12/29/2005 - Jan. 4th Teleconference for Reproductive Health Rights Groups
12/16/05 - FDA Court Date Rescheduled
12/13/05 - Center Study Exposes Government Neglect Of Women’s Health In East And Southeast Asia
12/8/05 -Launch of Women of the World East and Southeast Asia
11/29/05 - Statement on Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England
11/18/05 - Supreme Court Should Not Review Federal Abortion Ban Case, Center’s Brief Argues
11/17/05 - Victory for Reproductive Rights in Peru
11/14/05 - GAO's Report on FDA's Plan B Decision Process Confirms Center's Lawsuit
10/31/05 - Judge Alito’s Nomination is Deeply Troubling, Says Center for Reproductive Rights
10/12/05 - Center Files Friend-of-the-Court Brief
9/27/05 - Brief Against Supreme Court Review of Federal Abortion Ban Case
9/15/05 - Missouri Law Shuts Down Only Abortion Clinic in Southwest Missouri
9/15/05 - Federal Court Strikes Michigan Abortion Ban for Third Time
9/08/05 - Kansas
9/05/05 - Roberts' Nomination to Chief Justice
9/05/05 - Passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist
9/01/05 - 8 Questions Senators Must Ask Roberts
8/26/05 - Shame On the FDA: More Deception and Delay
8/9/05 - Leading Reproductive & Women’s Rights Organization Hold Press Conference
8/05/05 - Politics of Pataki Veto Highlight Need For FDA Action
7/19/05 - Center for Reproductive Rights Alarmed by Roberts Nomination
8/03/05 - When Voters Learn of Roberts’ Record, Support Plummets According to Focus Groups
7/14/05 - For First Time in NCLR’s History, Briefing on Reproductive Rights of Hispanic Women to be Held at Annual Conference
7/8/05 - Key Victory In Appeals Court Against 2003 Federal Abortion Ban
7/6/05 - To Protect Future Generations, Senate Must Require Full and Open Disclosure of Supreme Court Nominee’s Views, Constitutional Litigators Say
7/01/05 - Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Retires: Dramatic Change in Supreme Court Puts Reproductive Rights at Risk
6/23/05 - Law Endangering Young Women Challenged in Federal Court: Health Care Providers Say Law Imperils Health and Lives of Florida’s Young Women
6/23/05 - The Benefits of Roe v. Wade Are Clear: Center for Reproductive Rights’ Response to Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing on Roe
6/20/05 - Civil Rights Chief from U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York Joins Center
6/14/05 - Groups Ask Court to Block Abortion Ban: Leading Reproductive Health and Rights Groups Say Michigan Law Would Prohibit Virtually All Abortions in the State
6/2/05 - Court Stops Virginia’s Third Attempt to 6/2/05 - Outlaw Safe Abortions
6/1/05 - Court Strikes Down Mississippi Abortion Law: Women in State Narrowly Escape Virtual Ban on Second Trimester Abortion
5/19/05 - Tulsa Clinic Challenges Teen Abortion Act as it Hits Governor’s Desk
5/12/05 - The FDA Under Evangelical Influence on Plan B Decision? No Surprise There
4/27/05 - Teen Endangerment Act: Putting Politics Before Teens’ Well-Being
4/13/05 - FDA Commissioner Crawford, No More Stalling!
4/12/05 - U.S. Government’s Appeal in Federal Abortion Ban Case Heads to Court for the First Time
4/10/05 - Alaska Supreme Court to Review Injunction on State’s Teen Abortion Law
3/23/05 - Yet Another Excuse from the FDA on Delaying Plan B Decision
3/15/05 - Statement on the Teen Endangerment Act
3/14/05 - Michigan Abortion Ban Put on Hold While Challenge Proceeds
3/10/05 - Responding to India Supreme Court Decision on Country’s Sterilization Practices
3/4/05 - As World Eases Restrictions on Abortion, U.S. Becomes More Restrictive, Study Finds
3/2/05 - What’s Missing from the Beijing Platform?
3/1/05 - Women’s Health Care Providers Challenge Michigan Law Banning Virtually All Abortions
2/14/05 - Center for Reproductive Rights Appoints New Director of International Legal Program
1/21/05 - Center Sues FDA for denying Women Over-the-Counter Access to Emergency Contraception
1/21/05 - Statement from the Center for Reproductive Rights on the 32nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
1/05/05 - Alberto Gonzales: Three Questions the Attorney General Nominee Must Address
print this page | email this page | join mailing list
Groups Ask Court to Block Abortion Ban
Leading Reproductive Health and Rights Groups Say Michigan Law Would Prohibit Virtually All Abortions in the State
More Info

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America asked a federal court today to block a broad and dangerous Michigan ban on abortion. Besides not providing an adequate exception to protect women’s health, the ban goes farther than any other state or federal law by prohibiting even first-trimester abortions.

"Proponents of this ban don't care about women; they care about eliminating safe, legal abortion," said Rev. Mark Pawlowski, CEO of Planned Parenthood of South Central Michigan, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "This law dangerously interferes with medical practice and, in some instances, prevents doctors from treating miscarriages."

On March 1, the three groups filed a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of reproductive health facilities, obstetrician-gynecologists, and their patients. The law, which was scheduled to take effect on March 30, has been enjoined since March 14, 2005. According to legal papers filed earlier this year by the plaintiffs, the ban not only prevents physicians from performing most abortions, but also denies patients the safest medical care, even in cases when a woman's life or health is in danger. For example, a doctor would be unable to provide a woman with an abortion even if she suffers from diabetes or cardiac ailments and needs an abortion to protect her health.

"This ban would make it virtually impossible for women to obtain an abortion in Michigan," said Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan executive director. "The courts have already struck down two broad and dangerous bans; this ban is even broader. The third time is not the charm."

The Michigan legislature passed this most recent ban in June 2004 despite two previous failed efforts. In June 1996, the legislature passed its first such law. A year later, a federal judge declared that ban unconstitutional because it was vague and overbroad. Similarly, in 2001, a federal judge struck down a second ban for failing to include an exception to protect women's health.

"This law speaks volumes about the agenda of the Michigan legislature and anti-choice forces in the state. These dangerous bans have not only been struck down twice in Michigan, but federal courts across the country—including the Supreme Court—have declared them unconstitutional because they not only fail to protect women’s health, they unashamedly endanger it," said Simon Heller, a staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights and one of the attorneys in the case.

Major medical organizations, including the Michigan State Medical Society, oppose the ban because it endangers women's health.

The plaintiffs in the case are Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc., Summit Medical Center, Planned Parenthood Mid-Michigan Alliance, Planned Parenthood of South Central Michigan, and a group of individual physicians. The plaintiffs are represented by Heller of the Center for Reproductive Rights; David Nacht of David A. Nacht, P.C.; Talcott Camp and Brigitte Amiri of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project; Michael J. Steinberg and Moss of the ACLU of Michigan; and Roger Evans and Eve Gartner of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Learn more about our case in Michigan.