Oklahoma Leaders Push for Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging Abortion Bans After Fatal Fetal Diagnosis
“Being forced to continue a pregnancy in these circumstances inflicts tremendous suffering on the pregnant patient and her family,” the lawsuit reads, capturing the anguish of three Oklahoma mothers who filed suit after learning their pregnancies were nonviable.
Oklahoma state leaders are asking a court to throw out a legal challenge brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights, which argues that the state’s abortion bans violate constitutional rights when applied to pregnancies with fatal fetal diagnoses. The case, filed in the Oklahoma County District Court in September, centers on three women—Magon Hoffman, Sheena Hamlin, and Elizabeth Fitzgerald—who were denied abortion care within state lines and forced to travel elsewhere.
Under Oklahoma law, abortion bans permit the procedure solely to preserve the life of the pregnant woman. The lawsuit contends that this narrow exception violates rights to life and liberty, substantive due process, and equal protection under the state constitution. Two OB-GYNs and the group Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice also joined the legal challenge.
State Attorneys Assert Abortion Policy Belongs to Legislature
Attorneys representing Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, the Oklahoma County district attorney, and state medical leaders acknowledged in their motion to dismiss that the experiences detailed by the plaintiffs are “painful by any measure.” However, the state’s legal filing asserts that the motion does not take a stance on whether state law ought to permit abortion following a fatal fetal diagnosis.
“That is a question of public policy,” the motion states. “Under the Oklahoma Constitution, it belongs to the Legislature and to the people, who may answer it by statute, by referendum, or by initiative.”
The state argues that the Oklahoma Supreme Court already addressed the boundaries of abortion access in a March 2023 ruling. In that decision, the state’s high court affirmed a right to life-preserving care when a physician determines to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that continuation of the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life. The 2023 ruling did not establish a right to elective terminations outside of preserving maternal life.
Defendants maintain that a lower court lacks the authority to reexamine an issue already decided by the state Supreme Court without an explicit invitation to do so. State attorneys argue the plaintiffs lack legal standing because they allege past injuries rather than present or imminent ones. A parallel argument asserts that the physician plaintiffs, Dr. Elizabeth Pinard and Dr. Sarah Mashburn, face no pending or threatened enforcement actions regarding their medical licenses.
A Chilling Effect on Clinical Care
The lawsuit details how the state’s restrictive legal climate impacts medical decision-making inside hospitals. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that the pervasive anti-abortion atmosphere makes doctors and hospital legal teams overly cautious, often withholding care until a patient develops a dangerous infection or other acute complications.
“While the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision makes clear that neither imminent harm nor absolute certainty is required, the pervasive anti-abortion climate in the state has made doctors and hospital counsel wary of providing care unless they are certain that a particular patient meets the life-preserving care exception,” the lawsuit states.
We cannot let the state shirk its responsibility to its citizens. Oklahomans deserve justice.”
