Abortion
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region et al., v. Ohio Department of Health, et al.
The Ƶ, the Ƶ 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 Ƶ Abortion
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024

Abortion
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 2022

Abortion
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

Abortion
Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center
In 2018, the Ƶ and the Ƶ 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

Abortion
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson
The Ƶ, the Ƶ 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 Ƶ’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
91 Abortion Cases

Massachusetts
Dec 2012
Abortion
+2 Issues
Ƶ of Massachusetts v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al.
From April 2006 to October 2011, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has awarded the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) $2.5 million to $4 million annually to fund organizations that provide direct services to trafficking victims under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act. HHS does this knowing that USCCB prohibits, based on its religious beliefs, grantees from using any of the federal funds to provide or refer for contraceptive or abortion services.
Explore case
Massachusetts
Dec 2012

Abortion
+2 Issues
Ƶ of Massachusetts v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al.
From April 2006 to October 2011, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has awarded the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) $2.5 million to $4 million annually to fund organizations that provide direct services to trafficking victims under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act. HHS does this knowing that USCCB prohibits, based on its religious beliefs, grantees from using any of the federal funds to provide or refer for contraceptive or abortion services.

Indiana
Oct 2012
Abortion
Planned Parenthood of Indiana Inc., et al. v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health
The Ƶ of Indiana, the Ƶ and Planned Parenthood of Indiana have filed a lawsuit challenging three provisions of Indiana’s new, punitive abortion law (HB 1210) recently signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels. The law seeks to penalize health care providers that perform abortions, though they do so without federal dollars.
Explore case
Indiana
Oct 2012

Abortion
Planned Parenthood of Indiana Inc., et al. v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health
The Ƶ of Indiana, the Ƶ and Planned Parenthood of Indiana have filed a lawsuit challenging three provisions of Indiana’s new, punitive abortion law (HB 1210) recently signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels. The law seeks to penalize health care providers that perform abortions, though they do so without federal dollars.

Court Case
Jul 2012
Abortion
Planned Parenthood v. Betlach
Planned Parenthood and the Ƶ filed a lawsuit challenging an Arizona law that blocks Planned Parenthood from providing family services to Arizonans enrolled in Medicaid. The law is designed to penalize Planned Parenthood because they provide abortions, though they do so without federal dollars.
Explore case
Court Case
Jul 2012

Abortion
Planned Parenthood v. Betlach
Planned Parenthood and the Ƶ filed a lawsuit challenging an Arizona law that blocks Planned Parenthood from providing family services to Arizonans enrolled in Medicaid. The law is designed to penalize Planned Parenthood because they provide abortions, though they do so without federal dollars.

Oklahoma
Mar 2012
Abortion
In Re: Initiative Petition No. 395, State Question No. 761 or The Oklahoma Personhood Ballot Initiative
The Ƶ, the Ƶ of Oklahoma and the Center for Reproductive Rights have filed a lawsuit on behalf of six Oklahoma voters -- including women's health providers -- against an Oklahoma ballot initiative that would ban vital health services by granting fertilized eggs and embryos the same constitutional rights as people.
Explore case
Oklahoma
Mar 2012

Abortion
In Re: Initiative Petition No. 395, State Question No. 761 or The Oklahoma Personhood Ballot Initiative
The Ƶ, the Ƶ of Oklahoma and the Center for Reproductive Rights have filed a lawsuit on behalf of six Oklahoma voters -- including women's health providers -- against an Oklahoma ballot initiative that would ban vital health services by granting fertilized eggs and embryos the same constitutional rights as people.

Court Case
Feb 2012
Abortion
Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri & Dodge City Family Planning Clinic v. Sam Brownback, et al
The Ƶ and the Ƶ of Kansas and Western-Missouri have filed a lawsuit against a state law restricting Title X funding in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Explore case
Court Case
Feb 2012

Abortion
Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri & Dodge City Family Planning Clinic v. Sam Brownback, et al
The Ƶ and the Ƶ of Kansas and Western-Missouri have filed a lawsuit against a state law restricting Title X funding in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.