In early 2008, a group of physician-assisted suicide advocates in Washington, including a former governor, submitted a petition for a ballot initiative to be included in the November 2008 election. That initiative would legalize physician-assisted suicide in the state. An alternative group of concerned citizens, led by the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide, filed suit against the State of Washington and the Secretary of State, claiming that the wording of the ballot title and summary was misleading to Washington voters.

On behalf of a patient and his wife and the Catholic Medical Association, AUL filed an amicus brief explaining the necessity of medical evaluations and family involvement in end-of-life decisions. Because the ballot initiative did not provide for these necessary precautions, AUL submitted the brief requesting that the Court change the ballot language to indicate to voters that necessary precautions are not contained in the ballot initiative.

Stormans, Inc. v. Mary Selecky

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case Nos. 07-36039, 07-36040

On June 1, 2006, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy (Board) unanimously voted to pursue a draft rule that would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense a medication, including emergency contraception. Later that day, Governor Gregoire sent a letter to the Board stating her opposition to the draft rule, specifically stating that prescriptions should not be denied based upon personal, religious, or moral objections and that no accommodations should be made for pharmacists. At a press conference, the Governor threatened to remove the entire Board if they proceeded with the original draft.

On August 28, 2006, Governor Gregoire submitted a new rule to the Board, which requires pharmacists to dispense all prescribed drugs and prevents them from refusing to dispense a prescription for religious or moral reasons. The Board—after threat of removal—then unanimously shifted gears and adopted the Governor's rule.

Plaintiffs—a pharmacy and two pharmacists who conscientiously object to the abortifacient possibilities of emergency contraception—filed suit. The federal district court agreed with the plaintiffs that the Governor's rule is violative of the plaintiffs' rights. The State of Washington has appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

John and June Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southeast Ohio Region, et. al.

Supreme Court of Ohio

Case No. 07-1832

Plaintiff Jane Roe was impregnated by her 21-year-old soccer coach. After being pressured by the perpetrator to have an abortion, Jane called Defendant Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood performed the abortion, which was paid for by the perpetrator. Planned Parenthood did not notify or receive consent from Jane's parents, nor did it ensure that the phone number Jane provided was truly her father's number. Jane and her parents then filed suit, claiming that Planned Parenthood violated the Ohio laws requiring parental notice or consent before abortion, as well as the law mandating sex abuse reporting.

During the "discovery" stage at the trial level, the Roes requested documents from Planned Parenthood that would demonstrate whether or not Planned Parenthood has a pattern and practice of failing to follow the law as it pertains to minors. Planned Parenthood refused to hand over the redacted documents, and the trial court filed an order compelling Planned Parenthood to hand over the documents. Planned Parenthood appealed, and the state appellate court reversed. In doing so, the appellate court inappropriately decided some of the constitutional issues that were the jurisdiction of the trial court. The Roes then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which at first refused to hear the case. However, upon a motion for reconsideration, the Court shifted course and agreed to hear the case.

In re: Mexico City's "Law of Legal Interruption of Pregnancy" (English version)

Acción de inconstitucionalidad expediente 146/2007-00 (Spanish version)

Supreme Court of Mexico

In April 2007, Mexico City lawmakers passed the Law of Legal Interruption of Pregnancy, a law legalizing abortion on demand in the first trimester for city residents. City hospitals are now required to perform abortion on demand in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and private abortion clinics are allowed within Mexico City.

The new law violates the Mexican Constitution, which states that human life must be defended "from conception until its natural end." Thus, in response to the conflict, the nation's executive branch—led by the attorney general and the president of the National Human Rights Commission—initiated a lawsuit before the Mexico Supreme Court arguing that the new law violates human rights and other constitutional provisions.

AUL filed a brief with the Mexico Supreme Court explaining that medical studies over the last 35 years have proven that abortion hurts women. AUL provided numerous statistics demonstrating that women who abort face significant risks of immediate and long-term physical harm, psychological harm, and even death.

Choose Life Illinois v. Jesse White

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Case No. 07-1349

Plaintiff Choose Life Illinois filed an application with the Secretary of State to produce a "Choose Life" license plate, the proceeds of which would benefit adoption agencies and crisis pregnancy centers throughout the state. When the Secretary of State refused to allow the plate, Choose Life Illinois filed suit.

