Despite historic indictment, doctors will keep mailing abortion pills across state lines
When the news broke on Jan. 31 that a New York physician had been indicted for shipping abortion medications to a woman in Louisiana, it stoked fear across the network of doctors and medical clinics who engage in similar work.
"It's scary. It's frustrating," said Angel Foster, co-founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, a clinic near Boston that mails mifepristone and misoprostol pills to patients in states with abortion bans. But, Foster added, "it's not entirely surprising."
Ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, abortion providers like her had been expecting prosecution or another kind of legal challenge from states with abortion bans, she said.
"It was unclear when those tests would come, and would it be against an individual provider or a practice or organization?" she said. "Would it be a criminal indictment, or would it be a civil lawsuit," or even an attack on licensure? she wondered. "All of that was kind of unknown, and we're starting to see some of this play out."
The indictment also sparked worry among abortion providers like Kohar Der Simonian, medical director for Maine Family Planning. The clinic doesn't mail pills into states with bans, but it does treat patients who travel from those states to Maine for abortion care.
"It just hit home that this is real, like this could happen to anybody, at any time now, which is scary," Der Simonian said.
Der Simonian and Foster both know the indicted doctor, Margaret Carpenter.
"I feel for her. I very much support her," Foster said. "I feel very sad for her that she has to go through all of this."
On Jan. 31, Carpenter became the first U.S. doctor criminally charged for providing abortion pills across state lines - a medical practice that grew after the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision on June 24, 2022, which overturned Roe.
Since Dobbs, 12 states have enacted near-total abortion bans, and an additional 10 have outlawed the procedure after a certain point in pregnancy, but before a fetus is viable.
Carpenter was indicted alongside a Louisiana mother who allegedly received the mailed package and gave the pills prescribed by Carpenter to her minor daughter.
The teen wanted to keep the pregnancy and called 911 after taking the pills, according to an NPR and KFF Health News interview with Tony Clayton, the Louisiana local district attorney prosecuting the case. When police responded, they learned about the medication, which carried the prescribing doctor's name, Clayton said.
On Feb. 11, Louisiana's Republican governor, Jeff Landry, signed an extradition warrant for Carpenter. He later posted a video arguing she "must face extradition to Louisiana, where she can stand trial and justice will be served."
New York's Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, countered by releasing her own video, confirming she was refusing to extradite Carpenter. The charges carry a possible five-year prison sentence.
"Louisiana has changed their laws, but that has no bearing on the laws here in the state of New York," Hochul said.
Eight states - New York, Maine, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington - have passed laws since 2022 to protect doctors who mail abortion pills out of state, and thereby block or "shield" them from extradition in such cases. But this is the first criminal test of these relatively new "shield laws."
The telemedicine practice of consulting with remote patients and prescribing them medication abortion via the mail has grown in recent years - and is now playing a critical role in keeping abortion somewhat accessible in states with strict abortion laws, according to research from the Society of Family Planning, a group that supports abortion access.
Doctors who prescribe abortion pills across state lines describe facing a new reality in which the criminal risk is no longer hypothetical. The doctors say that if they stop, tens of thousands of patients would no longer be able to end early pregnancies safely at home, under the care of a U.S. physician. But the doctors could end up in the crosshairs of a legal clash over the interstate practice of medicine when two states disagree on whether people have a right to end a pregnancy.
Doctors on Alert but Remain Defiant
Maine Family Planning, a network of clinics across 19 locations, offers abortions, birth control, gender-affirming care, and other services. One patient recently drove over 17 hours from South Carolina, a state with a six-week abortion ban, Der Simonian said.
For Der Simonian, that case illustrates how desperate some of the practice's patients are for abortion access. It's why she supported Maine's 2024 shield law, she said.
Maine Family Planning has discussed whether to start mailing abortion medication to patients in states with bans, but it has decided against it for now, according to Kat Mavengere, a clinic spokesperson.
