ACLU-MI Applauds Michigan Lawmakers’ Introduction of the Reproductive Health Act

NEW ORLEANS —Today, the Trump administration filed a brief on behalf of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a lawsuit that threatens to limit nationwide access to mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used in two-thirds of U.S. abortions and miscarriage care, within the next few months. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that the case, Louisiana v. FDA, should not move forward because the FDA has already undertaken a new review of its regulations on mifepristone. At no point in the brief did the DOJ defend the merits of the FDA’s evidence-based decision to allow mifepristone patients to fill their prescription by mail and at pharmacies, the issue at the core of the case. To the contrary, the Trump administration took the unusual step of criticizing the multi-year scientific analysis that led the FDA to lift its in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone in 2023 — a decision endorsed by every leading medical association — as reflecting a “lack of adequate consideration.” Mifepristone’s excellent safety record, including when prescribed through telemedicine, has been confirmed by more than a hundred peer-reviewed studies and leading medical authorities like the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. By contrast, the Trump administration’s announcement last spring that it would undertake a new review of its mifepristone regulations was based on a debunked, self-published paper from a Project 2025 sponsor that purposefully distorts the safety record of medication abortion and has been denounced by more than 260 expert researchers for its severe scientific flaws. The DOJ’s brief in Louisiana indicates that the Trump administration expects to complete its mifepristone review in less than a year. “Don’t be fooled: the Trump administration isn’t defending medication abortion — it’s just defending its own authority to restrict access to mifepristone if, when, and how it sees fit,” said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The state politicians attacking mifepristone in court and the Trump administration officials ordering a new FDA review are two sides of the same coin — and both are wrong on the law, the science, and public opinion. Any new federal restrictions on medication abortion would not only be medically and legally unjustified but deeply unpopular among the overwhelming majority of Americans.” Louisiana’s lawsuit could severely hinder medication abortion access across the country as soon as late February. Recent data show that by June 2025, more than 1 in 4 abortions in the U.S. were provided via telemedicine using mifepristone. This method of care could be halted immediately if the federal district court in Louisiana grants the state’s request to impose sweeping nationwide restrictions. A ruling could come any time after a hearing scheduled for Feb. 24. Louisiana is seeking to prevent patients from being able to fill their mifepristone prescription by mail or at a local pharmacy. Instead, patients all across the country, including in states where abortion care is legally protected, would be required to pick up the pill in person at a hospital, clinic, or medical office — even when they have already received care through telemedicine and there is no medical reason for the trip. Accessing abortion via telemedicine is especially important for people who live on low incomes; who struggle to secure transportation, childcare, or time off work; who live in rural areas; and who are experiencing domestic violence. Any restrictions on mifepristone would also affect patients using the medication for miscarriage management. Louisiana v. FDA is one of three pending federal lawsuits brought by anti-abortion state politicians trying to end the use of telemedicine for mifepristone. The other two suits — Missouri v. FDA and Florida v. FDA — seek to impose other nationwide restrictions on mifepristone as well, and Florida seeks to ban the medication altogether by undoing FDA’s original approval from 25 years ago.

WASHINGTON – Today, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against the Trump administration following the government’s restoration of all Title X family planning grants that were the subject of NFPRHA’s litigation. The lawsuit, filed in April 2025 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of D.C. on behalf of NFPRHA and its members, challenged the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) illegal withholding of 22 federal Title X grants, which left approximately 865 family planning service sites unable to provide Title X-funded services to an estimated 842,000 patients across nearly two dozen states. “The Trump administration illegally withheld vital family planning funds that federal grantees were relying on to provide time-sensitive, critical care to hundreds of thousands of people in need,” said Clare Coleman, president & CEO, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA). “Our lawsuit succeeded in holding the administration accountable for its unlawful acts, and today, NFPRHA members’ grants have been restored. We are relieved all of our members now have access to their promised funds, but we know the fight for contraceptive access in this country goes on. We will continue to stand up for our members and the essential care they provide to millions of individuals.” “When the Trump administration withheld critical Title X family planning funding, it blatantly violated federal law and left hundreds of sites unable to provide Title X-funded services,” said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the ACLU. “Fortunately, those Title X grants have been restored to NFPRHA’s members. But we know that the Trump administration will continue to attack reproductive freedom, and the ACLU will be ready to use every lever we have to fight those attacks and defend the Title X program.” “We should never have had to sue to protect essential health care like cancer screenings, STI tests, and birth control,” said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU-D.C. “Restoring funding is a victory, but the larger fight to protect everyone's reproductive freedom continues."

