Key Points:
-
A consortium of abortion clinics have sued Pennsylvania, arguing that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should force taxpayers to fund abortion and to find (invent) a right to abortion in the Pennsylvania Constitution.
-
A win for the abortion industry in this case would force taxpayer funding of abortion, and would likely establish a right to an abortion in Pennsylvania’s Constitution.
-
If abortion is declared a constitutional right in Pennsylvania, all current and future pro-life regulations would be in jeopardy of being struck down
The Threat
The Pennsylvania Constitution contains no right to an abortion or to taxpayer funded abortions, but the abortion industry is asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to find (invent) one in a case they filed, Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services.
The case, brought by a consortium of abortion clinics (including Planned Parenthood) argues that the court should declare a right to abortion and taxpayer-funded abortions in the Pennsylvania Constitution.
A win for the abortion industry in this case would not only force taxpayers to fund abortion, but a court-imposed state-constitutional “right to abortion” could lead to all of Pennsylvania’s current pro-life laws being struck down,and could result in legalizing abortion right up until birth, paid for with taxpayer dollars. Any future pro-life laws enacted to protect women’s health and preborn babies lives would likely be struck down under such a ruling. Current pro-life regulations in the Abortion Control Act, such as the 24-hour waiting period requirements, informed consent, and 24 week abortion limit would be in jeopardy of being repealed and ruled unconstitutional. The same is true with abortion clinic regulations put into place to protect women, passed into our law after the Kermit Gosnell “House of Horrors” scandal.
In addition to the lawsuit, the Abortion Industry is also trying the legislative route. House Bill 1888 would also create a constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion in Pennsylvania’s constitution and remove our current pro-life protections.
The Lawsuit Status:
The Commonwealth Court ruled against the abortion industry in the Allegheny Reproductive v. Pennsylvania case on March 26, 2021. But the abortion industry appealed to the PA Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that there is no “fundamental right” to abortion, but three justices (Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht) overruled longstanding precedent that prohibited taxpayer funding of elective abortions. Justices Donohue and Wecht expressed interest in recognizing a right to abortion, while Justices Sally Mundy and Debra Todd dissented, with Mundy arguing the issue should be resolved by the political branches, not the courts. Justice Kevin Brobson abstained, and there was a vacancy on the court. The case was remanded to the Commonwealth Court, which heard oral arguments in February 2025. Governor Josh Shapiro’s administration had announced early on that they would not defend the law but would advocate for striking down the Medicaid funding ban.
Conclusion:
If the Abortion Industry gets their way, the PA Supreme Court ruling would force state taxpayer funding of abortions, strike down parental consent and 24 hour waiting period requirements, end health and safety regulations to protect women at abortion clinics, and worse. And any future legislation to protect women and babies would be found unconstitutional. Pennsylvania would join a list of states where lawsuits have already resulted in those state supreme courts “finding” a right to abortion in their constitutions, thereby striking down pro-life laws just like ours.

Related Articles
My Road Trip for Life
By: Rebekah Geer As the summer began, I could not have imagined that I would end up in Austin, Texas standing face to face with Planned Parenthood President, Cecile Richards, with a screaming mob surrounding us. My meetup with abortion's biggest advocate has been a...
Majority of Americans Believe in Religious Freedom
From our friends at Family Research Council: When did it become acceptable to sacrifice the freedoms of conscience and free exercise of religion on the same-sex "wedding" altar? Never, if you ask most Americans. In a stunningly lopsided poll, U.S. voters universally...
Defend marriage, for the kids’ sake
(The following is an op-ed that was published in The Patriot News) By Brandon McGinley Single parenthood is on the rise. Fatherlessness, in particular, abounds. Out-of-wedlock childbearing occurs at levels that previous generations of reformers, such as...
Contact Kane: “Do Your Job!”
Pennsylvania law states that: “It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to uphold and defend the constitutionality of all statutes so as to prevent their suspension or abrogation…” Click here to send Attorney General Kane a message of your disappointment at her...
AG Won’t Defend: People of PA Deserve Better
Click here to send AG Kane an email: "Do Your Job!" (Harrisburg, PA) - The Pennsylvania Family Institute today expressed disappointment that Attorney General Kathleen Kane will not to defend the Commonwealth’s marriage law against a lawsuit filed this week by the...
Reaction to ACLU Challenge to Marriage in PA
By: Dan Bartkowiak I just came from the Capitol in Harrisburg. A press conference was held this morning to announce a new court challenge aiming to redefine marriage for every Pennsylvanian. It is a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's...
One Court Gets It Right: Hobby Lobby Prevails
by Brandon McGinley While Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor have grabbed the headlines, this has been a remarkably important week for the religious liberty concerns raised by the HHS contraceptive/sterilization/abortifacient mandate. On Thursday, a federal...
Hobby Lobby Wins Abortion Pill Mandate Case Before 10th Circuit
We await decision for Conestoga Wood here at the 3rd Circuit The Green family that owns and operates Hobby Lobby, a large craft store chain, just won an important religious liberty case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. A Health and Human...