On Monday, the Trump Administration filed a reply in support of the Biden Administration’s motion to dismiss Missouri v. FDA, a case challenging FDA decisions that have made it easier to access mifepristone, a rigorously studied and extremely safe drug commonly used in medication abortion.  

The lawsuit, brought by Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas (the “States”), seeks to reimpose medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone, including that it be administered in person rather than by telehealth. The States filed their complaint in federal district court in Texas in an attempt to revive Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA (“AHM v. FDA”). All claims in AHM v. FDA were dismissed after the U.S. Supreme Court held in June 2024 that the plaintiffs in that suit—anti-abortion doctors and activists who never prescribed and experienced no harm related to mifepristone—had no legal right (standing) to challenge FDA’s regulations related to the drug.   

In its recent filing in Missouri v. FDA, the Trump Administration’s Justice Department argues that the States’ case should be dismissed or transferred to another court because the States have no connection to the Texas district in which they filed their complaint. The Justice Department also argues that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the States have not demonstrated they’ve suffered any injury, and thus lack standing, and additionally because they did not first ask FDA to review their claims and brought some claims too late.  

This filing, however, is not a signal of the Trump Administration’s position on medication abortion generally or the FDA’s related regulations. Rather, it offers the court the only credible arguments the administration could make under longstanding, foundational principles and precedent on court venue and jurisdiction. Notably, the filing does not address the merits of the case or reaffirm the FDA’s decisions on mifepristone. The next step is for Judge Kacsmaryk, who previously ruled in favor of the anti-abortion doctors and activists in AHM v. FDA, to decide whether to dismiss the case.  

To learn more about the clear scientific record showing mifepristone’s safety and efficacy, read our amicus brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of over 300 reproductive health researchers in AHM v. FDA here.  

To learn more about how the Trump Administration could restrict access to medication abortion, read our election explainer How a National Abortion Ban is at Stake in this Election here.  

CRHLP Executive Director Melissa Goodman and CRHLP Legal Fellow Sofia Espinoza are featured in a new Daily Bruin article highlighting their recent policy brief on unconditional cash transfer (UCT) programs and the support they can offer pregnant people and new parents.  
As Sofia explains, “Everybody can use their cash in the way that is most impactful to them and their specific circumstances, which – again, given the current political climate – I think is super important.” Melissa adds that UCTs are gaining momentum in the U.S. because they offer immediate relief while addressing long-term structural inequities. 

There is a growing coalition of these UCT programs and the researchers who study them – the Mother Infant Cash Coalition – that has come together to help document the impacts of UCT programs, and help scale up public investment and make them sustainable. These programs advance both reproductive and racial justice and they are a promising tool in the post-Dobbs landscape. 

Read the full piece here and check out the policy brief here.

Join CRHLP Executive Director Melissa Goodman and filmmaker Rachel Feldman on May 11th for a screening of Lilly, a powerful film starring Patricia Clarkson, that chronicles the experience of legendary pay activist, Lilly Ledbetter. Get tickets to the screening and the Q&A to follow here.

Visit www.LillyMovie.com for more cities and cinemas!

Join UCLA Life Sciences on May 15, 2025, at 5:30 PM PT for Let’s Talk Science: IVF & Emerging Reproductive Technologies. Hosted by Dean of Life Sciences, Tracy Johnson, and featuring CRHLP's executive director Melissa Goodman, this webinar will bring together leading UCLA experts to discuss the science, practice, and policy of IVF and its evolving role in reproductive health. Don't miss this important conversation on the future of IVF and reproductive technologies! Register here to attend.

Join UCLA Law's Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy, UCLA Law's Critical Race Studies Program, and the Center for Reproductive Rights on Thursday, May 29 for a panel discussion and reception on building new legal frameworks and protections to address the maternal health crisis in the United States. The conversation, moderated by award-winning journalist Nina Martin, will feature scholars, practitioners, and advocates to discuss real-world litigation, current challenges in applying the law, and the pathway to new legal innovations for maternal health. This is a unique opportunity to explore how law can be an innovative tool for justice in the fight for better maternal care for all. RSVP here, space is limited. 

On June 5, join CRHLP Executive Director Melissa Goodman and Elana Redfield, Federal Policy Director at The Williams Institute, for a conversation with Candace Bond-Theriault. The three will discuss Candace's new book, Queering Reproductive Justice, which examines reproductive justice through an intersectional lens. The book emphasizes the vital interconnectedness of the reproductive justice and LGBTQIA+ movements and suggests a bold vision for the future. Register now at: bit.ly/QueeringReproductiveJustice 

Photo Credit: Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images 

A new study examines how abortion bans are affecting pulmonary and critical care medicine, revealing how abortion restrictions are straining patient health, practitioners, and health systems beyond OB-GYN care. The study, which involved interviews with 29 pulmonary and critical care clinicians across 15 states, found that abortion bans have led to delayed or restricted treatment for critically ill patients, especially pregnant patients. Providers also reported increased physician “moral distress” and burdens in caring for patients due to having to find workarounds to get patient care such as transferring them to care sites across state lines to minimize harm, having vague institutional guidance, and disruptions to training. 

Photo Credit:Sue Dorfman/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom 

A federal bill aimed at severely rolling back abortion pill access nationwide was introduced this week. The law aims to reinstate outdated and unnecessary FDA restrictions on mifepristone that would effectively ban telehealth abortion and return to a time when people could only get mifepristone in-person, from a physician, after multiple in-person visits. The bill cites a self-published report from a conservative think tank that has been criticized by abortion medication experts for, among other deficiencies in analysis and methodology, mischaracterizing the rates and severity of adverse effects from mifepristone.  While the bill is unlikely to pass, its introduction is notable as one facet of the growing attack on medication abortion access nationwide, like a Texas bill championed by opponents of abortion and introduced last March that would require testing sewage water for trace substances related to abortion medication and abortion pills. 

Photo credit: AP Photo/Aileen Perilla

A reproductive health care nonprofit has filed a lawsuit in a state court challenging Missouri’s parental consent law and ban on assisting minors seeking abortion as unconstitutional under Amendment 3, the reproductive freedom amendment passed by voters in 2023. In their lawsuit, they argue both laws violate the state constitutional “Right to Reproductive Freedom” because they deny, delay, and restrict “young people’s ability to have an abortion” and also “discriminate[] against abortion seekers and those who seek to help them.” The lawsuit also raises concerns about minors in foster care or state custody, because the parental consent law does not specify how minors in state custody can satisfy its requirements.  

With so much going on in the world of reproductive health, law, and policy, every week we'll share articles, books, and media you might have missed. 

Legislators in 13 States Have Introduced 15 “Abortion Abolition” Bills in 2025 

Women’s Rights in Post-Roe America: A Panel Discussion with Clara Bingham, Jessica Valenti and Jamia Wilson 

‘Rolling Thunder’: Inside conservatives’ strategy to curb abortion pill access 

Reimagining the future of reproductive health, law, and policy.

UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy is a think tank and research center created to develop long-term, lasting solutions that advance all aspects of reproductive justice, and address the current national crisis of abortion access.