Florida’s Legal Battle Against Planned Parenthood Over Abortion Drug Claims

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has launched a significant legal challenge against Planned Parenthood, filing a $350 million lawsuit that challenges the organization’s marketing claims about the abortion drug mifepristone. At the heart of the dispute is Planned Parenthood’s assertion that mifepristone is “safer than Tylenol,” a claim Uthmeier categorically rejects as “blatantly false” and misleading to vulnerable women. The lawsuit comes at a time when mifepristone, commonly used in what critics call “chemical abortions,” is facing increased scrutiny from both Florida officials and the FDA. This legal action represents a new front in the ongoing national debate about abortion access and the safety of abortion medications.

Mifepristone works by blocking the pregnancy hormone progesterone and is typically used as the first step in a two-drug process. About 24 hours after taking mifepristone, women take misoprostol, which causes uterine contractions to expel the fetus. While the FDA currently approves mifepristone for use within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, Attorney General Uthmeier’s lawsuit cites “mounting evidence of adverse health consequences” for women who take the drug. The Florida legal filing points to studies showing an average of more than one death per year this century attributed to complications from mifepristone. Additionally, the lawsuit references an analysis claiming that approximately 10% of women who underwent chemical abortions experienced sepsis or similar life-threatening side effects within 45 days of the procedure. These safety concerns form the foundation of Florida’s legal argument against what it characterizes as Planned Parenthood’s misleading marketing.

The $350 million lawsuit calculation is based on statutory damages of $10,000 for each of an estimated 35,000 affected Floridians. In an unusual legal approach, Florida has accused Planned Parenthood of violating RICO statutes—laws typically associated with organized crime prosecutions—asking the court to declare the organization’s advertisements about mifepristone’s safety as a “pattern of racketeering activity.” The lawsuit further alleges that Planned Parenthood prefers chemical abortions to surgical ones because they are more profitable, stating that “business is booming for Planned Parenthood” with over $2 billion in revenue and $3.1 billion in assets reported recently. Florida claims the organization has implemented a “top-down strategy of decreasing unprofitable health services and increasing profitable abortions,” comparing statistics on services like cancer screenings between 2013 and 2023 to support this assertion.

Planned Parenthood has responded forcefully to Florida’s allegations, with Susan Baker Manning, general counsel for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, stating, “Mifepristone is safe and effective, and has been used by more than 7.5 million people for abortion and miscarriage care in the U.S. since its approval more than two decades ago.” The organization’s defiant “See you in court” response signals their readiness to fight the lawsuit. Alexandra Mandado, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Florida, added that her organization “proudly offers patients medically accurate and comprehensive information” along with their care, dismissing the legal action as a “politically motivated attack” that won’t change their practices.

The lawsuit also highlights the complex history of acetaminophen (Tylenol), which Planned Parenthood uses as its safety comparison benchmark. While acetaminophen is widely used and generally considered safe when taken as directed, it has faced its own controversies. The filing mentions a dispute between the Trump administration and Kenvue Pharmaceuticals (a Johnson & Johnson spinoff that markets Tylenol) regarding claims about potential links to autism, as well as a 1980s scandal involving cyanide-laced capsules that caused several deaths in Illinois. Kenvue has previously maintained that “sound science clearly shows that taking acetaminophen does not cause autism.” This context complicates the safety comparison at the center of the legal dispute.

This legal battle in Florida represents the intersection of multiple contentious issues in American society: abortion access, pharmaceutical safety, corporate marketing practices, and state regulatory authority. The outcome could have significant implications not only for Planned Parenthood’s operations in Florida but also for how abortion medications are marketed nationwide. As the case proceeds, it will likely draw attention from both abortion rights advocates and opponents, healthcare providers, and policymakers grappling with the complex legal and ethical questions surrounding reproductive healthcare. With the FDA also reviewing mifepristone’s safety profile independently of this lawsuit, the medication itself faces a period of heightened scrutiny that could affect its availability and use guidelines in the future.