Amicus Curiae Brief — GenBioPro, Inc., Applicant v. Louisiana, et al.

Supreme Court briefMay 6, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Nos. 25A1207, 25A1208

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

DANCO LABORATORIES, L.L.C.,

Applicant,

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, et al.,

Respondents.

GENBIOPRO, INC.,

Applicant,

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, et al.,

Respondents.

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH

WOMEN, RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY FOR REPRODUCTIVE

CHOICE, CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE, HINDUS FOR HUMAN

RIGHTS, MUSLIMS FOR PROGRESSIVE VALUES, UNITARIAN

UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION, AND 46 OTHER FAITHBASED ORGANIZATIONS, IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONS

BY DANCO LABORATORIES, L.L.C. AND GENBIOPRO, INC. TO

STAY OR VACATE THE FIFTH CIRCUIT’S STAY PENDING APPEAL

Michael F. Buchanan

Counsel of Record

Nicole Scully

Justice Forte

Rachel Klein

Patterson Belknap Webb & T yler LLP

1133 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

(212) 336-2000

mfbuchanan@pbwt.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

392643

(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................................................... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................................... 2

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 4

Religious Traditions Affirm A Pregnant Person’s Moral Right to Decide

Whether and Under What Circumstances to Seek an Abortion. ...................... 4

Many Religious Traditions View Abortion as Morally

Acceptable. ................................................................................................ 4

Restricting Access to Medication Abortion Using

Mifepristone Would Undermine the Ability to Make the

Moral Choices Supported By Many Religions. ...................................... 11

II.

Pregnant People’s Ability to Access Abortion Consistent with the

Teachings of Their Faith Would Be Impaired if Access to Mifepristone

Were Restricted. ................................................................................................ 13

III.

Restricting Access to Mifepristone Would Disproportionately Harm

Pregnant People From Marginalized Groups. ................................................. 16

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 19

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Other Authorities

144 Cong. Rec. S10491 (daily ed. Sept. 17, 1998) ......................................................... 8

A Shin Buddhist Stance on Abortion, 6 BUDDHIST PEACE FELLOWSHIP

NEWSL. 3 (July 1984) .............................................................................................. 10

A.R.A. Aiken et al., Safety and effectiveness of self-managed medication

abortion provided using online telemedicine in the United States: A

population based study, 10 LANCET REG’L HEALTH AM. 100200 (2022)

................................................................................................................................. 15

M.A. Albar, Induced Abortion from an Islamic Perspective: Is it Criminal

or Just Elective?, 8 J. FAM. CMTY. MED. 25 (2001) ................................................ 10

AM. COLL. OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, Improving Access to

Mifepristone for Reproductive Health Indications, Washington, DC:

ACOG (June 2018, reaff’d Mar. 2021) ................................................................... 15

THE ARCHIVES OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Reaffirm General Convention

Statement on Childbirth and Abortion, J. GEN. CONVENTION OF THE

EPISCOPAL CHURCH, INDIANAPOLIS 323 (1994) ........................................................ 6

CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE, Advocate’s Bible: A Guide for Pro-Choice

Catholics and Co-Conspirators (June 2022) .......................................................... 18

CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE, Reproductive Equity ............................................................. 18

CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE, Social Justice ....................................................................... 18

CONN. CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, Resolution:

Freedom of Choice Concerning Abortion (1971) .................................................... 17

J. DeRose, 6 in 10 U.S. Catholics are in favor of abortion rights, Pew

Research report finds, NPR (Apr. 12, 2024, 10:00 AM)........................................... 7

EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Standing Commission on Human Affairs and

Health, Resolution #A087 (1988) ............................................................................. 6

EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AM., A Social Statement on:

Abortion (1991) ..................................................................................................... 5, 7

Exodus 21:22–23 ............................................................................................................ 8

FDA CTR. FOR DRUG EVAL. & RSCH., Medical Review, Application No.

020687Orig1s020 (Mar. 29, 2016)............................................................................ 2

A.E. Fiastro et al., Telehealth vs In-Clinic Medication Abortion Services,

6 JAMA NETW OPEN 9 (2023) ................................................................................. 17

P. Fletcher Stack, Surprise! The LDS Church can be seen as more ‘prochoice’ than ‘pro-life’ on abortion. Here’s why., THE SALT LAKE TRIB.

(June 1, 2019, 11:01 AM, updated June 2, 2019, 7:27 PM) ................................ 5, 9

Freedom of Choice Act of 1989: Hearing on S. 1912 Before the S. Comm.

on Labor and Human Resources, 101st Cong. 237 (1990) ...................................... 7

GUTTMACHER INST., Fact Sheet: Induced Abortion in the United States

(Sept. 2019) ............................................................................................................... 8

E.B. Harned & L. Fuentes, Abortion Out of Reach: The Exacerbation of

Wealth Disparities After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health

Organization, AM. BAR ASS’N (Jan. 6, 2023) .......................................................... 16

Hindus In America Speak out on Abortion Issues, HINDUISM TODAY

(Sept. 1, 1985) ......................................................................................................... 10

J. Jerman et al., Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and

Changes Since 2008, GUTTMACHER INST. (May 2016) ............................................. 8

R.K. Jones & A. Friedrich-Karnik, Medication Abortion Accounted for

63% of All US Abortions in 2023—An Increase from 53% in 2020,

GUTTMACHER INST. (Mar. 19, 2024) ......................................................................... 2

R.K. Jones & J. Jerman, Population Group Abortion Rates and Lifetime

Incidence of Abortion: United States, 2008–2014, 9 AM. J. OF PUB.

