Reproductive Health

State of Louisiana, et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, et al. (Filed: 2/20/2026) 
In 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revised the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone to remove the requirement that the medication be dispensed in-person at a medical facility. This revision allowed prescribers to send patients the medication by mail. The plaintiffs in this case claim the FDA did not appropriately weigh the safety risks of lifting the requirement for in-person dispensing of the drug. They also argue that allowing access to mifepristone by mail undermines the Dobbs decision that overruled Roe v. Wade, as well as Louisiana’s law that bans abortion in most instances.

ACP has extensive policy on access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In particular, ACP policy opposes restrictions to one’s right to access abortion services, including medication abortion. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that granting the plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunctive Relief would compromise FDA’s authority to regulate drugs on the basis of safety and efficacy, interfere with the patient-physician relationship, burden patients, and limit access to evidence-based, safe, and accepted abortion services for patients.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

State of Tennessee, et al., v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, et al. (Filed: 3/26/2025) 
The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) imposes numerous safeguards to protect patients’ health data and enable the electronic exchange of such data. In 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services engaged in rulemaking to establish the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which prohibits covered entities from disclosing or using one’s protected health information (PHI), with limited exceptions to allow for the release of data for law enforcement purposes. To address the fear that permitting access to PHI under the law enforcement exception for the purpose of prosecuting the provision of abortion care would undermine the central goal of HIPAA, HHS engaged in further rulemaking in 2024 to finalize changes to the HIPAA Privacy Rule that would strengthen protections to PHI related to reproductive health care.

Specifically, the regulation prohibits covered entities from using and/or disclosing PHI “for criminal, civil, or administrative investigations or proceedings against persons for seeking, obtaining, providing, or facilitating reproductive health care that is lawful under the circumstances in which it is provided.” In January 2025, Tennessee, joined by 14 other states, filed a lawsuit against HHS challenging the 2024 reproductive health Privacy Rule update. The lawsuit challenges the legitimacy of the update as violating the Administrative Procedures Act, exceeding HHS’ statutory authority under HIPAA, alleging that it is arbitrary and capricious, and inappropriately inhibits states’ ability to gather information in policing serious misconduct.

ACP has extensive policy supporting access to reproductive health care and family planning service, as well as privacy protections for reproductive health data. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that HIPAA is the product of substantial and considered legislative and regulatory collaboration and provides a consistent and reliable framework for regulating the use and disclosure of PHI. They further argue that invalidating the HIPAA Privacy rule would lead to a data lockdown, stalling medical research and undermining essential patient care.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Carmen Purl, M.D., et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. (Filed: 3/10/2025)
The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) imposes numerous safeguards to protect patients’ health data and enable the electronic exchange of such data. In 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services engaged in rulemaking to establish the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which prohibits covered entities from disclosing or using one’s protected health information (PHI), with limited exceptions to allow for the release of data for law enforcement purposes. To address the fear that permitting access to PHI under the law enforcement exception for the purpose of prosecuting the provision of abortion care would undermine the cental goal of HIPAA, HHS engaged in further rulemaking in 2024 to finalize changes to the HIPAA Privacy Rule that would strengthen protections to PHI related to reproductive health care. Specifically, the regulation prohibits covered entities from using and/or disclosing PHI “for criminal, civil, or administrative investigations or proceedings against persons for seeking, obtaining, providing, or facilitating reproductive health care that is lawful under the circumstances in which it is provided.” In October 2024, Dr. Carmen Purl, a family medicine physician practicing in Texas, filed a lawsuit against HHS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Texas challenging the 2024 reproductive health Privacy Rule update. The lawsuit challenges the legitimacy of the 2024 Privacy Rule update as exceeding HHS’ statutory authority under HIPAA and the Administrative Procedures Act.