Reflecting on Carpenter's indictment, Der Simonian said it underscored the stakes for herself - and her clinic - of providing any abortion care to out-of-state patients. Shield laws were written to protect against the possibility that a state with an abortion ban charges and tries to extradite a doctor who performed a legal, in-person procedure on someone who had traveled there from another state, according to a review of shield laws by the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at the UCLA School of Law.
"It is a fearful time to do this line of work in the United States right now," Der Simonian said. "There will be a next case." And even though Maine's shield law protects abortion providers, she said, "you just don't know what's going to happen."
Data shows that in states with total or six-week abortion bans, an average of 7,700 people a month were prescribed and took mifepristone and misoprostol to end their pregnancies by out-of-state doctors practicing in states with shield laws. The data, covering the second quarter of 2024, is part of a #WeCount report estimating the volume and types of abortions in the U.S., conducted by the Society of Family Planning.
Among Louisiana residents, nearly 60% of abortions took place via telemedicine in the second half of 2023 (the most recent period for which estimates are available), giving Louisiana the highest rate of telemedicine abortions among states that passed strict bans after Dobbs, according to the #WeCount survey.
Organizations like the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, known as the MAP, are responding to the demand for remote care. The MAP was launched after the Dobbs ruling, with the mission of writing prescriptions for patients in other states.
During 2024, the MAP says, it was mailing abortion medications to about 500 patients a month. In the new year, the monthly average has grown to 3,000 prescriptions a month, said Foster, the group's co-founder.
The majority of the MAP's patients - 80% - live in Texas or states in the Southeast, a region blanketed with near-total abortion restrictions, Foster said.
But the recent indictment from Louisiana will not change the MAP's plans, Foster said. The MAP currently has four staff doctors and is hiring one more.
"I think there will be some providers who will step out of the space, and some new providers will step in. But it has not changed our practice," Foster said. "It has not changed our intention to continue to practice."
The MAP's organizational structure was designed to spread potential liability, Foster said.
"The person who orders the pills is different than the person who prescribes the pills, is different from the person who ships the pills, is different from the person who does the payments," she explained.
In 22 states and Washington, D.C., Democratic leaders helped establish shield laws or similarly protective executive orders, according to the UCLA School of Law review of shield laws.
The review found that in eight states, the shield law applies to in-person and telemedicine abortions. In the other 14 states plus Washington, D.C., the protections do not explicitly extend to abortion via telemedicine.
Most of the shield laws also apply to civil lawsuits against doctors. Over a month before Louisiana indicted Carpenter, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a civil suit against her. A Texas judge ruled against Carpenter on Feb. 13, imposing penalties of more than $100,000.
By definition, state shield laws cannot protect doctors when they leave the state. If they move or even travel elsewhere, they lose the first state's protection and risk arrest in the destination state, and maybe extradition to a third state.
Physicians doing this type of work accept there are parts of the U.S. where they should no longer go, said Julie F. Kay, a human rights lawyer who helps doctors set up telemedicine practices.
"There's really a commitment not to visit those banned and restricted states," said Kay, who worked with Carpenter to help start the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine.
"We didn't have anybody going to the Super Bowl or Mardi Gras or anything like that," Kay said of the doctors who practice abortion telemedicine across state lines.
She said she has talked to other interested doctors who decided against doing it "because they have an elderly parent in Florida, or a college student somewhere, or family in the South." Any visits, even for a relative's illness or death, would be too risky.
"I don't use the word 'hero' lightly or toss it around, but it's a pretty heroic level of providing care," Kay said.
Governors Clash Over Doctor's Fate
Carpenter's case remains unresolved. New York's rebuff of Louisiana's extradition request shows the state's shield law is working as designed, according to David Cohen and Rachel Rebouché, law professors with expertise in abortion laws.
Louisiana officials, for their part, have pushed back in social media posts and media interviews.
"It is not any different than if she had sent fentanyl here. It's really not," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrilltold Fox 8 News in New Orleans. "She sent drugs that are illegal to send into our state."
Louisiana's next step would be challenging New York in federal courts, according to legal experts across the political spectrum.