HEALTH 112 (2022) ................................................................................................. 16

KFF, The Availability and Use of Medication Abortion (Mar. 20, 2024,

updated Mar. 10, 2025) ............................................................................................ 2

KFF, Reported Legal Abortions by Race of Women Who Obtained

Abortion by the State of Occurrence (2022)............................................................ 16

J.E. Kohn et al., Medication Abortion Provided Through Telemedicine in

Four U.S. States, 134 OBSTET GYNECOL 2 (2019) .................................................... 3

iii

F.A. Kumsa, R. Prasad & A. Shaban-Nejad, Medication abortion via

digital health in the United States: a systematic scoping review, NPJ

DIGIT. MED. 6 (2023) ............................................................................................... 13

THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS TRADITION: RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND

HEALTHCARE DECISIONS (Deborah Abbott ed., 2002) .............................................. 9

Letter of Over 300 Jewish Clergy Leaders to the Senate Committee on

the Judiciary (June 16, 2021) .................................................................................. 9

J.M. Lindon et al., How Far Is Too Far? New Evidence on Abortion Clinic

Closures, Access, and Abortions, 55 J. HUMAN RES. 4 (2020) ............................... 14

Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder and Preservation of Life,

1:9 .............................................................................................................................. 8

A. McCann & A. Schoenfeld Walker, Where Restrictions on Abortion

Pills Could Matter Most in the U.S., N.Y. TIMES (updated Apr. 7,

2023)........................................................................................................................ 14

Mifeprex REMS Study Group et al., Sixteen Years of Overregulation:

Time to Unburden Mifeprex, 376 N ENGL J. MED. 8 (2017) ............................ 14–15

Mishnah Ohalot 7:6 ....................................................................................................... 8

M. Mitka, Some Men Who Take Viagra Die—Why?, 283 JAMA 5 (2000) ................... 3

NAT’L COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, 2023–2024 Impact Report .................................... 9

NAT’L COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, Abortion and Jewish Values Toolkit

(2020) .................................................................................................................. 8, 19

NAT’L COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, Pledge for Medication Abortion

Access ...................................................................................................................... 11

A.I. Neugut, A.T. Ghatak & R.L. Miller, Anaphylaxis in the United

States: an investigation into its epidemiology, 161 ARCH INTERN MED.

1 (2001) ..................................................................................................................... 3

PEW RSCH. CTR., 2023–24 Religious Landscape Study ............................................... 10

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (U.S.A.), Reproductive Rights ................................................. 5

PUB. RELIGION RSCH. INST., Abortion Views Across All 50 States: Key

Insights from PRRI’s 2024 American Values Atlas (Apr. 1, 2025) ......................... 7

L.J. Ralph et al., Comparison of No-Test Telehealth and In-Person

Medication Abortion, 332 JAMA 898 (2024) ........................................................... 3

E. Raymond et al., Effectiveness and safety of misoprostol-only for firsttrimester medication abortion: An updated systematic review and

meta-analysis, 127 CONTRACEPTION 110 (2023) ...................................................... 2

S.K. Redd et al., Racial/ethnic and educational inequities in restrictive

abortion policy variation and adverse birth outcomes in the United

States, 21 BMC HEALTH SERV RSCH. 1139 (2021) ........................................... 16–17

Rabbi D. Ruttenberg, The Torah of Abortion Justice (Annotated Source

Sheet), VOICES ON SEFARIA ....................................................................................... 8

Expert Report of Rabbi D. Ruttenberg, Johnson v. Wyoming, Case No.

18853 (Wyo. Dist. Ct. Teton Cnty. July 17, 2023) ................................................... 8

E. Strauss, When Does Life Begin? It’s Not So Simple., SLATE (Apr. 4,

2017, 5:55 AM) ................................................................................................ 5, 8, 10

Talmud Sanhedrin 72b .................................................................................................. 9

UCLA HEALTH, Family Planning: Medical vs. Surgical Abortion ............................... 3

UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASS’N, General Resolution on the Right to

Choose (July 1, 1987) .......................................................................................... 6, 18

UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASS’N, Statement of Conscience on

Reproductive Justice (July 1, 2015) ....................................................................... 18

UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, General Synod Statements and Resolutions

Regarding Freedom of Choice, Thirteenth General Synod, 81-GS-60

(1981) ........................................................................................................................ 6

UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, Statement on Reproductive Health and

Justice ................................................................................................................. 5, 17

U.D. Upadhyay et al., Effectiveness and safety of telehealth medication

abortion in the USA, 30 NATURE MED. 1191 (2024) ................................................ 3

U.D. Upadhyay et al., Outcomes and Safety of History-Based Screening

for Medication Abortion, 182 JAMA INTERN MED. 5 (2022).................................. 14

U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., Mifeprex (mifepristone) Information:

Postmarket Drug Safety Information for Patients and Providers (Jan.