The Northern District of Illinois agreed with the Plaintiff that the State had acted wrongfully in failing to grant the license plate request. The Secretary of State appealed to the Seventh Circuit, claiming that license plates in Illinois constitute "government speech"—and thus, that the government can dictate what plates are produced.

AUL filed a brief on behalf of an adoption agency and crisis pregnancy centers located throughout the state, examining other license plate cases and the application to the Illinois case. When the factual and legal situations of other "Choose Life" cases are examined, it becomes clear that the Choose Life plates in Illinois constitute private speech, and the Defendant has engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Thus, we concluded in our brief that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich

Supreme Court of Illinois

Case No. 104692

In 2005, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich issued an "emergency rule" requiring pharmacists to fill all prescriptions, including prescriptions for emergency contraception. The Governor then made certain public statements emphasizing that the goal of the Rule is to coerce compliance by pharmacists who have religious objections to dispensing certain contraceptives. He even went to far as to state that pharmacists who have religious objections to certain drugs should leave their jobs.

Two pharmacies and two pharmacists filed suit claiming that the Governor's Rule violated their constitutional rights. At both the district and appellate levels, courts in Illinois dismissed the suit, claiming that the pharmacies and pharmacists had not been "harmed" by the rule and therefore had no standing. The Plaintiffs have appealed those dismissals to the Illinois Supreme Court.

AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Christian Medical & Dental Associations, Catholic Medical Association, Physicians for Life, and the National Association of Prolife Nurses. AUL argued that, under the guise of protecting consumers, the Governor unilaterally violated the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act, the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the free exercise guarantees of both the Illinois and U.S. Constitutions. No medical professional is safe from the reach of the Governor's Rule, because the Governor's actions have stripped the Illinois General Assembly of its power to promulgate such laws.

State of Kansas v. George R. Tiller

Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Sedgwick County, Kansas, Criminal Department

Case No. 07 CR 2112

In 2007, then-Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison filed 19 misdemeanor charges against notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller for failing to abide by the state's late term abortion law. Specifically, Tiller was charged with failing to abide by the provision requiring that an unaffiliated physician confirm the medical necessity of a late term abortion procedure before that procedure could take place.

Tiller immediately challenged the constitutionality of the state's late term abortion restrictions. AUL filed an amicus brief in the state trial court on behalf of numerous state legislators seeking to have the legislature's intent in enacting the law carried out. AUL argued that U.S. Supreme Court precedent—particularly Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)—supports Kansas law. In fact, not only is the second physician requirement constitutional, but the late-term abortion law in its entirety is constitutional and should be enforced.

Jane Doe v. Joseph Arpaio

Supreme Court of Arizona

Case No. CV07-0104-PR

Plaintiff Doe was an inmate in Maricopa County, Arizona. After being jailed for a DUI-related crime, Doe demanded release/transport for an abortion. However, Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio maintained a regulation requiring women to obtain a court order before being transported for elective procedures. Plaintiff sued, and the trial and appellate courts agreed with her that Arpaio's regulation was violative of her "right" to abortion.

AUL filed an amicus brief in the Arizona Supreme Court, arguing that, in addition to penological interests involving safety and resources, the County had compelling interests – affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court – in the policy requiring a court order before transport for an elective abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has continually affirmed states' interests in protecting women and has also provided that no state has a duty to provide, fund, or encourage abortion, and a state may encourage childbirth over abortion. The AUL brief shows that ignoring these interests would not only deny states the ability to protect women, but it would also elevate the abortion "right" to a level higher than that granted by the Supreme Court.

Northcoast Women's Care Medical Group v. Superior Court (Benitez)

Supreme Court of California

Case No. S 142892

Ms. Benitez, a lesbian, filed suit when physicians at North Coast would not provide a certain fertility treatment because of her marital status. Ms. Benitez argues that the refusal was based upon the fact that she is a lesbian, and filed suit. This case represents a unique circumstance in which the free exercise of religion—protected by both the U.S. and California Constitutions—arguably conflicts with California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code § 51) in the context of the provision of medical care.

