红杏视频

HONOLULU 鈥� Today, a federal district court ruled that the Food and Drug Administration鈥檚 (FDA) imposition of medically unnecessary restrictions on the medication abortion pill mifepristone violated federal law. While this ruling does not change patients鈥� ability to access medication abortion in the near term, it affirms the FDA鈥檚 legal obligation to consider the overwhelming evidence of mifepristone鈥檚 safety and not to impose restrictions that unduly burden patient access to this essential medication. The court's finding that the agency failed to justify its restrictions on access to mifepristone comes as the Trump administration appears to be gearing up to make it even harder for people to get the medication nationwide. Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced that the FDA is conducting a new review of its mifepristone regulations. Secretary Kennedy has indicated that the review centers on a junk science paper, issued by a Project 2025 sponsor, that purposefully distorts the excellent safety record of medication abortion. This paper is a six-page, non-peer-reviewed document that has been denounced by more than 260 expert researchers for its lack of transparency and gravely flawed methodology. Nevertheless, in a letter to anti-abortion state attorneys general on Sept. 19, 2025, Secretary Kennedy doubled down on the publication鈥檚 importance, citing this propaganda as a 鈥渞ecent stud[y] raising concerns about the safety of mifepristone as currently administered.鈥� Under today鈥檚 ruling, the FDA will need to consider the wealth of peer-reviewed evidence proving mifepristone鈥檚 safety, including when delivered by telemedicine, as well as how FDA鈥檚 restrictions burden patient access. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is a victory for everyone who believes that our access to safe and essential medicines should be dictated by science, not politics,鈥� said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频 Reproductive Freedom Project. 鈥淒espite decades of real-world experience and mountains of evidence proving mifepristone鈥檚 safety, the FDA regulates this medication more heavily than 99 percent of prescription drugs. Now, Secretary Kennedy is using more junk science to lay the groundwork for making it even harder to get a medication abortion. Today鈥檚 decision is a crucial reminder that the courts and the medical community won鈥檛 sit by while the Trump administration trashes our healthcare and our reproductive freedoms.鈥� 鈥淚 am pleased the Court recognized that the FDA鈥檚 extreme restrictions on mifepristone are not grounded in logic or science. But while this decision should be a call to action for FDA to finally lift its medically unjustified restrictions on medication abortion, I fear the Trump Administration is gearing up to make things worse,鈥� said Heidi Purcell, M.D. 鈥淚n the Hawaiian islands, where patients may live a flight away from the nearest provider, losing a telemedicine option for mifepristone would be devastating. The FDA should be working to ensure that patients in rural and underserved areas like Hawaii can access essential medications, not throwing up needless barriers to care.鈥� 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is a win for science, and reinforces what decades of research has shown -- there is no credible evidence to justify the current burdensome regulations on mifepristone,鈥� said Amanda Dennis, DrPH, MBE, executive director, Society of Family Planning. 鈥淎s the anti-abortion movement鈥檚 strategy of co-opting science to advance medication abortion restrictions intensifies, today鈥檚 ruling is a crucial reminder that healthcare policy must be informed by evidence, not ideology.鈥� 鈥淎s front-line physicians who provide preventive and primary care for the whole family, family physicians fight for patient access to safe and effective treatments,鈥� said Lisa Folberg, MPP, chief executive officer of the California Academy of Family Physicians. 鈥淭he FDA's needless restrictions on mifepristone make our jobs harder without any safety benefit. We appreciate that the court recognized how FDA failed to consider the toll its restrictions take on physicians trying to provide a safe and effective medication to their patients. For eight years, CAFP has been in court fighting for an FDA policy on medication abortion grounded in science, not politics or stigma. This decision is a step in the right direction.鈥� For over a decade, medical authorities and reproductive health experts have advocated for lifting the FDA鈥檚 medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone. The 红杏视频 first filed this case, Purcell v. Kennedy (formerly Chelius v. Becerra) on behalf of preeminent health care associations and an individual family medicine doctor in 2017. In 2021, this litigation prompted the FDA to reconsider its in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone in light of the significant evidence that mifepristone is just as safe when dispensed through a pharmacy and that the in-person requirement severely burdened patient access. While the FDA suspended and then formally eliminated its telemedicine restrictions for mifepristone, it continued to single out mifepristone prescribers, pharmacists, and patients with medically unnecessary restrictions that severely limit patients鈥� ability to access medication abortion. Indeed, despite abortion opponents鈥� attempts to paint the FDA as inadequately restrictive, the evidence in this case showed that the FDA already regulates mifepristone more heavily than 99 percent of prescription medications. If the FDA鈥檚 mifepristone regulations are made more stringent, whether through court order or Trump administration policy changes, access to abortion will be further out of reach for patients across the nation.

