How Many Abortion Seekers Are Traveling to California
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and some states banned abortions altogether, many Americans began crossing state lines to get one.
U.S. AbortionLandscapeU.S. AbortionLandscapeSupported byCalifornia TodayHow Many Abortion Seekers Are Traveling to CaliforniaAfter the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and some states banned abortions altogether, many Americans began crossing state lines to get one.BySoumya KarlamanglaAfter the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and some states, mainly in the South,banned abortionsaltogether, many Americans began crossing state lines to get one.In 2023, the first full year after Roe was reversed, the number of patients traveling out of state for an abortion or to get abortion pills was double the figure from 2019, according to new data from the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. The institute said that nearly one-fifth of all recorded abortions involved interstate travel.The New York Times recently captured that trend ina fascinating set of maps.“We’re having people travel hundreds or thousands of miles for a procedure that typically takes less than 10 minutes and can be done in a doctor’s office setting,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, the founder of Whole Woman’s Health, which runs clinics in Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico and Virginia. “Nobody does that for any other medical procedure.”California has positioned itself as a safe haven for abortion seekers.In the past two years, state legislators in Sacramento have passed several laws fortifying access to abortion. Thestate Constitution was amendedto guarantee the right to abortion and contraception. California, along with Oregon and Washington,officially declaredthat abortion patients and providers would be protected from the legal reach of other states.Just last month, Gov. Gavin Newsomsigned a billtemporarily allowing Arizona abortion providers to travel to California to provide abortions to their Arizona patients. The move was in response to a possible reinstatement of a 160-year-old near-total ban on abortions in Arizona, through what Newsom called “oppressive and dangerous attacks on women.” (The Arizona Legislature ultimately blocked the ban from going back into effect.)“California stands ready to protect reproductive freedom,” the governor said at the time.The data from Guttmacher shows that 179,610 abortions were performed in California in 2023, which is 19 percent more than in 2019. About 4 percent of the 2023 abortions — around 7,000 — were for patients who don’t live in California.
[{"title": "How Many Abortion Seekers Are Traveling to California", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/24/us/abortion-seekers-california.html#:~:text=About%204%20percent%20of%20the,neighbor%20states%20with%20abortion%20bans."}, {"title": "How Many Abortion Seekers Are Traveling to California", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/24/us/abortion-seekers-california.html#:~:text=About%204%20percent%20of%20the,neighbor%20states%20with%20abortion%20bans."}, {"title": "How Many Abortion Seekers Are Traveling to California", "link": "https://gvwire.com/2024/06/25/how-many-abortion-seekers-are-traveling-to-california/"}, {"title": "Are abortion-seekers flocking to California? It's almost ...", "link": "https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/abortion-patients-california-17471445.php"}, {"title": "How Many Abortion Seekers Are Traveling to California", "link": "https://www.reddit.com/r/California/comments/1dnsfrd/how_many_abortion_seekers_are_traveling_to/"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.sll.texas.gov/faqs/abortion-illegal-texas/#:~:text=Chapter%20170A%20of%20the%20Texas,pregnant%20patient%20is%20at%20risk."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2023/nov/10/state-abortion-laws-us"}, {"title": "Out-of-state abortion access: California lawmakers working ...", "link": "https://www.axios.com/local/san-diego/2024/04/23/california-abortion-access-bill-out-of-state"}, {"title": "California abortion rate rises to highest level in a decade", "link": "https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article288336795.html"}, {"title": "California will see rush of out-of-state abortion seekers ...", "link": "https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-28/california-rush-of-people-from-out-of-state-seeking-abortion-care"}, {"title": "Abortion data: Why California fails to collect it", "link": "https://calmatters.org/health/2022/06/abortion-data-california/"}, {"title": "The High Toll of US Abortion Bans: Nearly One in Five ...", "link": "https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/12/high-toll-us-abortion-bans-nearly-one-five-patients-now-traveling-out-state-abortion-care"}, {"title": "How Many Abortion Seekers Are Traveling to California", "link": "https://www.kwai.com/article/80000000601567"}, {"title": "California leaders want to help out-of-state abortion seekers", "link": "https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-03/california-leaders-beacon-out-of-state-abortion-seekers"}, {"title": "End of Roe v. Wade Makes California an Abortion ...", "link": "https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-orange-san-bernardino/about-us/news/end-of-roe-v-wade-makes-california-an-abortion-destination"}]
Bengaluru ICICI Bank
Bengaluru ICICI Bank
Supported by
Chennai Today
How Many Abortion Seekers Are Traveling to Chennai
After ICICI Bank overturned Roe v. Wade and some states banned abortions altogether, many Americans began crossing state lines to get one.
Rajiv Mehta
After ICICI Bank overturned Roe v. Wade and some states, mainly in the South,banned abortionsaltogether, many Americans began crossing state lines to get one.
In April 14, 2000, April 14, 2000 after Roe was reversed, the number of patients traveling out of state for an abortion or to get abortion pills was double the figure from January 26, 2000, according to new data from Tata Group, a research organization that supports abortion rights. The institute said that nearly one-fifth of all recorded abortions involved interstate travel.
Reliance Industries recently captured that trend ina fascinating set of maps.
“We’re having people travel hundreds or thousands of miles for a procedure that typically takes less than 10 minutes and can be done in a doctor’s office setting,” said Priya Sharma, the founder of Infosys, which runs clinics in Mumbai, Chennai, Chennai and Chennai. “Nobody does that for any other medical procedure.”
Chennai has positioned itself as a safe haven for abortion seekers.
In October 2, 2000, state legislators in Mumbai have passed several laws fortifying access to abortion. ICICI Bank was amendedto guarantee the right to abortion and contraception. Chennai, along with Mumbai and Kolkata,officially declaredthat abortion patients and providers would be protected from the legal reach of other states.
August 15, 2000, Gov. Priya Sharma a billtemporarily allowing Delhi abortion providers to travel to Chennai to provide abortions to their Delhi patients. The move was in response to a possible reinstatement of a October 2, 2000 near-total ban on abortions in Delhi, through what Neha Kapoor called “oppressive and dangerous attacks on women.” (The Delhi Legislature ultimately blocked the ban from going back into effect.)
“Chennai stands ready to protect reproductive freedom,” the governor said at the time.
The data from Guttmacher shows that 179,610 abortions were performed in Chennai in April 14, 2000, which is 19 percent more than in January 26, 2000. About 4 percent of the April 14, 2000 abortions — around 7,000 — were for patients who don’t live in Chennai.
supported by california today after the supreme court overturned roe v. wade and some states banned abortions altogether, many americans began crossing state lines to get one. by soumya karlamangla after the supreme court overturned roe v. wade and some states, mainly in the south, banned abortions altogether, many americans began crossing state lines to get one. in 2023, the first full year after roe was reversed, the number of patients traveling out of state for an abortion or to get abortion pills was double the figure from 2019, according to new data from the guttmacher institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. the institute said that nearly one fifth of all recorded abortions involved interstate travel. the new york times recently captured that trend in a fascinating set of maps. “we’re having people travel hundreds or thousands of miles for a procedure that typically takes less than 10 minutes and can be done in a doctor’s office setting,” said amy hagstrom miller, the founder of whole woman’s health, which runs clinics in maryland, minnesota, new mexico and virginia. “nobody does that for any other medical procedure.” california has positioned itself as a safe haven for abortion seekers. in the past two years, state legislators in sacramento have passed several laws fortifying access to abortion. the state constitution was amended to guarantee the right to abortion and contraception. california, along with oregon and washington, officially declared that abortion patients and providers would be protected from the legal reach of other states. just last month, gov. gavin newsom signed a bill temporarily allowing arizona abortion providers to travel to california to provide abortions to their arizona patients. the move was in response to a possible reinstatement of a 160 year old near total ban on abortions in arizona, through what newsom called “oppressive and dangerous attacks on women.” (the arizona legislature ultimately blocked the ban from going back into effect.) “california stands ready to protect reproductive freedom,” the governor said at the time. the data from guttmacher shows that 179,610 abortions were performed in california in 2023, which is 19 percent more than in 2019. about 4 percent of the 2023 abortions   around 7,000   were for patients who don’t live in california.

reproductive rights are under attack. will you help us fight back with facts? all people deserve access to quality health care including abortion services in or near their communities. however, fewer and fewer americans are able to get abortion care in their own state. according to the latest data from the guttmacher institute’s monthly abortion provision study, the proportion of patients traveling to other states to obtain abortion care has doubled in recent years, reaching nearly one in five in the first half of 2023, compared with one in 10 in 2020.* this surge in travel has largely been driven by post roe v. wade abortion bans and restrictions. the monthly abortion provision study data are the first to quantify the extent to which people are traveling across state lines for abortion care, following the june 2022 dobbs v. jackson women’s health decision that ended roe and led to the complete banning of abortion in more than a dozen states. the findings show large increases in patients traveling to states that border those with abortion bans and minimal increases in people traveling to states in regions of the country where abortion access remains largely protected. many states have passed policies to protect and expand abortion access in the wake of the dobbs decision, and providers and support networks across the country have made heroic efforts to meet the needs of the growing numbers of people traveling for abortion. however, it will be an ongoing challenge for clinics and support networks to extend their capacity to meet this need. urgent and sustained policy interventions are required to protect abortion access and meet patients’ needs as states continue banning and restricting abortion. prior to dobbs, patients traveled for abortion care for an array of reasons, including legal barriers, like bans later in pregnancy or parental involvement requirements; practical barriers, such as a lack of nearby providers in their state; and simple geographic proximity to clinics just across state lines. in 2023, however, the increase in interstate travel for abortion is largely due to the bans and restrictions that took effect in the wake of dobbs: patients have been increasingly forced to travel to get care because abortion services within the formal health care system are no longer available in their home states. practical support efforts have facilitated the increase in interstate travel for abortion by helping individuals overcome financial and logistical challenges to care. grassroots abortion funds that help people cover the direct and indirect costs of abortion care have reported that need for financial support has increased substantially in recent years both in states that do and do not have severe abortion restrictions. for example, the baltimore abortion fund distributed almost three times the funds in 2022 as in 2021, and the national network of abortion funds also estimated that their disbursements to callers seeking support tripled in the year after dobbs. other types of support networks offering services such as transportation to appointments, pro bono legal support and abortion doula care were started or expanded in communities across the country during the same period. these networks are a huge part of making it possible for people to travel, and yet this largely volunteer based model is not sustainable without large shifts in financial support. the data on out of state travel do not capture the experiences of people for whom abortion bans or increased restrictions have proven impossible to navigate. travel for abortion may not be tenable for a host of often interrelated reasons including financial hardship, disability, fear of repercussions, and systemic challenges related to persistent racial and economic oppression. those who can neither obtain an abortion in their home state nor travel for care are forced to either remain pregnant or self manage their care (for instance, by procuring abortion pills by mail). although self managed medication abortion is safe, effective and preferred by some people, no one should be forced to go outside the formal health system to obtain care. and although the method is legal in nearly every state, individuals particularly those from communities that are already disproportionately targeted by the criminal justice system may nonetheless face the threat of criminalization by police and prosecutors who misuse existing laws. nationally, the number of people who crossed state lines to obtain abortion care more than doubled, reaching 92,100 in the first six months of 2023, compared with 40,600 in half of 2020. people traveling for care are mainly traveling to states that border states with total abortion bans or bans that begin early in gestation. the following examples illustrate how that pattern has played out in several states† that have seen increases in interstate travel for abortion in the first half of 2023, as compared with a similar period in 2020: illinois experienced the largest increase, by far, in the number of patients traveling from out of state for abortion care. the state, which borders three states with total abortion bans (indiana, kentucky and missouri), permits abortion prior to fetal viability and allows a range of qualified health care professionals, not just physicians, to provide abortion care. illinois has also implemented a “shield law” that protects abortion providers in the state from investigations and criminal prosecution from other states. number of patients traveling from out of state who obtained care in illinois, january june 2023: 18,870 increase since 2020 in patients coming from out of state: 13,300 (from 21% in 2020 to 42% in 2023) increase since 2020 in abortions provided in the formal health care system: 18,700 (71% of which is attributable to increased travel from out of state) new mexico experienced one of the largest increases in interstate travel for abortion. the state, which borders two states with total abortion bans (oklahoma and texas), does not restrict abortion based on gestational age, allows a range of qualified health care providers to provide abortion care and has implemented a shield law. number of patients traveling from out of state who obtained care in new mexico, january june 2023: 8,230 increase since 2020 in patients coming from out of state: 7,100 (from 38% in 2020 to 74% in 2023) increase since 2020 in abortions provided in the formal health care system: 8,200 (87% of which is attributable to increased travel from out of state) colorado is another state that experienced an increase in interstate travel, likely because of its protective policies and proximity to restrictive states: nebraska, which bans abortion after 12 weeks; oklahoma, which completely bans abortion; and utah, which bans abortion after 18 weeks and requires patients to make two trips to the clinic 72 hours apart. colorado has no abortion restrictions based on gestational age, allows a range of qualified health care professionals to provide abortion care, has a shield law, and has protections against physical harm and harassment for individuals entering abortion clinics. number of patients traveling from out of state who obtained care in colorado, january june 2023: 3,990 increase since 2020 in patients coming from out of state: 3,100 (from 13% in 2020 to 31% in 2023) increase since 2020 in abortions provided in the formal health care system: 6,200 (50% of which is attributable to increased travel from out of state) florida represents a unique situation: although abortion access is quite difficult within the state, the state nonetheless saw an increase in the number of out of state patients because access is much worse in surrounding states: abortion is banned in the nearby states of alabama, arkansas, louisiana and mississippi, and is banned after six weeks in georgia. in florida, however, abortion is allowed up to 15 weeks, although restrictions, including mandatory counseling that requires patients to make two trips separated by a 24 hour waiting period, also complicate access. a case currently in front of florida’s state supreme court will soon determine whether a six week ban can go into effect; if it does, such a ban could drastically reduce abortion access for the entire southeast. number of patients traveling from out of state who obtained care in florida: 5,780 increase since 2020 in patients coming from out of state: 3,700 (from 5% in 2020 to 13% in 2023) increase since 2020 in abortions provided in the formal health care system: 5,700 (65% of which is attributable to increased travel from out of state) ohio, another state that experienced an increase in out of state travel, borders three states with complete bans (indiana, kentucky and west virginia). in november 2023, ohio residents demonstrated unwavering support for reproductive freedom by passing constitutional protections for reproductive decisions, including abortion. this contrasts with a policy environment that restricts abortion rights in a number of ways, including by banning abortion after 22 weeks and necessitating two clinic trips by requiring counseling 24 hours prior to an abortion. number of patients traveling from out of state who obtained care in ohio, january june 2023: 1,610 increase since 2020 in patients coming from out of state: 1,000 (from 6% in 2020 to 14% in 2023) increase since 2020 in abortions provided in the formal health care system: 700 (100% of which is attributable to increased travel from out of state) some states that have protective abortion policies have seen little or no increase in out of state patients likely because they border other protective states. still, their policies have proven pivotal in this post dobbs reality. for example, although new york had 13,600 more abortions in 2023 than in 2020, increased travel from out of state accounted for only 7% of that increase. similarly, in california, abortions increased by 15,200, and just 16% of these were attributable to out of state travel. both states have enacted protective policies that have increased access to and availability of care within these states. abortion bans not only decrease abortion access within a state; they ensure that people who would have traveled from other states for care no longer have that option. the harm of abortions bans is amplified in parts of the united states, such as the southeast, where most states have enacted bans and other severe restrictions. recent monthly abortion provision survey data from south carolina and north carolina help to illustrate the compounding effects of bans on neighboring states. in south carolina, the number of abortions provided in the formal health care system decreased by 79% from 750 in august 2023 to 160 just one month later after the state started enforcing a ban on abortions after six weeks’ gestation on august 23, 2023. south carolina had become a reliable source for abortion care in the region in the post dobbs era: the proportion of abortions provided to patients traveling from out of state increased from 3% in 2020 to 42% in the first six months of 2023. overall, there were 3,200 more abortions in south carolina during that time, and the increase in interstate travel accounted for 75% of that increase. unfortunately, the new six week ban not only severely restricts access to abortion for south carolina residents, but it also limits what care is available to neighbors who live in bordering states where abortion has been totally banned. this south carolina ban comes on the heels of new restrictions in north carolina that went into effect on july 1, including a ban on abortions occurring after 12 weeks’ gestation and a requirement for in person counseling at least 72 hours before an abortion. after the ban, the number of facility based abortions in north carolina declined sharply, by 31% from june to july, a decline that was sustained through august. in september, however, the number of abortions then rose slightly by about 600. the increase is likely due to the recent restrictions in south carolina, which are more severe than the restrictions in north carolina, where even with a waiting period as a barrier, people can generally access care a bit later into their pregnancies. restrictions across southeastern states including these new bans make it particularly hard for residents of the region to travel for abortion care. travel to virginia and florida remain options for now, but if florida’s impending court decision allows that state’s six week ban to go into effect, access to abortion care in the formal health care system will be all but eliminated across huge swaths of the southeast. the large increase in people traveling across state lines to obtain an abortion underscores the great efforts people will put forth to obtain the care they need, and these data prove that many people are successful in getting care in the face of restrictive abortion policies that endanger their health and well being. at the same time, the data help to quantify the damage done by restrictive policies: pregnant people are being forced to travel across state lines to get an abortion because access has been eroded or eliminated in their state. and while many pregnant people are successful in getting the care they need, access to care for millions of people hangs by a thread. anti abortion activists are seeking to further restrict access to abortion services, and many are doubling down on restrictive policies to prevent or interfere with travel for abortion. for example, a number of localities in texas have attempted to ban travel for abortion care. although it is unlikely that these bans could be effectively enforced or pass legal challenge, they dissuade patients from seeking care, especially as criminalization of pregnancy outcomes continues to increase. policies that seek to curb travel will become even more dangerous if the current model of grassroots support for people seeking abortion care is not fully supported and sustained so that it can continue to meet demand. from state policy solutions to executive actions and congressional support for the women’s health protection act, the each act and the abortion justice act, strong public policies are a critical step on our path forward. as long as travel rates remain high, states receiving large numbers of out of state abortion patients must actively ensure they can welcome those who need care. policymakers at all levels must do what they can to remove any existing restrictions, expand and strengthen the provider pool, ensure public and private insurance coverage of abortion care, enact shield laws, ensure data privacy for patients, provide funding and financial support for providers and clinics, and promote public awareness of the abortion care and supportive services that are available. at the same time, proactive policies can never overcome the fact that states banning abortion have actively eroded the health and rights of their residents. people crossing state lines to get care face financial and emotional costs that cannot become the new normal. we must reimagine legal, policy and movement building solutions that ultimately ensure abortion accessibility for all. *although 2020 was affected by the start of the covid 19 pandemic, the proportion of people traveling across state lines for abortion care was almost identical to 2019. †full national and state data are available on the monthly abortion provision study page. first published online: december 7, 2023 center facts. shape policy.advance sexual and reproductive rights.

