State laws are superseded by federal laws under the Constitution. However, obstacles to medication abortion will put the agency’s capacity to enact laws across the country to the test.
TWO WEEKS AFTER THE DOBBS DECISION, WHICH RUINED THE RIGHT TO LEGAL ABORTION IN THE WHOLE OF THE UNITED STATES, IT IS BECOMING CLEAR THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF MEDICATION ABORTIONS—THE EARLY-PRUNCTIVITY PILL ROUTINE THAT COULD OFFER A WORK-AROUND—ISN’T GOING TO BE Legal experts anticipate court battles between states opposed to abortion and the US Food and Drug Administration—battles that, if they go poorly, could undermine the FDA’s authority to regulate entire categories of drugs—despite the White House and federal agencies promising unrestricted access to the drugs, by mail if necessary.
Preemption, a legal theory founded on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, provides the basis for the belief that pills will be available. This section declares that when federal and state laws conflict, federal law takes precedence and that states cannot usurp federal government authority. The FDA is in charge of ensuring that medications are tested before being deemed safe and effective under federal authority in the event of pharmaceutical abortion. The disagreement stems from a series of proposals in several states, some of which have already been passed and others of which are still being considered, that would make the FDA’s countrywide approval of the abortion pill regimen unlawful in those areas.
It’s unclear who will prevail in this argument. The “floor” of drug regulation in the US is generally acknowledged to be FDA approval; states are not permitted to permit the distribution of pharmaceuticals without the agency’s prior permission. The debate centres on whether FDA clearance also serves as a cap: if a state may remove access to a medicine that the agency deems to be safe and lawful.
A preemption ruling might have a significant impact on the future of a significant number of the abortions performed in the US each year, which account for more than half of them. According to Patricia J. Zettler, an associate professor at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law and coauthor of an editorial that argues for preemption, “There is nothing that is expressly written in the FDA statutes that says FDA regulation of prescription drugs expressly preempts state efforts to regulate prescription drugs.” “The FDA statutes provide provisions for over-the-counter medications or medical equipment, but not for prescription medications. Did Congress intend for federal regulation to replace state regulation in this area, the court must decide?
Depending on how it ends, this debate may have effects on medications other than the combination of pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion. Allowing a state to restrict medicine access for political reasons might result in restrictions on other medications that state legislators deem disagreeable, such as contraception or the hormones that prevent puberty and are used in gender-affirming treatments.
There isn’t much case law to go to in order to answer this question, and there isn’t much legislative authority either. Scholars point to two potentially significant cases: one from 2014 in which a district judge ruled that a Massachusetts governor lacked the authority to outlaw a contentious but FDA-approved opioid; and the other from 2009 in which the Supreme Court agreed that a Vermont state law could require stronger side-effect label warnings than the FDA had required.
Sorting out federal preemption for pharmaceutical abortions would need new litigation, which are likely to be filed in states that are already anti-abortion, and depending on their results, may reach a Supreme Court that has already ruled against abortion rights. Legal experts are concerned that these results may have larger ramifications for federalism as a whole. According to Michele Bratcher Goodwin, a law professor and the founding director of the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy at the University of California, Irvine, “it has always been that federal laws and regulations govern the laws of our nation in over 230 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence, the practise of law, and the rule of law.” However, there could be issues with our understanding of the rule of law, and what we’ve believed for more than 230 years might be challenged.
The federal government will defend pregnant people’s ability to acquire the medications mifepristone and misoprostol, which cause medication abortion, according to statements made independently on the day of the Dobbs ruling by President Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland stated, “We stand prepared to collaborate with other federal departments that wish to utilise their legitimate powers to defend and preserve access to reproductive care. “The FDA has given the drug mifepristone approval for usage. States are not permitted to outlaw mifepristone because they disagree with the FDA’s assessment of its effectiveness and safety.
But there hasn’t yet been any declaration of intent to act in the open. Xavier Becerra, head of the Department of Health and Human Services, stated in a media briefing four days after the Dobbs decision that his staff will strive to enhance access to medication abortion. When reporters inquired about specifics, he advised them to “keep tuned.”
The Department of Justice could stand up for the FDA’s rights. Goodwin notes that the organisation was instrumental in the fight against early 20th-century Jim Crow legislation, and she claimed in May in The Atlantic that eliminating access to abortion leads to a “Jane Crow” system that violates constitutional rights in a similar way. However, experts who are keeping track of this situation feel that the medication makers filing a lawsuit is the most likely outcome.
GenBioPro is suing Mississippi because the state’s limits go beyond those specified by the FDA, and there is already one such lawsuit in existence. However, that lawsuit was filed before the Dobbs ruling. The corporation and the defendant, Thomas Dobbs, the Mississippi state health officer who was identified in the Supreme Court decision, submitted opposing petitions last week, saying that the suit was rendered unlawful by the Dobbs judgement and the Mississippi trigger statute that became effective right after. The legal team for GenBioPro argued that the state limits should be challenged in court.
Whatever the conclusion, that lawsuit exclusively concerns Mississippi law. A business would require a greater struggle to secure wider dissemination. As one of the authors of a widely read law review article that argues there are precedents for preemption, Rachel Rebouché, associate dean for research at Temple University’s James E. Beasley School of Law, says, “A drug manufacturer that is materially affected by a ban could sue on a national or a state-by-state basis.” According to her, a business might file a lawsuit to challenge a specific state’s prohibition, but it could also request that the federal district court in that state declare its ruling to be universally applicable to other states with comparable bans.
The FDA has studied the abortion-pill regimen in a way that few other medications have, which supports the preemption argument—the claim that the FDA’s judgement has greater authority than state legislation. Mifepristone is a non-prescription medication that ends pregnancies by inhibiting a hormone that maintains the uterine lining. Additionally, it is subject to a unique type of additional regulation known as a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, which the FDA normally only uses for medications with severe negative effects. (It is commonly believed that political pressure, not medical risk, is what led to the addition of this additional layer of regulation for mifepristone; mifepristone has fewer side effects than Tylenol or penicillin.) The FDA must independently certify the prescribing doctor and the dispensing pharmacy, and the patient must read instruction manuals and sign a “patient consent form” before receiving the medication.
“Congress stated: This is how we create a nationally consistent market of safe and effective medications by establishing the FDA.” Zettler asserts. “FDA has carefully balanced a wide range of considerations surrounding this medicine with regard to evaluating its safety and efficacy, and has developed this plan for regulating the drug as a result. And that will be the key question: “Can states diverge from that plan?”
This question will be raised in the context of the legal decisions that the Supreme Court made in invalidating a vaccine requirement imposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and shifting the balance of power over emission regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency to Congress in April, when a federal court overruled the CDC’s authority to impose mask mandates. In other words, it’s a situation where the federal government’s authority is being reduced. That naturally raises the issue of how far the FDA’s authority may also be curtailed.
According to Zettler, preemption is a crucial topic to follow because “it might limit the ways states can control other kinds of medications that are not part of the abortion argument, or it could open the door to additional state regulation.” The impacts beyond the setting of reproductive health care may also be significant.