Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood
What's at Stake
Reviewing the legal standard by which courts consider abortion restrictions and whether laws regulating abortion must protect women's health. DECIDED
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
Summary
SLIDE SHOW
Photographs from the November 30 Press Conference
NEWS
Supreme Court Ruling Recognizes Protections for Women's Health (1/18/2006)
Court Urged to Protect Women's Health (11/30/2005)
FEATURES
Answers to Key Questions About Ayotte
C-SPAN covers Ayotte (off-site link)
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood et al. began in 2003 as a challenge to a New Hampshire law restricting teenagers' access to abortion. The law requires doctors to notify a parent at least 48 hours before performing an abortion for a teenager. The law includes no exception for medical emergencies.
In reviewing this case, the Supreme Court will consider two questions: one, must an abortion restriction, not just New Hampshire's, include a medical emergency exception, and two, can doctors and women continue to challenge dangerous abortion restrictions and ask the courts to strike them down before they can harm women?
Legal Documents
Press Releases
Supreme Court Ruling in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood Recognizes Protections for Women's Health and Safety
Planned Parenthood and ACLU Ask Supreme Court to Protect Women's Health in First Abortion Case Before the Roberts Court
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood: A Matter of Women's Health
ACLU and Planned Parenthood File Brief in Supreme Court Challenging New Hampshire Abortion Restriction
ACLU and Planned Parenthood Warn That Supreme Court Case on NH Abortion Restriction Could Jeopardize Women's Health and Safety
Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down New Hampshire Law Restricting Teens' Access to Abortion