Access to safe, quality reproductive health services, including abortion care and contraceptive care, is in jeopardy by litigation and state laws aiming to limit where and when an individual can seek effective reproductive health care. This is particularly true since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the federal right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade and led to the current fragmented landscape of state reproductive health policies. The coverage and provision of safe and effective reproductive health services is essential to an individual’s health and well-being.
Tracked Litigation
2:25-cv-00220
Davis v. Cooprider et al.
25-5738
Welty et al. v. Dunaway et al.
1:23-cv-00323
Matsumoto et al. v. Labrador
1:17-cv-00493
Purcell et al. v. Kennedy et al.
1:23-cv-03026
Washington et al. v. Food and Drug Administration et al.
3:24-cv-00768
Welty et al. v. Dunaway et al.
23-3787
Matsumoto et al. v. Labrador
1:23-cv-00077
Bryant v. Stein et al.
3:25-cv-00225
Rodriguez v. Coeytaux
1:25-cv-00015
St. Luke’s Health System, LTD. v. Labrador
24-01617
Bryant v. Stein et al.
5:22-cv-00185
State of Texas et al. v. Becerra et al.
1:22-cv-00329
United States v. State of Idaho
23-727
Idaho v. United States
2:24-cv-02335
Farmer v. University of Kansas Health System et al.
2:24-cv-00228
Purl et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services
23-35440
United States v. State of Idaho
2:23-cv-00450
Yellowhammer Fund v. Marshall
2:23-cv-00451
West Alabama Women’s Center et al. v. Marshall et al.
23-2194
GenBioPro Inc. v. Raynes et al.
3:23-cv-00058
GenBioPro, Inc. v. Raynes et al.
1:26-cv-00078