HHS Says Illinois Right to Conscience Act Violates Federal Law

On January 21, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights sent a Notice of Violation (full text) to the state of Illinois. The Notice informs the state that HHS has found that the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act violates federal bans on discrimination against pro-life health care entities that do not refer patients elsewhere for abortions. The Illinois law generally provides a shield from liability to health care personnel that refuse on conscience grounds to perform abortions, but only if the objecting provider either refers or transfers the patient elsewhere or at least furnishes the patient written information about other health care providers who likely offer abortion services. In its Notice of Violation, HHS takes the position that discriminating against entities that do not "refer" out for abortions includes denying legal defenses to entities that do not either transfer patients to another provider or give patents written information about alternative providers. ADF issued a press release discussing HHS's action.

Anti-Abortion Sidewalk Counselor Loses Challenge to City's Sign Ordinance

In Hamann v. City of Carbondale, Illinois, (SD IL, Jan. 21, 2026), an Illinois federal district court refused to preliminarily enjoin the city of Carbondale's sign ordinance. The Ordinance prohibits plaintiff, a Christian minister, from temporarily placing his anti-abortion signs in the ground on public property near an abortion clinic while he is attempting to persuade women not to have an abortion. Under the Ordinance, he can carry or wear the signs but cannot place them into the ground. The court rejected plaintiff's claims that the Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and violates his free speech rights. It concluded that the Ordinance is a permissible time, place and manner regulation of speech in a public forum. The court went on in part:

Hamman’s final argument advances a theory of viewpoint discrimination based on the City’s “policy of inaction” towards signs that share messages other than his.... He submitted photos of three temporary signs he found throughout Carbondale which, he believes, were placed in the public right of way and not removed the way his were. From there, he contends that the City engaged in a “targeted campaign of enforcement” against his signs based on their anti-abortion messages....

Hamman acknowledges that he does not know how long these signs had been in the public right of way when he photographed them. This, then, leaves open the possibility that the City had not had time to remove them—something that, Lenzini explained, can happen from time to time. Surely, if these signs had been placed in the public right of way with the City’s permission, or been left there after the City became aware of them, such evidence would support Hamman’s claim of selective enforcement. But the record reveals no such evidence....

7th Circuit: Satanic Temple Lacks Standing to Challenge Indiana's Ban on Telehealth Abortion [CORRECTED]

 In Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Rokita, (7th Cir., Jan. 6, 2026), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that The Satanic Temple lacks standing to bring suit claiming that Indiana's ban on telehealth prescribing of abortion medications violates Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Satanic Temple's beliefs are described by the court:

Members of the Satanic Temple adhere to Seven Tenets.... Tenet III establishes the belief that one’s body is inviolable and subject to one’s own will alone.  Another, Tenet V, establishes that individual beliefs should conform to an individual’s “best scientific understanding of the world” and that each person “should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s own belief.” The Satanic Temple says these Tenets support what it calls the “Satanic Abortion Ritual,” a meditative ritual intended to “cast off notions of guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that a patient may be experiencing due to choosing to have a medically safe and legal abortion.”...

The court concluded that The Satanic Temple had not show any injury in fact to it or any of its members, saying in part: 

Instead of identifying an individual member who has suffered an injury, the Satanic Temple relies on statistical probability to show it has some unnamed members who might be injured....

... [W]e are left with a simple estimate of women who may be involuntarily pregnant, and there is no evidence that any one of them would want to obtain an abortion. Simply put, missing here is evidence that any member of the Satanic Temple has “personally … suffered some actual or threatened injury.”...

As a backstop argument, the Satanic Temple claims “Indiana[’s] Abortion Ban” has caused all of its members to “suffer the stigma of being evil people because they do not believe a human being comes into existence at conception nor do they believe abortion is homicide.” ...  But, other than merely saying so, the Satanic Temple provides no evidence that its members have actually suffered stigmatic injury. ...

The Satanic Temple argues the threat of prosecution ... “if” it prescribes abortifacients via telehealth appointments in Indiana is enough to show an injury to support its pre-enforcement challenge. There is no evidence, however, that the Satanic Temple will knowingly or intentionally prescribe abortifacients in violation of § 16-34-2-1 to face the prospect of prosecution. Indeed, it has not provided affidavits, declarations, or other evidence describing any specific, concrete plans of doing so.

Catholic Vote reports on the decision.

[Post was corrected to indicate that the decision was from the 7th Circuit, not the 6th Circuit.]

