Amicus Curiae Brief — Danco Laboratories, LLC, Applicant v. Louisiana, et al.

Nos. 25A1207, 25A1208

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

DANCO LABORATORIES, L.L.C.,

v.

Applicant,

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, et al.,

Respondents.

GENBIOPRO, INC.,

Applicant,

v.

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, et al.,

Respondents.

On Emergency A pplications to Vacate or Stay Order of the

United States Court of A ppeals for the Fifth Circuit

BRIEF OF FORMER MILITARY OFFICIALS, FORMER

CIVILIAN NATIONAL SECURITY LEADERS, AND VET

VOICE FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF

APPLICATIONS BY DANCO AND GENBIOPRO TO STAY OR

VACATE THE FIFTH CIRCUIT’S STAY PENDING APPEAL

K ate Epstein

Counsel of Record

Hecker Fink LLP

1050 K Street NW, Suite 1040

Washington, DC 20001

(212) 763-0883

kepstein@heckerfink.com

Clara S. Spera

Madeline Verniero

Hecker Fink LLP

350 Fifth Avenue, 63rd Floor

New York, NY 10118

(212) 763-0883

Counsel for Amici Curiae

392859

A

(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTEREST AND IDENTITY OF AMICI ...................................................................... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................................... 4

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 5

I.

Military Readiness Is Essential, and Women Are Critical to

Maintaining It. .................................................................................................. 5

II. Timely Access to Reproductive Healthcare, Including Abortion, Is

Essential to Military Readiness. ...................................................................... 8

A. Limited access impedes the deployability, recruitment, and

retention of servicemembers. ..................................................................... 8

B. Federal policies restrict abortion access for servicemembers and

veterans, making further restrictions even more burdensome for

servicemembers’ ability to access timely care. ........................................ 11

C. State restrictions on abortion impose additional barriers on

servicemembers and veterans seeking reproductive healthcare

nationwide. ............................................................................................... 12

D. Telehealth abortion mitigates access barriers and strengthens

military readiness..................................................................................... 16

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 17

i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes

10 U.S.C. § 1093(a) ...................................................................................................... 11

10 U.S.C. § 1093(b) ...................................................................................................... 11

Other Authorities

Carrie N. Baker, ‘Barrage of Harassment, Intimidation and Violent Attacks’ on

Abortion Clinics, Says National Abortion Federation, Ms. Mag. (Apr. 25,

2025),

https://msmagazine.com/2025/04/25/harassment-intimidationviolence-abortion-clinics-doctors-providers-national-federation/ .................... 15

Steve Beynon, Surge of Female Enlistments Helped Drive Army Success in

Reaching 2024 Recruiting Goal, Military.com (Jan. 9, 2025, 21:50 ET),

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/01/09/surge-of-femaleenlistments-helped-drive-army-success-reaching-2024-recruiting-goal.html ........ 7

Br. for Pet., Struck v. Sec’y of Def., 409 U.S. 1071 (1972) (No. 72-178), 1972 WL

135840 ............................................................................................................... 13

Lisa S. Callegari & Sonya Borrero, Abortion Care for Veterans—A Historic

Step

Forward,

3

JAMA

Health

F.

(2022),

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2798138 ....... 15

Eric Edelman et al., Nat’l Def. Strategy Comm’n, Providing for the Common

Defense: The Assessment and Recommendations of the National Defense

Strategy Commission (2018), https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/201811/providing-for-the-common-defense.pdf .......................................................... 6, 7

Shoshanna Ehrlich, Three Women Veterans on the Devastating Reality of the

VA Abortion Ban, Ms. Mag. (Mar. 16, 2026, at 07:54 PT),

https://msmagazine.com/2026/03/15/women-veterans-abortion-healthpregnanc-emergency-rape-incest-total-ban-trump/ ......................................... 14

Exec. Order No. 14182, Enforcing the Hyde Amendment, 90 Fed. Reg. 8751

(Jan. 24, 2025) ................................................................................................... 11

Alyssa Goldberg, People Are Flocking Out-of-State for Abortion Care. Clinics

Are Fighting to Keep Up, USA Today (Mar. 18, 2025, at 11:59 ET),

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2025/03/05/abortionclinic-fund-travel-sustainability/80697629007/ .................................................. 13

Daniel Grossman et al., Care Post-Roe: Documenting Cases of Poor-Quality

Care Since the Dobbs Decision, Advancing New Standards in

Reproductive Health (2024), https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/202409/ANSIRH%20Care%20PostRoe%20Report%209.04.24_FINAL%20EMBAR

GOED_0.pdf .......................................................................................................... 9

ii

Pete Hegseth, U.S. Sec’y of War, Address to General and Flag Officers

at

Quantico,

Virginia

(Sept.

