Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the law firm WilmerHale, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio, Preterm-Cleveland, Women鈥檚 Med Group Professional Corporation, Dr. Sharon Liner, and Julia Quinn, MSN, BSN, amended a complaint in an existing lawsuit against a ban on telehealth medication abortion services to bring new claims under the Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment, including additional challenges to other laws in Ohio that restrict access to medication abortion in the state.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn 红杏视频 Reproductive Freedom
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States
Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Idaho politicians seeking to disregard a federal statute 鈥� the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) 鈥� and put doctors in jail for providing pregnant patients necessary emergency medical care. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this case on April 24, 2024. The Court鈥檚 ultimate decision will impact access to this essential care across the country.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Danco Laboratories, LLC, v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine; U.S. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
The 红杏视频 joined over 200 reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of an emergency request to stay a decision issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that severely restricted the use of mifepristone 鈥� a medication used in most abortions in this country 鈥� and threatened the innovation of new drugs and the ability of Americans to access lifesaving drugs.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2022
Reproductive Freedom
Dobbs v. Jackson Women鈥檚 Health Organization
The case concerns the constitutionality of a Mississippi law prohibiting abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy. The state used the case as a vehicle to ask the Supreme Court to take away the federal constitutional right to abortion it first recognized 50 years before in Roe v. Wade. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States accepted the state鈥檚 invitation and overturned Roe eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
Reproductive Freedom
Cameron v. EMW Women鈥檚 Surgical Center
In 2018, the 红杏视频 and the 红杏视频 of Kentucky filed a suit on behalf of Kentucky abortion providers and their patients challenging a state law banning physicians from providing a safe and medically proven abortion method called dilation and evacuation, or 鈥淒&E.鈥� If it were to take effect, this law would prevent many patients from being able to obtain an abortion altogether. After two courts held that the law is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled in March 2022 that Kentucky Attorney General Cameron can continue his pursuit to push abortion out of reach by intervening in the underlying challenge to an abortion ban, which is proceeding in a lower court.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Reproductive Freedom
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Texas, and coalition partners filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of abortion providers and funds on July 13, 2021, challenging S.B. 8, a Texas law allowing private citizens to enforce a ban on abortion as early as six weeks in pregnancy鈥攂efore many know they are pregnant. The 红杏视频鈥檚 challenge made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court three times in as many months. After hearing oral arguments in the case, the Court issued a decision on December 10, 2021, that ended the most promising pathways to blocking the ban. The Supreme Court鈥檚 decision makes it more difficult to obtain adequate relief from the courts and gives states the green light to ban abortion using bounty-hunting schemes. Texas鈥� abortion ban will remain in effect until relief can be secured from a court.
All Cases
117 Reproductive Freedom Cases
Ohio
Aug 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Preterm-Cleveland, et al, v. Dave Yost, et al.
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the law firm Covington & Burling LLP filed a lawsuit challenging several Ohio laws that together force abortion patients to wait a minimum of 24 hours after receiving unnecessary state-mandated information in person before they can access their desired abortion care. These laws violate Ohio鈥檚 constitutional right to reproductive freedom passed on November 7, 2023. Ohio is one of four states that have amended their constitutions to enshrine a fundamental right to abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women鈥檚 Health Organization.
Explore case
Ohio
Aug 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Preterm-Cleveland, et al, v. Dave Yost, et al.
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the law firm Covington & Burling LLP filed a lawsuit challenging several Ohio laws that together force abortion patients to wait a minimum of 24 hours after receiving unnecessary state-mandated information in person before they can access their desired abortion care. These laws violate Ohio鈥檚 constitutional right to reproductive freedom passed on November 7, 2023. Ohio is one of four states that have amended their constitutions to enshrine a fundamental right to abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women鈥檚 Health Organization.
Texas
Jun 2024
Reproductive Freedom
+3 Issues
Gonzalez v. Ramirez et al.
Although Texas law clearly prohibits prosecuting people for terminating their pregnancies, Starr County officials indicted, arrested, and jailed Lizelle Gonzalez for having an abortion. The 红杏视频鈥檚 Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative and Criminal Law Reform Project, alongside the 红杏视频 of Texas and south Texas firm Garza Martinez, are representing Ms. Gonzalez in a lawsuit against Starr County and local officials based on violations of Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 constitutional rights.
