State Restrictions on Mifepristone Access — The Case for Federal Preemption

This article examines the conflict between state imposed restrictions on mifepristone access and federal oversight by the FDA. Despite the FDA's role as the primary regulator of prescription drugs, many states have enacted laws that impose additional barriers to mifepristone, such as mandatory waiting periods, in person dispensing requirements, and gestational age limits. The authors argue that these state laws undermine the FDA's authority and public health objectives, making them susceptible to preemption challenges under the U.S. Constitution. They highlight cases where courts have previously ruled in favor of federal preemption, such as the Massachusetts attempt to ban Zohydro. The article also discusses the broader implications of such preemption arguments for reproductive autonomy and public health federalism, emphasizing the need for legal challenges to expand access to medication abortion.

This article examines the conflict between state imposed restrictions on mifepristone access and federal oversight by the FDA. Despite the FDA's role as the primary regulator of prescription drugs, many states have enacted laws that impose additional barriers to mifepristone, such as mandatory waiting periods, in person dispensing requirements, and gestational age limits. The authors argue that these state laws undermine the FDA's authority and public health objectives, making them susceptible to preemption challenges under the U.S. Constitution. They highlight cases where courts have previously ruled in favor of federal preemption, such as the Massachusetts attempt to ban Zohydro. The article also discusses the broader implications of such preemption arguments for reproductive autonomy and public health federalism, emphasizing the need for legal challenges to expand access to medication abortion.