30,

2025),

https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/article/4318689/secretaryof-war-pete-hegseth-addresses-general-and-flag-officers-at-quantico-v/ .......... 6

The Heritage Foundation, 2026 Index of U.S. Military Strength (Robert Peters,

Daniel

R.

Green

&

Wilson

Beaver,

eds.,

2026),

https://static.heritage.org/2026/Military_Index/2026_IndexOfUSMilitary

Strength.pdf ........................................................................................................ 6

G. James Herrera, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R46559, The Fundamentals of Military

Readiness (2020), https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R46559.pdf ......................... 5, 6

Alex Horton & Rachel Roubein, Abortion Ruling Will Worsen Military

Personnel Crisis, Pentagon Says, Wash. Post (July 29, 2022, at 17:17 ET),

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/29/militaryabortion-recruiting/ ............................................................................................. 9

Trevor Hunnicutt, Restrictive Abortion Laws Hurting US Military, White

House

Says,

Reuters

(July

17,

2023,

at

18:23

ET),

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/restrictive-abortion-laws-hurtingmorale-retention-us-military-w-house-2023-07-17/ ......................................... 10

Evan Hydock, Is the Military Recruiting Crisis Over? Not Quite., Geo. Sec’y

Stud. R. (2025), https://gssr.georgetown.edu/the-forum/topics/defense/isthe-military-recruiting-crisis-over-not-quite/ .................................................... 7

Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe, Guttmacher Inst.

(last visited May 6, 2026), https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/ ................. 12

Kristy N. Kamarck, Cong. Rsrch. Serv., R42075, Women in Combat: Issues for

Congress

(2016),

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R42075/R42075.25.pdf ......... 8

Ben Kesling, The Military Recruiting Crisis: Even Veterans Don’t Want Their

Families to Join, Wall St. J. (June 30, 2023, 00:01 ET),

https://www.wsj.com/politics/military-recruiting-crisis-veterans-dontwant-their-children-to-join-510e1a25 ............................................................ 7, 9

Patricia Kime, 13 US Troops Killed, More Than 380 Wounded in Operation

Epic

Fury,

Military

Times

(Apr.

8,

2026),

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/04/08/pentagondata-13-us-troops-killed-346-wounded-in-operation-epic-fury/ .......................... 6

Douglas Lindsay, The Military Is Growing Again but Capacity, Not Recruiting,

Is the Real Test, Military.com (Jan. 27, 2026, at 03:00 ET),

https://www.military.com/feature/2026/01/26/military-growing-againcapacity-not-recruiting-real-test.html.............................................................. 10

Hugh McClean, The Military’s Abortion Crisis in the Aftermath of Dobbs v.

Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 16 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 1 (2026) ....... 13

iii

Julianne McShane, Department of Veterans Affairs Quietly Implements

Abortion Ban, MS Now (Dec. 23, 2025, at 11:30 ET),

https://www.ms.now/news/abortion-ban-veterans-affairs-va .......................... 12

Memorandum from Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

& Leon E. Panetta, Sec’y of Def., to Secretaries of the Military

Departments

(Jan.

24,

2013),

https://www.womenvets

usa.org/cmsfiles/docs/rescission-of-1994-direct-ground-combatdefinition-&-assignment-rule-secdef-24-jan-2013.pdf?1774215191.................. 8

Memorandum from Sarah W. Moore, Deputy Director, Def. Travel Mgmt. Off.,

Dep’t of Def. to Military Advisory Panel (Jan. 29, 2025),

https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2025SAF/Remove_Travel_for_

Non-Covered_Reproductive_Health_Care_Services.pdf ................................. 12

Leon Panetta et al., Bipartisan Pol’y Ctr., The Building Blocks of a

Ready

Military:

People,

Funding,

Tempo

(2017),

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BPCDefense-Military-Readiness.pdf.......................................................................... 5, 7

Caitlin Russell et al., Policy Knowledge and Abortion Access for US Active‐Duty

Servicewomen: A Mixed‐Methods Study, 71 J. Midwifery & Women’s

Health (2025), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12914618/ ............ 14

Service Members’ Reproductive Health and Readiness: Hearing Before

the Subcomm. on Mil. Pers. of the H. Comm. on Armed Servs.,

117th

Cong.

(2022),

https://www.congress.gov/117/chrg/CHRG117hhrg51197/CHRG-117hhrg51197.pdf ........................................ 9, 10, 13, 14

Serra Sippel & Janessa Goldbeck, Army Veterans Deserve Access to Abortion.

The Senate Just Denied Them., MS Now (Mar. 26, 2026, at 12:04 ET),

https://www.ms.now/opinion/va-abortion-access-senate-vote ......................... 12

Aaron Sobczak, High Attrition Rates and Increased Waivers Muddy Enlistment

Numbers,

Responsible

Statecraft

(Mar.