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Church's Standing to Challenge Health Insurance Mandate

Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland v. Kuderer (video of full oral arguments). In March 2025, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that the Assembly of God Church which opposes abortion and some forms of contraception lacked standing to challenge Washington's Reproductive Parity Act which requires health insurance carriers to provide coverage for contraceptives and abortions. A second state statute allows insurance companies to offer employee plans that accommodate a church's religious objections, so long as employees can separately access coverage for such services from the insurer. However, plaintiff church had been unable to find a plan that accommodates its objections. (See prior posting.) Plaintiff filed a petition for an en banc rehearing by the 9th Circuit (full text). In July 2025, the 9th Circuit withdrew its earlier opinion and ordered the new oral argument which took place yesterday. ADF issued a press release containing further background on the case and links to some of the pleadings in the case.

Wyoming Supreme Court Strikes Down State's Abortion Bans

In State of Wyoming v. Johnson, (WY Sup. Ct., Jan 6, 2026), the Wyoming Supreme Court by a vote of 4-1 held that Wyoming's nearly total abortion ban and its medication abortion ban violate Art. I, §38, of the Wyoming Constitution which provides that every competent adult has the right to make his or her health care decision, subject to reasonable and necessary restrictions imposed by the legislature. The majority opinion for 3 justices held that the decision whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman's own health care decision, and the right to make health care decisions protected by Art. I, §38 is a fundamental right. The majority rejected the state's argument that abortion is not health care and is not the woman's own health care decision since a fetus is involved.

The majority went on to hold that restricting a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny and the state had not shown that the state's abortion laws are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The majority rejected the state's argument that the statutory exceptions to the abortion ban make the law narrowly tailored to protect unborn life without unduly infringing on a woman’s fundamental right to make the health care decision to have an abortion.

Justice Fenn filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I agree with the majority the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman’s own health care decision....  However, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that strict scrutiny applies to the right recognized in Article 1, § 38 of the Wyoming Constitution.  I would find Article 1, § 38 allows the legislature to enact reasonable and necessary restrictions that do not unduly infringe on the right to make one’s own health care decisions.  Because the State failed to meet its burden of proving the Abortion Statutes meet this standard, I would find the statutes are unconstitutional and affirm the district court’s decision.

Justice Gray filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I ... do not dispute that article 1, section 38 creates a fundamental right to make one’s own health care decisions.  I disagree, however, that strict scrutiny applies.  Under the plain terms of article 1, section 38(c), a restriction on a competent adult’s right to make his or her own health care decisions will pass constitutional muster if the legislature could “determine” such restriction was “reasonable and necessary . . . to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.”  When properly construed, the abortion statutes constitute a “reasonable and necessary” restriction by the legislature on the right of a pregnant woman to make her own health care decisions for the purpose of preserving prenatal life at all stages of development.  The abortion statutes do not violate article 1, section 38. 

Wyoming Public Media reports on the decision.

Puerto Rico Recognizes Fetal Personhood

 As reported by the San Juan Daily Star, on Dec. 21 Puerto Rico's Governor Jenniffer González Colón signed into law Senate Bill 504 (full text in Spanish) (full text unofficial English translation) declaring fetal personhood.  The law provides in part:

 ... Every human being is a natural person, including the one conceived at any stage of gestation within the mother's womb."...

Every human being has personality and legal capacity from the moment of conception and is a subject of law for all purposes that are favorable to him. The hereditary rights that the law recognizes in favor of the unborn are subordinate to the event of birth....

The rights recognized to the unborn child do not impair the power of the pregnant woman to make decisions about her pregnancy in accordance with the law....

A National Right to Life press release applauding the Governor's action said in part:

... This historic legal recognition marks one of the strongest pro‑life affirmations within U.S. jurisdictions. By explicitly acknowledging the inherent dignity and personhood of the preborn, Puerto Rico has taken a principled and scientifically grounded step to align its civil law with the biological reality that human life begins at fertilization. 

SB 504 amends the Civil Code to recognize the preborn child as a natural person from the moment of conception. While the law does not alter Puerto Rico’s current abortion statutes, it establishes an important legal and moral precedent by embedding recognition of the unborn child within the territory’s legal framework....

