Hawley ‘Stunned’ by DOJs Sudden Shift on Key Abortion Pill Case
By: Suzanne Bowdey, originally published May 12, 2025, The Washington Stand
As far back as last year’s Republican National Convention, Americans have watched with surprise at the mixed messages from Donald Trump on abortion. The man widely considered the most pro-life president in history has sent confusing signals since campaigning for a second term. And unfortunately for pro-lifers, one of the biggest gray areas is also one of the most dangerous: chemical abortion.
The news that the president’s Justice Department urged the court to drop a case racing to protect women from the horrors of the abortion pill made both sides’ jaws drop. But is the DOJ’s move the disappointment conservatives think it is — or is this part of a more complex legal strategy than the Trump team is letting on? The Left certainly thinks so. In the legacy media, several outlets are warning liberals not to get overly excited by the shift. The headlines may be “welcome,” NBC concedes, “but supporters of abortion rights shouldn’t celebrate too much.”
Lost in all of the hype, Susan Rinkunas cautions, is that “the Department of Justice didn’t say anything about whether it thinks the drug should remain available.” And, she adds, “[T]here’s no guarantee the right-wing judge assigned to the case will dismiss the lawsuit, and there are many other ways the administration and its allies can still restrict abortion pill access.” So yes, “while it’s true that the Trump DOJ sided with the Biden administration, it did so only on the technical details of who sued and when, not on the merits of the case.”
The timeline of this suit started before the second Trump administration — in late 2023 when three states, Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho, decided to challenge the relaxed policies surrounding mifepristone, the abortion pill. Under Barack Obama, the FDA dramatically changed how the drug was regulated, allowing it “to be used through 10 weeks of pregnancy, be prescribed to minors, and be [dispensed] by health care providers via telehealth.” So the idea that the Trump administration would be on the opposite side of pro-lifers in demanding stricter guidelines, especially after new research showed higher complications from the drug, was cause for great alarm.
After all, if this is suddenly a “states’ rights” issue, as the president and others wrongly suggest, shouldn’t they at least let those states challenge the government’s policies as they see fit? Not to mention, as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins has argued, “You cannot say you support the right of states to have pro-life laws — but then have a federal policy that allows the abortion pill to be mailed into the states,” which is what local leaders are currently struggling to reconcile.
With almost two-thirds of abortions carried out through mifepristone, there’s more reason than ever to scrutinize the protocol around the drug, FRC’s Mary Szoch insisted to The Washington Stand. “The abortion drug is killing thousands of unborn children and maiming their mothers in the process, which is why the administration has said officials would examine the safety of the drug and look at any new data on it,” she said, referring to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy’s comments during his confirmation hearing. Her hope, she explained, “is that this is not a sign that the Trump administration will not do anything to protect women and their unborn children from mifepristone but simply a sign that this is not how they will do that.”
Just last week, Szoch emphasized, “the FDA received new data showing that over one-in-10 women suffer a serious complication following an abortion. Over the course of the last several months, New York has stomped on the rights of Louisiana and Texas to protect mothers from abortion. This state that weaponized the government against President Trump is now weaponizing the government against pro-life states. This cannot be allowed to continue.” Lawsuit or no lawsuit, she pointed out, “The Trump administration can take swift action to reexamine the safety of mifepristone — which, if examined properly, would result in its removal from the market. What drug does anyone know that has remained on the market after causing serious side effects for over 10% of women?”
In the meantime, conservatives like Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) are trying to parse what the administration is doing. On “Washington Watch” last week, the former state attorney general admitted he was “just stunned” by the DOJ’s push to abolish the case. “It’s really a question of: Are voters going to be able to set the policy and protect life in their states or not? And the position of the Biden administration [was], it doesn’t matter [how] voters vote anywhere. It doesn’t matter what state legislatures do. The Biden DOJ and the Biden FDA said we’re going to allow providers to mail in chemical abortion drugs into every state, no matter what. If your state restricts it, it doesn’t matter. We’re still going to mail in the abortion drugs, and now women can take them under the Biden rules without any physician supervision, any physician help, [or] assistance. It’s incredibly dangerous,” Hawley warned, “and it also totally cuts the legs out from under the Dobbs ruling.”
Even Hawley, who served as a clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts, is struggling to understand this manaeuver from the president’s team. “I don’t know why the current Department of Justice would defend [the Biden-era] rule. It seems to me to be totally antithetical to the president’s position during the campaign and also to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling.”
Of course, one source of legitimate frustration from pro-lifers is that the Trump administration doesn’t need the courts to do what Americans in red states have been demanding since his first day: enforce the decades-old Comstock Act that bans states from sending anything that causes an abortion through the mail. As far as Hawley is concerned, “That’s exactly what needs to happen.” The reasons are simple, he explained. “Almost 11% of women who take this drug experienced a serious adverse event [as in a] life-threatening event — emergency room visits, hemorrhaging. This is a huge number, a huge number,” he repeated. “It shows that the drug is not safe.”
That’s exactly why, since it was introduced, it’s come with strict safety protocols. “Doctors have to prescribe it, doctors have to administer it,” Hawley underscored. “They have to be available to their patients to help them in the event of a serious health complication. Biden got rid of all that, and I think this administration could do a world of good by putting those safety restrictions back into place immediately. It’s a matter of life and death, literally.”
So much so that Hawley wrote to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and asked that she review their position and change it. “They need to be pushing to allow voters and states to defend life,” the Missourian said, “and they certainly shouldn’t be in court defending the Biden administration’s rules. … I continue to push the FDA to put back in place these safety regulations in light of this new data that we have. It is absolutely necessary. It is absolutely vital that they do this ASAP.”
As for the president’s argument that this is a states’ rights issue, the reality is that if the government is allowing the abortion pill to be mailed anywhere — “circumventing red states’ pro-life laws,” as Perkins put it — it’s a federal issue. “You can’t have it both ways,” he stressed. “You can’t say that you support the right of states to protect the unborn and their mothers, and at the same time have a policy that allows these abortion pills to be sent into the state.”
Which is why, Hawley chimed in, that Biden agreed to let the drug be sent through the mail in the first place. “They did not want anybody deciding to restrict abortion in any way. They didn’t want anybody protecting life — not any voter, not any legislature, not Congress, nobody. So they created this regime where it just doesn’t matter what voters say. Voters can vote to say … ‘We don’t want there to be abortion at all in our state, or we don’t want there to be abortion after X number of weeks.’” None of that matters under the Biden administration — and now, under Trump’s.
At the end of the day, Szoch reiterated, there’s a lot that can be done. “The Trump administration is one of law and order and of fighting to make America safe and great. Removing mifepristone’s approval, or at minimum enforcing the Comstock Act, is right in line with their agenda.”
Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.