Ongoing Legal Cases

There are several important legal cases happening locally and nationally. This page will provide updates as the cases progress. Follow us on twitter for continuous, detailed updates. 

The following cases will be summarized on this page:

Jane Doe v. Attorney General of Indiana 

Overview: Three anonymous women, three abortion professionals, and Women's Med Group are suing the Attorney General and other public health servants over the Tissue Disposition Laws, on the grounds that the laws impose an undue burden on abortion access, force a view of personhood at fertilization, and impose undue restrictions on the disposal of fetal and embryonic remains which are not consistent with the disposal of surgically-removed tissue. These laws require fetal remains to be cremated or interred, consistent to the treatment of deceased persons that have been born.

12/21/20 - The lawsuit is submitted to the district court

June Medical Services

v. Russo, Interim Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health


Russo, Interim Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health

v. June Medical Services

Overview: Act 620, Lousiana's Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, is a 2014 law not currently in effect that would require doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. This has been appealed and is now before the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Trump administration filed a brief arguing who is allowed to bring a lawsuit challenging laws restricting abortion. 

  • 6/29/20 - Supreme Court rules in favor of June Medical Services in a 5-4 judgment. 

  • 3/4/20- Oral arguments heard. Not expecting a ruling until late spring. 

  • 1/8/20 - In March, the supreme court will hear a pair of consolidated cases- June Medical Services v. Russo and Russo v. June Medical Services.

  • 1/7/20 - 39 senators, 168 members of the house, representing 38 states signed on to an amicus brief to support Louisiana’s abortion regulations and asked the court to address Roe’s unworkable finding of a right to abortion.

  • Dec. 2019 - Trump administration filed a brief arguing who is allowed to bring a lawsuit challenging laws restricting abortion.

    • The general rule in federal courts is that a plaintiff “must assert his own legal rights and interests and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.” Because the right to an abortion belongs to the person seeking the abortion (not the abortion provider), the ordinary rule would require that person to be the plaintiff in any lawsuit challenging an abortion restriction. Louisiana and the Trump administration ask the justices to strip abortion providers of their ability to bring such lawsuits. Abortion providers should not be able to assert the rights of their patients because the providers’ interests are potentially in conflict with the interests of those patients.

  • Dec. 2019 - 30 amicus briefs were filed urging the Supreme Court to protect abortion access to abortion and strike down a Louisiana Law that could effectively eliminate abortion in the state. The briefs represented about 200 organizations and more than 700 individuals.

    • Includes American Medical Association, the American College of OB/GYN, and American Academy of Pediatrics.

  • 10/4/19 - Supreme court agrees to hear the case.

State of Indiana and Indiana State Department of Health

v. Whole Woman's Health Alliance

Overview: Whole Woman's Health Alliance applied for an abortion license with the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH). Their application was denied. The 7th circuit court of appeals granted WWHA a preliminary license. The AG office appealed this to the supreme court. We are waiting on the Supreme Court's decision on if they will hear this case. 

  • 7/2/20 - Supreme Court declines to hear case.

  • 12/10/19 - IN Attorney General Curtis Hill asks the Supreme Court to review the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision allowing WWHA to open without State approval.

  • 2019 - 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled WWHA could open with a provisional license. 

  • 04/22/19 - Injunction hearing conducted by Judge Sarah Evans Barker.

  • 03/27/19 - WWHA files request for an emergency injunction to open without a license to a Federal Court.

  • 02/25/19 - ISDH requests more information from WWHA.

  • 01/01/19 - WWHA submits second application for chemical abortion license.

  • 11/28/18 - Appeals panel reverses Judge Deitchman's recommended ruling.

  • 10/02/18 - ISDH appeals recommended order.

  • 09/15/18 - Judge Deitchman recommends WWHA be granted a license.

  • 08/22/18 - Appeal hearing conducted by Judge Claire Deitchman.

  • 01/24/18 - WWHA appeals denial of license.

  • 01/10/18 - ISDH denies WWHA application.

  • 10/12/17 - WWHA submits application for chemical abortion license.

Cindy Isabell


Overview: Local nurse, Cindy Isabell, was denied a teaching position at IUSB because of her pro-life views. ​

  • 3/11/20 - Case is dismissed

  • 4/29/20 - Case for trial before a jury in South Bend

  • 1/9/20 - Hon. Damon R. Leichty denies request for case to be dismissed

  • 2019 - IUSB files for the case to be dismissed

WWHA, All-Options Pregnancy Resource Center, Dr. Jeffrey Glazer

v. State of Indiana, Attorney General Curtis Hill, State Health Commissioner Kristina Box, Medical Licensing Board of IN president John Stobel, and St. Joseph Co. Prosecutor Ken Cotter

Overview: Pro-abortion organizations and doctors are suing the state of Indiana to remove all abortion regulations and restrictions. "Because IN has enacted too many abortion restrictions, further curtailing the constitutional right to an abortion. The state has replaced reasonable health and safety rules with unreasonable ones that are more likely to harm patients. Ideological opposition to abortion has supplanted concerns about patient health. The result has been the slow and steady legislative chipping away at the right to abortion."

  • Court date set for Spring 2021

  • August 2020 - Trial

  • July 2020 - Injunction hearing

  • June 2018 - Filed a complaint for the civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court of the Southern District of IN.

Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH)

v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky No. 17-2428

Overview: Minors must receive parental consent to obtain an abortion, or they can get a court order to bypass parental consent. Typically the courts will provide parental notice of this, but the 7th Circuit ruled that the juvenile courts can provide parental bypass without parental notification. 

  • 1/27/20 - Amicus briefs filed by Americans United for Life, Priests for Life, Rachel's Vineyard, and the states of Kentucky, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia in support of ISDH. 

  • ​12/27/19 - Indiana Dept. of Health asks the Supreme Court to review the Seventh Circuit decision allowing juvenile courts to provide parental bypass with notifying the parents. 

  • 8/27/19 - The Seventh Circuit Appeals Court affirms a district court's injunction against the Parental Consent Law.

Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH)

v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky No. 17-1883

Overview: Indiana Ultrasound Law requires an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion. This law requires the abortion businesses to show the mother the ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat, if detectable. 

  • 1/1/21 - The Ultrasound Law will become effective again

  • 8/20/20 - Planned Parenthood drops the lawsuit, citing ultrasound machine at Fort Wayne location

  • 7/2/20 - Supreme Court sends the case back to the Seventh Circuit after the recent LA abortion decision

  • 3/6/19 - Amicus briefs filed by Faith and Family, AAPLOG, Care Net, Heartbeat Intl., Focus on the Family, Pro-life Action League, and many others in support of ISDH. 

  • 2/4/19 - Indiana Dept. of Health asks the Supreme Court to review the Seventh Circuit decision. 

  • 7/25/18 - Seventh Circuit determined that the Ultrasound Law places an undue burden on the mother.