Developments in Abortion, Autonomy, and Access:
This week’s Digest covers litigation challenging the federal government’s attempts to withhold funding for healthcare, interstate conflicts over shield laws, new state-level regulations restricting care, and the Trump Administration’s move to strip veterans and their beneficiaries of abortion coverage in emergencies and cases of rape or incest. As always, please read on to the end for the news that you need to know.
Want access to a detailed analysis of the abortion law in every U.S. state and territory?Please view our free Policy Resource Hub for Reproductive Health, an exclusive legal database where we update the state of the law every single day - so you’re always up to speed.
Reproductive Rights and Health Equity News:
This Week’s Must-Read:
This week’s must-read comes from Time and tells the story of a woman who was denied prenatal care because she is unmarried. The provider reportedly told her that it goes against their Christian values to treat an unwed mother. She was not seeking an abortion - just standard prenatal care. However, Tennessee recently expanded its so-called “conscience” laws to allow providers to decline to provide or participate in any healthcare that “violates the conscience of the healthcare provider.” Historically conscience laws, which permit a provider to decline services that conflict with their sincerely held beliefs, have been cabined to narrow circumstances or specific types of care, like abortion. However, expansions like Tennessee’s could open the door to broad and arbitrary denials of care.
Legislation & Litigation
Overview:
A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general have brought a lawsuit against the Trump Administration over its attempt to ‘defund Planned Parenthood’ through the recently passed budget reconciliation bill;
Louisiana has passed two new laws restricting abortion. The first makes it easier for patients to bring lawsuits against out-of-state medication abortion providers, and the second expands the definition of ‘coerced abortion;’
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt passed an executive order restricting state Medicaid funds from going to entities affiliated with abortion;
State attorneys general filed a complaint against the Trump Administration over its intimidation of gender-affirming care providers, arguing that the government’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional protections;
The Trump Administration has announced its plans to cut abortion coverage for veterans and their dependents in medical emergencies or cases involving rape or incest;
A group of anti-abortion lawmakers have sent a letter to Congress urging it to pass a law preempting state shield laws;
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has filed a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood, arguing that their claims about the safety of mifepristone violate consumer protection laws; and
Nevada has reinstated parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortion care.
Democrat State Attorneys General Sue the Administration Over “Defunding” of Planned Parenthood:
A coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors are suing the Trump Administration over its attempt to defund Planned Parenthood through the recently-passed budget reconciliation bill. The lawsuit argues that the spending bill intentionally targets Planned Parenthood – even if it doesn't identify the entity by name – through its revocation of federal funding for entities that are associated with the provision of abortion and receive over $800,000 in Medicaid funding annually. The Complaint alleges a host of constitutional deficiencies, including a lack of due process, unconstitutional vagueness, and a First Amendment claim based on the targeting of Planned Parenthood for its advocacy activities. In a press conference about the lawsuit California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the following: “we need to just call it what it is: punishment for Planned Parenthood’s constitutionally protected advocacy for abortion.”
Planned Parenthood itself has filed a similar lawsuit challenging the same spending bill provision. In that case, Judge Indira Talwani has preliminarily blocked the provision from taking effect. Although the Trump Administration appears reticent to take anti-abortion action as overt as passing a federal abortion ban, actions like aggressively cutting Medicaid funding for providers are an effective backdoor way to legally enshrine restrictions on care.
Louisiana Passes Two New Laws Restricting Abortion:
Louisiana has passed two new laws targeting abortion care. The state is already enforcing a total abortion ban with exceptions only for the life or health of the patient. It has also aggressively pursued other legislative avenues for limiting access to abortion, including the reclassification of abortion pills as controlled substances. Last week, two new restrictive laws took effect. The first, HB 575, targets medication abortion providers by allowing Louisiana residents to sue out-of-state doctors and activists for providing them with abortion pills. It also expands the statute of limitations to file suit from three years to five years. The second bill, HB 425, expands the definition of ‘coerced abortion’ to include control or intimidation, as well as physical force.