17, 2025).................................................................................................................. 15

U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., Mifepristone U.S. Post-Marketing Adverse

Events Summary through 12/31/2022 ................................................................... 2

VATICAN CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Instruction on

Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of

Procreation (Feb. 22, 1987) ...................................................................................... 7

VATICAN SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH,

Declaration on Procured Abortion (Nov. 18, 1974).................................................. 5

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE 1

Amici curiae are organizations from a broad spectrum of religious traditions

and faiths. Amici believe that every pregnant person should be able to decide for

themselves whether to continue a pregnancy or seek an abortion, guided by the

teachings of their own religious faith and consistent with their own values and

conscience.

Amici are particularly concerned about the Fifth Circuit’s decision granting a

stay pending appeal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) 2023 Risk

Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (“REMS”), which permanently removed the inperson dispensing requirement for mifepristone, permitting it to be dispensed by mail

and through pharmacies (hereinafter the “Fifth Circuit’s Order”). Because the Fifth

Circuit’s Order would impede the ability of many people to follow the teachings of

their religious faith in making the deeply personal decision whether to seek an

abortion, amici submit this brief supporting the applications by Danco Laboratories,

L.L.C. and GenBioPro, Inc. to stay or vacate that Order.

A list of amici appears in the Appendix.

1 No party or counsel for a party in this case authored this brief in whole or in part or

made any monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. No monetary

contributions were made to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Medication abortion utilizing the two-drug regimen of mifepristone and

misoprostol is the most common method of medication abortion in the United States. 2

By 2023, medication abortions accounted for 63% of all abortions in the United

States. 3

Medication abortion using mifepristone is one of the safest medication

regimens in medicine today, including when dispensed by mail. 4 The risk of major

complications from medication abortion is very low—approximately 0.3%. 5

The

mortality rate associated with mifepristone is less than 0.001%. 6 For comparison,

2 See KFF, The Availability and Use of Medication Abortion (Mar. 20, 2024, updated

Mar. 10, 2025), https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/the-availability-and-useof-medication-abortion/.

3 R.K. Jones & A. Friedrich-Karnik, Medication Abortion Accounted for 63% of All US

Abortions in 2023—An Increase from 53% in 2020, GUTTMACHER INST. (Mar. 19,

2024), https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/medication-abortion-accounted-63-allus-abortions-2023-increase-53-2020.

4 While alternative regimens exist, research suggests that they may be less effective

and result in more side effects. See E. Raymond et al., Effectiveness and safety of

misoprostol-only for first-trimester medication abortion: An updated systematic review

and meta-analysis, 127 CONTRACEPTION 110 (2023), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.

gov/37517447/.

See FDA CTR. FOR DRUG EVAL. & RSCH., Medical Review, Application No.

020687Orig1s020, at 56 (Mar. 29, 2016) (hereinafter “2016 FDA Approval”),

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2016/020687Orig1s020

MedR.pdf.

U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., Mifepristone U.S. Post-Marketing Adverse Events

Summary through 12/31/2022, https://www.fda.gov/media/164331/download; see

also 2016 FDA Approval, supra note 5, at 82–83.

the risk of death from penicillin is four times greater and the risk of death from Viagra

is nearly ten times greater. 7

Medication abortion offers unique benefits. Pregnant persons may choose

medication abortion over procedural abortion for any number of reasons, including:

to avoid sedation or anesthesia, to avoid a procedure involving genital contact due to

prior sexual assault or trauma, or to have the abortion in the comfort of one’s home

surrounded by family, among many other reasons. 8

Since 2021, the FDA has allowed mifepristone to be dispensed by mail.

Following this decision and its formalization in 2023, medication abortion using

mifepristone prescribed via telehealth and dispensed by mail and through

pharmacies has become commonplace and proven to be as safe as when it is dispensed

in a clinic. 9 Mifepristone prescribed via telemedicine is the most accessible means

for many people across the country and eliminates or reduces many secondary costs

A.I. Neugut, A.T. Ghatak & R.L. Miller, Anaphylaxis in the United States: an

investigation into its epidemiology, 161 ARCH INTERN MED. 1, 15–21 (2001),

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11146694/; M. Mitka, Some Men Who Take Viagra

Die—Why?, 283 JAMA 5, 590–93 (2000), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/

article-abstract/1843222.

See UCLA HEALTH, Family Planning: Medical vs. Surgical Abortion,

https://www.uclahealth.org/medical-services/obgyn/family-planning/patientresources/medical-vs-surgical-abortion (last visited May 3, 2026).

9 See J.E. Kohn et al., Medication Abortion Provided Through Telemedicine in Four

U.S. States, 134 OBSTET GYNECOL 2, 343–50 (2019), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

31306317/; U. Upadhyay et al., Effectiveness and safety of telehealth medication

abortion in the USA, 30 NATURE MED. 1191, 1197 (2024), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/38361123/; L.J. Ralph et al., Comparison of No-Test Telehealth and In-Person

Medication Abortion, 332 JAMA 898, 903 (2024), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

38913394/.

by allowing patients to seek care without missing work, obtaining childcare, or

traveling.

Many religions, including those represented by amici, teach that the decision

to seek an abortion is a moral prerogative, and that abortion is morally permissible

or even required under certain circumstances. By threatening to vastly limit access

to a safe and widely used drug, the Fifth Circuit’s Order impairs pregnant people’s

ability to follow the dictates of their conscience and the teachings of their religious

faith on whether to have an abortion. Moreover, the burden of these restrictions

would fall most heavily on vulnerable people from marginalized communities—people

that many religions view as particularly deserving of protection.

For these reasons, amici urge the Court to stay or vacate the Fifth Circuit’s

Order.

