ACLU Comment on Stay Issued by Supreme Court in Medication Abortion Case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court granted a request from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Danco today to stay a decisions issued the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that severely restricted the use of mifepristone — a medication used in most abortions in this country — and threatened the innovation of new drugs and the ability of Americans to access lifesaving drugs.
In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, issued the following statement:
“This is very welcome news, but it’s frightening to think that Americans came within hours of losing access to a medication that is used in most abortions in this country and has been used for decades by millions of people to safely end a pregnancy or treat a miscarriage. Patients shouldn’t have to monitor Twitter to see whether they can get the care they need.
“Make no mistake, we aren’t out of the woods by any means. This case, which should have been laughed out of court from the very start, will continue on. And as this baseless lawsuit shows, extremists will use every trick in the book to try to ban abortion nationwide. But if our opponents think we will allow them to continue to pursue their extreme goals without fierce backlash, they are sorely mistaken. Their efforts to prevent us from making our own decisions about whether to have a child are deeply unpopular, and we’ll keep doing everything in our power to work toward a world where everyone can actually make these decisions for themselves.”
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
Related Content
-
ArizonaMay 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Isaacson v. Arizona
Arizona doctors filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down many remaining abortion restrictions and further expand access to care in the state. One such restriction forces patients to unnecessarily make two separate trips to a clinic, delaying access to time-sensitive care for days, if not weeks. The lawsuit argues that these medically unnecessary restrictions make it harder to access abortion care and thus violate the state’s new constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion.Status: Ongoing -
Press ReleaseMay 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Alabama Court Blocks Attempt to Impose Onerous, Unnecessary Hospital Regulations on Midwives and Birth Centers
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — An Alabama trial court issued a ruling yesterday permanently blocking the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) from regulating freestanding birth centers like hospitals and imposing onerous licensing rules that would have made it effectively impossible for these centers to provide evidence-based midwifery care in the state. The ruling ensures that plaintiffs Oasis Family Birthing Center in Birmingham and Alabama Birth Center in Huntsville, which have been safely operating for the past year, may continue providing midwifery care to pregnant Alabamians. The decision from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court that the Alabama Legislature never authorized ADPH to regulate midwifery care in birth centers, leaving that responsibility to the Board of Midwifery and other professional licensing boards in the state. Under the terms of a preliminary injunction issued in 2023, two birth centers — Oasis Family Birthing Center and Alabama Birth Center — are now open and providing much-needed care in their communities, in accordance with evidence-based standards set by the American Association of Birth Centers. Birth centers play a critical role in providing care for low-risk pregnant Alabamians. Expanding access to this care is especially important in light of Alabama’s ongoing maternal and infant health crisis, which disproportionately harms Black women and families, low-income communities, Today’s decision will allow even more Alabamians to access this essential care, and the way for more birth centers to open in the state. Statement from Whitney White, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project: “We are elated that the dedicated midwives at Alabama’s birth centers can continue to provide crucial care to pregnant Alabamians across the state without undue interference. Midwifery care in birth centers is safe, can improve patient outcomes, and can play a critical role in expanding access to equitable pregnancy care in Alabama. This ruling ensures that these essential health care providers will be able to continue serving their communities.” Statement from JaTaune Bosby Gilchrist, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama: "This ruling is a powerful affirmation of what birth workers, families, and communities across Alabama have long known: midwife-led care is essential. As hospitals and obstetric services close across the state—particularly in rural areas—birth centers and midwives are stepping in to fill a dangerous gap in access. In a state facing a maternal health crisis, we need more options, not fewer. This decision brings us one step closer to ensuring that safe, accessible, and community-based birthing care is available to everyone who needs it." The birth centers’ lawsuit was filed after ADPH created significant uncertainty around the legal status of birth centers that provide midwife-led care by asserting that all such birth centers require a “hospital” license, even though they exclusively provide midwifery care to low-risk patients using a model of care that is safely provided in out-of-hospital settings across the country. ADPH’s actions abruptly shut down operations for the one birth center then-operating in Alabama, despite a perfect safety record. The de facto ban on this essential care was especially harmful in Alabama, which has some of the highest maternal and infant health rates in the country, with Black women and infants making up a disproportionate share of deaths. One factor playing into this concerning trend is inadequate access to pregnancy-related care, including the growing number of maternal health deserts in the state and closures of hospital labor and delivery units. The lawsuit, Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public Health, was 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. A copy of the ruling can be found here. An overview of the case can be found here.Court Case: Oasis Family Birthing Center et. al. v. Alabama Department of Public HealthAffiliate: Alabama -
Court CaseApr 2025
Reproductive Freedom
National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association v. Kennedy
