老熟女午夜福利

PHOENIX 鈥� An Arizona state court today permanently blocked several burdensome and medically unnecessary abortion restrictions, including a law forcing patients to make two separate trips to their health care provider and wait at least 24 hours before getting care, as well as a ban on the use of telemedicine for abortion. The court ruled that these and other restrictions violate the state's new constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion. This decision will significantly expand abortion access in the state, allowing patients to get time-sensitive care in their communities. The restrictions struck down today include: Laws forcing providers to relay, and patients to receive, biased and inaccurate information about abortion in person, and then wait at least 24 hours before being able to obtain care 鈥� requiring two separate trips to a provider. Patients are often unable to get time-sensitive care for days, if not weeks, because of these restrictions. Laws banning abortion as an option for patients with fetal diagnoses, forcing doctors to turn their patients away if they even suspect someone鈥檚 reason for seeking care is due to a fetal condition. A prohibition on the use of telemedicine for medication abortion, despite ample evidence that this is a safe and effective form of care. In his decision, Judge Gregory Como ruled that abortion restrictions that override patient autonomy and have no medical justification cannot stand: 鈥淭he Challenged Laws鈥� universal suppression of medical judgment and choice ... renders them invalid in all circumstances.鈥� In November 2024, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 139, the Arizona Abortion Access Act, to enshrine the fundamental right to abortion in the state constitution. Soon after, Arizona health care providers challenged and successfully struck down the state鈥檚 15-week abortion ban. Today鈥檚 ruling represents yet another landmark victory to expand abortion access in the state, including by allowing Arizonans to finally receive abortion pills by mail. These medically unnecessary restrictions have long made it harder, if not impossible, for Arizonans to get abortion care in the state. Despite voter-approved protections for abortion, state lawmakers are currently attempting to undermine this constitutional right by pushing legislation to restrict access to care. 鈥淭his is a relief. For the first time in a long time, my patients will not have to jump through hoops to get the care they need,鈥� said Dr. Paul Isaacson, OB-GYN and co-owner of the Family Planning Associates Medical Group. 鈥淚 became an OB-GYN to provide compassionate care to my patients, but these restrictions have stood in the way of that. Finally, I can help patients as they decide what鈥檚 best for themselves without interference from the state.鈥� 鈥淭he court made clear today that the power to make health care decisions should be in patients鈥� hands, not politicians鈥�,鈥� said Dr. William Richardson, OB-GYN and owner of Choices Women鈥檚 Center. 鈥淔or years, I鈥檝e seen Arizonans from rural communities struggle to find the means to make two separate trips to my clinic. I鈥檓 thrilled to now be one step closer to offering my patients evidence-based care via telemedicine.鈥� 鈥淭his is a major victory for the Arizonans who showed up to protect their right to abortion. Thanks to them and the dedicated health care providers in this case, we are even closer to making that right a reality in the state,鈥� said Caroline Sacerdote, senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. 鈥淣o one should be forced to wait for time-sensitive care or listen to disinformation about abortion. Anti-abortion lawmakers in Arizona want to override the will of the people, but we refuse to let them.鈥� 鈥淎s a physician, I am relieved that I no longer will be forced by Arizona鈥檚 restrictions to undermine my patients鈥� decisions,鈥� said Dr. Laura Mercer, OB-GYN and Arizona Medical Association board member at-large. 鈥淢y patients will no longer be forced to make additional unnecessary visits for care, nor will I be required to give them disinformation that stigmatizes abortion. And as an Arizonan, I am proud that the abortion protections we fought so hard to win are bringing reproductive freedom closer to reality.鈥� 鈥淭he court鈥檚 decision to block these stigmatizing, medically baseless restrictions enables Arizonans to access abortion without politics standing in the way,鈥� said Rebecca Chan, staff attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. 鈥淭his ruling brings us many steps closer to realizing the promise of Arizona鈥檚 constitution: that every Arizonans鈥� freedom to make decisions about their pregnancy is respected and supported." 鈥淲hen voters approved Prop. 139, we recognized abortion as a fundamental right. Today鈥檚 decision makes that vote tangible: it removes harmful legislative roadblocks that interfered with patients鈥� private healthcare decisions,鈥� said Lauren Beall, staff attorney for the ACLU of Arizona. 鈥淭ogether we celebrate this victory for bodily autonomy throughout our state.鈥� This case was brought by Dr. Paul A. Isaacson, M.D., Dr. William Richardson, M.D., and the Arizona Medical Association represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the 老熟女午夜福利, and ACLU of Arizona.

PHOENIX 鈥� A group of Arizona advanced practice nurses filed a lawsuit yesterday challenging the state鈥檚 ban on the provision of abortion by trained advanced practice clinicians (APCs) such as nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the nurses by the 老熟女午夜福利 (ACLU), the ACLU of Arizona, and the law firm Papetti Samuels Weiss McKirgan LLP, argues that the APC ban violates Arizonans' constitutional right to abortion access, established by voters in 2024, by arbitrarily restricting their choice of provider and, more broadly, making abortion less available in the state. The APC ban bears no relationship to patient safety, clinical standards, or medical evidence. APCs are already allowed to provide abortion in roughly half the states, and clinical studies and experience show that they do so just as safely as their physician peers. APCs are crucial in ensuring timely access for patients who, in addition to state restrictions, face other barriers to care such as transportation limitations, inflexible work schedules, childcare needs, and controlling partners. Leading medical authorities, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Nurse Midwives, have called on states to repeal these bans so that these highly qualified health care professionals can serve patients seeking abortion. Arizona鈥檚 APC ban has severely limited the pool of available abortion providers in the state. Arizona already has a shortage of physicians, particularly in rural and tribal areas, and many Arizonans see APCs as their primary or reproductive health care provider. When these patients face an unwanted pregnancy or a pregnancy complication, many of them must travel long distances to seek abortion care from a new provider. Because of how few abortion providers there are in the state, some of these patients face delays. They may be forced to have a procedure because they miss the narrow window to end their pregnancy with medications. Some are even forced to carry to term. Being prevented, or even delayed, from accessing abortion raises risks to a patient鈥檚 physical and mental health. 鈥淎rizonans should be free to access abortion care in their communities, including from qualified, trained advanced practice clinicians,鈥� said Alice Clapman, senior counsel with the ACLU鈥檚 Reproductive Freedom Project. 鈥淥verturning the state鈥檚 APC ban would not only bring its healthcare policy in line with the medical science but also make good on the state constitution鈥檚 promise to protect abortion access as a fundamental right. The ACLU will do everything in our power to make sure that Arizonans can get abortion care from providers they trust, including advanced practice clinicians.鈥� 鈥淚 became a midwife because I felt called to care for my patients as whole people with a range of medical, social, and emotional needs throughout the span of their lives,鈥� said plaintiff Janna Stefanek, a certified nurse midwife. 鈥淔or some patients, this includes abortion care. The APC ban forces me to turn those patients away at a vulnerable time when they need me 鈥� that is just wrong. I am honored to fight to ensure Arizonans have access to the care they deserve from trusted and qualified providers in their own communities.鈥� 鈥淎s a physician, I work closely with advanced practice clinicians,鈥� said Dr. Laura Mercer, legislative chair of the Arizona Section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 鈥淧reventing these dedicated professionals from providing abortion care within their scope of practice is harmful and out of step with modern medicine. The evidence is clear: advanced practice clinicians can be trained to provide many types of uncomplicated abortion care as safely as physicians. Furthermore, allowing them to do so has numerous benefits for their patients. Lifting this unjustified ban will mean more Arizonans can access the health care they need, and sooner.鈥� 鈥淭he fundamental right to abortion means little when Arizonans cannot get care from trusted and skilled providers in their own community,鈥� said Lauren Beall, staff attorney at the ACLU of Arizona. 鈥淥verturning senseless restrictions that tie the hands of advanced practice clinicians is the next important step to fulfill the promise of the Arizona Abortion Access Act. Allowing APCs to provide abortion care is essential to ensure all Arizonans can access this health care, especially those who have faced systemic barriers across our state for far too long.鈥� Arizona鈥檚 APC ban overrode the state Board of Nursing鈥檚 decision that, with appropriate training, advanced practice nurses were qualified to provide abortion care. Before this ban, Arizona APCs specializing in reproductive health care safely performed abortions and cared for abortion patients in the state as part of their regular scope of practice. APCs trained in reproductive health care also routinely provide care that is significantly more complex than medication and procedural abortion, including for patients in labor and who are experiencing miscarriages or postpartum complications. The APC ban has prevented these extremely skilled health care providers from giving their patients critical and time-sensitive abortion care, including in medically urgent situations. The lawsuit, Gill et al. v. State of Arizona, was filed in the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County by the ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, and local counsel Papetti Samuels Weiss McKirgan LLP.