ARGUMENT

RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS AFFIRM A PREGNANT PERSON’S MORAL RIGHT TO

DECIDE WHETHER AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES TO SEEK AN

ABORTION.

Many Religious Traditions View Abortion as Morally

Acceptable.

A broad range of religious traditions recognize the moral right of each person

to make their own decisions about their pregnancy in accordance with their faith and

conscience—including by accessing abortion care through a safe and effective means.

While some religious traditions posit that human life begins at conception,

many other faiths and denominations do not adhere to that view. 10 Many religious

traditions view the decision to have an abortion as morally and religiously acceptable.

Many Protestant denominations teach that the decision to seek an abortion

can be consistent with Christian ethics. For example:

•

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) teaches that “women and pregnant

people are full moral agents, created in the image of God.” 11

The

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) affirms that women and pregnant people

10 See, e.g., PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (U.S.A.), Reproductive Rights, https://pcusa.org/

how-we-serve/justice-peace/reproductive-rights (last visited May 3, 2026); UNITED

CHURCH OF CHRIST, Statement on Reproductive Health and Justice (noting the “many

religious and theological perspectives on when life and personhood begin”),

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/unitedchurchofchrist/legacy_url/455/

reproductive-health-and-justice.pdf?1418423872 (last visited May 3, 2026);

EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AM., A Social Statement on: Abortion, at 3 n.2

(1991) (explaining that embryology provides insight into the “complex mystery of

God’s creative activity” but that individual interpretation of the scientific information

leads to various understandings of when life begins), https://cdn.elca.org/cdn/wpcontent/uploads/AbortionSS.pdf; P. Fletcher Stack, Surprise! The LDS Church can be

seen as more ‘pro-choice’ than ‘pro-life’ on abortion. Here’s why., THE SALT LAKE TRIB.

(June 1, 2019, 11:01 AM, updated June 2, 2019, 7:27 PM) (noting that the Church of

Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never taken an official position on when a fetus

acquires

personhood),

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/06/01/surprise-ldschurch-can/; E. Strauss, When Does Life Begin? It’s Not So Simple., SLATE (Apr. 4,

2017, 5:55 AM) (explaining that, in the Jewish tradition, the creation of a human life

is generally viewed as something that happens in stages, that there is a clear

distinction between a full-fledged human and a fetus in the Bible, and that the

Muslim tradition does not have a “universally agreed-upon moment when a fetus

becomes a person”), https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/04/when-does-life-beginoutside-the-christian-right-the-answer-is-over-time.html;

VATICAN

SACRED

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration on Procured Abortion,

at n.19 (Nov. 18, 1974) (acknowledging the Catholic tradition’s lack of consistent

teaching on when life begins), https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/

cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html.

11 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (U.S.A.), supra note 10.

have the “moral capacity to decide whether to continue or end any given

pregnancy,” and that this decision “should not be restricted by law.” 12

•

The United Church of Christ teaches that “[e]very woman must have the

freedom of choice to follow her personal religious and moral convictions

concerning the completion or termination of her pregnancy.” 13

•

The Episcopal Church of America views the decision to terminate a

pregnancy as a personal “right of a woman to reach an informed decision

about the termination of a pregnancy.” 14 It has expressed an “unequivocal

opposition to any legislative, executive, or judicial action . . . that would

limit the access of a woman to a safe means of acting on her decision.” 15

•

The Unitarian Universalist Association views “the personal right to choose

in regard to . . . abortion” as an important aspect of the “right of individual

conscience.” 16

12 Id.

13 UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, General Synod Statements and Resolutions Regarding

Freedom

Choice,

Thirteenth

General

Synod,

81-GS-60

(1981),

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/unitedchurchofchrist/legacy_url/2038/GSResolutions-Freedon-of-Choice.pdf?1418425637.

14 THE ARCHIVES OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Reaffirm General Convention Statement

on Childbirth and Abortion, J. GEN. CONVENTION OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH,

INDIANAPOLIS 323, 323–25 (1994), https://digitalarchives.episcopalarchives.org/cgibin/acts/acts_generate_pdf.pl?resolution=1994-A054.

15 Id.; see also EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Standing Commission on Human Affairs and

Health, Resolution #A087 (1988) (any legislation surrounding abortion “must take

special care to see that individual conscience is respected”), https://www.episcopal

archives.org/e-archives/gc_reports/reports/1988/bb_1988-R016.pdf.

16 UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASS’N, General Resolution on the Right to Choose (July 1,

1987), https://www.uua.org/action/statements/right-choose.

•

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America affirms that “there can be

sound reasons for ending a pregnancy,” and that obtaining an abortion may

be a “morally responsible” choice. 17

The Lutheran Church in America

opposes “laws that deny access to safe and affordable services for morally

justifiable abortions.” 18

•

The Disciples of Christ teaches that the decision to continue or terminate a

pregnancy should rest with “the individuals involved with the pregnancy .

. . on the basis of ethical and moral grounds.” 19

While the official stance of the Catholic Church treats abortion as

impermissible, 20 the majority of American Catholics believe that abortion should be

legal in all or most cases. 21 Catholic patients in this country have abortions at

17 EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AM., supra note 10, at 6–7.

18 Id. at 9–10.

19 Freedom of Choice Act of 1989: Hearing on S. 1912 Before the S. Comm. on Labor

and Human Resources, 101st Cong. 237 (1990) (testimony of John O. Humbert,

General Minister and President, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the USA

and Canada) (citing General Assembly Resolutions of the Christian Church (Disciples

of Christ) 8954 (1989) and 7524 (1975)).