11th Circuit: Pedestrian Buffer Zone at Abortion Clinic's Parking Lot Entrance Violates Leafleters Free Speech Rights

In Florida Preborn Rescue, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Florida, (11th Cir., Dec. 4. 2025), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that a preliminary injunction should issue barring enforcement of a ban on pedestrians in the sidewalk crossing the 28 foot wide entrance to a local abortion clinic's parking lot, and for 5 feet of sidewalk on either side of the driveway. The majority said in part:

Florida Preborn has provided “uncontradicted testimony” that the buffer zone has effectively stifled sidewalk counselors’ ability to distribute literature to patients entering and exiting the clinic.  ...

Separately, it remains the case that, by its terms, the Ordinance forbids a clinic patient who has parked her car to approach sidewalk counselors to receive a leaflet....

We think it clear that the Ordinance burdens substantially more speech—namely, the sidewalk counselors’ leafletting activities—than is necessary to achieve the government’s asserted interest in promoting vehicular safety....  

Dispositively here, the city failed to adequately consider alternative measures....

Judge Abudu dissented, saying in part:

The record shows that counselors wait in brightly colored vests at the edge of the driveway, offering materials to patients driving into the clinic.  If the patients desire, they can stop, roll down their window, and engage with the leafleteers.  However, many choose not to do so. Thus, when balancing FPR’s right to communicate its message against the rights of patients and others not to engage, it is clear that there is no substantial burden on FPR’s ability to leaflet.    

Moreover, the fact that FPR has alternative channels of communication available further demonstrates why the Ordinance is constitutional.  As the district court found, the remaining portions of the driveway and adjacent sidewalk area are still available....

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision. 

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today in Appeal from Faith-Based Pregnancy Center Over Subpoena for Identity of Donors

The Supreme Court today hears oral arguments in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin. At issue in the case is an investigatory subpoena issued by the New Jersey Attorney General seeking the names of donors to First Choice, a faith-based pregnancy center. First Choice contends that the subpoena violates its First Amendment rights and the associational rights of its donors who are concerned about disclosure of their identities. The issue before the Supreme Court is one of whether the First Amendment question should be initially fought out in state or federal court. First Choice challenged the subpoena in federal district court. The Attorney General then filed a subsequent suit to enforce the subpoena in state court. The district court held that First Choice’s constitutional claims are not ripe in federal court because they can be litigated in the subsequently filed state court action. That holding was affirmed by the Third Circuit and is now before the Supreme Court.

Oral arguments, beginning at 10:00 Am, can be heard live at this link. Later today, a transcript and a recording of the oral arguments will be available from the Supreme Court's website here. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the filings in the case as well as to commentary.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of the full oral arguments. SCOTUSblog reports on the oral arguments.

2nd Circuit: Information About Abortion Pill Reversal Is Protected Speech

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. James, (2d Cir., Dec. 1, 2025), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court's preliminary injunction barring New York's attorney general from taking enforcement action to prevent the plaintiff religious organizations from disseminating information regarding abortion pill reversal. Finding, on the record before it, that plaintiffs' speech is fully protected by the 1st Amendment, the court said in part:

... [W]e conclude that the speech at issue is noncommercial based on the uncontroverted evidence in the current record demonstrating that the speech is religiously and morally motivated, the NIFLA plaintiffs receive no remuneration or financial benefit for engaging in it, and the NIFLA plaintiffs do not provide APR themselves, but rather provide the public with information about APR and access to third-party providers who can offer APR.  Put simply, in this context, these combined elements of the speech at issue here do not transform it into commercial speech for First Amendment purposes. 

To hold otherwise could potentially subject a sweeping range of non-profits to regulation of their speech for providing the public with information and resources concerning critical services.  This could include, depending, of course, on the particular facts and context of each situation, a reproductive rights group in a state with abortion restrictions that provides information about out-of-state organizations that will help women obtain the procedure for free; an LGBT rights group in a state with gender-affirming care restrictions that provides free information about out-of-state organizations that will help individuals seeking hormone therapy to obtain it; or a group that matches immigrants with organizations providing access to employment, English language classes, or immigration legal services.

Reuters reports on the decision.

State Department Human Rights Reports Will Have Changed Focus

Yesterday the State Department announced a change in focus for future Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The Daily Signal and the Washington Post report on new instructions and guidelines provided to U.S. embassies and consulates as they begin to prepare reports for their nations. As reported by The Daily Signal, the following will now be treated as human rights violations by foreign countries:

Sex-change procedures for minors, such as hormone replacement regimens or irreversible transgender surgeries.

Government funded abortions or abortifacient drugs, as well as the total estimated number of annual abortions.

