This week, there are hearings in US courts regarding abortion lawsuits.

After the U.S. Supreme Court revoked the nationwide abortion rights last year, the matter was not eliminated from legal proceedings.

Instead, it sparked a new wave of lawsuits as states implemented their own limitations and adversaries contested them in various courts nationwide.

This week, three state courts are reviewing discussions on abortion, including a motion in Texas that has the potential to create a novel legal method for women seeking prompt access to the procedure due to pregnancy complications.

Here are some important details to keep in mind regarding the cases:

The majority of legal cases filed against prohibitions and limitations aim to ensure unrestricted availability of abortion services.

However, a woman in Texas with severe pregnancy issues chose not to delay addressing them last week. Citing potential harm to her health and ability to have children in the future, she requested legal approval to undergo an abortion without delay.

On Thursday, a judge in the state district granted permission for Kate Cox to have an abortion. The attorney general for the state has appealed this decision, claiming that Cox’s circumstances do not qualify for an exception. The attorney general also cautioned that anyone involved in the abortion procedure could potentially face legal repercussions. On Friday, the state’s supreme court suspended the previous ruling made by the lower court.

Before the highest court reached a final decision on Monday, her legal team revealed that she had traveled to a different state for an abortion. They informed the court that they still intend to pursue the case in order to obtain a ruling on the matter.

Doctors in Texas informed Cox, who is 31 years old, that they were unable to take action due to the state’s law, even though there is an exception for cases where the woman’s life is in danger. They told her she would have to either wait for the fetus to naturally die or continue with the pregnancy until full term.

A pregnant individual in Kentucky is urgently requesting access to an abortion, but the complaint she submitted on Friday does not mention any exceptions to the state’s law. Instead, it contends that the prohibition of abortion at any point during pregnancy goes against the state’s constitution.

Prior to Arizona’s statehood, there was a prohibition on abortion that was overruled by the significant 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. This decision established a universal right to abortion. Shortly before Roe was overturned last year, legislators approved a distinct ban on abortion after 15 weeks of gestation.

There has been a lot of disagreement and legal action regarding which law is relevant. As of now, abortions can be performed within the initial 15 weeks of pregnancy according to a court decision made last year, which stated that doctors cannot face charges for conducting abortions during this time period.

The Arizona Supreme Court will be discussing on Tuesday whether the pre-statehood ban from 1864, which prohibits abortions at any point during pregnancy, should still be enforced.

At the moment, advocates for abortion rights in Arizona are working towards getting a question on the ballot for next year that would overturn both bans. Similarly, supporters in other states are trying to get comparable questions on the ballot, inspired by the recent success of a similar measure in Ohio.

New Mexico is among the seven states that permits abortions to be obtained throughout all stages of pregnancy. This has led to a significant increase in individuals traveling from states with bans, particularly neighboring Texas, to seek abortion services.

Despite this, certain conservative city and county governments in a Democratic state have still implemented local restrictions on abortion.

The Democratic attorney general of the state is contesting these bans, arguing that they go against the state’s constitution which forbids discrimination based on gender and pregnancy.

The New Mexico Supreme Court has temporarily suspended many local laws as it deliberates on the matter. The court is scheduled to review arguments regarding the challenge on Wednesday.

This week, two court hearings in Wyoming have the potential to impact lawsuits regarding the legality of abortion.

In July, Judge Melissa Owens from Teton County District Court temporarily stopped enforcing a restriction on abortion at any point during pregnancy. This decision was made as she considers whether or not to proceed with a trial regarding the challenge against the ban.

On Thursday, Owens will conduct a hearing to decide whether to proceed with a trial or make a prompt decision based on the presented legal arguments.

Before this, the state’s highest court, consisting of five members chosen by Republican governors, will listen to arguments on Tuesday regarding the involvement of two legislators and Right to Life of Wyoming in the case. They argue that Republican state Attorney General Bridget Hill should provide evidence, rather than just legal arguments, to defend the ban.

In a legal document, Hill stated that she does not oppose additional parties being included, but believes that the case should be determined based on the merits of the legal arguments.

The state has just one clinic that provides abortions with both medication and surgery. The Casper clinic opened in April, after a nearly yearlong delay because of damage from an arson attack. A second, in Jackson, which provides only medication abortion, has said it is closing this week because of high rent and other costs.

On Monday, Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed the last piece of a legislative package known as the Reproductive Health Act. The package aims to reinforce and safeguard abortion rights in Michigan after voters last year approved a ballot initiative enshrining the right in the state’s constitution.

The legislation abolishes a previous measure that prohibited insurance from covering abortion unless a separate rider was purchased. This measure, referred to as “rape insurance” by those in opposition, was enacted a decade ago by a Republican-controlled state Legislature.


Cherry Hill, New Jersey was the location of Mulvihill’s report. Joey Cappelletti, a reporter for the Associated Press in Lansing, Michigan, also provided information for this report.