The abortion provider who won a Supreme Court case in 2016 is filing another suit against the state of Texas over dozens of restrictions placed on the procedure.
Whole Woman's Health Alliance filed suit Thursday against the state, arguing that its abortion restrictions impose "medically unnecessary burdens on patients, require doctors to lie to their patients and have led to clinics being shut down."
“For years, Texas politicians have done everything in their power to push abortion out of reach for Texans. Today, we join communities and advocates across the state to send the message that we have had enough,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, President of Whole Woman’s Health Alliance.
WWHA argues the restrictions force Texans to travel long distances for abortions, which can lead to delays of days or weeks and increase costs for the procedure by hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The lawsuit challenges Texas laws spanning two decades, including a 1999 parental notification law, abortion reporting requirements passed in 2017, ultrasound requirements, mandatory waiting periods, restrictions on medication abortions and licensing laws, among others.
In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in the lawsuit brought by the WWHA that Texas couldn't place restrictions on abortion that create an undue burden for women.
That ruling paved the way for the new lawsuit, WWHA said.
“We went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2016 to defeat harmful abortion restrictions and we are not done fighting so that every Texan can get the health care they need and deserve," Hagstrom Miller said.
"All Texans, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much they earn, should be able to make the health care decisions that are best for them and get the care they need with dignity.”
The lawsuit was filed Thursday in a federal district court in Austin.
Co-plaintiffs in the case include Dr. Bhavik Kumar, Fund Texas Choice, The Lilith Fund, the Texas Equal Access Fund, The Afiya Center and the West Fund.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Lawyering Project, which also argued the 2016 case before the Supreme Court.