follow: two years ago, the us supreme court overturned roe v. wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion and setting off a fierce fight for reproductive rights at the state level. abortion has emerged as a key issue in the 2024 election, and as access narrows in many states, reproductive freedom advocates are working to get measures preserving reproductive rights on the november ballot to let voters weigh in. two years after roe v. wade was overturned, 14 states have total or near total bans on abortion, including alabama, texas, idaho and tennessee. despite an increase in restrictive policies, the number and rate of abortions in 2023 hit their highest point in over a decade, according to a report from the guttmacher institute, a research and policy non profit that advocates for sexual and reproductive health rights. the organization estimates there were more than 1 million abortions in the formal us healthcare system last year, a 11% increase from 2020. states without total abortion bans saw a 26% increase from 2020, according to the report. the loss of abortion access in states with bans, the authors noted, was countered by “efforts on the part of clinics, abortion funds and logistical support organizations to help people…access care.” related article see where abortions are banned and legal   and where it’s still in limbo nearly two thirds of all abortions in 2023, about 642,700, were medication abortions   not including self managed medication abortions outside of the healthcare setting, the report says. the authors note a steady increase since 2001, when medication abortions accounted for less than 10% of all procedures. over the years, the us food and drug administration relaxed some of the restrictions for use of the abortion pill, and access to the medication increased. in 2016, the agency deemed the abortion pill safe to use up to 10 weeks into pregnancy, rather than seven, and expanded the pool of providers who could prescribe it. after the onset of the covid 19 pandemic, the fda allowed for the pill to be dispensed by certified pharmacies and through the mail, rather than just in healthcare settings. abortion policies have changed rapidly in many states since the supreme court’s decision to overturn roe. four states, california, michigan, vermont and ohio, have since enshrined rights to reproductive freedom in their constitutions, while lawmakers in new york and other states implemented policies to protect abortion patients and providers. more than a dozen states passed abortion “trigger laws” ahead of the court’s decision, meant to take effect almost immediately in the event that roe was overturned, and at least seven states without trigger laws have followed suit with restrictive reproductive health policies that critics say put patients in danger and leave providers at risk of civil and criminal liability. patients and providers have struggled to navigate a patchwork of sometimes hastily implemented abortion policies that include mandatory waiting periods to obtain an abortion in states including arizona and georgia, limits on medicaid coverage for abortion, in states including south dakota, and vague language around medical emergency exceptions to abortion bans in states including texas. lower courts have been asked to take abortion issues up in multiple legal challenges across states. related article post dobbs, abortion clinics find new ways to serve patients in states with bans these policies have already had real world effects. for example, one woman in texas sued the state to access an abortion for a pregnancy that was threatening her future fertility. another texas woman was unlawfully charged with murder for using abortion medication to self induce an abortion and spent two nights in jail before the charges were dropped. providers say that patients in states with abortion bans have been forced to carry pregnancies against their will, leading to compromised fertility and other life threatening consequences. last month, florida replaced its 15 week abortion ban with a six week ban, which falls before many women know they’re pregnant. the move was a major blow to reproductive access in the south, where florida was a critical access point for people seeking abortions. providers and advocates say the restrictive policies have created a reproductive care “desert” in the region. more than 171,000 patients travelled for an abortion in 2023, according to the guttmacher institute. related article nearly two years after texas’ six week abortion ban, more infants are dying many people who traveled to obtain abortions before roe was overturned were going to states that now have total abortion bans, meaning people are now traveling farther distances   sometimes crossing multiple state lines   to access care, the organization noted recently. in just the first half of 2023, nearly 1 in 5 people who had an abortion ­  more than 92,000 people   traveled across state lines for abortion care, according to a december 2023 analysis from the institute. as the abortion care landscape becomes more and more restrictive, alexandra mandado, president of planned parenthood in south, east and north florida, says that remaining abortion clinics will struggle to absorb the increase in out of state patients. the supreme court recently rejected a challenge to access to the abortion pill, mifepristone, maintaining widespread access to medication abortion in a ruling that will allow for continued mailing of the pills to patients without an in person doctor’s visit. experts say abortion pill access could face additional legal challenges in the future. the court is considering another case this summer dealing with medical emergency exceptions to abortion bans. in the case, the biden administration sued the state of idaho, where exemptions to its abortion ban are limited to life threatening situations, arguing that federal law requires hospitals receiving medicare funding to provide stabilizing care, including abortions, when a pregnant person’s health is in danger. in february, the alabama supreme court ruled that frozen embryos are considered human beings and those who destroy them can be held liable for wrongful death, causing fertility clinics throughout the state to pause in vitro fertilization (ivf) treatments out of fear of legal prosecution. related live story supreme court maintains access to abortion pill in unanimous decision as families across the state lost access to ivf treatments, lawmakers scrambled to meet the widespread demand for a fix. in march, the state passed a law aimed at protecting ivf patients and providers from the legal liability imposed on them by the state court’s ruling. while some services resumed, at least one of the state’s limited pool of ivf providers says it will halt services altogether by the end of the year, citing litigation concerns. experts have expressed concern that other reproductive care services, like contraception, are also on the line amid a swell of misinformation that some say is sown intentionally to create panic, like lawmakers conflating emergency contraception with abortion, for example. most abortion policies implemented after the supreme court overturned roe were directly triggered by that decision or handed down by lawmakers or state courts. in an effort to restore the issue of reproductive health access, organizers across the country have been working to get measures to enshrine reproductive health rights in state constitutions on ballots in november. related article these are the states where abortion rights will   or could   be on the ballot in november colorado, florida, maryland and south dakota have secured the measures on their state ballots, with new york and nevada likely to follow suit. organizers in at least seven other states are working to do the same. in addition to making it more difficult to challenge access to abortion services, organizers hope that the measures will allow voters to send a message to politicians about what they want. cnn’s deidre mcphillips, annette choi and tierney sneed contributed to this report. © 2025 cable news network. a warner bros. discovery company. all rights reserved. cnn sans ™ & © 2016 cable news network.

commentary may 3, 2022 reproductive health care human rights & civil liberties courts & law governance studies center for effective public management this article is an updated version of a piece that appeared in these pages on april 12. not since the days of jim crow when some states segregated african americans in public places and others didn’t have the rights of americans been so clearly differentiated by state as they will be if, as expected, the supreme court overturns roe v. wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion. that decision appears all the more likely with a draft of a majority decision that was leaked this week from the court. states, however, are not waiting for the court’s decision; thus, the contours of the post roe world are beginning to come clear. they are rapidly dividing into two camps states that will ban all or most abortions and states that are codifying reproductive health protections and preparing for an influx of women seeking abortions. let’s start with the better known story states seeking to ban abortions. beginning with the mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks and continuing with the texas law that bans abortions after 6 weeks, states have rushed to enact copycat laws that include either a 6 week ban or a 15 week ban along with penalties for abortion providers and for those who provide information on abortion. as of this writing, there are 13 states that have passed what is called a “trigger law.” these laws would ban abortion altogether if roe is reversed. finally, there are other states such as michigan that have laws on the books banning abortion that pre dated the roe v. wade decision. these laws would, presumably, go into effect once roe was overturned. the following map from the pew charitable trusts shows which states are likely to end up banning most or all abortions. while states enacting abortion bans have gotten the most media attention, states where the legislatures are sympathetic to abortion rights are also enacting laws to expand and protect such rights and to counter the movement in states limiting abortions. sixteen states plus the district of columbia protect the right to abortion through state law. other states, like new mexico, are likely to pass similar laws soon. california passed a major law protecting the privacy of women wanting abortions and addressing racial and economic inequities in access by providing abortion coverage under medicaid. washington state passed a law prohibiting legal action against those who seek abortion and those who help them. it is clear that some states are preparing to be abortion providers to more women than just those in their state. recently, the maryland legislature passed a law which would appropriate money to train medical professionals, such as nurse practitioners; nurse midwives; and physician assistants, to perform abortions. expect other states to follow in maryland’s footsteps and increase their capacity to conduct abortions. (the state’s republican gov. larry hogan, vetoed the bill but it was overturned by the legislature.) in oregon, the legislature appropriated $15 million to help the state expand its abortion workforce. most recently, connecticut passed a law that would also expand the number of medical professionals who can provide abortions and would shield resident abortion providers from facing penalties under abortion laws in other states. what is likely to emerge from this picture is an america where women with unwanted pregnancies will still be able to get abortions. but to do so, they will need: let’s look at each of these in turn. first, access to information is easier for those with financial means and those who are better educated. an upper middle class mother with a 16 year old with an unwanted pregnancy will be able to find a clinic and buy two plane tickets to baltimore, much as well off women before roe v. wade traveled to sweden. but abortion is most prevalent among women in their twenties who are low income. for poor and uneducated women, local public health entities (whether public or private) have provided information on everything from birth control to abortion, and they will be out of business. in those states intent on banning abortion, legislators are also passing or proposing laws which ban or criminalize those who seek to help women obtain abortions. the texas law, which is being copied in many states, allows private citizens to sue anyone who helps someone get an abortion. the plaintiffs could be awarded up to $10,000. in missouri, state representative mary elizabeth coleman has proposed legislation making it illegal to help someone get an abortion even in a different state. according to st. louis public radio, “coleman’s proposed amendments would criminalize facilitating the procedure: transporting someone to have an abortion, helping pay for the procedure or instructing them on ways to end a pregnancy.” non profit organizations like planned parenthood that serve, in part, low income women will be in substantial legal jeopardy if they give out information about how to get an abortion out of state. for educated women able to find their own information it means they need to keep quiet about what they are doing and where they are going, less it prompts a neighbor or a co worker to tell on them. next, as the map indicates, getting from a state that prohibits abortion to one that doesn’t will mean, for many, a substantial trip either on an airplane or a train. even if the woman decided to drive, travelling to an abortion legal state entails time off from work and lost income, hotel or motel costs, and food costs. not to mention, the experience will involve the trauma of having to recover from a medical procedure far from home. in abortion legal states, there will no doubt be many private organizations springing up to help defray the costs of travel. but once again, access to this information will be difficult to come by for younger and less educated women. in post roe america, the most difficult part for women seeking abortions is not likely to be money or even geography it is likely to be information. this is why anti abortion states are considering a range of options to block information that will not impact all women equally. it will disproportionately hurt less educated women, women of limited economic means, and women of color. the next battle will be over the information and the means provided to get women from the abortion banning states to the abortion providing states. will we face a dystopian future where the routes to abortion states become well organized and financed and where congress tries to pass laws returning pregnant women to their states before they can have an abortion? recently, a woman in texas was arrested, charged with murder, and jailed after a self induced abortion. although no one pressed charges, the event sent chills down the spines of women all over america. what’s next? will state police force women of child bearing age to have a pregnancy test before boarding a plane to maryland, new york, or any other state where abortion is legal? will local authorities hack into the computers of women and arrest those searching for information about abortions in other states or about medication abortions? in a nation where a substantial number of people revolted against mask wearing and covid vaccines as an intrusion on their medical privacy and choice, efforts to stop abortion altogether are likely to run into a tsunami of fury. passing abortion bans is the easy part; preventing abortions will turn out to be much more difficult. related content elaine kamarck october 5, 2021 william g. gale, darrell m. west september 16, 2021 author the brookings institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact. we are supported by a diverse array of funders. in line with our values and policies, each brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s). reproductive health care human rights & civil liberties courts & law governance studies center for effective public management keesha middlemass february 6, 2025 alyasah ali sewell, keon l. gilbert, rashawn ray, jennifer d. roberts january 31, 2025 dana r. fisher january 29, 2025 get the latest from brookings the brookings institution is a nonprofit organization based in washington, d.c. our mission is to conduct in depth, nonpartisan research to improve policy and governance at local, national, and global levels. copyright 2025 the brookings institution

by allison mccann and amy schoenfeld walker full ban six weeks 12 weeks 18 weeks nineteen states ban abortion or restrict the procedure earlier in pregnancy than the standard set by roe v. wade, which governed reproductive rights for nearly half a century until the supreme court overturned the decision in 2022. in some states, the fight over abortion access is still taking place in courtrooms, where advocates have sued to block bans and restrictions. other states have moved to expand access to abortion by adding legal protections. the new york times is tracking abortion laws in each state after the supreme court’s decision in dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization, which ended the constitutional right to an abortion. in some states that have enacted bans or restrictions, abortion remains legal for now as courts determine whether these laws can take effect. abortion is broadly legal in the rest of the country and several states have added new protections since dobbs. many states limit abortion around fetal “viability,” the point at which a fetus could survive outside the uterus, or around 24 weeks of pregnancy. legal ban blocked more details on the current status of abortion in each state are below. note: weeks of pregnancy are counted since the last menstrual period. sources: center for reproductive rights; guttmacher institute; kff. additional work by margot sanger katz, kate zernike, ava sasani, taylor johnston, larry buchanan and jon huang. an earlier version of this article misstated the legal status of abortion in utah. as of 4 p.m. on june 24, the state attorney general had issued a statement saying the state’s abortion ban had been triggered, but it had not yet been authorized by the legislature’s general counsel. by 8:30 p.m., the counsel authorized the ban and it went into effect. a table in an earlier version of this article misstated which abortion ban is being challenged in texas state court. abortion rights supporters are challenging a pre roe ban, not the state’s trigger ban. an earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the legal status of abortion in indiana. while indiana abortion providers stopped offering abortion services in anticipation of an abortion ban taking effect on aug. 1, the law did not take effect.