ACP has extensive policy supporting access to reproductive health care and family planning service, as well as privacy protections for reproductive health data. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that HIPAA is the product of substantial and considered legislative and regulatory collaboration and provides a consistent and reliable framework for regulating the use and disclosure of PHI. They further argue that invalidating the HIPAA Privacy rule would lead to a data lockdown, stalling medical research and undermining essential patient care.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Amy Bryan, M.D., v. Timothy K. Moore, et al, and Joshua H. Stein, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the state of North Carolina, et al. (Filed: 10/17/2024)
In May 2023, the North Carolina state legislature passed Senate Bill 20, imposing new restrictions to obtaining abortion care in the state. The governor vetoed the bill, but both houses voted to override the veto, and the law went into effect. The law prohibits abortions after 12 weeks with limited exceptions, creates a more stringent waiting period, and imposes new reporting requirements on physicians performing abortions. The law also creates a waiting period for medication abortion, and it may only be administered in-person following an in-person examination. A U.S. District Judge issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing the in-person prescribing and administration requirement, the requirement for physicians to prescribe the drug, and the requirement for an in-person follow up appointment, finding that these state laws are preempted by federal law. The district judge did leave in place the state law requiring an in-person consultation and 72-hour waiting period, finding that FDA regulation of mifepristone did not address these components of the law. All parties appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which is where this brief will be filed on behalf of Dr. Bryant and preserving access to medication abortion.

ACP has extensive policy on access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that Mifepristone has been thoroughly studied and is conclusively safe, and the FDA has already concluded that there is no scientific basis for any of North Carolina’s regulations.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

State of Idaho v. United States of America (Filed: 3/28/2024)
In March 2020, the governor of Idaho signed into law a trigger bill that would institute a near-total ban on abortion in the state. Prior to the provisions of the law going into effect with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, HHS released guidance clarifying the responsibility of hospitals and medical professionals under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA requires health professionals to provide abortion services if it is required to stabilize the patient’s condition, regardless of any underlying state law. The U.S. filed a lawsuit against Idaho alleging that the state law conflicted with federal law under EMTALA, and a preliminary injunction was issued blocking the Idaho law from going into effect. This brief will be filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the U.S. and protecting access to necessary health care services.

ACP has extensive policy on access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the Idaho law criminalizes care required under EMTALA, as pregnant patients can require stabilizing care in emergency medical situations. They further argue that pregnant people are experiencing negative consequences as a result of the Idaho law, which disproportionately harms rural and poor pregnant people and pregnant people of color.

United States of America v. State of Idaho and Mike Moyle, Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives; Chuck Winder, President Pro Tempore of the Idaho Senate; The Sixty-Seventh Idaho Legislature (Filed: 10/22/2024) 
In June 2024, the Supreme Court of the U.S. dismissed this case, finding the decision to hear the case was improvidently granted. The Supreme Court also vacated its stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction, allowing pregnant people in Idaho to continue to obtain emergency abortion care as the case continues to be litigated. Because the Supreme Court did not rule on the facts of the case, the case was sent down to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to be litigated, which is where this brief was filed.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

State of Texas, et al., v. Amanda Zuraski, et al. (Filed: 11/21/2023)
This case involves various Texas laws restricting abortion, including S.B. 8, which bans abortions after the fetal heartbeat is detectible, and H.B. 1280, which makes it illegal to perform an abortion after the point of conception. In March 2023, a lawsuit was filed seeking the state of Texas to clarify the scope of the “medical emergency” exceptions under the various abortion laws and to request a temporary injunction blocking the bans for pregnancy complications while the case was being heard. A District Court judge issued a temporary injunction order blocking the bans as they pertain to pregnancy complications and found S.B. 8 to be unconstitutional. The Texas Attorney General appealed the decision directly to the Texas Supreme Court, which is where this brief will be filed.

ACP has extensive policy on access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the laws prevent patients from obtaining necessary care and force clinicians to make an impossible choice between upholding their ethical obligations and following the law. They further argue that the bans undermine the physician-patient relationship and will diminish the availability of OB-GYN care for all Texans, disproportionately impacting people of color, people living in rural areas, and people with low incomes.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. v. Food and Drug Administration, et al.; Danco Laboratories, LLC (Filed: 4/11/2023)
This case involves mifepristone, one of two drugs currently used in the typical regiment for chemically inducing an abortion. In late 2022, a group of anti-abortion medical groups filed a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone in 2000, alleging that the FDA gave in to political pressure and did not appropriately assess the safety of the drug in granting its approval. This brief will be filed on behalf of the FDA and the manufacturer of mifepristone in an appeal of a Texas judge’s ruling to suspend FDA approval of the drug.