McALLEN, Texas 鈥� Attorneys for Lizelle Gonzalez 鈥� a Texas woman who was unlawfully arrested and charged with murder for having a medication abortion 鈥� asked a federal court today to deny Starr County officials鈥� attempts to evade accountability for her wrongful arrest, prosecution, and the trauma that followed. The brief supporting Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 opposition to the officials鈥� motions for summary judgement contains damning evidence of misconduct, hypocrisy, and illegality by Starr County officials. The Starr County district attorney, assistant district attorney, and sheriff pursued and then obtained an unlawful indictment against Gonzalez even though they knew that Texas law clearly prohibits the criminal prosecution of pregnant women for conduct that ends their pregnancies. Throughout this process, Starr County officials repeatedly and knowingly violated Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 constitutional rights and attempted to hide their actions. 鈥淟izelle Gonzalez鈥檚 highly personal decision regarding her pregnancy was not, and never has been, a criminal matter 鈥� yet the Starr County District Attorney, his assistant district attorneys, the Starr County Sheriff鈥檚 Office ignored the clear language of the Texas homicide statute and long standing law to wrongly charge her with murder,鈥� said Cecilia Garza, partner at Garza Martinez and local counsel for Lizelle Gonzalez. 鈥淭hese officials abused their power and intentionally violated Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 fundamental rights. Their wonton disregard for the rule of law and erroneous belief of their own invincibility is a frightening deviation from the offices鈥� purposes: to seek justice. I am proud to represent Ms. Gonzalez in her fight for justice and redemption, and our team will not allow these abuses to continue in Starr County or any other county in the state of Texas.鈥� The civil lawsuit, brought by the 红杏视频 (红杏视频), the 红杏视频 of Texas, and local firm Garza Martinez seeks to ensure that those entrusted with enforcing our criminal laws face consequences when they abuse their power and violate the constitutional rights of their community members. While the district attorney ultimately dismissed the charge against Ms. Gonzalez, her arrest on a homicide charge was highly publicized and deeply traumatizing. She spent three days in jail, away from her children, before the $500,000 bond was posted for her release. As a result of the false accusation and wrongful arrest, Lizelle Gonzalez鈥檚 life has been forever changed. Following the dismissal, the Texas bar investigated the district attorney for knowingly pursuing an unlawful indictment and made multiple findings of misconduct related to charging Ms. Gonzalez with homicide. Despite these findings, the district attorney received a minimal punishment: a small fine and a one-year fully probated suspension. Without real accountability, Starr County鈥檚 District Attorney 鈥� and any other law enforcement actor 鈥� will not be deterred from abusing their power to unlawfully target people because of their personal beliefs, rather than the law. In July 2024, the court denied Starr County officials鈥� attempts to have this case dismissed. The prosecutors and sheriff raised claims of legal immunity, a doctrine that they argue should insulate them from being held accountable for violating Gonzalez鈥檚 constitutional rights. Immunity doctrines create a culture in police departments and prosecutor offices where public officials may feel empowered to violate people鈥檚 rights, knowing they will face few, if any, consequences. The court denied their motions to dismiss, allowing Gonzalez鈥檚 case to proceed to the first stage of discovery concerning whether law enforcement can be held liable for violating her rights. As detailed in Gonzalez鈥檚 brief, the discovery obtained over the last year reveals a coordinated effort between the Starr County Sheriff鈥檚 Office and District Attorney鈥檚 Office to violate Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 rights and exposes misconduct by government officials who think the law they are entrusted to enforce does not apply to them. 鈥淟izelle Gonzalez鈥檚 life has been forever changed by the cruel and unconstitutional actions of Starr County鈥檚 elected officials,鈥� said Lauren Johnson, director of the 红杏视频 Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative. 鈥淟izelle deserves justice for the trauma they have caused her and her family 鈥� and each of us deserve to be free of targeting by officials who ignore the law to unlawfully charge and arrest based on personal beliefs. We will continue fighting against the criminalization of people for the private decisions they make related to their pregnancy.鈥� 鈥淪tarr County prosecutors and law enforcement ignored Texas law when they wrongfully arrested Lizelle Gonzalez for ending her pregnancy,鈥� said Sarah Corning, an attorney at the 红杏视频 of Texas. 鈥淭hey shattered her life in South Texas, violated her rights, and abused the power they swore to uphold. Texas law is clear: a pregnant person cannot be arrested and prosecuted for getting an abortion. No one is above the law, including officials entrusted with enforcing it.鈥�

