
West Virginia ban on abortion medication upheld
The
4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
in Richmond, Virginia, said the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone did not preempt West Virginia's law as applied to medication abortions, which account for more than half of U.S. abortions.
Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson said a 2007 federal law giving the FDA more authority over "high-risk" drugs did not evince a clear intention to displace states' traditional right to protect their citizens' health and safety.
Wilkinson also found no indication that Congress intended to guarantee nationwide access to mifepristone.
"The debate joined by able and dedicated supporters and opponents of access to abortion medications is simply not one, in the absence of clear congressional direction, for this court to decide," the judge wrote.
Tuesday's 2-1 decision is the first by a federal appeals court to say states can restrict use of the pill. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court preserved access to mifepristone, rejecting an effort by anti-abortion doctors and groups to roll back FDA approval.
West Virginia's law had been challenged by GenBioPro, a Nevada company that sells a generic version of mifepristone. Opponents said letting the law stand could allow other states to criminalize access to federally approved medications. The law "sets a dangerous precedent regarding access to other evidence-based health care that (the) FDA has deemed safe and effective," said Skye Perryman, president of the nonprofit Democracy Forward, which helped represent GenBioPro.
Erin Hawley, a lawyer representing West Virginia, said the court "rightly refused GenBioPro's invitation to federalize the issue of abortion."
Hawley is senior counsel at the nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom, which also brought the Supreme Court mifepristone case.
Governor Patrick Morrisey
, a Republican who defended West Virginia's law as that state's attorney general, called the decision a "big win" that lets West Virginia "lead the nation in our efforts to protect life."
DISREGARDING SUPREME COURT 'NOT AN OPTION'
Mifepristone is the first pill, followed by the drug misoprostol, for medication abortion in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, and won FDA approval in 2000.
Twenty-eight states restrict access to medication abortions, according to the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute, which focuses on reproductive health.
West Virginia's Unborn Child Protection Act banned abortion with narrow exceptions, including within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy for minors who are victims of rape and incest.
Without opining on the law, Wilkinson said federal courts shouldn't substitute their policy preferences for those of state legislators. He also said voiding the law would amount to near "defiance" of
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
, the 2022 Supreme Court decision that eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion.
"Just after the Supreme Court restored the states' traditional authority to regulate abortion, GenBioPro would have us wrest it right back," Wilkinson wrote. "At a time when the rule of law is under blunt assault, disregarding the Supreme Court is not an option," he added.
Wilkinson was appointed to the bench by Republican President Ronald Reagan. His opinion was joined by U.S. District Judge Rossie Alston, an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump who normally sits in Alexandria, Virginia.
Circuit Judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, dissented, saying West Virginia's law "erects barriers to life-saving healthcare for countless West Virginians in ways not envisioned by Congress."
She also said the law could unduly burden patients in medically underserved areas elsewhere by forcing West Virginians to travel to other states for treatment.
Tuesday's decision upheld an
August 2023 ruling
by U.S. District Judge Robert Chambers in Huntington, West Virginia.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
26 minutes ago
- Business Standard
The KYC menace: Aadhaar-linked chaos frustrates daily transactions
The Supreme Court's instruction last week to include Aadhaar is supposed to ease this situation somewhat Listen to This Article The Election Commission's special intensive revision of electoral rolls presently underway in Bihar has come in for much criticism for its rigid approach, which is being deemed respondent-unfriendly, and with possible political consequences. The Supreme Court's instruction last week to include Aadhaar is supposed to ease this situation somewhat. However, in Aadhaar, and now its latest insistence on biometrics, we may have created another monster, which, in the name of adding to the ease of countless transactions, we need to undertake online almost daily, and which actually results in hindering many, making most people tear their hair. Another part is


Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Our courts confirm we're like this only
It is what it is. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court confirmed that India is not a liberal democratic society that puts the right of freedom and speech on par with - never mind above - the right to dignity . In other words, being offended gets a free hand to take punitive action against the person offending. The 2-member bench was hearing pleas against five standup comedians making 'insensitive jokes' - as opposed to 'sensitive' ones - about persons with disabilities. Where criticism would have been an earlier standard response against offensive remarks (that lie outside the ambit of fomenting enmity between communities), Article 21 of the Constitution, providing right to dignity, as part of right to life and liberty, has been stated to legally 'trump' Article 19, the right to freedom and expression. This observation mirrors the reality of how Indian society weighs freedom of expression Hearing a separate case on the same day, another Supreme Court bench granted cartoonist Hemant Malviya interim protection from arrest. He has been booked over a January 2021 cartoon mocking the PM and RSS over Covid vaccination. Such protection can be considered the limit of Indian liberalism's approach to satire, coming as it does a day after the court criticised Malviya for his 'immature' cartoon that portrayed its subjects in an 'undignified' manner after the accused apologised and deleted the cartoon from social does not share the kind of liberal leeway that countries allowing lampoons of PMs, presidents and monarchs still do. Perhaps, in this regard, it is ahead of the curve in a world growing increasingly truculent against sarcasm and jibes that were once frowned upon by hypersensitive parties, but legally tolerated.


New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
SC asks Delhi govt to issue order declaring Lodhi-era 'Gumti of Shaikh Ali' protected monument
In a significant step, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi government to issue a fresh notification to declare the historic, Lodhi-era monument "Gumti of Shaikh Ali" as a protected monument under the law. The two-judge bench of the top court, headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, passed the direction to the Delhi govt after hearing an appeal filed by Defence Colony resident Rajeev Suri, who sought a direction to declare the Gumti as a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act). Suri had knocked the doors of the apex court after his plea was earlier dismissed by the Delhi High Court. During the course of the hearing on Wednesday, the top court went through some report filed by the Delhi government, including a notification and clarified that it was not 'happily (properly) worded'. 'Let the notification (to declare the monument as a protected one under the law) be re-issued by the Delhi government,' the bench told the Delhi govt. Making it clear that there should not be any illegal structures or encroachments near the area, the court asked the authorities to demolish the illegal structures, if any, inside the monument site. It directed the court commissioner to visit and inspect the concerned area and apprise the bench about the work undertaken in pursuance of the directions issued.