The Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals recently upheld West Virginia’s near-total ban on chemical abortions — a major win for federalism, health safety, and the pro-life movement. Can a state decide to restrict or ban a FDA approved drug within its borders? The Fourth Circuit answered that question: YES!
That affirmative answer has a profound impact, both for abortion policy and for the authority of every state in all matters of health and safety. GenBioPro, a company that makes the generic version of the most popular chemical abortion pill (mifepristone) argued that the FDA’s approval of the drug should preempt West Virginia’s more stringent restrictions. GenBioPro wanted the feds to overrule West Virginia’s pro-life laws. Thankfully, the court rejected that argument.
States hold the authority to regulate matters of health and safety. Congress, therefore, when granting the FDA authority over drug regulation, “intended to create a regulatory floor, not a ceiling.” In other words, states cannot weaken duly promulgated federal safety standards – but they can strengthen them.
This ruling is significant because abortion drugs like mifepristone are not like ordinary medications. They intentionally end human life — and often, they do so with minimal medical oversight. That’s not just a pro-life issue — there are also serious medical and ethical concerns. Chemical abortion patients routinely experience complications including hemorrhage, infection, and death. West Virginia’s legislature recognized those risks acted to protect both women and unborn children by including chemical abortions in its law prohibiting abortion in most circumstances. The Fourth Circuit’s decision affirms that West Virginia is fully within its rights to do so.
Preemption is an oft cited legal doctrine that determines when federal law overrides state law. This ruling reminds us that preemption isn’t automatic and that traditional powers of the states can be effectively asserted. Preemption applies only when an intention to preempt state authority has been clearly expressed by Congress — and in the case of abortion pills, it hasn’t been.
States aren’t required to surrender their own authority over abortion regulation and the Supreme Court has made clear (post Dobbs) that regulating abortion is a matter for the elected representatives of the people, including at the state representatives. The outcome of this case is not merely a legal technicality. It’s a moral and political turning point for the pro-life movement, made possible by the reversal of Roe v Wade.
The pro-life movement has always asserted that the people have the power to restrict abortion in their states and communities. Now, pro-life states can prioritize women’s safety can move forward confidently, knowing they are not hampered by political FDA decisions.
The court says that FDA regulation is a “floor” upon which the states can build – and I believe that floor should be higher than it currently is. Please note that this decision that affirms that states are free to take a more restrictive approach to chemical abortions does not let the FDA off the hook for responsible regulation of dangerous drugs like mifepristone.
This is not just a victory for West Virginia. It’s a victory for Alabama and every other state that desires to protect its citizens — born and unborn — with the boldness to stand against a one-size-fits-all federal pro-abortion agenda. Courts have again affirmed what is clearly constitutionally sound: states can lead the way in defending life.
Last year, Representative Jamie Kiel filed HB 611 regarding this exact issue. The bill established a civil cause of action allowing a woman who received an abortion drug, or her family members, to sue providers for wrongful death, with potential compensatory and punitive damages. Half of the fines collected would have funded Alabama Pregnancy Resource Centers (nonprofit organizations that provide support for women choosing life). The legislation was designed to work in conjunction with Alabama’s Human Life Protection Act.
Alabama Policy supported Kiel’s efforts -in fact the policy idea was 2025 BluePrint Issue #20. We will double down in 2026 to protect citizens from unintentional exposure to abortion drugs in our water supply, to protect women who have been misled as to the safety of chemical abortion, and to protect the innocent children that chemical abortion intentionally kills.
States have both a right and a responsibility to protect every single life – even if it means doing a better job honoring life than the US government. Alabama citizens have done our part with a State Constitutional Amendment and the Human Life Protection Act. However, with the increased use of chemical abortion, we can’t let bad actors take advantage of our most vulnerable citizens. This court ruling affirms that every state has the right to protect life from chemical abortion. I think that the State of Alabama should be next.
The post OP-ED by Stephanie Smith, API President/CEO and mother of seven appeared first on Alabama Policy Institute.