ACP has extensive policy on access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In particular, ACP policy opposes restrictions to one’s right to access abortion services, including medication abortion. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that providers affirm the safety and effectiveness of mifepristone, that mifepristone is a standard treatment not only for abortion, but also for early pregnancy loss, and that the availability of mifepristone is essential to protect patient autonomy.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Danco Laboratories, LLC., v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. and Food and Drug Administration, et al., v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. (Filed: 4/14/2023)
After a Texas judge issued a preliminary injunction to suspend FDA approval of Mifepristone, the drug’s manufacturer and the FDA applied for emergency relief in the Supreme Court to stay the injunction to suspend approval as the case moves through the courts. This brief was filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the FDA and the manufacturer of mifepristone to stay the injunction to suspend FDA approval of the drug.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. South Carolina (Filed: 9/16/2022)
This case challenges a South Carolina state law that prohibits an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, with limited exceptions. ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that abortion is a safe, common, and essential component of health care and that the state’s prohibitions are lacking medical and scientific justification.

Further, this ban will harm pregnant patients’ health and well-being and would particularly negatively impact racial and ethnic minorities, rural, and low-income pregnant people. Additionally, the law would interfere in the patient-physician relationship by making medical professionals choose between violating the law or violating biomedical ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and autonomy.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Planned Parenthood of Montana v. Montana (Filed: 3/28/2022)
This case challenges three different Montana state laws, including: 1) a prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks gestational age, with limited exceptions; 2) a requirement that medical professionals offer individuals obtaining an abortion to view ultrasound images and listen to fetal heartbeats prior to the abortion; and 3) a requirement that abortion inducing drugs be distributed by a qualified medical practitioner, with certain requirements and measures that the qualified medical practitioner must take in distributing the medication. Violations of these laws would be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties.

ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the state’s alleged interests are unsupported by medical evidence, the restrictions undermine the patient-physician relationship, and that the restrictions impede access to reproductive health care services and disproportionately impact marginalized pregnant people.

Planned Parenthood of Montana and Samuel Dickman, M.D., v. State of Montana (Filed: 8/14/2024)
In August 2022, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a district court’s preliminary injunction blocking the three abortion restriction laws from going into effect. In February 2024, a district court in Montana granted summary judgement for Planned Parenthood of Montana and permanently enjoined the three laws from being implemented. The state appealed this decision to the Montana Supreme Court, which is where this updated brief will be filed on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Montana and protecting access to reproductive health care services.

In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the abortion restriction laws have no medical justification and would disproportionately affect patients living in rural areas and those with fewer resources. They further argue that the laws would undermine physicians’ ability to perform their jobs and violate the principles of beneficence and respect for patient autonomy.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Filed: 9/20/2021)
This case challenges a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortions beyond 15 weeks from gestation with limited exceptions for cases of medical emergency. Physicians violating this law would be subject to professional penalties, including revocation of their medical license. A U.S. District court struck down the law in 2018, and this decision was upheld by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In May 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the state of Mississippi’s cert petition and this amicus brief was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, a Mississippi physician and clinic that provide abortion services.

ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that abortion is a safe and essential component of health care and that scientific evidence conclusively demonstrates that a fetus is not viable at fifteen weeks. Furthermore, it is argued that this law could have harmful impacts on pregnant patients’ physical and psychological health and would force physicians to make an impossible choice between upholding their ethical obligations and adhering to state law.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Isaacson, et al., v. Brnovich, et al. (Filed: 12/27/2021)
This case challenges a 2021 Arizona law revising existing state statutes which would prohibit physicians from performing an abortion if they know that the mother’s reason for seeking is due to a non-lethal genetic abnormality of the fetus and redefine personhood to extend legal protections to a fetus regardless of gestational age, embryos, and fertilized eggs. The law was challenged and a district judge issued a partial preliminary injunction but allowed the personhood aspect of the law to remain intact as the case proceeds through the legal process.