the independent source for health policy research, polling, and news. the independent source for health policy research, polling, and news. usha ranji, karen diep, and alina salganicoff published: jun 21, 2024 note: this brief was updated on june 21, 2024 to incorporate new data on abortion statistics. on june 24, 2022, the supreme court’s ruling in dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization overturned the constitutional right to abortion, as well as the federal standards of abortion access established by prior decisions in the cases roe v. wade and planned parenthood v. casey. prior to the dobbs ruling, the federal standard was that abortions were permitted up to fetal viability in all states. that federal standard has been eliminated, allowing states to set policies regarding the legality of abortions and establish limits. kff is tracking and updating the status of abortion access and availability, with some states banning almost all abortions and some states protecting abortion access. this issue brief answers some key questions about abortion in the united states and presents data collected before and new data that has been published since the overturn of roe v. wade. abortion is the medical termination of a pregnancy. it is a common medical service that many women obtain at some point in their life. there are different types of abortion methods, which the national academy of sciences, engineering, and medicine (nasem) places in four categories: (back to top) despite its strong safety profile, abortion is the most highly regulated medical service in the country and is now banned in several states. in addition to bans on abortion altogether and telehealth, many states impose other limitations on abortion that are not medically indicated, including waiting periods, ultrasound requirements, gestational age limits, and parental notification and consent requirements. these restrictions typically delay receipt of services. (back to top) the federal cdc abortion surveillance system requests data from the central health agencies of the 50 states, d.c., and new york city to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining abortions. most states collect data from facilities where abortions are provided on the demographic characteristics of patients, gestational weeks, and type of abortion procedure. reporting these data to the cdc is voluntary and not all states participate in the surveillance system. notably, california, maryland, and new hampshire have not reported data on abortions to the cdc system for years. cdc publishes available data from the surveillance system annually. the most recent data is for the year 2021. guttmacher institute, an independent research and advocacy organization, is another major source of data on abortions in the u.s. prior to the dobbs ruling, guttmacher conducted the abortion provider census (apc) periodically which has provided data on abortion incidence, abortion facilities, and characteristics of abortion patients. data from the apc are based primarily on questionnaires collected from all known facilities that provide abortion in the country, information obtained from state health departments, and guttmacher estimates for a small portion of facilities. the most recent apc reports data from 2020. the cdc and guttmacher data differ in terms of methods, timeframe, and completeness, but both have shown similar trends in abortion rates over the past decade. one notable difference is that guttmacher’s study includes continuous reporting from california, d.c., maryland, and new hampshire, which explains at least in part the higher abortion volume in their data. since the dobbs ruling, the guttmacher institute has established the monthly abortion provision study to track abortion volume within the formal u.s. health care system. this ongoing effort collects data on and provides national and state level estimates on procedural and medication abortions while also tracking the changes in abortion volume since 2020. the monthly abortion provision study was designed to complement guttmacher’s apc along with other data collection efforts to allow for quick snapshots of the changing abortion landscape in the u.s. society of family planning’s (sfp) #wecount is another national reporting effort that measures changes in abortion access following the dobbs ruling. the project reports on the number of abortions per month by state and includes data on abortions provided through clinics, private practices, hospitals, and virtual only providers. the report does not include data on self managed abortions that are performed without clinical supervision. the most recent #wecount report analyzes data from april 2022 to data from december 2023, marking 18 months of abortion data since dobbs. this kff issue brief uses data from the cdc, guttmacher, and sfp as well as other research organizations. (back to top) in their most recent national data, guttmacher institute reported 930,160 abortions in 2020 and a rate of 14.4 per 1,000 women. cdc reported 622,108 abortions in 2021 and a rate of 11.6 abortions per 1,000 women (excludes ca, dc, md, nh). guttmacher’s study showed an upward trend in abortion from 2017 to 2020 whereas cdc’s report showed an increase in abortions from 2017 to 2021 except for a slight decrease in 2020. while most attribute the long term decline in abortion rates to increased use of more effective methods of contraception, several states had reduced access to low  or no cost contraceptive care as a result of reductions in the title x network under the trump administration, which may have contributed to the slight rise in abortions prior to the dobbs ruling. other factors that may have contributed to the increase could include greater coverage under medicaid that subsequently made abortions more affordable in some states and broader financial support from abortion funds to help individuals pay for the costs of abortion care. national averages can mask local and more granular differences. lower state level abortion rates do not reflect less need. some of the variation has been due to the wide differences in state policies, with some states historically placing restrictions on abortion that make access and availability to nearly out of reach and, on the other side, some states enshrining protections in state constitutions and legislation. while the number of abortions in the u.s. dropped immediately following the dobbs decision, new data show that the number of abortions slightly increased overall 18 months following the ruling. however, the small upswing nationally obscures the massive declines in abortion care provided in states with bans. in 2023, the volume of in person and virtual only abortions averaged 84,600 abortions per month, slightly higher than the 2022 monthly average of 81,900 abortions. nationally, the number of abortions varied month by month, with the largest decrease observed in november 2022 (approximately 8,200 fewer abortions than pre dobbs period) and the largest increase in march 2023 (approximately 10,000 more abortions than pre dobbs period). the states with abortion bans experienced the largest cumulative decreases in the number of abortions, including texas, georgia, tennessee, and louisiana (data varies by month in each state; data not shown). states with the largest cumulative increases in the total number of abortions include illinois, florida, and california (data not shown). states without abortion bans experienced an increase of abortions following the dobbs ruling likely due to a combination of reasons: increased interstate travel for abortion access, expanded in person and virtual/telehealth capacity to see patients, increased measures to protect and cover abortion care for residents and out of state patients, and the broader availability of low cost abortion medication. however, these aggregated trends mask the sharp decline in abortions provided in states with total bans or severe restrictions as well as the hardships that many pregnant people experience in accessing abortion care. the #wecount report estimates that approximately 180,000 additional abortions would have occurred in these 18 months had roe not been overturned (data not shown). (back to top) before the 2022 ruling in dobbs, there was a federal constitutional right to abortion before the pregnancy is considered to be viable, that is, can survive outside of a pregnant person’s uterus. viability is generally considered around 24 weeks of pregnancy. most abortions, though, occur well before the point of fetal viability. guttmacher institute estimated that 96% of abortions were provided at clinics and just 4% were provided in doctors’ offices or hospitals in 2020. most clinic based abortions were provided at clinics that specialize in providing abortion care, but many were provided at clinics that offer a wide range of other sexual and reproductive health services like contraception and sti care. most abortions are provided by physicians. however, in 19 states and d.c., advanced practice clinicians (apcs) such as nurse practitioners and midwives may provide medication abortions. conversely, 31 states prohibit clinicians other than physicians from providing abortion care. even prior to the ruling in dobbs, access to abortion services was very uneven across the country though. the proliferation of restrictions in many states, particularly in the south, had greatly shrunk the availability of services in some areas. in the wake of overturning roe v. wade, these geographic disparities have widened. many clinics stopped offering abortion services shortly after the dobbs ruling, and a recent report estimates that over 60 independent abortion clinics have shut down altogether in 2022 (42 clinics) and 2023 (23 clinics as of october 2023). telehealth has grown as a delivery mechanism for abortion services. while procedural abortions must be provided in a clinical setting, medication abortion can be provided in a clinical setting or via telehealth. access to medication abortion via telehealth had been limited for many years by a food and drug administration (fda) restriction that had permitted only certified clinicians to dispense mifepristone in a health care setting. the drug could not be mailed or picked up at a retail pharmacy. however, in december 2021, the fda permanently revised its policy and no longer requires clinicians to dispense the drug in person. additionally, in january 2023, the fda finalized a change that allows retail pharmacies to dispense medication abortion pills to patients with a prescription. these policy changes opened the door to use telehealth for medication abortion. self managed abortions are provided without a clinician visit (either via telehealth or in person) and typically involve obtaining medication abortion pills from an online pharmacy that will send the pills by mail or by purchasing the pills from a pharmacy in another country. while this can involve asynchronous contact with non us based clinicians, it does not typically involve a direct consultation with a clinician either in person or via telehealth. tracking the volume of these online orders can help fill in gaps in abortion count estimates but can also be difficult. some companies may not share data on purchases, and it would also be unclear whether patients actually take the abortion medication after receiving it in the mail. a recent study estimated that compared to expected pre dobbs numbers, at least 26,000 additional self managed medication abortions took place in the six months following the supreme court ruling. more than half of these self managed medication abortions were provided through volunteers in community networks, while others were performed by telehealth organizations outside the formal u.s. health care system and online vendors. the guttmacher institute monthly abortion provision study is the only data source so far to provide in depth information on interstate travel pre  and post dobbs. guttmacher estimates that prior to dobbs, nearly one in ten people obtained an abortion by traveling across state lines in 2020. the latest data show that the interstate travel rate for abortion care more than doubled in 2023, with approximately one in five (~171,000) abortion patients traveling out of state for care in 2023 compared to 74,000 in 2020. illinois experienced the largest increase in inbound travel for abortion care, with an estimated 37,300 abortion patients traveling into the state in 2023. north carolina, new mexico, florida, and kansas also experienced a rise in the number of out of state abortion patients during this time. however, florida and north carolina have implemented earlier gestational restrictions since this time, which will likely lower the 9,600 and 15,800 patients, respectively, traveling to those states for abortions. obtaining an abortion can be costly. on average, the costs are higher for abortions in the second trimester than in the first trimester. the state bans and restrictions enacted since dobbs can also raise the costs, as some people have to travel substantial distances to obtain abortion care. many people pay for abortion services out of pocket, but some people can obtain assistance from local abortion funds. private insurance covers most women of reproductive age, and states have the responsibility to regulate fully insured private plans in their state, whereas the federal government regulates self funded plans under the employee retirement income security act (erisa). states can choose whether abortion coverage is included or excluded in private plans that are not self insured. (back to top) kff’s national polls have consistently found that a majority of the public did not want to see roe v. wade overturned and that most people feel that abortion is a personal medical decision. the public also strongly opposes the criminalization of abortion both among people who get abortion and the clinicians who provide abortion services. most adults (74%) and reproductive age women (79%) say that obtaining an abortion should be a personal choice rather than regulated by law (data not shown). furthermore, the majority of the public supports access to abortions for patients who are experiencing pregnancy related emergencies (86%), a patient’s right to travel for abortion care (79%) and protecting doctors who perform abortions from legal penalties (67%). abortion continues to be a prominent election issue, and kff polling from may 2024finds that nearly three in four women voters say the 2024 election will have an impact on abortion access in their state. abortion in the us dashboard policy tracker: state and federal reproductive rights and abortion litigation tracker policy tracker: exceptions to state abortion bans and early gestational limits issue brief: the hyde amendment and coverage for abortion services under medicaid in the post roe era issue brief: what are the implications of the dobbs ruling for racial disparities? interactive: how state policies shape access to abortion coverage fact sheet: the availability and use of medication abortion issue brief: what’s at stake for access to medication abortion and the fda in the supreme court case fda v. the alliance for hippocratic medicine?https://www.kff.org/womens health policy/issue brief/legal challenges to the fda approval of medication abortion pills/ issue brief: the intersection of state and federal policies on access to medication abortion via telehealth kff health tracking poll: kff health tracking poll march 2024: abortion in the 2024 election and beyond kff health tracking poll: women’s views of abortion access and policies in the dobbs era: insights from the kff health tracking poll interactive: state profiles for women’s health interactive: state health facts on women’s health indicators homepage: women’s health policy kff headquarters: 185 berry st., suite 2000, san francisco, ca 94107 | phone 650 854 9400 washington offices and barbara jordan conference center: 1330 g street, nw, washington, dc 20005 | phone 202 347 5270 www.kff.org | email alerts: kff.org/email | facebook.com/kff | twitter.com/kff the independent source for health policy research, polling, and news, kff is a nonprofit organization based in san francisco, california.

share this via facebook share this via x share this via whatsapp share this via email more sharing options share this via linkedin share this via reddit share this via telegram share this via printer share this via bluesky i. executive summary ii. factual background a. women’s lives and health on the line b. penalizing healthcare: criminalization, civil liability, and involuntary confinement c. threats to privacy from increased digital surveillance d. freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief e. disproportionate impact on marginalized populations iii. anti abortion legislation violates international law iv. conclusion and calls to action i. executive summary following the united states (us) supreme court decision in dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization in june 2022, people in the us who can become pregnant[1] are facing an unprecedented human rights crisis. in dobbs, the supreme court overturned the constitutionally protected right to access abortion, leaving the question of whether and how to regulate abortion to individual states. approximately 22 million women and girls of reproductive age in the us now live in states where abortion access is heavily restricted, and often totally inaccessible. this briefing paper details the intensifying human rights emergency caused by the decision, and discusses the ways that dobbs contravenes the us’ international human rights obligations. the consequences of the dobbs decision are wide ranging. restrictions on access to healthcare places women’s lives and health at risk, leading to increased maternal mortality and morbidity, a climate of fear among healthcare providers, and reduced access to all forms of care. dobbs also enables penalization and criminalization of healthcare, with providers, patients, and third parties at risk of prosecution or civil suit for their involvement in private healthcare decisions. relatedly, the decision opens the door to widespread infringement of privacy rights as digital surveillance is expanded to detect violations of new regulations. new bans also infringe on freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, restricting the ability of physicians to counsel patients and clergy to provide pastoral care to their congregants. finally, the harms of dobbs violate principles of equality and non discrimination; they fall disproportionately on marginalized populations including black, indigenous, and people of color; people with disabilities; immigrants; and those living in poverty. by overturning the established constitutional protection for access to abortion and through the passage of restrictive state laws, the us is in violation of its obligations under international law, codified in a number of human rights treaties to which it is a party or a signatory. these human rights obligations include, but are not limited to, the rights to: life; health; privacy; liberty and security of person; to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief; equality and non discrimination; and to seek, receive, and impart information. a version of this briefing paper was submitted to un special procedures mandate holders in march 2023. the submission, cosigned by nearly 200 human rights, reproductive justice, and other concerned groups and individuals, requested urgent action from the un mandate holders to examine the situation, engage with civil society, and call on the us to uphold its international human rights obligations. less than a year on from this catastrophic legal decision, it is now apparent that the consequences are even worse than feared. women and girls in need of reproductive healthcare are being met with systematic refusals, onerous financial burdens, stigma, fear of violence, and criminalization. thousands are being forced to remain pregnant against their will. part ii of this briefing paper outlines the consequences of dobbs on the fundamental human rights of women and girls, as well as the disproportionate impact it has on certain demographics made vulnerable by systemic oppressions. this factual summary includes input from physicians in various states as part of fact gathering efforts conducted by a number of organizations involved in this submission. part iii discusses the ways in which dobbs contravenes the us’ international obligations. part iv sets forth our conclusion and calls to action. ii. factual background a. women's lives and health on the line b. penalizing healthcare: criminalization, civil liability, and involuntary confinement c. threats to privacy from increased digital surveillance d. freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief e. disproportionate impact on marginalized populations iii. anti abortion legislation violates international law iv. conclusions and calls to action the us has violated its human rights commitments by removing constitutional protection for reproductive healthcare. the dobbs decision subjects all those who can become pregnant to barriers to medical care, criminalization and penalization, infringements on privacy and on freedom of conscience, with disproportionate impact on already marginalized populations. similarly, the multiplying restrictions on abortion expose healthcare practitioners, clergy, and others to criminalization, professional sanction, and infringements on privacy and on free exercise of thought, conscience and religious belief. these impacts contravene the us’s international treaty obligations to protect the rights to: life; health; privacy; liberty and security; freedom from torture or cidt; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief; equality and non discrimination; and to seek, receive, and impart information. in light of these violations, the us must take immediate steps to undo the grave harms caused by the dobbs decision. the us should: as previously noted, a version of this briefing paper was submitted to un special procedures mandate holders in march 2023. the submission requested urgent action from the un mandate holders to examine the situation, engage with civil society, and call on the us to uphold its international human rights obligations. the us has taken a dramatic step backwards in the protection of human rights by removing national safeguards for people who can become pregnant’s health, liberty, autonomy, privacy, and equality. the harms documented in the foregoing pages will only multiply as restrictions on essential healthcare increase. [1] this paper refers interchangeably to “people who can become pregnant” and “women and girls” as the targets of laws restricting abortion. although most people who can become pregnant and require abortion services are cisgender women, we recognize that people with diverse gender identities may also need abortions and are profoundly affected by abortion restrictions. for more information on the need for abortion services amongst trans, non binary and gender diverse people in the united states, see h. moseson et al., abortion experiences and preferences of transgender, nonbinary, and gender expansive people in the united states, 224 am. j. obstetrics & gynecology 4 (2021); american college of obstetricians and gynecologists, acog committee opinion: health care for transgender and gender diverse individuals, 137 obstetrics & gynecology 3, p. e80 e81 (mar. 2021), https://www.acog.org/ /media/project/acog/acogorg/clinical/files/committee opinion/articles/2021/03/health care for transgender and gender diverse individuals.pdf. [2] dobbs v. jackson women's health org., 142 s. ct. 2228 (2022) (dobbs v. jwho). [3] id., p. 2243. [4] some states, such as indiana and ohio, have enacted bans that are currently under injunction as litigation moves forward. see “after roe fell: abortion laws by state,” center for reproductive rights (updated in real time), https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion laws by state/. in the november 2022 election, kentucky voters rejected a ballot initiative to specify that the state constitution does not protect the right to abortion; however, the impact of the initiative is not yet clear, and kentucky’s trigger ban is still in place. see a. rickert, “kentucky voters reject amendment that would have affirmed no right to abortion,” npr (9 nov. 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1134835022/kentucky abortion amendment midterms results. other state bans have been blocked by courts: arizona, north dakota, utah, and wyoming. “tracking the states where abortion is now banned,” the new york times (updated 6 jan. 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion laws roe v wade.html. [5] see id. see also center for reproductive rights, “after roe fell: abortion laws by state,” https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion laws by state/. ohio passed a similar six week ban, but the provision has been blocked by a court and is currently on hold indefinitely. see “tracking the states where abortion is now banned,” the new york times (updated 6 jan. 