20 VATICAN CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Instruction on Respect

for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation (Feb. 22, 1987),

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_

doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html.

21 J. DeRose, 6 in 10 U.S. Catholics are in favor of abortion rights, Pew Research report

finds, NPR (Apr. 12, 2024, 10:00 AM), https://www.npr.org/2024/04/12/1244156165/

abortion-catholics-pope-francis-church-pew-research; PUB. RELIGION RSCH. INST.,

Abortion Views Across All 50 States: Key Insights from PRRI’s 2024 American Values

Atlas (Apr. 1, 2025), https://prri.org/research/abortion-views-across-all-50-states-keyinsights-from-prris-2024-american-values-atlas/.

approximately the same rate as patients of other (or no) faith traditions. 22

Foundational Jewish legal texts explicitly permit access to abortion, including

medication abortion, and even require it when the pregnant person’s health and life

are at risk. 23 The Mishnah (Ohalot 7:6) and Talmud (Sanhedrin 72b) affirm that the

life, health, and wellbeing of the pregnant person supersede those of the fetus, which

does not have the status of a nefesh (a full legal person) until birth (Exodus 21:22–

23). 24 The Mishneh Torah allows for abortion whether “with a drug or by hand.” 25

The Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist movements (three major

Jewish denominations) all adopt the view that “[w]omen are capable of making moral

decisions, often in consultation with their clergy, families and physicians, on whether

or not to have an abortion.” 26 Over 2,500 Jewish clergy have pledged their active,

22 J. Jerman et al., Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes

Since 2008, GUTTMACHER INST. (May 2016), https://www.guttmacher.org/report/

characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014; see also GUTTMACHER INST., Fact Sheet:

Induced Abortion in the United States, at 1 (Sept. 2019), https://www.guttmacher.org/

sites/default/files/factsheet/fb_induced_abortion.pdf.

23 See Strauss, supra note 10; NAT’L COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, Abortion and Jewish

Values Toolkit, at 16 (2020), https://www.ncjw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/

NCJW_ReproductiveGuide_Final.pdf.

24 Rabbi D. Ruttenberg, The Torah of Abortion Justice (Annotated Source Sheet),

VOICES ON SEFARIA, https://voices.sefaria.org/sheets/234926.14?lang=bi (last visited

May 3, 2026).

25 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder and Preservation of Life, 1:9; see

Expert Report of Rabbi D. Ruttenberg, ¶ 26, Johnson v. Wyoming, Case No. 18853

(Wyo. Dist. Ct. Teton Cnty. July 17, 2023), https://wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/

2023/09/2023_08_02_11_52_14-EX-E-1.pdf.

26 144 Cong. Rec. S10491 (daily ed. Sept. 17, 1998) (quoting Letter of 729 Rabbis in

Support of President Clinton’s Veto of H.R. 1122 (Sept. 10, 1998)).

faith-driven support for abortion while opposing efforts to restrict access to care. 27

Contrary to the spirit of religious pluralism and free exercise as guaranteed by the

First Amendment, barriers to reproductive freedom infringe upon the religious

imperative to receive abortion care, including medication abortion using

mifepristone. Restrictions that hinder this option do not simply limit medical access:

they compel Jewish individuals to act contrary to the demands of their faith.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints likewise “defers to [the] moral

agency” of the pregnant person in making this decision. 28

Other major religions similarly teach that abortion is both permissible and

moral under certain circumstances and embrace the ultimate authority of a pregnant

person to make the decision whether to seek an abortion, consistent with their faith

and values. For instance, many schools of Islamic thought permit abortion where

pregnancy would “endanger the health or life of the expectant mother” or if there is

See NAT’L COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, 2023–2024 Impact Report, at 5,

https://heyzine.com/flip-book/b71cc86305.html; see also Letter of Over 300 Jewish

Clergy Leaders to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (June 16, 2021),

https://www.ncjw.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/06-16-2021_Jewish-ClergyLeaders-WHPA-Letter-FINAL-1.pdf.

28 Fletcher Stack, supra note 10 (citing the work of Courtney Campbell, a Mormon

professor of religion and culture at Oregon State University); see also THE LATTERDAY SAINTS TRADITION: RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND HEALTHCARE DECISIONS 10–11

(Deborah Abbott ed., 2002) (affirming the “right of a woman to make her own

decision” in the matter of whether to have an abortion), https://www.advocate

health.com/-/media/Project/Health-System-Enterprise/AdvocateHealthCom/

advocatehealth/documents/about-us/faith-at-advocate/spiritual-health/religiousbeliefs-health-care-decisions/latter-day_saints_tradition.pdf?rev=58a16b9457ea4

7d4a4f4682204ca60ea&hash=0600998E33D831FFF5AF638207633771.

a serious congenital anomaly, at any point up to 120 days from conception, or

approximately 19–20 weeks gestation. 29

The Buddhist Churches of America teach that “it is the woman carrying the

fetus, and no one else, who must in the end make this most difficult decision.” 30

While there are various views within Hinduism, many Hindus believe that

“each case [of abortion] requires unique consideration” and that the “final decision

will be based on a long series of choices made by the woman on her lifestyle, morals[,]

and values.” 31 The majority of Hindus in the United States believe that abortion

should be legal. 32

The Fifth Circuit’s Order imposes restrictions on the medical care and options

of the many millions of American people whose religious faith teaches that abortion

is religiously and morally acceptable—despite the overwhelming consensus of the

scientific and medical communities that medication abortion using mifepristone is

safe, effective, and medically necessary.