10,

2025),

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/military-attrition-rates-high ......................... 7

Three Years Post-Dobbs, Abortion Providers Experience High Levels of Violence

&

Disruption,

Nat’l

Abortion

Fed.

(Apr.

23,

2025),

https://nationalabortionfederation.org/three-years-post-dobbs-abortionproviders-experience-high-levels-of-violence-disruption/ ................................ 15

U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 2024 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community,

https://www.militaryonesource.mil/data-research-and-statistics/militarycommunity-demographics/..................................................................................... 7

U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-20-61, Female Active-Duty Personnel:

Guidance and Plans Needed for Recruitment and Retention Efforts

(2020), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-61.pdf ....................................... 7, 10

iv

Steve Walsh, Faced With Obstacles to Abortion, Military Women Have Built

Their Own Support System, NPR (Oct. 30, 2024, at 05:00 ET),

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/29/nx-s1-5162443/women-in-the-militaryabortion-roe-v-wade .......................................................................................... 13

Sen. Elizabeth Warren et al., The “Defund” Disaster: How the Republican

Attack on Planned Parenthood Is Hurting Patients and Raising

Americans’

Health

Care

Costs

(2026),

https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/_senate_defund_report.pdf ....... 13

Douglas Yeung et al., Recruiting Policies and Practices for Women in the

Military:

Views

from

the

Field,

RAND

Corp.

(2017),

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1538.html .............................. 7

v

INTEREST AND IDENTITY OF AMICI1

Amici are United States military veterans, former civilian national security

leaders, and a non-profit organization that supports the wellbeing of current and

former servicemembers. As former senior officials with expertise in military

recruitment, readiness, medical care, and personnel matters, they submit this brief

to offer a unique perspective on the threat that restricted access to mifepristone poses

to military readiness and national security.

The Honorable Louis Caldera is the Former Secretary of the Army and the

Former Director of the White House Military Office. He graduated from the U.S.

Military Academy and began his military career as an Army officer. In his time as

Secretary of the Army, he implemented changes to develop a more versatile and

deployable force and led a reversal of recruiting shortfalls.

The Honorable Deborah James is the Former Secretary of the Air Force

and the Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. As Secretary of

the Air Force, she led efforts to increase percentages of women and diverse candidates

in applicant pools, to open more Air Force roles to women, and to extend the PostPregnancy Deployment Deferment from six to twelve months.

U.S. Army Major General (Ret.) Paul Eaton is the Former Commanding

General, Army Infantry Center and School. He gave 33 years of service to the

military, including as the Commanding General of the command charged with

reestablishing Iraqi Security Forces from 2003 to 2004.

1 This brief was not authored in whole or part by counsel for a party. No one other than amici and their

counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of the brief.

1

U.S. Army Major General (Ret.) Tammy Smith is the Former Deputy

Commanding General for Sustainment, Eighth U.S. Army, Korea, and the Former

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve

Affairs). In the latter role, and throughout her career, General Smith handled

personnel policy, including readiness and family issues.

U.S. Army Brigadier General (Ret.) Steven M. Anderson is the Former

Director, Operations and Logistics Readiness for the U.S. Army. In that role, he led

a staff responsible for all Army logistics readiness reporting and ran the Army’s

Logistics Operations Center.

U.S. Army Brigadier General (Ret.) Robin B. Umberg is the former Chief

Nurse, 3rd Medical Command for the U.S. Army. She served in a variety of staff and

command assignments throughout her 36 years of service, including in roles that had

responsibility for battlefield readiness, training, and career management for more

than 27,000 medical personnel.

U.S. Navy Rear Admiral (LH) (Ret.) Michael S. Baker, M.D., F.A.C.S. is

a semi-retired general and trauma surgeon who served in the Medical Corps, U.S.

Navy. In his role as a Navy officer, he held roles in operational medicine, combat

deployments, medical intelligence, and strategic planning.

U.S. Air Force Major General (Ret.) Patricia A. Rose is a retired senior

logistics and operational leader who served more than three decades in the U.S. Air

Force. She commanded the 36th Aerial Port Squadron at McChord Air Force Base

and later directed joint logistics operations in Southwest Asia in support of

2

Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. She also served in senior logistics

leadership roles at U.S. Pacific Command and Air Force Materiel Command.

Throughout her career, she held key positions in logistics, engineering, and security,

with responsibility for sustainment, readiness, and force protection across global

operations.

Vet Voice Foundation is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit, non-partisan

organization dedicated to strengthening the United States military and supporting

the wellbeing of current and former servicemembers. Vet Voice Foundation has a

particular interest in ensuring that policies affecting servicemembers and veterans

reflect the realities of military life.

3

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case implicates military readiness—the ability of the military to recruit,

retain, and sustain a force prepared for immediate deployment. Women are essential

to that force. For female servicemembers, access to comprehensive reproductive

healthcare, including abortion, is critical to maintaining the readiness upon which

the Nation’s security depends.

