<span class ="kicker">Fox News exclusive article on Smith-Cassidy-led amicus brief to SCOTUS</span>'FIRST ON FOX: Top Republicans take abortion pill fight to Supreme Court, citing coercion and safety risks'

This press release from Representative Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) was published on 2026-05-07 and titled "<span class ="kicker">Fox News exclusive article on Smith-Cassidy-led amicus brief to SCOTUS</span>'FIRST ON". It focuses on healthcare and touches on abortion, taxes.

<span class ="kicker">Fox News exclusive article on Smith-Cassidy-led amicus brief to SCOTUS</span>'FIRST ON FOX: Top Republicans take abortion pill fight to Supreme Court, citing coercion and safety risks'

By Jasmine Baehr Published May 7, 2026 at 5:43 PM EDT FIRST ON FOX: More than 100 Republican lawmakers are urging the Supreme Court to reinstate abortion pill restrictions, warning current policy allowing mifepristone to be mailed without in-person oversight has led to cases of women being coerced — and in some instances allegedly forced — to take the drug. The amicus brief, led by Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., Senate Majority Leader John Thune , R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., backs Louisiana’s legal fight to restore an in-person dispensing requirement for the drug. At the center of the filing are allegations that loosened federal rules have enabled coercion, with lawmakers arguing the Biden-era policy "increases the risk of coercion," referring to changes to the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) that removed the in-person requirement. The brief points to several alleged cases in which abortion pills were obtained online or administered without a woman’s consent, including plaintiff Rosalie Markezich, who says her boyfriend ordered mifepristone from a California doctor and coerced her into taking it. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., speaks during a Senate hearing while pointing to a chart showing fetal development stages on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Courtesy U.S. Senate Photographic services) "Had she visited a doctor in person, her boyfriend would never have been able to obtain the drugs he made [her] take," the brief says. Lawmakers also cite additional reported incidents, including a case in which a Louisiana mother allegedly obtained abortion pills online for her teenage daughter, leading to a medical emergency, as well as another case involving a man accused of administering the drugs to a pregnant woman without her knowledge. Lawmakers argue such cases are more likely under a system that allows abortion pills to be prescribed online and shipped without face-to-face medical screening. Activists for and against abortion demonstrate outside the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 24, 2024, three years after the Dobbs decision. The demonstration coincides with a landmark Texas filing seeking to prevent interstate abortion pill mailing. (Allison Robbert/The Washington Post/Getty Images) They say the policy not only weakens safeguards but puts women at risk while removing protections designed to prevent abuse. Cassidy said those safeguards should be restored immediately. " Chemical abortion drugs kill innocent children and put mothers’ lives at risk," Cassidy said. "Safeguards protecting against coercion, such as the in-person dispensing requirement, must be reinstated immediately. The Fifth Circuit got this right, and I urge the Supreme Court to affirm that decision." Anti-abortion activists hold signs outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2022, following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. (Stefani Reynolds/AFP) The filing comes after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Louisiana and reinstated the in-person dispensing requirement while litigation continues. Lawmakers argue the FDA "overstepped its authority" by allowing abortion drugs to be distributed through the mail, saying the policy conflicts with the Comstock Act, which prohibits mailing items "designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion." Smith also argued the drug poses serious risks, citing claims that more than one in 10 women experience complications such as infection or hemorrhaging. They also contend the agency relied on insufficient safety data when it removed the in-person requirement, weakening adverse-event reporting standards and then using limited data to justify expanded access. Louisiana lawmakers approved a bill on May 23, 2024, classifying two abortion-inducing drugs as controlled and dangerous substances despite criticism from doctors about their other reproductive health uses. (Allen G. Breed/AP) The brief further argues that eliminating in-person visits prevents doctors from screening for serious medical conditions, including ectopic pregnancies, and makes it more difficult to detect coercion or abuse. The legal fight intensified over the weekend when mifepristone manufacturers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro filed emergency appeals to the Supreme Court, warning the lower court ruling is already causing "immediate confusion and upheaval" across the country. Danco argued the decision is disrupting access and forcing providers, pharmacies and patients to navigate rapidly changing rules, while GenBioPro said the order effectively eliminates mail-order access and upends a system relied on for years. The companies are asking the justices to block the ruling while litigation continues, setting up a high-stakes legal battle that could reshape how the abortion drug is distributed nationwide. The Supreme Court is now weighing emergency requests from the manufacturers, which are seeking to pause the 5th Circuit’s order while