AUL filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Physicians for Life, arguing that federal and state law as well as the ethics standards of major medical organizations support the physicians' right to conscientiously object to performing certain medical procedures that conflict with physicians' religious and moral beliefs. AUL also examined the drastic legal and ethical ramifications of following Ms. Benitez's argument that physicians must be forced to provide all services—including the fact that such a stance renders free exercise meaningless.

Aid for Women v. Nola Foulston

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Case No. 06-3188

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline issued opinion that Kansas' mandatory reporting law (of sexual abuse, etc.) applied when minors received care for pregnancies, STDs, abortions, etc. Plaintiffs filed suit. Our brief shows how granting an informational privacy right in the illegal, "consensual," age-mate sexual activity of minors would lead to legal and social ramifications devastating to the State's advancement of its compelling interest in the protection of minors. Not only does such a right undermine statutory rape laws across the nation, but the general rule that there is no privacy right in criminal activity is also undermined. In addition, such a right undermines other areas of law aimed at protecting minors from manipulative adults and also from themselves.

Jane Roe v. Larry Crawford

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Case No. 06-3108

Plaintiff, an incarcerated female, filed suit because the Department of Corrections maintained a policy refusing to transport inmates for elective abortions. [AUL filed an amicus brief in the Eighth Circuit on behalf of Missouri legislators, arguing that the state's interest was constitutionally served in maintaining such restrictions.

Specifically, our brief focused on Plainitff's claim that the refusal to transport inmates for elective abortions constituted "cruel and unusual punishment." The district court had agreed with Plaintiff that denying elective abortions—which the district court found to be "necessary" medical treatments—was indeed cruel and unusual punishment.

AUL demonstrated that the district court had misinterpreted U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence and had in fact ignored the Circuit split on the issue of whether elective abortions constitute a medical necessity in the prison context. When U.S. precedent and the Circuit split are properly examined, it is clear that elective abortions do not constitute medical necessity, and therefore the refusal to transport for an unnecessary procedure does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region et al. v. Ted Strickland

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Case Nos. 06-4422 & 06-4423

In response to the misuse of RU-486 by abortionists, the state of Ohio passed a law requiring that physicians follow federal protocol in prescribing and dispensing RU-486. Planned Parenthood filed suit on a number of grounds, including the claim that the phrase "federal law" is too vague for physicians to understand. The district court agreed, and the State appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of U.S. legislators from Ohio, as well as U.S. legislators who had taken part in a federal hearing on the subject of RU-486. AUL examined U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal court jurisprudence regarding alleged vagueness in abortion-related regulations.

AUL concluded that the FDA's protocol for dispensing RU-486 is clear, noting that physicians routinely prescribe medications in accordance with federal law. AUL also demonstrated that reading the law as a whole leads to the FDA-approved RU-486 drug label, which sets forth the FDA protocol. AUL also examined the severe risks of RU-486 that underscore the need for physicians to use it according to FDA protocol.

Alberto Gonzales v. Leroy Carhart

United States Supreme Court

Case No. 05-380

This case was initially filed by notorious late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart in the District Court for Nebraska. It was one of three cases filed immediately after President Bush signed the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. (the other two cases were filed in New York and California). The district court declared the Act unconstitutional and enjoined it, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The United States appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court took this case, along with the case out of California (Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood).

AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of various physician Members of the United States Congress, as well as on behalf of Edmund D. Pellegrino and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. AUL summarized the record testimony of the physicians in each of the district courts (California, Nebraska, and New York) and demonstrated that, according to testimony on both sides, partial-birth abortion is not necessary for any maternal or fetal condition. AUL also demonstrated that there are well-established alternatives to partial-birth abortion (also known as D&X), and that there is no evidence that a prohibition on D&X will increase medical risk or create an undue burden for any woman.

Alberto Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America

United States Supreme Court

Case No. 05-1382

This case was filed in the Northern District of California by Planned Parenthood immediately after President Bush signed the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (two similar cases were also filed in Nebraska and New York). The district court declared the Act unconstitutional and enjoined it, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The United States appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court took this case, along with the case out of California (Gonzales v. Carhart).

AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of various physician Members of the United States Congress, as well as on behalf of Edmund D. Pellegrino and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. The brief critically examined the medical testimony presented in the district court as well as in the District of Nebraska. AUL demonstrated that partial-birth abortion, or D&X, is not the "safest medical option" and that D&X is never medically necessary for maternal conditions or fetal anomalies. AUL also explained that there is no reliable evidence that a prohibition on D&X would increase medical risk to any woman. Thus, the prohibition on D&X posed no substantial obstacle and no undue burden under Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

National Abortion Federation, et. al v. John Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Case No. 04-5201

This case was filed by the National Abortion Federation (NAF) in the Southern District of New York immediately after President Bush signed the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (two similar cases were also filed in Nebraska and New York). While the district court found that the "evidence" presented by NAF was unreliable, the court enjoined the Act because it felt compelled to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down a similar law in Stenberg v. Carhart. The United States appealed to the Second Circuit.

It its amicus brief filed on behalf of then Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, AUL argued that killing a child in the process of birth is not "abortion," because "pregnancy" is terminated as soon as birth begins. AUL also argued that the "right" to abortion does not include killing a child who is partially born.

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assoc. Inc. v. Alberto Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Case No. 05-5406

On December 8, 2004, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, became law. A number of agency appropriation acts were included within the Consolidated Appropriations Act, including the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005, which contains the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, section 508(d). Our brief shows that while Plaintiff-Appellant National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Inc. (NFPRHA) has brought this facial challenge to the Hyde-Weldon Amendment on the basis of its purported impact on NFPRHA's members (Title X family planning grantees), the Amendment is clearly more broadly crafted to restrict funding in all programs funded under the Act. The amici in our brief seek to inform the Court that there are other interests at stake than those represented by NFPRHA. Among these important interests is the desirability of vindicating the constitutional authority of Congress to prefer childbirth over abortion and to define and fund programs in accord with its Spending Clause authority. Also there are institutions and individuals across the Nation that have been victimized by the precise discrimination addressed by the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, and they will be injured substantially if the judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees is reversed.

Arizona Life Coalition v. Stanton

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case no. 05-16971

Arizona Life Coalition filed this case after the Arizona License Plate Commission refused to grant its petition for a specialty plate bearing the logo "Choose Life." The District Court in Arizona ruled that the Commission did not discriminate against the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff's First Amendment rights were not violated. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which eventually reversed the district court, paving the way for the production of the plates.

In an amicus brief before the Ninth Circuit on behalf of crisis pregnancy centers in Arizona, AUL examined all of the previous "Choose Life" litigation and demonstrated that such jurisprudence supported the reversal of the district court.

Northland Family Planning Clinic v. Michael Cox

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Case No. 05-2417

The Michigan state legislature enacted the Legal Birth Definition Act in 2005, defining a partially born child as a "legally born person." Thus, the Act in its effect, although not on its face, prohibited partial birth abortion. Plaintiffs filed suit, and the Eastern District of Michigan held that the law was constitutional. Plaintiffs then appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

In an amicus brief representing state lawmakers in Michigan, AUL demonstrated that Michigan was not acting outside of the U.S. Supreme Court's guidance because that Court had never defined, nor had it precluded the states from defining, the phrase "legally born person."

Kelly Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England

United States Supreme Court

No. 04-1144

Planned Parenthood filed suit after the state of New Hampshire passed a law requiring parental involvement in minors' abortion decisions. After the First Circuit ruled the law unconstitutional, the State appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of state senators and representatives of New Hampshire, including an original sponsor of the parental involvement law. AUL examined the tension between the legal standards set forth in U.S. v. Salerno and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and demonstrated that the historic and proper analysis will only allow a regulation to be struck as unconstitutional when it is "invalid in all its applications."