Explore case
Texas
Jun 2024
Reproductive Freedom
+3 Issues
Gonzalez v. Ramirez et al.
Although Texas law clearly prohibits prosecuting people for terminating their pregnancies, Starr County officials indicted, arrested, and jailed Lizelle Gonzalez for having an abortion. The 红杏视频鈥檚 Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative and Criminal Law Reform Project, alongside the 红杏视频 of Texas and south Texas firm Garza Martinez, are representing Ms. Gonzalez in a lawsuit against Starr County and local officials based on violations of Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 constitutional rights.
Maryland Supreme Court
Jun 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Moira Akers v. State
This case concerns whether prosecutors can admit evidence that a person exercised their right to decide whether to terminate their pregnancy as proof of intent for murder. Here, the prosecution鈥檚 use of this evidence at Moira Akers鈥� trial denied her due process, resulting in an unjust conviction and a 30-year prison term. The 红杏视频鈥檚 Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Maryland, filed an amicus brief arguing that allowing admission of this evidence not only violated Ms. Akers鈥� rights but chills the right of all Marylanders to freely decide whether to continue or end their pregnancies. The Maryland Supreme Court issued a ruling on February 19th, 2025 overturning Moira Akers鈥� conviction on the grounds of inadmissible evidence.
Explore case
Maryland Supreme Court
Jun 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Moira Akers v. State
This case concerns whether prosecutors can admit evidence that a person exercised their right to decide whether to terminate their pregnancy as proof of intent for murder. Here, the prosecution鈥檚 use of this evidence at Moira Akers鈥� trial denied her due process, resulting in an unjust conviction and a 30-year prison term. The 红杏视频鈥檚 Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Maryland, filed an amicus brief arguing that allowing admission of this evidence not only violated Ms. Akers鈥� rights but chills the right of all Marylanders to freely decide whether to continue or end their pregnancies. The Maryland Supreme Court issued a ruling on February 19th, 2025 overturning Moira Akers鈥� conviction on the grounds of inadmissible evidence.
Ohio
May 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Women's Medical Group Professional Corp. v. Vanderhoff
Ohio clinics must maintain an ambulatory surgical facility license to provide procedural abortion. Ohio imposes medically unnecessary and burdensome licensing requirements that make it difficult, if not impossible, for abortion clinics to maintain their licenses.
Explore case
Ohio
May 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Women's Medical Group Professional Corp. v. Vanderhoff
Ohio clinics must maintain an ambulatory surgical facility license to provide procedural abortion. Ohio imposes medically unnecessary and burdensome licensing requirements that make it difficult, if not impossible, for abortion clinics to maintain their licenses.
Court Case
Dec 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero is a case originally brought by the 红杏视频 and local attorneys on Guam challenging a 1990 total ban on abortion that imposes criminal penalties on patients, providers and those who speak about abortion. In August of 1990, a federal district court judge for the District of Guam granted the 红杏视频鈥檚 motion for summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction against the ban. After appeals were exhausted, the case was closed. Over three decades later, on February 1, 2023, Guam Attorney General Douglas B. Moylan filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) motion to vacate the permanent injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. The 红杏视频 and Guam local counsel is opposing the motion, on behalf of the only remaining original plaintiff, and proposed intervenors 鈥� the only two providers of abortion in Guam, and Guam-based reproductive justice organization Famalao鈥檃n Rights.
Explore case
Court Case
Dec 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero
Guam Society of OBGYNs v. Guerrero is a case originally brought by the 红杏视频 and local attorneys on Guam challenging a 1990 total ban on abortion that imposes criminal penalties on patients, providers and those who speak about abortion. In August of 1990, a federal district court judge for the District of Guam granted the 红杏视频鈥檚 motion for summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction against the ban. After appeals were exhausted, the case was closed. Over three decades later, on February 1, 2023, Guam Attorney General Douglas B. Moylan filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) motion to vacate the permanent injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. The 红杏视频 and Guam local counsel is opposing the motion, on behalf of the only remaining original plaintiff, and proposed intervenors 鈥� the only two providers of abortion in Guam, and Guam-based reproductive justice organization Famalao鈥檃n Rights.