US government says it will try to stop ban on abortion pills

the president’s government Joe Biden indicated that it will try to prevent states from banning a pill used to abortion drug after the Supreme Court decision that overturned the outcome of the Roe v Wade trial, signaling an important new legal fight.

The government could argue in court that approval of one of the pills used for medical abortions, mifepristone, by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a regulatory agency for United States anticipates state restrictions, meaning that federal authority overrides any state action.

This same argument has already been raised by GenBioPro, based in Las Vegas which sells a generic version of the pill, in a lawsuit challenging the state of Mississippi’s restrictions on medical abortion.

More than a dozen states plan to almost completely ban abortion after the Roe vs Wade precedent overturned . The Supreme Court, currently with a conservative majority, overturned the decision by 5 votes to 4 on Friday, saying there is no right to abortion in the US Constitution.

States are likely to face further difficulties in enforcing restrictions on medical abortion, as women can still obtain pills online or in other states.

Biden said in comments following the decision Supreme Court that the government would seek to protect access to medical abortion, saying that efforts to restrict it would be “wrong, extreme, and out of character for most Americans.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland was more explicit about what the Justice Department has its eye on, saying in a statement that “states cannot ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the judgment of FDA experts on its safety and efficiency”.

Mifepristone was approved for use in abortions by the FDA in 2000, long after Roe was ruled on in 1973. The pill, also known as RU 486, blocks the hormone progesterone, while the other drug used, misoprostol, induces uterine contractions.

Greer Donley, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law who specializes in reproductive rights, said the government’s stance “shows they understand what’s at stake and are willing to pursue new ideas.”

Even before Roe was overthrown, states imposed restrictions on access to the pill. There are 19 states that require women to visit in person to obtain the drug, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

The FDA does not require a face-to-face meeting.

Legal experts say the preemption law is murky because Congress has never explicitly said that FDA approval trumps state law, as it has done in the context of medical devices. Therefore, it would be up to the courts to decide the issue under a theory known as “implicit preemption”.

The wide availability of medical abortion in states that want to restrict or ban the procedure would be a major setback for anti-abortion activists, who have long sought to ban the practice outright.

Attempts to defy state restrictions could run afoul of the Supreme Court, not only because the 6-3 Conservative majority expressed opposition to abortion rights but also because judges are often skeptical of federal claims of preemption.

With Roe ousted, states would also have more leeway to argue that they have a separate interest in preventing abortions based on moral objections to abortion.