Alberto Gonzales v. State of Oregon

United States Supreme Court

No. 04-623

In 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft issued an interpretive rule that, under the federal Controlled Substances Act, utilizing drugs for physician-assisted suicide did not constitute a "legitimate medical purpose." The State of Oregon filed suit, as the interpretive rule conflicted with Oregon's Death with Dignity Act—an act allowing physicians to use controlled substances to end their patients' lives. The Ninth Circuit sided with the State of Oregon, and the Attorney General—by that time Alberto Gonzales—appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, AUL demonstrated that physician-assisted suicide is never necessary to relieve pain, citing studies and statistics from major medical resources and institutions. Because pain can be relieved by other means, and because the remaining reasons for use of physician-assisted suicide constituted reasons that were not medical in nature, AUL established that the Attorney General was correct in concluding that there is no "legitimate medical purpose" in physician-assisted suicide.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al. v. Robert P. Casey

United States Supreme Court

Case Nos. 91-744, 91-902

This case arose out of litigation targeted at the Pennsylvania Control Act of 1982. Litigated were provisions regulating informed consent, spousal consent, parental consent, and abortion reporting, and defining the phrase "medical emergency."

AUL filed three amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court. The first brief was drafted on behalf of over 600 state senators and representatives from across the nation who believed that abortion is a matter for the legislative, and not judicial, branch of government. AUL's brief demonstrated that the Court's evaluation of the history of abortion law was erroneous in Roe v. Wade.

The second brief was drafted on behalf of U.S. Senators and Members of Congress and argued in favor of the overruling of Roe v. Wade. AUL examined the doctrine of stare decisis, explaining that it provided no basis for declining to overrule the multiple errors in Roe.

The third brief was filed on behalf of University Faculty for Life, an educational association of more than 340 faculty members from 80 colleges and universities across the nation. In this brief, AUL focused on the sociological conclusions of the Court in Roe, and demonstrated, using statistics based upon the success of parental involvement laws, that those grounds were false.

William L. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

United States Supreme Court

Case No. 88-605

This case arose out of a facial challenge to the constitutionality of several Missouri restrictions on the performance of elective abortions. AUL submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court focusing on Missouri Revised Statute Section 188.029, which required that the physician make a determination of viability when he "has reason to believe" that the fetus is at 20 or more weeks gestation, and that the physician "perform such medical examinations and tests as are necessary to make a finding of the gestational age, weight, and lung maturity of the unborn child . . . ."

AUL demonstrated that the courts misread the plain language of the statute by reading into Section 188.029 a requirement of a single test—amniocentesis—that is simply not required. Instead, at 20 weeks gestation, an ultrasound examination to determine gestational age is standard medical practice. AUL thus demonstrated that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that "no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid." AUL also demonstrated that the regulation "reasonably furthers" the State's compelling interest in viable fetal life and imposes no physical or psychological burden on the woman's decision to abort.

Neil F. Hartigan v. David Zbaraz

United States Supreme Court

Case No. 85-673

The appeal in this case was taken from a decision by the Court of Appeals holding the 24-hour waiting period, required by the Illinois Parental Notice law, unconstitutional and enjoining enforcement of the statute "until the Illinois Supreme Court enacts rules assuring the expeditious and confidential disposition of the judicial hearings," and remanding the case to the district court for a determination of the constitutionality of the waiver of notice proceedings when such rules are enacted.

AUL demonstrated in its brief that dismissal of this appeal will effectively put the State "out of court"- never able to enforce its statute, while never being able to have the Court of Appeals' decision reviewed by the US Supreme Court. AUL further demonstrated that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the same legal standards apply to both notice and consent provisions- that both require a judicial alternative and that the judicial alternative contained in the Illinois law did not satisfy the requirements of the Court's prior decisions.

Margareth M. Heckler v. American Hospital Association

United States Supreme Court

Case No. 84-1529

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, pursuant to the broad authority delegated to her by Congress under sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, promulgated regulations to prohibit the denial of beneficial medical treatment to handicapped newborns by hospitals receiving federal financial assistance. The court of appeals held that these regulations, because they affect medical decision-making, do not fall within the purview of sec. 504.

AUL's brief demonstrated that this result contradicts the plain language of sec. 504, ignores relevant legislative and regulatory history, distorts the reality of the medical problems faced by handicapped infants, and frustrates the clear will of the Congress to eliminate discrimination in federally funded programs.