Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlogof 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 About 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 糖心Vlog 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 糖心Vlog and the 糖心Vlogof 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 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlogof 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 ACLU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
119 Reproductive Freedom Cases

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 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlogof 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 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlogof 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 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlogof 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 糖心Vlog, the 糖心Vlogof 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.

Ohio
Feb 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
In December 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 27, a fetal tissue disposal requirement that mandates burial or cremation of all embryonic and fetal tissue from a procedural abortion, imposing severe burdens on patients and stigmatizing essential care. On January 31, 2022, an Ohio judge preliminarily enjoined the law, finding that the law likely violates the Ohio state constitution鈥檚 guarantees of due process and equal protection. The victory followed a previous April 5, 2021, preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law, because compliance would have been impossible due to the Ohio Department of Health鈥檚 (ODH) failure to establish necessary rules and regulations. In April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a claim that the law violated the newly established Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment of the Ohio Constitution, and in August 2024 filed a 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that Senate Bill 27 is unconstitutional as a matter of law under that Amendment for discriminatorily targeting procedural abortion. In February 2025, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas agreed, granting the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and permanently enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill 27.
This lawsuit was filed by the 糖心Vlog, 糖心Vlogof Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm on behalf of Ohio abortion providers.
Explore case
Ohio
Feb 2025

Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
In December 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 27, a fetal tissue disposal requirement that mandates burial or cremation of all embryonic and fetal tissue from a procedural abortion, imposing severe burdens on patients and stigmatizing essential care. On January 31, 2022, an Ohio judge preliminarily enjoined the law, finding that the law likely violates the Ohio state constitution鈥檚 guarantees of due process and equal protection. The victory followed a previous April 5, 2021, preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law, because compliance would have been impossible due to the Ohio Department of Health鈥檚 (ODH) failure to establish necessary rules and regulations. In April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a claim that the law violated the newly established Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment of the Ohio Constitution, and in August 2024 filed a 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that Senate Bill 27 is unconstitutional as a matter of law under that Amendment for discriminatorily targeting procedural abortion. In February 2025, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas agreed, granting the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and permanently enjoining enforcement of Senate Bill 27.
This lawsuit was filed by the 糖心Vlog, 糖心Vlogof Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Fanon Rucker of the Cochran Law Firm on behalf of Ohio abortion providers.

Missouri
Dec 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains & Planned Parenthood Great Rivers v. Missouri
The ACLU, 糖心Vlogof Missouri, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America are representing Missouri鈥檚 two Planned Parenthood providers. Following the passage of Amendment 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, filed suit to restore abortion access in the state. The suit seeks to enjoin Missouri鈥檚 numerous abortion bans and countless burdensome, medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion that do not improve care or protect patient health. If the requested preliminary relief is granted, Planned Parenthood鈥檚 health centers would be able to begin providing abortion in Missouri once more 鈥 restoring access to this constitutionally protected health care.
Explore case
Missouri
Dec 2024

Reproductive Freedom
Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains & Planned Parenthood Great Rivers v. Missouri
The ACLU, 糖心Vlogof Missouri, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America are representing Missouri鈥檚 two Planned Parenthood providers. Following the passage of Amendment 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, filed suit to restore abortion access in the state. The suit seeks to enjoin Missouri鈥檚 numerous abortion bans and countless burdensome, medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion that do not improve care or protect patient health. If the requested preliminary relief is granted, Planned Parenthood鈥檚 health centers would be able to begin providing abortion in Missouri once more 鈥 restoring access to this constitutionally protected health care.