When access to such care is restricted, servicemembers face delays, extended

absences, and structural barriers that directly impair their ability to serve. These

individual burdens carry systemic consequences. They undermine recruitment,

increase attrition, and disrupt unit cohesion. The unique demands of military service

compound these harms. Servicemembers cannot choose their duty locations, must

operate within rigid schedules and command structures, and cannot readily arrange

leave or transportation to an in-person appointment. Nationwide abortion

restrictions,

layered

atop

these

structural

constraints,

significantly

limit

servicemembers’ ability to obtain timely care and remain available for duty.

These are not speculative concerns. Restricted access has direct, measurable

effects on unit readiness, personnel availability, and mission execution. Where

permitted, telehealth access to reproductive healthcare mitigates these harms by

enabling servicemembers to obtain care efficiently, reducing disruptions to both

individual careers and unit operations. Reinstating the in-person dispensing

requirement for mifepristone is contrary to the public interest, imposing predictable

constraints—travel, delay, absence, attrition—that concretely harm military

readiness and, in turn, national security.

4

ARGUMENT

Military readiness is a paramount national interest. Reinstating the in-person

dispensing requirement for mifepristone would limit the ability of servicemembers to

access reproductive healthcare efficiently, imposing grave costs on military readiness

and, as a result, national security. Telehealth access to mifepristone enables

servicemembers stationed in states that permit such care to obtain essential

healthcare without extended travel or leave. This preserves military personnel

availability, reduces unit disruption, and supports recruitment and retention.

I.

Military Readiness

Maintaining It.

Is

Essential,

and

Women

Are

Critical

to

National security requires the United States military to respond to global

threats in real time. Personnel must be trained, available, and ready for deployment.

Women are essential to meeting this need. They fill critical roles at every level,

represent a significant portion of the recruitable population, and contribute directly

to force capacity. Ensuring their access to reproductive healthcare, including

abortion, is imperative to sustaining a mission-ready military.

“Military readiness” is the capacity to “produce, deploy, and sustain military

forces that will perform successfully in combat.”2 Without sufficient readiness,

adversaries may perceive diminished capability, increasing the risk of conflict.3 This

readiness is particularly urgent today, given ongoing global conflicts in the Middle

G. James Herrera, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R46559, The Fundamentals of Military Readiness 1 (2020),

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R46559.pdf.

3 Leon Panetta et al., Bipartisan Pol’y Ctr., The Building Blocks of a Ready Military: People, Funding,

Tempo 18–19 (2017), https://bipartisanpolicy.org/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ BPCDefense-Military-Readiness.pdf.

2

5

East. As of April 2026, the U.S. military had more than 50,000 personnel in the

region.4 The Administration has warned that this is a time of “urgency” and growing

threats, and that the military “must be prepared.”5

Capable personnel are the foundation of military readiness. They must be

physically prepared and able to respond to threats with urgency. A key component of

this readiness is the capacity “to rapidly mobilize, deploy, and redeploy” troops.6

“Speed matters,” particularly when confronting global challenges in real time.7

Barriers to healthcare, including reproductive healthcare, impair this speed by

forcing servicemembers to take extended leave or delaying their return to duty.

While the U.S. military remains among the most powerful in the world, its

readiness cannot be assumed. A March 2026 Heritage Foundation study concluded

that the U.S. military “is burdened by readiness levels that are more problematic

than they should be” and “is at significant risk of not being able to defend America’s

vital national interests with assurance.”8

4 Patricia Kime, 13 US Troops Killed, More Than 380 Wounded in Operation Epic Fury, Military Times

(Apr. 8, 2026), https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/04/08/pentagon-data-13-us-troopskilled-346-wounded-in-operation-epic-fury/.

5 Pete Hegseth, U.S. Sec’y of War, Address to General and Flag Officers at Quantico, Virginia (Sept. 30,

2025), https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/article/4318689/secretary-of-war-pete-hegsethaddresses-general-and-flag-officers-at-quantico-v/.

6 Herrera, supra note 2, at 7.

7 Eric Edelman et al., Nat’l Def. Strategy Comm’n, Providing for the Common Defense: The Assessment and

Recommendations

of

the

National

Defense

Strategy

Commission

33,

66

(2018),

https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/providing-for-the-common-defense.pdf.

8 The Heritage Foundation, 2026 Index of U.S. Military Strength 547, 553 (Robert Peters, Daniel R. Green

& Wilson Beaver, eds., 2026), https://static.heritage.org/2026/Military_Index/2026_IndexOfUS

MilitaryStrength.pdf.

