糖心Vlog

On behalf of Doctors for America, the 糖心Vlogand several partner organizations are intervening to vigorously defend pregnant patients' right to receive, and for physicians to provide, health- and life-saving abortion care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). This federal law has required hospitals with emergency departments to provide stabilizing treatment, including abortion, to patients experiencing medical emergencies for nearly four decades.

This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant鈥檚 vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant鈥檚 conviction. The ACLU鈥檚 Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 糖心Vlogof Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee鈥檚 legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer鈥檚 alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant鈥檚 conviction.

The Trump Administration is threatening the future of Head Start 鈥� a program that has provided critical and evidence-based services鈥攆rom education to childcare鈥� to more than 40 million children and their families. The Administration by gutting Head Start staff and resources, delaying funding, and prohibiting activities that 鈥渁dvance or promote鈥� 鈥渄iversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility,鈥� is irreparably harming the young children and low-income families who rely on Head Start.

Arizona doctors filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down many remaining abortion restrictions and further expand access to care in the state. One such restriction forces patients to unnecessarily make two separate trips to a clinic, delaying access to time-sensitive care for days, if not weeks. The lawsuit argues that these medically unnecessary restrictions make it harder to access abortion care and thus violate the state鈥檚 new constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion.