Wisconsin Says No to Federal Dollars!

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – The Maryland Supreme Court issued a ruling this week in the case Moira Akers v. State, overturning Moira Akers’ conviction on the grounds of inadmissible evidence. Moira suffered a traumatic stillbirth only to be charged with murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Despite the fact that abortion is legal in Maryland, prosecutors used her internet search history, in which she researched pregnancy termination options, and lack of prenatal care as evidence that she intended to commit a crime. By effectively criminalizing Moira’s ability to even contemplate an abortion, prosecutors undermined state law guaranteeing her right to make her own reproductive decisions. The court found that this improperly admitted evidence was irrelevant as a matter of law because Moira’s consideration of abortion and lack of prenatal care bore no logical connection to whether she would cause harm to a person. Accordingly, the court reversed Moira’s convictions. Statement from David Rocah, senior staff attorney, ACLU of Maryland: “The Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling overturning this wrongful conviction and striking evidence of Moira’s attempt to inform herself about her options during her pregnancy is a victory for both Moira Akers and the people of Maryland, who affirmed the state constitutional right to an abortion at the ballot box just last year. This ruling should serve as a cautionary tale that even states that safeguard abortion are not immune to unjust prosecutorial threats.” Statement from Lauren Johnson, director of the Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative at the American Civil Liberties Union: “We’re glad the court set this important precedent for abortion rights in Maryland and reversed Moira’s conviction. It was the right decision, though Moira should have never been put in this position by the state. This ruling should serve as a reminder that even states that have safeguarded abortion are not immune to unjust prosecutorial threats. It’s crucial that we stay vigilant. We must continue to fight back against the harm that the state inflicts against pregnant people. The ACLU remains committed to fighting for reproductive freedom across our country.”

For individuals, couples and communities facing the nation's most restrictive abortion bans, access to abortion care is not just politics, it’s personal.

I’ve known Cecile for years through our work in the reproductive rights space. Today, I remember my friend as a fierce and loving advocate for change.

AMARILLO, Texas — U.S. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a ruling today permitting the attorneys general of Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri to continue litigating the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA case in his courtroom in Amarillo, Texas. The decision issued by the federal court in Texas comes after the Supreme Court’s June 2024 opinion holding that the anti-abortion groups that originally brought the Alliance case lacked legal standing to sue. The Biden administration’s Department of Justice sought to end the case altogether based on longstanding legal precedent making clear that a case must be dismissed if the original plaintiffs lacked standing. However, today’s ruling deems that briefing moot and requests further briefing on whether the case can proceed – which will now come from the Trump administration, as well as from a manufacturer of mifepristone that is also in the case defending FDA’s actions. Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri are expected to ask the court, which previously ruled to take mifepristone off the shelves nationwide in 2023, to issue another nationwide order imposing restrictions on mifepristone, including prohibiting patients from obtaining the medication via telehealth and then filling their prescription through a mail-order or local pharmacy. If they succeed, patients will be forced to travel hundreds, or even thousands, of miles to the nearest abortion provider just to be handed a pill. For many abortion patients, who are predominantly low-income parents, the costs and burdens of arranging transportation and childcare, securing time off work, and/or traveling without an abusive partner’s notice makes such travel extremely difficult or impossible. The attorneys general have indicated that they will also seek to withdraw FDA’s approval for the generic version of mifepristone that comprises two-thirds of the market; to withdraw FDA’s approval for mifepristone use by minors; and to prohibit nurse-practitioners and other qualified health care professionals from prescribing mifepristone, among other nationwide restrictions. Statement from Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Reproductive Freedom Project: “Once the Supreme Court found that the anti-abortion groups who brought the Alliance litigation never had a right to sue in the first place, this outrageous case should have been put to bed. Instead, the same Texas judge who already tried to take mifepristone off the market nationwide has left the door open for extremist politicians to continue attacking medication abortion in his courtroom. “The nation’s leading medical authorities describe mifepristone as one of the safest medicines available – safer than many drugs in your medicine cabinet right now. And even President-elect Trump walked back his attacks on abortion after realizing how overwhelmingly unpopular restricting abortion is with the American public. Today’s ruling means that President-elect Trump will have an early opportunity to either stay true to his word, or else instruct his Department of Justice to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence and stop defending access to medication abortion. The American people will be watching. “The ACLU will continue fighting for medication abortion until everyone who needs this safe, essential health care can access it.” The ruling can be found here.