Oklahoma Governor Passes Executive Order Expanding Restrictions on Medical Funding:
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has passed an Executive Order barring state Medicaid funds from going to any “individual or entity directly affiliated with a physician, medical practice or other organization providing abortion services or facilitating the procurement of abortion services.” The EO further directs the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA) to exclude certain providers, including those who are “under common ownership” of an entity that provides abortions that are unlawful in Oklahoma. Because abortion is entirely banned in Oklahoma, this EO is very clearly targeting entities like Planned Parenthood that run state clinics under a national umbrella organization. Those state clinics do not, of course, provide abortions; instead, they provide services including cancer screenings, pregnancy testing, contraception, prenatal care, and STI screening and treatment. The new order comes on the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which found that individuals do not have a right to sue over a state’s decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid coverage.
State Attorneys General Sue Administration Over Gender-Affirming Care Restrictions:
A coalition of 17 Democrat-Led states are suing the Trump Administration over its intimidation of clinicians and hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors. This lawsuit comes after a month of back-to-back announcements that hospitals and clinics in states where care is legal are shuttering their gender-affirming care programs. A sample of those cases are detailed below:
On July 22nd, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) closed its Center for Transyouth Health and Development. CHLA initially paused care for new patients under 19 in February, then resumed services following backlash. But after hospital leadership reportedly looked to federal agencies for guidance, including the FBI, HHS, DOJ, and CMS, CHLA made the final decision to close the clinic. Though CHLA claims patients will be transitioned to other providers, advocates warn that many young people will be left without specialized, life-saving care.
On July 18th, Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C announced that it will cease offering gender-affirming care for minors at the end of this month. The hospital cited “escalating legal and regulatory risks” tied to DOJ subpoenas and federal pressure. While medical transition services will no longer be offered, Children’s National says it will continue mental health and other supportive services.
On July 18th, University of Chicago Medical Center announced that it was ending its gender-affirming care services for minors, citing a need to protect its ability to continue to serve Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Also in Illinois, University of Illinois indicated in late-July that it would cease providing gender-affirming surgical care for patients under the age of 19.
In Connecticut, Yale Medicine and Yale New Haven Hospital have confirmed that they will no longer be offering care for minors under 19; as with the other hospitals, they cited the looming threat created by the Trump Administration’s executive orders. They indicated that they will continue to offer support and mental health services.
In California, Kaiser Permanente will cease offering gender-affirming surgery for individuals under 19 at the end of August as a result of federal pressure. It will continue to offer non-surgical care.
In the opening paragraph of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, they assert that “since taking office on January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump and his administration have relentlessly, cruelly, and unlawfully targeted transgender individuals” by seeking to “deny their very existence, banish transgender residents from the public square, and refuse them medically necessary healthcare through unlawful Executive Orders [ ] and a raft of federal agency actions.” The states assert a number of Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional claims, arguing that the Administration is unlawfully intimidating states in an attempt to effectuate a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The states are asking the court to declare the challenged actions unlawful and issue an order blocking their continued implementation.
Trump Administration Takes Moves to Cut Abortion Access for Veterans:
The Department of Veterans Affairs under the Trump Administration has announced plans to change its policy of offering abortion coverage for victims of rape or incest or individuals facing life-threatening emergencies. The coverage policy was enacted under the Biden Administration in the wake of Dobbs; it created a lifeline for servicemembers and their families located in ban states. However, the Trump Administration claims the coverage expansion was a matter of federal overreach, saying it “contradicted decades of federal policy against forced taxpayer funding for abortion.” However, the federal policy that prohibits federal funding for abortion includes exceptions for emergencies or in cases of rape or incest, contradicting the Administration’s purported policy rationale for the change. Revoking already extremely limited coverage for servicemembers serves no discernible policy purpose other than further restricting access to abortion. The move is especially cruel when considering that servicemembers and veterans face disproportionately high rates of sexual assault and PTSD related to their service.
