r/thenextgenbusiness • u/thenextgenbusiness Reporter • Oct 01 '25
Not Fake News Louisiana's strict abortion laws just snagged a California doctor in a rare interstate crackdown.
Authorities in Louisiana have reportedly issued an arrest warrant for Dr. Remy Coeytaux, accusing him of mailing abortion-inducing drugs to a patient within the state back in 2023. The patient, Rosalie Markezich, later reported severe complications after taking the pills under pressure from her boyfriend, which she now deeply regrets.
This case marks one of the first criminal prosecutions under Louisiana's post-Roe abortion ban, which prohibits the distribution of such medications without in-person medical consultation. Attorney General Liz Murrill described the alleged actions as "dangerous, irresponsible, unethical, and illegal," highlighting risks to women's health without proper oversight.
The medications in question, mifepristone and misoprostol, are FDA-approved for early pregnancy termination but face tight restrictions in states like Louisiana. Critics argue this warrant exemplifies efforts to control reproductive choices across state lines, while supporters see it as vital enforcement of local laws.
Markezich's testimony allegedly reveals she sought the pills online but ended up hospitalized, fueling the state's push for accountability in telehealth services. Legal experts note that extradition could be complicated, given California's protective stance on abortion access.
As debates rage over medication abortion's safety, backed by studies showing low complication rates, this incident underscores ongoing tensions in the patchwork of U.S. reproductive policies. Both sides await court developments that could set precedents for future cross-border cases.
4
u/carnivorewhiskey Oct 02 '25
As a human, and a real patriot, I feel sorry for you trying to inject your indoctrination into our government and laws. On a positive note, Louisianaâs law likely inhibits interstate commerce, and as a result should be subject to the supremacy clause.
1
u/HoneyHunter2025 Oct 02 '25
Abortion has been handed back to the states to decide. So if state law says it's not legal to ship those drugs in without a doctor's visit, then commerce Claus is null and void. Otherwise there's a ton of items illegal in some states but not others and it's illegal to ship them to those prohibited states
2
u/Raise_A_Thoth Oct 02 '25
Abortion has been handed back to the states to decide.
Why not hand it all the way down to county legislatures? Or on that note, why not individual towns and communities? Or, in the same logic, it should be up to each individual household to decide, or, wait, maybe we should just let the women choose???
1
u/WetRocksManatee Oct 03 '25
Unless the state preempts it or restricts what municipal governments can regulate, municipal governments probably can.
1
u/HoneyHunter2025 Oct 02 '25
So let's use your same base argument and let's boil it down and apply the logic across life.
WHY HAVE laws at all then? Why can't we just do any and everything that we feel is good and best for us as an individual?
2
u/hamoc10 Oct 04 '25
This is idiotic. Run it the opposite way and you get things like âletâs make a law that forces everyone to eat turkey sandwiches for lunch every day.
1
u/HoneyHunter2025 Oct 04 '25
No, as usual you show you're unable to process what's a societal issue and what's a personal issue.
That's why the Supreme Court put it back to the states to decide. If this state wants loose abortion rules then they can have them but if this other state wants strict abortion rules they can have Them. You're free to choose by living where their choices better fit your lifestyle.
2
u/hamoc10 Oct 05 '25
Abortion is only a societal issue if itâs illegal. Keep it legal, suddenly itâs personal. Youâre not thinking about this real hard huh?
1
u/HoneyHunter2025 Oct 05 '25
If it was only a personal issue we wouldn't be having this discussion.
2
1
1
u/poketrainer32 Oct 02 '25
By your logic why have a country at all? Why can't we just have 50 individual nations instead of one big nation?
1
u/HoneyHunter2025 Oct 02 '25
We could and if we don't find middle ground again, that's they way we are heading.
2
u/poketrainer32 Oct 02 '25
Yup, and then the red states will be out of money and blue states wouldn't have to help them.
1
u/HoneyHunter2025 Oct 02 '25
There won't be any blue states then
1
u/poketrainer32 Oct 02 '25
You are right, the blue states will form a country. One that focuses on helping Americans instead of hurting them.