A group of Arizona advanced practice nurses filed a lawsuit challenging the state鈥檚 ban on the provision of abortion by trained advanced practice clinicians (APCs) such as nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the nurses by the 老熟女午夜福利 (ACLU), the ACLU of Arizona, and the law firm Papetti Samuels Weiss McKirgan LLP, argues that the APC ban violates Arizonans' constitutional right to abortion access, established by voters in 2024, by arbitrarily restricting their choice of provider and, more broadly, making abortion less available in the state.

NEW ORLEANS 鈥擳oday, the Trump administration filed a brief on behalf of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a lawsuit that threatens to limit nationwide access to mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used in two-thirds of U.S. abortions and miscarriage care, within the next few months. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that the case, Louisiana v. FDA, should not move forward because the FDA has already undertaken a new review of its regulations on mifepristone. At no point in the brief did the DOJ defend the merits of the FDA鈥檚 evidence-based decision to allow mifepristone patients to fill their prescription by mail and at pharmacies, the issue at the core of the case. To the contrary, the Trump administration took the unusual step of criticizing the multi-year scientific analysis that led the FDA to lift its in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone in 2023 鈥� a decision endorsed by every leading medical association 鈥� as reflecting a 鈥渓ack of adequate consideration.鈥� Mifepristone鈥檚 excellent safety record, including when prescribed through telemedicine, has been confirmed by more than a hundred peer-reviewed studies and leading medical authorities like the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. By contrast, the Trump administration鈥檚 announcement last spring that it would undertake a new review of its mifepristone regulations was based on a debunked, self-published paper from a Project 2025 sponsor that purposefully distorts the safety record of medication abortion and has been denounced by more than 260 expert researchers for its severe scientific flaws. The DOJ鈥檚 brief in Louisiana indicates that the Trump administration expects to complete its mifepristone review in less than a year. 鈥淒on鈥檛 be fooled: the Trump administration isn鈥檛 defending medication abortion 鈥� it鈥檚 just defending its own authority to restrict access to mifepristone if, when, and how it sees fit,鈥� said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney with the 老熟女午夜福利鈥檚 Reproductive Freedom Project. 鈥淭he state politicians attacking mifepristone in court and the Trump administration officials ordering a new FDA review are two sides of the same coin 鈥� and both are wrong on the law, the science, and public opinion. Any new federal restrictions on medication abortion would not only be medically and legally unjustified but deeply unpopular among the overwhelming majority of Americans.鈥� Louisiana鈥檚 lawsuit could severely hinder medication abortion access across the country as soon as late February. Recent data show that by June 2025, more than 1 in 4 abortions in the U.S. were provided via telemedicine using mifepristone. This method of care could be halted immediately if the federal district court in Louisiana grants the state鈥檚 request to impose sweeping nationwide restrictions. A ruling could come any time after a hearing scheduled for Feb. 24. Louisiana is seeking to prevent patients from being able to fill their mifepristone prescription by mail or at a local pharmacy. Instead, patients all across the country, including in states where abortion care is legally protected, would be required to pick up the pill in person at a hospital, clinic, or medical office 鈥� even when they have already received care through telemedicine and there is no medical reason for the trip. Accessing abortion via telemedicine is especially important for people who live on low incomes; who struggle to secure transportation, childcare, or time off work; who live in rural areas; and who are experiencing domestic violence. Any restrictions on mifepristone would also affect patients using the medication for miscarriage management. Louisiana v. FDA is one of three pending federal lawsuits brought by anti-abortion state politicians trying to end the use of telemedicine for mifepristone. The other two suits 鈥� Missouri v. FDA and Florida v. FDA 鈥� seek to impose other nationwide restrictions on mifepristone as well, and Florida seeks to ban the medication altogether by undoing FDA鈥檚 original approval from 25 years ago.