Connect with us

Politics

Major drug stores start selling abortion pill some say is 'dangerous' for women ahead of landmark SCOTUS case

Published

on

Major drug stores start selling abortion pill some say is 'dangerous' for women ahead of landmark SCOTUS case

The two largest pharmaceutical chains in the U.S. will begin selling the abortion pill mifepristone this month, just weeks before the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the drug’s approval, which the Biden administration defends. 

CVS and Walgreens completed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) certification process to dispense mifepristone, the companies separately confirmed to Fox News Digital. The pill will not be sent through the mail, and the companies will follow the FDA’s guidelines issued last year — the same guidelines that will be challenged in the high court on March 26. 

Walgreens on Friday told Fox News Digital that it “expects to begin dispensing within a week” across select pharmacies in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, California and Illinois. 

CVS told Fox News Digital that it will begin filling prescriptions for the pill in Massachusetts and Rhode Island “in the weeks ahead” and will expand to more states “where allowed by law, on a rolling basis.”

SUPREME COURT AGREES TO DECIDE ON ABORTION PILL ACCESS, APPROVAL PROCESS

Advertisement

Bottles of abortion pills mifepristone, left, and misoprostol.  (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA) called the rollout “shameful” in a statement to Fox News Digital.

“As two of the world’s largest, most trusted ‘health’ brands, the decision by CVS and Walgreens to sell dangerous abortion drugs is shameful, and the harm to unborn babies and their mothers incalculable,” SBA state policy director Katie Daniel said

Even when used under the strongest safeguards, abortion drugs send roughly one in 25 women to the emergency room, according to the FDA’s own label,” Daniel said. “Yet under Democrat presidents, the FDA has illegally rolled back basic safety standards, like in-person doctor visits, even allowing these deadly drugs to be sent through the mail.”

In a few weeks, Daniel said, the Supreme Court will hear a case “brought by doctors who routinely witness the fallout for women and girls who turn up in ERs with severe pain, heavy bleeding, infections and other serious complications.”

Advertisement

President Biden called the announcement an “important milestone” on Friday.

“With major retail pharmacy chains newly certified to dispense medication abortion, many women will soon have the option to pick up their prescription at a local, certified pharmacy — just as they would for any other medication. I encourage all pharmacies that want to pursue this option to seek certification,” Biden said in the statement to the media.

KEY STUDY IN FDA ABORTION PILL CASE AT SUPREME COURT RETRACTED IN ‘PARTISAN ASSAULT,’ AUTHORS SAY

Walgreens said it “expects to begin dispensing within a week” in select pharmacies in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, California and Illinois.  (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

In overturning Roe v. Wade in June 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion and that the matter should be decided by the states. In the aftermath, 14 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions, and two others have banned abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is around six weeks of gestation. 

Advertisement

The Biden administration and the maker of the drug mifepristone are asking the high court to reverse an appellate ruling that would cut off access to the drug through the mail and impose other restrictions, even in states where abortion remains legal. The restrictions include shortening from the current 10 weeks to seven weeks the time during which mifepristone can be used in pregnancy. The nine justices rejected a separate appeal from abortion opponents who challenged the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone as safe and effective in 2000.

Mifepristone, made by New York-based Danco Laboratories, is one of two drugs used in medication abortions, which account for more than half of all abortions in the U.S. More than 5 million people have used it since 2000, according to The Associated Press. The second is misoprostol, which some health care providers say is less effective in ending pregnancies. 

Fox News’ Danielle Wallace contributed to this report. 

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Democratic Lawmakers Say They Face New Round of Federal Inquiries

Published

on

Video: Democratic Lawmakers Say They Face New Round of Federal Inquiries

new video loaded: Democratic Lawmakers Say They Face New Round of Federal Inquiries

transcript

transcript

Democratic Lawmakers Say They Face New Round of Federal Inquiries

By Wednesday, at least five Democratic lawmakers said they received new inquiries from federal prosecutors regarding a video they published in November. In the video, they urged military service members not to follow illegal orders.