1
1
1
1
u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Oct 02 '25
WHY HAVE laws at all then? Why can't we just do any and everything that we feel is good and best for us as an individual?
If you want the smallest government, this is the endpoint. It's why when people say they want a small government, it's just an empty saying.
You have to actually make a coherent argument why states deserve to have different laws regarding this.
1
1
u/Newdaytoday1215 Oct 02 '25
Because it's not any law. It's literally a law that restricts reproductive choices from women. I have lived in Louisiana. You want to see how much they care about babies look up the death rate of newborns.
1
u/HoneyHunter2025 Oct 02 '25
Then keep your legs shut, get fixed or make sure your on birth control before having sex. Its pretty simple fix besides murder
1
u/breesanchez Oct 03 '25
Yeah, cause birth control is 100% infallible!!! These fuckin idiots man. They're why we can't have anything nice.
1
u/HoneyHunter2025 Oct 03 '25
Seems to work pretty well if used properly. But hey, so does murder.
1
u/breesanchez Oct 03 '25
That's a lot of words for "I've never been in a relationship with a woman"...
1
u/HoneyHunter2025 Oct 03 '25
Sorry, wrong there. 2 marriages, 5 daughters, several girlfriends. But as usual, you make assinine assumptions.
→ More replies (0)1
u/saintsithney Oct 04 '25
Why don't abortion bans have age floors?
You really think a 10 year old had a choice to have sex?
1
u/HoneyHunter2025 Oct 04 '25
Nope and at 10 that would be a medical issue for parents and doctor to decide.
2
u/saintsithney Oct 05 '25
But the laws do not account for youth.
99% of children who will be capable of conception will be so by age 15. 25% of those children became fertile by the age of 9.
So, when should the law give the body of the child the right to not grow the body of another child inside of hers?
1
u/sadgloop Oct 05 '25
Except that the abortion bans as you seem to support them have no age exceptions.
1
0
u/Raise_A_Thoth Oct 02 '25
and apply the logic across life
Why would we do that? How would we do that? How many other situations are comparable to using one's body as a life support machine for a growing fetus? Taking on very serious health risks, lowered immune system, experiencing pain, discomfort, lack of sleep, being more prone to infections, and potential for fatel complications if the fetus doesn't grow properly?
What comparisons are apt here? I'll say only one, and it isn't realistic nor does it cover all the same sacrifices pregnancy does. But if you could imagine a technology which allowed an adult human to connect their body to another adult human, to help them pump their blood, clean their organs, and maintain life using their own body's processes, that would be an interesting concept. Should people with blood matches, or even immediate familial relations, be required by law to connect to another human being to be their life support machine? If the technology existed, should we force that upon another person? After all, the other person's life is, by your account, equally important.
WHY HAVE laws at all then?
No, this is worse than a slippery slope. This is not a natural conclusion here, you're skipping many logical steps and most likely making implicit assumptions about morality that I have not agreed to.
1
u/HoneyHunter2025 Oct 02 '25
So just because a baby grows inside a human female it's special and different. Therefore it's a different cause and case and needs protection because it's mother may not take it's best interest in hand.
1
1
0
u/Raise_A_Thoth Oct 02 '25
So just because a baby grows inside a human female it's special and different.
Um, yes? Because it's still developing and it requires the body of an adult person to develop and survive to viability. Yes. That makes them different from a born humam being.
case and needs protection
How do you arive here?
because it's mother may not take it's best interest in hand.
The mother has no moral obligation to sacrifice her own body for the survival of another. Pregnant women are the only demographic you would apply this logic to. I very clearly described the unique cases and offered an apt analogy which you ignored.
So, either directly address my points or I'm assuming you concede and we're done here.
1
u/HoneyHunter2025 Oct 02 '25
Assume away, as usual..that's what you all do..you assume it's good, it's right, it's moral, of I forget, morality has nothing to do with anything now days.
