Support for Comprehensive Sex Ed in Kansas

The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) and its member, the Family Health Council of Central Pennsylvania (FHCCP), sued the Trump administration to protect the integrity of the Title X family planning program. Title X is the country’s only dedicated federal program for family planning services. For more than 55 years, the program has provided access to effective contraceptive methods, cancer screenings, testing and treatment for STIs, and other preventive services, with priority given to patients with low incomes.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Missourians are free to once again access medication abortion in their home state, after a Jackson County Circuit Court judge issued a permanent injunction today striking down several state abortion restrictions. The ruling affirms the preliminary injunctions, allowing procedural abortion to continue, and making medication abortion available in Missouri for the first time since 2018. Missouri is the first state in the nation to reverse a total abortion ban and restore access for both procedural and medication abortion. The judge’s order found that most of Missouri’s complex web of abortion restrictions violated Missouri’s Right to Reproductive Freedom. Since 2025, Planned Parenthood health centers have been providing procedural abortions in the state under a preliminary injunction, but the state’s medication abortion complication plan requirement and other medically unnecessary rules that exclusively target abortion providers prevented Missourians from obtaining the medical care they need. Today’s ruling allows Missourians to once again access the most common form of abortion using safe and effective medications. Starting next week, abortion patients will be able to receive medication abortion in Missouri for the first time since 2018. Starting immediately, patients seeking an abortion can book their appointment online at plannedparenthood.org. Starting Monday, patients may call 1-800-230-PLAN to schedule their appointments. “This monumental win for reproductive freedom and abortion access is possible only because of the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment that Missouri voters passed in 2024,” said Gillian Wilcox, director of litigation at the ACLU of Missouri. “Today’s decision is a reminder that politicians are trying to strip us of our right to reproductive freedom, and Missourians must reject Amendment 3 at the ballot this November or we could lose the access we gained today.” “This decision brings compassion and common sense back to Missouri health care,” said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains. “For too long, politicians forced patients to leave the state for an evidence-based and trusted form of abortion care. Now, that care is coming home and with it, we move closer to fulfilling the promise of reproductive freedom Missourians demanded.” “Once again, the courts have affirmed Missourians' constitutional right to access abortion without interference or delays from their government,” said Margot Riphagen-Dunn, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers. “The truth is, medication abortion is the most common form of abortion care, and has been proven to be safe and effective for the past 25 years. Yet, since Missourians voted for abortion access in 2024, it has been impossible to access the full spectrum of abortion care in our own state. That ends today.” The fight for reproductive freedom is not over, as Missourians will be forced to vote on an abortion ban, a new Amendment 3, once again this November. The original lawsuit was filed the day after a majority of Missourians voted to amend the state constitution to provide the right to reproductive freedom in November 2024 on behalf of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, and Crowell & Moring LLP. Read the full decision.

Harrisburg, Penn.— The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) and its member, the Family Health Council of Central Pennsylvania (FHCCP), today sued the Trump administration to protect the integrity of the Title X family planning program. Title X is the country’s only dedicated federal program for family planning services. For more than 55 years, the program has provided access to effective contraceptive methods, cancer screenings, testing and treatment for STIs, and other preventive services, with priority given to patients with low incomes. In April, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Title X Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for fiscal year (FY) 2027 designed to corrupt a merit-based grant competition based on politics, prioritizing ideology over quality and qualifications. The Title X NOFO is written to enable the federal government to push highly qualified Title X providers out of the program and bring in new grantees based solely on their alignment with the Trump administration’s political priorities, some of which have nothing to do with the Title X program, the services Congress intended for it to provide, or the patients it is intended to serve. “NFPRHA is suing the federal government to stop its latest hostile action to destabilize Title X, the nation’s family planning program,” said Clare Coleman, NFPRHA’s President & CEO. “HHS’s new Title X grant application guidelines violate the current statutory and regulatory requirements of the program. For more than 55 years, the highly effective Title X program has provided expert health care in health centers across the U.S. The current Title X rule prioritizes health equity, anti-discrimination, and client-centered care, which clashes with HHS’s new funding opportunity guidelines that demand applicants demonstrate agreement with the administration’s anti-DEI and anti-“gender ideology” stances. HHS’s guidelines could unfairly exclude highly qualified and trusted family planning providers deeply rooted in the communities they serve from funding consideration. We are asking the federal government to explain the conflict between the law and its application guidance in court.” The lawsuit, filed on behalf of NFPRHA and FHCCP by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Pennsylvania (ACLU-PA), challenges aspects of the FY 2027 NOFO that contradict the Title X statute, regulations, and guidance. For example, the Title X statute requires HHS to consider specific factors when evaluating an applicant for family planning grants, including the number of patients to be served, the extent to which family planning services are needed locally, and the capacity of applicants to make rapid and effective use of the grant funds. But under the FY 