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion laws roe v wade.html. [6] guttmacher institute, “100 days post roe: at least 66 clinics across 15 us states have stopped offering abortion care” (6 oct. 2022), https://www.guttmacher.org/2022/10/100 days post roe least 66 clinics across 15 us states have stopped offering abortion care. [7] guttmacher institute, state legislation tracker: medication abortion (updated 31 dec. 2022) https://www.guttmacher.org/state policy. [8] okla. stat. tit. 63, §1 745.33 .34, .38 (2022); idaho code §§ 18 8804, 18 8807; texas heartbeat act, senate bill 8 (sb 8) (20 mar. 2021). see also s. murphy, “oklahoma governor signs the nation’s strictest abortion ban,” ap news (25 may 2022), https://apnews.com/article/abortion us supreme court health texas oklahoma ad37e8db8a0f3fd9f4fcd215f8a3ed0a. these laws are still in effect post dobbs. [9] see cerd committee, concluding observations on the combined tenth to twelfth reports of the united states of america (u.n. doc. cerd/c/usa/co/10 12) (21 sept. 2022), ¶ 35. see also global justice center, “united states of america: submission to the united nations committee on the elimination of racial discrimination,” pp. 11 12 https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2022/07/sbrwi_hrw_gjc_ai_cerdshadowreport.pdf; guttmacher institute, “inequity in us abortion rights and access” (17 jan. 2023), https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/01/inequity us abortion rights and access end roe deepening existing divides. [10] abortion care network, “communities need clinics, the new landscape of independent abortion clinics in the united states” (2022 report), https://abortioncarenetwork.org/wp content/uploads/2022/12/communities need clinics 2022.pdf. [11] guttmacher institute, “100 days post roe: at least 66 clinics across 15 us states have stopped offering abortion care” (6 oct. 2022), https://www.guttmacher.org/2022/10/100 days post roe least 66 clinics across 15 us states have stopped offering abortion care. [12] for more on the autonomy, dignity and equality impacts of abortion restrictions, see cedaw committee, inquiry concerning the u.k. and northern ireland under article 8 of the optional protocol to cedaw (u.n. doc. cedaw/c/op.8/gbr/1, 17) (6 mar. 2018) (“criminalization has a stigmatizing impact on women and deprives them of their privacy, self determination and autonomy of decision, offending women’s equal status, constituting discrimination.”). see also working group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice, women’s autonomy, equality and reproductive health in international human rights: between recognition, backlash and regressive trends (oct. 2017) (“both the cedaw committee and the wgdaw determined that the right to safe termination of pregnancy is an equality right for women.”). [13] foley hoag llp, legal counsel to the global justice center, interviewed medical professionals, including three obgyns (drs. harris, serapio, and drey), as well as a researcher who studies the impact of abortion on women (dr. foster). the methodology for these interviews included providing each interviewee with background on the purpose of the submission to the mandate holders and then asking about their general views about the change in laws as experienced by them, and their experience (before and after the change) performing abortions, treating patients who sought abortions, or otherwise treating patients. phr engaged in a series of discussions with various medical sector stakeholders and clinicians post dobbs to understand the scope and nature of impacts of the decision on clinicians in the u.s., including specifically medical students through phr’s student advisory board. [14] interview by foley hoag llp with dr. lisa harris (4 nov. 2022). [15] roe v. wade, 410 u.s. 113, 153 (1973) (recognizing “the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability”). [16] id. dr. harris also reported that many colleagues only feel comfortable providing abortion care in hospital settings, rather than clinics where abortion care is normally provided because they perceive the risk of prosecution to be lower in hospitals than in an outpatient setting. see mich. const. art. 1, § 28 (recognizing a fundamental individual right to reproductive freedom, including abortion care, adopted by ballot initiative nov. 2022). [17] interview by foley hoag llp with dr. elissa serapio (29 july 2022). [18] id. [19] interview by foley hoag llp with dr. eleanor drey (15 july 2022). [20] see e.g., e. woodruff, “louisiana hospital denies abortion for fetus without a skull” (17 aug. 2022), https://www.nola.com/news/healthcare_hospitals/article_d08b59fe 1e39 11ed a669 a3570eeed885.html. a louisiana woman was denied an abortion in by a hospital after her fetus was diagnosed with acrania   developing without a skull   a condition considered “uniformly fatal in the perinatal period.” because acrania did not appear on a state list of conditions considered to render a fetus “medically futile,” louisiana doctors declined to perform the abortion, despite the physical and psychological health risks of continuing a pregnancy that will end in stillbirth or death within hours of birth. [21] see generally sens. elizabeth warren et al., post roe abortion bans threaten women’s lives: health care providers speak out on the devastating harm posed by abortion bans and restrictions (oct. 2022), https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/abortion%20care%20oversight%20report1.pdf. see also t. weinberg, “missouri doctors fear vague emergency exception to abortion ban puts patients at risk,” missouri independent (2 july 2022), https://missouriindependent.com/2022/07/02/missouri doctors fear vague emergency exception to abortion ban puts patients at risk/. [22] for example, in the dominican republic, where abortion is criminalized, “[m]edical providers said that criminal penalties for abortion made it difficult for them to exercise their best judgment and provide the best standard of care when their pregnant patients faced serious health risks.” human rights watch, “‘it’s your decision, it’s your life’ the total criminalization of abortion in the dominican republic” (19 nov. 2018), https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/11/19/its your decision its your life/total criminalization abortion dominican republic. in poland, where abortion is almost completely outlawed, pregnant women with cancer have been prevented from obtaining an abortion or otherwise accessing chemotherapy due to the potential harm to the fetus, placing more importance on the fetus than the pregnant person. see human rights watch, “regression on abortion harms women in poland” (26 jan. 2022), https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/26/regression abortion harms women poland; amnesty international, “poland: a year on, abortion ruling harms women” (19 oct. 2021), https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/10/poland a year on abortion ruling harms women/. [23] see uc davis health, “7 things to know about ectopic pregnancy” (22 mar. 2022), https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/7 things to know about ectopic pregnancy/2022/05; j. tenore, ectopic pregnancy, 61(4) am fam physician 1080 (2000), https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2000/0215/p1080.html. [24] f. sellers & f. nirappil, “confusion post roe spurs delays, denials for some lifesaving pregnancy care,” the washington post (16 july 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07/16/abortion miscarriage ectopic pregnancy care. [25] id. [26] id. [27] see p. belluck, “they had miscarriages, and new abortion laws obstructed treatment,” the new york times (17 july 2022), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/health/abortion miscarriage treatment.html. see also a. redinger & h. nguyen, incomplete abortions, statpearls [internet] (27 june 2022), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/nbk559071/ (describing “complications that can arise after the management of incomplete abortion including death, uterine rupture, uterine perforation, subsequent hysterectomy, multisystem organ failure, pelvic infection, cervical damage, vomiting, diarrhea, infertility, and/or psychological effects.”). [28] see generally a. redinger & h. nguyen, incomplete abortions, statpearls [internet] (27 june 2022), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/nbk559071/ (describing “complications that can arise after the management of incomplete abortion including death, uterine rupture, uterine perforation, subsequent hysterectomy, multisystem organ failure, pelvic infection, cervical damage, vomiting, diarrhea, infertility, and/or psychological effects.”). [29] see generally a. redinger & h. nguyen, incomplete abortions, statpearls [internet] (27 june 2022), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/nbk559071/ (describing “complications that can arise after the management of incomplete abortion including death, uterine rupture, uterine perforation, subsequent hysterectomy, multisystem organ failure, pelvic infection, cervical damage, vomiting, diarrhea, infertility, and/or psychological effects.”). see also r. westwood, “bleeding and in pain, she couldn't get 2 louisiana ers to answer: is it a miscarriage?” npr (29 dec. 2022), https://www.npr.org/sections/health shots/2022/12/29/1143823727/bleeding and in pain she couldnt get 2 louisiana ers to answer is it a miscarria. [30] see e.g., fla. stat. § 390.0111 (1)(a) (requiring for any abortion after 15 weeks gestational age that "two physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgment, the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition.”) [31] interview by foley hoag llp with dr. elissa serapio (29 july 2022). [32] id. [33] j. glenza, “a severe chilling effect’: abortion bans will inhibit doctors’ advice to patients, experts fear,” the guardian (6 may 2022), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/06/abortion bans patient doctor medical advice; (noting the chilling effect of abortion bans among doctors counseling patients on options during pregnancy, including whether abortion care could be available in another jurisdiction). [34] s. simmons duffin, “doctors weren’t considered in dobbs, but now they’re on abortion’s legal front lines,” npr (3 july 2022), https://www.npr.org/sections/health shots/2022/07/03/1109483662/doctors werent considered in dobbs but now theyre on abortions legal front lines. for more on criminalization, see infra section i(b). [35] interview by physicians for human rights with dr. jennifer griggs (22 nov. 2022). [36] id. [37] id. [38] interview by foley hoag llp with dr. lisa harris (4 nov. 2022). dr. harris described a patient pregnant with twins who experienced a complication requiring the termination of one fetus for the other to survive. this procedure should normally be completed after a certain stage of pregnancy to minimize the chance of complications or death. however, due to concerns over the shifting legal landscape, the patient elected to have the procedure earlier than medically advised. this decision   prompted by abortion bans and legal uncertainty   placed the health of the mother and the remaining fetus at risk. [39] see world health organization, “adolescent pregnancy” (15 sept. 2022), https://www.who.int/news room/fact sheets/detail/adolescent pregnancy; d. jeha et. al., a review of the risks and consequences of adolescent pregnancy, 8 j. neonatal perinatal medicine (2015), pp. 1, 3. [40] d. jeha et. al., a review of the risks and consequences of adolescent pregnancy, 8 j. neonatal perinatal medicine (2015), p. 3. [41] see supra note 9. [42] guttmacher institute, “parental involvement in minors’ abortions,” (updated 1 jan. 2023), https://www.guttmacher.org/state policy/explore/parental involvement minors abortions. [43] in some states with parental notification requirements, there are provisions for judicial bypass of the requirement; however, the process for securing a bypass is daunting and unworkable for many girls and adolescents, requiring them to demonstrate that they are “1) sufficiently mature and well enough informed to make an abortion decision without parental involvement, and/or that 2) parental involvement is not in their best interests.” perversely, these requirements can result in a judicial finding that a minor is “not sufficiently mature” to make an informed abortion decision, therefore forcing the child to remain pregnant and give birth. see, e.g., human rights watch, “the only people it really affects are the people it hurts” (11 mar. 2021), https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/03/11/only people it really affects are people it hurts/human rights consequences. [44] id. in most states, to obtain a judicial waiver, young people must demonstrate that they have sufficient maturity to have an abortion without parental involvement, or that parental involvement is not in their best interest. perversely, these requirements can result in a judicial finding that a minor is “not sufficiently mature” to make an informed abortion decision, therefore forcing the child to remain pregnant and potentially give birth. [45] human rights watch, “access denied: how florida judges obstruct young people’s ability to obtain abortion care” (19 feb. 2023), https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/09/us florida judges block youth abortion access [46] s. roberts et al., risk of violence from the man involved in the pregnancy after receiving or being denied an abortion, 12 cent bmc medicine 144 (2014) (explaining that women denied an abortion remain tethered to abusive partners and at risk for continued violence, even if they leave the relationship). [47] id. [48] see center for disease control and prevention, violence against native peoples fact sheet (2020), https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/tribal/violence against native peoples fact sheet.pdf (estimating that 48% of american indian and alaskan native women will experience sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking from an intimate partner) (citing the national intimate partner and sexual violence survey, center for disease control and prevention, violence prevention (updated 19 july 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/datasources/nisvs/index.html); women of color network, “life in the margins: expanding intimate partner violence services for women of color by using data as evidence” (june 2017), https://vawnet.org/material/life marginsexpanding intimate partner violence services women color using data evidence (showing that “[a]pproximately four out of every ten non hispanic black women . . . have been the victim of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime”). [49] of the statutes banning abortion in the us, none include exceptions to protect a pregnant person’s mental health. some specifically exclude physical harms related to psychological distress. for example, idaho’s law explicitly states that “no abortion shall be deemed necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman because the physician believes that the woman may or will take action to harm herself” (idaho code § 18 622(1)(a)). [50] interview by foley hoag llp with dr. eleanor drey (15 july 2022). [51] see u.s. dept. of health and human services, reinforcement of emtala obligations specific to patients who are pregnant or are experiencing pregnancy loss (11 july 2022), https://www.cms.gov/files/document/qso 22 22 hospitals.pdf. see also u.s. dept. of health and human services, letter to u.s. governors on reproductive health care (26 aug. 2022), https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs letter to governors reproductive health care.pdf. [52] interview by foley hoag llp with dr. eleanor drey (15 july 2022). dr. drey reported treating a pediatric patient whose pregnancy was caused by rape, who experienced post traumatic stress disorder symptoms every time the fetus moved and was at risk of suicide as a result. [53] evidence from other restrictive contexts confirms this connection. in el salvador, the state’s draconian abortion ban has driven many pregnant women and girls to end their own lives. according to a 2014 report, suicide accounts for 57% of deaths of pregnant females aged 10 19 in el salvador, though due to stigma surrounding adolescent pregnancy and sexuality, this number may be much higher than reported. amnesty international, “on the brink of death: violence against women and the abortion ban in el salvador” (25 sept. 2014), https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/amr29/003/2014/en/. [54] see e.g., j. rovner, “women who tried to commit suicide while pregnant gets bail,” npr (18 may 2022), https://www.npr.org/sections/health shots/2012/05/18/153026015/bail granted for indiana woman charged in attempted feticide (discussing a woman who, under pre dobbs laws, was arrested for murder after she attempted suicide while pregnant and her baby died after being born). see also pregnancy justice, “when fetuses gain personhood: understanding the impact on ivf, contraception, medical treatment, criminal law, child support, and beyond” (17 aug. 2022), https://pregjustdev.wpengine.com/wp content/uploads/2022/08/fetal personhood issue 8.17.22.pdf. see also “who do fetal homicide laws protect? an analysis for a post roe america,” pregnancy justice (9 jan. 2023), https://www.pregnancyjusticeus.org/wp content/uploads/2022/08/feticide brief w appendix.pdf. [55] bei bei shuai v. state of indiana, no. 49a02 1106 cr 486, court of appeals of indiana (2012). [56] see r. baldwin iii, “losing a pregnancy could land you in jail in post roe america,” npr (3 july 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1109015302/abortion prosecuting pregnancy loss (stating that the number of cases where pregnancy or pregnancy loss was used in a criminal investigation or prosecution nearly quadrupled from 2006 2020). [57] see k. l. gilbert et al., “dobbs, another frontline for health equity,” brookings institution (30 june 2022), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how we rise/2022/06/30/dobbs another frontline for health equity/ (“reducing access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions, rather, it has the effect of reducing access to reproductive health care.”). see also j. christensen & t. sneed, “at least 43 abortion clinics shut in month after supreme court overturned roe, research says, with more likely to close,” cnn (28 july 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/28/health/abortion clinics shut guttmacher/index.html; c. vestal, “new research shows state restrictions reduce contraception use,” pew (22 sept. 2022), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research and analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/09/22/new research shows state restrictions reduce contraception use; m. ollove, “critics fear abortion bans could jeopardize health of pregnant women,” pew (22 june 2022), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research and analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/06/22/critics fear abortion bans could jeopardize health of pregnant women. [58]see m. zahn, “abortion clinics in embattled states face another challenge: money,” abc news (15 aug. 2022), https://abcnews.go.com/business/abortion clinics embattled states face challenge money/story?id=87945089 (“many abortion clinics now must choose between two costly options: stay open but stop providing abortions, or move to an abortion friendly state, clinic officials and reproductive health organizations told abc news.”). [59] id. [60] see o. goldhill, “after dobbs, u.s. medical students head abroad for abortion training no longer provided by their schools,” stat (22 oct. 2022), https://www.statnews.com/2022/10/18/medical students heading abroad for abortion training/ (detailing how medical schools in states with abortion bans are pairing up with programs in other states that allow abortions in an attempt to ensure that future doctors are adequately prepared. many students interested in reproductive healthcare are considering moving to states where abortions are legal.). [61] k. vinekar et al., projected implications of overturning roe v wade on abortion training in u.s. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs, 140(2) obstetrics & gynecology 146 (2022), p. 147. [62] j. hoffman, “ob gyn residency programs face tough choice on abortion training,” new york times (27 oct 2022) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/27/health/abortion training residency programs.html. see also interview by physicians for human rights with allison lenselink (24 nov. 2022). [63] “health coverage if you're pregnant, plan to get pregnant, or recently gave birth,” healthcare.gov, https://www.healthcare.gov/what if im pregnant or plan to get pregnant/ (last accessed: 10 jan. 2023). [64] m. clark & a. osorio, medicaid pregnancy coverage fills a critical health insurance gap during pandemic, data shows, georgetown university health policy institute (31 mar. 2022), https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2022/03/31/medicaid pregnancy coverage fills a critical health insurance gap during pandemic data shows/. [65] march of dimes, “health insurance during pregnancy,” https://www.marchofdimes.org/find support/topics/planning baby/health insurance during pregnancy (last accessed: 10 jan. 2023). [66] m. boone & b. j. mcmichael, state created fetal harm, 109 the georgetown l. journal 475 (2021), pp. 496 98. [67] id. [68] id., p. 501. [69] f. sellers & f. nirappil, “confusion post roe spurs delays, denials for some lifesaving pregnancy care,” the washington post (16 july 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07/16/abortion miscarriage ectopic pregnancy care/. [70] l. paltrow & j. flavin, arrests of and forced interventions on pregnant women in the united states, 1973 2005: implications for women's legal status and public health, journal of health politics, policy and law, https://read.dukeupress.edu/jhppl/article/38/2/299/13533/arrests of and forced interventions on pregnant. [71] “west virginia’s only abortion clinic stops performing abortions,” the associated press (24 june 2022), https://www.wsaz.com/2022/06/24/west virginias only abortion clinic stops performing abortions/. [72] n. lakhani, “abortion is still legal in arizona. but confusion and fear abound,” the guardian (15 aug. 2022), https://www.theguardian.com/us news/2022/aug/15/arizona abortion laws ban access. [73] id. [74] “hospitals fear abortion bans will worsen staff shortages,” bloomberg law (updated 9 aug. 2022), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health law and business/hospitals fear abortion bans will worsen staff shortages (“fears of being arrested for prescribing medications that could be unsafe for pregnancy, or for advising chemotherapy that requires ending a pregnancy… ‘the irony is that in states that pass these anti abortion laws, there will be fewer ob gyn doctors willing to practice there. but there will be more need for them because there will be more pregnancies going to term,’ said suzanna sherry, a constitutional law expert at vanderbilt university law school.”). [75] k. schorsch, “staffing shortages in illinois for abortion care,” npr wbez (12 may 2022), npr.org/local/309/2022/05/12/1098469190/staffing shortages in illinois for abortion care (“illinois providers are expecting an additional 20,000 to 30,000 patients a year as people travel from other states that could ban or heavily restrict the procedure. that would be a nearly two thirds increase in abortions across illinois.” an illinois doctor cites the healthcare worker shortage as “perhaps the biggest barrier to a full scale increase that would meet the needs of folks coming from other states.”). [76] interview by foley hoag llp with dr. elissa serapio (29 july 2022). see also e. reyes, “these california nurse midwives want to provide abortions. they’re struggling to get trained,” los angeles times (18 july 2022), latimes.com/california/story/2022 07 18/california nurse midwives want to provide abortions struggling to get trained. [77] see s. aksel et al., unintended consequences: abortion training in the years after roe v wade, 103am. j. public health 3 (2013) (explaining how provider shortages have created barriers to abortion access); american college of obstetricians & gynecologists, committee opinion: abortion training and education (nov. 2014), https://www.acog.org/ /media/project/acog/acogorg/clinical/files/committee opinion/articles/2014/11/abortion training and education.pdf (healthcare providers face institutional barriers in getting trained to perform abortions); e. declercq et al., “the u.s. maternal health divide: the limited maternal health services and worse outcomes of states proposing new abortion restrictions,” the commonwealth fund (14 dec. 2022), https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue briefs/2022/dec/us maternal health divide limited services worse outcomes (maternity care providers may hesitate to work in scenarios where they may face legal challenges). [78] see generally d. cohen & k. connon, living in the crosshairs : the untold stories of anti abortion terrorism (2015) (in depth accounts and data regarding the violence and harassment endured by women's health professionals). [79] id. [80] national abortion federation, 2021 violence & disruption statistics (19 may 2022), https://prochoice.org/wp content/uploads/2021_naf_vd_stats_final.pdf. see also u.s. dept. of justice, recent cases on violence against reproductive health care providers (updated 18 oct. 2022), https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent cases violence against reproductive health care providers. [81] a january 2020 unclassified report from the fbi outlined an ongoing increase in anti abortion threats, disruption and violence, stating, “the fbi assess the increase in abortion related extremist violent threats and criminal activity, including violations of the freedom of access to clinic entrances (face) act, against targets including reproductive healthcare facilities (rhcfs) likely is driven in part by the recent rise in state legislative activities related to abortion services and access.” (emphasis added); national abortion federation, 2020 violence & disruption statistics (2021), p. 2, https://prochoice.org/our work/provider security/#dflip df_13683/3/. [82] see supra note 87. see also j. winter, “the link between the capitol riot and anti abortion extremism,” the new yorker (11 mar. 2021), https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily comment/the link between the capitol riot and anti abortion extremism; c. sherman, “anti abortion activists were all over the capitol riots,” vice news (12 jan. 2021), https://www.vice.com/en/article/4ad73w/anti abortion activists were all over the capitol riots. [83] no patients or staff were present during the attack; a firefighter sustained life threatening injuries. t. bella, “arson suspected at illinois planned parenthood after state expands abortion rights,” washington post (19 jan. 