Health Law Advisor

State courts continue to debate whether a state’s constitution recognizes a right to “liberty of privacy” or personal autonomy that would encompass the right to make personal health care decisions, including abortion.

In the post-Dobbs era, state supreme courts have been divided over whether state constitutions offer protections for abortion. Supreme courts in Florida and Iowa have rejected state constitutional protections for abortions, while those in Oklahoma and Montana have found or upheld certain constitutional protections for abortion. Recently, district court judges in Georgia and North Dakota have issued injunctions against their respective state’s abortion bans, finding that each state’s constitution protects a right to abortion.

On September 14, 2024, a district court judge in North Dakota enjoined North Dakota’s total prohibition on abortion, and on September 30, 2024, a superior court judge in Fulton County, Georgia, issued an injunction blocking the state’s six-week abortion ban. While the fate of the North Dakota injunction remains pending, on October 7, the Georgia Supreme Court stayed the lower court’s injunction, allowing Georgia’s six-week ban on abortion to once again take effect. One Georgia Supreme Court justice—Justice John J. Ellington—dissented in part from the decision, opining that “[t]he ‘status quo’ that should be maintained is the state of the law before the challenged law took effect.”

On November 7, 2023, the citizens of the state of Ohio voted to codify reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, in the state constitution.

In 2019, Ohio banned nearly all abortions once fetal cardiac activity was detected (typically around six weeks’ gestation) through its “Heartbeat Law.” Challenges to Ohio’s Heartbeat Law  under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey prevented it from taking effect until the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization repealed those cases. After Dobbs, Ohio’s “Heartbeat ...

The 21st Century digital age has provided women with numerous sexual and reproductive health tools that track periods, ovulation, and pregnancy. By simply plugging certain health data inputs into these apps, women can now accurately track the most intimate moments of their lives. But is this sensitive health information secure?

In this episode of the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast:  The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization one year ago overturned 50 years of legal precedent protecting the constitutional right to abortion in the United States, leaving the question of whether and how to regulate abortion to individual states.

What has happened since and what is to come?

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Amy Dow, Erin Sutton, and Jessika Tuazon examine how the Dobbs decision has impacted the legal landscape for patient access to abortion, discuss the challenges facing the health care industry, and explore how industries can manage their compliance efforts moving forward as the legal landscape continues to evolve.

Introduction

Following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade, the federal government, pursuant to President Biden’s Executive Order (the EO) took several steps to protect reproductive health privacy, some of which we previously discussed here. Specifically, the EO called for agencies to protect “women’s fundamental right to make reproductive health decisions.” Shortly following issuance of the EO, the Biden Administration created its HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force, requiring all relevant federal agencies to draft measurable actions that they could undertake “to protect and bolster access to sexual and reproductive health care.”  

In this episode of the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast:  On April 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to preserve access to the prescription abortion drug mifepristone.

However, while the case continues in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the future of mifepristone—and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s authority to approve new drugs—will continue to be debated on appeal.

In this episode of the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast:  In the aftermath of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, important questions have emerged about the current legal and regulatory landscape surrounding patient access to drugs that have historically been used to induce abortions.

How can health care providers and pharmacies navigate these new restrictions?

Interest in and acceptance of telehealth services continues to grow. Recent events, like the COVID-19 pandemic and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, have put more pressure than ever on federal and state legislators to promote access to telehealth services.

However, the greater use of telehealth services also increases the potential for fraudulent behavior and enforcement activity. Providers should continue to monitor developments in federal and state laws, regulations, and policies to capitalize on telehealth opportunities while staying compliant with applicable laws.

Since 2016, Epstein Becker Green has researched, compiled, and analyzed state-specific content relating to the regulatory requirements for professional mental/behavioral health practitioners and stakeholders seeking to provide telehealth-focused services. We are pleased to release our latest compilation of state telehealth laws, regulations, and policies within the mental/behavioral health practice disciplines.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to imminently issue its opinion in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (“Dobbs”). If the Court rules in a manner to overturn Roe v. Wade, states will have discretion in determining how to regulate abortion services.^[1] Such a ruling would overturn nearly 50 years of precedent, leaving patients, reproductive health providers, health plans, pharmacies, and may other stakeholders to navigate a host of uncharted legal issues. Specifically, stakeholders will likely need to untangle the web of cross-state legal issues that may emerge.