In the Courts

Select an issue below to view the latest information about efforts to challenge state laws that restrict women's access to reproductive health care.

• Abortion

  • Abortion Bans »

    McCormack v. Hiedeman Challenge to Idaho 1972 criminal abortion restriction and 20-week ban by woman who was prosecuted under the law for self-inducing an abortion.

    Edwards v. Beck Challenge to Arkansas law that bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected with an abdominal ultrasound, generally around 12 weeks of pregnancy.

    Paul A. Isaacson, M.D v. Tom Horne Challenge to an unconstitutional Arizona law that prohibits abortion after 20 weeks following the woman's last menstrual period.

    Lathrop v. Deal Challenge under the Georgia state constitution to a Georgia law that would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks gestation.

  • Ultrasound Requirements »

    Nova Health Systems v. Pruitt Challenge to an Oklahoma law which prohibits a woman from getting an abortion unless she first has an ultrasound image and listens to her doctor describe the image in detail.

    Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion Services v. Lakey Challenge to a Texas law which prohibits a woman from getting an abortion unless her physician first performs an ultrasound, places the ultrasound images in her view, describes the images to her, makes fetal heart sounds audible, if possible, and describes those sounds to her, whether or not she wants to see or hear them.

    Stuart v. Huff Challenge to a North Carolina law which prohibits a woman from getting an abortion until four hours after her physician performs an ultrasound, places the ultrasound images in her view, and provides her with a detailed explanation and description of the images, whether or not she wants to see the images or hear any or all of the description.

  • Parental Involvement »

    Hope Clinic v. Adams Challenge to a 1995 Illinois law that requires a doctor to notify a parent, grandparent, or other custodial adult at least 48 hours prior to a minor's abortion.

    Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest v. Alaska Challenge to Alaska's parental involvement law, which requires notification of a young woman's parent at least 48 hours before an abortion.

  • Mandatory Counseling »

    Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota v. Rounds Challenge to 2005 South Dakota law that requires physicians to provide women with state-mandated statements including medically inaccurate information about the risk factors of abortion.

  • Waiting Periods »

    Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Carol E. Ball, M.D. v. Daugaard Challenge to a South Dakota law that would require a woman to wait seventy-two hours between her initial physician consultation and the abortion, force her to visit a crisis pregnancy center before abortion care, and require abortion providers to tell patients about any possible risk factor that have been published in any medical or psychological journal since 1972, including risks that have been roundly rejected by mainstream medicine.

  • Crisis Pregnancy Centers »

    Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Carol E. Ball, M.D. v. Daugaard Challenge to a South Dakota law that would require a woman to wait seventy-two hours between her initial physician consultation and the abortion, force her to visit a crisis pregnancy center before abortion care, and require abortion providers to tell patients about any possible risk factor that have been published in any medical or psychological journal since 1972, including risks that have been roundly rejected by mainstream medicine.

    Expectant Mother Care Pregnancy Centers v. City of New York A crisis pregnancy center brought suit to enjoin the enactment of a New York City ordinance that regulated information provided by crisis pregnancy centers.

    O'Brien v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Crisis pregnancy centers and Catholic leaders filed a lawsuit against a Baltimore City Council ordinance that required crisis pregnancy centers to disclose whether they provided emergency contraception or abortion services.

  • Medication Abortion »

    Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice v. Terry Cline Challenge to an Oklahoma law that would impose severe restrictions on use of mifepristone for medication abortion.

    Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. DeWine Challenge to Ohio law restricting the use of mifepristone for medication abortion.

    Red River Women's Clinic, Kathryn Eggleston, M.D., v. Birch Burdick and Terry Dwelle Challenge to North Dakota law that would effectively ban all medication abortions in the state by requiring compliance with conditions for the provision of "abortion-inducing drugs" that are impossible to meet.

    Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Van Hollen Challenge to a Wisconsin law that imposes restrictions on the use of mifepristone for medication abortion, including by requiring several in-person visits with a physician.

    Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Horne Challenge to 2010 Arizona abortion clinic licensing regulations that effectively prohibit qualified nurse practitioners from providing first-trimester surgical abortion and medication abortion, prohibit qualified physician assistants from providing medication abortion, and impose medically unnecessary and inappropriate clinical requirements on the provision of medication abortion.

  • Private and Public Insurance Coverage »

    ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri v. Praeger Challenge to a Kansas law that prohibits insurance coverage of abortion and abortion-related services.

  • TRAP Laws »

    Jackson Women's Health Organization and Willie Parker v. Mary Currier and Robert Shuler Smith Challenge to a Mississippi state law designed to close the state's only abortion clinic, which requires abortion providers at the clinic to be board certified OB/GYNs and have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

    Hope Medical Group for Women v. LeBlanc Challenge in federal court to a Louisiana law that exposes abortion providers to legal liability and exempts them from medical malpractice suit restrictions.

