Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU 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’s 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 — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) — 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’s 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 American Civil Liberties Union 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 — a medication used in most abortions in this country — 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’s 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’s invitation and overturned Roe eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
Reproductive Freedom
Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center
In 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU 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 “D&E.” 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 American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU 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—before many know they are pregnant. The ACLU’s 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’s 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’ abortion ban will remain in effect until relief can be secured from a court.
All Cases
121 Reproductive Freedom Cases
Kentucky
Dec 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Jane Doe, et al. v. Daniel Cameron, et al.
A Kentucky woman filed a lawsuit in Jefferson County Circuit Court challenging two of the Commonwealth’s abortion bans that collectively eliminate almost all access to abortion in the Commonwealth. The case details the severe harms that Jane Doe, who is approximately eight weeks pregnant, and a class of all pregnant Kentuckians seeking abortion are enduring because the government has denied her access to the care she needs.
Explore case
Kentucky
Dec 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Jane Doe, et al. v. Daniel Cameron, et al.
A Kentucky woman filed a lawsuit in Jefferson County Circuit Court challenging two of the Commonwealth’s abortion bans that collectively eliminate almost all access to abortion in the Commonwealth. The case details the severe harms that Jane Doe, who is approximately eight weeks pregnant, and a class of all pregnant Kentuckians seeking abortion are enduring because the government has denied her access to the care she needs.
Court Case
Nov 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Raidoo et al. v. Camacho et al.
The ACLU is challenging two Guam laws that are blocking access to abortion on the island.
Explore case
Court Case
Nov 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Raidoo et al. v. Camacho et al.
The ACLU is challenging two Guam laws that are blocking access to abortion on the island.
Court Case
Jun 2023
Reproductive Freedom
EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C., et al. v. Daniel Cameron, et. al.
Immediately following the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Kentucky, and coalition partners filed a state court lawsuit on behalf of abortion providers challenging two Kentucky laws that collectively eliminate access to abortion in the Commonwealth. The case was dismissed without prejudice after the Kentucky Supreme Court held that the abortion provider plaintiffs could not assert the constitutional rights to privacy and self-determination on behalf of their patients. The Court left open the door for Kentuckians seeking abortion to assert their own constitutional rights.
Explore case
Court Case
Jun 2023
Reproductive Freedom
EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C., et al. v. Daniel Cameron, et. al.
Immediately following the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Kentucky, and coalition partners filed a state court lawsuit on behalf of abortion providers challenging two Kentucky laws that collectively eliminate access to abortion in the Commonwealth. The case was dismissed without prejudice after the Kentucky Supreme Court held that the abortion provider plaintiffs could not assert the constitutional rights to privacy and self-determination on behalf of their patients. The Court left open the door for Kentuckians seeking abortion to assert their own constitutional rights.
North Carolina
Jun 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Stein
North Carolina health care providers filed a lawsuit on June 16, 2023 challenging several provisions in Senate Bill 20, a sweeping law that severely restricts access to abortion from the earliest stages of pregnancy and bans care after 12 weeks in nearly all circumstances. The case was filed one month after the North Carolina General Assembly rushed S.B. 20 through both chambers and overrode a veto from Gov. Roy Cooper to put it into law. The law — which was drafted and passed without any opportunity to amend — is scheduled to take effect on July 1.
Explore case
North Carolina
Jun 2023
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Stein
North Carolina health care providers filed a lawsuit on June 16, 2023 challenging several provisions in Senate Bill 20, a sweeping law that severely restricts access to abortion from the earliest stages of pregnancy and bans care after 12 weeks in nearly all circumstances. The case was filed one month after the North Carolina General Assembly rushed S.B. 20 through both chambers and overrode a veto from Gov. Roy Cooper to put it into law. The law — which was drafted and passed without any opportunity to amend — is scheduled to take effect on July 1.
Nebraska Supreme Court
May 2023
Reproductive Freedom
LGBTQ Rights
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Hilgers
In May 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Nebraska filed a lawsuit on behalf of Nebraska abortion providers and their patients challenging a state law that bans physicians from providing abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy and that, as of October 2023, will restrict health care available to trans youth. The ACLU has asked a state court in Nebraska to enter an emergency order blocking the law’s enforcement. The Court ruled that the two halves of L.B. 574 fall within the single subject of regulating health care, and thus the Court held that L.B. 574 does not violate the single-subject rule. Consequently, the abortion ban and gender-affirming care restrictions in L.B. 574 remain in effect. However, the Court did reject the state’s argument that the single-subject is a nonjusticiable political question.
Explore case
Nebraska Supreme Court
May 2023
Reproductive Freedom
LGBTQ Rights
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Hilgers
In May 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Nebraska filed a lawsuit on behalf of Nebraska abortion providers and their patients challenging a state law that bans physicians from providing abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy and that, as of October 2023, will restrict health care available to trans youth. The ACLU has asked a state court in Nebraska to enter an emergency order blocking the law’s enforcement. The Court ruled that the two halves of L.B. 574 fall within the single subject of regulating health care, and thus the Court held that L.B. 574 does not violate the single-subject rule. Consequently, the abortion ban and gender-affirming care restrictions in L.B. 574 remain in effect. However, the Court did reject the state’s argument that the single-subject is a nonjusticiable political question.