Phillips v. State (Formerly Blackmon v. State)

Plaintiffs, including patients who allege they were denied, or received delayed, medically necessary abortion care due to doctors’ confusion regarding the scope of the medical necessity exception in the state’s abortion ban, challenge that exception as violating state constitutional rights to life and equal protection and as unconstitutionally vague.  In October 2024, a trial court held the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits as to each challenge, at least with respect to certain maternal medical conditions the parties agreed fall within the exception, and granted temporary relief declaring the exception to include those conditions. The court, however, found that it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin criminal enforcement of the abortion ban against the plaintiffs physicians.

In October 2025, the trial court let the plaintiffs continue their challenge after the legislature changed the law to redefine “serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” to incorporate the specific medical conditions in the previous decision. The court found the complaint was not mooted and continued to state a claim, except as to a facial vagueness count, given several of the alleged defects with the law were unaffected by the legislature’s changes. In particular, the court found the new definition circular and, because it provides the particular conditions “may” be included in the exception, not to cure uncertainty about when abortion is permitted.