6

Readiness depends on recruiting personnel who are prepared to fight when

needed.9 Retention is equally critical. Units with consistent personnel are more

effective than those relying on fill-in soldiers.10 When servicemembers leave, units

lose cohesion and operational effectiveness.11 Despite recent improvements,

recruitment and retention remain persistent challenges.12

Given these challenges, the military benefits from recruiting and retaining

women. Department of Defense leaders have long recruited female servicemembers

to “maintain and improve mission readiness.”13 As a result of these efforts, as of 2024,

women comprised around 18 percent of the active-duty force.14 Indeed, women

represent a highly recruitable population with strong potential for advancement.15

Since the enactment of the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948,

women have increasingly filled essential roles across the military.16 Women have long

9 See Panetta, supra note 3, at 5; Edelman, supra note 7, at xi.

10 Ben Kesling, The Military Recruiting Crisis: Even Veterans Don’t Want Their Families to Join, Wall St.

J. (June 30, 2023, 00:01 ET), https://www.wsj.com /politics/military-recruiting-crisis-veterans-dont-wanttheir-children-to-join-510e1a25.

11 See id.

12 See Evan Hydock, Is the Military Recruiting Crisis Over? Not Quite., Geo. Sec’y Stud. R. (2025),

https://gssr.georgetown.edu/the-forum/topics/defense/is-the-military-recruiting-crisis-over-not-quite/;

Aaron Sobczak, High Attrition Rates and Increased Waivers Muddy Enlistment Numbers, Responsible

Statecraft (Mar. 10, 2025), https://responsiblestatecraft.org/military-attrition-rates-high.

13 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-20-61, Female Active-Duty Personnel: Guidance and Plans Needed

for Recruitment and Retention Efforts 1–2 (2020) (“GAO Report”), https://www.gao. gov/assets/gao-2061.pdf.

14 U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 2024 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community 18, https://www.

militaryonesource.mil/data-research-and-statistics/military-community-demographics/.

15 Steve Beynon, Surge of Female Enlistments Helped Drive Army Success in Reaching 2024 Recruiting

Goal, Military.com (Jan. 9, 2025, 21:50 ET), https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/01/09/surge-offemale-enlistments-helped-drive-army-success-reaching-2024-recruiting-goal.html.

16 Douglas Yeung et al., Recruiting Policies and Practices for Women in the Military: Views from the Field,

RAND Corp. 1–2 (2017), https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1538.html.

7

been on the front lines, in combatant vessels, aircraft, and other combat roles.17 In

2013, the federal government rescinded a ground combat exclusion rule, allowing

women to serve in direct ground combat roles to help “remov[e] as many barriers as

possible to joining, advancing, and succeeding in the U.S. Armed Forces.”18 Ensuring

women’s continued participation is critical to sustaining military readiness.

II.

Timely Access to Reproductive Healthcare, Including Abortion, Is

Essential to Military Readiness.

Restrictions

on

abortion

directly

impair

military

readiness.

When

servicemembers cannot access reproductive healthcare efficiently, they face extended

absences, delayed treatment, and forced choices between their health and their

careers—each of which undermines deployability, recruitment, and retention.

Telehealth access to mifepristone mitigates these harms by enabling servicemembers

stationed in states that permit such care to obtain abortion without the disruptions

that degrade unit effectiveness. The Fifth Circuit’s stay threatens this access and

thereby inflicts concrete harm on military readiness.

A. Limited access impedes the deployability, recruitment, and

retention of servicemembers.

Access to abortion affects physical preparedness. When abortion is not readily

accessible, servicemembers may be required to take extended leave and travel long

distances—barriers that telehealth access to mifepristone can mitigate in those states

17 See Kristy N. Kamarck, Cong. Rsrch. Serv., R42075, Women in Combat: Issues for Congress 6 (2016),

https://www. congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R42075/R42075.25.pdf.

18 Memorandum from Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff & Leon E. Panetta, Sec’y

of Def., to Secretaries of the Military Departments 1 (Jan. 24, 2013), https://www.womenvets

usa.org/cmsfiles

/docs/rescission-of-1994-direct-ground-combat-definition-&-assignment-rule-secdef-24jan-2013.pdf?1774215191.

8

that permit it. See infra Section II.C. That disruption hinders a servicemember’s

ability to serve and has ripple effects on unit operations. Military units that are not

fully staffed cannot respond quickly, and units with fill-in soldiers are less effective.19

And delayed care can result in serious health consequences requiring additional leave

or separation from the military, further eroding unit readiness.20

Government officials have recognized that barriers to reproductive healthcare

weaken readiness by diminishing recruitment and retention efforts. Following Dobbs,

then-Pentagon Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Gilbert R.

