Two articles about the legal regulation of medication abortion.
Nathan Cortez & Joanna L. Grossman, Who Regulates Abortion Now?, 110 Iowa L. Rev. 1579 (2025)
Contrary to both conventional wisdom and recent Supreme Court pronouncements, abortion is not simply a matter of state oversight. For a quarter century now, the federal government has been intimately involved in "regulating" abortion through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval and continued oversight over mifepristone and other abortion medications. This Article considers the extent to which federal abortion law both coexists and conflicts with state law, as it does with most areas of medicine. We evaluate which body of law is better able at achieving the goals of modern medicine that is evidence-based, ethical, consistent, and individualized.
Rachel Rebouche, Facts on Trial: Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA and the Battle Over Mailed Medication Abortion, 95 U. Colorado L. Rev. 1 (2024)
This Essay details the arguments put forward in litigation surrounding the FDA’s approval of the first drug in a medication abortion, mifepristone. It showcases the deep-seated, longstanding contestation of facts and science in abortion law and policy. At its heart, the FDA litigation seeks to undermine evidence of the safety and efficacy of mailed abortion pills. This case not only tests the application of standing and administrative review doctrines, but also could shape the future distribution of medication abortion. The broader aim of this Essay, however, is to consider how evidence of safety, health, and efficacy has been marshaled by courts and to interrogate the methods by which facts are asserted and repeated by research collectives in support of their respective causes. To be sure, some evidence is better than other evidence; but this Essay reflects on the infrastructure that has made the present contestation possible, and what could change about how evidence is deployed in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s reversal.