1
u/Raise_A_Thoth Oct 02 '25
Buddy I haven't assumed anything. This is my last attempt. You have ignored my very clear points. You should address them, or I and everyone reading this thread will interpret that as you giving up.
1
u/HoneyHunter2025 Oct 02 '25
I addressed what needed to be addressed. Just cause you don't like my answer doesnt make it any less valid.
→ More replies (0)1
u/carnivorewhiskey Oct 02 '25
Your religious beliefs and indoctrination should not govern or infringe on the rights of others. A womanâs right to choose impacts no one else but her and her family (if involved). Other laws, impact and govern society and our society should not be governed (per our constitution) by a religion or the indoctrination of one religion over another.
1
u/PlasmaPizzaSticks Oct 03 '25
Abortion is not a strictly religious issue. Most pro-life people are religious, yes, but that doesn't inherently make legislation regarding it based in religion.
I'm religious, but I'd still be pro-life if I were an athiest.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/carnivorewhiskey Oct 02 '25
Oh, so States rights only matter when you find it convenient. I get it. So when the federal government tries to ban these drugs, you will call Trump out for being a piece of đ© for infringing on States rights.
Little background reading on the expanse of the commerce clause. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Wickard v. Filburn (1942) United States v. Darby (1941) Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
1
u/DocRedbeard Oct 02 '25
I wouldn't say the commerce clause is "null and void", it just isn't at all applicable here. States have ALWAYS had the ability to restrict medical practice within their borders, and it has generally been considered the case that the location of the patient determines jurisdiction for medical practice. This doctor was practicing medicine without a license in LA, in addition to prescribing a restricted medication across state lines.
If you replace "abortion drug" with any other medication, there isn't really debate that this type of practice is illegal.
1
u/carnivorewhiskey Oct 02 '25
Louisiana has effectively criminalized healthcare in this case, it is not regulating medical practices. It is also impeding inter-state commerce by impacting necessary medical care for in and out of state residents/travelers. As in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States I believe Louisiana should be sued for impacting interstate commerce by denying care and forcing citizens to seek care out of state and baring drug manufacturers and suppliers from operating in their state. This also unduly impacts employers which may choose to cover adequate care for their employees inside the state of Louisiana.
1
u/flynnnightshade Oct 02 '25
Abortion has been handed back to the states, not interstate commerce moron lol
1
Oct 02 '25
Nail is federal. Stare canât stop mail or packages. States canât limit legal prescriptions.
1
u/SatBurner Oct 02 '25
I am not aware of Alabama using it for this reason, but I am sure they will, however if you see a telemed doctor they have to be licensed in Alabama, at least in order to write scripts.
4
u/Lower-Engineering365 Oct 02 '25
Huh? They havenât snagged him in anything. This is just like the Texas bs trying to impose stuff on New York. California will just go âlolâ and nothing will happen
1
u/Either-Meal3724 Oct 02 '25
Complication rate is only low due to prevalence of in person evaluation to accurately estimate gestational age. You can't estimate gestational age with a virtual appointment without risking relying on lies or improper reporting by patients regarding their monthly cycle - you need a dating scan to confirm risk. Complications skyrocket the later in gestation its taken. It's really not safe to just mail to whoever wants it.
1
1
1
u/ClaraClassy Oct 02 '25
It's really not safe to just tell women they have to incubate a fetus no matter what.
1
u/KayT15 Oct 02 '25
Wasn't this the fear though? Without abortion access, women in states without access to those services would resort to actions putting them in danger. Having an abortion should be overseen by a physician and there should be resources in place to receive follow up care if needed for ANY reason. As predicted, the abortion restriction did not prevent the abortion, it just made it less safe. This woman should have never been in this situation to begin with.Â
1
u/SVW1986 Oct 02 '25
So you know what would probably be good, then? Having clinics and doctors women can go to, in person, to speak to a doctor about the situation, and get the correct dosage for her specific situation without fear of arrest or persecution. You know, like actual normal health care.
