Reproductive Rights Groups Challenge Abortion Restrictions in Three States
ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and the Center Fight Unconstitutional Measures in Alaska, Missouri, and North Carolina
NEW YORK — Reproductive rights groups today announced a new wave of litigation to protect and expand access to abortion, with more to come.
The three simultaneous lawsuits challenge abortion restrictions in Alaska, Missouri, and North Carolina. They follow the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down two Texas laws that had devastated access to abortion in the state. Since the ruling, abortion restrictions in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Oklahoma and Wisconsin have already been blocked — and that’s just the beginning.
“Because of laws like the ones we are challenging today, for too many women across our country the constitutional right to have an abortion is more theoretical than real,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “With the cases we are filing today, we are sending a clear message that we won’t stop working until every woman can get the care she needs no matter who she is, where she lives, or how much money she makes.”
“We are going to fight back state by state and law by law until every person has the right to pursue the life they want, including the right to decide to end a pregnancy. Individual rights and freedom go to the heart of who we are as a country, including the right to access safe and legal abortion,” said Dr. Raegan McDonald-Mosley, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “As a leading health care provider, we see firsthand what it means for people who are forced to cross state lines, travel hundreds of miles, or wait weeks to get an abortion, if they can at all. These restrictions have a disproportionate impact on those who already face far too many barriers to health care as people of color, people who live in rural areas, or people with low incomes. These laws are dangerous, unjust, and unconstitutional — and they will come down.”
“Today’s filing is a major step in the fight to ensure all women can get safe and legal abortions in their own communities, when they need them,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We are a nation of laws, and the Center is prepared to use the full force of the law to ensure women’s fundamental rights are protected and respected. We are proud to stand with our partners in challenging these unconstitutional measures and vow to continue the fight for women’s health, equality, and dignity.”
The Supreme Court has consistently held and reaffirmed in Whole Woman’s Health that women have a constitutional right to decide whether to end or continue a pregnancy and states cannot ban abortion prior to viability. The Supreme Court’s Whole Woman’s Health decision also affirmed that states cannot pass sham restrictions on abortion; less than one day after issuing their ruling in Whole Woman’s Health, the Supreme Court refused to review similar clinic shutdown laws from Mississippi and Wisconsin that had been invalidated by lower courts that found they imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions.
Specifically, the lawsuits challenge the following restrictions on safe and legal abortion:
- Medically unnecessary restrictions in Alaska, passed more than 40 years ago, that ban abortion in outpatient health centers after the first trimester of pregnancy, forcing many women to travel out of state for procedures, if they can get them at all. (More information on this case can be found here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/planned-parenthood-great-northwest-and-hawaiian-islands-v-state-alaska) ;
- A ban on abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy in North Carolina that only permitted access to abortion after the 20 weeks only under an extremely narrow medical emergency exception. (More information on this case can be found here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/bryant-et-al-v-woodall-et-al)
- Medically unnecessary restrictions in Missouri that have forced nearly all health centers to cease to provide abortion in the state. Only one licensed provider remains. (More information on this case can be found here: http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVv1er5%2fVjgeW1gtD44qlfC8%3d).
Attorneys from the ACLU, the Center, and PPFA represent the following plaintiffs in each case:
- In the Alaska case, plaintiff Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and Hawaiian Islands is represented by Janet Crepps of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Brigitte Amiri of the ACLU, Carrie Flaxman of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Tara Rich and Eric Glatt of the ACLU of Alaska, and Susan Orlansky of Reeves, Amodio, LLC.
- In the North Carolina case, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is represented by Maithreyi Ratakonda and Carrie Flaxman of Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Dr. Beverly Gray and Dr. Elizabeth Deans are represented by Andrew Beck of the ACLU; Dr. Amy Bryant is represented by Genevieve Scott and Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights. Irena Como and Christopher Brook of the ACLU of North Carolina are representing all plaintiffs.
- In the Missouri case, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region are represented by Melissa Cohen and Jennifer Sandman of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Arthur Benson of Arthur Benson & Associates.
Every month, you'll receive regular roundups of the most important civil rights and civil liberties developments. Remember: a well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.
The Latest in Reproductive Freedom
The American Civil Liberties Union is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.
Learn More About Reproductive Freedom
The ACLU works to ensure that every person can make the best decision for themselves and their family about whether and when to have a child without undue political interference.