Mifepristone, preemption, and public health federalism. Issue 2 (21st December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zettler, Patricia J; Beckmeyer, Annamarie; Brown, Beatrice L; Sarpatwari, Ameet
• Is Part Of: Journal of law and the biosciences. Volume 9:Issue 2(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-12-21
• Subjects: medication abortion -- mifepristone -- preemption -- public health -- US Food and Drug Administration; Life sciences -- Law and legislation -- Periodicals; Science and law -- Periodicals; Law and biology -- Periodicals; Biotechnology -- Law and legislation -- Periodicals; Bioethics -- Periodicals; 344.0957
• DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsac037
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2053-9711

Abstract

Abstract: On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in which five justices voted to overturn Roe v Wade . Even before the final opinion issued, scholars and advocates had begun to consider legal strategies that might mitigate the decision's anticipated harmful consequences. One such strategy involves challenging state restrictions on Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pregnancy termination drugs on preemption grounds. This article begins by exploring how these challenges might fare—considering both drug-specific restrictions and complete bans on abortion—arguing that there are compelling legal grounds on which courts should conclude that many state restrictions are preempted. Importantly, although these state restrictions have arisen within a larger debate about reproductive health care, this is far from the only area in which states seek to regulate prescription drugs. States have long regulated drugs in ways that diverge from FDA, arguably increasingly so in recent years. Accordingly, the article investigates the implications that preemption challenges in the abortion context may have for other areas of state drug regulation, making the case that the benefits of public health federalism need not be undermined by successful preemption challenges in the abortion arena.