29 M.A. Albar, Induced Abortion from an Islamic Perspective: Is it Criminal or Just

Elective?, 8 J. FAM. CMTY. MED. 25, 29–32 (2001), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

articles/PMC3439741/; see also Strauss, supra note 10.

30 A Shin Buddhist Stance on Abortion, 6 BUDDHIST PEACE FELLOWSHIP NEWSL. 3, 7

(July 1984), https://objects.lib.uidaho.edu/bpf/turningwheel-summer1984.pdf.

31 Hindus In America Speak out on Abortion Issues, HINDUISM TODAY (Sept. 1, 1985),

https://www.hinduismtoday.com/magazine/september-1985/1985-09-hindus-inamerica-speak-out-on-abortion-issues/.

PEW RSCH. CTR., 2023–24 Religious Landscape Study, https://www.pew

research.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/hindu/ (select “Abortion”

under “Social & political views”).

Restricting Access to Medication Abortion Using Mifepristone

Would Undermine the Ability to Make the Moral Choices

Supported By Many Religions.

As a corollary to their affirmance of abortion as a morally acceptable choice,

many religious groups recognize the value and importance of medication abortion

using mifepristone.

National Council of Jewish Women (“NCJW”)—an organization which has

championed reproductive freedom since its founding in 1893—has stated that

“[r]estricting access to mifepristone, the most common drug used for abortions and

miscarriages, impede[s] our religious freedom as Jews to follow our tradition, which

prioritizes the life and well-being of the pregnant person.” 33

Similarly, the Religious Community for Reproductive Choice has affirmed that

mifepristone access is a vital piece of overall access to abortion. That is because

mifepristone can make abortion accessible to someone who otherwise would lack

access to it due to distance, transportation, time limitations, or cost considerations.

The Religious Community for Reproductive Choice recognizes that access to

mifepristone gives pregnant women the dignity of more options for when and how to

have their abortions, including in the privacy and comfort of their own homes.

These views are shared by many faiths and denominations. For example, the

Unitarian Universalist Association has a long legacy of supporting abortion access—

including by medication abortion using mifepristone—as one of the key arenas of

NAT’L COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, Pledge for Medication Abortion Access,

https://www.jewsforabortionaccess.org/actions/pledge-for-medication-abortion (last

visited May 3, 2026).

bodily autonomy.

Denying women the ability to safeguard their sacred bodily

autonomy and to secure access to an authorized health care provider for medication

abortion violates Unitarian Universalists’ deeply held beliefs.

Catholics for Choice rejects restrictions on access to mifepristone as attacks on

the reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy of women and pregnant people in the

United States.

Catholic social justice tradition embodies caring for our most

vulnerable: those struggling with economic insecurity, facing violence, living in rural

and medically underserved areas, young people, and immigrants.

Catholics for

Choice opposes attempts to reduce access to mifepristone as they disproportionately

harm the same vulnerable people that Catholic social justice protects. Restricting

this medication ignores the lives of real people—including 1 in 4 abortion patients

who are Catholic—that make deeply personal healthcare decisions guided by their

faith and well-informed consciences.

Catholics for Choice believes that reduced

access to mifepristone, a medication that is backed by decades of clinical research, is

a betrayal of our fundamental values, particularly on the affirmation that healthcare

is a human right. Catholics for Choice calls on the justice system to listen to the

science and preserve full access to this safe, widely used, and effective drug that plays

such a consequential role in so many lives.

And Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus (“Sadhana”) rejects any

restrictions to mifepristone access because Sadhana believes that support for

abortion—including medication abortion—reflects a Hindu value that individuals

must be allowed to make well-considered choices for themselves.

Conscientious

decision-making is a core part of the Hindu philosophical framework.

Likewise, Hindus for Human Rights believes that practicing Hindus must be

allowed to make conscientious choices about their own bodies and their reproductive

health, and restrictions on mifepristone access interrupt the way Hindus are allowed

to practice their faith in the United States.

II.

PREGNANT PEOPLE’S ABILITY TO ACCESS ABORTION CONSISTENT WITH THE

TEACHINGS OF THEIR FAITH WOULD BE IMPAIRED IF ACCESS TO

MIFEPRISTONE WERE RESTRICTED.

By requiring in-person dispensing of mifepristone, the Fifth Circuit’s Order

would make it difficult or impossible for many people to obtain the medication that is

used in most abortions in the United States today. As a result, these restrictions

would impede the ability of many pregnant people to follow the guidance of their

religious faith in choosing to have an abortion.

