Why is Trump administration fighting Kobach and Bailey in abortion pill lawsuit? | Opinion
The Trump administration is on the opposite side from the pro-Trump attorneys general of Kansas, Missouri and Idaho, over a lawsuit seeking to stop a lot of abortions.
Well, there’s the kind of MAGA vs. MAGA action you don’t see every day.
In a court filing on Monday, Trump’s Department of Justice asked for dismissal of a suit seeking to reverse current federal policy and slap heavy restrictions on distribution of the drug mifepristone, which is used in about two-thirds of all abortions in America.
The suit is being pushed by three attorneys general closely tied to Trump’s MAGA movement, Kris Kobach of Kansas, Andrew Bailey of Missouri and Raúl Labrador of Idaho.
The trio seeks to enforce an 1873 anti-indecency law that included a ban on mailing of “every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion.”
The law originally also banned mailing of contraceptives, but it’s been watered down over the intervening century-and-a-half through legislative actions and court decisions — and applying common sense in enforcement.
In other words, how can abortions be legal, but it be illegal to send the supplies and equipment to doctors?
The Food and Drug Administration reconciled that in 2016 when it ruled that mifepristone could be shipped unless it could be proven that the drug would be used for unlawful abortions — emphasis on unlawful.
Unfortunately, common sense is in short supply when you’re talking about Kobach, Bailey and Labrador.
They argue that the FDA overstepped on allowing mailing of mifepristone and also lacked authority to change another rule that required three in-person doctor visits for a woman to obtain and use the drug — which cleared the way for doctors to prescribe mifepristone by telemedicine.
Their justification for the states’ legal standing to sue seems a bit bizarre:
▪ Some lower-income women might have side effects from taking abortion pills and have to be treated at state expense. (Just let’s not think about the cost for those women to carry a pregnancy to term).
▪ Aborted babies wouldn’t grow up to be taxpayers, robbing Kansas, Missouri and Idaho of prospective sources of future revenue.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the abortion-free utopia the lawsuit supporters envision.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that anti-abortion groups and doctors who originally filed the suit lacked legal standing to continue, mostly because they couldn’t show they’re harmed by other people’s abortions.
The case is currently in the North District of Texas, with a judge who has a reputation for handing down pro-life decisions.
With the Texas plaintiffs gone, former President Joe Biden’s Justice Department sought to have the case dismissed. Monday’s filing by Trump’s DOJ largely echoed Biden’s.
“At bottom, the States cannot keep alive a lawsuit in which the original plaintiffs were held to lack standing, those plaintiffs have now voluntarily dismissed their claims, and the States’ own claims have no connection to this (North Texas) District,” the filing said, asking the case be dismissed, or at least moved.
It’s a little murky why the Trump administration is sounding so Bidenesque on this. Analysts quoted in various national publications offered several theories, including:
▪ Trump was serious when he said he opposes banning abortions nationally and really does want it left up to the states.
▪ Trump is willing to sacrifice the abortion case to preserve the administration’s legal leverage in other cases where Democratic-controlled states are challenging other agency actions.
▪ It’s a stall tactic to stretch the case out and keep it from becoming a major issue in the 2026 midterm elections, like it was in 2022 after Trump appointees on the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision. Republican candidates and causes got hammered in a backlash at the polls that year, including a 60-40 vote in Kansas to preserve abortion rights.
Kobach has already had some success limiting mifepristone access in Kansas. Pharmacy titan Walgreens agreed not to provide the drug in the state after Kobach threatened to prosecute the company if it did. Walgreens also doesn’t send the drug into Missouri or Idaho.
How will this all work out? In the Age of Trump, who knows? The guy changes directions faster than The Roadrunner.
But I do know this: If he keeps on opposing Kobach, Andrews, Labrador and friends, there are going to be a lot of pro-life people out there who are going to be very, very disappointed in him.
This story was originally published May 7, 2025 at 4:45 AM with the headline "Why is Trump administration fighting Kobach and Bailey in abortion pill lawsuit? | Opinion."
