Louisiana’s New Law Shows How Opioid Phobia Ushered in Abortion Restrictions

By Crystal Lindell

I’ve long said that pain medication is a “my body, my choice” issue – and a new Louisiana law really drives home the connection between opioids and abortion regulations. 

The state passed a law back in May that re-classifies mifepristone and misoprostol – two medications taken in tandem to induce abortion – as Schedule IV controlled substances, the same category as Xanax and Valium. 

Misoprostol is prescribed for a variety of situations, including reproductive health emergencies, as well as miscarriage treatment, labor induction, or intrauterine device (IUD) insertion. Because it is also used for chemically-induced abortions, the drug has long been a target of pro-life advocates in Louisiana, where abortion was criminalized in 2022.  

Under the new law, possession of either mifepristone or misoprostol without a prescription from a specially licensed doctor is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

It’s the biggest sign yet that the War on Drugs has officially collided with abortion rights in our post-Roe V. Wade world. Indeed, as states continue to restrict access to opioids and other medications, it becomes more and more obvious that pain patients and abortion rights advocates share a common fight. 

The state law goes into effect Oct. 1, but a report in the Louisiana Illuminator highlights how it’s already causing "confusion and angst" amongst healthcare professionals. 

In anticipation of the new law, some Louisiana hospitals are already removing mifepristone from their obstetric emergency care carts, where it would be used in the case of hemorrhage after delivery to stop bleeding and save a mother’s life. Removing it from the cart and locking it up is a standard practice at hospitals for controlled substances, but it means that mifepristone can’t be accessed immediately during emergencies. 

“Doctors and pharmacists are scrambling to come up with postpartum hemorrhage policies that will comply with the law while still providing proper medical care for women,” the Illuminator reports. 

Note how the idea of not complying with the law – which many doctors have personally disagreed with – doesn’t even seem to enter the realm of possibility. It’s the full manifestation of “just following orders” justification. 

One doctor theorized that the pending law also likely explains why pharmacists had been “pushing back” when she prescribed misoprostol for outpatient miscarriage management.

“They’ve been calling her to request clarification on why she prescribed the medication, and one pharmacy refused to fill the prescription,”  the Illuminator reported. “She had to send that patient to a different pharmacy. Her patients often travel hours to see her, and she regularly has to call in misoprostol to help them manage care at home.”

Pharmacies pushing back on doctor's prescriptions? That sounds familiar. In fact, many patients who take necessary medications like hydrocodone for pain or Adderall for ADHD have numerous stories to share about pharmacists trying to block their prescription from being filled.

And while it may not seem like it at first, all those points of friction in the process do lead to doctors refusing to prescribe controlled medications because they don’t want to deal with the hassle and risk of going to prison. It’s an outcome that I’m sure the Louisiana lawmakers who pushed the legislation through are hoping for with abortion-related medications. 

Making a Choice

It’s a grave mistake to think we can isolate things like pain medication restrictions from the rest of healthcare. Every new restriction that takes options away from doctors and patients paves the way for the next one that comes down the pike. 

Pro-choice advocates sometimes try to claim abortion medications shouldn’t be restricted because they are “life-saving.” However, many other controlled substances are also life-saving and we don’t see the pro-choice movement standing up for patients who need them. Those patients are also making a “choice” about their own bodies.

Untreated ADHD is proven to lower your life expectancy. Untreated and under-treated pain can cause a number of complications, from needless suffering and withdrawal to longer recovery times and even death when patients are forced to find pain relief on the unsafe black market.

Controlled substance laws make it much more difficult for patients who need medications labeled with that classification to get them – and people do die as a result. Just as people will likely die as a result of the new law in Louisiana. 

My concern is that the general public has been too quick to accept medication restrictions as necessary when they are promoted as solutions to things like the “opioid crisis.” I fear that people will start to believe that mifepristone and misoprostol are actually worthy of the classification of “dangerous controlled substance,” just as they believe medications like hydrocodone and Adderall are.

Unfortunately, if pain treatment is any indication, I don’t expect many doctors or hospital administrators to be willing to risk personal punishment for the health of their patients. I have personally seen doctors refuse opioids to dying patients because they “might get in trouble.”

I expect most medical professionals and hospitals will comply with the new Louisiana regulations without much tangible push back.

On the other hand, maybe there is a small place for hope here. Imagine a world where classifying more drugs as controlled substances helps medical professionals and the public understand why these classifications are problematic – legal frameworks that lack sound medical reasoning. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening any time soon. 

In the meantime, pro-choice advocates could learn a lot from those of us who have been on the front lines of the drug war for decades. If we want to have any hope of victory, we all need to join together to fight all restrictions on bodily autonomy – whether it’s related to reproductive health, pain management, or any other health condition. 

We must join forces now. The longer we wait, the more emboldened governments will become in making choices for us.

Early Use of Methotrexate Slows Rheumatoid Arthritis

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Early treatment with methotrexate can significantly reduce joint pain and inflammation in patients showing early signs of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), according to a new study by Dutch researchers.

First used as a chemotherapy treatment because it prevents cancer cells from dividing, methotrexate became a first-line therapy for RA in the 1980’s because it also acts as an immune system inhibitor. RA is a chronic autoimmune disease in which the body’s own defenses attack joint tissues, causing pain, swelling, inflammation and bone erosion. 

