Stand with us — your gift protects lives.

Your generosity helps advance a culture of life that protects unborn children and supports their mothers.

Donate
Back to Social Campaigns

LA v FDA Case

By
SBA Team
| May 22, 2026

Tracking the crucial legal battle to hold the FDA accountable for removing safety standards on dangerous abortion pills.

 

A graphic titled Cases Explained: LA v FDA features a serious-looking woman in a headband, with text describing the case as a legal battle to stop mailing abortion drugs without in-person medical oversight.

A graphic titled The Lawsuit details the LA v FDA case, showing how Louisiana AG Liz Murrill and Rosalie Markezich challenge the FDA’s abortion drug policy over risks to women, state law concerns, and potential for abuse. Informational graphic stating Why this matters: Mail-order abortion is dangerous, listing risks like lack of doctor visits and drug misuse, and noting that poisoning with abortion drugs is a crime in Louisiana. A gavel is pictured. References LA v FDA lawsuit.

A woman wearing glasses and a headband sits on a couch holding toys. Text above her shares her experience of coerced abortion, her advocacy for women and unborn children, and highlights the relevance of the LA v FDA Case.

A graphic with the U.S. Department of Justice seal on the left. Text on the right discusses the DOJ's response to mifepristone safety, legal actions like LA v FDA, and potential health risks for women, including hemorrhage, infection, and death.

A graphic claims abortion drugs are deadly, showing pills labeled Mifepristone Misoprostol. Text cites severe complications and ER visits, referencing the FDA lawsuit and comparing risks to fentanyl, cocaine, and heroin. Infographic with two red circles showing 80% of GOP voters want in-person visits and 72% oppose approving generics before safety reviews, referencing the LA v FDA Case. Text below says voters won’t support leaders who abandon protections.

No tags assigned.
Back to Social Campaigns
Pregnant?

Pregnant? Need help?