Common reasons for utilizing telemedicine to access abortion include distance

to the abortion provider, difficulty traveling due to medical conditions or disabilities,

inability to take time off work, privacy, cost, and flexibility of appointment times. 34

If the Fifth Circuit’s Order were to take effect, it would be unreasonably difficult—if

not impossible—for pregnant people in parts of the country where abortion is

permitted to obtain an abortion using mifepristone. For example, in some states

where there are a limited number of brick-and-mortar abortion providers, pregnant

34 See F.A. Kumsa, R. Prasad & A. Shaban-Nejad, Medication abortion via digital

health in the United States: a systematic scoping review, NPJ DIGIT. MED. 6, 128

(2023), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00871-2.

people would need to drive hundreds of miles, each way, to access the most common

regimen for medication abortion. 35

Studies show that requiring individuals to travel prevents a substantial

number from reaching providers at all. 36 Increases in travel distances by as few as

50 miles decreased abortion rates by 16%, and increases by at least 100 miles

decreased abortion rates by 28%. 37 And for pregnant people with certain medical

conditions, disabilities, or other extenuating life circumstances (such as lack of access

to child care, the inability to take time off work, not being able to travel long

distances, and the need for people experiencing intimate partner violence to conceal

appointments or travel), mifepristone prescribed via telemedicine is significantly

more accessible than an in-person appointment.

The FDA’s decision allowing mifepristone to be dispensed by mail and at

pharmacies aids reproductive health. Indeed, studies show that the FDA’s earlier

requirement—that mifepristone could only be dispensed in person in a healthcare

facility—did not make care safer, but did burden patient access. 38 In 2021, after

35 See A. McCann & A. Schoenfeld Walker, Where Restrictions on Abortion Pills Could

Matter Most in the U.S., N.Y. TIMES (updated Apr. 7, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/

interactive/2023/03/02/us/abortion-pill-lawsuit-mifepristone.html.

36 E.g., J.M. Lindon et al., How Far Is Too Far? New Evidence on Abortion Clinic

Closures, Access, and Abortions, 55 J. HUMAN RES. 4, 1137–60

https://jhr.uwpress.org/content/55/4/1137.

(2020),

37 Id. at 1152.

38 See U.D. Upadhyay et al., Outcomes and Safety of History-Based Screening for

(2022),

Medication

Abortion,

182 JAMA INTERN MED. 5, 482–91

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35311911/; Mifeprex REMS Study Group et al.,

Sixteen Years of Overregulation: Time to Unburden Mifeprex, 376 N ENGL J. MED. 8,

reviewing the mifepristone REMS program, “the FDA determined that the available

data and information support[ed] modification of the REMS to reduce burden on the

health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh[ed]

the risks.” 39

Instead of protecting pregnant people, the Fifth Circuit’s Order would create

unnecessary burdens and harm those seeking medication abortion using

mifepristone. It would force patients to make medically unnecessary trips to obtain

prescriptions and to receive mifepristone, and it would prevent access to reproductive

healthcare for many pregnant people who live far from an abortion provider or who

face other barriers to making an in-person healthcare visit.

Various religious traditions affirm a pregnant person’s right to follow their

conscience and the teachings of their religious faith in deciding whether to end their

pregnancy, and access to medication abortion using mifepristone can be critical to

790–94 (2017), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28225670/; AM. COLL. OF

OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, Improving Access to Mifepristone for

Reproductive Health Indications, Washington, DC: ACOG (June 2018, reaff’d Mar.

2021),

https://www.acog.org/clinical-information/policy-and-position-statements/

position-statements/2018/improving-access-to-mifepristone-for-reproductive-healthindications; A.R.A. Aiken et al., Safety and effectiveness of self-managed medication

abortion provided using online telemedicine in the United States: A population based

study, 10 LANCET REG’L HEALTH AM. 100200 (2022), https://www.thelancet.com/

journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00017-5/fulltext.

39 U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., Mifeprex (mifepristone) Information: Postmarket Drug

Safety Information for Patients and Providers (Jan. 17, 2025), https://www.fda.gov/

Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm

111323.htm.

their ability to effectuate that choice. For the reasons stated above, the Fifth Circuit’s

Order would impede their ability to do so.

III.

RESTRICTING ACCESS TO MIFEPRISTONE WOULD DISPROPORTIONATELY

HARM PREGNANT PEOPLE FROM MARGINALIZED GROUPS.

A broad array of religions, including those represented by amici, embrace, as

a central tenet of their faith, the importance of serving and supporting vulnerable

and marginalized communities, including people of color, immigrant, and low-income

communities who already face greater barriers to accessing healthcare. Decreased

access to safe abortion methods would disproportionately affect these populations.

Women with incomes below the poverty line have an unintended pregnancy

rate more than five times higher—and an abortion rate six times higher—than those

of women with higher incomes. 40

Furthermore, people of color account for the

majority of abortion patients in the United States, 41 and they will be the most

severely affected by restrictions on access to the most common method of medication

abortion. 42 Restrictive abortion policies may also “compound existing racial/ethnic,

40 E.B. Harned & L. Fuentes, Abortion Out of Reach: The Exacerbation of Wealth

Disparities After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, AM. BAR ASS’N

(Jan. 6, 2023), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_

magazine_home/wealth-disparities-in-civil-rights/abortion-out-of-reach/.

See R.K. Jones & J. Jerman, Population Group Abortion Rates and Lifetime

Incidence of Abortion: United States, 2008–2014, 9 AM. J. OF PUB. HEALTH 112, 1288

(2022), https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304042; KFF, Reported Legal Abortions by

Race of Women Who Obtained Abortion by the State of Occurrence (2022),

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortions-by-race/?current

Timeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc

%22%7D.