BOISE, Idaho 鈥� Idaho Attorney General Ra煤l Labrador and the Ada and Valley County prosecutors have agreed to be bound by a consent decree permanently blocking them from prosecuting health care providers for referring patients for abortions out of state. The consent decree was signed today by U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Under the terms of the decree, the attorney general and county prosecutors are prohibited from sanctioning or prosecuting the plaintiffs for referring, counseling about, or otherwise offering information to patients who seek abortion outside of Idaho鈥檚 borders. In addition, the attorney general鈥檚 office must pay $400,000 in legal fees. The settlement ensures that Idaho health care providers may continue offering comprehensive counseling and assistance to their patients, including information about health care that is legal in other states, without fear of being penalized by the attorney general or state prosecutors. In a state like Idaho, where the attorney general has fought to limit emergency care for pregnant patients facing complications and where OB-GYNs are fleeing the state because of fears of being penalized, referrals for out-of-state care can save a patient鈥檚 health or even life. Statement from Rebecca Gibron, CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai鈥榠, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky (PPGNHAIK): 鈥淭his resolution affirms something every patient deserves: open, honest care from a provider they trust. It ensures that health care providers in Idaho can continue doing what they are trained and ethically bound to do鈥攐ffer accurate information and help patients access the care they need, even if that care is out of state. In a state where abortion is banned, those referrals can be lifesaving. No one should have to fear punishment for helping someone make the best decision for their health and future. This outcome brings much-needed clarity, compassion, and relief to both patients and providers.鈥� Joint Statement from Planned Parenthood Federation of America; 红杏视频 of Idaho; and 红杏视频: 鈥淚n a state with a total abortion ban, referrals are a critical tool for health care providers to help their patients. This resolution ensures that Idaho health care providers can continue serving their patients by providing counseling and information on all of their options, including abortion out of state. While we are grateful that this consent decree permanently blocks the attorney general from acting on his threat against providers for giving their patients much-needed information, we know that attacks on Idahoans鈥� reproductive freedom won鈥檛 stop here. We will continue fighting with everything we have to ensure that every Idahoan has the ability to make personal health decisions without politicians interfering.鈥� The settlement in Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai鈥檌, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky v. Labrador ends a case that began in April 2023, when Attorney General Labrador issued a legal opinion asserting that assistance from a health care provider 鈥� including offering information about out-of-state abortions 鈥� could be a violation of Idaho鈥檚 abortion ban, threatening health care licenses or even criminal prosecution. This opinion misinterpreted Idaho鈥檚 law and was 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. In December 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling blocking the opinion and held that health care providers were likely to succeed on their claim that the opinion violates their First Amendment rights to communicate with their patients about abortion. This lawsuit was filed by attorneys from Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Idaho, and the law firms Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Bartlett & French LLP, and Stris & Maher LLP on behalf of PPGNHAIK, Dr. Caitlin Gustafson, and Dr. Darin L. Weyhrich.

Kansas City, Mo. 鈥� A Jackson County circuit court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Missouri鈥檚 abortion bans and several targeted regulations of abortion providers. The new preliminary injunction clears the way for Missouri鈥檚 Planned Parenthood members to again provide procedural abortion care. In May, the Missouri Supreme Court clarified the state鈥檚 legal standard for issuing a preliminary injunction, forcing the circuit court to temporarily vacate its original orders, and effectively implement a de facto abortion ban. 鈥淲hile the clarification on the standard is welcome, its immediate consequence temporarily pulled back implementation of Missourians鈥� constitutional right to access abortion care and providers鈥� right to offer that care,鈥� said Gillian Wilcox, Director of Litigation at the 红杏视频 of Missouri. 鈥淭his critical win begins to restore abortion access in our state, but Missourians must be vigilant and defeat the attacks on the constitutional rights that we secured at the ballot box last November.鈥� 鈥淎bortion is legal again in Missouri because voters demanded it and we fought for it,鈥� said Emily Wales, president and CEO, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains. 鈥淐are starts again on Monday in Kansas City. We鈥檙e not stopping until every Missourian can get the care they need, close to home.鈥� 鈥淲e are grateful that procedural abortion can resume in the state of Missouri, just as voters demanded last November. However, the whiplash has created immense confusion for patients in Missouri,鈥� said Margot Riphagen, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers. 鈥淭his decision is a step forward toward fully realizing Missourians' right to reproductive freedom, and the staff at our Central West End health center in St. Louis will work as quickly as possible to resume scheduling abortion appointments." The order did not address the pending request to enjoin other targeted restrictions that are preventing medication abortion access from being restored in Missouri. Previously, both Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri submitted complication plans to satisfy the existing requirements to allow them to offer medication abortions. The Department of Health and Senior Services failed to respond to either affiliates鈥� submissions or follow-up inquiries for several weeks. Instead, the department manufactured an 鈥渆mergency rule鈥� that resembled many of the court-blocked regulations and cited it as the reason for refusing the submitted plans. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri, who are represented by attorneys from the 红杏视频 of Missouri, the 红杏视频, Crowell & Moring, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The full case is currently slated for trial in January 2026.