The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), the lead national advocacy organization for the Title X family planning program, and the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over its unlawful withholding of $65.8 million in Title X federal family planning grants. Title X is the country’s only dedicated federally funded family planning program that provides access to preventive care like birth control, cancer screening, and STI screening and treatment, with priority given to patients with low incomes. As a result of the Trump administration’s unlawful actions, at least seven states — California, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Utah — have been left without any Title X-funded family planning services, and approximately 842,000 people have lost access to Title X-funded care.Status: Ongoing -
Press ReleaseApr 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Federal Court Rules People Cannot be Prosecuted for Helping Pregnant Alabamians Obtain Out-of-State Abortions
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A federal judge has issued a ruling making it clear that Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and district attorneys across the state cannot prosecute individuals, including health care providers and reproductive justice organizations, for helping pregnant Alabamians travel across state lines to access abortion care in states where abortion is legal. A group of health care providers filed this lawsuit in 2023 after Attorney General Marshall explicitly threatened that anyone who assists a pregnant Alabamian in accessing legal, out-of-state abortion care could face felony charges. As the federal court held today, the attorney general’s threats blatantly violate the constitutional rights to free speech and to travel freely across state lines. In the ruling, Judge Myron Thompson said, “At its core, this case is simply about whether a State may prevent people within its borders from going to another State, and from assisting others in going to another State, to engage in lawful conduct there. . . . The court now answers no, a State cannot.” Due to Attorney General Marshall’s threats, Alabama health care providers were forced to stop providing crucial information, counseling, and practical support to Alabamians seeking to exercise their constitutional right to travel and obtain legal abortion care outside Alabama. Abortion was outlawed in Alabama in 2022 after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, so the ability to safely access out-of-state abortion is critical for patients in Alabama seeking that care. As a result of today’s decision, local health care providers are once again able to share information about and recommendations for specific, trusted out-of-state abortion providers, as well as financial and practical support resources, and can directly assist pregnant people in traveling across state lines, without the threat of criminal prosecution. Statement from Robin Marty, executive director, West Alabama Women’s Center: “We are thrilled that, with the court’s decision today, we are once again able to inform our patients and other pregnant Alabamians about where and how to safely obtain legal, time-sensitive abortion care outside of Alabama, and to point them towards resources that can help them in traveling across state lines to access that care. Health care providers should be able to support their patients in accessing all of their legally available medical care options without undue political interference, and certainly without the threat of criminal prosecution. While there’s still a long way to go in making that a reality in Alabama, today’s ruling is a step in the right direction.” Statement from Dr. Yashica Robinson, medical director, Alabama Women’s Center: “As medical professionals, we have an obligation to ensure that our patients have the information and support they need in order to make and effectuate their own decisions about their health, their bodies and their pregnancies, including the decision to have an abortion. The notion of criminalizing us for providing this vital information and support to our patients is not just ludicrous but counter to everything a patient expects from their health care provider. We are relieved that, with today’s ruling, we will once again be able to provide our patients and the communities we serve with the assistance that we feel ethically obligated to provide, without the threat of being thrown in jail for doing so.” Statement from Meagan Burrows, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project: “We are pleased that the court has put a stop to Attorney General Marshall’s attempt to prevent pregnant Alabamians from accessing the legal, out-of-state abortion care they need. The court’s decision today should send a strong message to any and all anti-abortion politicians who are considering similar efforts to muzzle health care providers or penalize those who assist others in crossing state lines to obtain legal abortion: such attacks on free speech and the fundamental right to travel fly in the face of the Constitution and cannot stand.” Statement from Alison Mollman, legal director, ACLU of Alabama: “The court’s decision today allows health care providers and others to resume providing vital information and assistance to those seeking to travel across state lines to access legal abortion care. This decision is certainly a win, but the fact of the matter is that abortion remains out of reach for Alabamians who are often unable to jump through the logistical hoops necessary to take time away from their jobs and families and make the often lengthy and expensive trip out of state for abortion. In a state like Alabama, which has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the nation, the inability to access this often life-saving care can have grave consequences. While we breathe a sigh of relief today, we won’t stop fighting until true reproductive freedom for every Alabamian is secured.” This information and direct support are essential for those who need to travel to access abortion care. Indeed, without such assistance, pregnant people living in states that have banned abortion, like Alabama, will be significantly delayed in finding and accessing safe out-of-state abortion care, and potentially even forced to give birth against their will. This could have deadly consequences for Alabamians as a state that has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the nation. The lawsuit, West Alabama Women’s Center, et al. v. Marshall, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama in Montgomery by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Alabama on behalf of West Alabama Women’s Center, Dr. Yashica Robinson, and Alabama Women’s Center. A similar case was filed in federal court by the Lawyering Project on behalf of the Yellowhammer Fund. The cases were consolidated and decided together.Court Case: West Alabama Women’s Center, et al. v. Marshall, et al.Affiliate: Alabama