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
Court Case
Apr 2025
Reproductive Freedom
National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association v. Kennedy
The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), the lead national advocacy organization for the Title X family planning program, and the 红杏视频 and the 红杏视频 of the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over its unlawful withholding of $65.8 million in Title X federal family planning grants. Title X is the country鈥檚 only dedicated federally funded family planning program that provides access to preventive care like birth control, cancer screening, and STI screening and treatment, with priority given to patients with low incomes.
As a result of the Trump administration鈥檚 unlawful actions, at least seven states 鈥� California, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Utah 鈥� have been left without any Title X-funded family planning services, and approximately 842,000 people have lost access to Title X-funded care.
Explore case
Court Case
Apr 2025
Reproductive Freedom
National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association v. Kennedy
The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), the lead national advocacy organization for the Title X family planning program, and the 红杏视频 and the 红杏视频 of the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over its unlawful withholding of $65.8 million in Title X federal family planning grants. Title X is the country鈥檚 only dedicated federally funded family planning program that provides access to preventive care like birth control, cancer screening, and STI screening and treatment, with priority given to patients with low incomes.
As a result of the Trump administration鈥檚 unlawful actions, at least seven states 鈥� California, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Utah 鈥� have been left without any Title X-funded family planning services, and approximately 842,000 people have lost access to Title X-funded care.
Alabama
Mar 2025
Reproductive Freedom
West Alabama Women鈥檚 Center, et al. v. Marshall, et al.
A group of health care providers filed a lawsuit in federal court to prevent Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and district attorneys throughout the state from prosecuting those who assist Alabamians seeking to travel across state lines to access abortion care where abortion is legal. Attorney General Marshall had explicitly threatened that health care providers could face felony charges for assisting Alabamians seeking to travel out of state to obtain abortion where it is legal.
Explore case
Alabama
Mar 2025
Reproductive Freedom
West Alabama Women鈥檚 Center, et al. v. Marshall, et al.
A group of health care providers filed a lawsuit in federal court to prevent Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and district attorneys throughout the state from prosecuting those who assist Alabamians seeking to travel across state lines to access abortion care where abortion is legal. Attorney General Marshall had explicitly threatened that health care providers could face felony charges for assisting Alabamians seeking to travel out of state to obtain abortion where it is legal.
Court Case
Mar 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Preterm-Cleveland v. David Yost
On September 2, 2022, the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the law firm WilmerHale filed a lawsuit in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas bringing a state constitutional challenge against SB 23, a law banning abortion starting at approximately six weeks of pregnancy. This lawsuit came more than two months after the draconian bill took effect on June 24, 2022 for the first time since it was passed in 2019, causing an immediate, devastating crisis across the state. Due to the ongoing irreparable harm to Ohioans, the reproductive rights organizations withdrew the lawsuit they initially filed in the state Supreme Court in late June and asked the lower court to grant immediate relief blocking the ban.
Explore case
Court Case
Mar 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Preterm-Cleveland v. David Yost
On September 2, 2022, the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the law firm WilmerHale filed a lawsuit in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas bringing a state constitutional challenge against SB 23, a law banning abortion starting at approximately six weeks of pregnancy. This lawsuit came more than two months after the draconian bill took effect on June 24, 2022 for the first time since it was passed in 2019, causing an immediate, devastating crisis across the state. Due to the ongoing irreparable harm to Ohioans, the reproductive rights organizations withdrew the lawsuit they initially filed in the state Supreme Court in late June and asked the lower court to grant immediate relief blocking the ban.
Hawaii
Mar 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Purcell v. Kennedy (formerly Chelius v. Becerra)
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Hawaii, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, are challenging a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) restriction that severely limits where and how patients can access mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used for early abortion and miscarriage care.
Explore case
Hawaii
Mar 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Purcell v. Kennedy (formerly Chelius v. Becerra)
The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Hawaii, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, are challenging a U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) restriction that severely limits where and how patients can access mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used for early abortion and miscarriage care.
Alabama
Feb 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health
A group of midwives and doctors filed a lawsuit in state court challenging actions by the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), which imposed a de facto ban on freestanding birth centers throughout Alabama. Birth centers provide midwifery care to low-risk pregnant patients, a model of care that is proven to be safe and beneficial to patients. Despite that, ADPH took actions that forced one center to abruptly shut down in 2023 despite a perfect safety record, and then passed onerous regulations that would require birth centers to meet hospital-like standards, preventing birth centers from operating in the state. After hearing oral argument in late September 2023, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction on September 30, 2023, preventing ADPH from refusing to timely license freestanding birth centers that comply with nationally-recognized safety standards for birth centers while litigation continues. As a result of the injunction, our plaintiffs Oasis Family Birthing Center in Birmingham and Alabama Birth Center in Huntsville are now open and providing much-needed care to their communities.
Explore case
Alabama
Feb 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health
A group of midwives and doctors filed a lawsuit in state court challenging actions by the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), which imposed a de facto ban on freestanding birth centers throughout Alabama. Birth centers provide midwifery care to low-risk pregnant patients, a model of care that is proven to be safe and beneficial to patients. Despite that, ADPH took actions that forced one center to abruptly shut down in 2023 despite a perfect safety record, and then passed onerous regulations that would require birth centers to meet hospital-like standards, preventing birth centers from operating in the state. After hearing oral argument in late September 2023, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction on September 30, 2023, preventing ADPH from refusing to timely license freestanding birth centers that comply with nationally-recognized safety standards for birth centers while litigation continues. As a result of the injunction, our plaintiffs Oasis Family Birthing Center in Birmingham and Alabama Birth Center in Huntsville are now open and providing much-needed care to their communities.