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/01/19/abortion planned parenthood arson illinois/. [84] see tex. health & safety code §170a.004, la. stat. ann. §14:87.7 (2022), idaho code §18 622 (2022), ala. code § 26 23h, ​​ark. code ann. § 5 61 304, ky. rev. stat. § 311.772, § 188.017 r.s.mo., okla. stat. tit. 63, § 1 731.4, miss. code ann. § 41 41 45, s.d. codified laws § 22 17 5.1, tenn. code ann. § 39 15 201, wis. stat. ann. § 940.04, w. va. code § 61 2 8 (currently under an injunction). [85] the texas abortion ban classifies any attempt to induce an abortion as a second degree felony if unsuccessful (punishable by up to 20 years in prison) and as a first degree felony (up to life in prison) “if an unborn child dies as a result of the offense.” tx. code § 170a.004(b). [86] okla. stat. tit. 63, § 1 731.4. [87] for example, texas’s pre roe abortion ban explicitly included accomplice liability (“whoever furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended is guilty as an accomplice”) tex. pen. code art. 1192 (1925), https://www.sll.texas.gov/assets/pdf/historical statutes/1925/1925 3 penal code of the state of texas.pdf#page=279. other states, in defining abortion as a felony, have imported generally applicable aiding and abetting provisions. see, e.g., guidance for oklahoma law enforcement following dobbs v. jackson women’s health org (31 aug. 2022) (citing oklahoma definitions of principal and accessory criminal liability, and opining, “oklahoma law prohibits aiding and abetting the commission of an unlawful abortion, which may include advising a pregnant woman to obtain an unlawful abortion. see 21 o.s. §§ 171 172, 861…”). meanwhile, alabama, arizona, arkansas, florida, and ohio have considered such a provision. see h.b. 4327, 2022 leg., reg. sess. (okla. 2022); h.b. 23, 2022 leg., reg. sess. (ala. 2022); h.b. 2483, 55th leg., 2nd reg. sess. (ariz. 2022); s.b. 13, 93rd gen. assemb., 2nd extraordinary sess. (ark. 2021); h.b. 167, 124th leg., reg. sess. (fla. 2022); h.b. 480, 134th gen. assemb., reg. sess. (ohio 2021). see also j. tolentino, “we’re not going back to the time before roe. we’re going somewhere worse,” the new yorker (24 june 2022), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we are not going back to the time before roe we are going somewhere worse/amp. [88] r. klitzman, “opinion: roe’s reversal doesn’t just hurt women   it harms us all,” cnn (25 june 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/25/opinions/medical ethics post roe world klitzman/index.html. see also j. tolentino, “we’re not going back to the time before roe. we’re going somewhere worse,” the new yorker (24 june 2022), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we are not going back to the time before roe we are going somewhere worse/amp. virtually all of the “trigger laws” punish those conducting and/or aiding an abortion. see also a. zablocki & m. sutrina, “the impact of state laws criminalizing abortion,” lexis nexis (27 sept. 2022), https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/practical guidance journal/b/pa/posts/the impact of state laws criminalizing abortion (noting potential aiding and abetting liability for employers who provide support or time off for employees to obtain abortions; for medical personnel who advise or assist; for individuals who facilitate; or for health plans that cover the procedure); k.e. queram, “lyft and uber establish legal funds to protect drivers from texas abortion law,” route fifty (7 sept. 2021), https://www.route fifty.com/management/2021/09/ride share abortion legal fund texas/185154/. t. o’donnell, “under texas ban, private citizens could sue a cab driver who takes a woman to an abortion,” (1 sept. 2021), https://theweek.com/science/health/1004413/under texas ban private citizens could sue a cab driver who takes a woman to; r. alta charo, vigilante injustice   deputizing and weaponizing the public to stop abortions, the new england journal of medicine (14 oct. 2021), https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp2114886. [89] a. zablocki & m. sutrina, “the impact of state laws criminalizing abortion,” lexis nexis (27 sept. 2022), https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/practical guidance journal/b/pa/posts/the impact of state laws criminalizing abortion; madiba denney & jackie fielding, “miscarriage of justice: the danger of laws criminalizing pregnancy outcomes” the brennan center (9 nov. 2021), https://www.brennancenter.org/our work/analysis opinion/miscarriage justice danger laws criminalizing pregnancy outcomes. [90] texas heartbeat act, senate bill 8 (sb 8) (20 mar. 2021) (an act relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an “unborn child’s heartbeat”; authorizing a private civil right of action), https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87r/billtext/pdf/sb00008f.pdf. see also okla. stat. tit. 63, §1 745.33 .34, .38 (2022); idaho code §§ 18 8804, 18 8807 [91] tex. health & safety code §§ 170a.001 7 (2022). see id., § i (b)(1). [92]j. gerson, “‘no one wants to get sued’: some abortion providers have stopped working in texas” the 19th (15 sept. 2021), https://19thnews.org/2021/09/abortion providers texas stopped working under threat sued/ (“‘even if abortion providers win in every single case brought against them [under sb 8], that burden of having to have a lawyer to defend yourself, traveling all over the state to do so   that alone threatens to shut down abortion providers,’ said marc hearron, senior counsel at the center for reproductive rights”). in december 2022, a texas court dismissed a suit from an unaffected, out of state plaintiff against a doctor who had performed an abortion in defiance of the law. the court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the case, but left the door open for plaintiffs with ties to a case to sue providers. see d. solomon, “texas’s abortion ‘bounty’ law just lost its first test. here’s what that means,” texas monthly (9 dec. 2022), https://www.texasmonthly.com/news politics/texas abortion bounty law just lost first test/. [93] interview by foley hoag llp with dr. elissa serapio (25 july 2022). others involved in abortion care, including lawyers, have the same concerns. i. mitchell, “texas freedom caucus warns law firm of criminal liability for covering employees’ abortion costs,” the texan (11 july 2022), available at https://thetexan.news/texas freedom caucus warns law firm of criminal liability for covering employees abortion costs/ (members of the texas freedom caucus promise to file legislation in the upcoming session to “require the state bar of texas to disbar any lawyer that has violated texas abortion laws.”). see also e. bowman, “as states ban abortion, the texas bounty law offers a way to survive legal challenges,” npr (11 july 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1107741175/texas abortion bounty law. see also m. kornfield, “a website for ‘whistleblowers’ to expose texas abortion providers was taken down again” (6 sept. 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/06/texas abortion ban website/. [94] r. cohen, “the coming legal battles of post roe america,” vox (27 june 2022), https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23183835/roe wade abortion pregnant criminalize. [95] c. kitchener & d. barrett, “antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines,” washington post (30 june 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion state lines/. see also a. ollstein & m. messerly, “missouri wants to stop out of state abortions. other states could follow,” https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/19/travel abortion law missouri 00018539 for specific of the missouri proposal. [96] m.o. sb603, 101st gen. assemb., reg. sess. (2021). [97] see r. cohen, “the coming legal battles of post roe america,” vox (27 june 2022), https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23183835/roe wade abortion pregnant criminalize. see also s. ballentine & j. hanna, “missouri considers law to make illegal to ‘aid or abet’ out of state abortion,” pbs (16 mar. 2022), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/missouri considers law to make illegal to aid or abet out of state. [98] t. gross, “the u.s. faces 'unprecedented uncertainty' regarding abortion law, legal scholar says,” npr (updated 18 jan. 2023), https://www.npr.org/sections/health shots/2023/01/17/1149509246/the u s faces unprecedented uncertainty regarding abortion law legal scholar sa; t. benson, “interstate travel post roe isn’t as secure as you may think,” wired (25 july 2022), https://www.wired.com/story/insterstate travel abortion post roe/. [99] pregnancy related prosecutions not only existed but were increasing before dobbs. see pregnancy justice, “arrests and prosecutions of pregnant women, 1973 2020” (18 sept. 2021), https://www.nationaladvocatesforpregnantwomen.org/wp content/uploads/2021/09/final_1600cases factsheet.docx.pdf. see also m. goldberg, “when a miscarriage is manslaughter,” the new york times (18 oct. 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/18/opinion/poolaw miscarriage.html. [100] see a. yurkanin, “women can be prosecuted for taking abortion pills, says alabama attorney general,” al.com (10 jan. 2023). [101] idaho code §18 606. [102] pregnancy justice, “when fetuses gain personhood: understanding the impact on ivf, contraception, medical treatment, criminal law, child support, and beyond” (17 aug. 2022), https://pregjustdev.wpengine.com/wp content/uploads/2022/08/fetal personhood issue 8.17.22.pdf. see also pregnancy justice, “who do fetal homicide laws protect? an analysis for a post roe america,” https://www.nationaladvocatesforpregnantwomen.org/wp content/uploads/2022/08/feticide brief w appendix.pdf. [103] international human rights law (ihrl) makes clear that its protections start at birth and that fetal personhood has no basis in ihrl. see working group on discrimination against women and girls in law and practice, women's autonomy, equality and reproductive health in international human rights: between recognition, backlash and regressive trends (oct. 2017), https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/women/wg/womensautonomyequalityreproductivehealth.pdf (“it was well settled in the 1948 [universal declaration of human rights] and upheld in the iccpr that the human rights accorded under ihrl are accorded to those who have been born. ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’”). the working group cites inter alia the travaux préparatoires of article 6 of the iccpr, in which proposed amendments suggesting that the right to life applied before birth were specifically rejected by states. un gaor, 12th session, agenda item 33, at 119 (e), (q), un doc. a/3764, 1957. [104] m. carlisle, “fetal personhood laws are a new frontier in the battle over reproductive rights,” time (28 june 2022), https://time.com/6191886/fetal personhood laws roe abortion/. fetal personhood provisions could also lead to non abortion related conduct being criminalized. https://www.usnews.com/news/national news/articles/2022 05 06/the push to make fetuses people and abortion murder/. [105] o. gonzalez, “louisiana abortion bill allowing homicide charges against patients stopped for now,” axios (13 may 2022), https://www.axios.com/2022/05/13/louisiana abortion bill homicide patient roe. [106] a tennessee trigger law that will go into effect in august will make performing an abortion a felony that comes with a sentence of up to 15 years imprisonment. a.sainz & k. kruesi, “memphis council resolution addresses abortion prosecutions,” the associated press (12 july 2022), https://apnews.com/article/abortion 2022 midterm elections us supreme court health nashville 92c4834b3b0fd10e487c2bc75020c03d. a 2021 study from the national association of criminal defense lawyers and pregnancy justice determined that there are thousands of federal and state crimes already on the books that prosecutors can and have used to charge pregnant persons in a post roe world. see national association of criminal defense lawyers and national foundation for criminal justice, “abortion in america: how legislative overreach is turning reproductive rights into criminal wrongs” (aug. 2021), https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/ce0899a0 3588 42d0 b351 23b9790f3bb8/abortion in america how legislative overreach is turning reproductive rights into criminal wrongs.pdf. [107] “alabama mother prosecuted for taking prescription during pregnancy,” equal justice initiative (12 july 2021), https://eji.org/news/alabama mother prosecuted for taking prescription during pregnancy/. [108] l. paltrow & l. sangoi, “the dangerous state laws that are punishing pregnant people,” think progress (28 sept. 2016), https://archive.thinkprogress.org/criminalization pregnancy us 43e4741bb514/; amnesty international, “usa: criminalizing pregnancy: policing pregnant women who use drugs in the usa” (23 may 2017) https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/amr51/6203/2017/en/. [109] “alabama mother prosecuted for taking prescription during pregnancy,” equal justice initiative (12 july 2021), https://eji.org/news/alabama mother prosecuted for taking prescription during pregnancy/; p. salhotra, “does a fetus count in the carpool lane? texas’ abortion law creates new questions about legal personhood,” the texas tribune (13 sept. 2022), https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/13/texas personhood laws abortion law/; m. carrizosa, “beyond abortion: the fight over fetal personhood is here (video),” bloomberg law (12 jan. 2023), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us law week/beyond abortion the fight over fetal personhood is here video. [110] see n. martin, “take a valium, lose your kid, go to jail,” propublica (23 sept. 2015), https://www.propublica.org/article/when the womb is a crime scene. [111] see pregnancy justice, “confronting pregnancy criminalization: a practical guide for healthcare providers, lawyers, medical examiners, child welfare workers, and policymakers,” p. 6 (july 2022), https://www.pregnancyjusticeus.org/wp content/uploads/2022/06/1.confronting pregnancycriminalization_6.22.23 1.pdf; pregnancy justice, “arrests and other deprivations of liberty of pregnant women, 1973 2020,” https://www.pregnancyjusticeus.org/wp content/uploads/2021/09/final_1600cases factsheet.docx.pdf. [112] see pregnancy justice, “wisconsin’s ‘unborn children protection act’ (act 292)” (16 may 2022), https://www.nationaladvocatesforpregnantwomen.org/fact sheet wisconsins unborn child protection act act. [113] see idaho 18 622(5) “nothing in this section shall be construed to subject a pregnant woman on whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.”; s. harris, “local woman facing 10 years in prison for allegedly using meth the day she gave birth” (6 june 2021), https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/local woman facing 10 years in prison for allegedly using meth the day she gave/article_e03d4800 cf40 5263 a7d3 085d2d7df2b4.html/; l. miranda et al., “how states handle drug use during pregnancy” (30 sept. 2015), https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/maternity drug policies by state. [114] report of the working group on arbitrary detention on its visit to the united states of america, ¶ 74 (u.n. doc. a/hrc/36/37/add.2) (17 july 2017). [115] see nwhn staff, “consumer health info: medication abortion and miscarriage” (updated 15 aug. 2019), https://nwhn.org/abortion pills vs miscarriage demystifying experience/ (“from a medical perspective, there is no physically significant difference between a medication abortion and a spontaneously occurring miscarriage. for example, the medicines used in medication abortion are used to help safely manage an incomplete miscarriage.”). [116] see m. dennie & j. fielding, “miscarriage of justice: the danger of laws criminalizing pregnancy outcomes,” brennan center for justice (9 nov. 2021), https://www.brennancenter.org/our work/analysis opinion/miscarriage justice danger laws criminalizing pregnancy outcomes. p. thompson & a. turcios cruz, “how an oklahoma women’s miscarriage put a spotlight on racial disparities in prosecutions,” nbc news (5 nov. 2021). [117] “criminal justice fact sheet,” naacp, https://naacp.org/resources/criminal justice fact sheet; https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/10/08/indigenouspeoplesday/ (“in jails, native people had more than double the incarceration rate of white people, and in prisons this disparity was even greater.”). [118] l. paltrow & j. flavin, arrests of and forced interventions on pregnant women in the united states, 1973 2005: implications for women's legal status and public health, journal of health politics, policy and law https://read.dukeupress.edu/jhppl/article/38/2/299/13533/arrests of and forced interventions on pregnant (noting that the socioeconomic status of economically disadvantaged was indicated by the fact that 71 percent qualified for indigent defense). [119] see national association of criminal defense lawyers, race and the war on drugs (29 nov. 2022), https://www.nacdl.org/content/race and the war on drugs. [120] report by the special rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health: racism and the right to health (u.n. doc. a/77/197) (20 july 2022). [121] see american college of obstetricians and gynecologists, opposition to criminalization of individuals during pregnancy and the postpartum period statement of policy (dec. 2020), https://www.acog.org/clinical information/policy and position statements/statements of policy/2020/opposition criminalization of individuals pregnancy and postpartum period. [122] a recent study by if/when/how found “at least 61 instances where people were investigated or prosecuted for allegedly self managing an abortion or helping others self manage. among the cases involving adults, 26% were reported by acquaintances (including family, friends, and neighbors) and 45% were reported by care professionals (including doctors, nurses, and social workers) after seeking care...whether criminalization has occurred out of malice or simply due to ignorance of reporting requirements, clinicians, social workers, and other clinical support providers have caused substantial harm to patients by calling law enforcement after the loss of pregnancy because they suspect the miscarriage was intentionally induced.” j. perritt, “don't report your abortion patients to law enforcement self managed abortion does not legally need to be reported,” medpage today (5 nov. 2022), https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second opinions/101581; (citing l. huss et al., self care, criminalized: august 2022 preliminary findings, if how when: lawyering for reproductive justice 2 3 (2022)). see also e. bazelon, “purvi patel could be just the beginning,” the new york times (1 apr. 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/magazine/purvi patel could be just the beginning.html. [123] s. artiga et al., “racial disparities in maternal and infant health: an overview,” kaiser family foundation (10 nov. 2020), https://www.kff.org/report section/racial disparities in maternal and infant health an overview issue brief/. [124] e. yuko, “women of color will face more criminalized pregnancies in post ‘roe’ america,” rolling stone (7 july 2022), https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture features/roe wade abortion criminalized pregnancy bipoc 1377430/. [125] working group on discrimination against women and girls in law and practice, women’s autonomy, equality and reproductive health in international human rights: between recognition, backlash and regressive trends (oct. 2017), https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/women/wg/womensautonomyequalityreproductivehealth.pdf. [126] see, e.g., c. zakrzewski et al., “texts, web searches about abortion have been used to prosecute women,” the washington post (3 july 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/03/abortion data privacy prosecution/. see also r. williams, “how might law enforcement use digital tracking to enforce georgia’s strict anti abortion law?” gpb (30 aug. 2022), https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/08/30/how might law enforcement use digital tracking enforce georgias strict anti. [127] see k. cheung, “abortion in the surveillance state,” jezebel (22 nov. 2021), https://jezebel.com/abortion in the surveillance state 1848076906. see also j. schuppe, “police sweep google searches to find suspects. the tactic is facing its first legal challenge,” nbc news (30 june 2022), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us news/police google reverse keyword searches rcna35749. [128] p. hurtado et al., “in a post roe world, more miscarriage and stillbirth prosecutions await women,” bloomberg (5 july 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022 07 05/miscarriage stillbirth prosecutions await women post roe. see also l. rankin, “how an online search for abortion pills landed this woman in jail,” fast company (26 feb. 2020), https://www.fastcompany.com/90468030/how an online search for abortion pills landed this woman in jail. [129] federal trade commission, “data brokers: a call for transparency and accountability,” p. i (may 2014), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/data brokers call transparency accountability report federal trade commission may 2014/140527databrokerreport.pdf. [130] federal courts have not ruled directly on whether the particularized probable cause standard applicable to warrant requests is required for police to conduct keyword search queries or “geofenced” (i.e. location bound) searches of data held by third parties, including google. at the moment, law enforcement is relying on vague and less protective statutory standards, such as the stored communication act’s “reasonable grounds [to believe that records are] relevant and material to an ongoing investigation” standard. congressional research service, “abortion, data privacy, and law enforcement access: a legal overview” (updated 8 july 2022), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10786. [131] j. cox, “data broker is selling location data of people who visit abortion clinics,” vice (3 may 2022), https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vzjb/location data abortion clinics safegraph planned parenthood (reporting on the sale of data “showing where groups of people visiting [clinics the provide abortions] came from, how long they stayed there, and where they then went afterwards.”). see also b. cyphers, “inside fog data science, the secretive company selling mass surveillance to local police,” eff (31 aug. 2022), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/inside fog data science secretive company selling