Cisneros, Jr. warned that barriers to abortion could drive attrition, noting that “some

service members may choose to leave the military altogether” due to difficulty in

obtaining care.21 And during a Congressional hearing on servicemembers’

reproductive health and readiness, Representative Jackie Speier similarly cautioned

that restrictions on abortion “creat[e] a real incentive for women not to serve.”22

Servicemembers themselves report the same impact. In 2023, active-duty

servicemembers confirmed that barriers to reproductive access “are impacting their

willingness to continue to serve in the military,” creating a “retention and morale

19 Kesling, supra note 10.

20 See Daniel Grossman et al., Care Post-Roe: Documenting Cases of Poor-Quality Care Since the Dobbs

Decision, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health 11-14, 19 (2024), https://www

.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/ANSIRH%20Care%20PostRoe%20Report%209.04.

24_FINAL%

20EMBARGOED_0.pdf.

21 Alex Horton & Rachel Roubein, Abortion Ruling Will Worsen Military Personnel Crisis, Pentagon Says,

Wash. Post (July 29, 2022, at 17:17 ET), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/

2022/07/29/military-abortion-recruiting/.

22 Service Members’ Reproductive Health and Readiness: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Mil. Pers. of the

H. Comm. on Armed Servs., 117th Cong. 17 (2022) (“Hearing”), https://www.congress.gov/117 /chrg/CHRG117hhrg51197/CHRG-117hhrg51197.pdf.

9

issue.”23 Active-duty members testified before Congress that restricted access

“degrades morale,” “affects retention,” and could discourage new recruits from joining

the military altogether.24

Accessible reproductive healthcare directly supports retention. Women are

more likely than men to leave military service, and the ability to control decisions

about whether and when to have children contributes to women’s disproportionate

departures.25 Indeed, reproductive healthcare access affects the retention of all

servicemembers, including men.26 When a servicemember’s spouse or dependent

cannot access care, the servicemember may need to take extended leave, or leave the

military altogether.27 The effects of lack of access to reproductive healthcare extend

beyond individual servicemembers to their families, and, in turn, to the military as a

whole.

23 Trevor Hunnicutt, Restrictive Abortion Laws Hurting US Military, White House Says, Reuters (July 17,

2023, at 18:23 ET), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/restrictive-abortion-laws-hurting-morale-retentionus-military-w-house-2023-07-17/.

24 Hearing, supra note 22, at 22 (testimonies of Sharon Arana & Theresa Mozzillo).

25 See GAO Report, supra note 13, at 2, 29; see also Douglas Lindsay, The Military Is Growing Again but

Capacity, Not Recruiting, Is the Real Test, Military.com (Jan. 27, 2026, at 03:00 ET),

https://www.military.com/feature/2026/01/26/military-growing-again-capacity-not-recruiting-real-test.html

(citing stable family support as a consideration for retention across the military).

26 See Lindsay, supra note 25.

27 Notwithstanding federal restrictions on providing abortion to servicemembers, the federal government

can extend, and indeed has previously extended, some reproductive healthcare benefits to recipients of

TRICARE—government-managed health insurance for military servicemembers and veterans—and their

dependents. See infra Section II.B (describing travel allowances offered under the Biden Administration).

Those benefits would be enjoyed by female dependents of male policyholders, in addition to female

policyholders serving in the military.

10

B. Federal policies restrict abortion access for servicemembers and

veterans, making further restrictions even more burdensome for

servicemembers’ ability to access timely care.

Abortion access for servicemembers is already limited by federal statute and

policy. These restrictions make it all the more important that servicemembers not be

forced to navigate additional barriers, like a nationwide in-person dispensing

requirement for mifepristone.

Federal law prevents the Department of Defense from using funds to provide

abortions, “except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were

carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of . . . rape or incest.”28

Unless those exceptions apply, “[n]o medical treatment facility or other facility of the

Department of Defense may be used to” provide an abortion.29 In practice,

servicemembers seeking non-covered abortions must pay out-of-pocket and travel to

non-military providers. These restrictions already place a significant burden on

servicemembers. Telemedicine access to abortion where it is permitted alleviates

these financial and logistical impositions by reducing the costs associated with travel

to an in-person clinic.

In January 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order purporting to

reinforce the Hyde Amendment.30 The order revoked Biden-era executive orders

protecting access to abortion and directed agencies to develop guidance to enforce the

Hyde Amendment.31

28 10 U.S.C. § 1093(a).

29 Id. § 1093(b).

30 Exec. Order No. 14182, Enforcing the Hyde Amendment, 90 Fed. Reg. 8751, 8751 (Jan. 24, 2025).

31 Id.

11

Following the Executive Order, federal agencies issued two significant policy

changes affecting servicemembers and veterans. First, in early 2025, the Department

of Defense rescinded regulations that authorized transportation allowances for

servicemembers to travel for reproductive healthcare.32 For the reasons explained in

Section II.C., limiting or impeding such travel places an extraordinary burden on

female servicemembers. Second, in December 2025, the Department of Veterans

Affairs ceased providing any abortions to veterans and their dependents, including in

cases of serious health risks, rape, or incest.33

Federal law and policy already significantly burden access to abortion for

servicemembers, veterans, and their families. Additional restrictions on mifepristone

would compound these barriers.

