GOP Leaders & Pro-Life Groups Demand FDA Suspend Abortion Pill

WASHINGTON, D.C. – January 13, 2026 – A formidable coalition of conservative leaders is set to publicly demand a reversal of federal policies that have broadened access to abortion medication. On Wednesday, the Family Research Council (FRC), joined by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and the attorneys general of Louisiana and Ohio, will hold a press conference on Capitol Hill to urge the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to suspend mifepristone, a key drug used in medication abortions.

The group contends that Biden-era policies allowing the drug to be shipped across state lines are “undermining state laws, endangering women, and violating federal law.” This event marks a significant escalation in the post-Roe landscape, shifting the battleground from state legislatures to federal regulatory agencies and signaling a coordinated strategy to curtail abortion access nationwide.

The New Federal Front in the Abortion War

At the center of the coalition’s demands is a call for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to dismantle the framework that enables telemedicine consultations and mail-order delivery of mifepristone. According to a press release from the FRC, the group will urge the DOJ “to safeguard the constitutional authority of states to enact and enforce pro-life laws.”

The press conference will feature a roster of prominent pro-life advocates, including FRC President Tony Perkins, Senators Graham, James Lankford (R-Okla.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), along with Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. Their collective presence underscores a multi-pronged offensive, combining legislative pressure with state-level legal authority to challenge the FDA’s oversight.

The coalition’s argument hinges on claims of safety and legality. They are pressing the FDA to “immediately suspend mifepristone and all its generic forms from the market” pending a new evaluation of its risks. The FRC’s announcement alleges the drug “has caused serious adverse complications in nearly 11 percent of pregnant moms who use it” and “poses grave risks to pregnant moms, especially when dispensed without in-person screening or ultrasound evaluation.”

Unpacking the Policies and the Legal Maze

The “Biden-era policies” targeted by the group refer to critical FDA rule changes that reshaped access to mifepristone. In December 2021, the agency permanently removed its long-standing requirement for the drug to be dispensed in person by a certified provider. This decision, which was formalized in January 2023, opened the door for patients to consult with providers via telemedicine and receive the medication by mail through certified pharmacies.

The FDA stated its decision was based on a thorough review of the drug’s safety record, concluding that the in-person restriction was no longer necessary to ensure that its benefits outweighed its risks. However, this federal deregulation created an immediate clash with a growing number of states that have passed laws to ban or severely restrict abortion, including medication abortion, following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The legal landscape remains a complex patchwork. While federal policy permits mailing mifepristone, state laws can prohibit it, creating deep uncertainty for patients and providers. This conflict was at the heart of a major Supreme Court case, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which challenged the FDA’s original approval of the drug and its subsequent moves to expand access. In June 2024, the Court dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue. However, the fight continues as Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho are pursuing a similar challenge in a lower court.

Adding another layer of legal complexity is the debate over the Comstock Act, an archaic 1873 anti-vice law that prohibits mailing materials related to abortion. While the DOJ under the Biden administration issued a legal opinion that the act does not apply to the shipment of legal medications, anti-abortion advocates are pushing for a future administration to enforce it, which could effectively create a nationwide ban on mailing abortion pills.

The Scientific Debate Over Mifepristone's Safety

Central to the coalition's argument is the claim that mifepristone is a dangerous drug. However, their assertion that it causes “serious adverse complications” in nearly 11% of users is sharply at odds with the consensus of major medical organizations and a vast body of scientific research.

Leading medical bodies, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), have repeatedly affirmed the safety and efficacy of mifepristone. Decades of data show that serious complications are rare, occurring in fewer than 0.4% of patients—a safety profile that is comparable or superior to many common drugs, including penicillin and Tylenol. The FDA’s decision to ease restrictions was based on this extensive safety record.

Furthermore, the argument that in-person screening and ultrasounds are medically necessary for safety is widely disputed by medical experts. Numerous studies have demonstrated that telemedicine abortion, which relies on patient-reported history, is just as safe and effective as in-person care. Organizations like the World Health Organization have long advocated for the removal of medically unnecessary barriers to medication abortion to improve public health and access to care. For many in the medical community, the previous in-person requirement was seen not as a safety measure, but as a politically motivated obstacle to access.

A Coalition of Conservative Stalwarts

The figures spearheading this federal push are long-time, influential voices in the pro-life movement. Tony Perkins has used his platform at the Family Research Council to lobby for conservative Christian values in public policy, with a primary focus on restricting abortion. Senator Lindsey Graham, who has a consistent pro-life voting record, gained national attention for introducing a bill that would ban abortion nationwide after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Senators Lankford, Cassidy, and Hawley are also staunch conservatives who have consistently supported measures to limit abortion access at both state and federal levels. The involvement of Attorneys General Liz Murrill and Dave Yost is particularly significant, as it represents the states' role in this fight. Both Louisiana and Ohio have been at the forefront of enacting and defending some of the nation's strictest abortion laws, and their presence indicates a readiness to use state legal power to challenge federal authority on the matter.

This concerted effort by legislators and state legal officers illustrates a strategic alignment to pressure federal agencies from multiple angles. Their collective action aims to create a political and legal environment where the current federal framework for abortion pill access becomes untenable. While the recent Supreme Court ruling on standing presents a high legal bar for forcing the FDA's hand, this campaign is designed to exert immense political pressure that could influence future regulatory reviews and enforcement priorities, especially in the event of a change in presidential administration. The outcome of this renewed federal push could redefine not only the future of medication abortion but also the boundary between political influence and scientific regulation in public health.