I’m Senator Elissa Slotkin. Senator Mark Kelly. Representative Chris Deluzio. Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander. Representative Chrissy Houlahan. Congressman Jason Crow. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. He’s using his political cronies in the Department of Justice to continue to threaten and intimidate us. We took an oath to the Constitution, a lifetime oath. When we joined the military. And again, as members of Congress, we are not going to back away. Our job, our duty is to make sure that the law is followed.

Advertisement
By Wednesday, at least five Democratic lawmakers said they received new inquiries from federal prosecutors regarding a video they published in November. In the video, they urged military service members not to follow illegal orders.

By Jamie Leventhal and Daniel Fetherston

January 15, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Noem names Charles Wall ICE deputy director following Sheahan resignation

Published

on

Noem names Charles Wall ICE deputy director following Sheahan resignation

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday via X that longtime U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorney Charles Wall will serve as the agency’s new deputy director as enforcement operations intensify nationwide.

“Effective immediately, Charles Wall will serve as the Deputy Director of @ICEGov,” wrote Noem. “For the last year, Mr. Wall served as ICE’s Principal Legal Advisor, playing a key role in helping us deliver historic results in arresting and removing the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens from American neighborhoods.”

Wall replaces Madison Sheahan, who stepped down earlier Thursday to pursue a congressional run in Ohio. Her departure left ICE leadership in transition at a moment when the agency has faced increasing resistance to enforcement efforts and heightened threats against officers in the field.

The move comes as the Trump administration intensifies immigration enforcement against murderers, rapists, gang members and suspected terrorists living illegally in the U.S., even as sanctuary jurisdictions and activist groups seek to block or disrupt ICE actions.

Advertisement

DHS DEMANDS MN LEADERS HONOR ICE DETAINERS, ALLEGES HUNDREDS OF CRIMINAL ALIENS HAVE BEEN RELEASED UNDER WALZ

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday that Charles Wall will serve as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputy director. (Getty Images/Alex Brandon)

ICE officials said Wall brings more than a decade of experience inside the agency.

“Mr. Wall has served as an ICE attorney for 14 years and is a forward-leaning, strategic thinker who understands the importance of prioritizing the removal of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, gang members, and terrorists from our country,” Noem added.

Wall most recently served as ICE’s principal legal advisor, overseeing more than 3,500 attorneys and support staff who represent the DHS in removal proceedings and provide legal counsel to senior agency leadership. 

Advertisement

He has served at ICE since 2012, previously holding senior counsel roles in New Orleans, according to DHS.

‘WORST OF THE WORST’: ICE ARRESTS CHILD PREDATOR, VIOLENT CRIMINALS AMID SURGE IN ANTI-AGENT ATTACKS

Madison Sheahan stepped down as ICE deputy director on Thursday. (Sean Gardner/Getty Images)

DHS has described the appointment as part of a broader effort to ensure ICE leadership is aligned with the Trump administration’s public safety priorities.

The leadership change comes as ICE operations have drawn national attention following protests in Minneapolis after the ICE-involved fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good on Jan. 7.

Advertisement

Administration officials have repeatedly emphasized that ICE’s focus remains on what they describe as the “worst of the worst” criminal illegal aliens, warning that local resistance and political opposition increase risks for officers carrying out enforcement duties.

ICE has recently created a specific landing page where these ‘worst of the worst’ offenders can be viewed with names and nationalities attached.

DHS has described the appointment as part of a broader effort to ensure ICE leadership is aligned with the Trump administration’s public safety priorities. (Ron Jenkins/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“I look forward to working with him in his new role to make America safe again,” Noem concluded.

