A Texas lawmaker has filed a bill that would reclassify two drugs used for reproductive health as controlled substances, which would place further restrictions on their access.

The proposal mirrors a law in Louisiana that went into effect Oct. 1 that treats mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled substances in state law. While the drugs are used in medication abortions, they have other applications such as treating life-threatening hemorrhaging.  

Texas state Rep.-elect Pat Curry, a Republican from Austin, has filed legislation, House Bill 1339,  that is comparable to the Louisiana law. Some health care providers have criticized Louisiana’s measure over its stricter storage and documentation requirements. Physicians have said the additional steps could place patients’ lives at risk.

Both Louisiana and Texas have strict abortion bans in place. Both states bar the procedure in almost all instances.

The Texas Legislature convenes for its next lawmaking session Jan. 14. 

Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed the new law, Act 246, in May, despite 270 doctors signing a letter against it. Mifepristone and misoprostol have been pulled off obstetric hemorrhage carts in hospitals and are now stored in passcode-protected cabinets outside of labor and delivery rooms.

Misoprostol is a pill often used to help prevent and treat post-delivery bleeding, especially for patients with hypertension or asthma who might have adverse side effects from using other hemorrhage medications usually administered with hypodermic needles or through an IV. 

Doctors and pharmacists in Louisiana have scrambled to come up with postpartum hemorrhage protocols that comply with the law while still providing fast, life-saving care for women.

LCMC Health and Ochsner Health System, which own and operate hospitals throughout Louisiana, keep the drug in a large passcode-protected storage locker on their maternity units. The state health department released guidelines suggesting hospitals modify their obstetric hemorrhage carts to add a locked compartment, but care providers at hospitals have said this isn’t a feasible option. 

Louisiana rural hospitals, which have limited resources compared to Ochsner and LCMC Health, expected to see the biggest impact from the law. With fewer pharmacists and OB-GYNs on staff, critics of the new law fear delays will be compounded in such areas. 

Reproductive health activists and doctors have warned that the Louisiana law could set a new precedent for how other states will treat mifepristone and misoprostol. Congressional Democrats released a report last month calling the law “anti-science.”

The Louisiana law was authored by state Sen. Thomas Pressly, R-Shreveport, who added the drug reclassifications as amendments to his bill that originally created the crime of coerced abortion. He wrote the bill after his pregnant sister, Catherine Herring of Houston, was given an abortion drug by her then-husband without her knowledge. 

Herring’s daughter was born 10 weeks premature, and her ex-spouse, Mason Herring, pleaded guilty to endangering a child and assault against a pregnant person. He was sentenced to 180 days, a punishment Pressly and his sister thought was too light. 

“I commend the Texas Legislature for introducing legislation to address the weaponization of abortion drugs,” Pressly said in a text message Thursday evening. “The reclassification of misoprostol and mifepristone as scheduled drugs enables healthcare providers to continue to prescribe them for legitimate healthcare purposes while limiting the ability of bad actors to obtain them.”

“My sister and nieces’s story is a prime example of why the reclassification is necessary and appropriate,” the senator added. 

The Texas bill is specifically about rescheduling the drug, and is not connected to a criminal coerced abortion law. If approved, it would take effect Sept. 1, 2025. It also adds carisoprodol, a muscle relaxant, to the Schedule IV controlled substances list for the state.

Last month, Louisiana health care providers and advocates filed a lawsuit that claims Act 246 violates the state constitution. The plaintiffs argue it discriminates against people based on a physical condition. They also believe state lawmakers approved a bill that strayed too far from its original version, which Article III of the Louisiana Constitution forbids.