This Is So Wrong!

[Editorial]

If it is legal in Connecticut, why is a law in Louisiana preventing abortions in Connecticut?

Court restricts abortion access across the US by blocking the mailing of mifepristone

AP News

By  GEOFF MULVIHILL and HANNAH SCHOENBAUM

May 1, 2026

A federal appeals court has restricted access to one of the most common means of abortion in the U.S. by blocking the mailing of mifepristone prescriptions.

Friday’s unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is requiring that the abortion pill be distributed only in person and at clinics, overruling regulations set by the federal Food and Drug Administration.

The ruling, which is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, is the biggest jolt to abortion policy in the U.S. since the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to enforce abortion bans.

Besides the ruling effectively creating a nationwide ban on mailing abortions pills, it also hinders people with other legitimate medical needs! Mifepristone is used to treat Cushing’s Syndrome and has off-label uses for Uterine Fibroids, Meningioma, and Endometriosis.

In the ruling, Judge Kyle Duncan, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, agreed with the state of Louisiana’s contention that allowing the drug to be mailed there makes moot the state’s ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy.

Beyond this case, Judge Duncan has a history of ruling against the LGBTQ+ community. Lambda Legal  Lambda Legal wrote the following regarding one of his previous decisions

In 2018, after changing her name via court order, Kathrine Jett sent a letter to the Judge in the Eastern District of Texas who presided over her criminal case, requesting that the name on the judgment of committal be changed to reflect her legal name. The district court denied Ms. Jett’s request. Proceeding pro se, Ms. Jett appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the case was pending at the Fifth Circuit, Ms. Jett sent a request to the Court asking that female pronouns be used to refer to her.  “I am a woman—can I not be referred to as one?,” she asked.  On January 15, 2020, the panel majority issued an opinion determining that the lower court did not even have jurisdiction to hear Ms. Jett’s request and then used the bulk of the decision to explain why it would not treat Ms. Jett with respect and courtesy by using female pronouns when referring to her. Judge Kyle Duncan, known for his anti-LGBT work prior to being appointed to the bench by Donald Trump, wrote the opinion in this case.

The mifepristone ruling is only one in a series of right-wing cases he has presided over. Alliance for Justice (AFJ) wrote about his background:

Duncan made his name in 2014 at the boutique religious rights firm the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, when he was the lead counsel on the victorious supreme court contraception case Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores. That pivotal decision laid the groundwork for corporations to opt out of providing birth control for employees based on religious objections, and it preceded another major contraception case the court heard this spring, one that could further favor the religious and moral objections of employers over the rights of their employees to access healthcare.

He is a devout Catholic and has been accused in the past of prioritizing his religious beliefs over the Constitution. For example, his ruling in "In re Texas S.B. 10" allowed the Bible to be displayed in public schools.

What will the Supreme Court do now that they have been asked to hear the case? In the past, the high court has already dealt with mifepristone in the case of Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine the court ruled Alliance For Justice wrote that,

Duncan made his name in 2014 at the boutique religious rights firm the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, when he was the lead counsel on the victorious supreme court contraception case Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores. That pivotal decision laid the groundwork for corporations to opt out of providing birth control for employees based on religious objections, and it preceded another major contraception case the court heard this spring, one that could further favor the religious and moral objections of employers over the rights of their employees to access healthcare.

[...]

A large part of his career as an appellate court specialist was spent defending Republican state laws popular with the religious right and social conservatives. He fought to keep Louisiana’s same-sex marriage ban: the matter belongs in the states, would have “unforeseen” consequences, and LGBTQ rights have “nothing” (his empasis) to do with civil rights cases, he argued. He defended a North Carolina anti-trans bathroom law and a similar Virginia school board policy. And he argued in favor of a North Carolina voter ID regulation that the fourth circuit found targeted African Americans “with almost surgical precision”.

Based on past performances, I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule this time; it is a total crapshoot!

[/Editorial]