Advertisement

ICE did not immediately provide additional comment to Fox News Digital.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump administration’s demands for California’s voter rolls, including Social Security numbers, rejected by federal judge

Published

on

Trump administration’s demands for California’s voter rolls, including Social Security numbers, rejected by federal judge

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit demanding California turn over its voter rolls, calling the request “unprecedented and illegal” and accusing the federal government of trying to “abridge the right of many Americans to cast their ballots.”

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a Clinton appointee based in Santa Ana, questioned the Justice Department’s motivations and called its lawsuit demanding voter data from California Secretary of State Shirley Weber not just an overreach into state-run elections, but a threat to American democracy.

“The centralization of this information by the federal government would have a chilling effect on voter registration which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose,” Carter wrote. “This risk threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy.”

Carter wrote that the “taking of democracy does not occur in one fell swoop; it is chipped away piece by piece until there is nothing left,” and that the Justice Department’s lawsuit was “one of these cuts that imperils all Americans.”

Advertisement

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Thursday.

In a video she posted to the social media platform X earlier Thursday, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon — who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division — said she was proud of her office’s efforts to “clean up the voter rolls nationally,” including by suing states for their data.

“We are going to touch every single state and finish this project,” she said.

Weber, who is California’s top elections official, said in a written statement that she is “entrusted with ensuring that California’s state election laws are enforced — including state laws that protect the privacy of California’s data.”

“I will continue to uphold my promise to Californians to protect our democracy, and I will continue to challenge this administration’s disregard for the rule of law and our right to vote,” Weber said.

Advertisement

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called the decision another example of “Trump and his administration losing to California” — one day after another court upheld California’s congressional redistricting plan under Proposition 50, which the Trump administration also challenged in court after state voters passed it overwhelmingly in November.

The Justice Department sued Weber in September after she refused to hand over detailed voter information for some 23 million Californians, alleging that she was unlawfully preventing federal authorities from ensuring state compliance with federal voting regulations and safeguarding federal elections against fraud.

It separately sued Weber’s counterparts in various other states who also declined the department’s requests for their states’ voter rolls.

The lawsuit followed an executive order by President Trump in March that purported to require voters to provide proof of citizenship and ordered states to disregard mail ballots not received by election day. It also followed years of allegations by Trump, made without evidence, that voting in California has been hampered by widespread fraud and voting by noncitizens — part of his broader and equally unsupported claim that the 2020 presidental election was stolen from him.

In announcing the lawsuit, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in September that “clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” and that the Justice Department was going to ensure that they exist nationwide.

Advertisement

Weber denounced the lawsuit at the time as a “fishing expedition and pretext for partisan policy objectives,” and as “an unprecedented intrusion unsupported by law or any previous practice or policy of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

The Justice Department demanded a “current electronic copy of California’s computerized statewide voter registration list”; lists of “all duplicate registration records in Imperial, Los Angeles, Napa, Nevada, San Bernardino, Siskiyou, and Stanislaus counties”; a “list of all duplicate registrants who were removed from the statewide voter registration list”; and the dates of their removals.

It also demanded a list of all registrations that had been canceled due to voter deaths; an explanation for a recent decline in the recorded number of “inactive” voters in California; and a list of “all registrations, including date of birth, driver’s license number, and last four digits of Social Security Number, that were canceled due to non-citizenship of the registrant.”

Carter, in his ruling Thursday, took particular issue with the Justice Department’s reliance on federal civil rights laws to make its case.

“The Department of Justice seeks to use civil rights legislation which was enacted for an entirely different purpose to amass and retain an unprecedented amount of confidential voter data. This effort goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the underlying legislation,” Carter wrote.

Advertisement

Carter wrote that the legislation in question — including Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 — was passed to defend Black Americans’ voting rights in the face of “persistent voter suppression” and to “combat the effects of discriminatory and unfair registration laws that cheapened the right to vote.”

Carter found that the Justice Department provided “no explanation for why unredacted voter files for millions of Californians, an unprecedented request, was necessary” for the Justice Department to investigate the alleged problems it claims, and that the executive branch simply has no power to demand such data all at once without explanation.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending