The growth of mail-order abortion businesses under so-called “telemedicine shield laws” is causing concern among pro-life advocates. These state-level policies protect physicians who prescribe and send abortion-inducing medication to states where abortion is illegal. Despite the administration portraying these services as providing “critical healthcare” to women in states without access to abortion, pro-lifers argue these organizations are breaking the law.
Mail-order abortions refer to chemical abortion kits sent via post. These include two drugs, mifepristone, causing the termination of the pregnancy by blocking a hormone necessary for growth and survival of the embryo, and misoprostol, which induces uterine contractions to expel the fetus.
Despite their grave implications, these kits gained significant traction during the Covid-19 pandemic when the FDA allowed the online prescription and mailing of mifepristone. The temporary policy was made permanent in December 2021, spurring an influx of chemical abortion kits.
Only eight states have abortion shield laws, which protect online prescribers from investigations and also refuse to cooperate with investigations from other states. Under these laws, chemical abortions have proliferated, predominantly in states with strict abortion laws.
However, the health risks associated with chemical abortions are severe and include infection, excessive bleeding, incomplete abortions, and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies, which can be fatal if untreated. Furthermore, these abortions can be physically and psychologically traumatic as most are administered without a doctor present.
The protection offered to mail-order abortion providers by shield laws is currently being challenged by pro-life states. These states assert that these laws infringe on their sovereignty and the safety and well-being of their citizens. However, litigation is challenging due to the need for someone who has received the abortion kit to work together with investigators, a co-operator yet to be found.
The proliferation and simplistic portrayal of chemical abortions as swift, easy, and safe undoubtedly conceal grave risks for women. Legal protection should ensure the safety of women and their unborn children from potentially dangerous procedures, rather than safeguard providers infringing on state laws and citizens’ rights. Meanwhile, expectant women considering abortion should be better informed about potential complications, given access to comprehensive resource networks, and advised on possible reversal protocols, should they reconsider after taking the first abortion pill.