Planned Parenthood Sues to Expand Abortion Access in Alaska

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The Alabama Supreme Court today declined to review a January 2026 state appellate court decision that allows the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) to require birth centers to obtain burdensome and unnecessary licenses as “hospitals.” Litigation is ongoing to challenge specific restrictions in the licensing rules. However, by declining to hear this case, the Alabama Supreme Court has opened the door for regulations that could threaten the ability of birth centers to continue operating long-term in the state, despite evidence that these independent facilities safely provide much-needed midwifery care to low-risk pregnant patients in a homelike setting. “Birth centers have been a lifeline for pregnant Alabamians and their families,” said Dr. Yashica Robinson, founder of the Alabama Birth Center. “Birth centers fill a critical gap in access to prenatal, pregnancy, and postpartum care across our state, especially for Black women, people living in rural communities, and people with low incomes. Our birth center was founded to expand access to high-quality midwifery care and help combat our state’s maternal and infant health crisis. We will do everything we can to continue providing this essential care to our communities.” Amid the state’s maternal and infant health crisis — which disproportionately impacts Black women and families, Alabamians with low incomes, rural communities, and others impacted by widespread maternity care deserts — birth centers play a critical role in expanding access to pregnancy-related care. Evidence shows that the midwifery care provided at birth centers is safe and improves patient outcomes, including by reducing preterm births, unnecessary cesarean sections, and health disparities. “By declining to hear this case, the Alabama Supreme Court has rubber-stamped state overreach into pregnant Alabamians’ health care decisions,” said Whitney White, senior staff attorney for the Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. “The Alabama Department of Health’s regulatory scheme for birth centers is misaligned not only with state law, but with clinical evidence. Birth centers provide safe, essential midwifery care to low-risk pregnant Alabamians — and communities need access to them. Despite this setback, we remain committed to fighting for Alabamians and their families to have access to the essential care that they need, and we will continue fighting for birth centers as the case continues.” "While we are disappointed that the Alabama Supreme Court declined to review this case, we remain committed to ensuring that every Alabamian has the opportunity to give birth where and how they choose,” said JaTaune Bosby Gilchrist, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama. “We look forward to making our case that regulations cannot be so restrictive as to essentially ban birth centers in our state." Plaintiff Oasis Family Birthing Center in Birmingham, Alabama’s first freestanding birth center, first opened and began safely providing essential care for pregnant Alabamians in 2022. Additional birth centers, including Plaintiff Alabama Birth Center in Huntsville, have also opened since an Alabama state trial court first blocked the Alabama Department of Public Health’s attempt to restrict access to birth center-provided care at an earlier stage in this case. 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.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court today granted an emergency request to block a lower court decision imposing a nationwide prohibition on mail and pharmacy access to mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used in nearly two-thirds of U.S. abortions as well as for early miscarriage care. The Court’s order in Louisiana v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains the status quo that has been in place for more than five years while the litigation returns to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the normal appeals process. The Louisiana case is very similar to an earlier lawsuit by abortion opponents, in which the Supreme Court unanimously found in 2024 that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing. The Court’s order preserves the status quo and denies, for now, Louisiana’s effort to force patients to obtain their mifepristone in person at a hospital, clinic, or medical office rather than filling their prescription by mail or at a local pharmacy after receiving care through telemedicine. Notably, the Trump administration did not join the mifepristone manufacturers in asking the Supreme Court to step in, and in the lower courts criticized FDA’s evidence-based decision to lift the in-person dispensing requirement, a decision which every leading medical association endorses. “While it is good news that, for now, patients can continue to get this safe medication by mail and at pharmacies as they have for more than five years, we all know abortion opponents are continuing their unpopular and baseless attacks,” said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. “And let’s be clear about the Trump administration’s role here: when nationwide access to a critical abortion and miscarriage medication was on the line, the Trump administration refused to defend the FDA’s action and threw patients under the bus. The American people have made clear time and again that they oppose political efforts to interfere with their ability to make their own health care decisions — and the ACLU will keep fighting with them every step of the way.” Today, more than 1 in 4 people in the U.S. who have an abortion do so using telemedicine and mail or pharmacy dispensing. 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. A range of experts submitted amicus briefs in the Supreme Court opposing this nationwide restriction as medically unjustified and harmful. FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement in 2021 — but anti-abortion politicians have sought to reinstate this and other restrictions through the federal courts. At the same time, the Trump administration is moving forward with a sham FDA review that is itself a thinly veiled attempt to lay the groundwork for additional medically unjustified restrictions on mifepristone.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court today entered an administrative stay, granting a one-week pause of an order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstating a restriction on mail and pharmacy access to mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used in nearly two-thirds of U.S. abortions as well as for early miscarriage care. The case, Louisiana v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), will now proceed on the Court’s emergency docket — where the Court will decide whether to allow the Fifth Circuit’s medically unnecessary nationwide restriction to take effect while the litigation proceeds. Doing so would upend how patients obtain this medication all across the country. “While this is a positive short-term development, no one can rest easy when our ability to get this safe, effective medication for abortion and miscarriage care still hangs in the balance,” said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. “The Supreme Court needs to put an end to this baseless attack on our reproductive freedom, once and for all.” The stay was requested by two manufacturers of mifepristone following the Fifth Circuit’s ruling reinstating a nationwide requirement that patients obtain mifepristone in person at a health center, rather than by mail or at a pharmacy after receiving care through telemedicine. FDA’s 2021 decision to lift this medically unjustified requirement was based on extensive scientific evidence and endorsed by every leading medical association — but anti-abortion politicians have sought to reinstate this and other restrictions through the federal courts and through a sham FDA review announced by the Trump Administration last year. 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 and is used in a majority of all U.S. abortions today. The stay will remain in effect until 5 pm. ET on May 11th. The Supreme Court has ordered Louisiana to file its brief by Thursday, May 7 at 5 pm ET.

Anti-abortion politicians in Louisiana filed a federal lawsuit seeking to impose a nationwide restriction on mail and pharmacy access to mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used in nearly two-thirds of U.S. abortions as well as for early miscarriage care. On May 1st, a federal appeals court granted Louisiana's request, throwing abortion access across the country into turmoil. On May 4th, the Supreme Court put that ruling on hold for one week, until May 11th, while it considers whether to block it for a longer period of time, restoring patients' ability to get mifepristone through telemedicine for now.