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Today, an Alabama appeals court ruled that the state can require freestanding birth centers to be licensed and regulated as hospitals, potentially subjecting them to overly restrictive licensing rules that would make it effectively impossible for them to provide midwifery care in the state. The court’s ruling overturns a May 2025 trial court decision in favor of the birth centers, but it will not take effect while the birth centers seek further court review. In the meantime, birth centers in the state will be able to continue providing care. Freestanding birth centers are independent facilities that provide safe, evidence-backed midwifery care to low-risk patients in a homelike setting. Since an Alabama state trial court blocked the Alabama Department of Public Health’s attempt to restrict access to birth center-provided care in September 2023, birth centers like Oasis Family Birthing Center in Birmingham and Alabama Birth Center in Huntsville have been safely operating and providing essential care for pregnant Alabamians. As today’s court decision recognized, birth centers play an important role in expanding access to pregnancy-related care, “particularly [for] low-income and marginalized populations who, historically, have suffered inequitable disparities” in accessing care. Amid the state’s maternal and infant health crisis, which disproportionately impacts Black women and families, Alabamians with low incomes, and rural communities, it is more important than ever to preserve access to these options for birth center care, which evidence shows is safe and improves patient outcomes, including by reducing preterm births and unnecessary cesarean sections. “We are disappointed in the Court of Civil Appeals’ decision, but this isn’t the end,” said Whitney White, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “We will continue to fight for pregnant Alabamians to be able to access high-quality midwifery care in birth centers without burdensome and unnecessary interference from the state. The essential care birth centers provide to Alabama families has never been more necessary than it is right now, with Alabama facing a serious maternal and infant health crisis that is disproportionately affecting Black Alabamians, those with low incomes, and rural communities. The care birth centers like Oasis Family Birth Center and Alabama Birth Center provide is a critical part of addressing this crisis and ensuring that all pregnant folks have access to high-quality, patient-centered health care.” “The opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals is disappointing, but we remain committed to ensuring that birth centers can continue providing essential healthcare in Alabama,” said JaTaune Bosby-Gilchrist, the ACLU of Alabama’s executive director. “Birth centers are needed here. Midwives and doulas are needed here. And we are committed to continuing this fight on behalf of our clients and all Alabamians.” The lawsuit, Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health, was originally filed in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in Montgomery in August 2023. The plaintiffs – Oasis Family Birthing Center in Birmingham, Heather Skanes, M.D., Alabama Birth Center in Huntsville, Yashica Robinson, M.D., the Alabama affiliate of the American College of Nurse-Midwives, Jo Crawford, CPM, and Tracie Stone, CPM – are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Alabama, Covington & Burling LLP, and Bobby Segall of Copeland Franco.

NEW ORLEANS — Today, the State of Louisiana asked a federal judge to impose sweeping nationwide restrictions on mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used in two-thirds of U.S. abortions and as part of a gold-standard regimen for miscarriage care. If the court grants Louisiana’s motion, patients will no longer be able to fill their mifepristone prescription by mail or from a pharmacy. Instead, patients all across the country—including in states where abortion care is legally protected—will be required to pick up the pill in person at a hospital, clinic, or medical office, even when they have already received care through telemedicine and there is no medical reason for the travel. Mifepristone’s excellent safety record has been confirmed by more than a hundred peer-reviewed studies and leading medical authorities like the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Recent data show that, by June 2025, more than 1 in 4 U.S. abortions were provided via telemedicine using mifepristone—including more than 25% of abortions in Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Virginia. “This attack is about one thing only: making it as hard as possible for people everywhere in the country to get an abortion,” said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “Forcing patients to travel hundreds of miles to a health center just to be handed a pill obviously has no safety benefit, which is why every leading medical group opposes this change.” Accessing abortion via telemedicine is especially important for people who live on low incomes; who struggle to secure transportation, childcare, or time off work; who live in rural areas; and who are experiencing domestic violence. Louisiana v. FDA is one of three pending federal lawsuits brought by anti-abortion state politicians trying to end the use of telemedicine for mifepristone. The other two suits—Missouri v. FDA and Florida v. FDA—seek to impose other nationwide restrictions on mifepristone as well, and Florida seeks to ban the medication altogether by undoing FDA’s original approval from 25 years ago. Louisiana’s new filing comes as the Trump administration appears to be following a separate track to make it even harder for people to access the medication nationwide. Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced that the FDA is conducting a new review of its mifepristone regulations, prompted by a self-published report from a Project 2025 sponsor that purposefully distorts the safety record of medication abortion and has been denounced by more than 260 expert researchers. Polling consistently shows that American voters support access to abortion, including medication abortion via mail and telemedicine. At the same time, voters worry that access to abortion remains under threat: a June 2025 poll by Navigator Research showed that nearly seven in ten voters believe abortion will be harder to access in the next five years.