Case: Tulsa Women's Reproductive Clinic v. Hunter

On September 25, 2019, Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, filed this lawsuit in an Oklahoma trial court challenging an Oklahoma law that forced doctors to tell patients that medication abortion can be “reversed” within 72 hours before their medication abortion appointment, a claim that is unsupported by scientific evidence. This law, S.B. 614, also required abortion providers to put up signs and inform patients of a website and 24-hour hotline for Heartbeat International’s “Abortion Pill Reversal Network.” Violations of S.B. 614 would be deemed a felony and subject to a $10,000 fine per day.

The clinic argued that this law violated the right to freedom of speech as afforded in the Oklahoma Constitution Article 2, Section 22 by forcing physicians to convey false information and non-medical statements they disagreed with. The lawsuit named as defendants the Attorney General of Oklahoma, the District Attorney for Tulsa County, the Oklahoma State of Medical Licensure and Supervision, the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners, and the Oklahoma State Board of Health. The plaintiff sought (1) declaratory judgment that S.B. 614 violated the Oklahoma Constitution and was void and of no effect, (2) permanent injunctive relief restricting the state from enforcing S.B. 614, and (3) attorney’s fees and costs. This case was assigned to Judge Don Andrews.

The clinic filed a motion for a temporary injunction on the same day the lawsuit was filed, and it was granted by the court on October 29, 2019, thereby restricting the state from enforcing S.B. 614 pending final resolution of the matter.

For almost two years, the parties proceeded with discovery. On August 30, 2021, the plaintiff amended its petition to also challenge provisions of S.B. 778 and 779 insofar that these new laws also required disclosures regarding abortion “reversal”. On October 1, 2021, the clinic filed a motion to expand the temporary injunction to include a prohibition on enforcing those sections of S.B. 778 and 779 and the next day, the court granted that expansion. 

Between 2021 and 2024, the only activity on the docket was withdrawal of counsel. On September 20, 2024, the parties were given notice that the case was scheduled for disposition for failure to to prosecute, and that it would be dismissed without prejudice unless counsel showed good cause on why the case should be allowed to remain on the docket. On November 12, the court reported that plaintiffs' counsel had appeared, and that the case would continue to the next disposition docket on April 1, 2025. As of November 2024, there are no additional updates.