桃子视频

A Kentucky woman filed a lawsuit in Jefferson County Circuit Court challenging two of the Commonwealth鈥檚 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.

The 桃子视频is challenging two Guam laws that are blocking access to abortion on the island.

Immediately following the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 桃子视频, 桃子视频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 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 鈥� which was drafted and passed without any opportunity to amend 鈥� is scheduled to take effect on July 1.

In May 2023, the 桃子视频 and the 桃子视频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 桃子视频has asked a state court in Nebraska to enter an emergency order blocking the law鈥檚 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鈥檚 argument that the single-subject is a nonjusticiable political question.