Abortion coercion is a threat to all pregnant women
In October 2024, a woman entered the emergency room in North Texas. She was presenting with extreme fatigue, pain, and heavy bleeding. Just two days prior, she had an ultrasound confirming a viable pregnancy with a heartbeat. She was happy to hear about her prenatal child’s health. But in the emergency room, doctors told her that she was going through an inevitable miscarriage. A police investigation revealed that the father of the woman’s child was Justin Anthony Banta. He pleaded with her to get an abortion, which she refused. Afterwards, he invited her to a coffee shop where he offered her a drink and cookies. These were, according to the arrest warrant affidavit and FBI lab testing, laced with abortion-inducing pills. Surveillance videos from the coffee shop show Banta putting a “white-colored substance” in her cup.
The Guttmacher Institute estimates that there were 1.1 million abortions in the United States per year in both 2024 and 2025. The 2025 figure is 21% higher than in 2020. Meanwhile, a survey found that out of women ages 41 to 45 who’ve had abortions, 24% describe theirs as “unwanted” or “coerced”. If the current abortion trend continues, a rough estimate could suggest that between 250,000 and 270,000 abortions done annually are unwanted or coerced. This should be everyone’s concern, regardless of their beliefs on abortion.
Reproductive coercion is when a parent, partner, boss, or other person in a position of power forces reproductive outcomes. It can include birth control sabotage, tampering with or removing a condom, or forcefully ending a pregnancy. Reproductive coercion affects the most marginalized people. It happens most often to women of color, single women, and women with lower incomes, as well as non-heterosexual women. A forced abortion is another method of control by abusers.
Health Risks
Taking abortion pills without one’s knowledge or consent is dangerous. Contraindications for the two abortion pills, mifepristone and misoprostol, can include…
- A suspected or confirmed ectopic pregnancy
- Having an IUD in place
- Using steroid medications
- Adrenal failure
- Having a blood disorders or taking blood thinners
- Intolerance or allergy to either mifepristone or misoprostol
Medical guidelines have long recommended in-person follow-ups after a medication abortion. The follow-up is to ensure that all the pregnancy tissue has been expelled. This is crucial since retained tissue can cause life-threatening septic shock. The visit also helps spot problems early and treat possible complications. The harm from removing this safety net is multiplied by state shield laws.
State shield laws were written to protect prescribing doctors and pharmacists. They allow abortion pills to be sent into states with abortion bans. These pills can be sent without an added name or address on the medication label. This makes it difficult for ER doctors to trace the prescription chain and full regimen. In a separate Texas case, the lawsuit says that the father dissolved at least ten abortion pills in the victim’s hot chocolate. This is higher than the FDA-approved dose of one mifepristone tablet with four misoprostol tablets. The FDA also does not recommend purchasing mifepristone outside of the Mifepristone REMS Program. It warns that doing so would be bypassing important safeguards that protect patients’ health.
When the Pregnancy Continues
Spiking with abortion pills is also harmful to the developing embryo or fetus if they survive. Misoprostol is a teratogenic drug. This means that it can cause structural or functional malformations in a developing fetus. It can result in congenital anomalies, such as
- Limb defects with or without Möbius’ syndrome
- Brainstem injuries
- Hydrocephalus (fluid in the brain)
- Clubfoot
According to one study, the risk of birth defects increases from 1.8% in the general population to as high as 7.9% in women exposed to misoprostol. Being born too early adds another risk. Catherine Herring was 30 weeks pregnant when she became severely ill. In the trash, she found an empty package of misoprostol. Her husband had secretly given her the medication when he served her water after lecturing her on hydration. He had previously attempted to induce an abortion on six other occasions. She immediately sought medical intervention and delivered her daughter alive shortly after. The daughter was born prematurely. She required a feeding tube and needs lifelong medical assistance because of her developmental delays.
