Since the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in June 2022 and the subsequent overturning of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States returned to the states the authority to decide what restrictions they implement in regards to access to abortion and reproductive care.¹ Such defederalization of the issue has strongly exacerbated tensions between the two major opinion groups around abortion: “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” Abortion has been transformed into a major political cleavage in the United States, and both the Republican and Democratic parties have positioned their discourse around it. Democrats, politicians and voters alike, have shown themselves to be mostly in favor, while Republicans have mostly been against.² This can further be observed in state policies implemented post-Dobbs as laws regarding abortion have become radically different across state lines. Thirteen Republican states were quick to pass hugely restrictive legislation on the subject, including in Texas, where abortion is now completely illegal except in very specific cases to prevent “substantial impairment of major bodily function” of the mother.³

The state divide, like public opinion polarization, is strong and has revived inter-state tensions similar to those that preceded the Civil War. While certain, mostly Democrat, states are passing state constitutional amendments considering abortion as a basic human right, others are making it a felony similar to murder and punishable by multiple years in prison.⁴ This great gap raises questions on how state-specific legislation applies in the rest of the country. Would a woman living in Texas who travelled to New York to get an abortion be subject to legal persecution? Would the doctor who provided her with the abortion be at risk of losing their license? States hostile to abortion have made it clear they want to prohibit it both inside and outside their borders and multiple legal proceedings have already begun over these very questions. As written in the Columbia Law Review, “the interjurisdictional abortion wars are coming.”⁵ 

So, what can states do to protect citizens and medical professionals from being sued across the country and yet still provide potentially life-saving care to women in need? What still remains to be accomplished in order to shield women from Republican attacks on their bodily autonomy? 

Out of the twenty-three states that have protected abortion, only six currently have a Republican governor. Further, out of the ten states that offer extended access to abortion, meaning wide access to abortion coupled with constitutional protections, only one has a Republican governor.⁶ Thus, it is clear that the fight for the protection of reproductive rights is mostly waged through Democrat mobilization, especially since Republican party leaders often meet with pro-life activists with whom they collaborate on policy development.⁷ This private, health-related issue has now become a public, political battle. 

Since Republican states are so keen on threatening prosecution, “abortion shield laws” may be one of the most important legal tools Democrat states possess. Shield laws are legislation utilized by states where abortion is legal to protect their healthcare practitioners who provide abortion services to patients from states where abortion is illegal. Since providing abortion care can be regarded as assisting in murder, restrictive states may be tempted to prosecute those who give the service as they would be considered criminals. Inter-state cooperation would require non-restrictive states to ‘extradite’ these ‘criminals’ to the states where they are prosecuted. The shield laws prevent possible legal repercussions on medical staff who are assisting patients by ensuring that they will not be extradited, removing the fear of losing their license when assisting out-of-state women. So far, seventeen states have implemented these types of legal protections after strong militating from healthcare professionals and activist groups.⁸⁻⁹

While shield laws are a vital first step in the active protection of abortion rights, they are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Firstly, they do not protect the women traveling for an abortion, only the medical practitioner, which still leaves room for anti-abortion states to prosecute. Case law is rather unclear on whether states can monitor the behavior of their citizens when they are traveling. A law punishing women for actions that happened during out-of-state travel would most likely be found unconstitutional, but it is not assured. Secondly, travelling out-of-state to receive an abortion is still largely inaccessible to most women who effectively need one. It is widely known that abortion bans disproportionately impact low-income women.¹⁰ They are the ones who are unable to miss work and secure childcare to travel out of state to get the procedure, meaning that shield laws are effectively useless to the women who may depend on them the most. Abortion restrictions have been exacerbating the class divide. One solution could be an extended type of shield law, passed by six states, once again including Vermont, which covers telemedicine. This allows medical practitioners to virtually prescribe and send abortion pills to women in restrictive states, without fear of prosecution nor the need for expensive travel for the woman. The president of Texas Right to Life (one of the main pro-life advocate organizations in the United States), John Seago, has expressed a strong opposition to these laws, saying they are “sabotag[ing] the governing efforts of their neighboring states,” which can, in fact, be considered as such.¹¹ Yet, strong abortion restrictions are directly correlated with higher maternal mortality rights and, in Texas, M. Seago’s home state, multiple women have died due to doctors being unable to provide abortions.¹²⁻¹³ So, expanding shield laws, and telemedicine ones in particular, has become a matter of possible life or death.