NPR and KFF Health News asked Clayton, the Louisiana prosecutor who charged Carpenter, whether Louisiana has plans to do that. Clayton declined to answer.
Case Highlights Fraught New Legal Frontier
A major problem with the new shield laws is that they challenge the basic fabric of U.S. law, which relies on reciprocity between states, including in criminal cases, said Thomas Jipping, a senior legal fellow with the Heritage Foundation, which supports a national abortion ban.
"This actually tries to undermine another state's ability to enforce its own laws, and that's a very grave challenge to this tradition in our country," Jipping said. "It's unclear what legal issues, or potentially constitutional issues, it may raise."
But other legal scholars disagree with Jipping's interpretation. The U.S. Constitution requires extradition only for those who commit crimes in one state and then flee to another state, said Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University's Thomas R. Kline School of Law.
Telemedicine abortion providers aren't located in states with abortion bans and have not fled from those states - therefore they aren't required to be extradited back to those states, Cohen said. If Louisiana tries to take its case to federal court, he said, "they're going to lose because the Constitution is clear on this."
"The shield laws certainly do undermine the notion of interstate cooperation, and comity, and respect for the policy choices of each state," Cohen said, "but that has long been a part of American law and history."
When states make different policy choices, sometimes they're willing to give up those policy choices to cooperate with another state, and sometimes they're not, he said.
The conflicting legal theories will be put to the test if this case goes to federal court, other legal scholars said.
"It probably puts New York and Louisiana in real conflict, potentially a conflict that the Supreme Court is going to have to decide," said Rebouché, dean of the Temple University Beasley School of Law.
Rebouché, Cohen, and law professor Greer Donley worked together to draft a proposal for how state shield laws might work. Connecticut passed the first law - though it did not include protections specifically for telemedicine. It was signed by the state's governor in May 2022, over a month before the Supreme Court overturned Roe, in anticipation of potential future clashes between states over abortion rights.
In some shield-law states, there's a call to add more protections in response to Carpenter's indictment.
New York state officials have. On Feb. 3, Hochul signed a law that allows physicians to name their clinic as the prescriber - instead of using their own names - on abortion medications they mail out of state. The intent is to make it more difficult to indict individual doctors. Der Simonian is pushing for a similar law in Maine.
Samantha Glass, a family medicine physician in New York, has written such prescriptions in a previous job, and plans to find a clinic where she could offer that again. Once a month, she travels to a clinic in Kansas to perform in-person abortions.
Carpenter's indictment could cause some doctors to stop sending pills to states with bans, Glass said. But she believes abortion should be as accessible as any other health care.
"Someone has to do it. So why wouldn't it be me?" Glass said. "I just think access to this care is such a lifesaving thing for so many people that I just couldn't turn my back on it."
____
This article is from a partnership that includes WWNO, NPR, and KFF Health News.
