Use quotes to search for exact phrases. Use AND/OR/NOT between keywords or phrases for more precise search results.

Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Brnovich

Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, and the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) filed a lawsuit on behalf of several abortion providers challenging SB 1318, a law which requires that doctors tell patients that it may be possible to reverse a medication abortion. No evidence exists to support the claim that medication abortions are reversible.

Plaintiffs allege that the law violates their First Amendment rights because it requires health care providers to tell every abortion patient orally and in person, that a medication abortion may be reversed, even though no credible evidence exists to support this statement and even though the information is irrelevant to patients that cannot have or do not want to have a medication abortion.

Plaintiffs further allege that the law requires that patients seeking an abortion receive false, misleading, and/or irrelevant information, which violates their patients’ Fourteenth Amendment rights.

As CRR explained,

For the last several years, Arizona has enacted numerous restrictions on safe, legal abortion and other reproductive health care, many of which have been blocked by the courts (this includes restrictions on medication abortion, which the Ninth Circuit preliminarily blocked in June 2014, a decision that the United States Supreme Court refused to review in December 2014).

SB 1318 is part of a recent wave of restrictions on safe, legal abortion based on bad medicine that prevents doctors from providing medical care based on the best evidence available and their medical judgment.


On June 7, 2015, United States District Court Judge Steven P. Logan issued a temporary restraining order blocking the provision of the law requiring doctors to tell patients that medication abortions are reversible. On October 16, 2015, Judge Logan, converted the TRO into a preliminary injunction.

On August 23, 2016, the case was dismissed with prejudice.