Louisiana Issued Arrest Warrant for ANOTHER Abortion Provider

Attorney General Liz Murrill thinks 'coercion' will get her case to the Supreme Court

Earlier this year, Louisiana launched a legal crusade to try to extradite a New York-based abortion provider for allegedly mailing pills into the state. Now, AED has learned from a new legal filing that Louisiana also issued an arrest warrant for a second abortion provider in another liberal state: Dr. Remy Coeytaux, a California doctor who the state accuses of shipping pills into Louisiana and enabling a ‘coerced’ abortion.

This appears to be the second-known criminal case against a shield state doctor who ships abortion pills across state lines. Both cases have been brought by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who’s been leading the anti-abortion movement’s charge to equate abortion pills with ‘coercion’ and abuse.

GOP attorneys general across the country are seemingly racing to force a case challenging shield laws up to the Supreme Court—and Murrill is at the front of the pack.

The criminal case against Coeytaux—who’s also the target of a Texas civil suit—is revealed nearly 50 pages into Louisiana’s motion to join an ongoing lawsuit against the FDA over mifepristone. The suit, originally brought by Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri, seeks to ban the mailing of the abortion medication and reinstate pre-2016 rules on the pill.

Murrill’s motion also wields conservatives’ favorite strategy to demonize abortion pills. It names a plaintiff who was supposedly victimized by Coeytaux: a woman, Rosalie Markezich, who alleges she was ‘coerced’ to take abortion pills by an abusive partner. And, because Markezich is supposedly at risk of facing future ‘coercion,’ Murrill claims she has standing to partner with Louisiana to sue the FDA.

Before we get into the details, let’s be clear about one thing: Abortion bans—not abortion access—pose the real threat to victims. Women who seek and are denied abortion are at greater risk of long-term domestic violence. In the first year after Dobbs, calls to the National Domestic Violence Hotline involving reproductive coercion doubled. Forced pregnancy is a tool in the toolbox of abusers, and abortion access is a lifeline for victims.

So, how does Louisiana claim Markezich was harmed by the FDA and telemedicine access to abortion pills? Murrill argues that Markezich and her future “unborn babies” require protection from hypothetical men who would coerce her into buying and taking abortion pills by mail. (Apparently, anti-abortion extremists like Murrill sweepingly regard men as likely abusers.)

Reinstating requirements on in-person dispensing of abortion pills could have prevented this, Murrill argues:

“Without a requirement for an in-person office visit to prevent coercion… anyone can obtain mifepristone and pressure or trick a woman into taking it. Rosalie has a strong interest in reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement to prevent future coercion.”

Murrill claims that in October 2023, Markezich’s unnamed boyfriend coerced her to buy abortion pills online, prescribed by Dr. Coeytaux, then yelled at her to take the pills while they sat in a car.

However, it’s unclear from the motion whether Markezich’s boyfriend was charged with coercion—or anything else. Before this, in the first case in the nation involving criminal charges against an abortion provider, Louisiana called for the arrest of New York’s Dr. Margaret Carpenter for allegedly mailing pills for a teenage patient. Louisiana officials claim the daughter was coerced by her mother into taking the pills.

Murrill’s motion directly references the case involving Carpenter, claiming that “[her] actions have revealed a dark consequence of remote dispensing: people other than pregnant women can order abortion drugs with ease.”

Yet, neither Carpenter nor the mother face charges related to coercion, which speaks volumes about where the state’s priorities lie: not with protecting victims, but with criminalizing abortion.

Abortion, Every Day first reported in 2023 that anti-abortion leaders identified “coercion” as their most effective talking point to stigmatize and attack abortion rights—because, as one activist explained, “No one is openly in favor of coerced abortions.” Since, anti-abortion rhetoric about ‘coercion’ has been everywhere—especially in political cases like those that Republican AGs are trying to push through the courts.

Regarding the case against Carpenter, Gov. Jeff Landry said earlier this year, “This case is about coercion. Plain and simple.” Murrill similarly stated that “the allegations [against Carpenter] have nothing to do with reproductive health care, this is about coercion.” Katie Daniel, director of legal affairs at the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said of Carpenter: “This case exposes how mail-order abortion drugs are fueling an epidemic of coercion.”

Murrill falls back on the same messaging in this recent motion. She boasts about a newly passed, wildly insidious state law—“Justice for Victims of Abortion Drug Dealers Act”—to “protect” so-called “victims of abortion drug dealers.” The motion concludes that “Rosalie was hurt by government agencies who turned a blind eye to the risks that mail-order abortion drugs pose to women like her.”

And Murrill told the Daily Caller this week:

“Rosalie is bravely representing many women who are victimized by the illegal, immoral, and unethical conduct of these drug dealers. It is my hope and prayer that the Trump Administration will revoke these bought and paid for Biden Administration rules which are contributing to these harms for women.”

GOP attorneys general like Murrill have one goal: ending shield laws, banning the mailing of abortion pills, and trapping women under their abortion bans. They see stories like Markezich’s as their best bet to force a legal challenge up to the Supreme Court—they don’t actually care about the women they’re entrapping.

Farah Diaz-Tello, senior counsel and legal director of the reproductive justice organization If/When/How, told AED that via their Repro Legal Helpline, she’s seen firsthand how “reproductive coercion is on the rise since Dobbs.” Diaz-Tello stressed that about a quarter of respondents to their recent survey reported being pressured into pregnancy by their partner. Cutting off medication abortion access “will close off an essential pathway to safety for survivors,” and, given that intimate partner violence homicide is a leading cause of death for pregnant women, this could “cost people their lives.”

“To my knowledge, no anti-abortion advocate or policymaker responded to these realities by raising concerns about how their actions were impacting the safety and wellbeing of these victims. The concern is selective, and only raised when it serves to deny others the control over their bodies they deserve to have restored.”

Recall that back in July, Jonathan Mitchell, the anti-abortion extremist attorney who represents men to take legal actions over their partners’ alleged abortions, filed a lawsuit against Coeytaux on behalf of a man who says his partner’s ex ordered pills from Coeytaux and forced her to take them.

Since November, top Texas-based anti-abortion activists have bragged about recruiting men to sue over their partner’s abortions using pills mailed from out-of-state—Attorney General Ken Paxton is reportedly recruiting men, too. A 2024 survey from the National Domestic Violence Hotline found that hundreds of abuse survivors said their partners threatened to sue them or call the cops if they had an abortion.

To be clear, that’s how much anti-abortion extremists care about the abuse victims they claim to be so worried about: They’re eager to partner with actual abusers to try to ban abortion. This, of course, is a natural alliance: Anti-abortion states and abusive partners have a vested interest in forcing pregnancy and controlling their victims’ bodies.

Since Dobbs, abortion bans are linked with 9,000 additional incidents of intimate partner violence in states that limit abortion rights, per the National Bureau of Economic Research. Another study revealed a direct link between laws that shut down abortion clinics (aka “TRAP” laws) and risk of intimate partner violence-related homicide.

That is the reproductive “coercion” we should be talking about. Instead, over and over, this word falls out of anti-abortion activists’ mouths only as a pretext to further restrict access to the abortion care that could save victims’ lives. The anti-abortion movement has placed particular focus on equating abortion pills with abuse—not-so-coincidentally, at a time when abortion pills via telemedicine comprise about a quarter of all abortions.

“Time and time again, conservative movements have weaponized survivors’ stories to further their political aims while ignoring survivors that don’t fit their narrative,” Diaz-Tello told AED. But “survivors know what they need, and we know firsthand that many of them need to be able to privately access safe abortions with pills.”