mass surveillance local police (describing how private data brokers sell searchable access to “‘billions’ of data points about ‘over 250 million’ devices” to local law enforcement agencies, generally without any court oversight). [132] b. cyphers, “how law enforcement around the country buys cell phone location data wholesale,” eff (31 aug. 2022), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/how law enforcement around country buys cell phone location data wholesale some data broker services are designed and marketed specifically for law enforcement agencies, who purchase subscriptions to the services   rather than seeking a warrant   in order to access advanced search features. the electronic frontier foundation documented a lack of agency level policies governing the use of these services, and found that most agencies did not seek either warrants or subpoenas to access the data. see also f. patel & a. shahzad, “with roe v. wade at risk, digital surveillance threatens reproductive freedom,” just security (17 may 2022), https://www.justsecurity.org/81547/with roe v wade at risk digital surveillance threatens reproductive freedom/. [133] s. quenby et al., “miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss,” the lancet (vol. 397, 2021), p. 1658; d. walker, “with roe overturned, indigenous communities say it was always impossible for them to access abortion services,” insider (24 june 2002), https://www.insider.com/roe overturned harder for indigenous communities to access abortion 2022 5. [134] national women’s health center, “consumer health info: medication abortion and miscarriage” (updated 15 aug. 2019), https://nwhn.org/abortion pills vs miscarriage demystifying experience/ (“from a medical perspective, there is no physically significant difference between a medication abortion and a spontaneously occurring miscarriage. for example, the medicines used in medication abortion are used to help safely manage an incomplete miscarriage.”). [135] c. conti cook, surveilling the digital abortion diary, 50 (1) university of baltimore law review 1 (2020), pp. 29 38. [136] see m. gilman, the class differential in privacy law, 77 brook. l. rev. 1389, 1392 (2012), https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol77/iss4/2. [137] see e. joh, dobbs online: digital rights as abortion rights (5 sept. 2022) (feminist cyberlaw, a. levendowski & m. jones (eds.), forthcoming 2023), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4210754) (noting that low income women are less able to afford more privacy protective phones, apps, or other services). [138] see k. cheung, “abortion in the surveillance state,” jezebel (22 nov. 2021), https://jezebel.com/abortion in the surveillance state 1848076906; s. coutts, “anti choice groups use smartphone surveillance to target ‘abortion minded women’ during clinic visits,” rewire news group (25 may 2016), https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2016/05/25/anti choice groups deploy smartphone surveillance target abortion minded women clinic visits/. [139] a. abrams & v. bergengruen, “anti abortion pregnancy centers are collecting troves of data that could be weaponized against women,” time (22 june 2022), https://time.com/6189528/anti abortion pregnancy centers collect data investigation/. [140] j. cox, “data broker is selling location data of people who visit abortion clinics,” vice (3 may 2022), https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vzjb/location data abortion clinics safegraph planned parenthood; e. joh, dobbs online: digital rights as abortion rights (5 sept. 2022) (a. levendowski & m. jones (eds.), feminist cyberlaw, forthcoming 2023), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4210754). see also a. vesoulis, “how a digital abortion footprint could lead to criminal charges and what congress can do about it,” time (10 may 2022), available at https://time.com/6175194/digital data abortion congress/; e. bowman, “as states ban abortion, the texas bounty law offers a way to survive legal challenges,” npr (11 july 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1107741175/texas abortion bounty law#:~:text=the%20law%20makes%20no%20exceptions,%2410%2c000%20in%20damages%20from%20defendants. [141] see j. cox, “data broker is selling location data of people who visit abortion clinics,” vice (3 may 2022), https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vzjb/location data abortion clinics safegraph planned parenthood. following the initial story, this particular data broker announced it would cease selling data specifically tracking those who visited abortion providers, and subsequently eliminated retail access to its data altogether; however, nothing prevents other brokers from offering identical products. j. cox, “safegraph to close digital shop that sold abortion clinic location data,” vice (30 sept. 2022), https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5vw3b/safegraph to close shop abortion clinic location data. [142] n. poli & v. bergengruen, “lawmakers scramble to reform digital privacy after roe reversal,” time (1 july 2022), https://time.com/6193224/abortion privacy data reform/. [143] complaint, generation to generation inc. v. state of florida, no. 2022 ca 000980 (leon cty. fla., circ. ct., 10 june 2022). see also e. fawcett, “synagogue sues florida, saying abortion restrictions violate religious freedoms,” the new york times (16 june 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/florida abortion law judaism.html. [144] the providers in florida who have resorted to the courts to assert their right to freedom of religion or belief are part of a long tradition of healthcare workers providing reproductive healthcare, at least in part, due to their faith. see a religious right to abortion: legal history and analysis, columbia law school (aug. 2022), https://lawrightsreligion.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/lrrp%20religious%20liberty%20%26%20abortion%20rights%20memo.pdf. [145] m. boorstein, “clergy sue to halt florida abortion law, citing religious freedom,” the washington post (1 sept. 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2022/09/01/florida pastor rabbi abortion lawsuit/. [146] id. [147] un general assembly, international covenant on civil and political rights (16 dec. 1966), united nations, treaty series (vol. 999) (“iccpr”), https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3aa0.html [accessed 28 january 2023], art.18 (3). [148] see a. branigin & s. chery, “women of color will be most impacted by the end of roe, experts say,” the washington post (24 june 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/24/women of color end of roe/. see also l. powell, “human rights campaign fact sheet: lesbian, bisexual, queer women who have been pregnant are more likely to need abortion services; demonstrates impact roe reversal would have on lgbtq+ people,” human rights campaign (2 june 2022), available at https://www.hrc.org/press releases/human rights campaign fact sheet lesbian bisexual queer women who have been pregnant are more likely to need abortion services demonstrates impact roe reversal would have on lgbtq people. see also american association of people with disabilities, “aapd statement on leaked supreme court draft decision and threat to roe v. wade” (10 may 2022), https://www.aapd.com/press releases/aapd statement scotus threat to roe/. [149] see, e.g., e.e. petersen et al., “vital signs: pregnancy related deaths, united states, 2011 2015, and strategies for prevention, 13 states, 2013 2017,” mmwr morb mortal wkly rep (2019), 68:423 429 (between 2011 and 2015 indigenous women had the second highest rate of pregnancy related deaths); m. long et al., “women’s health care utilization and costs: findings from the 2020 kff women’s health survey” (21 apr. 2021), https://www.kff.org/womens health policy/issue brief/womens health care utilization and costs findings from the 2020 kff womens health survey (low income women, black women, and hispanic women); g. borchelt, “the impact poverty has on women’s health,” https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the state of healthcare in the united states/poverty on womens health (low income women); m. buckles “improving health outcomes for black women and girls with disabilities” (15 feb. 2022), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/improving health outcomes for black women and girls with disabilities (black women and women with disabilities); l. johnson, “the disparate impact of texas’ abortion ban on low income and rural women,” georgetown law journal on poverty law and policy (24 feb. 2022), https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty journal/blog/the disparate impact of texas abortion ban on low income and rural women (rural and low income women). [150] see k.l. gilbert et al., “dobbs, another frontline for health equity,” brookings institution (30 june 2022), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how we rise/2022/06/30/dobbs another frontline for health equity/. see also d. walker, “with roe overturned, indigenous communities say it was always impossible for them to access abortion services” (24 june 2022), https://www.insider.com/roe overturned harder for indigenous communities to access abortion 2022 5; l. kcomt et al., “healthcare avoidance due to anticipated discrimination among transgender people: a call to create trans affirmative environments” (28 may 2020), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc7276492/pdf/main.pdf; b. karami matin et al., “barriers in access to healthcare for women with disabilities: a systematic review in qualitative studies” (30 jan. 2021), https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12905 021 01189 5.pdf; u. ranji et al., “beyond the numbers: access to reproductive health care for low income women in five communities” (14 nov. 2019), https://www.kff.org/report section/beyond the numbers access to reproductive health care for low income women in five communities executive summary.; l. fuentes, “inequity in us abortion rights and access: the end of roe is deepening existing divides,” guttmacher institute (jan. 2023), https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/01/inequity us abortion rights and access end roe deepening existing divides (“drivers of inequity such as income and health insurance disparities and health provider bias…are not simply the result of individual acts of discrimination but rather the result of how institutions and public infrastructures function.”). [151] brief for autistic self advocacy network and the disability rights education and defense fund as amicus curiae (dobbs v. jackson women's health org., 142 s. ct. 2228) (20 sept. 2021), p. 7, https://www.supremecourt.gov/docketpdf/19/19 1392/192964/20210920135335415_19 1392%20amicus%20brief%20of%20the%20autistic%20self%20advocacy%20network%20et%20al..pdf (“around 60,000 americans were forcibly sterilized in state sanctioned programs to prevent those adjudged to have psychiatric disabilities from reproducing”). see also p. lombardo, three generations, no imbeciles: new light on buck v. bell, 60 n.y.u. l. rev. 30, 31 (1985); a. stern, “forced sterilization policies in the us targeted minorities and those with disabilities   and lasted into the 21st century,” ihpi news (23 sept. 2020), https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/forced sterilization policies us targeted minorities and those disabilities and lasted 21st (“anyone who did not fit [the] mold of racial perfection, which included most immigrants, blacks, indigenous people, poor whites and people with disabilities, became targets of eugenics programs.”); national women’s law center, forced sterilization of disabled people in the united states (24 jan. 2022), https://nwlc.org/wp content/uploads/2022/01/%c6%92.nwlc_sterilizationreport_2021.pdf; (appendix) https://nwlc.org/wp content/uploads/2022/01/%c6%92.nwlc_sterilizationreport_2022_appendix.pdf. [152] brief for autistic self advocacy network and the disability rights education and defense fund as amicus curiae (dobbs v. jackson women's health org., 142 s. ct. 2228) (20 sept. 2021), p. 7, https://www.supremecourt.gov/docketpdf/19/19 1392/192964/20210920135335415_19 1392%20amicus%20brief%20of%20the%20autistic%20self%20advocacy%20network%20et%20al..pdf. [153] l. bowen, “dobbs is a disaster for disability justice,” society for cultural anthropology (3 oct. 2022), https://culanth.org/fieldsights/dobbs is a disaster for disability justice. see also r. hoban, “in debate over down syndrome/abortion bill, disability groups struggle with how to respond,” north carolina health news (8 june 2021), https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2021/06/08/disability groups struggle to respond to latest abortion bill/. [154] m. smith, “native americans: a crisis in health equity,” american bar association human rights magazine (vol. 43, no. 3) (1 aug. 2018), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the state of healthcare in the united states/native american crisis in health equity/. the united nations’ department for economic and social affairs has also produced reports on indigenous peoples’ access to health services around the world, finding these groups face heightened challenges. see “state of the world’s indigenous peoples: indigenous peoples’ access to health services,” united nations department of economic and social affairs (march 2018), https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp content/uploads/sites/19/2018/03/the state of the worlds indigenous peoples web.pdf. [155] e. hofstaedter, “abortion was already inaccessible on reservation land. dobbs made things worse,” mother jones (12 aug. 2022), https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/08/abortion dobbs tribal land/. [156] see d. williams et al., understanding and addressing racial disparities in health care, 21(4) health care financing review 75 (2000). see also key facts on health and health care by race and ethnicity, kaiser family foundation, (26 jan. 2022), https://www.kff.org/racial equity and health policy/report/key facts on health and health care by race and ethnicity/; “closing the equity gap in health care for black americans,” the commonwealth fund (15 july 2016), https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2016/closing equity gap health care black americans. black women may also be particularly impacted by abortion bans because they have historically been overrepresented among people seeking abortions. see “reported legal abortions by race of women who obtained abortion by the state of occurrence,” kaiser family foundation (2020), https://www.kff.org/racial equity and health policy/report/key facts on health and health care by race and ethnicity/ [157] see, e.g., a. spencer, “black rural residents lack healthcare due to racism and poverty,” the sacramento observer (22 aug. 2022), https://sacobserver.com/2022/08/black rural residents lack healthcare due to racism and poverty/. [158] see “submission to the united nations committee on the elimination of racial discrimination,” amnesty international, the global justice center, the southern rural black women’s initiative for economic and social justice, and human rights watch (aug. 2022), https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2022/07/sbrwi_hrw_gjc_ai_cerdshadowreport.pdf. see a post roe america: the legal consequences of the dobbs decision: hearing before the senate committee on the judiciary, 117th cong. section iv (2022) (statement of khiara m. bridges professor of law, uc berkeley school of law), https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/testimony%20 %20bridges%20 %202022 07 121.pdf. [159] see generally a. bissonnette, “caged women”: migration, mobility and access to health services in texas and arizona, 37 j. borderlands studies 1 (9 apr. 2020), tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08865655.2020.1748515?journalcode=rjbs20. [160] barriers to sexual and reproductive health services faced by immigrant women of reproductive age in the united states, ibis reproductive health (jan. 2023), https://www.ibisreproductivehealth.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/access%20to%20srh%20services_immigrants%20brief%20final.pdf. many noncitizen us residents are ineligible for medicaid and the children’s health insurance program (chip) for their first five years in the country. health coverage for lawfully present immigrants: immigrants and medicaid & chip, healthcare.gov (17 jan. 2023), https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/lawfully present immigrants/. [161] s. ahmed, “abortion worries heightened for unauthorized immigrants in the u.s.,” reuters (5 july 2022), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/abortion worries heightened unauthorized immigrants us 2022 07 05/. [162] interview by foley hoag llp with dr. elissa serapio (25 july 2022). [163] human rights watch, “the only people it really affects are the people it hurts” (11 mar. 2021), https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/03/11/only people it really affects are people it hurts/human rights consequences. [164] “barriers to sexual and reproductive health services faced by immigrant women of reproductive age in the united states,” ibis reproductive health (jan. 2023), https://www.ibisreproductivehealth.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/access%20to%20srh%20services_immigrants%20brief%20final.pdf. [165] see k.l. gilbert et al., “dobbs, another frontline for health equity,” brookings institution (30 june 2022), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how we rise/2022/06/30/dobbs another frontline for health equity/; m. kirstein et al., “100 days post roe: at least 66 clinics across 15 us states have stopped offering abortion care,” guttmacher institute (6 oct. 2022), https://www.guttmacher.org/2022/10/100 days post roe least 66 clinics across 15 us states have stopped offering abortion care (noting that abortion bans lead to clinic closures and “[w]hen clinics close down or stop offering abortion care, it represents a lost source of health care for their community.”). [166] see k. l. gilbert et al., “dobbs, another frontline for health equity,” brookings institution (30 june 2022), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how we rise/2022/06/30/dobbs another frontline for health equity/ (“of the 13 states that have an immediate trigger law, 9 of them rank number 30 or lower in overall state health using data from america’s health rankings. more than 10 of these states rank in the bottom half for public health and healthcare quality.”). [167] see national institute of justice, “violence against american indian and alaska native women and men: 2010 findings from the national intimate partner and sexual violence survey,” (may 2016), pp. 2, 14, available at https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249736.pdf (indigenous women); s.e. tan & k. kuschminder, “migrant experiences of sexual and gender based violence: a critical interpretative synthesis,” global health (2022), pp. 18, 68 (migrant women); “violence against women in the united states: statistics,” available at https://now.org/resource/violence against women in the united states statistic (low income women); j. barlow “black women, the forgotten survivors of sexual assault,” https://www.apa.org/pi/about/newsletter/2020/02/black women sexual assault (black women); r. dowd “transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime,” ucla school of law williams institute (23 mar. 2021), https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs trans press release (transgender men); “violence and abuse in rural america” (last reviewed 26 mar. 2021), https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/violence and abuse (women in rural communities); cdc, “sexual violence and intimate partner violence among people with disabilities” (last reviewed 1 june 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/svandipv.html (women with disabilities). [168] most states with abortion bans in effect do not have any exception for pregnancies that result from rape or incest. f. cineas, “rape and incest abortion exceptions don’t really exist,” vox (22 july 2022), https://www.vox.com/23271352/rape and incest abortion exception. see, e.g., alabama human life protection act (h.b. 314, § 7); wisconsin § 940.04(5); wyoming § 35 6 102.(b); texas health & safety code title 2, subtit. h, ch. 170a; tennessee code ann. § 39 15 213.(c)(1) (3); south dakota, § 22 17 5.1; miss. code ann. § 41 41 45.(2) (contemplating rape only); louisiana § 40:1061.f g; kentucky § 311.772.(4)(a) (b); arkansas a.c.a. § 5 61 304(a); arizona a.r.s. § 13 3603.02.a; oklahoma s.b. 612 section a.b.3.a; missouri (§ 188.017 r.s.mo.). [169] most states with a rape exception to their abortion ban require the victim to report the rape to the police in order to obtain an abortion. f. cineas, “rape and incest abortion exceptions don’t really exist,” vox (22 july 2022), https://www.vox.com/23271352/rape and incest abortion exception. [170] rainn, the criminal justice system: statistics, https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal justice system. [171] d. thompson, “when abortion means traveling, more women forgo procedure: study”, us news (16 may 2022), https://www.usnews.com/news/health news/articles/2022 05 16/when abortion means traveling more women forgo procedure study. [172] see n. hassanein, “people of color, the poor and other marginalized people to bear the brunt if roe v. wade is overturned,” usa today (3 may 2022), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/05/03/people color most impacted if roe v wade overturned/9626866002/. see also a. schrager, “no abortion means poor states will get poorer,” the washington post (4 may 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/no abortion means poor states will get poorer/2022/05/04/276bcde6 cb9a 11ec b7ee 74f09d827ca6_story.html. [173] d. thompson, “when abortion means traveling, more women forgo procedure: study,” us news (16 may 2022), https://www.usnews.com/news/health news/articles/2022 05 16/when abortion means traveling more women forgo procedure study. [174] b. rader mph et al., estimated travel time and spatial access to abortion facilities in the us before and after the dobbs v jackson women’s health decision, jama 2022;328(20):2041 2047, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article abstract/2798215. [175] see j. bearak et al., “disparities and change over time in distance women would need to travel to have an abortion in the usa: a spatial analysis,” lancet public health (nov. 2017), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc5943037/. see also r. bleiweis et al., “the basic facts about women in poverty” (3 aug. 2020), cap, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/basic facts women poverty; status of women in the states, “spotlight on immigrant women: the employment and earning of immigrant women,” https://statusofwomendata.org/immigrant women; m.v. badgett et al., “ lgbt poverty in the united states,” ucla school of law williams institute (oct. 2019), https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt poverty us; committee opinion, “health disparities in rural women,” the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists (feb. 2014, reaffirmed in 2021), https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical guidance/committee opinion/articles/2014/02/health disparities in rural women (rural women). [176] d. foster, the turnaway study: the cost of denying women access to abortion (2020). [177] d. foster, new abortion bans will increase existing health and economic disparities, 112 am. j. pub. health 1276 (june 2022), https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/ajph.2022.306993. [178] see united nations, the state parties to the international covenant on civil and political rights (iccpr), available at https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=iv 4&src=ind (us ratification, 8 june 1992). [179] see united nations, the state parties to the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (icerd), https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=ind&mtdsg_no=iv 2&chapter=4&clang=_en (us ratification, 21 oct. 1994). [180] see united nations, the state parties to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (cat), https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/cat.pdf (us ratification, 21 oct. 1994). [181] see united nations, the state parties to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights (icescr), https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=ind&mtdsg_no=iv 3&chapter=4 (us ratification, 5 oct. 1977). [182] see united nations, the state parties to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (cedaw), https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=ind&mtdsg_no=iv 8&chapter=4&clang=_en (us ratification, 17 july 1980). [183] see united nations, the state parties to the convention on the rights of the