Trump's Justice Department Just Defended Telehealth Abortion
In a Monday legal filing, lawyers for the Trump administration argue that an effort by red states to ban mail-order abortion drugs lacks standing.

On Monday, Trump administration officials asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit from several red states seeking to restrict the sale of the abortion drug mifepristone. The Justice Department's rationale closely mirrored arguments made earlier by the Biden administration, indicating that while Trump has sought to radically diverge from Biden-era priorities, abortion restrictions may not be one of them.
In 2022, anti-abortion groups sued to challenge a decision by the Food and Drug Administration allowing the drug to be prescribed via telehealth and sent by mail. The original suit argued that mifepristone—which is usually prescribed to induce an abortion in conjunction with the drug misoprostol—isn't safe and that allowing the drug to be mailed violates a 19th century anti-obscenity law.
Ligation in the case has been ongoing ever since and has now spanned multiple presidential administrations. Biden administration officials pushed back against the suit primarily by arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing. In a 2023 legal filing, Biden administration lawyers wrote that "plaintiffs ask this Court to upend that longstanding scientific determination based on speculative allegations of harm offered in support of claims and arguments that are untimely, unexhausted, and without merit." In 2024, the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit, but Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho have since asked to revive the suit.
Lawyers for President Donald Trump's Justice Department have taken a similar posture to their predecessors. In a court filing on Monday, Justice Department lawyers argued—similarly to the 2024 Supreme Court decision—that the states had no standing to bring a challenge to the FDA's policy.
"The States cannot keep alive a lawsuit in which the original plaintiffs were held to lack standing, those plaintiffs have now voluntarily dismissed their claims, and the States' own claims have no connection to this District," reads the filing. "The States are free to pursue their claims in a District where venue is proper…but the States' claims before this Court must be dismissed or transferred pursuant to the venue statute's mandatory command."
This most recent Justice Department filing shied away from making affirmative arguments for maintaining access to the abortion drug, instead focusing on apparent procedural problems with the states' claims. The Trump administration's willingness to stand by Biden-era attempts to increase abortion access indicates that Trump may be more moderate on abortion than many of his supporters have hoped.
Trump's position on abortion has been sporadic over the past few years. He praised the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, and in June 2023, he said that he would be "the most pro-life President" in American history. However, he also appeared to moderate during the 2024 election cycle. In a January 2024 town hall, he said, "We're living in a time when there has to be a little bit of a concession one way or the other" on the issue. Later that year, the Republican Party removed support for a national abortion ban from its platform.
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
ENB hardest hit.
If only.
I still haven't figure out why state regulations and licensing that prevents the purchase of medical insurance and care across state lines isn't prohibited by the Commerce Clause. Probably because fuck you that's why or something like that.
Because the Union of States was created from Sovereign States and State Sovereignty isn't Commerce.
That makes no sense.
Nothing that goes against your false-narratives (hut hum: State Sovereignty = Commerce) makes sense to you.
Can someone who speaks Retard translate what he's saying into English?
Umm, you speak Retard, and I think that may be where the problem lies.
Batchit crazy whackjobs who fear invisible devils and take advice from invisible friends make the laws. It's what the Jesus Caucus was organized to pollute the LP with--make it into another Ttalitarian klanbake. Need proof? See any screed by muthaslammer or ginger baby Hitler. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2024/11/08/by-our-fruits/
And the "Trump is Pro-Life" made-up leftard BS takes another strike.
Course it doesn't matter. Hating Trump is literally the point within itself for leftards and their [WE] Identify-as gang-RULES party-partisan political game.
Defending Trump is literally the point within itself for Trumptards and their [WE] Identify-as gang-RULES party-partisan political game.
What [WE] Identify-as gangs?
Being Republican is LITERALLY about Individualism NOT [WE] Identify-as gangs.
Being Republican means supporting Trump in any and all things. If you don't then you're GOPe, RINO, or Leftist. That is not individualism. And you when you Trump defenders gang up on people, doesn't that make you guys a, you know. You literally are what you accuse those you hate of being.