C. State restrictions on abortion impose additional barriers on

servicemembers and veterans seeking reproductive healthcare

nationwide.

Beyond federal restrictions, servicemembers and veterans face significant

obstacles to accessing reproductive healthcare at the state level.

Since Dobbs, abortion access has been severely curtailed in many states. As of

this writing, 25 states place significant restrictions on abortion.34 These restrictions

have compounding effects not just for women in those states, but also for women

32 Memorandum from Sarah W. Moore, Deputy Director, Def. Travel Mgmt. Off., Dep’t of Def. to Military

Advisory

Panel

(Jan.

29,

2025),

https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2025SAF/Remove

_Travel_for_Non-Covered_Reproductive_Health_Care_Services.pdf.

33 See Julianne McShane, Department of Veterans Affairs Quietly Implements Abortion Ban, MS Now (Dec.

23, 2025, at 11:30 ET), https://www.ms.now/news/abortion-ban-veterans-affairs-va; see also Serra Sippel &

Janessa Goldbeck, Army Veterans Deserve Access to Abortion. The Senate Just Denied Them., MS Now

(Mar. 26, 2026, at 12:04 ET), https://www.ms.now/opinion/va-abortion-access-senate-vote.

34 See Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe, Guttmacher Inst. (last visited May 6,

2026), https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/.

12

nationwide seeking reproductive healthcare. Clinics in states where abortion remains

accessible are overwhelmed with patients, including those traveling from out of

state.35 Clinic closures have further reduced provider availability,36 meaning that

even servicemembers stationed in states where abortion is permitted may have to

travel far or face delays to obtain in-person care.

These nationwide access challenges compound the unique burdens military

service imposes.37 Servicemembers needing in-person abortion care must often report

their pregnancy up the chain of command, obtain commander approval to travel, and

navigate unpredictable deployments to locations not of their choosing.38 These

procedural and logistical requirements impose substantial burdens civilian patients

do not face—burdens that can be avoided entirely with telehealth access to abortion.

Even in states where abortion is available, servicemembers encounter long

drives, scheduling hurdles, and fear of professional consequences. One active-duty

servicemember testified before Congress that to obtain an abortion, she drove 3.5

hours from the base where she was stationed, only to discover she was subject to a

three-day mandatory delay period.39 Given her training schedule, she was forced to

35 See Alyssa Goldberg, People Are Flocking Out-of-State for Abortion Care. Clinics Are Fighting to Keep

Up, USA Today (Mar. 18, 2025, at 11:59 ET), https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/healthwellness/2025/03/05/abortion-clinic-fund-travel-sustainability/80697629007/.

36 See Sen. Elizabeth Warren et al., The “Defund” Disaster: How the Republican Attack on Planned

Parenthood Is Hurting Patients and Raising Americans’ Health Care Costs 1 (2026), https://www.

warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/_senate_defund_report.pdf.

37 See generally Br. for Pet. at *7-8, Struck v. Sec’y of Def., 409 U.S. 1071 (1972) (No. 72-178), 1972 WL

135840.

38 See Hugh McClean, The Military’s Abortion Crisis in the Aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health

Organization, 16 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 1, 8-11 (2026); see also Steve Walsh, Faced With Obstacles to Abortion,

Military Women Have Built Their Own Support System, NPR (Oct. 30, 2024, at 05:00 ET),

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/29/nx-s1-5162443/women-in-the-military-abortion-roe-v-wade.

39 Hearing, supra note 22, at 5 (testimony of Sharon Arana).

13

delay her care, eventually obtaining it in another state.40 Another active-duty

servicemember testified that the idea of disclosing her pregnancy to male-dominated

leadership made her feel “devastated, lost, and alone.”41 She feared her military

career would “fall[] apart” if she had to discuss her pregnancy with leadership.42 She

was ultimately able to book a Saturday appointment at an abortion clinic to avoid the

“critical hurdle” of requesting time off.43 For servicemembers who do request time off

to obtain an abortion, there is no guarantee that their supervisor will grant the

request.44

A 2025 study confirmed these experiences across a broader population. Among

178 servicemembers who obtained an abortion while on active duty, more than half

took personal leave to access care, almost half traveled more than one hour, and

almost a third experienced adverse professional consequences.45

Requiring servicemembers and veterans to obtain care from unfamiliar civilian

providers also imposes unique psychological burdens—particularly for those with

service-related trauma—that telemedicine can alleviate or mitigate. Andrea

Goldstein, a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve with over 16 years of

40 Id. at 5–6.

41 Id. at 7 (testimony of Theresa Mozzillo).

42 Id.

43 Id.

44 See Shoshanna Ehrlich, Three Women Veterans on the Devastating Reality of the VA Abortion Ban, Ms.

Mag. (Mar. 16, 2026, at 07:54 PT), https://msmagazine.com/2026/03/15/women-veterans-abortion-healthpregnanc-emergency-rape-incest-total-ban-trump/.

