Abortion providers have been pushing high-risk abortion drugs on vulnerable women and girls since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved them in 2000. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that empowered states to protect life, abortion providers have been advocating for these drugs even more strongly.
Abortion drugs can cause serious complications in women and girls who take them, which is why North Carolina has enacted commonsense protections around them. But one abortion provider is putting profit over the safety of women and girls and attempting to eradicate the safeguards that North Carolina has put in place. But two North Carolina elected officials are fighting back.
Who are Phil Berger and Timothy Moore?
Phil Berger serves as the president pro tempore of the North Carolina Senate, and Timothy Moore served as the speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives. As elected officials, both Sen. Berger and Rep. Moore have a unique interest in protecting North Carolina’s laws.
Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Sen. Berger and Rep. Moore, who intervened in the case on behalf of the General Assembly to defend the North Carolina abortion laws that protect women and girls.
The FDA removed common-sense safeguards protecting women
Abortion drugs are inherently high-risk. That’s why, when the FDA first approved abortion drugs, it required women and girls to have three in-person doctor visits, only allowed medical doctors to prescribe and administer the drugs, and only approved their use up to seven weeks’ gestation.
Though the safety standards were minimal, they provided at least some protection for women and girls.
But in 2016, the FDA extended the use of abortion drugs from seven weeks’ gestation up to ten weeks’ gestation, reduced the number of required in-person office visits from three to one, expanded who could prescribe the drugs beyond just medical doctors, and eliminated the requirement for prescribers to report non-fatal complications from the drugs.
In 2023, the FDA made things even worse by permanently removing the requirement for women and girls to have an in-person office visit before being prescribed abortion drugs. This means the high-risk drugs can be prescribed remotely and distributed through the mail, often to complete strangers in other—even pro-life—states.
North Carolina passes laws protecting women
Despite the FDA’s reckless evisceration of safeguards around abortion drugs, North Carolina has passed its own abortion laws protecting women and girls. The state has enacted laws requiring doctors to obtain informed consent from a woman before administering abortion drugs, requiring an ultrasound in most circumstances to determine the gestational age of the baby, and specifying that a physician must be physically present when the first abortion drug is administered.
These commonsense safeguards provide needed protections for women and girls. For example, North Carolina provides a 72-hour waiting period for women after a doctor explains the risks of abortion and outlines the alternatives. This safeguard gives women time to consider their options and prevents abortion providers from making women feel rushed or as if abortion is their only option.
In addition, requiring an ultrasound in most situations helps determine whether a woman has an ectopic pregnancy. Without this safeguard, there is an increased risk that an ectopic pregnancy will go undetected. This can cause women serious and life-threatening complications.
North Carolina has every right to pass abortion laws protecting women and girls, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs affirmed that right. But an abortion provider filed a lawsuit in January 2023 claiming that the FDA’s approval of abortion drugs and destruction of safeguards around them somehow supersedes North Carolina’s ability to pass its own laws. That’s wrong.
Former state Attorney General Josh Stein said he would not defend North Carolina’s abortion laws, and he even vowed to support the baseless lawsuit from the abortion provider. That is why Sen. Berger and Rep. Moore have intervened in the case to defend North Carolina’s laws protecting women and girls.
After a federal district court granted the legislators’ motion to intervene in March 2023, they filed another motion asking the court to dismiss the unfounded lawsuit and affirm North Carolina’s right to pass laws protecting vulnerable women.
In April 2024, the district court allowed portions of North Carolina’s safeguards to go into effect, including in-person, 72-hour advance consultation, use of an ultrasound, an in-person examination, blood testing, and reporting non-fatal adverse events to the state. However, it prevented other safeguards from going into effect. This included the requirements for physician-only prescribing, in-person prescribing, dispensing, and administering, the scheduling of an in-person follow-up appointment, and non-fatal adverse event reporting to the FDA. ADF attorneys then appealed the portion of the decision blocking North Carolina’s laws to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
In December 2024, the 4th Circuit put North Carolina’s case on hold until it decided another case, GenBioPro v. Raynes, where ADF was assisting the state of West Virginia in defending its own pro-life laws. Thankfully, the 4th Circuit ruled in favor of West Virginia in GenBioPro v. Raynes, saying that the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act “create[s] a regulatory floor, not a ceiling,” and that there was no indication “Congress intended to guarantee nationwide access to mifepristone when it enacted the FDAAA.” The ruling created a favorable precedent for North Carolina’s case, which is still on hold.
What’s at stake?
States like North Carolina have the right to pass laws safeguarding life and protecting women and girls, and this right was affirmed by the Supreme Court with its ruling in Dobbs. But abortion providers are now trying to circumvent the will of North Carolina voters and ensure high-risk abortion drugs continue flooding the state without necessary safeguards—all for profit.
Women deserve health and safety protections and the ability to learn about all their options instead of being preyed on by abortion providers. A win for North Carolina would ensure that states can enact these protections, just as the Supreme Court intended.
The bottom line: North Carolina is trying to protect the health, safety, and welfare of women and girls from the dangers of abortion drugs. Abortion providers can’t flout state laws protecting women and girls just to bolster their business.
Bryant v. Stein
- January 2023: An abortion provider filed a lawsuit claiming that the FDA’s approval of abortion drugs and destruction of safeguards supersedes North Carolina’s right to pass laws protecting women.
- February 2023: ADF attorneys filed a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of North Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger and former House Speaker Timothy Moore.
- March 2023: A federal district court granted the motion to intervene, and ADF attorneys filed another motion on behalf of the two legislators asking the court to dismiss the abortion provider’s baseless lawsuit.
- April 2024: The federal district court allowed portions of North Carolina’s laws to go into effect. However, it blocked the other portions of the laws.
- June 2024: ADF attorneys appealed the portion of the district court’s decision that blocked North Carolina’s laws to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
- December 2024: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit put Bryant v. Stein on hold pending a decision in another 4th Circuit case, GenBioPro v. Raynes.
- July 2025: The 4th Circuit ruled in favor of West Virginia in GenBioPro v. Raynes, creating a favorable precedent for Bryant v. Stein.
Related Articles
