Louisiana lawmakers are trying to quietly criminalize possession of the most commonly used abortion pills.
In a move that took the state’s abortion advocates and OB-GYNs by surprise, last-minute amendments that would place mifepristone and misoprostol on the state’s list of controlled substances were added to a bill focused on making “coerced criminal abortion by means of fraud” a crime.
State Sen. Thomas Pressly (R) filed Senate Bill 276 in honor of his sister, whose husband slipped abortion medication in her drink without her consent. The House Criminal Justice Committee heard multiple bills regarding abortion Tuesday, and there was not much buzz surrounding this particular one, until Pressly submitted the set of amendments that would classify the abortion medications mifepristone and misoprostol as Schedule IV controlled substances under Louisiana law.
Abortion is almost completely illegal in Louisiana. Mifepristone and misoprostol both have other uses.
The legislation would include an exemption for pregnant women to possess mifepristone and misoprostol for their own consumption, and still allow people who have a “valid prescription” to obtain them from pharmacies. Thus, it appears to be designed to target people who might stockpile abortion pills ahead of their own pregnancy, or the pregnancy of their friends and family members. Health care workers worry the legislation will make it more difficult to do their jobs.
The penalties would make possession of the medications a felony punishable up to five years in prison with a fine of up to $5,000. In Louisiana, the distribution or possession with intent to distribute of Schedule IV drugs is punishable for up to 10 years in prison with a fine of up to $15,000.
When one state legislator, who admitted he was not familiar with the last-minute amendments, expressed concern they were not conservative or “pro-life” enough, Pressly reassured him by saying that the legislation and the amendments were written in partnership with Louisiana Right to Life, the state’s anti-abortion organization.
Louisiana is a trigger ban state, meaning in June 2022 when Roe v. Wade was overturned and federal protections for abortion rights ended, abortion was made almost entirely illegal. The state has one of the strictest bans in the country, with no exceptions for rape or incest, and narrow exceptions for life of the pregnant person and “medically futile” pregnancies. In the months that followed, the legality of Louisiana’s ban was argued in court and staunchly defended by current Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, who was the state’s attorney general at the time. An August 2022 court decision effectively ended abortion in the state and resulted in all three abortion clinics shutting down.
On Tuesday, as the revised bill advanced out of committee, news slowly began to spread across the state that mifepristone and misoprostol might soon be categorized as controlled substances, a move that seems to be unprecedented.
Lawyer Elizabeth Ling manages the Repro Legal Helpline at If/When/How and says, to her knowledge, she hasn’t seen language like this proposed or legislation like this enacted in any other state. “It’s unknown how police or prosecutors might choose to use this law, or might choose to use information against people,” Ling tells Rolling Stone. “The amendment may have an exception for the pregnant person, but there’s no exceptions for the people supporting a pregnant person.” Ling says she’s not surprised, because there have been multiple states across the country trying to successfully criminalize abortion support.
The Supreme Court recently heard arguments from conservatives fighting to limit access to mifepristone, following a controversial ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Louisiana’s move to classify the abortion pills as “dangerous controlled substances” could signal the latest front in Republican-led states’ war on abortion access.
“Neither mifepristone nor misoprostol belong in the category of dangerous controlled substances, as there is no potential for abuse or dependence (the definition of a controlled medication),” Dr. Jennifer L. Avegno, director of New Orleans’ health department, says in a statement. “As we have seen, any perceived barrier to accessing appropriate maternal health care produces confusion and worsens Louisiana’s existing poor outcomes for women.”
By making these medications a controlled substance, should the bill become law, it could add a lot of red tape for doctors prescribing the pills. Rolling Stone spoke with a maternal fetal medicine specialist based in Louisiana who worries patients are going to suffer because of the sweeping implications of this legislation. She says misoprostol is a medication that OB-GYNs often prescribe, sometimes even multiple times a day, to help provide miscarriage care, to induce labor when someone needs to give birth, and for cervical ripening before putting in an IUD.
“The majority of times you’re prescribing misoprostol, it’s not for abortion, at least not here,” says the doctor, who asked to remain anonymous. “Twenty-five percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and the FDA-approved protocol for medically managing miscarriage is either a combination of misoprostol and mifepristone or a misoprostol-only regimen.”
She says if this measure were to become law, it could result in a “potential disaster,” explaining that there would likely be a period of time where doctors are fearful about how to proceed, and unsure whether or not they are qualified to prescribe Schedule IV controlled substances, but they’ll still have patients daily coming in who are miscarrying.
Louisiana OB-GYNs are no strangers to shifting reproductive health laws, as doctors have been in a constant state of fear and paralysis as what exceptions are legal have been debated in courts and committee hearings. When the Supreme Court first overturned Roe, there were reports that pharmacies refused to fill misoprostol, even when the intention was not for elective abortions.
Patients seeking miscarriage treatment have been turned away by health care workers fearful of being criminalized for providing care. Even prior to the ban, Louisiana had one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country. A recent report about the criminalization of care in the state found that doctors were forcing women to undergo unnecessary cesarean sections “to preserve the appearance of not doing an abortion.”