Sarc here is coming up with a new meta: Projecting Projection.
"Being Republican means supporting Trump"
Yet there was literally a MAGA vs Republican party contention on display during Trumps 1st campaign?
UR just Self-Projecting your own mentality. Nothing more.
Now what happens when Republicans challenge MAGA? They get labeled and sidelined. Why? Because Trump IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie when they went against Trump?
U just make-up sh*t to fit your Hate-Trump for the sake of Hating-Trump bill.
Massie and Paul are outcasts you dumb, dishonest shit.
From the Democrats, yes.
Thomas Massie [R]. Rand Paul [R].
You, "Being Republican means supporting Trump in any and all things"
You're nothing but a "Trump hating" fumbling bafoon that keeps kicking the ball after your fumbles.
Congratulations! Another American tumbles to the fact that Christian National Socialism is exactly what the label said it was. BOTH ends of the monotofilament are socialism. Hitler speeches are peppered with "the left this" and "the right that"... and larded with Jesus quotes, Bible homilies and collectivist cant---a Radio Priest in a different language.
The majority by a massive margin of Christians in the USA are against [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism]. The very few who support it vote Democrat.
Neat trick trying to infer Christians are 'right-wing' but Democrats.
Spreading dishonesty. It's all the left seems to know how to do.
For them; It's not about honorable arguments. It's all about 'gang' points.
Reason, fire Emma and Jack. Fucking retards.
Do bans on mail order fentanil lack standing?
My guess is that if you have a prescription for fentanil you can likely order it by mail. See the Amazon Pharmacy.
Is this the DOJ defending abortion or the DOJ saying the plaintiffs lack standing? Do they at any point address the merits, or is it just an argument about procedure? If its the latter, it seems inaccurate, if not misleading, to say the DOJ is defending abortion.
Yeah, but saying that and putting it the headline generates clicks. This place might be taken more seriously if most of the stuff here wasn't just click-bait.
Sounds to me like they're saying the federal government has no place in the fight.
What the hell is telehealth abortion
A Joe Biden speech?
I think the Trump Administration understand this is a losing issue. The facts that there is pretty broad spread support for medical abortions. This present an interesting example of how the Republican better respond to 80-20 issues than the Democrats.
Trump has been very open and clear about his stances on abortion.
Individual rights for women? I'll crush them underfoot! Then again... not so fast.
Or you know, the original argument against Roe; it's not mentioned in the Constitution, ergo it's left to the individual States to determine, and the Federal government has no dog in this fight. My God, it almost sounds libertarian.
So The Don saw what happened when his pets on the Suprema corte stomped on women before the midterms. That lesson sunk in even better when E-lawnjockey came crying to the Whites House because Women Tanked Tesla.
https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2024/04/15/women-tank-tesla/
If the Dems were as quick-witted, they'd've gotten Sleepy Joe to commute Ross' sentence the day after MAGAts took over the LP convention.
So, I've come up with what I think is a very reasonable compromise on the whole abortion debate.
We let abortion be legal. However, in order to qualify for one, the mom has to voluntarily accept a few rounds of Russian Roulette before being able to obtain one.
We can quibble about the number of rounds if you want (I think six is a fair number). But I think that's a fair trade. Also, we bypass all the need for drugs and surgery and telehealth and insurance and blah blah blah.
We just simplify the whole thing.
Mom: "I want an abortion."
Doctor: "OK, please step into this room."
Nurse: "The revolver, doctor, with a single round chambered."
Doctor: "OK, place this against your temple and pull the trigger until the fetus is dead. If this doesn't kill your baby, we'll surgically assist. Or telehealth you a pill if you prefer, which, hilariously, is not unlike this procedure."
There. I just solved the abortion issue for good.
So Trump, like Biden, permits prolife states to be inundated with abortifacients, courtesy of shipping companies and the U. S. Postal Service, in violation of a very clear law, and the states have no judicial recourse against the feds for such a legal violation?
Of course Trump is following the polls not the law.
To say he's not Biden is perfectly true, but it doesn't make him prolife.