Louisiana Seeks Arrest of California Doctor Over Mailed Abortion Pills
A lot is at stake in a simple-sounding case: law, safety, and who can be held accountable when drugs cross state lines. Louisiana moved hard after a woman said she received abortion pills by mail and was pressured into taking them. This story is now a frontline in the fight over telemedicine, state law, and federal drug approvals.
“On multiple occasions, I have raised concerns about the unlawful distribution of these pills in our sate and the harm that it does to women,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill in a statement. “It’s dangerous, irresponsible, unethical, and illegal to distribute these pills to strangers in violation of the criminal laws of our state, without any relationship whatsoever to the individual who may ultimately be consuming them.”
“I will enforce and defend the laws of our state, including suing the governors whose shield laws purport to protect these individuals from criminal conduct in Louisiana,” added Murrill. The arrest warrant for Dr. Remy Coeytaux in Northern California follows allegations that he mailed abortion drugs into Louisiana in 2023. Officials say those drugs were used in a case that left the recipient traumatized and seeking legal redress.
On multiple occasions, I have raised concerns about the unlawful distribution of these pills in our State and the harm that it does to women. It’s dangerous, irresponsible, unethical, and illegal to distribute these pills to strangers in violation of the criminal laws of our… pic.twitter.com/ASFyuyXXhp
— Attorney General Liz Murrill (@AGLizMurrill) September 29, 2025
The woman at the center of the claim, Rosalie Markezich, describes her experience in blunt terms and has asked to join a multi-state lawsuit aimed at curbing telehealth prescriptions of mifepristone. She says she was given the pills after her boyfriend ordered them and pressured her to take them, then suffered a chemical abortion she regrets. Her account has energized Republican state attorneys general who want stricter safeguards and enforcement.
Markezich’s declaration reports that an online order used her personal contact details and that she later changed her mind but was coerced into taking the pills. Her testimony highlights a real risk when prescriptions are issued without an in-person medical evaluation and without reliable identity checks. For many conservatives, this is not theoretical; it is a clear failure of policy that puts vulnerable women at risk.
‘I would have told the doctor that I wanted to keep my baby.’
Louisiana is not alone. Texas and Florida have already signaled they will pursue anyone who ships abortion drugs into their states in violation of local law. Some red states have statutes that let mothers sue out-of-state prescribers, while certain blue states have moved to shield prescribers from penalties, creating a collision of legal standards that is headed for federal resolution.
A separate civil complaint filed in Texas alleges similar conduct in a different relationship that led to the use of abortion drugs allegedly obtained from the same provider. Texas officials issued a cease-and-desist and raised the possibility that federal mail laws, including the Comstock Act, are implicated. These moves reflect a broader conservative argument: when federal policy is permissive, states must protect their citizens.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill. Photo by Chris Graythen/Getty Images
The case also feeds into the larger debate over mifepristone and the FDA’s role. Republican attorneys general are pushing the FDA to revisit its approval and distribution rules, arguing that mail-order access without supervision increases adverse outcomes. The administration has signaled it will review safety practices, and that review could change how the drug is prescribed nationwide.
‘Safeguards for women regarding the administration of mifepristone have been significantly reduced.’
A recent letter from federal health officials to Republican state attorneys general noted studies and older FDA data showing thousands of adverse event reports and hundreds of transfusions. That language is being used by conservative lawyers to argue for restrictions or for a return to in-person exams. For Republicans, this is about restoring commonsense medical safeguards and stopping what they see as a dangerous erosion of patient protections.
Democratic attorneys general have pushed back, promising to defend access to medication abortion if federal or state action threatens it. That response sets the stage for a legal battle that could end up at the Supreme Court or be resolved through regulatory changes. The clash is more than legal hair-splitting; it will determine how reproductive health is delivered in a country increasingly split by state law.
At the local level, the people most affected are the women caught in the middle: those coerced, those misled, and those whose medical needs are minimized by remote prescribing. Republican officials argue that stronger enforcement and clearer civil remedies will deter bad actors who exploit telemedicine loopholes. The drive toward accountability is framed as protecting women and unborn children.
The Louisiana warrant is a bellwether event: it signals that conservative states will use both criminal and civil tools to push back against what they view as illegal distribution networks. If the federal government limits teleprescribing or tightens oversight, it could shift the battleground from state courts to national regulation. Until then, expect more states to test the limits of law and medicine in real time.
This case will matter for years because it forces a basic question: who gets to decide whether remote medicine can bypass state laws meant to protect patients? Republicans say the answer is obvious: states must be able to enforce their criminal and civil laws when outside actors send drugs across their borders. The coming legal fights will decide whether that view holds.
