Reproductive Freedom

Featured

U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2024
Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States

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 鈥 the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) 鈥 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鈥檚 ultimate decision will impact access to this essential care across the country.
Idaho And Moyle, Et Al. V. United States. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2023
Danco Laboratories, LLC, v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine; U.S. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Reproductive Freedom

Danco Laboratories, LLC, v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine; U.S. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

The 桃子视频 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 鈥 a medication used in most abortions in this country 鈥 and threatened the innovation of new drugs and the ability of Americans to access lifesaving drugs.
Danco Laboratories, Llc, V. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine; U.s. Fda V. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2022
Bans Off Our Bodies Protest Sign

Reproductive Freedom

Dobbs v. Jackson Women鈥檚 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鈥檚 invitation and overturned Roe eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion.
Dobbs V. Jackson Women鈥檚 Health Organization. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Apr 2022
RFP attorneys Alexa Kolbi-Molinas and Andrew Beck heading towards the Supreme Court to argue the case.

Reproductive Freedom

Cameron v. EMW Women鈥檚 Surgical Center

In 2018, the 桃子视频 and the 桃子视频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 鈥淒&E.鈥 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.
Cameron V. Emw Women鈥檚 Surgical Center. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

Reproductive Freedom

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

The 桃子视频, the 桃子视频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鈥攂efore many know they are pregnant. The ACLU鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥 abortion ban will remain in effect until relief can be secured from a court.
Whole Woman's Health V. Jackson. Explore Case.

All Cases

121 Reproductive Freedom Cases

Michigan
Jun 2015

Reproductive Freedom

Women's Rights

Tamesha Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

The 桃子视频 and the 桃子视频of Michigan have filed a lawsuit on behalf of a pregnant woman who miscarried and was denied appropriate medical treatment because the only hospital in her county is required to abide by religious directives. The directives, written by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, prohibited that hospital from complying with the applicable standard of care in this case.
Explore case
Tamesha Means V. United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops. Explore Case.
Michigan
Jun 2015

Reproductive Freedom

Women's Rights

Tamesha Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

The 桃子视频 and the 桃子视频of Michigan have filed a lawsuit on behalf of a pregnant woman who miscarried and was denied appropriate medical treatment because the only hospital in her county is required to abide by religious directives. The directives, written by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, prohibited that hospital from complying with the applicable standard of care in this case.
Tamesha Means V. United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops. Explore Case.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores & Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2014

Reproductive Freedom

Religious Liberty

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores & Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell

Whether for-profit business corporations are entitled to an exemption under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from the general requirement that employer health plans include coverage for contraceptive care.
Explore case
Burwell V. Hobby Lobby Stores & Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. V. Burwell. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Oct 2014
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores & Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell

Reproductive Freedom

Religious Liberty

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores & Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell

Whether for-profit business corporations are entitled to an exemption under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from the general requirement that employer health plans include coverage for contraceptive care.
Burwell V. Hobby Lobby Stores & Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. V. Burwell. Explore Case.
McCullen v. Coakley
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2014

Reproductive Freedom

Free Speech

McCullen v. Coakley

Whether a Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot buffer zone outside abortion clinics is constitutional on its face and as applied to three specific clinics in the state.
Explore case
Mccullen V. Coakley. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2014
McCullen v. Coakley

Reproductive Freedom

Free Speech

McCullen v. Coakley

Whether a Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot buffer zone outside abortion clinics is constitutional on its face and as applied to three specific clinics in the state.
Mccullen V. Coakley. Explore Case.
Planned Parenthood v. Abbott
Texas
Mar 2014

Reproductive Freedom

Planned Parenthood v. Abbott

The 桃子视频, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Texas law firm George Brothers Kincaid & Horton have filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of their clients (over a dozen women's health care providers) to block harmful and unconstitutional provisions of a recently enacted Texas law that would force a third of the health centers that currently offer abortion care to stop providing abortions altogether.
Explore case
Planned Parenthood V. Abbott. Explore Case.
Texas
Mar 2014
Planned Parenthood v. Abbott

Reproductive Freedom

Planned Parenthood v. Abbott

The 桃子视频, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Texas law firm George Brothers Kincaid & Horton have filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of their clients (over a dozen women's health care providers) to block harmful and unconstitutional provisions of a recently enacted Texas law that would force a third of the health centers that currently offer abortion care to stop providing abortions altogether.
Planned Parenthood V. Abbott. Explore Case.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Maricopa County Branch, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum vs. Tom Horne, et al.
Arizona
Mar 2014

Reproductive Freedom

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Maricopa County Branch, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum vs. Tom Horne, et al.

The 桃子视频 and the 桃子视频of Arizona have filed a lawsuit on behalf of the NAACP of Maricopa County and the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF) challenging a state law that relies on harmful racial stereotypes to shame and discriminate against Black women and Asian and Pacific Islander (API) women who decide to end their pregnancies.
Explore case
National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People, Maricopa County Branch, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum Vs. Tom Horne, Et Al.. Explore Case.
Arizona
Mar 2014
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Maricopa County Branch, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum vs. Tom Horne, et al.

Reproductive Freedom

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Maricopa County Branch, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum vs. Tom Horne, et al.

The 桃子视频 and the 桃子视频of Arizona have filed a lawsuit on behalf of the NAACP of Maricopa County and the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF) challenging a state law that relies on harmful racial stereotypes to shame and discriminate against Black women and Asian and Pacific Islander (API) women who decide to end their pregnancies.
National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People, Maricopa County Branch, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum Vs. Tom Horne, Et Al.. Explore Case.
1617
18
1920...