Intimate Partner Violence
Around 64.2 million people have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) in the United States, according to the CDC. Reproductive coercion is tied to intimate partner violence. According to one study, people who experienced reproductive coercion have a higher risk of IPV than those who don’t. IPV was associated with greater involvement by men in pregnancies ending in abortion. Barriers must be put in place to ensure that abusive partners do not have access to pregnancy-ending drugs.
How Did We Get Here?
How are abusive partners able to access abortion pills in the first place? In 2016, the FDA reduced the mandate for in-person medical visits for medication abortions from three visits to one. At the same time, it allowed non-physicians to prescribe the medication. It also lifted the rule that patients swallow mifepristone under medical supervision at a clinic or hospital. In April 2021, the FDA paused enforcement of the in-person dispensing requirement. This was supposed to be a temporary move during the COVID-19 lockdown. By December of that year, the FDA announced it would remove the constraint permanently.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 260 into law in September 2025. It allows providers to prescribe mifepristone anonymously from the state. It also allows pharmacies to dispense abortion medications without the prescriber’s or pharmacy’s name and address on the label. At the time of this writing, 23 states have their versions of shield laws through legislation or executive orders.
Because of these changes, anybody, anywhere in the country can get abortion pills without in-person oversight. According to an arrest warrant affidavit, surveillance footage shows Banta spiking his partner’s drink in the coffee shop. He also gave his partner cookies laced with abortion pills. Banta admitted to obtaining the pills online. According to the hot chocolate lawsuit, the father of the prenatal child ordered the abortion pills from Aid Access. Aid Access prescribers do not see the intended patient in person or screen for a verified pregnancy.
Thin Literature
Some critics argue that abortion coercion does not happen because the medical literature on this subject is thin. A lack of research does not mean the problem doesn’t exist. When cannabis was first legalized in the United States, later studies contradicted earlier claims on its safety. Dr. Greg Pike, a senior research fellow at the Bios Centre, calls abortion coercion “the neglected face of reproductive coercion.”
The changes in the abortion access landscape are relatively new. The FDA eliminated its in-person dispensing requirement in 2021. That removal, along with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision, has changed how abortion is accessed in the US.
What Needs to Change
Protecting people from forced abortion should be common ground between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Both states with abortion bans and states with abortion access have passed laws to protect women from coerced abortion. The Michigan Coercive Abortion Prevention Act makes forcing someone into an abortion a misdemeanor. The Catherine and Josephine Herring Act in Louisiana makes it a crime to secretly give a pregnant woman abortion pills. Lawmakers from both parties should pass a federal law that protects pregnant people from forced abortion in every state.
Another important step to reducing forced abortions is screening by healthcare professionals. Michigan’s Public Act 499 of 2012 requires abortion providers to screen patients for coercion. It also requires facilities to post notices informing patients that coerced abortion is illegal. If a minor discloses coercion by a caregiver, the provider must report to child protective services.
Researchers have found that screening men for perpetration can be effective at identifying abuse. Given the connection between IPV and coerced abortion, this extra step can be done to ensure that informed consent is upheld. Guidelines that put survivors’ needs first are sparse and much needed. A 2021 study found that healthcare providers often lacked the necessary skills to spot and respond to abuse.
Helping victims of abuse also means connecting them with resources. For example, in California, experiencing domestic violence is considered a “qualifying life event.” It allows patients to enroll in Medi-Cal and thus have access to the mental and behavioral health care necessary for healing. Medical staff need to know this and relay the information.
Legislation, technology, and culture have changed in recent years. Because of this, updated research on abortion coercion is needed so our policies can better protect pregnant people.
All people, regardless of their beliefs on abortion, should support:
- Research on abortion coercion
- Laws that protect pregnant people
- Training of medical staff to identify and stop it
- Adequate resources for victims of IPV
- Ensuring that abortion pills do not land in the hands of abusive men
Only through joint efforts can we see national solutions to prevent this growing problem.
If you appreciate our work and would like to help, one of the most effective ways to do so is to become a monthly donor. You can also give a one-time donation here or volunteer with us here.
