CV NEWS FEED // Two critical cases in the federal courts related to the abortion pill that escaped recent media attention could affect the future of the drug in North Carolina and West Virginia, according to Pregnancy Help News.
During the controversial Supreme Court case FDA v. AHM, two legal battles took place that successfully contested state-level restrictions on mifepristone: Bryant v. Stein in North Carolina and GenBioPro v. Sorsaia in West Virginia.
In North Carolina’s Bryan v. Stein, abortion doctor Amy Bryant claimed that the state’s 2023 laws on chemical abortion were more restrictive than current FDA standards, which allow a prescription for the drug to come from any “certified health care provider,” without in-person consultations, and limit mandatory reporting of adverse effects to deaths only.
Federal District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the Middle District ruled in April to overturn the state’s post-Dobbs restrictions on mifepristone. Eagles’ decision effectively realigned the state with the FDA’s current standards, rather than the restrictions it had in place during the early 2000s, which the state opted to follow in 2023.
However, the decision came with a caveat: while regulations related to the drug were effectively trusted back to the FDA, regulations regarding abortion, namely, those related to informed consent remain in place. Judge Eagles also ruled that the state could continue to require mandatory reporting of adverse effects for its own statistical purposes.
Therefore, while healthcare providers cannot require a follow-up appointment after the drug is distributed, the state mandates that pregnant women have an in-person consultation with a clinician at least 72 hours in advance of any scheduled abortion procedure or receipt of pills. This appointment fulfills the state’s “informed consent” laws, and might entail an ultrasound to determine the baby’s gestational age, both for the mother’s awareness and for the state’s data reports.
The long and short of the decision, as Pregnancy Help stated in its report, is that it is now “up to the federal government—the FDA—to decide the rules that are needed to ensure the drug is used safely,” but the state is responsible for its own abortion policies.
In another important decision, a judge in West Virginia ruled similarly in a case where GenBioPro, a manufacturer of mifepristone, sued the state over its prolife laws restricting abortion to cases of serious medical circumstances and rape or incest up to 14 weeks. The generic pharmaceutical company argued that West Virginia could not enforce a state-wide ban of mifepristone when the FDA had approved it across the country.
Judge Robert C. Chambers of the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division upheld the state’s right to dictate its own limitations on abortion, but asserted that mifepristone could be used to terminate pregnancies where the law permitted. GenBioPro appealed the case to the 4th Circuit, where it is now identified as GenBioPro v. Raynes.
While the decisions remain subject to further scrutiny, at the moment, states are limited to passing and enforcing restrictions on abortion more generally, but are obliged to refrain from passing laws that target mifepristone or other FDA-approved abortive methods.