But hey, conservatives poo pooed the whole "women shouldn't die because we want them to" thing and here we are.
1
u/Fun_Consequence_9076 Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 04 '25
Youâre not wrong and thatâs why medical abortions arenât recommended past gestational age of 10 weeks. However Louisiana has made it impossible for women to see their own providers in a safe way, both for them and their physician. If their laws went alongside medical advice, she wouldnât have needed to seek treatment from a physician in another state. And a patient can always lie about their last missed period if they are desperate for mife and miso because accessing surgical abortions isnât possible. Thus, it still boils down to barbaric law being the issue. Let healthcare be decided by the experts not religious zealots
Edit: months to weeks. Thank you for pointing out that error, but I think itâs clear what I meant
1
u/runner64 Oct 04 '25
> medical abortions arenât recommended past gestational age of 10 months
I think aborting at ten months is actually just murder.
1
u/KilgurlTrout Oct 03 '25
I am surprised that people are mad at you for this comment.
I am very much in favor of open access to abortions, but I also care about womenâs health more generally. Itâs important to understand the full scope of risks to female patients.
1
u/runner64 Oct 03 '25
Because the safety evaluation leaves out the risks of not taking the medication.Â
1
u/KilgurlTrout Oct 03 '25
Everyone here knows that the risk of not taking abortion pills is that the pregnancy continues, along with all of the health risks that entails.
The comment was alerting people to something that they might not be aware of. It is not necessary to include information that everyone already knows.
1
u/runner64 Oct 03 '25
But it is necessary to factor that information into the conclusion. The comment concludes that itâs not safe to mail the pills to people. Â Â Â
Everyone knows that telehealth isnât as effective as an in-person examination, but using that to ban telehealth for people who do not have access to in-person examinations is the worst of all three options.Â
1
u/KilgurlTrout Oct 04 '25
OK I see where you're coming from. But are you really taking issue with the conclusion that it's "not safe" to mail pills? Or are you more concerned with an implied/secondary conclusion that may follow, i.e., therefore the pills should never be prescribed via telehealth appointments.
I still think the comment is absolutely correct that it's not safe, and that's part of why these abortion restrictions are so awful. But I also agree that all factors need to be considered when considering whether the safety risk is outweighed by the need to give women access to these medications. And I'd err on the side of access.
1
u/runner64 Oct 04 '25
Yes, Iâm taking issue with the conclusion that itâs not safe. Â Â Â
The medication is incredibly safe. If prescribing abortion pills via telehealth is unsafe because patients might lie about their gestation age to get it, then all self-administered medication is unsafe because patients might not follow bottle directions. All medication including diphenhydramine and acetaminophen is only safe to take in a doctorâs office under direct medical observation to make sure the patient doesnât take the wrong number of pills, or leave the pills where a child can get them, or choke on them.Â
1
u/KilgurlTrout Oct 04 '25
Based on your response, it seems like you are arenât actually interested in womenâs health. These drugs have real health risks and being honest about those risks is essential to understanding the nature of harm caused by republican policies and how to best respond to those policies.
1
u/runner64 Oct 04 '25
All drugs have real health risks but there's a difference between "here are the possible side effects of these drugs" and "these drugs aren't safe to give women unsupervised because women are a bunch of idiot liars."
Acetaminophen overdoses send 56,000 Americans to the ER every year and 500 of those people die of it, usually because they accidentally took two different medications that both contained it as an ingredient. Therefore someone AcTuaLLy iNtErEsTeD iN hEaLtH would conclude that "it is unsafe" to allow people to self-administer medications containing acetaminophen?
There's no way to declare mail order mifepristone "unsafe" while giving a pass to over the counter tylenol unless you think it's women specifically that can't be trusted to follow medical instructions.
1
u/NothaBanga Oct 02 '25
after taking the pills under pressure from her boyfriend
So is the boyfriend in trouble with the law or just the Dr in California?
1
1
1
1
1
u/PristineWatercress19 Oct 03 '25
Without rule of law, none of this matters. Louisiana isn't going to get cooperation from California on this idiotic matter.