“We’re all so scarred from the last two years of not exactly knowing what we can and can’t do,” says the Louisiana OB-GYN, adding that doctors now feel “sheer terror” in what used to be easy, daily decisions. “Before anybody writes a prescription, they’re going to be damn sure that they’re not doing something illegal because we all just feel like we have targets on our back from Jeff Landry’s personalized letter he wrote to each of us that basically said, ‘You have a target on your back.’”
The doctor says she had been texting with colleagues throughout the day, and they are all in “complete shock” about the amendment. “This was not on anyone’s radar at all — it feels very sneaky,” she adds. “Your husband should not slip you abortion pills without you knowing it; that story is terrible. But linking that with this is totally backwards.”
Anti-abortion doctor Kim Hardey testified in support of the amendments at the hearing, saying in his opinion that making the medication controlled substances “wouldn’t really affect their availability to doctors,” but would make it so “you’d be able to see who’s prescribing these drugs more clearly.”
Following the committee hearing, Pressly released a statement, shared by Louisiana Right to Life, saying that he added the amendments because the abortion pills “are being weaponized and are a risk to the public health.” He also claimed he is “aware of increasing incidents of men using threats of violence or duress to cause women to take abortion pills against their will.”
“I recognize that there are legitimate medical uses other than elective abortion for these drugs,” says Pressly. “Louisiana law is clear that if abortion-inducing drugs are used for purposes other than elective abortion, they are legal for use. The medical community is well-versed with using controlled substances in the course of their medical practice.”
It should be noted that the anti-abortion legislators often insist that abortion laws are clear, even when they throw the medical community into crisis. It should also be noted that this amendment was made in the criminal justice committee, not the health and welfare committee. Louisiana Right to Life did not respond to a request for comment.
The confusion around the consequences of this legislation parallel what happened in the state following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, allowing states to ban abortion. Ling says she thinks this confusion is often intentional.
“It means that people become too scared to do anything, whether that means you are someone who is pregnant and thinking about what makes the most sense or whether you’re a doctor thinking about what is medically sound treatment for your patient,” she says. “That confusion is paralyzing.”
Ling adds she’s also worried that making mifepristone and misoprostol controlled substances will add to the stigma around abortion pills. “The science really shows that abortion pills are extremely safe. I think [this bill] is really harmful because [it] is perpetuating the stigma that we’ve seen around abortion in general for decades … that has led to the criminalization of people, suggesting that abortion is somehow unsafe, and somehow not health care.”

















Donald Trump speaks to members of press aboard Air Force One
Trump’s Year of Media Capture
This was the year when public broadcasting was gutted and hyper-partisans prospered, when the First Amendment was exhaustively praised and opportunistically abandoned. It was the year when media capture came to America.
Before 2025, “media capture” was a term used exclusively overseas, describing the compromise of a free press to curry favor with the regime in power. Sometimes this happened through threats and intimidation, greased by partisan group think. Other times, the cudgel was money: wealthy administration allies would buy independent news organizations and neuter them to fall in line with the state-backed version of facts.
Hungary is often cited as a prime example of media capture — and so it seemed notable that Hungary’s elected autocrat Viktor Orban was repeatedly praised by Donald Trump and Republicans during the 2024 election. It was a clear sign of intent.
One year later, we’ve gotten used to Baghdad Bob-like lies from Trump administration flacks and absurd sycophancy from Cabinet secretaries. We expected spinelessness from the vast majority of congressional Republicans. But the lack of leadership inside news media when faced with an explicitly hostile executive branch has been surprising, largely driven by corporate owners who hid behind a fig leaf of “fiduciary responsibility” to shareholders and genuflected when threatened. They shoveled out millions to Trump for perceived slights (and there is always a perceived slight) that never would have held up in court.
The total is more than $90 million dollars to date. ABC News agreed to pay Trump $15 million for his library after anchor George Stephanopoulos discussed Trump’s conviction for sexual abuse against E. Jean Carroll. Likewise, Paramount paid Trump $16 million for the routine process of an edit to a CBS 60 Minutes interview — in this case, of then-Vice President Kamala Harris — during the 2024 campaign, after Trump refused to participate. Editing a long interview down to time is not evidence of bias; it is a normal part of the news business. But it seemed that parent company Paramount needed to pay the vig in order to sell its company to the Trump-friendly Ellison family — and so it was paid. In a totally coincidental move, CBS announced it would shut down the one of the highest-rated broadcast late-night shows in America, hosted by the beloved comic and frequent Trump critic Stephen Colbert.
Trump has sued the New York Times (subsequently calling them an “a serious threat to the national security of our nation”) and the Wall Street Journal (over their reporting on the Epstein files) — who admirably refused to back down. He sued YouTube, who decided to abandon the protections of Section 230 just this once and pay Trump $24 million dollars for suspending his account after the January 6 attacks. Meta and X forked over millions, as well. Showing that capitulation only encourages more aggression, Trump just announced an absurd $5 billion suit against the BBC for editing the speech he gave before the attack on the Capitol. This would be a bad joke if it didn’t come from the president of the United States.