2027 NOFO, applicants can be rejected at a threshold stage if they do not sufficiently align with the Trump administration’s political priorities. As a result, their applications would never be considered under the factors Congress intended or be judged on the merits. Furthermore, under the Title X regulations, Title X grantees must serve patients in an inclusive, culturally appropriate, and nondiscriminatory manner. The Title X regulations also require that grantees ensure that transgender people are “fully included and can actively participate in and benefit from family planning.” These requirements are in direct conflict with the NOFO’s mandate to align with the Trump administration’s agenda that opposes diversity, equity, and inclusion, particularly for transgender people. “The Title X family planning funding announcement is an attempt to rig the system against well-qualified providers, and to instead favor new prospective Title X grantees based solely on their political alignment with the Trump administration’s agenda,” said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the Reproductive Freedom Project of the ACLU. “Once again, the Trump administration is violating the law to the detriment of everyday people, in this case the millions of people, most who have lower incomes, that obtain critical care from Title X family planning providers, such as contraception, STI testing and treatment, and cervical cancer screenings. We will do everything we can to protect the integrity of the Title X program so that people can get the health care they need.” “FHCCP has led the Title X program in Central Pennsylvania for more than 50 years. In that time, our team has built a strong network of providers and community partners that today serve more than 31,000 people each year, providing high-quality family planning services across a 24-county region,” said Patricia Fonzi, President/CEO of FHCCP. “We welcome a competitive grant process and believe every applicant should be evaluated on its ability to effectively serve communities, responsibly steward federal resources, and demonstrate the experience and capacity necessary to carry out the Title X statute. At the end of the day, the success of Title X is measured by whether people can access the care they need in their own communities – and that depends on funding decisions grounded in experience, proven performance, and the ability to deliver comprehensive care where it is needed most.” "The Trump administration's attempt to condition Title X funding on political allegiance is a grave threat to public health," said Sara Rose, deputy legal director at ACLU of Pennsylvania. "Grant decisions must be guided by objective standards to ensure that taxpayer money is spent fairly and efficiently without regard to the ideology of its recipients." The lawsuit also claims that the federal government acted arbitrarily and capriciously, including by relying on factors outside of what Congress intended for review of Title X grants. Further, the challenged aspects of the NOFO are an unjustified reversal of the federal government's prior positions. This lawsuit, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association et al. v. Kennedy et al., was filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The complaint is available here.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Today, Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaiʻi, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky (PPGNHAIK) filed a lawsuit challenging Alaska’s unconstitutional ban on telehealth abortion. Alaska law currently bans clinicians from evaluating patients via telehealth so that patients can have a medication abortion at home or another location of their choosing — a safe, effective, and widely used form of care. Patients in Alaska seeking medication abortion are instead forced to travel to be seen in person, a medically unnecessary requirement that delays and denies patients’ access to care. This telehealth ban violates the Alaska Constitution, which protects the fundamental right to abortion. This lawsuit comes as another case filed by PPGNHAIK is pending in front of the Alaska Supreme Court, in which a trial court has allowed advanced practice clinicians to provide abortion, which has expanded the pool of practitioners who can provide abortion care. Telehealth is a proven, modern tool for delivering care, and today more than 1 in 4 people in the U.S. who have an abortion do so using this model. PPGNHAIK operates the only two health centers that publicly provide abortion in Alaska, located in Anchorage and Fairbanks. The state’s telehealth ban forces all Alaskans seeking medication abortion to travel to one of those health centers — despite the state’s massive size and many rural and remote communities — for in-person care, even though doing so is typically not medically necessary. More than 60,000 Alaskans live off the road system and can only travel by plane to reach Anchorage or Fairbanks, and only when weather permits. Many of those who do live on the road system still must drive hundreds of miles round-trip to reach a health center, putting essential health care services out of reach. Beyond transportation concerns and expenses, patients often face lost wages due to missed work and incur childcare costs, further compounding the financial strain and creating significant barriers to timely care. Statement from Rebecca Gibron (she/hers), President and CEO, PPGNHAIK: “Today, on behalf of the patients who need care, we’re challenging Alaska’s unconstitutional telehealth ban. The State Constitution guarantees the right to abortion, and this ban delays and denies that time-sensitive care, forcing patients to travel for in-person appointments, despite it not being medically necessary for most patients. The restriction creates unnecessary barriers that fall hardest on people in rural and remote communities, survivors of violence, and those already facing economic hardship — sometimes barring patients from care entirely. Simply put, this telehealth ban is yet another unnecessary barrier to abortion access, and Alaskans deserve better. “At a time when Alaska faces a critical health care provider shortage, the state should be working to improve access to care by expanding telehealth services, not restrict it. We will never stop fighting to ensure Alaskans can exercise their constitutional right to abortion, no matter what.” A link to the complaint can be found here and the brief seeking a preliminary injunction here. PPGNHAIK is represented by attorneys from Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Alaska, and the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.