Petitioner(s): Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice; Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, LLC; Alan Braid, M.D.; Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, Inc.; and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma
Respondent(s): State of Oklahoma; Nichole Cooper; Tammi Miller; Angela Nuttall; Tammie Patzowsky; Donna Howell; Christy Matli; Donna Alexander; Patti Barger; Marie Hirst; Renee Bryant; Lesa Rousey-Daniels; Laura Sumner; Metzi Brown; Marilyn Williams; LaDonna Flowers; Robert Morales; Terry Kelley; Deborah Mason; Amanda Vanorsdol; Staci Hunter; Caroline Weaver; Rachelle Rogers; Sally Wayland; Janelle Sharp; Laura Lee; Lisa Hannah; Deana Kilian; Jeanna Scott; Stacy Macias; Susan Breon; Tina Oaks; Ashley Sanford; Tina Swailes; Kimberley Berry; Cassandra Slover; Marilee Thornton; Lisa Markus; Kay Richards; Melinda Brinlee; Melba Hall; Cindy Kirby; Cheryl Smith; Wendy Holland; Shauna Hoffman; Wanda Pearce; Jenifer Clinton; Kristel Gray; Kathy Gray; Lisa Rodebush; Jodi Jennings; Robyn Boswell; Hillary Vorndran; April Frauenberger; Sherri Foreman; Rick Warren; Charly Criner; Jennifer Burd; Cassie Key; Ila Potts; Lori Allen; Pam Smith; Karen Dunnigan; Valerie Ueltzen; Tina Freeman; Jan Bailey; Cathi Edwards; Kimberly Davis; Gina Cox; Melody Harper; M. Renee Ellis; Kevin Stevens; Don Newberry; Jim Hight; Jill Spitzer; Lynda Vermillion; Staci Davey; and Tammy Roberts
Law(s) challenged: Six-week abortion ban that only permits private enforcement (S.B. 1503) and near-total abortion ban that only permits private enforcement (H.B. 4327)
Description: Plaintiffs claim that the state’s six-week ban violates the state constitution’s 1) guarantee of due process — right to choose to terminate a pregnancy and bodily integrity (Art. II, § 7), 2) guarantee of due process — right to health (Art. II, § 7), 3) guarantee of equal protection (Art. II, § 7), 4) right to open courts (Art. II, § 6), 5) prohibition on special laws (Art. V, §§ 46, 59), 6) guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (Art. II, §7), 7) prohibition on ex post facto laws (Art. II, § 15), 8) Freedom of Speech Clause (Art. II, § 22), and 9) prohibition on unreasonable access to patient medical records (Art. II, § 30). They also argue that Oklahoma precedent prevents the legislature from delegating the state’s police power to private citizens.
Plaintiffs further claim that the near-total ban violates the state constitution’s 1) guarantee of due process — right to choose to terminate a pregnancy and bodily integrity (Art. II, § 7), 2) guarantee of due process — right to health (Art. II, § 7), 3) guarantee of equal protection (Art. II, § 7), 4) right to open courts (Art. II, § 6), 5) prohibition on special laws (Art. V, §§ 46, 59), 6) guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (Art. II, §7), 7) prohibition on ex post fact laws (Art. II, § 15), 8) Freedom of Speech Clause (Art. II, § 22), and 9) prohibition on unreasonable access to patient medical records (Art. II, § 30). They also argue that Oklahoma precedent prevents the legislature from delegating the state’s police power to private citizens.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to temporarily block the two bans pending a decision on whether to take jurisdiction of the case and rule on the merits.
Key Documents
Petition (April 28, 2022)
Order denying request for temporary restraining order and temporary injunction (May 3, 2022)
First supplemental application for original jurisdiction and petition for declaratory and injunctive relief and/or writ of prohibition (May 26, 2022)
Order denying request for temporary restraining order and temporary injunction (June 27, 2022)