Treatment with methotrexate usually isn’t initiated until RA is diagnosed, but researchers at Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC) in the Netherlands found that early treatment of patients in the "pre-rheumatic phase" helped slow progression of the disease.

"At present, methotrexate is only prescribed to the patient following a rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis," said lead author Annette van der Helm, PhD, Professor of Rheumatology at LUMC. "But that is too late. By then, the disease is already considered chronic."

Van der Helm and her colleagues enrolled 236 patients who had joint pain and inflammation that could be seen on an MRI. Although RA was suspected, it was not yet confirmed. Half the patients were treated with methotrexate and the other half with a placebo. The effects of the treatments were assessed a year later.

The study findings, published in The Lancet, show that early treatment with methotrexate did not prevent the development of RA, but the diagnosis was delayed. Patients in the methotrexate group also had less pain and morning stiffness than those treated with a placebo. Their physical function was also better and their MRI scans showed less joint inflammation.

"This is an important step towards reducing disease burden for this group of patients," says Van der Helm. "This chronic disease is extremely burdensome to patients and their families. Our study is paving the way toward arthritis prevention."

In 2019, over a million people were prescribed methotrexate in the United States, where it is approved as a treatment for RA, psoriasis and cancer. The drug is also used “off-label” for lupus, migraine, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s Disease and other autoimmune problems.   

‘Abortion-Inducing Drug’

Ironically, the Dutch study comes at a time when some female patients in the U.S. are losing access to methotrexate because the drug can cause miscarriages and be used to end ectopic pregnancies. After last month’s Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe vs. Wade, over half the states enacted or implemented abortion limits, including some that specifically list methotrexate as an “abortion-inducing drug.”  

Although the state laws don’t prohibit methotrexate from being used for other purposes, some doctors, pharmacies and insurers have become cautious about prescribing or dispensing the drug. The Arthritis Foundation has heard from several women who’ve had trouble getting methotrexate, including some beyond childbearing age.

“Some of the stories we’ve gotten in are of women who are over the age of 50 — they are past their reproductive years — and they’re still being asked really invasive questions and having roadblocks thrown up,” Dr. Anna Hyde of the Arthritis Foundation told NBC4 in Washington.

Up to 90% of RA patients are prescribed methotrexate at some point. It doesn’t work for everyone and can have side effects, but it’s the only affordable option for many patients, costing about $50 for a month’s supply of generic methotrexate tablets. Other treatments for RA, such as disease modifying biologic drugs, can cost as much as $3,000 a month and are not covered by insurance.  

Women Losing Access to Arthritis Drugs Due to Abortion Bans

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

It didn’t take long for last month’s Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade to have a ripple effect on the U.S. healthcare system – including unintended consequences for women of childbearing age who have painful conditions such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, migraine and multiple sclerosis (MS).

Methotrexate and other drugs used to treat autoimmune and neurological conditions can also be used to induce abortions because they prevent cells from dividing. Although not commonly used for that purpose, methotrexate is officially listed in Texas as an “abortion-inducing drug” – an abortifacient -- putting practitioners at risk of running afoul of the state’s $10,000 bounty on anyone who helps a woman end a pregnancy after six weeks.

Even in states where abortion is legal, physicians, pharmacists and other healthcare providers have become cautious about prescribing or dispensing methotrexate.

“I received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient,” a Virginia woman with lupus posted on Twitter just days after Roe was overturned. “If this is happening in a blue state with no trigger law, think of those in red states where abortion isn’t even legal. And those states that have trigger laws causing extreme and immediate loss of access.”

On the same day Roe was overturned, another poster on Twitter said his wife’s rheumatologist took all his female patients off medications that might cause a miscarriage

“So those patients are going to have to go off the drugs that were helping to control their condition and have worse health outcomes. People are going to die because of this,” he said.

The Lupus Foundation of America and Arthritis Foundation said they were aware of the situation and encouraged affected patients to contact them directly.

In an op/ed published in JAMA Neurology, neurologists at UC San Francisco School of Medicine warn the new abortion limits could have life-changing and life-threatening consequences for women with migraine, MS and epilepsy.

"Even if prescribed for a neurological condition, there are reports from patients across the country stating they are now unable to access methotrexate because it can also be used to induce abortion," wrote lead author Sara LaHue, MD, of the UCSF Department of Neurology. "This could increase risk of morbidity, mortality and irreversible disability accumulation for women with neurologic diseases."

Ironically, some treatments for neurological conditions also increase the likelihood of an unplanned pregnancy because they reduce the effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives. Physicians may become reluctant to prescribe those drugs to women of childbearing age.

Some neurologists may also rule out the use of monoclonal antibodies for women — not because they are used in abortions, but because they may harm a fetus.

"In many settings, women with MS are treated with less effective therapies, because these medications are perceived to be safer in pregnancy," said co-author Riley Bove, MD, of the UCSF Department of Neurology. "Often, neurologists are not familiar with how to time or optimize certain medications, or of their updated safety profile. The reversal of Roe v. Wade may reinforce decisions to stick with the less effective therapies, which may result in irreversible disability for some women with MS."

This week the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) warned retail pharmacies they are at risk of violating federal civil rights law if they deny women access to medications used in abortions. The warning specifically mentions methotrexate when its prescribed to someone with rheumatoid arthritis or some other disabling condition.

“If the pharmacy refuses to fill the individual’s prescription or does not stock methotrexate because of its alternate uses, it may be discriminating on the basis of disability,” HHS said..