to like half-educated, roundly bigoted, childishly superstitious, economically inadequate, can't-keep-up, declining., parasitic communities.
And the depleted human residue that inhabits them (after generations of all of the smart, ambitious young people departing at high school graduation, never to return).
Stick with the sticks, clinger. It suits you.
Exactly, the sticks are full of bitter clingers. Best to stay in the big cities in blue states with all the smart people. Leave flyover country to the rubes.
California sucks, period. I lived there 61 years and finally had the smarts to leave. What I find interesting about this abortion stuff is who does it really affect? The answer to that is women, in their child bearing years, that get pregnant or might be pregnant, and don’t want to be pregnant.
I’d rather live somewhere that defends the 2nd amendment, has very low tax burden, and is ranked one of top ten states for economic and personal liberty based on the Cato Institute’s annual report.
California, Hawaii and New York are the bottom three. Go figure.
I've lived in several different places under leftist regimes and rightist regimes. It really does come down to what laws you're willing to break and what lines you won't cross.
In California one can smoke weed and safely be any kind of weird gender you want to be.
In South Dakota weed isn't legal, weird genders get you beat up but guns are everywhere. We've got constitutional carry here. Most cops are even cool about guns.
I'm sincerely glad that, since no longer doing the daily wrap-up, ENB has not changed writing articles that nobody has to read because it is the same thing every single time.
She did manage to work in a Floridamanbad link. I was worried we wouldn't get one today.
ENB knows that liberty is more than just a 35% top rate.
"The alleged rationale for this bill is especially insane." says Elizabeth "Sonograms detect electrical currents" Nolan Brown.
Leave it to a woman to say and do completely insane shit for years at a time and then shout "Hey! Not fair!" when her opponents refuse to handicap themselves with common sense.
Self-defense is one of the most innate animal instincts, probably only second to getting food to survive.
When wokidiots insist on assaulting little kids with drag queens and pornographic "textbooks", parents' natural reaction is to come to the defense of their children with laws like these.
Sure, in an ideal world, there'd be no need for laws like this, because there'd be no wokidiots pushing pornography on kids with government backing. ENB, why don't you let us know when that happens?
In the meantime, fire KMW, get out of DC, and preach liberty before pragmatism.
"Outlawing abortion is only a first step for some conservative lawmakers, who keep dreaming up increasingly invasive schemes to ferret out and punish anyone trying to circumvent these bans."
Well, yeah. If you think killing innocent unborn embryo/fetus/children is a form of murder and the ultimate violation of individual rights, you do what you can to stop it even when the primary law is already in place.
The problem with that is if I accept the superstition laden justification then there are a lot of justifications based on equally shakey grounds that I should be accepting.
Muslims justify a lot of evil shit with their superstitions, we've got college campuses filled with sympathizers who are just doing what they think is right under Islam, the fastest growing religion in the world. Why aren't they justified in their actions?
I won't even start with what the Torah tells Jews to do. Some of that shit is real creepy.
States can add drugs to the Federal schedules?
Most states carbon copy the federal schedules. Most drug busts are done by state cops so they have to have state laws to bust them with. That's why the legalization crowd focuses on state legislatures and state ballot initiatives. The number of drug cases prosecuted by the feds are fairly small compared to what the collected state governments lock away. That's why Biden claiming what he got done being a big deal is all bullshit. If he freed every federal drug criminal is wouldn't be a significant number of the total people in prisons for drug related crimes.
That is brilliant. Hahaha, kudos to whomever came up with that idea.
But this is a common tactic used by lawmakers trying to grant the state new power: using an extreme and sympathetic example of wrongdoing to justify a wide-reaching change that will be used in matters way beyond that example.
Like the rape/incest of a minor case for abortion, or the even more sobby "endangered life of the mother" example? When the reality is that nearly all people seeking abortions are doing so for the express purpose of intentionally killing an inconvenient human?
I'm certainly glad most states don't want to criminalize women for attempting or having abortions
Why? Honestly, as hilarious and awesome as this step is - it's really a half-measure. The reality is: if you are discovered to have intentionally committed an abortion, you should be thrown in prison for the rest of your life; and anyone who helped you thrown in as well as an abettor. Thrown in the deepest darkest levels of it, where we throw all the other psychopaths that intentionally target the most vulnerable in society.
This LA law's potential impact is a set of hypotheticals that defy hard conclusions. Mifepristone already requires a prescription. Under the Risk Evaluation Safety Management (REMS) standard applied to it by the FDA, it does not require an office visit, and there are no limitations on receiving the drug via mail.
If the intention of this statute is merely frighten people from attempting to fill a mail prescription, then the law clearly violates Griswold v CT, which established a privacy right to contraception. But that matter is about to be addressed directly by the SCOTUS, which is expected to issue a prescription restriction decision within the next few weeks.
The MSM have evoked a plethora of potential future harms from this law, but fail to identify whether or not those are realistic, or are likely to be soon addressed by the SCOTUS.