Costco Wholesale Corp said on 14 August 2025 that it will not be dispensing any of the abortion pills, mifepristone, at its over 500 pharmacy locations in the U.S., citing “lack of demand from our members and other patients” as the main reason for its decision. This move, however, has found celebration among conservative and faith-based activist groups, even though reproductive rights advocates warn it could restrict more access to medication abortion for women at different times throughout the country.
Costco’s decision corporate rationale
The corporation advised Reuters of its refusal to proceed with the special FDA certification required for dispensing mifepristone, a drug best known for being the first in a two-drug regimen for medication abortion. “Our position at this time not to sell mifepristone, which has not changed, is based on the lack of demand from our members and other patients, who we understand generally have the drug dispensed by their medical providers,” the company said. The firm then emphasized that this decision reflects member needs at this current moment rather than ideological motivations.
Stringent pressures from activist groups
Pressure started building on Costco during the course of a full year, and it actually went beyond any given abortion issue. By mid-2024, then New York City Comptroller Brad Lander publicly called on Costco to bear the expense and make the effort to get certified for dispensing mifepristone. He further threatened that its refusal to do so poses both women’s reproductive health care and investors’ money at risk. On the other hand, in August 2024, a coalition of conservative and faith-based investors-including Inspire Investing and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)-petitioner the retail chain to maintain its policy of non-dispensing of the drug, on the premise that this would undermine the company’s purported family image, thus raising “serious health risks”, despite the FDA approving it in 2000.
Celebrations and condemnations from the public
Draw immediate praise from conservative legal groups. Michael Ross, legal counsel at ADF, lauded Costco for “doing the right thing by its shareholders and resisting activist calls to sell abortion drugs”; while Tim Schwarzenberger, director of corporate engagement at Inspire Investing, termed it “a very significant win” and promised to shift pressure on other retailers like CVS and Walgreens. Meanwhile, pro-choice advocates quoted by ADF have termed the view as too short-sighted. According to a spokesperson for Comptroller Lander, Costco’s refusal is “disappointing and shortsighted,” adding that denying access to “a safe and FDA-approved medication under the guise of ‘weak demand’ risks isolating customers and undermines the company’s credibility”.
Implications on access to medication abortion
Medication abortions keep improving in popularity because they happen to be the most private, cheapest, and safest. Since mifepristone is no longer needed to be dispensed in-person but pharmacy certification pathways were introduced in the 2023 update, only a handful of chains pursued it; with Costco opting out, in those states where the abortion is legally available, but has limited access to providers, women will find themselves facing major obstacles.
Also, in 12 total abortion-ban states, telehealth prescribing and mail delivery are still ways of obtaining mifepristone, but these remain clouded by legal contests and regulatory uncertainty. Federal protections have been upheld through the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision preserving FDA approval of mifepristone, but policies such as Costco’s reveal just how much non-state actors can independently curtail access.
Broader corporate context
Costco’s move, however, is unlike CVS Health and Walgreens, both of which have certified pharmacies and are in fact still dispensing mifepristone to those jurisdictions where it is legal. In line with its “long history of supporting and advancing women’s health,” CVS did not fail to mention that it conforms to FDA protocols; while Walgreens pointed out that the Supreme Court ruling made it possible for continued dispensing.
Aside from that, it also indicates how the increasing strain between corporate governance and shareholder activism against social responsibility is emerging. Policy choices regarding sensitive health services often trigger both investor campaigns and consumer backlash within companies that are navigating very polarized political landscapes.