    Hope Medical Group for Women v. Keck Challenge to actions by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals ordering an immediate suspension and seeking permanent revocation of the clinic's operating license under a new state law.

    Prudhome v. June Medical Services, LLC Challenge in state court to a Louisiana law that exposes abortion providers to legal liability and exempts them from medical malpractice suit restrictions.

    Choice, Inc. of Texas v. Greenstein Challenge to a Louisiana law which expands the state's authority to suspend or revoke the licenses of outpatient abortion facilities, thus restricting access to care for Louisiana women.

    Hodes & Nauser v. Robert Moser Challenge in federal court to temporary regulations and licensing process adopted and implemented by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

    Hodes & Nauser v. Robert Moser Challenge in state court to Kansas regulatory scheme, scheduled to go into effect on November 14, 2011, that would prevent the provision of abortion services in any medical establishment not licensed as an abortion facility, even where prompt termination of pregnancy is needed to prevent serious harm to the woman's health.

• Personhood »

  There are currently no court cases involving state Personhood issues.

• Refusal Provisions »

  Stormans. Inc. v. Mary Selecky and Judith Billings Washington enacted a law in 2007 that required all pharmacies to carry and delivery prescription drugs, including emergency contraception.

  Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Quinn Challenge brought in state court by anti-choice pharmacists to Illinois law that requires pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraception.

• Family Planning »

  Missouri Insurance Coalition v. Huff Challenge to a Missouri law requiring insurers to offer plans to that do not include contraception.

  Stormans. Inc. v. Mary Selecky and Judith Billings Washington enacted a law in 2007 that required all pharmacies to carry and delivery prescription drugs, including emergency contraception.

  Texas v. Sebellius Challenge to the US Department of Health and Human Services' Center for Medicare and Medicaid's decision to end funding of Texas' Medicaid Women's Health Program because Texas violated the law by refusing to allow any of the money to go to Planned Parenthood or other entities that are affiliated with abortion providers.

  Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Quinn Challenge brought in state court by anti-choice pharmacists to Illinois law that requires pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraception.

  Planned Parenthood of Indiana Inc. v. Indiana State Department of Health Challenge to an Indiana state law that aimed to defund family planning programs in Indiana on the basis that taxpayer money could be used to support abortion services.

  Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri & Dodge City Family Planning Clinic v. Sam Brownback Challenge to a Kansas law restricting Title X funding to women's health clinics that provide abortion care.

  Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina v. Cansler Challenge to a North Carolina law that prohibits the state's department of health and human services from providing state or state-administered funds to Planned Parenthood affiliates.

  Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Betlach Challenge brought in federal court to Arizona law that prohibits public family planning funds from going to abortion providers or entities affiliated with abortion providers.

  Planned Parenthood Montana v. Montana Challenge to Montana law prohibiting coverage of prescription contraceptives under Montana's CHIP program, a component of the Healthy Montana Kids program.

  Planned Parenthood of Austin Family Planning v. Suehs Challenge in federal court to Texas rule prohibiting Planned Parenthood affiliates and other entities affiliated with abortion providers from participating in Texas' Medicaid Women's Health Program.

  Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventative Health Services Inc. v Texas Health & Human Services Co Challenge in state court to Texas rule prohibiting Planned Parenthood affiliates and other entities affiliated with abortion providers from participating in Texas' Medicaid Women's Health Program.

  Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas v. Janek Challenge in federal court to Texas rule prohibiting Planned Parenthood affiliates and other entities affiliated with abortion providers from participating in Texas' Medicaid Women's Health Program as violating plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

  Balquinta v. Texas Department of State Health Services Challenge in state court to Texas rule prohibiting Planned Parenthood affiliates and other entities affiliated with abortion providers from participating in Texas' Medicaid Women's Health Program as violating state law.

• Sex Education »

  There are currently no court cases involving state Sex Education issues.

• Other Issues »

  ACLU of North Carolina v. Conti Challenge to North Carolina decision to issue a pro-life license plate, while refusing to approve a pro-choice license plate

  Planned Parenthood Greater Memphis Region and Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee v. John J. Dreyzehner Challenge to Tennessee decision to stop allocating federal disease prevention funding to Planned Parenthood

  Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma v. Cline Challenge in federal court to Oklahoma Department of Health decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, which provides food and resources to low-income pregnant women, new mothers, and children.

For more information about reproductive rights litigation, visit the Center for Reproductive Rights or the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.