Blanche Suggests DOJ Could Block Mailing Of Anti-Abortion Pills

cting Attorney General Todd Blanche has pledged to review a Biden-era Justice Department opinion that cleared the way for abortion medication to be delivered through the mail, potentially reopening one of the most consequential legal disputes to emerge after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

In its 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, overturned Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and returned authority over abortion policy to voters and their elected representatives.

Since then, states have adopted sharply different approaches. Some have enacted broad abortion protections, while others have imposed limits or prohibitions that include medication abortion.

Medication abortion is not emergency contraception and does not prevent a pregnancy from beginning. The Food and Drug Administration says mifepristone, when used with misoprostol, is approved to end an existing intrauterine pregnancy through 10 weeks of gestation.

The growing controversy now centers on whether abortion providers may mail those drugs into states whose elected leaders have restricted the procedure.

Blanche, who has served as acting attorney general since April and has been nominated by President Donald Trump to lead the Justice Department permanently, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation proceedings last week.

During the hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questioned Blanche about the Comstock Act, an 1873 federal law governing the mailing of abortion-related materials.

The law prohibits mailing certain “abortion-causing articles,” but the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion during former President Joe Biden’s administration concluding that the statute does not categorically prohibit mailing mifepristone or misoprostol.

According to that opinion, federal criminal liability generally requires evidence that the sender intended the drugs to be used unlawfully. The department reasoned that because the medications may be used lawfully under various circumstances, their mere shipment into a particular state is not sufficient to prove criminal intent.

Cruz asked Blanche whether, if confirmed, he would “commit to carefully reviewing that opinion, to ensure that it faithfully reflects the actual statutory text that Congress enacted” in 1873.

“Yes, I will,” Blanche responded.

Blanche also agreed to examine what lawful actions the Justice Department could take to enforce the Comstock Act and other federal statutes involving abortion. His answers did not commit the department to a particular legal conclusion, but they signaled that the Biden administration’s interpretation will not automatically remain in place.

A review alone would not immediately prohibit abortion medication from being mailed nationwide. Blanche would first have to determine that the existing legal opinion misinterprets the statute, and any subsequent enforcement effort would almost certainly face extensive litigation.

Still, a reversal could provide the Justice Department with a potential legal basis to pursue abortion providers, distributors or others who knowingly ship abortion drugs for use in violation of state law.

That possibility has alarmed abortion advocates, who have increasingly relied on telemedicine and mail-order medication to reach women in states with abortion restrictions. It has also encouraged pro-life lawmakers who argue that the federal government should not help providers circumvent laws enacted by state legislatures after Dobbs.

Cruz was not the only Republican senator pressing the administration on the issue. Before Blanche’s hearing, Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., urged him to address Biden-era policies that removed in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone while the FDA conducts a safety review.

The legal dispute reflects a broader constitutional question created by the post-Roe landscape: If states possess the authority to regulate abortion, can the federal government permit out-of-state providers to deliver abortion drugs into those jurisdictions without meaningful regard for state restrictions?

Supporters of mail-order access argue that federal drug regulations and postal laws protect lawful distribution. Pro-life advocates counter that using federal policy to bypass state legislation undermines both the democratic process and the Supreme Court’s decision to return abortion policymaking to elected representatives.

Poll Finds Support for Abortion Limits Despite “Pro-Choice” Majority

The renewed Comstock Act debate comes as polling continues to demonstrate that Americans’ views on abortion are more complicated than partisan labels suggest.

A January 2026 Knights of Columbus-Marist survey questioned 1,408 adults nationwide. Although 62 percent identified as “pro-choice” and 37 percent identified as “pro-life,” majorities supported several policies associated with the pro-life position.

According to the survey:

• 67 percent selected a position that would place at least some legal limit on abortion.
• 57 percent favored limiting elective abortion to the first trimester or earlier in most circumstances.
• 63 percent said medical professionals with religious objections should not be legally compelled to perform abortions.
• 84 percent supported pregnancy resource centers.
• 88 percent believed laws can protect both a mother’s well-being and the life of her unborn child.

A separate forced-choice question in the same survey found that 64 percent said limits should be placed on when abortion is allowed, while 35 percent favored abortion without any limits. The difference results from the questions using different wording and response structures.

The poll also found overwhelming support for exceptions when abortion laws are enacted. Eighty-four percent said legal limits should include exceptions for rape, incest or saving the mother’s life.

Marist Poll Director Dr. Barbara L. Carvalho said the results reveal substantial agreement beneath the nation’s bitter political divisions.

“Despite the publicly heated debates about abortion, there remains a consensus of opinion on this issue among Americans.”

Carvalho told the outlet: “Despite the publicly heated debates about abortion, there remains a consensus of opinion on this issue among Americans.”

“Americans believe abortion should be limited yet include exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother,” Carvalho said.

The findings suggest that abortion advocates’ preferred labels do not tell the full story. Many Americans who call themselves pro-choice nevertheless reject abortion without limits, support conscience protections for medical workers and believe public policy can defend both women and unborn children.

Blanche’s promised review will therefore unfold in a political environment where voters may disagree over precisely where abortion limits should be drawn, but a clear majority remains unwilling to embrace an unrestricted national regime.

The central issue is no longer whether unelected judges will impose one abortion policy on all 50 states. After Dobbs, the question is whether the federal bureaucracy will respect state laws—or use mail-order abortion drugs to render those laws practically meaningless.