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gun deaths among children rise in states with lax firearm laws, new study finds
Gun deaths among children have risen over a 13-year period in states with lax firearm laws, according to a new study published this week in JAMA Pediatrics, a peer-reviewed medical journal. Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho and Georgia were among the states that saw a jump in pediatric gun deaths after amending their firearms restrictions following a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that applied the Second Amendment to the states, researchers found. Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency room doctor at Massachusetts General Brigham Hospital and the study's lead author, said he started the research after wondering why gun deaths among children were so high. Firearms are the leading cause of death among children and teenagers in the United States, with a steep increase in ages 15 to 19 starting in 2020. "Why did things go so badly in some states?" Faust asked. He said legal scholars told him to look at McDonald v. City of Chicago, which applied the Second Amendment to local jurisdictions. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains the government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms." For the first decade of the 21st century, there were very few changes to gun laws but every state changed their laws to some or great extent after McDonald, said Faust. Researchers divided the 50 states into three groups — most permissive, permissive, and strict — based on legal changes made since 2010. The team, which included researchers from Brown University, Yale New Haven, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of California, used a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database to analyze data from the decade before the Supreme Court ruling and then compared that to data from 2011 to 2023. The findings surprised Faust and his team, he told CBS News. Youth deaths jumped by 7,398 in the period after the Supreme Court ruling — with a total of 23,000 gun-related fatalities. Children's deaths by both homicide and suicide also rose in states that had the most permissive firearm laws, the study found. Black youth also saw the largest increase in firearm deaths in the most permissive and permissive states. The CDC found in 2023 that the vast majority of firearm deaths involving young children were due to guns that were stored unlocked and loaded. But Faust said that while gun storage is an important part of saving lives, the study shows strict laws play an enormous role in preventing youth firearms deaths. In the states that had the most restrictive laws, deaths remained stable or, in some cases, there were fewer pediatric gun deaths. California had a 40% reduction in children's gun deaths, the study found. New York, Rhode Island, Maryland and Massachusetts also saw a decrease. "This study shows the problem is linked pretty tightly to legal posture. This can be fixed and bring back thousands of people," Faust said. "States should ask what they want for their communities? What are they willing to do to save lives?" Gun advocates like Emma Brown, the executive director of Giffords — an anti-gun violence group led by former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords who was shot in the head in 2011 during a constituent meeting — applauded the study's findings. "Guns are the leading cause of death for kids and young people in the United States, and now more kids are dying because some states prioritize making gun CEOs richer over fighting crime and building safe communities," Brown said. "This study shows what we all know: common sense gun laws save lives." CBS News has reached out to the Second Amendment Foundation, one of the plaintiffs in McDonald V. City of Chicago, for comment. An accused woman skips her pedicure, kills her ex-husband Watch California Gov. Gavin Newsom's full speech on federal response to Los Angeles protests LAPD chief speaks out about deployment of military forces to anti-ICE protests


CBS News
6 hours ago
- CBS News
Gun deaths among children rise in states with lax firearm laws, new study finds
Gun deaths among children have risen over a 13-year period in states with lax firearm laws, according to a new study published this week in JAMA Pediatrics, a peer-reviewed medical journal. Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho and Georgia were among the states that saw a jump in pediatric gun deaths after amending their firearms restrictions following a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that applied the Second Amendment to the states, researchers found. Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency room doctor at Massachusetts General Brigham Hospital and the study's lead author, said he started the research after wondering why gun deaths among children were so high. Firearms are the leading cause of death among children and teenagers in the United States, with a steep increase in ages 15 to 19 starting in 2020. "Why did things go so badly in some states?" Faust asked. He said legal scholars told him to look at McDonald v. City of Chicago, which applied the Second Amendment to local jurisdictions. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains the government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms." For the first decade of the 21st century, there were very few changes to gun laws but every state changed their laws to some or great extent after McDonald, said Faust. Researchers divided the 50 states into three groups — most permissive, permissive, and strict — based on legal changes made since 2010. The team, which included researchers from Brown University, Yale New Haven, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of California, used a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database to analyze data from the decade before the Supreme Court ruling and then compared that to data from 2011 to 2023. The findings surprised Faust and his team, he told CBS News. Youth deaths jumped by 7,398 in the period after the Supreme Court ruling — with a total of 23,000 gun-related fatalities. Children's deaths by both homicide and suicide also rose in states that had the most permissive firearm laws, the study found. Black youth also saw the