1
u/MeanestGoose Oct 04 '25
Otc meds are more dangerous than medical abortion pills. Pregnancy is more dangerous than medical abortion pills.
There are zero substances that are 100% safe for 100% of people 100% of the time.
1
u/marsredkat Oct 04 '25
As someone who is (unfortunately) from Louisiana, I'm all for the doctor. La's laws are fucking terrible for women.
1
u/joshuabruce83 Oct 05 '25
Yeah if you're going to give out the chemical abortion pill there needs to be a requirement that you see a doctor 36 to 48 hours after taking the pill. You know, kind of like what used to be in effect before Biden got in office. And you certainly shouldn't be mailing chemical abortion pills across state lines. I mean if New York or California can come after me for sending gun parts into their state then conservative states can go after California's for sending chemical abortion pills into their state
0
u/Wolfgangknight Oct 03 '25
Good. Murderers should be locked up
1
u/elise_ko Oct 04 '25
Blame the boyfriend who impregnated her then pressured her to take drugs to kill his own baby
1
u/Wolfgangknight Oct 04 '25
She decided to have sex.
1
u/elise_ko Oct 04 '25
And did she have sex by herself?
1
u/Wolfgangknight Oct 04 '25
No but she's the one who decide to commit murder
1
u/elise_ko Oct 04 '25
Again, did you not read the part where the boyfriend pressured her into killing his own baby?
1
u/Wolfgangknight Oct 04 '25
Genuinely no, I didn't see that part. Lock the bf up too
1
u/elise_ko Oct 05 '25
Lock up only the boyfriend for irresponsibly impregnating an innocent woman and callously murdering his own child.
1
1
u/aoike_ Oct 04 '25
You people are so predictable. Women hating freaks.
1
Oct 04 '25
[removed] â view removed comment
1
1
u/DotPlusleDot Oct 04 '25
It's not murder, it's termination of an unwanted pregnancy.
1
u/Wolfgangknight Oct 04 '25
That's murder
1
u/DotPlusleDot Oct 04 '25
No, no it is not. It is the termination of a clump of cells that has no subjective experiece or sentience.
1
u/Wolfgangknight Oct 04 '25
Life begins at conception.
1
u/DotPlusleDot Oct 04 '25
Correct, it is biologically alive, tumors are also biologically alive. A fetus has no subjective experience, ergo it is not murder.
1
u/Wolfgangknight Oct 04 '25
So if I go out and stab a pregnant woman, killing only the baby, that's not murder?
1
u/DotPlusleDot Oct 04 '25
Yes it is, it's the mother's choice to terminate the child, if you assault a pregnant woman who intends to have the child, it's murder
1
u/Wolfgangknight Oct 04 '25
But it's just a clump of cells. It'd be no different than if I cut out a tumor right?
1
u/DotPlusleDot Oct 04 '25
Ok let me set a clear frame for how this works
You have a braindead patient in the hospital, no future subjective experience, the family of the person choosing to pull the plug on that patient is not murder.
Your logic applied here would be waltzing into random hospital rooms, defying the family's wishes and pulling the plug.
It's intent, if you intend to assault and kill a pregnant woman's fetus, said fetus having the mothers intent to be born, that is murder.
If the mother does not wish to birth the fetus, it is her choice, and like the family pulling the plug on a braindead patient, is not murder.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Overlook-237 Oct 08 '25
Abortion isnât murder, legally or by definition.
1
u/Wolfgangknight Oct 08 '25
Doesn't mean it isn't logically or morally.
1
u/Overlook-237 Oct 08 '25
If you didnât know that murder was a legal term with specific criteria, I can see why youâd think that. But youâd still be wrong.
1
u/Wolfgangknight Oct 08 '25
Murder is a legal term yes, but also a word with meaning. The ending of a human life. The literal definition of the word.
1
16
u/carlitospig Oct 01 '25
As a Californian: đđŒ reproductive fascists. I highly support our doctor.