This injunction was challenged by the state of Arizona and this brief was filed in the appeals court. ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the law would criminalize routine medical procedures, limit access to necessary care, and infringe upon the integrity of the medical profession.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al., v. Wilson, McMaster, Cook, et al. (Filed: 9/8/2021)
This case challenges a 2021 South Carolina law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectible and audible, typically around six weeks, with limited exceptions for medical emergencies. This brief was filed on behalf of plaintiffs in an appeal against a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the law.

ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the law has no evidence-based health justification, will endanger women’s physical and psychological health, and will place physicians in an ethically compromised position.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and Julie Edwards v. Thomas Clark Phillip, JR (Filed: 6/4/2021)
This case challenges a 2018 South Carolina executive order directing the Department of Health and Human Services to “deem abortion clinics…and any affiliated physicians or professional medical practices…enrolled in the Medicaid program as unqualified to provide family planning services. In 2020, a U.S. District judge issued a ruling which permanently enjoined the state’s restrictions, and this brief was filed on behalf of plaintiffs against South Carolina’s appeal of this ruling.

ACP has extensive policy on funding for women’s health clinics and women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that Medicaid and Planned Parenthood are integral to providing health care in South Carolina, the state has provided no medical reason for excluding Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid program, and that this exclusion would be detrimental to public health in South Carolina.

Eunice Medina, in her official capacity as Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al. (Filed: 3/12/2025)
In March 2022, the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion that individual Medicaid beneficiaries can bring civil lawsuits to enforce their “choice-of-provider” rights and ruled that South Carolina cannot revoke Planned Parenthood’s status as a Medicaid participant in the state. South Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services filed petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court and it was granted. This brief was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Planned Parenthood and the lower courts’ rulings that South Carolina cannot exclude clinicians and sites that provide abortion care from participating in the state’s Medicaid program.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, et al., v. Kristi Noem, Alpha Center, et al. (Filed: 3/24/2022)
This case involves a 2011 South Dakota law instituting a 72-hour waiting period for individuals seeking an abortion beginning after a required in-person consultation. The law additionally required physicians to determine whether the individual was seeking an abortion out of coercion and to provide information to state-registered pregnancy help centers. While the 72-hour waiting period became law, the consultation requirement was enjoined by a temporary injunction. This brief was filed in a 2021 appeal of a ruling sustaining the temporary injunction.

ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the consultation and waiting period requirements violate principles of informed consent, intrude on the patient-physician relationship, and will cause serious harms to patients.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Center, et al., v. Brian Kemp, et al. (Filed: 2/23/2021)
This case challenges a 2019 Georgia law which requires physicians to determine the presence of a heartbeat before performing an abortion procedure and prohibits the provision of an abortion if a heartbeat is detected, with exceptions for medically futile pregnancies and cases of incest or rape. The law also changes the state’s definition of a “natural person” to specifically include “any human being including an unborn child.”

This amicus brief was filed on behalf of plaintiffs, Georgia physicians and clinics providing abortion services, in a state appeal of a District Court ruling permanently blocking implementation of the law. ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the state has unlawfully banned pre-viability abortion; and that the law would prohibit nearly all abortions in Georgia, endanger patients’ health, and impinge upon the integrity of the medical profession.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.

The United States of America v. Texas, et al. (Filed: 10/11/21)
This case challenges a 2021 Texas law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected with exceptions only for medical emergencies that endanger the pregnant person’s life. This law creates a private right of action that empowers private citizens, and not government officials, to sue any physician who provides a prohibited abortion, without having any connection to those involved with the abortion procedure.

It also goes beyond other similar bills in that individuals who assist one in obtaining a prohibited abortion are assigned liability as well. This brief was filed on behalf of plaintiffs in an appeal by Texas against a district judge’s preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law. ACP has extensive policy on women’s access to reproductive health care and family planning services and opposing interference in the patient-physician relationship. In this amicus brief, the interested parties argue that the bill harms pregnant patients’ health by effectively banning abortion services and violates bedrock principles of medical ethics including respect for patient autonomy and beneficence and non-maleficence.

See additional relevant ACP advocacy in the Access to Care section.