On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in which five justices voted to overturn Roe v Wade. Even before the final opinion issued, scholars and advocates had begun to consider legal strategies that might mitigate the decision’s anticipated harmful consequences. One such strategy involves challenging state restrictions on Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pregnancy termination drugs on preemption grounds. This article begins by exploring how these challenges might fare—considering both drug-specific restrictions and complete bans on abortion—arguing that there are compelling legal grounds on which courts should conclude that many state restrictions are preempted. Importantly, although these state restrictions have arisen within a larger debate about reproductive health care, this is far from the only area in which states seek to regulate prescription drugs. States have long regulated drugs in ways that diverge from FDA, arguably increasingly so in recent years. Accordingly, the article investigates the implications that preemption challenges in the abortion context may have for other areas of state drug regulation, making the case that the benefits of public health federalism need not be undermined by successful preemption challenges in the abortion arena.

中文翻译：

---

米非司酮、先发制人和公共卫生联邦制

2022年6月24日，最高法院发表意见，五名大法官投票推翻罗伊诉韦德案。甚至在最终意见发布之前，学者和倡导者就已经开始考虑可能减轻该决定的预期有害后果的法律策略。其中一项策略涉及以先发制人的理由挑战国家对食品和药物管理局 (FDA) 批准的妊娠终止药物的限制。本文首先探讨这些挑战可能会如何发展——考虑到针对药物的特定限制和完全禁止堕胎——认为有令人信服的法律依据，法院应该根据这些理由得出结论，许多州的限制被先发制人。重要的是，尽管这些州的限制是在关于生殖保健的更大辩论中出现的，这远不是各国寻求管制处方药的唯一领域。长期以来，各州对药物的监管方式与 FDA 不同，可以说近年来这种情况越来越多。因此，本文调查了堕胎背景下的先发制人挑战可能对州药物监管的其他领域产生的影响，证明公共卫生联邦制的好处不必因堕胎领域成功的先发制人挑战而受到损害。