Last week, a lower court in Michigan enforced the state Reproductive Freedom for All amendment (RFFA) by permanently striking down three state laws restricting abortion access as unconstitutional.   

Michigan is one of ten states where, since Dobbs overturned the federal right to abortion, voters enacted ballot initiatives codifying the right to abortion (and beyond) in their state constitutions. While passage of these constitutional amendments is an important step towards reestablishing and reinforcing abortion rights, restrictions on access remain on the books in nearly all of these states. That makes last week’s decision enforcing Michigan’s constitutional promise of reproductive freedom for all big news.  

In November 2022, Michigan voters approved the RFFA and enshrined a fundamental right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution. Importantly, the amendment protects reproductive freedom rights beyond abortion, including prenatal, miscarriage, childbirth, and postpartum care and family planning services such as contraception, sterilization, and infertility care.  

The amendment also mandates a strict scrutiny standard for judicial review of any laws denying, burdening, or infringing upon the right to reproductive freedom. This means that any restriction must be justified by a compelling state interest and achieved by the least restrictive means. Further, the amendment limits the type of state interests that qualify as compelling to ones that protect the patient’s health, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and ones that do not infringe on the individual’s autonomous decision-making.  

Despite the RFFA’s passage and subsequent legislation to repeal some restrictions, Michigan laws still imposed significant burdens on abortion care. Several of those laws were challenged as violating the RFFA  in Northland Family Planner Centers v. Nessel: a 24-hour waiting period, a mandatory counseling requirement, a ban on advanced practice clinicians (such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants) performing abortions, and a coercion screening requirement. 

The court ruled that all but the coercion screening were unconstitutional. It applied strict scrutiny, as required by the RFFA, and squarely rejected the argument that the RFFA incorporated the prior federal standard from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, holding that the “undue-burden test . . . has no place in jurisprudence interpreting the RFFA.” Applying RFFA’s narrow tailoring requirement in a methodical analysis of the evidence related to each restriction, the court concluded that the 24-hour waiting period, mandated uniform counseling, and a ban on qualified clinicians providing abortion care do not protect patient health and are contrary to clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine.  

This decision is already making an immediate difference for people seeking abortion care in Michigan who are now free of these unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on access. It also exemplifies the important role state courts have in enforcing the post-Dobbs reproductive freedom amendments. With at least 32 abortion restrictions still on the books across ten states, more state courts will need to interpret and apply these new constitutional amendments. As the Northland decision shows, even state laws that have long been on the books, or been held constitutional under prior federal law, cannot continue to stand if they contravene these states’ stronger constitutional guarantees for reproductive freedom. 

Support the Los Angeles Guild for Reproductive Health (LAGRH) by sponsoring or purchasing a table for their September 5 benefit — an evening of laughter and good food in support of five vital reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations, including CRHLP! 
We’re deeply grateful for LAGRH’s unwavering commitment to this work, and we encourage our community to show up by securing a sponsorship or table today.

http://weblink.donorperfect.com/Skirball2025

Join UCLA Law's Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy, UCLA Law's Critical Race Studies Program, and the Center for Reproductive Rights on Thursday, May 29 for a in-person panel discussion and reception on building new legal frameworks and protections to address the maternal health crisis in the United States. The conversation, moderated by award-winning journalist Nina Martin, will feature scholars, practitioners, and advocates to discuss real-world litigation, current challenges in applying the law, and the pathway to new legal innovations for maternal health. This is a unique opportunity to explore how law can be an innovative tool for justice in the fight for better maternal care for all. RSVP here, space is limited. 

On June 5, join CRHLP Executive Director Melissa Goodman and Elana Redfield, Federal Policy Director at The Williams Institute, for a conversation with Candace Bond-Theriault. The three will discuss Candace's new book, Queering Reproductive Justice, which examines reproductive justice through an intersectional lens. The book emphasizes the vital interconnectedness of the reproductive justice and LGBTQIA+ movements and suggests a bold vision for the future. Register now at: bit.ly/QueeringReproductiveJustice 

Photo Credit: Planned Parenthood

In a surprising turn of events last week, California Governor Gavin Newsom’s newly proposed budget revise deals a significant blow to reproductive health care and family planning funding and the organizations that form the reproductive and sexual care backbone of the state. The Governor’s revised budget redirects $1.6 billion in Prop. 35 funds and $500 million in tobacco tax revenue away from reproductive and provider-specific health care. The budget revise also failed to continue a number of significant post-Dobbs investments in reproductive health care provision, support, and research. This disinvestment in the health infrastructure that low-income and marginalized communities use could cause significant reductions in patient access to care, reduced appointment availability, health care site closures and growing care deserts. These potentially devastating state budget cuts come as an assault on Medicaid, Planned Parenthood, maternal health dollars, and much of the federal social safety net moves through Congress. One in ten Medicaid patients currently get family planning services through Planned Parenthood.

Photo Credit: iStock 

A new report  highlights the critical role of Medicaid in supporting maternal health in rural America. The study found that 23.3% of women of childbearing age rely on Medicaid for coverage in rural areas, compared to 20.5% in metro areas. In 20 counties—primarily in states like Louisiana and New Mexico that are part of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion—roughly half of women in this age group are covered by the program. While women in non-expansion states make up a larger share of the Medicaid-enrolled adult population, rural hospital closures and the widespread loss of obstetric services threaten care access across geographies. By 2022, 52.2% of rural hospitals no longer offered obstetric care, although Medicaid covered nearly half 47% of rural births. 

Photo Credit: Pregnancy Justice

A new report from Pregnancy Justice provides an in-depth examination of the concept of the fetal viability line, tracing the historical legal context of the viability line and its evolution into a powerful tool that criminalizes and polices pregnant and pregnancy-capable people across the U.S. The report also explores the way the fetal viability line – which has no shared medical definition - has fueled increased incarceration, government interference, and violations of constitutional rights related to bodily autonomy and medical decision-making. Importantly, the report shows how making viability a legal concept deepens social control over women’s bodies and threatens civil liberties and maternal health. 

Photo credit:Joe Raedle/Getty Images

A Florida appeals court ruled this week that the state’s law allowing minors to seek a judicial bypass to obtain abortions without parental consent is unconstitutional because it violates parents’ Fourteenth Amendment due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.  In deciding the case, the court went beyond the legal question presented by the minor’s appeal – whether the lower court was wrong to deny her request for a judicial waiver.

Notably, while under the judicial bypass law, proceedings and appeals are supposed to be non-adversarial, the court invited briefing from the Florida Attorney General on the question of the law’s constitutionality and then granted the AG’s request to intervene in the case. In its ruling, the court both affirmed the denial of the minor’s bypass request and held the law providing the bypassing process was itself unconstitutional. It reasoned that recent U.S. and Florida Supreme Court decisions eliminating abortion rights rendered the justification for the law - protecting minors’ constitutional rights - irrelevant. The court has also certified the case as raising a question of “great public importance” in support of its request that the Florida Supreme Court review its decision.

With so much going on in the world of reproductive health, law, and policy, every week we'll share articles, books, and media you might have missed. 

What Would It Mean to Defend All Abortions? 

What About Me?’: Bringing Women’s Well-Being to the Forefront of Motherhood 

Why so many clinics that provide abortion are closing, even where it's still legal 

Why We Still Don’t Have Enough Solid Data on Pregnancy in Prison 

How climate change is increasing complication risks for pregnant women 

Reimagining the future of reproductive health, law, and policy.

UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy is a think tank and research center created to develop long-term, lasting solutions that advance all aspects of reproductive justice, and address the current national crisis of abortion access.