largest increase in firearm deaths in the most permissive and permissive states. The CDC found in 2023 that the vast majority of firearm deaths involving young children were due to guns that were stored unlocked and loaded. But Faust said that while gun storage is an important part of saving lives, the study shows strict laws play an enormous role in preventing youth firearms deaths. In the states that had the most restrictive laws, deaths remained stable or, in some cases, there were fewer pediatric gun deaths. California had a 40% reduction in children's gun deaths, the study found. New York, Rhode Island, Maryland and Massachusetts also saw a decrease. "This study shows the problem is linked pretty tightly to legal posture. This can be fixed and bring back thousands of people," Faust said. "States should ask what they want for their communities? What are they willing to do to save lives?" Gun advocates like Emma Brown, the executive director of Giffords — an anti-gun violence group led by former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords who was shot in the head in 2011 during a constituent meeting — applauded the study's findings. "Guns are the leading cause of death for kids and young people in the United States, and now more kids are dying because some states prioritize making gun CEOs richer over fighting crime and building safe communities," Brown said. "This study shows what we all know: common sense gun laws save lives." CBS News has reached out to the Second Amendment Foundation, one of the plaintiffs in McDonald V. City of Chicago, for comment.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
In a first for states, Texas might put MAHA warning labels on snack foods
A customer shops for produce at an H-E-B grocery store in Austin, Texas, in February. The Texas legislature recently passed a bill that would require warning labels on foods that contain certain artificial additives and dyes. (Photo by) In a first-of-its-kind effort, the Texas legislature has passed a bill to require warning labels on foods such as Mountain Dew and white bread that contain certain artificial additives and dyes. The measure, now awaiting action by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, would require a warning label prominently displayed on foods containing any of 44 artificial dyes and additives — a mandate that would apply to popular foods from Doritos and Skittles to Toaster Strudels and breads made with bleached flour. It marks the first time a state, rather than the federal government, has tried to put its own warning labels on food. While the bill passed the Texas House and Senate with bipartisan support, its sponsors are eagerly tying it to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' movement. State lawmakers embrace RFK Jr.'s health policies 'This is about the MAHA parents and the crunchy granola parents coming together to say we are sick and tired of being sick and tired,' state Rep. Lacey Hull, who partnered with fellow Republican state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst to sponsor the bill, told legislators before the House voted on May 25. 'I have personally spoken to the White House, who said they are looking to us, to Texas, to get this done, to stand for our children and for our future,' Hull said. Abbott has not yet said whether he will sign the bill. It also includes other statewide health mandates, such as expanding physical activity requirements in public schools and setting new nutrition education requirements for high school and higher education students. But the food warning label has drawn the most attention. The label would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.' This is about the MAHA parents and the crunchy granola parents coming together to say we are sick and tired of being sick and tired. – Texas Republican state Rep. Lacey Hull Critics of food dyes and additives say they are most often found in low-nutrient, ultra-processed foods that promote unhealthy eating habits and contribute to chronic diseases like obesity and diabetes. Some artificial dyes that are permitted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in foods are not recommended by its counterparts in other Western countries. European Union regulators require warning labels on some foods containing synthetic dyes, saying they may have an adverse effect on children's activity and attention. In January, the FDA banned the artificial coloring Red No. 3, which is used in many foods and drinks in the U.S. but has been linked to cancer in animals. California became the first state to ban its use in 2023. That bill was sponsored by a Democrat and goes into effect in 2027. But in Texas, the snack industry is pushing back. A coalition of dozens of food industry and business groups — including Walmart, General Mills and Coca-Cola — wrote a letter in opposition to the Texas bill's warning label provision, saying it 'casts an incredibly wide net' and goes too far. 'Problematic' MAHA report minimizes success of lifesaving asthma medicines, doctors say 'Texans deserve honest labeling; but they also deserve public policy that's been studied, vetted, and evaluated for health considerations as well as economic impacts,' the organizations said in a letter circulated around the Texas legislature ahead of the House vote in May. Yet opposition from some of the country's largest food manufacturers may not be enough to halt the MAHA train. The legislation with the labeling requirement joins other Republican-sponsored bills in the Texas legislature and around the country that reflect Kennedy's MAHA agenda, from ending the addition of fluoride to public waters systems to loosening vaccine restrictions. In March, West Virginia became the first state to pass a sweeping ban on synthetic food dyes. At least two dozen other states considered similar food dye bans in this most recent legislative session, according to data from the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy group that pushes for removal of chemicals from food and consumer products. At the federal level, the FDA under Kennedy's direction has also asked the food industry to phase out certain synthetic dyes by the end of 2026, though some of the largest companies have said the timeline may not be feasible. Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE