The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld West Virginia’s right to restrict access to chemical abortion drugs, solidifying our state’s authority to enact health and safety laws that go beyond federal minimums.
The court affirmed a 2023 district ruling that rejected a legal challenge from GenBioPro, the manufacturer of mifepristone—an abortion-inducing drug used as part of a two-step regimen approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The pharmaceutical company argued that West Virginia’s restrictions conflicted with federal law and the FDA’s regulatory framework.
In a published opinion, the court ruled that the FDA’s approval of mifepristone under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 does not prevent individual states from implementing additional restrictions on access to the drug. The decision emphasized that federal regulations set a baseline, but do not override the states’ right to enact more rigorous safeguards.
West Virginia enacted its current abortion restrictions in 2022 through House Bill 302, which includes prohibitions on the use of any medicine or substance intended to terminate a pregnancy and cause the death of an embryo or fetus. The law reflects our state’s broader legislative efforts to protect unborn life and ensure a higher standard of medical accountability.
The appellate court’s ruling reaffirms the principle of state sovereignty in public health policy, particularly in areas involving contentious and high-risk drugs. Despite the FDA’s designation of mifepristone as safe and effective, it remains subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), indicating that even federal regulators recognize the need for special oversight.
Governor Patrick Morrisey, our former attorney general, defended the law in court and has consistently advocated for our state’s right to enforce our pro-life policies and maintain regulatory control over dangerous substances. The court’s decision allows our state to continue enforcing our law without interference from federal agencies or pharmaceutical interests.
The outcome strengthens the legal foundation for other states seeking to implement similar protections, setting a significant precedent in the broader national debate over chemical abortion and states’ rights.