Arrests, administrative penalties, and “official investigations or warnings” for speech or “hate speech.”

The enforcement of policies like affirmative action or diversity, equity, and inclusion that “provide preferential treatment” to workers on the basis of race, sex, or caste.

The facilitation of mass or illegal migration across a country’s territory into other countries.

Attempts to coerce individuals into engaging in euthanasia.

Violations of religious freedom, including antisemitic violence and harassment.

Medical abuses, including forced testing, forced organ harvesting, and eugenic gene-editing practices on human embryos.

According to the Washington Post:

In unveiling the dramatic shift, Trump administration officials offered an unapologetically U.S.-centric and religiously tinged view of human rights. “The United States remains committed to the Declaration of Independence’s recognition that all men are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights,” said a senior State Department official also involved with briefing the news media. The aim is to focus on rights “given to us by God, our creator, not by governments.”

North Dakota Supreme Court Upholds State's Abortion Ban

In Access Independent Health Services, Inc. v. Wrigley, (ND Sup. Ct., Nov. 21, 2025), the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed a trial court's decision that had invalidated North Dakota's statute that bans most abortions. While 3 of the Supreme Court's 5 justices held that the abortion law is unconstitutionally vague, North Dakota's constitution provides that it takes 4 of the Court's 5 justices to invalidate a law passed by the legislature. The Court's vote thus upholds the constitutionality of the ban. Justice Crothers' opinion for 3 justices said in part:

To the extent an abortion implicates a legal defense justifying or excusing the use of force, N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 introduces an apparent conflict of law in North Dakota. A physician who acts with an honest but mistaken belief that an abortion was necessary to protect the life or health of a pregnant patient would be guilty of a crime under the objective reasonableness standard set out by N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1. Simultaneously, under the subjective reasonableness standard that applies to defenses under N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-05, the same physician would be innocent because his belief that the abortion was necessary, although mistaken, was honest. On their face, these conflicting standards make it unclear whether a physician who performs an abortion in good faith will nonetheless suffer criminal penalties....

We agree with the district court that, in the context of medical care the Plaintiff physicians perform with the intent of protecting the lives and health of their patients, N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1, does not give fair warning and allows for discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement....

Justice Tufte writing for two justices, said in part:

I depart from the majority opinion in two significant respects. First, the majority opinion extends to the natural rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 1, the more stringent vagueness standard we have previously reserved for First Amendment rights that receive the additional protection of the chilling effect doctrine. Second, the majority opinion extends our precedent to allow a pre-enforcement facial challenge in which the challengers present only hypothetical future conduct as the basis for the testifying experts’ disagreement about the legal application of the statute. The parties’ presentation of witnesses having expertise in medicine or history who disagree about lawyer-crafted hypotheticals is not a sufficient basis for a court to declare a statute unconstitutionally vague....

The rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 1, are those natural rights as they were known to the people of North Dakota at the time the constitution was adopted. These natural rights were fixed at that time, and our judicial duty is to ensure that they “shall not be infringed.” These rights are protected from legislative overreach because they are excluded from the state’s broad legislative power.

 ... [T]he natural rights that every North Dakota citizen has “by nature” include an individual right to seek medical care without risk of criminal prosecution, including but not limited to abortion, when reasonably necessary to preserve the individual’s life.... Section 1 does not imply a right to abortion as such, and evolving public opinion on abortion cannot create one—only a constitutional amendment can do that.... Section 1 limits state power to regulate abortion where it is a necessary means to the constitutionally protected end of "defending life."

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange and Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

9th Circuit: Oregon Right to Life Group Is a Religious Organization

In Oregon Right to Life v. Stolfi, (9th Cir., Oct. 31, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, remanded the case to the district court for it to re-evaluate whether requiring Oregon Right to Life to furnish its employees with health insurance covering abortion and contraception violates its First Amendment rights. The majority said in part:

We agree with ORTL that its beliefs are religious and sincerely held.  In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, 605 U.S. 238 (2025), which reiterated the constitutional significance of exemptions granted to some religiously motivated organizations but not others, we return this case to the district court to reevaluate whether RHEA’s application to ORTL violates the First Amendment....

ORTL’s religious motivations and beliefs are overt and long-established.  They are announced throughout ORTL’s governing documents, shared by ORTL’s board, and have been publicly declared by ORTL since before this litigation....

Judge VanDyke filed a concurring opinion saying that he would also order the district court to enter a preliminary injunction because ORTL has shown a strong likelihood of success on its First Amendment claim.

