I represented Dr. M. on a case, and I will never forget what he told me about how he came to the work of providing abortion care. He was working as an OB-GYN at a hospital in upstate New York, performing a few abortions a year after the only other local abortion provider retired. Through NARAL Pro-Choice America and the National Abortion Federation, he connected with other abortion providers, and “got inspired” to step up to fill the gap. He opened a small outpatient clinic connected to the hospital, and eventually made the move to a full-time family planning clinic, where he has practiced for six years.
When I asked him what sustains him — despite the protests, threats, and daily emotional challenges of the work — he said it was the stories of his patients, whom he regards as “fellow travelers.” Dr. M. has seen patients who have terminated wanted pregnancies due to life-threatening medical conditions, women in poverty who could not provide for another child, and victims of sexual abuse. As an adult survivor of child sexual abuse himself, Dr. M. tries to “bring that sensitivity” to his practice. “It’s important to let my patients know that [abortion] is not just a theory that I’m sympathetic about,” he told me. Instead, Dr. M. aims to draw parallels between his own issues and struggles in life and those of his patients, and to also bring that energy into his work.
Dr. M. has provided compassionate and professional health care to his patients, has constantly advocated to expand available services in his region, and has been an outspoken champion for his staff and the women he serves. He is a true inspiration.
Yesterday was the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers. ACLU staff honored those men and women with a series of tributes yesterday.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
Related Content
-
Court CaseMay 2026
Reproductive Freedom
State Of Louisiana V. U.s. Food And Drug Administration. Explore Case.State of Louisiana v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Anti-abortion politicians in Louisiana filed a case to force the FDA to immediately end patients’ ability to fill a prescription for mifepristone by mail or at a local pharmacy after receiving care through telemedicine. In May 2026, a company that manufactures mifepristone filed an emergency motion in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to immediately block the Fifth Circuit’s May 1 decision reinstating a medically unnecessary, nationwide in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone while the company's request that the Fifth Circuit's decision be rejected altogether is considered. Today, more than 1 in 4 people in the U.S. who have an abortion do so using telemedicine. Without this method of care delivery, patients using mifepristone would be forced to travel, sometimes hundreds of miles, to a health center just to pick up a pill, a requirement that leading medical authorities agree has no safety benefit. For some patients — especially people with low incomes, those living in rural areas, people with disabilities, younger people, and survivors of domestic violence — traveling to a clinic is an added barrier that can prevent them from getting an abortion altogether. At the same time as this case moves through the courts, the Trump administration is conducting a FDA review that is itself a thinly veiled attempt to lay the groundwork for additional medically unjustified restrictions on mifepristone. -
Press ReleaseMay 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Federal Appeals Court Orders Nationwide Restrictions On Common Medication For Abortion And Miscarriage Care. Explore Press Release.Federal Appeals Court Orders Nationwide Restrictions on Common Medication for Abortion and Miscarriage Care
NEW ORLEANS — A federal appeals court today ordered a severe nationwide restriction on mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used in nearly two-thirds of U.S. abortions as well as for early miscarriage care. The ruling in Louisiana v. FDA by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals grants Louisiana’s extraordinary request to reinstate a nationwide requirement, lifted by FDA in 2021, that patients obtain mifepristone in person at a health center, rather than by mail or at a pharmacy after receiving care through telemedicine, while Louisiana’s appeal proceeds. The appellate court’s order overrides a lower court’s ruling earlier this month pausing the case while the Trump administration conducts a FDA review that is itself a thinly veiled attempt to lay the groundwork for additional medically unjustified restrictions on mifepristone. “Anti-abortion politicians have just made it much harder for people everywhere in the country to get a medication that abortion and miscarriage patients have been safely using for more than 25 years,” said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the Reproductive Freedom Project of the ACLU. “Louisiana’s legal attack on mifepristone shamelessly packaged lies and propaganda as an excuse to restrict abortion — and the Fifth Circuit rubber-stamped it. This decision defies clear science and settled law and advances an anti-abortion agenda that is deeply unpopular with the American people. For countless people, especially those who live in rural areas, face intimate partner violence, or live with disabilities, losing a telemedicine option will mean losing access to this vital medication altogether.” If the U.S. Supreme Court does not block this ruling, the Fifth Circuit’s order will upend how miscarriage and abortion care are currently delivered across the country. Today, more than 1 in 4 people in the U.S. who have an abortion do so using telemedicine. Without this method of care delivery, patients using mifepristone would be forced to travel, sometimes hundreds of miles, to a health center just to pick up a pill, a requirement that leading medical authorities agree has no safety benefit. While there are other safe and effective medication abortion regimens that may continue to be available by mail and at pharmacies, mifepristone has long been part of the most common and recommended protocol in the United States—with the highest efficacy and fewest side effects—and is used in nearly two-thirds of all U.S. abortions today. The FDA’s 2021 decision to lift its in-person dispensing requirement, made permanent in January 2023, was based on high-quality research and real-world data from tens of thousands of patients in the United States and globally and is supported by preeminent medical authorities. Despite abundant proof that mifepristone has been safely used by millions of patients for more than 25 years — and that people nationwide support access to medication abortion — anti-abortion politicians and groups continue to push for further federal restrictions on this essential medication to further their agenda of ending all abortion access. -
Press ReleaseApr 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Immigrants' Rights
