https://ballsandstrikes.org/law-politics/mifepristone-lawsuit-republican-ags-more-pregnant-teens/

I know this is old news by now, but:

«“Remote dispensing of abortion drugs by mail, common carrier, and interactive computer service is depressing expected birth rates for teenaged mothers in Plaintiff States,” the attorneys allege in the complaint, which was filed before forced birth enthusiast Judge Matt Kacsmaryk in the Northern District of Texas’s Amarillo Division. They claim that decreased births constitute “a sovereign injury to the state in itself,” and causes downstream injuries like “losing a seat in Congress or qualifying for less federal funding if their populations are reduced.” In other words, uteri are state slush funds, and girls owe the state reproduction once they are capable of it.

States exist to serve people, not the other way around. But in order for courts to hear a case, would-be plaintiffs need to show that they experienced an actual injury that the party they’re suing caused, and that a court can fix. A personal dislike of somebody else taking medicine is not a legitimate grievance. So the states are trying to show that they are entitled to the population growth and accompanying funds that pregnant minors would produce, and the FDA is getting in the way of that.

…

The complaint also says that each of the states is “the legal parent or guardian of many minor girls of reproductive age”—a reference to girls in state custody, like foster care or juvenile detention. For those girls, they argue, the state is a stand-in for parents. And as parents, they claim, they have a right to consent to their children’s medical care, which is apparently nullified if teen girls in foster care can “obtain abortion drugs online by mail all on their own.” Under the state’s theory, it can separate children from their actual parents, declare itself their father now, and deem a daughter’s pregnancy her daddy’s prerogative.

Bailey, Kobach, and Labrador’s [the state Attorneys General, one of whom is Kris Kobach, in case that’s a recognizable name] argument treats teenagers as breeding stock. The complaint is shocking in its brazenness. But it is a natural outgrowth of the conservative legal movement’s efforts to subordinate women: Girls choosing not to give birth is wrong, and men can go to court to set it right.»