Judge Schroeder filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The majority appears to suggest that the plaintiff, Oregon Right to Life, may have been wrongfully denied an exemption as a religious employer under Oregon’s Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA).  Yet Oregon Right to Life never asked to be considered a religious employer.  The case is thus unlike the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.... 

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

FDA Restrictions on Abortion Drug Held to Be Arbitrary and Capricious

 In Purcell v. Kennedy, (D HI, Oct. 30, 2025), a Hawaii federal district court, in a 79-page opinion, held that the FDA must re-evaluate the "Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy" which it has imposed for the use of mifepristone. The court said in part:

... [T]he court concludes that the Agency violated the APA by failing to provide a reasoned explanation for its restrictive treatment of the drug, which was compounded by its decision to limit the scope of information it considered when evaluating the REMS. More specifically, the Agency neglected to consider certain required statutory factors and generally failed to sufficiently explain the logic behind any reasoning it did provide, rendering the 2023 REMS Decision arbitrary and capricious.

The court ordered the FDA to reconsider its restrictions. ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.  [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

FDA Approves Generic Mifepristone

The pharmaceutical company Evita Solutions announced that last month the FDA approved its generic version of the abortion pill mifepristone. NBC News reporting on the FDA action said in part:

The FDA often issues a press release after new or significant drug approvals, but did not in this case....

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., the chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which oversees the FDA chimed in on X: “I fully support President Trump’s Pro-Life, Pro-Family agenda, but the FDA approving one more tool to kill babies is a betrayal. This is not what Commissioner Makary and Secretary Kennedy indicated they would do in their confirmation hearings.”

Insurance Abortion Coverage Mandate Does Not Violate Baptist Group's Rights

 In Illinois Baptist State Association v. Department of Insurance, (IL App., Oct. 1, 2025), an Illinois state appellate court held that a requirement imposed by the Illinois Department of Insurance that all health insurance policies regulated by it must cover abortion care does not infringe a Baptist organization's rights under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court said in part:

First, the Association is not legally required to provide its employees with health insurance. Second, the State will not assess any kind of monetary tax or penalty on the Association if it does not provide abortion insurance coverage to its employees. Third, if the Association decides to provide its employees with health insurance, it is not required by law to purchase a health insurance plan regulated by the Department. In other words, the Association is free to purchase health insurance, either out of state or through a self-funded or level-funded in-state plan, that does not include coverage for abortions without having to pay any kind of penalty or tax to the State....

This is not a situation where the Association could not find an affordable insurance policy. Based on the facts before us, we need not determine whether the lack of an affordable option could result in a different outcome....

Justice Steigmann filed a concurring opinion.

Texas Governor Signs Ban on Mail-Order Abortion Drugs

On Sept. 17, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 7 (full text), a complex 20-page law aimed at preventing the shipment from out-of-state of abortion-inducing drugs. The key section of the law provides:

... [A] person may not: (1) manufacture or distribute an abortion-inducing drug in this state; or (2) mail, transport, deliver, prescribe, or provide an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state....

The law then sets out lengthy lists of exceptions, including any action taken by a pregnant woman in attempting to induce an abortion.

The ban is enforceable through a qui tam action by any person, with certain exceptions. To deal with plaintiff's standing, the Act provides:

An action brought under this section must be brought in the name of the qui tam relator, who is an assignee of this state’s claim for relief. Notwithstanding any other law, the transfer of this state’s claim to the qui tam relator is absolute, with the state retaining no interest in the subject matter of the claim.

An action may not be brought against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, distributor or common carrier unless it is shown that the defendant failed to adopt and implement a policy to comply with the law.

If a plaintiff is successful, the court is to award not less than $100,000. If the plaintiff is the woman who was pregnant or a relative of the unborn child, plaintiff is to retain the entire award.  If the suit is brought by someone else, plaintiff is to retain $10,000 and the remainder is to be placed in trust for a charitable organization selected by plaintiff.

Reuters reports on the governor's action.

8th Circuit: Jury Should Decide If Anti-Abortion Facebook Posting Impacted Delivery of Public Services

In Melton v. City of Forrest City, Arkansas, (8th Cir., Aug. 13, 2025), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a district court should have sent factual questions to a jury instead of granting summary judgment in a retaliation suit by a fireman who was dismissed because of the firestorm caused by a controversial posting on his personal Facebook page. The fire chief had received complaints about the posting from city council members and members of the public. The court said in part:

Steven Melton is a pro-life, evangelical Christian.  In June 2020, he reposted a black-and-white image on Facebook that depicted a silhouette of a baby in the womb with a rope around its neck.  His intent was to convey that he was “anti-abortion.”...