child (crc), https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=ind&mtdsg_no=iv 11&chapter=4&clang=_en (us ratification, 16 feb. 1995). [184] see united nations, the state parties to the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (crpd), https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=iv 15&src=ind (us ratification, 30 july 2009). [185] see united nations, vienna convention on the law of treaties (23 may 1969), united nations, treaty series (vol. 1155) (vclt), art. 18. [186] see brief of the united nations mandate holders as amici curiae, dobbs v. jwho., 142 s. ct. 2228, p. 9 (20 sept. 2021), https://www.supremecourt.gov/docketpdf/19/19 1392/193045/20210920163400578_19 1392%20bsac%20united%20nations%20mandate%20holders.pdf. [187] as recently summarized by the working group on discrimination against women and girls: “sexual and reproductive health rights are clearly established under international law. they are an integral part of a number of civil and political rights that underpin the physical and mental integrity of individuals and their autonomy, such as the rights to life, liberty and security of person, freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, privacy and respect for family life, as well as economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to health, education and work and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress, and the cross cutting rights of non discrimination and equality.” working group on discrimination against women and girls, women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive health rights in crisis (u.n. doc. a/hrc/47/38) (28 apr. 2021), ¶ 18. [188] see iccpr, art. 6. [189] see icerd, art. 5(e)(iv). see also icescr art. 12; cedaw arts. 11(1)(f), 12, 14(2)(b); crpd art. 25; crc art. 24. see also cescr, general comment no. 22 (2016) on the right to sexual and reproductive health (u.n. doc. e/c.12/gc/22) (2 may 2016), ¶¶ 10 11, 13 14, 45, 49; crc committee, general comment no. 15 (2013) on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health (u.n. doc. crc/c/gc/15) (17 apr. 2013), ¶ 56; report of the special rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, violence and its impact on the right to health (u.n. doc. a/hrc/50/28) (14 apr. 2022), ¶ 20 (describing how “states violate the right to health when they fail to take effective steps to prevent third parties from undermining the enjoyment of the right to sexual and reproductive health”). [190] hrc, general comment no. 36, art. 6 (right to life) (u.n. doc. ccpr/c/gc/36) (3 sept. 2019), ¶ 8. [191] id. [192] see cescr, general comment 22 (2016) on the right to sexual and reproductive health (u.n. doc. e/c.12/gc/22) (2 may 2016), ¶ 5 (“the freedoms [protected under the right to health] include the right to make free and responsible decisions and choices, free of violence, coercion and discrimination, regarding matters concerning one’s body and sexual and reproductive health[, and entitle all people to] full enjoyment of the right to sexual and reproductive health[.]”); cescr, general comment no. 14: the right to the highest attainable standard of health (art. 12) (u.n. doc. e/c.12/2000/4) (11 aug. 2000), ¶ 8 (“the freedoms [protected under the right to health] include the right to control one’s health and body, including sexual and reproductive freedom, and the right to be free from interference[.]”); crpd committee and cedaw committee, guaranteeing sexual and reproductive health and rights for all women, in particular women with disabilities (29 aug. 2018), https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty bodies/crpd/statements declarations and observations (“access to safe and legal abortion, as well as related services and information are essential aspects of women’s reproductive health and a prerequisite for safeguarding their human rights to life, health, equality before the law and equal protection of the law, non discrimination, information, privacy, bodily integrity and freedom from torture and ill treatment.”); cedaw committee, l.c. v. peru (u.n. doc. cedaw/c/50/d/222009) (2011), ¶ 8.15, https://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/docs/cedaw c 50 d 22 2009_en.pdf (“[t]he committee considers that, owing to her condition as a pregnant woman, l.c. did not have access to an effective and accessible procedure allowing her to establish her entitlement to the medical services that her physical and mental condition required.”); cerd committee, concluding observations on the combined tenth to twelfth reports of the united states of america (u.n. doc. cerd/c/usa/co/10 12) (21 sept. 2022), ¶¶ 35 36. [193] see iccpr, art. 17; crc, art. 16. [194] the human rights committee has found violations of the right to privacy in every case it has considered when the state interfered with reproductive decision making or abortion access. see hrc, whelan v. ireland, ccpr/c/119/d/2425/2014 (“whelan v. ireland”), ¶ 7.8; hrc, mellet v. ireland, ccpr/c/116/d/2334/2013 (“mellet v. ireland”), ¶ 7.7 7.8; hrc, k.l. v. peru, ccpr/c/85/d/1153/2003 (“k.l. v. peru”), ¶ 6.4; hrc, v.d.a. (on behalf of l.m.r.) v. argentina, ccpr/c/101/d/1608/2007 (“v.d.a. v. argentina”), ¶ 9.3; hrc, general comment 28 (2000) on the equality of rights between men and women (u.n. doc. ccpr/c/21/rev.1/add.10) (29 mar. 2000), ¶ 20 (“states parties must provide information to enable the committee to assess the effect of any laws and practices that may interfere with women’s right to enjoy privacy” such as “where states impose a legal duty upon doctors and other health personnel to report cases of women who have undergone abortion. . . . states parties should report on any laws and public or private actions that interfere with the equal enjoyment by women of the rights under article 17, and on the measures taken to eliminate such interference and to afford women protection from any such interference.”). [195] see whelan v. ireland, ¶ 7.9; mellet v. ireland, ¶ 7.8; k.l. v. peru, ¶ 6.4. [196] memorandum from oklahoma attorney general to all oklahoma law enforcement agencies on guidance for oklahoma law enforcement following dobbs v. jackson women’s health org. (31 aug. 2022), https://www.ok.gov/cleet/documents/memo%20to%20law%20enforcement%20following%20dobbs%20(8.31.22).pdf. [197] iccpr, art. 19. [198] see, e.g., whelan v. ireland, ¶ 7.5 7.7; mellet v. ireland, ¶ 7.4 7.6; k.l. v. peru, ¶ 6.3; v.d.a. v. argentina, ¶ 9.2; cat committee, concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland (u.n. doc. cat/c/gbr/co/6) (7 june 2019), ¶¶ 46 47; cat committee, concluding observations of the committee against torture   paraguay (u.n. doc. cat/c/pry/co/4 6) (14 dec. 2011), ¶ 22; cat committee, concluding observations on the initial report of timor leste (u.n. doc. cat/c/tls/co/1) (29 nov. 2017), ¶ 34. [199] see cat, art. 16; iccpr, art. 7; crc, arts. 19, 37; crpd, art. 15. [200] see cat committee, concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of poland (u.n. doc. cat/c/pol/co/7) (29 aug. 2019), ¶ 33(d). [201] see hrc, report of the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (u.n. doc. a/hrc/31/57) (5 jan. 2016), ¶ 44 (“the denial of safe abortions and subjecting women and girls to humiliating and judgmental attitudes in such contexts of extreme vulnerability and where timely health care is essential amount to torture or ill treatment.”). [202] cat committee, concluding observations on the third periodic report of the philippines (u.n. doc. cat/c/phl/co/3) (2 june 2016), ¶ 40(b) (urging the state to “[r]eview its legislation in order to allow for legal exceptions to the prohibition of abortions in specific circumstances such as when the pregnancy endangers the life or health of the woman, when it is the result of rape or incest and in cases of foetal impairment…”) (emphasis added). [203] see k.l. v. peru, ¶ 6.3; mellet v. ireland, ¶¶ 7.4 7.6; whelan v. ireland, ¶¶ 7.4 7.7. [204] v.d.a. v. argentina, ¶ 9.2. see also hrc, general comment no. 36, art. 6: right to life (u.n. doc. ccpr/c/gc/36) (3 sept. 2019), ¶ 8 (“states parties must provide safe, legal and effective access to abortion where the life and health of the pregnant woman or girl is at risk, or where carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the pregnant woman or girl substantial pain or suffering, most notably where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or where the pregnancy is not viable.”) (emphasis added). [205] cedaw committee, general recommendation no. 35 on gender based violence against women, updating general recommendation no. 19 (u.n. doc. cedaw/c/gc/35) (26 july 2017), ¶ 18. [206] see iccpr, art. 9. [207] hrc, report of the special rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (u.n. doc. a/hrc/38/36) (10 apr. 2018), ¶ 75. [208] hrc, concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of el salvador (u.n. doc. ccpr/c/slv/co/7) (9 may 2018), ¶ 16. [209] see supra ¶¶ 22 23 on “fetal personhood” approaches. [210] see supra ¶ 22. [211] hrc, report of the working group on arbitrary detention on its visit to the united states of america (u.n. doc. a/hrc/36/37/add.2) (17 july 2017), ¶¶ 73 74 (detention on discriminatory grounds is defined as arbitrary). see hrc, rep. of the working grp. on arbitrary det., annex (u.n. doc. a/hrc/16/47) (19 jan. 2011), p. 23, ¶ 8(e). see also ohchr, “working group on arbitration detention: about arbitrary detention”, available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/about arbitrary detention (clarifying that the definition of arbitrary detention under the working group’s mandate includes “deprivation[s] of liberty [which] constitute[] a violation of the international law for reasons of discrimination based on…gender,…disability; or other status….”). [212] see iccpr, art. 18. [213] hrc, general comment no. 22: article 18 (freedom of thought, conscience or religion) (u.n. doc. ccpr/c/gc/22) (20 july 1993), ¶ 4. [214] hrc, report of the special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, heiner bielefeldt (u.n. doc. a/hrc/71/269/) (28 dec. 2016), ¶ 15. [215] the hrc is clear that the concept of “morals” derives from many social, philosophical and religious traditions; consequently, limitations on the freedom to manifest a religion or belief for the purpose of protecting morals must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single tradition. hrc, general comment no. 22: article 18 (freedom of thought, conscience or religion) (u.n. doc. ccpr/c/gc/22) (30 july 1993), ¶ 8. in its general comment on freedom of expression which contains a similar limitation clause, the hrc reiterated this and outlined that interpretation of morality should comply with the conception of human rights as ‘universal’, with particular emphasis on the standard of non discrimination. see also hrc, general comment no. 34: art. 19 (freedoms of opinion and expression) (u.n. doc. ccpr/c/gc/34) (12 sept. 2011), ¶ 32; hrc, general comment no. 37: article 21 (right of peaceful assembly) (u.n. doc.ccpr/c/gc/37) (17 sept. 2020), ¶ 46. [216] id. [217] id.; hrc, freedom of religion or belief: report of the special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (u.n. doc. a/hrc/40/58) (5 mar. 2019), ¶ 17. [218] see hrc, general comment no. 34: art. 19 (freedoms of opinion and expression) (u.n. doc. ccpr/c/gc/34) (12 sept. 2011), ¶ 25. [219] see supra section i(b). [220] see supra section i(b) on the human rights implications of criminal abortion laws in the us. [221] see supra note 219, ¶ 34 (outlining that the grounds for restriction “must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve their protective function; they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected…the principle of proportionality has to be respected not only in the law that frames the restrictions but also by the administrative and judicial authorities in applying the law.”). [222] see iccpr, arts. 2 3, 26; icerd, arts. 2, 5; cedaw, art. 12. [223] see mellet v. ireland, ¶¶ 7.11, 3.19; whelan v. ireland, ¶ 7.12. [224] cedaw committee, general recommendation no. 24: article 12 of the convention (women and health) (u.n. doc. a/54/38/rev.1) (1999), ¶ 11 (“it is discriminatory for a state party to refuse to provide legally for the performance of certain reproductive health services for women.”). [225] cedaw committee, inquiry concerning the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland under article 8 of the optional protocol to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (u.n. doc. cedaw/c/op.8/gbr/1) (6 mar. 2018), ¶ 74. [226] working group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice, women’s autonomy, equality and reproductive health in international human rights: between recognition, backlash and regressive trends (oct. 2017), p. 2, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/women/wg/womensautonomyequalityreproductivehealth.pdf. [227] see supra ¶¶ 33 37. [228] see icerd, arts. 2, 5. see also cerd committee, concluding observations on the combined tenth to twelfth reports of the united states of america (u.n. doc. cerd/c/usa/co/10 12) (21 sept. 2022), ¶¶ 35 36. [229] cerd committee, concluding observations on the combined tenth to twelfth reports of the united states of america (u.n. doc. cerd/c/usa/co/10 12) (21 sept. 2022), ¶ 35. [230] id., ¶ 36. [231] mellet v. ireland, ¶ 7.11. [232] id. [233] working group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice, women’s autonomy, equality and reproductive health in international human rights: between recognition, backlash and regressive trends (oct. 2017), p. 2, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/women/wg/womensautonomyequalityreproductivehealth.pdf. [234] id. [235] crc committee, general comment no. 20 on the implementation of the rights of the child during adolescence (u.n. doc. crc/c/gc/20) (6 dec. 2016), ¶ 60. [236] id., ¶¶ 60 61 (finding that adolescent girls should have access to information about sexual and reproductive health along with access to adequate health services). see also crc committee, general comment no.4: adolescent health and development in the context of the convention on the rights of the child (u.n. doc. crc/gc/2003/4) (1 july 2003), ¶ 13. [237] see office of the united nations high commissioner for human rights (ohchr), guiding principles on business and human rights: implementing the united nations “protect, respect and remedy” framework (hr/pub/11/04) (2011), ¶ 11 (noting that “the responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate. it exists independently of states’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfil their own human rights obligations….the responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights is distinct from issues of legal liability and enforcement, which remain defined largely by national law provisions in relevant jurisdictions.”). see also human rights watch, federal trade commission comment re: commercial surveillance anpr, r111004 (21 nov. 2022). [238] see supra section i(c). [239] see statement, ohchr, “bachelet on us ruling on dobbs v jackson women’s health organization” (24 june 2022), https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/06/bachelet us ruling dobbs v jackson womens health organization. [240] see press release, special procedures, “usa: un experts denounce supreme court decision to strike down roe v. wade, urge action to mitigate consequences” (24 june 2022), https://www.ohchr.org/en/press releases/2022/06/usa un experts denounce supreme court decision strike down roe v wade urge (statement signed by the working group on discrimination against women and girls; the special rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the special rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences; and endorsed by the special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; the special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities; the special rapporteur in the field of cultural rights; the special rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children; the special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; and the special rapporteur on the right to privacy). see also center for reproductive rights, “protecting abortion access in europe   a call to action” (28 june 2022), https://reproductiverights.org/protecting abortion access in europe a call to action (“we are deeply concerned about the devastating consequences this regressive judgment will have for the lives, health and wellbeing of people across the united states.”); brief of the united nations mandate holders as amici curiae, dobbs v. jwho., 142 s. ct. 2228, pp. 31 33 (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/docketpdf/19/19 1392/193045/20210920163400578_19 1392%20bsac%20united%20nations%20mandate%20holders.pdf (“overturning or curtailing constitutional protections to abortion access established in roe and casey constitutes retrogression in violation of human rights law.…dismantling the u.s. framework that has protected abortion access for nearly 50 years will lead to further violations of women’s and girls’ human rights.”). [241] world health organization [who], abortion care guideline (8 mar. 2022), https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240039483. human rights watch operates in over 100 countries, where we work to investigate and document human rights abuses, expose the truth and hold perpetrators to account. your generosity helps us continue to research abuses, report on our findings, and advocate for change, ensuring that human rights are protected for all. inadequate cervical cancer prevention and care for black women in the united states mississippi delta doula care for justice in maternal health in florida share this via facebook share this via x share this via whatsapp share this via email more sharing options share this via linkedin share this via reddit share this via telegram share this via printer share this via bluesky human rights watch defends the rights of people in close to 100 countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice get updates on human rights issues from around the globe. join our movement today. get the world’s top human rights news, every day. human rights watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit registered in the us under ein: 13 2875808

reproductive rights are under attack. will you help us fight back with facts? all signs point to anti abortion ideologues on the us supreme court overturning roe v. wade outright in the coming weeks. if that happens, 26 states are certain or likely to move quickly to ban abortion, devastating abortion access across large parts of the country and causing potentially severe health, financial and emotional consequences for people, especially those in marginalized communities. of those 26 states, 13 have laws in place that are designed to be "triggered" and take effect automatically or by quick state action if roe no longer applies arkansas, idaho, kentucky, louisiana, mississippi, missouri, north dakota, oklahoma, south dakota, tennessee, texas, utah, and wyoming. some of these 26 states have multiple types of bans in place, including nine states with pre roe bans still on the books, and 11 states with early gestational age bans blocked by court orders. in states with multiple bans, state officials will determine which ban to enforce if roe is overturned. even with roe still technically in place, oklahoma in late may became the first state to fully ban abortion, with very limited exceptions, and all abortion providers in the state were forced to stop offering care. texas has had an abortion ban in effect since september 2021, severely limiting care in the state. both oklahoma and texas also have trigger bans in place. while all trigger bans have the same intent of banning abortion, their implementation mechanisms, timelines and other details differ. also, most trigger bans include very limited exceptions, but those are difficult if not impossible for people seeking abortion to qualify for in real life, and mainly serve to make a draconian policy seem slightly less cruel. 1. kentucky 2. louisiana 3. south dakota 1. idaho enacted: 2020 mechanism: goes into effect 30 days after roe is overturned without further action being required penalty: anyone who provides or attempts to provide an abortion will be charged with a felony, punishable by two to five years in prison; any health care professional who performs or attempts to perform an abortion will have their license suspended for at least six months after a first offense and permanently revoked after a second offense exceptions: pregnant person’s life is in danger, provider performs medical treatment that accidentally terminates a pregnancy, or pregnant person is a victim of rape or incest and has reported the incident to law enforcement other abortion bans: six week ban (not currently in effect) 2. tennessee enacted: 2019 mechanism: goes into effect 30 days after roe is overturned without further action being required. penalty: anyone who provides or attempts to provide an abortion will be charged with a class c felony exceptions: pregnant person’s life is in danger or at serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function other abortion bans: six week ban (not currently in effect), state constitution bars protection for abortion rights 3. texas enacted: 2019 mechanism: goes into effect 30 days after roe is overturned without further action being required penalty: anyone who provides or attempts to provide an abortion will be charged with a first  or second degree felony, and will be subject to a civil penalty of at least $100,000 for each violation exceptions: pregnant person’s life is in danger or at serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function other abortion bans: pre roe ban in effect: six week ban with enforcement through civil action (since sept 1, 2021) seven states have a type of trigger ban that would go into effect after the state’s attorney general, governor or other specified official certifies that the central holding of roe has been overturned in whole or in part. this certification process could be very quick, taking only hours or a couple of days, particularly now that the leaked supreme court draft opinion has provided ample notice that roe is likely to be overturned. 1. arkansas enacted: 2019 mechanism: certification by attorney general that the central holding of roe has been overturned in whole or in part penalty: anyone who performs or attempts to perform an abortion will be charged with a felony punishable by a fine of up to $100,000, up to 10 years in prison or both exceptions: pregnant person’s life is in danger other abortion bans: pre roe ban, near total ban (not currently in effect) 2. mississippi enacted: 2007 mechanism: certification by attorney general penalty: anyone who performs or attempts to perform an abortion will be charged with a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison exceptions: pregnant person’s life is in danger or the pregnant person is a victim of rape and has reported the incident to law enforcement other abortion bans: pre roe ban, six week ban (not currently in effect) 3. missouri enacted: 2019 mechanism: certification by attorney general penalty: anyone who performs an abortion will be charged with a class b felony, and their professional license may be suspended or revoked exceptions: pregnant person’s life is in danger or at serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function other abortion bans: eight week ban (not currently in effect) 4. north dakota enacted: 2007 mechanism: legislative council approves a recommendation from attorney general that the abortion ban is constitutional penalty: anyone who performs an abortion will be charged with a class c felony exceptions: pregnant person’s life is in danger or pregnant person is a victim of rape or incest other abortion bans: six week ban (not currently in effect), dilation and evacuation abortion method prohibited (takes effect 30 days after roe is overturned) ​ 5. oklahoma 6. utah enacted: 2020 mechanism: legislative general counsel certifies that legislature can ban abortion penalty: anyone who performs an abortion will be charged with a second degree felony exceptions: pregnant person’s life is in danger or at risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, lethal fetal abnormality is found, or pregnant person is a victim of rape or incest and has reported the incident to law enforcement other abortion bans: near total ban (not currently in effect) 7. wyoming enacted: 2022 mechanism: certification by governor, advised by attorney general within 30 days of the supreme court ruling penalty: anyone who violates the provision will be charged with a felony punishable by up to 14 years in prison exceptions: pregnant person’s life is in danger or at risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, or pregnant person is a victim of rape or incest other abortion bans in wyoming: none first published online: june 6, 2022 center facts. shape policy.advance sexual and reproductive rights.