42 See S.K. Redd et al., Racial/ethnic and educational inequities in restrictive abortion

policy variation and adverse birth outcomes in the United States, 21 BMC HEALTH

socioeconomic, and intersecting racial/ethnic and socioeconomic perinatal and infant

health inequalities.” 43 In particular, women who live farther from a medical clinic

and those who identify as multiracial are more likely to use telemedicine than visit a

clinic for access to abortion care. 44 A lack of access to mifepristone through the mail

will impact these women.

Numerous faith traditions teach that people of faith have a moral obligation to

protect and advocate on behalf of people who are poor or from marginalized

communities.

For example, the United Church of Christ has adopted resolutions supporting

measures to ensure that “women with limited financial means” are able to “exercise

[their] legal right to the full range of reproductive health services,” and has affirmed

that “[w]hat is legally available to women must be accessible to all women.” 45 And

the Unitarian Universalist Association has affirmed its support for the reproductive

justice movement as an extension of its core theological teachings, acknowledging the

ways that an individual’s right to make reproductive choices is shaped by “social and

SERV RSCH. 1139 (2021), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12913-021-07165x.

43 Id.

44 A.E. Fiastro et al., Telehealth vs In-Clinic Medication Abortion Services, 6 JAMA

NETW OPEN 9 (2023), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/

2809068.

45 UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, supra note 10; see also CONN. CONFERENCE OF THE

UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, Resolution: Freedom of Choice Concerning Abortion

(1971) (affirming that laws that “severely limit[] access to safe abortions” “have the

effect of discriminating against the poor” and are therefore “neither just nor

enforceable”), https://www.sneucc.org/files/tables/content/7726678/fields/files/327cad

155b9c43dd8a95e03e4179fbe8/1971_freedom_of_choice.pdf.

political systems as well as by factors such as racial/cultural identity, economic

status, immigration/citizenship status, relationship with the justice system, health

status, and ability.” 46

Consistent with these teachings, the Unitarian Universalist Association seeks

to ensure “control of personal reproductive decisions” for people of “all genders, sexual

orientations, abilities, gender identities, ages, classes, and cultural and racial

identities,” and “especially the most vulnerable and marginalized.” 47 It has also

condemned attempts “to restrict access to birth control and abortion by overriding

individual decisions of conscience,” which “often result in depriving poor women of

their right to medical care.” 48

In addition, many Catholics believe that protecting the right of poor and

vulnerable pregnant people to choose whether to end their pregnancies is a natural

and necessary outgrowth of core principles of Catholic social justice. 49

Similarly, Jewish values—tzedek (justice), kavod ha bri’ot (dignity), and

achrayut (social responsibility)—expressly bolster the religious obligation to remedy

46 UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASS’N, Statement of Conscience on Reproductive Justice

(July 1, 2015), https://www.uua.org/action/statements/reproductive-justice.

47 Id.

48 UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASS’N, supra note 16.

See CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE, Social Justice, https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

issues/social-justice/ (last visited May 3, 2026); CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE, Reproductive

Equity, https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/issues/reproductive-choice/ (last visited

May 3, 2026); CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE, Advocate’s Bible: A Guide for Pro-Choice

Catholics and Co-Conspirators, at 37–46 (June 2022), https://www.catholicsfor

choice.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/AdvocatesBible.23.webreduced.pdf.

inequity and advocate for the bodily autonomy, health care access, and religious

freedom of all people, regardless of background. 50

By placing a disproportionate burden on pregnant people from marginalized

communities, and by limiting their freedom to make determinations about their

reproductive health and family formation in accordance with their own beliefs, the

Fifth Circuit’s Order would further undermine religious liberty.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, amici urge this Court to grant the applications by

Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. and GenBioPro, Inc. to stay or vacate the Fifth Circuit’s

Order.

Dated: May 6, 2026

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL F. BUCHANAN

Counsel of Record

NICOLE SCULLY

JUSTICE FORTE

RACHEL KLEIN

PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP

1133 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

(212) 336-2000

mfbuchanan@pbwt.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

50 See NAT’L COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, supra note 23, at 5, 13, 19.

APPENDIX

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Page(s)

APPENDIX—LIST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................................... 1a

APPENDIX—LIST OF AMICI CURIAE

National Council of Jewish Women

Religious Community for Reproductive Choice

Catholics for Choice

Hindus for Human Rights

Muslims for Progressive Values

Unitarian Universalist Association

ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal

Alliance of Baptists

Avodah

Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice

Central Conference of American Rabbis

DignityUSA

Elluminate

Faith in Public Life Action

Faithful America

General Synod of the United Church of Christ

Hadassah, The Women’s Zionist Organization of America

Interfaith Alliance

Interfaith Voices for Reproductive Justice

Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action

Jewish Center for Justice

Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA)

Jewish Fertility Foundation

Jewish Labor Committee

Jewish Sacred Aging

Jewish Women International

Jews of Color Mishpacha Project

Jofa (Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance)

JQ International

Kehillat Sankofa

Keshet

Men of Reform Judaism

Metropolitan Community Churches

Moving Traditions

Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)

National Council of Jewish Women Greater New Orleans Section (LA)

New Jewish Narrative

Rabbinical Assembly

Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association

SACReD, a fiscally sponsored project of NEO Philanthropy, Inc.

Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus

Sikh Coalition

Society for Humanistic Judaism

T’ruah

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs

The Women’s Rabbinic Network

Union for Reform Judaism

Uri L’Tzedek

Women of Reform Judaism

Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual (WATER)

Women’s League for Conservative Judaism

Zioness Movement

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.