FIC Action Warns Connecticut Shield Laws Could Face Supreme Court Scrutiny in Major Mifepristone Case

Family Institute of Connecticut Action warns that Connecticut’s abortion “shield laws” are part of a growing national effort to undermine pro-life laws in other states by protecting the interstate mailing of abortion-inducing drugs, including Mifepristone.

The statement comes as the Supreme Court of the United States considers a major new challenge involving mail-order abortion drugs and the authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to permit nationwide telehealth distribution of Mifepristone. The pending case, brought by the State of Louisiana and other states, argues that the FDA unlawfully weakened safety restrictions and violated federal law by permitting abortion drugs to be prescribed remotely and shipped through the mail. 

“To understand how offensive this must be to other states, consider how we would feel if Texas permitted their sales people to mail assault rifles into Connecticut and then shielded gun manufacturers from lawsuits or created procedural obstacles and vindictive countersuit causes of action.” said Leslie Wolfgang, Director of Public Policy, FIC Action.

Connecticut lawmakers have openly promoted the state as a legal refuge for abortion providers prescribing pills across state lines. 2025 and 2026 bills to expand CT shield laws failed at the Connecticut legislature, thanks, in part, to advocacy by FIC Action’s members.

Is UConn Health helping doctors break the law in other states?

From a CT Mirror article . . . “UConn Health OB-GYN Cara Delaney said telehealth-specific legislation would help more Connecticut physicians feel secure providing abortion care via telehealth across state lines. ‘There are providers that are providing this care across state lines,’ Delaney said. ‘And there would be more that would be providing this care if there was a shield law that protected them.'” Is federal and state-subsidized UConn Health utilizing and facilitating providers that break the law in other states? Would breaking the laws of other states be a violation of UConn Health Bylaws and rules? Wouldn’t this jeopardize UConn’s reception of federal funding?

“Not only are chemical abortion drugs designed to intentionally kill a nascent human life in the womb, Connecticut’s policies encourage a dangerous system of abortion-by-mail with diminished medical oversight and reduced accountability” states Leslie Wolfgang.

Reported complications associated with chemical abortion drugs include severe bleeding, infection, incomplete abortion, emergency surgery, and missed ectopic pregnancies. A large insurance claims analysis published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center found that nearly 11% of women experienced a serious adverse event within 45 days following a chemical abortion. EPPC Chemical Abortion Study.

“Women are being told these drugs are harmless while growing evidence points to significant medical risks,” said Leslie Wolfgang, Director of Public Policy. “Connecticut should not be building an interstate abortion pipeline around drugs associated with serious complications and the intentional destruction of unborn human life.”

If Planned Parenthood of Southern New England plans to pivot to a “mifepristone alone” regimen, they could be choosing abortion over the safety of women. The “mifepristone alone” regime is known to involve heavier bleeding, more pain, incomplete abortions, retained tissues, and emergency complications. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also acknowledges that “mifepristone alone will not always cause abortion” and that some pregnancies continue if the regimen is not completed properly. Combine this with an admission that some CT providers are mailing pills into states that ban abortions, they are playing a dangerous game that will likely hurt some women, and of course, end the lives of intended victims.

FIC Action has joined an amicus brief filed before the Supreme Court supporting Louisiana’s challenge to expanded mail-order abortion access. The brief argues that the FDA’s deregulation of chemical abortion drugs violated federal law, endangered women, and undermined state authority to regulate abortion. 

FIC Action’s amicus brief specifically warns:

“By deregulating chemical abortion drugs and permitting them to be sent through the mail, the Biden FDA violated that longstanding federal law.” 

The brief also argued that states suffer direct harm when abortion drugs are mailed into jurisdictions that have enacted pro-life protections.

“At its core, this case is about whether Connecticut and other activist states can nullify the laws of their sister states by shielding abortion providers from accountability,” said Leslie Wolfgang. “The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to restore constitutional order, respect state sovereignty, and protect both women and unborn children.”

Sources

Supreme Court amicus brief including FIC Action

Reuters coverage of Louisiana v. FDA challenge

AP coverage of Supreme Court temporary order