Legal Advocacy

CMDA seeks to engage in legal advocacy in order to protect healthcare professionals, their patients, and their rights for generations to come.

Active Named Cases

CMDA is named is these active cases:

Right to Life Michigan v. Whitmer

Plaintiffs are suing the State of Michigan charging that the recently passed state amendment, now Article 1, Section 28 of the Michigan Constitution, violates Article VI of the Constitution by creating a super-right of reproductive freedom in the Michigan State Constitution. The suit also alleges that the new state constitution causes great harm to women by exempting them from the legal protections afforded to other classes of individuals, deprives parents the right to direct the upbringing and education of their minor children in violation of the 14th amendment, overrides any objections to endorsing, providing, or support procedures involving reproduction or abortion that are protected by the First Amendment, and violates the Guarantee Clause of the US Constitution.

Texas v. Becerra

CMDA and AAPLOG are joining the state of Texas in its suit against HHS over the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) HHS is using EMTALA to for hospitals and physicians to provide emergency abortions in states where abortion has been severely restricted.


ADF filed suit against the FDA for improper initial approval of Mifepristone and their lack of enforcement of REMS (Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy) regarding mifepristone. The FDA has also requirements for in person evaluation of the pregnant patient prior to prescribing mifepristone. This requirement was put in place to document proper age of the pregnancy and rule out the presence of an ectopic pregnancy. Relaxing the rule increases the risk to pregnant women undergoing chemical abortion.

New York, Planned Parenthood v. HHS

Suit to protect new conscience rules promulgated by Trump HHS.

Other Named Cases

CMDA was named is these recent cases that have either been decided or dismissed:

AMA v. Cochran (Becerra)

CMDA had filed as an intervenor to support HHS's 2019 rule to prohibit Title X funds from being used in abortions.

Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra

Filed in 2016 against Obama administration HHS change to rule 1557.

CMDA v. Bonta

Filed in March of 2022; suit is against CA SB 380 which is a PAS bill that was passed into law in CA and forces HCP's to participate in PAS through documenting the time of request and other measures.

Lacy v. Torrez

This case was filed in the Federal District Court of New Mexico in December 2022, against the New Mexico law entitled the Elizabeth Whitefield End of Life Options Act passed in 2021. This law requires HCPs to tell terminally ill patients about the option of assisted suicide. The Act also forces HCPs to engage in effective referral for assisted suicide if they have religious or conscience objections to assisted suicide. Finally, the ACT  expressly prohibits professional associations like CMDA from suspending, denying or revoking membership to members who participate in assisted suicide.

Amicus Briefs

CMDA regularly files amicus briefs in key cases to promote the perspective of Christian healthcare professionals in American constitutional law. Compiled below are some of our amicus briefs in cases addressing the key bioethical issues of our day.

Ohio v. Becerra

The State of Ohio filed suit against HHS because of their final rule imposing a universal requirement that each Title X grantee provide information, counseling, and referrals for abortion. Ohio and other states requested a preliminary injunction preventing HHS from implementing their Title X policy.

Tingley v. Ferguson

Brian Tingley, a licensed marriage and family counselor in Tacoma, Washington, is challenging a state law that prohibits certain private client-counselor conversations and counseling goals that the government disfavors. ADF attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take his case and reverse a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruling that affirmed a district court’s decision to throw out Tingley’s challenge to the law.

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds (Iowa)

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has filed suit against the state of Iowa's heartbeat law.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health

The initial case was heard in the Southern District Court of Mississippi where the court ruled against Mississippi on the basis of Roe and Casey. It was appealed to the 5th Circuit, where a three judge panel voted 3-0 to uphold the District Court decision. It was the appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Bristol Regional Women’s Center v. Herbert Slatery

After Tennessee enacted a 24- hour waiting period for abortion, BRWC filed a lawsuit.

Shavelson v. California Dept. of Health

California passed the End of Life Option Act; plaintiffs are disabled and requesting the ability to have someone else administer the medication to them rather than having to depend on themselves to self administer.

Kligler v. Healey

Current Massachusetts law criminalizes the practice of assisted suicide. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that physicians who participate in assisted suicide are not subject to prosecution for manslaughter under certain circumstances. If successful, the declaration would in effect decriminalize assisted suicide in the state of Massachusetts.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. State of South Carolina

The state of South Carolina passed a heartbeat bill that was set to go into effect with the overturn of Roe v. Wade. It was initially blocked by a state court and the case transferred to SC Supreme Court.

Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Carol E. Ball v. Kristi Noem

Filed to support South Dakota Anti-Coercion Statute requiring informed consent for abortion procedures.

Morris v. Centura Health

Dr. Morris, an employee of Centura Health, demanded the right to engage in assisted suicide which is legal in Colorado, but against the bylaws of Centura Health, a Catholic healthcare institution. CMDA is filing an amicus brief to support Centura.

FCA v. San Jose Unified School District

San Jose Unified School District refuses to recognize religious groups if they require leaders to share the religious beliefs of the organization. While the School District has granted individualized exemptions for other groups, they refuse to grant an exemption for FCA.

Subscribe for News & Updates:

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.



Contact Information:

P.O. Box 7500
Bristol, TN 37621

Phone: 888-230-2637
Fax: 423-844-1005