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

Arizona
Apr 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Paul A. Isaacson, M.D., et al. v. Mark Brnovich, et al.
Two Arizona physicians, the Arizona Medical Association, Arizona National Council of Jewish Women, and the Arizona National Organization of Women are challenging two abortion restrictions passed in Arizona in April 2021. One, the 鈥渞eason鈥 ban, is a ban on鈥痑bortions鈥痓ased on a patient鈥檚 reason for seeking鈥痮ne, including鈥痺hen the abortion could be deemed due to a fetal condition or diagnosis.鈥疶his ban targets pregnant people already facing complex considerations regarding fetal genetic conditions and drives a wedge between a patient and their provider.
Explore case
Arizona
Apr 2023

Reproductive Freedom
Paul A. Isaacson, M.D., et al. v. Mark Brnovich, et al.
Two Arizona physicians, the Arizona Medical Association, Arizona National Council of Jewish Women, and the Arizona National Organization of Women are challenging two abortion restrictions passed in Arizona in April 2021. One, the 鈥渞eason鈥 ban, is a ban on鈥痑bortions鈥痓ased on a patient鈥檚 reason for seeking鈥痮ne, including鈥痺hen the abortion could be deemed due to a fetal condition or diagnosis.鈥疶his ban targets pregnant people already facing complex considerations regarding fetal genetic conditions and drives a wedge between a patient and their provider.

Kentucky
Apr 2023
Reproductive Freedom
EMW v. Meier (formerly EMW v. Glisson)
The 糖心Vlogand attorneys at Lynch, Cox, Gilman & Goodman P.S.C. filed the federal lawsuit aimed at blocking unnecessary and unconstitutional state laws to prevent the closure of the state's only abortion clinic, EMW Women's Surgical Center. In March 2017, the state threatened to revoke the clinic's license, alleging that the clinic鈥檚 agreements with a hospital and ambulance service contained technical deficiencies, even though the state approved those same agreements in renewing EMW鈥檚 license in 2016. Based on these alleged deficiencies, the state claimed that EMW was not incompliance with state law requiring abortion providers to have a transfer agreement with a local hospital and a transport agreement with an ambulance service.
Explore case
Kentucky
Apr 2023

Reproductive Freedom
EMW v. Meier (formerly EMW v. Glisson)
The 糖心Vlogand attorneys at Lynch, Cox, Gilman & Goodman P.S.C. filed the federal lawsuit aimed at blocking unnecessary and unconstitutional state laws to prevent the closure of the state's only abortion clinic, EMW Women's Surgical Center. In March 2017, the state threatened to revoke the clinic's license, alleging that the clinic鈥檚 agreements with a hospital and ambulance service contained technical deficiencies, even though the state approved those same agreements in renewing EMW鈥檚 license in 2016. Based on these alleged deficiencies, the state claimed that EMW was not incompliance with state law requiring abortion providers to have a transfer agreement with a local hospital and a transport agreement with an ambulance service.

Court Case
Apr 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al., v. Vanderhoff
Explore case
Court Case
Apr 2023

Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al., v. Vanderhoff

Idaho
Apr 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai鈥檌, Indiana, Kentucky v. Labrador
On April 5, a group of health care providers and advocates sued to stop Idaho Attorney General Labrador from applying a legal opinion in which he claims that health care providers cannot refer patients out of state for abortion care under Idaho law. Under the opinion, any assistance from a health care provider 鈥 including offering information about other states鈥 abortion providers and abortion funds 鈥 could be a violation of Idaho鈥檚 abortion ban, threatening health care licenses or even criminal prosecution. This interpretation goes far beyond Idaho鈥檚 law and is an extreme attempt to prevent health care providers from giving information to patients and to prevent Idahoans from accessing legal health care in another state.
Explore case
Idaho
Apr 2023

Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai鈥檌, Indiana, Kentucky v. Labrador
On April 5, a group of health care providers and advocates sued to stop Idaho Attorney General Labrador from applying a legal opinion in which he claims that health care providers cannot refer patients out of state for abortion care under Idaho law. Under the opinion, any assistance from a health care provider 鈥 including offering information about other states鈥 abortion providers and abortion funds 鈥 could be a violation of Idaho鈥檚 abortion ban, threatening health care licenses or even criminal prosecution. This interpretation goes far beyond Idaho鈥檚 law and is an extreme attempt to prevent health care providers from giving information to patients and to prevent Idahoans from accessing legal health care in another state.

West Virginia
Feb 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Women's Health Center of West Virginia v. Sheth
West Virginia abortion providers and advocates filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging multiple provisions of HB 302, the state鈥檚 near-total abortion ban passed in 2022. Plaintiffs in the case sought an injunction blocking the entire ban while providers made their case in court.
Explore case
West Virginia
Feb 2023

Reproductive Freedom
Women's Health Center of West Virginia v. Sheth
West Virginia abortion providers and advocates filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging multiple provisions of HB 302, the state鈥檚 near-total abortion ban passed in 2022. Plaintiffs in the case sought an injunction blocking the entire ban while providers made their case in court.