America’s leadership in the world has always been based on the power of our example as much as the example of our power. And just as the ideals of the “good America” as a beacon of freedom and democracy have been undermined, the voice of America to the wider world has been silenced. Right out of the gate, one of Trump’s first actions was to shut down the Voice of America and public diplomacy stations that offer free information to autocratic nations.
Vladimir Putin has long railed against Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty — which began broadcasting into the Soviet Union during the Cold War and helped destabilize that totalitarian regime. Trump was quick to give Putin that gift, freezing more than $75 million in funding previously appropriated by Congress. Their struggle to secure new revenue streams led to the legendary R.E.M. to remix and re-lease their first single Radio Free Europe as a promotion. (Full disclosure, my wife Margaret Hoover is the host of Firing Line on PBS and sits on the board of RFE/RFL.)
While Secretary of State Marco Rubio has long believed that the Cuban people should be freed from the Castro-founded communist regime, he presided over the abrupt shutting of Radio Marti. As a New York Times headline succinctly stated, “Trump Did What the Castro’s Couldn’t: Take Radio Marti Off the Air.” Likewise, Team Trump talks tough about standing up to Beijing, but they gave China’s Communist Party a boost by dismantling Radio Free Asia. It’s springtime for autocrats around the world.
Conservatives have been threatening to kill the Corporation for Public Broadcasting since the 1960s, when Mr. Rogers famously saved it with his congressional testimony. The expense is a rounding error and the benefits include offering kids in remote rural areas and inner cities alike access to educational programing — and their parents a dose of culture the algorithms don’t deliver. Trump put it on his hit list and of course congressional Republicans obligingly voted to pull the trigger on Bird Bird. Among the casualties of these cuts is the award-winning documentary series the American Experience. One of the greatest communicators of civic education is silenced in time for America’s 250th birthday. It is darkly ironic and entirely fitting.
The greatest, currently incomplete media acquisition of 2025 had to do with the fate of Warner Brothers Discovery, the parent company of HBO and CNN. During negotiations, the Ellisons were seen as having the upper hand for federal merger approval precisely because of their close relationship to Trump. This was stated as fact in straight news articles — ignoring what a complete rupture such partisan favoritism reflected on the American system. I’m actually sympathetic with David Ellison’s stated aim of creating news for the middle 70 percent of Americans. But reports that the Ellisons offered Trump assurances that their programming would be more friendly to his administration and even offered to fire specific CNN news anchors with whom Trump is apparently displeased showed the contradictions in this position. The latest news that the CBS editor-in-chief Bari Weiss — a heterodox opinion journalist who founded the now Ellison-owned Free Press — apparently spiked a 60 Minutes story on forced deportations to Salvadoran prisons hours before it was set to air, recommending that journalists get Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller’s perspective included in the segment, did little to re-center perceptions. As it stands, Netflix made the successful bid for WBD streaming and studio businesses and CNN’s future remains unclear. But the world needs a strong and independent CNN.One of the great debates of the 2024 election inside legacy newsrooms — including CNN — was whether Trump should be covered like any other candidate. Like many colleagues, I felt that covering Trump fairly required crucial context, including his previous attempt to overturn an American election on the back of a lie that led to an attack on our Capitol. Some executives felt that calling out Trump’s lies was divisive, that it was already baked in the cake of public opinion. But the day that a news organization decides that lies will go unchallenged from people in positions of power is the day that news organization loses its true north star.
One year later, the list of degradations is endless. To anybody who rationalized their 2024 support for Trump because they didn’t like “woke” kids on social media, they got a full jettisoning of objective journalists at the Pentagon because real news organizations refused to sign what amounted to an administration loyalty oath in exchange for access. Likewise, the White House press pool created special seating for right wing bloggers while the Associated Press was banished for refusing to go along with Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. The Washington Post purged much of its editorial board to project a more Trump-friendly face while ditching its traditional center-left liberalism. The Federal Communications Commission is run by a Project 2025 contributor who removed the description of his agency as being independent to reflect its fealty to Trump and threatened ABC to suspend late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. Taken together, it is a cartoonish caricature of worst-case scenarios floated before the 2024 election.
This is not simply partisan warfare conducted through the press. The Trump administration and its apologists are creating an architecture of alternative facts. The greater danger is that we will be unable to reason together as fellow citizens — and that is how American democracy works.
Right now, the bad guys are winning. But just because the truth is under attack does not mean that facts cease to exist. Trump can use his election lies as a loyalty litmus test for appointees but that does not mean that American citizens need to surrender their conscience or common sense. The fact that so many corporations have felt they have a financial obligation to kiss the ring when confronted with threats speaks ill of the incentive system we’ve created. Going forward, it will be up to independent journalists and independent minded owners of news organizations to help fuel a fearless, fact-based alternative to the media capture that is making American citizens more compliant at a time when we need to be courageous.