What remains to be done? The first step is, of course, for states who have not done so already, to pass legal protection of abortion, and, when possible, go even further by passing state Constitutional amendments. It is important to remember that abortion is a majority-supported right and thus it should be protected from possible future attacks.¹⁴ However, Democrat states, or at least those who proclaim that they want to protect reproductive rights for all women, still have much to do to make reproductive rights not only legally protected but also accessible to all, regardless of ethnicity or class. This goal can be achieved through the further implementation of shield laws for medical practitioners, the expansion of telemedicine shield laws, and the support of telemedicine supply chains. The expansion of shield laws could also protect patients who received an abortion if they safeguarded patient medical information and data from investigators in other states. Further efforts could also be led through the expansion of public and private insurance coverage of abortion and the expansion of financial support for organizations like Planned Parenthood which offer vital support and information to the women going through the procedure.

This is not a simple fight, as abortion remains a complicated topic and legal precedents that may apply to the situation are scarce, but it is nonetheless an essential one. Rights mean nothing if only a small part of the population benefits from them and, as we have seen, reproductive rights truly save lives.

Works Cited:

1.  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215 (2022).

2.  “Public Opinion on Abortion.” Pew Research Center (13 May 2024), https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/. 

3.  HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE CHAPTER 170A. PERFORMANCE OF ABORTION. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.170A.htm. 

4.  Messerly, Megan, and Miranda Ollstein, Alice. “Abortion bans and penalties would vary widely by state.” POLITICO (2022), www.politico.com/news/2022/05/06/potential-a. 

5.  Cohen, David S., et al. “The New Abortion Battleground.” Columbia Law Review (2022), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4032931. 

6.  “Abortion Laws by State.” Center for Reproductive Rights (2025), https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/.

7.  Mosher, Steven W. “The Republican Party—and Donald Trump—Are Still Pro-Life.” Population Research Institute (22 July 2024), https://www.pop.org/the-republican-party-and-donald-trump-are-still-pro-life/. 

8.   “Abortion Laws by State.” Center for Reproductive Rights (2025), https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/.

9.  Bazelon, Emily. “The Doctors Risking Everything to Offer Abortions Across State Lines.” New York Times (2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/magazine/abortion-interstate-travel-post-roe.html 

10.  Siegel, Jeni. The Impact of Abortion Bans on Low-Income Women, Public Interest Law Reporter (2022), https://lawecommons.luc.edu/pilr/vol28/iss1/13. 

11.  Belluck, Pam. “Abortion Shield Laws: A New War Between the States” New York Times, (22 Feb. 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/health/abortion-shield-laws-telemedicine.html 

12.  “Study Finds Higher Maternal Mortality Rates in States with More Abortion Restrictions.” Tulane University Celia Scott Weatherhead School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, https://sph.tulane.edu/study-finds-higher-maternal-mortality-rates-states-more-abortion-restrictions. 

13.  Presser, Lizzie, and Surana, Kavitha. “A Third Woman Has Died under Texas’ Abortion Ban as Doctors Reach for Riskier Miscarriage Treatments.” The Texas Tribune (27 Nov. 2024), https://www.texastribune.org/2024/11/27/texas-abortion-death-porsha-ngumezi/. 

14.  Nadeem, Reem. “Broad Public Support for Legal Abortion Persists 2 Years After Dobbs.” Pew Research Center (13 May 2024), https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/13/broad-public-support-for-legal-abortion-persists-2-years-after-dobbs/.