45 Caitlin Russell et al., Policy Knowledge and Abortion Access for US Active‐Duty Servicewomen: A Mixed‐

Methods Study, 71 J. Midwifery & Women’s Health 46, 48 (2025), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

/articles/PMC12914618/.

14

service, described the unique barriers servicemembers face when forced to seek care

from unfamiliar civilian providers:

I far prefer to get my medical care through the VA because the providers

there are trauma- and service-informed. They understand and are

specifically trained with cultural competency regarding my experience.

Being forced to go to a private clinic for something as personal as

reproductive healthcare, to sit in an unfamiliar waiting room and put

myself in the hands of a provider who may not be equipped to treat

someone with military trauma is daunting. Telemedicine removes those

barriers. It lets you access care from the privacy of your own home, on

your own terms, without that uncomfortable and potentially unsafe inperson experience.46

Servicemembers and veterans may also face protestors or harassment at non-military

facilities that provide abortion.47 These burdens—unfamiliar providers, lack of

trauma-informed care, and exposure to harassment—are not merely personal

inconveniences. They deter servicemembers from seeking care, delay treatment, and

reduce personnel available for duty.

Veterans face particular challenges. After serving their country, many confront

chronic health conditions stemming from military service that complicate

reproductive healthcare decisions.48 They also tend to experience pregnancy at older

ages, elevating the risk of pregnancy complications.49 Recent Department of Veterans

46 Email Exchange with Ms. Goldstein (May 4, 2026).

47 See Three Years Post-Dobbs, Abortion Providers Experience High Levels of Violence & Disruption, Nat’l

Abortion Fed. (Apr. 23, 2025), https://nationalabortionfederation.org/three-years-post-dobbs-abortionproviders-experience-high-levels-of-violence-disruption/; see also Carrie N. Baker, ‘Barrage of Harassment,

Intimidation and Violent Attacks’ on Abortion Clinics, Says National Abortion Federation, Ms. Mag. (Apr.

25, 2025), https://msmagazine.com/2025/04/25/harassment-intimidation-violence-abortion-clinics-doctorsproviders-national-federation/.

48 See, e.g., Lisa S. Callegari & Sonya Borrero, Abortion Care for Veterans—A Historic Step Forward, 3

JAMA Health F. 1 (2022), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/ fullarticle /27981 38.

49 Id.

15

Affairs policy changes exacerbate these barriers, but telehealth access to mifepristone

alleviates many of them.

D. Telehealth abortion mitigates access barriers and strengthens

military readiness.

Telehealth access to mifepristone directly mitigates the readiness harms

described above. For servicemembers stationed where it is permitted to obtain such

care remotely, telehealth preserves personnel availability, reduces the need for

command-level intervention, lessens unit disruption, and allows servicemembers to

continue fulfilling their duties.

Under the current regulatory framework, where state law permits, patients

can undergo a telehealth evaluation and receive mifepristone by mail without travel,

leave protocols, or command approval processes. For servicemembers, this means

obtaining essential care without the time and resources that in-person visits demand.

Servicemembers who cannot access mifepristone through telehealth face far

more dangerous alternatives, such as delayed care, travel under hazardous

conditions, or lack of care altogether—each carrying significantly higher medical

risks. For servicemembers stationed at remote installations, telehealth is not merely

convenient; it is often the only feasible pathway to timely care.

Reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone would

impose substantial burdens at every level. Individual servicemembers would face

medical, reputational, and professional consequences. At the unit level, absences

reduce operational effectiveness. At the system level, these burdens undermine

16

preparedness, recruitment, and retention. Together, these burdens degrade overall

military readiness.

A stay of the 2023 REMS reintroduces barriers to care that will immediately

and concretely harm military readiness, imposing irreversible national security costs.

The Nation’s security depends on the military’s ability to effectively deploy its troops

during a period of active conflict. Harms to military readiness tip the balance

decisively in favor of staying or vacating the Fifth Circuit’s order.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the applications to stay or

vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the 2023 REMS.

Dated: May 7, 2026

Respectfully submitted,

KATE EPSTEIN

Counsel of Record

HECKER FINK LLP

1050 K St. NW, Ste. 1040

Washington, DC 20001

(212) 763-0883

kepstein@heckerfink.com

CLARA S. SPERA

MADELINE VERNIERO

HECKER FINK LLP

350 Fifth Ave., 63rd Floor

New York, NY 10118

(212) 763-0883

Counsel for Amici Curiae

17