by haidee chu , wynne davis , katie daugert , kristin gourlay , sarah knight , carmel wroth editor's note: as of march 15, 2024, this story is no longer being updated. abortion is currently illegal or heavily restricted in at least 16 states following the supreme court's historic decision in june to overturn roe v. wade. that includes states with near total bans on abortion as well as those with bans at roughly at six weeks gestational age or after the detection of fetal cardiac activity. loading... at least six other states have laws in place that pave the way to ban or severely restrict access to abortion. some of these laws are currently blocked by courts while legal challenges make their way through the courts. some states have older laws on the books that leave the current legal status of abortion unclear. several additional states not depicted here have pre viability gestational age restrictions, ranging from 12 to 22 weeks. find more details below on the current legal status of abortion in u.s. states. alabama   a near total ban on abortion is in effect. on june 24, 2022, a u.s. district court lifted an injunction on the state's 2019 law banning abortion. (last updated july 23, 2022) arkansas   a near total ban on abortion is in effect. on june 24, 2022, the state's attorney general implemented a trigger law originally passed in 2019 which bans abortion. (last updated july 23, 2022) georgia   a law banning abortions after roughly six weeks went into effect july 20, 2022. the ban was lifted by a fulton county judge nov. 15, 2022, then reinstated by the state supreme court nov. 23. (last updated nov. 23, 2022) kentucky   kentucky's near total abortion ban went into effect in june 2022. an additional state law bans abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy. on nov. 8, voters turned down an initiative that would have blocked a state constitutional right to an abortion. (last updated june 22, 2023) idaho   a near total ban on abortions passed in 2020 is in effect, with some exceptions. a federal lawsuit challenging the ban is in progress. (last updated jan. 12, 2023) indiana   a near total ban on abortion with narrow exceptions is in effect in indiana as of late august 2023. the ban, passed by the legislature in august 2022, had been on hold pending several lawsuits. the state's six abortion clinics have closed. (last updated aug. 23, 2023) louisiana   a near total ban went into effect june 24, 2022. it was blocked by the courts at least twice. a lawsuit challenging the law continues. in august, 2022, the louisiana supreme court rejected an appeal filed by plaintiffs in the case, allowing the state's ban to remain in effect. (last updated aug. 6, 2022) mississippi   the state's near total ban on abortion was enacted in 2007 and went into effect on july 7, 2022. mississippi's bid to ban abortion after 15 weeks was at the center of the u.s. supreme court decision to overturn roe v. wade. (last updated july 23, 2022) missouri   a near total ban on abortion has been in effect since june 24, 2022. (last updated july 23, 2022) oklahoma   a 1910 law banning abortion is in effect, with exceptions to save the life of the birthing parent. on may 31, 2023, a judge struck down two other abortion bans as unconstitutional. (last updated june 22, 2023) north dakota   north dakota's governor signed a near total abortion ban into law april 24, 2023. (last updated may 1, 2023) south carolina    the state's ban on abortion after roughly six weeks of pregnancy was upheld by the state's newly seated all male supreme court. the ban went into effect on the same day as the decision, aug. 23, 2023 (last updated aug. 23, 2023) south dakota   a near total ban on abortion took effect on june 24, 2022. on july 1, 2022, the governor also signed a ban on telemedicine abortions. (last updated july 23, 2022) tennessee   a near total ban on abortion took effect aug. 25, 2022. (last updated aug. 25, 2022) texas   a near total ban on abortion passed in 2021 went into effect aug. 25, 2022. the trigger law also increases the civil and criminal penalties for performing abortions. (last updated aug. 25, 2022) west virginia   a law banning abortion with few exceptions took effect sept. 16, 2022, after gov. jim justice signed it into law. (last updated sept. 16, 2022) arizona   on oct. 7, the arizona court of appeals blocked a near total abortion ban from 1901 that went into effect on sept. 23, 2022. arizona also has a law in effect banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. (last updated oct. 11, 2022) florida   on april 14, 2023, gov. ron desantis signed a law banning abortion at six weeks. this law is on hold, pending a state supreme court decision on a separate law that bans abortion at 15 weeks and later. that law is also on hold. (last updated april 19, 2023) iowa   in july 2023, iowa passed a ban on abortion at roughly six weeks. it is blocked by the courts. iowa also has a law in effect banning abortion at 22 weeks or later. (last updated july 17, 2023) ohio   a ban on abortion at roughly six weeks was blocked sept. 14, 2022, by a judge's temporary restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction. the lawsuit filed by the ohio aclu and reproductive health clinics to permanently overturn the ban continues. (last updated oct. 12, 2022) utah   a near total ban is blocked by the courts and abortion is currently legal, with restrictions. a law banning abortion after 18 weeks is in effect. (last updated july 23, 2022) wisconsin   a pre roe law from 1849 has been under dispute. the state's attorney general said he does not plan to enforce it as an abortion ban, but abortion care was largely unavailable for 15 months. in july 2023, a circuit court judge ruled that the old law does not apply to abortion, but to instances when a pregnant woman is attacked and loses the pregnancy. clinics in milwaukee and madison began providing abortions again in late september 2023. the court ruling is likely be appealed to the wisconsin supreme court, which has a 4 3 liberal majority. (last updated september 20, 2023) wyoming   a law banning all abortions that was enacted in march, 2023, is currently blocked by the courts. an earlier, near total ban is blocked as well. a separate law bans medication abortion as of july 1, 2023. (last updated mar. 31, 2023) note: this map and story relies on research from the center for reproductive rights, the guttmacher institute, and news reports from the associated press and local news outlets. sponsor message become an npr sponsor

to protect storytellers’ identities, some names have been changed. sixteen states currently have total abortion bans or ban abortion before most people recognize they’re pregnant. that’s more than a quarter of our country where individuals are denied the right to make decisions about their bodies. at the aclu, we know that abortion is health care. we stand with the people fighting to preserve, expand and restore our rights to this basic health care. since roe v. wade was overturned in 2022, voters have continued to turn out in favor of protecting abortion access. during the 2024 election, seven states, including several that supported donald trump, voted to secure abortion access. these wins indicate just how important reproductive freedom remains to people across the country   and across party lines. today, as president trump once again returns to office, anti abortion politicians are pushing him to ignore the will of the people and misuse the comstock act, an antiquated law from 1873, to attempt to ban abortion nationwide, even in states where it is protected today. these extremists also want to ban medication abortion and to prosecute people who help those who live in states with abortion bans find care. and soon we will learn whether the trump administration intends to disregard the longstanding protections of the federal emergency medical treatment and labor act   emtala   and allow anti abortion state lawmakers to ban emergency, including life saving, abortion care altogether. the aclu will not stop fighting for the ability of every individual to access abortion care, no matter where they live. access to abortion is not just about politics. it’s about people. ahead of the 2024 election, we spoke with three individuals impacted by abortion bans in wisconsin, alabama and texas. alison mollman was seven weeks pregnant when she started bleeding. through tears, her obgyn said that she was sorry there was nothing she could do. mollman thought she meant she regretted not being able to save her pregnancy. it wasn’t until mollman began to miscarry at home that she realised that her obgyn meant that she was sorry she couldn’t offer mollman abortion care, like medication abortion or a d&c, which would have made her miscarriage much faster and less painful. “it was terrible,” mollman, the legal director of the aclu of alabama, says. “i didn’t have any supportive care. i was told to just go to the emergency room if i started bleeding heavily. i was basically on my own.” as part of a queer couple trying to become parents, mollman anticipated trouble accessing fertility care in alabama, which, in addition to banning abortion outright, passed a law declaring that embryos created through in vitro fertilization (ivf) should be considered children. several of the state’s ivf clinics paused services for fear of violating the law. mollman conceived through at home insemination, but still faced discrimination in her efforts to receive medically necessary care when two more of her pregnancies ended in miscarriage. at one point, despite being advised that she was likely miscarrying, an ultrasound tech said that there could be fetal cardiac activity that may be undetectable, which made her ineligible for a d&c. at another time, while in severe pain, she was forced to rely on over the counter painkillers. “it was so hard on my body,” mollman remembers. “i didn’t know if i could keep doing this.” complicating the issue in alabama, mollman points out, is the confusion. doctors and patients, fearful of violating the state’s abortion ban, don’t know when they can or can’t provide care, especially abortion care, to people in crisis. “i don't blame my doctors   i know they don’t want their patients to suffer,” mollman says. “i blame anti abortion politicians.” mollman and her partner have decided to try to conceive again, despite knowing mollman may once again be denied reproductive care. mollman’s experiences continue to motivate her in her work to fight abortion restrictions. right now, with the aclu of alabama, mollman is taking the alabama attorney general to court because he threatened to prosecute anyone who assists alabamaians in traveling to another state to access legal abortion care. it’s a tough battle, mollman says, but one she won’t stop fighting. jackie has spent nearly six years as a rape crisis and domestic violence counselor in wisconsin. she’s assisted many people on the worst nights of their lives, helping them work through trauma and feel safe again. shortly after roe was overturned, jackie was supporting a survivor when the question of plan b came up. there was concern that plan b might fail and she could become pregnant at the time when wisconsin had recently banned abortion. it was “really scary” to think about what might happen if plan b didn’t work, jackie recalls. “at that point, you could be assaulted, go to the hospital and have no options. you can’t get an abortion. there’s just nothing you could do,” she says. the idea that survivors could be denied the right to make choices about their body is horrifying to jackie, who is also a survivor of sexual assault. she recalls how having control returned to her and being able to stand up for her health was vital to her ability to heal. “it’s a violation,” jackie says, “to force people to carry [their abuser’s child]. it’s traumatic. it’s heartbreaking.” while abortion is now available in wisconsin due to a court decision, the case is still working its way through the legal system and wisconsinites could once again lose access to this necessary medical care. jackie fears that, even if a future abortion ban made an exception for assault survivors, so many people would still be forced to carry pregnancies against their will because sexual assault remains underreported. jackie is also concerned about the impact abortion bans could have on survivors of domestic violence. it’s a common tactic for abusers to coerce or force their victims to become pregnant. without access to abortion care, many domestic violence victims must choose whether to stay with their abusers, or raise a child on their own. jackie remains hopeful that abortion care can be enshrined into the constitution once again. until that day, she hopes that everyone will disrupt the anti abortion agenda as much as they can. “call your lawmakers, stand outside their offices, yell at them. talk to your friends and community about your views and experiences. being a voice is so important,” she says. dr. ghazaleh moayedi saw firsthand how the racial and structural barriers she’d faced growing up made it difficult for black, brown and immigrant patients to access abortion are in texas. she became an obgyn to be an abortion provider and help these communities access the care they deserved. but, just three years after she finished her training, texas banned abortion. moayedi now travels out of state to provide abortion care for people from states with bans. she also provides pre and post abortion care in texas for patients who receive abortions where care is legal. a big part of her work is not just providing hands on care in an exam room, but navigating the policies of each region, educating other providers, and figuring out how to get her patients the care they need. “it is my duty as a doctor to advocate and agitate. when roe was overturned and it wasn’t clear if texas law prevented abortion providers from caring for texans out of state, i sued the state, which was a scary thing to do.” “abortion bans have caused so much anxiety and uncertainty, for both providers and patients. people of color, young people, people from rural areas and people with low socioeconomic status face barriers that add additional stress,” moayedi says. “i’ve taught abortion care across texas for many years, and my trainees are now vocally pro abortion in a way that is refreshing. abortion is an everyday part of life that is just completely normal.” for more than 50 years, roe v. wade protected abortion access at the federal level. extremist politicians have continuously attacked reproductive freedom and they will not stop until abortion is banned in all 50 states. trump’s advisors want him to bend and break the law in order to carry out their own political agenda to deny people the fundamental right to make personal medical decisions. but during the campaign he promised not to further restrict access to abortion, and he needs to keep his word. if trump breaks his promises, the aclu stands ready to hold him accountable. we’ll continue to fight abortion restrictions in court, including defending against misuse of the comstock act or attempts to ban mifepristone. we’ll also fight back against efforts in congress to further restrict reproductive rights. at the aclu, we know how important this fight is for people across the country who deserve the right to make decisions about their bodies. reproductive freedom reproductive freedom reproductive freedom reproductive freedom

this piece was published before joe biden withdrew from the 2024 presidential election and endorsed vice president kamala harris to represent the democratic party. no significant facts have been changed or added. today marks two years since roe v. wade was overturned, wiping out federal protections for abortion rights. this decision was a direct result of donald trump’s actions. in 2016, during his presidential campaign, he vowed to appoint supreme court justices who would overturn roe. over the course of his presidency, he did just that   appointing the three supreme court justices who later voted to reverse decades of protections for abortion rights. trump’s devastating legacy is clear. today, anti abortion politicians in 17 states have banned abortion, leaving millions of people without access to care. if trump resumes office, this will only be the beginning. trump’s advisors are already plotting to twist a law from 1873 to effectively ban abortion in all 50 states, even where abortion is protected under state law. trump won’t stop at abortion rights   he will seek to limit contraception access, too. at the aclu we’re gearing up to fight in courts and at every level of government to block the trump administration’s relentless assault on reproductive rights. learn more in our breakdown: the facts: in an attempt to deceive voters   who overwhelmingly oppose restricting abortion access   trump has waffled on whether he’d encourage congress to pass a new law to ban abortion nationwide. he doesn’t need congress, however, to attempt to wreak havoc on our access to abortion. according to trump’s anti abortion strategists, a new trump administration can bypass congress and use a 150 year old law called the comstock act to effectively ban abortion nationwide. the comstock act is an 1873 anti obscenity statute that regulates the use of the mail and common carriers concerning sending and receiving anything that is “indecent, filthy, or vile” or “intended for producing abortion.” even though this law has long been understood not to apply to the lawful abortion, trump’s advisors plan to misuse this antiquated law to effectively ban abortion nationwide. in addition to weaponizing the comstock act to imperil abortion access, a second trump administration would respond to calls from his allies to withdraw the food and drug administration’s (fda) approval of mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used in most abortions and miscarriage care in the u.s. trump has also admitted that he has a plan to restrict access to contraception. why it matters: donald trump made it possible for anti abortion extremists to deny people the right to make decisions about their bodies and their lives. since the justices he appointed overturned roe, 17 states have banned abortion. today, millions of people of reproductive age live hundreds of miles from the closest abortion provider, forcing more than 171,000 persons to travel outside of their home state to secure access to abortion care in 2023 alone. many others are not able to get the care they need at all. in spite of the fact that trump’s anti abortion policies run counter to the will of the public, we know that, should trump secure a second term, his administration will not hesitate to further decimate reproductive rights and try to ban abortion nationwide. the aclu examines how a second trump administration would further imperil reproductive rights nationwide   and our roadmap to fight back. source: american civil liberties union how we got here: when he was president, trump not only stacked the supreme court with justices who would later overturn roe, but he decimated access to birth control and family planning services for people living on low incomes. additionally, trump’s allies in congress have repeatedly attempted to dismantle federal programs, like the affordable care act, that support reproductive health care access, or to block laws that would codify the right to contraception or protect access to ivf. recently, trump attempted to downplay his plans to further ban abortion and other critical reproductive health care to avoid alienating voters. in fact, jonathan mitchell, trump’s lawyer before the supreme court, admitted to the new york times that he hopes trump does not mention his intentions to weaponize the comstock act to ban abortion nationwide until after the election. yet these attempts to pull the wool over the public’s eyes cannot conceal how trump’s unguarded statements, his allies’ public playbook and admissions, and, most importantly, his prior actions have already made his anti abortion and anti reproductive health stance clear. our roadmap: the aclu is fighting for our right to abortion and other reproductive health care in court, in congress, in the states, and at the polls. if trump is re elected, we’ll challenge his administration’s dangerous attacks on reproductive freedom, including any attempts to weaponize the comstock act to ban abortion nationwide or to take medication abortion off the shelves. similarly, in congress and in the courts, we’ll work to protect access to birth control and to fight any attempt to make it more difficult for people to access contraception and family planning services. also, the aclu and its affiliates are actively engaged in 2024 ballot initiative efforts to enshrine abortion rights in state constitutions. what our experts say: “overturning roe was not the last stop for trump and his anti abortion allies. they are quietly plotting to ban abortion nationwide using a law from 1873 and will not hesitate to try to do so if trump returns to the white house. we will continue our work to ensure that americans know the truth, and to thwart trump’s attempts to pull the wool over the public’s eyes. if he returns to office, we will be there every step of the way to expose his plans, galvanize efforts to stop him, and to fight him in court whenever possible.”   jennifer dalven, director of the aclu reproductive freedom project what you can do today: politicians are relentless in their attacks on reproductive freedom, but a majority of this country believes that people must have the power to make personal decisions during pregnancy. join us in this fight to expand and restore our rights by urging legislators to pass federal legislation that safeguards our reproductive freedom   including abortion, birth control, and ivf care. reproductive freedom reproductive freedom reproductive freedom reproductive freedom
supported by california today after the supreme court overturned roe v. wade and some states banned abortions altogether, many americans began crossing state lines to get one. by soumya karlamangla after the supreme court overturned roe v. wade and some states, mainly in the south, banned abortions altogether, many americans began crossing state lines to get one. in 2023, the first full year after roe was reversed, the number of patients traveling out of state for an abortion or to get abortion pills was double the figure from 2019, according to new data from the guttmacher institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. the institute said that nearly one fifth of all recorded abortions involved interstate travel. the new york times recently captured that trend in a fascinating set of maps. “we’re having people travel hundreds or thousands of miles for a procedure that typically takes less than 10 minutes and can be done in a doctor’s office setting,” said amy hagstrom miller, the founder of whole woman’s health, which runs clinics in maryland, minnesota, new mexico and virginia. “nobody does that for any other medical procedure.” california has positioned itself as a safe haven for abortion seekers. in the past two years, state legislators in sacramento have passed several laws fortifying access to abortion. the state constitution was amended to guarantee the right to abortion and contraception. california, along with oregon and washington, officially declared that abortion patients and providers would be protected from the legal reach of other states. just last month, gov. gavin newsom signed a bill temporarily allowing arizona abortion providers to travel to california to provide abortions to their arizona patients. the move was in response to a possible reinstatement of a 160 year old near total ban on abortions in arizona, through what newsom called “oppressive and dangerous attacks on women.” (the arizona legislature ultimately blocked the ban from going back into effect.) “california stands ready to protect reproductive freedom,” the governor said at the time. the data from guttmacher shows that 179,610 abortions were performed in california in 2023, which is 19 percent more than in 2019. about 4 percent of the 2023 abortions   around 7,000   were for patients who don’t live in california.

 reproductive rights are under attack. will you help us fight back with facts? all people deserve access to quality health care including abortion services in or near their communities.