Anti-Abortion Lawmakers Send Letter Urging Congress to Restrict Shield Laws:
Republican attorneys general from 15 states have sent a letter to Congress calling on it to take steps to preempt abortion shield laws. Following the Dobbs decision and the proliferation of abortion bans across the country, nearly half of U.S. states passed some form of ‘shield law’ – laws which are intended to protect providers and patients from legal consequences related to reproductive health care. These laws have allowed many patients to continue to safely access healthcare, either by traveling to a shield state or by utilizing telehealth. The letter sent to Congress decried these laws, calling them a “blatant attempt[] to interfere with States’ ability to enforce criminal laws within their borders.” This move is the latest escalation in the interstate battle over how and to what extent states are able to enforce their abortion restrictions in an increasingly complex web of conflicting state laws.
While anti-abortion states call on the federal government to take action against shield laws, Texas and New York continue to dispute New York’s shield law at the state level. As we have reported on previously, Texas and Louisiana are both attempting to enforce their abortion laws against New York doctor Maggie Carpenter, who prescribed abortion pills into the states – an action protected by New York’s shield law. Thus far, New York has rebuffed Texas’s attempt to enforce a judgment against the doctor. Last week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton escalated his efforts by suing Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck in his official capacity. Bruck responded by saying that the act was “unprecedented” but not unexpected, and that he is acting to “uphold[] New York State’s Shield Law.”
Missouri Attorney General Files Lawsuit Against Planned Parenthood:
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has filed a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood, arguing that the organization violated consumer protection laws by making “deceptive” claims about the safety of medication abortion drug mifepristone. Despite the medication’s exemplary safety and efficacy record, the lawsuit argues that Planned Parenthood has failed to adequately disclose risks associated with its use. AG Bailey is seeking a court order blocking Planned Parenthood from advertising mifepristone, as well as substantial monetary damages and reimbursement of Medicaid funded emergency care related to medication abortion complications. If the lawsuit is successful, it will create a blueprint for leadership in other anti-abortion states. This is particularly concerning as the federal government takes aim at Planned Parenthood and states continue to crack down on access to mifepristone.
Nevada Reinstates Parental Notification Requirement for Minors:
For the first time since it was passed in 1985, a Nevada law requiring minors to notify a parent or guardian before getting an abortion is now in effect. The law had been blocked by a federal injunction for decades, but that block was recently lifted after prosecutors argued it no longer applied following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In response, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte filed a lawsuit to stop the law, saying it’s vague, lacks clear guidance for minors to seek an exception, and could put young people—especially those in foster care or facing abuse—at risk by delaying or denying care.
Trend and Policy Watch:
The Trump Administration Appears Poised to Have $10 Million in Contraceptives Incinerated:
The Trump Administration appears poised to burn nearly $10 million worth of contraceptives that were originally designated for use by women and girls overseas. The contraceptives are currently being held in Belgium and reportedly expected to be sent to France for destruction. They were owned by the now-defunct USAID, and State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott has reportedly said that issuing the contraceptives may be in violation of a policy – known as the Mexico City Policy – that bars U.S. funds from going to organizations that provide abortions. He also stated that the products being held include “abortifacients”, or abortion-inducing drugs. However, a review of the supplies contradicts that assertion. The stock includes copper IUDs, rod implants, birth control injections, and birth control pills, none of which cause abortion, despite certain anti-abortion activists' insistence to the contrary. France and Belgium have faced pressure from the international community to take steps to stop the destruction of the medications, which do not expire until, at the earliest, 2027. And, multiple groups have offered to either purchase the medications for distribution or handle their transfer and distribution. The State Department has reportedly not reached any such agreement. The destruction of the medications will not only be a catastrophic loss of critical resources intended for underserved populations, but it will also cost U.S. taxpayers.
New Data Shows that Over a Third of Idaho’s Ob-Gyns Left the State Following the Enactment of its Abortion Ban:
A new study shows that Idaho lost over a third of its ob-gyns following the implementation of its abortion ban. Although 20 obstetric physicians came to the state in that time, “another 114 of 268 physicians stopped practicing obstetrics, left the state, closed their practices within the state or retired.” According to the study, 37 counties, comprising 569,000 Idahoans are being served by only 23 ob-gyns. As maternity care deserts expand, patient outcomes worsen, and Idaho is a direct example of how abortion bans diminish the efficacy of an already strained healthcare system.