Others did not view the image the same way.  Two weeks after he posted it, a retired fire-department supervisor complained to Melton that he thought it looked like a noose around the neck of a black child.  It upset him because the caption of the image, “I can’t breathe!,” was associated with the protests surrounding George Floyd’s death.  Melton agreed to delete it immediately....

The problem is that there was no showing that Melton’s post had an impact on the fire department itself.  No current firefighter complained or confronted him about it.  Nor did any co-worker or supervisor refuse to work with him.  Granting summary judgment based on such “vague and conclusory” concerns, without more, runs the risk of constitutionalizing a heckler’s veto.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Crisis Pregnancy Center Gets Injunction Against Abortion Reversal Ban

In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, (D CO, Aug. 1, 2025), the Colorado federal district court that had previously granted a preliminary injunction in the case now granted a permanent injunction barring enforcement against plaintiffs of Colorado's law that defines providing medication abortion reversal as unprofessional conduct by doctors, nurses and pharmacists. Bella Health operates two faith-based Catholic crisis pregnancy centers. The court said in part:

The parties do not dispute that Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs are sincerely held or that they are substantially burdened by application of Section Three and the Boards’ rules....  And it is not within the province of this Court to second-guess the truth of Bella Health’s religious callings or suggest alternative means of satisfying them.... The only question, therefore, is whether this section’s prohibition against medication abortion reversal is generally applicable to other non-religious uses of progesterone. It is not....

Overall, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Plaintiffs’ use of progesterone is not being regulated neutrally—it is being singled out....

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Missouri Sues Planned Parenthood for False Advertising

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced last week that the state of Missouri has filed suit against the national Planned Parenthood Association under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the state's consumer protection law.  The complaint (full text) in State of Missouri ex rel Bailey v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, (MO Cir. Ct., filed 7/23/2025), alleges that representations on Planned Parenthood's website about the safety of mifepristone, the pill used for chemical abortions, is "brazenly false". The complaint says in part:

25. Planned Parenthood’s statements are outright false, and at the very least unlawfully misleading, for a variety of reasons: i. The rate of emergency room visits is much higher for the abortion pill than the drugs Planned Parenthood cites as comparators; ii. Planned Parenthood is comparing a single dose of the abortion pill to overdoses (i.e. misuse) of other drugs, such as Tylenol; and iii. The abortion pill and other drugs have different uses, are administered differently, and are used by individuals who have different underlying comorbidities or risk factors.

The complaint seeks civil penalties of $1.8 million and restitution of $1000 for each woman in the state to whom Planned Parenthood has furnished mifepristone during the past five years. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Cutoff of Funding to All Planned Parenthood Clinics Enjoined

In Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy, (D MA, July 28, 2025), a Massachusetts federal district court in a 58-page opinion extended a preliminary injunction it had issued a week earlier barring Congress' defunding of Planned Parenthood clinics that do not offer abortions to preliminarily enjoin Congress's cutoff of funds for non-abortion services even to Planned Parenthood clinics that do offer abortions. the court said in part:

To the extent that Section 71113 may be applied to Planned Parenthood Members who do not provide abortion, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that the law impermissibly conditions the receipt of Medicaid reimbursements on these Members foregoing their right to associate with Planned Parenthood Federation and other Members...

... Instead of merely prohibiting Planned Parenthood Members that receive Medicaid funds from providing abortions, the statute prohibits them from affiliating with entities that do.... [R]estricting funds based on affiliation with an abortion provider operates only to restrict the associational right of Members that do not provide abortion. ...

... [I]n light of the disconnect between the law and its purported ends on the one hand, and the severe burdens it imposes on Planned Parenthood Federation and its Members on the other, Plaintiffs are likely to establish that Congress singled them out with punitive intent. The legislative context bolsters that conclusion. Plaintiffs have thus demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that Section 71113 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. ...

... Where Defendants have not shown the law is precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim.  

Moreover, Plaintiffs are likely to show that there is no rational relationship between the class burdened by Section 71113—comprised of 47 Planned Parenthood Members and two additional entities—and the goal of reducing abortion. As explained above, Section 71113 affects only a small number of abortion providers and leaves every other conceivable category unaffected.

ABC News reports on the decision.