unconstitutional if applied to facilities that provide only medication abortion services as one of the primary reasons for construing the statute not to apply to such facilities. In both the federal and state court actions, Planned Parenthood alleged the same facts concerning the same parties, and it argued that the statute did not apply to facilities that provide only medication abortion services based, at least in part, on constitutional arguments. The facts, issues, object, parties, and purpose of both cases are the same. “One of the purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act is to reduce litigation,” and “[a]llowing two suits with the same purpose would run contrary to the purpose of the Act.” People ex rel. Small v. Harrah’s N. Kansas City Corp., 24 S.W.3d 60, 66 (Mo.App. W.D.2000) (<HOLDING>). As noted supra, under Pullman, England v.
holding that state court judgment settling shareholders state and federal claims had preclusive effect in federal court even though shareholders could not have pressed their federal claims in state court holding that federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear case notwithstanding rookerfeldman doctrine where plaintiff filed federal suit while certiorari petition to new mexico supreme court was pending in similar state court action recognizing that pleadings filed in federal court while the federal court has jurisdiction become part of the state court record on remand holding that plaintiff who filed suit in federal court could not later file a declaratory judgment petition in state court making allegations substantially similar to those made in federal court and seeking resolution of primarily the same issues holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court