Aclu, National Center For Youth Law File Lawsuit To Demand Transparency From The Trump Administration About Unaccompanied Immigrant Youth’s Access To Pregnancy Care. Explore Press Release.ACLU, National Center for Youth Law File Lawsuit to Demand Transparency from the Trump Administration About Unaccompanied Immigrant Youth’s Access to Pregnancy Care
NEW YORK — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Center for Youth Law (NCYL), and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit today to demand transparency from the Trump administration regarding its treatment of pregnant unaccompanied immigrant youth in federal immigration custody. The lawsuit seeks to enforce the ACLU and NCYL’s February 2025 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records and correspondence from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which oversees the care and custody of unaccompanied immigrant youth until they are placed with a sponsor, usually a family member, in the United States. The release of this information is important to monitor whether the Trump administration is ensuring that these marginalized young people have access to the full range of pregnancy-related care while in government custody, as is required by law. “When a pregnant young person needs abortion care, every moment counts,” said Chelsea Tejada, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “We demand transparency from the Trump administration about these marginalized young people’s access to reproductive health care. Unaccompanied immigrant youth must have access to the full range of pregnancy care, including abortion — and if the Trump administration is making it harder for young people to get that care, please report it by calling us at 212-549-2633, and we will hold them accountable.” “Cuando una joven embarazada necesita un aborto, cada momento cuenta,” dijo Chelsea Tejada, una abogada con el Proyecto de Libertad Reproductiva de la ACLU. “Exigimos transparencia de la administración Trump sobre su tratamiento de menores embarazadas no acompañadas en albergues federales de inmigración y su acceso al aborto. Bajo la ley, estas jóvenes deben tener acceso a todos los servicios de salud reproductiva, incluyendo el aborto. Si conoce a una menor de edad embarazada que necesita ayuda en acceder a estos servicios mientras está bajo custodia federal de inmigración, llámenos al 212-549-2633.” In 2017, the first Trump administration implemented a policy — which the ACLU successfully challenged — outright denying pregnant unaccompanied youth access to abortion care. Building off the settlement in the ACLU’s case, the Biden administration instituted policies and issued regulations requiring ORR to prioritize placing pregnant youth in states without abortion bans to ensure access to miscarriage treatment and abortion care. If a minor is placed in a state with an abortion ban, and she requests an abortion, she must be transported to a state where abortion is legal. But the current Trump administration has announced that it intends to change the current ORR regulations regarding abortion access for unaccompanied immigrant youth. Immigration and reproductive rights advocates are concerned that the Trump administration will either try to impose a de facto or outright ban on abortion. “Transparency regarding the treatment of unaccompanied youth in federal immigration custody is critical to ensuring these vulnerable young people’s rights are protected,” said Mishan Wroe, Directing Attorney at the National Center for Youth Law. “All youth deserve access to comprehensive medical care, including those who are detained by our government.” “The government must provide every young person in ORR custody access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare — but right now, the Trump administration is keeping us in the dark about whether or not they’re upholding that obligation,” said Anya Weinstock, Richard Feldman Legal Fellow at the NYCLU. “As the Trump administration continues to escalate its aggressive attacks on immigrant families and youth, we need transparency to ensure every young person’s rights are protected.” Unaccompanied immigrant youth come to the United States without their parents, often fleeing violence or abuse in their home country. They usually have family in the United States who they are seeking to be reunited with. But until then, they are placed in shelters overseen by ORR. Some young people first learn that they are pregnant when they receive an initial medical exam at the shelter. Given the high rates of sexual assault on the journey to the U.S., some of these young people are pregnant as a result of violence. The FOIA seeks all records from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its associated agencies, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and ORR, from January 2023 to the present regarding the federal government’s treatment of unaccompanied pregnant youth, including documentation of handling requests for and ensuring access to all manner of pregnancy-related care, such as abortion, pre-natal care, and childbirth. The FOIA request and complaint are just the latest in the ACLU’s long effort to ensure that unaccompanied immigrant youth have access to abortion and pregnancy care. In its 2017 class action lawsuit Garza v. Hargan, the ACLU successfully sued the first Trump administration on behalf of a then 17-year-old Central American immigrant, Jane Doe, who had been prevented from accessing abortion care. Jane bravely fought not only for her own reproductive freedom, but that of hundreds of other young people subjected to this dangerous policy. Today’s ORR regulations and policies regarding access to reproductive healthcare are built upon the ACLU’s 2020 settlement in the case. In the years since Garza was settled, the ACLU and NCYL have continued to seek transparency from federal officials, including since President Trump began his second term.Affiliate: New York -
New YorkApr 2026
Reproductive Freedom
Immigrants' Rights
Aclu Et Al. V. U.s. Department Of Health And Human Services Et Al.. Explore Case.ACLU et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Center for Youth Law (NCYL), and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit to demand transparency from the Trump administration regarding its treatment of pregnant unaccompanied immigrant youth in federal immigration custody. The lawsuit seeks to enforce the ACLU and NCYL’s February 2025 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records and correspondence from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which oversees the care and custody of unaccompanied immigrant youth until they are placed with a sponsor, usually a family member in the United States. The release of this information is important to monitor whether the Trump administration is ensuring that these marginalized young people have access to the full range of pregnancy-related care while in government custody, as is required by law.Status: Ongoing