Laws that undermine reproductive health, rights and justice deprive people of moral agency, rob us of control over our bodies, and compound other forms of oppression including racism, sexism, and poverty.
Our mission is to eliminate these laws and the harmful impacts they have on people’s lives. We are especially focused on laws that limit the availability or affordability of abortion care; contribute to disparities in reproductive health outcomes; embody gender-based stereotypes; or discriminate against people based on their reproductive decisions.
Our goal is a legal system that enables each of us to make decisions about intensely personal matters like sex, pregnancy, family, and health care based on our own beliefs and values—and ensures that we all have the resources we need to carry those decisions out.
Where We Work
We work throughout the United States to improve access to reproductive health care. Our clients include health care providers, abortion funds and practical support networks, governmental entities, scientific researchers, religious congregations, and people seeking abortion care.
In Caring Families Pregnancy Services Inc. v. City of Hartford, we defended a municipality’s efforts to protect consumers from deceptive practices by pregnancy resource centers, some of which present themselves as health care facilities but do not have licensed medical professionals on site.
In Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. Rokita, we are challenging laws that place arbitrary limits on the availability of abortion care and undermine the dignity of people seeking abortions. These include TRAP laws; laws that deny abortion patients the benefits of scientific progress; biased counseling and waiting-period laws; laws that burden adolescents who lack parental support; and laws that criminalize abortion care.
In Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Azar, we are challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine Title X—a federal grant program dedicated to ensuring that low-income people have access to comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services—by placing ideologically-driven limitations on health care providers’ participation and preventing beneficiaries from obtaining accurate information about where they can obtain abortion care.
In Doe v. Minnesota, we are challenging decades-old abortion laws that are out of step with contemporary medical practice, reflect antiquated views about gender and sexuality, and fail to honor the diverse religious traditions of Minnesota residents. These laws include a physician-only law; unnecessary hospitalization requirements; biased counseling and waiting-period requirements; a law requiring burial or cremation of fetal tissue; and a law requiring adolescents to notify both of their parents before ending an unwanted pregnancy.
In Whole Woman’s Health v. Smith, we are challenging a set of Texas laws that require healthcare providers to bury or cremate embryonic and fetal tissue following an abortion or miscarriage, regardless of their patients’ wishes.
In Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. Paxton (“The People’s Lawsuit”), we are working to dismantle the vast infrastructure of arbitrary abortion restrictions that Texas has erected over decades. The laws we are challenging include TRAP laws; laws that deny abortion patients the benefits of scientific progress; biased counseling and waiting-period laws; and laws that burden adolescents who lack parental support, as well as a policy denying University of Texas students credit for internships and field placements with organizations that support abortion rights.