essay about should abortion be banned

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key facts about the abortion debate in America

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade – the decision that had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years – has shifted the legal battle over abortion to the states, with some prohibiting the procedure and others moving to safeguard it.

As the nation’s post-Roe chapter begins, here are key facts about Americans’ views on abortion, based on two Pew Research Center polls: one conducted from June 25-July 4 , just after this year’s high court ruling, and one conducted in March , before an earlier leaked draft of the opinion became public.

This analysis primarily draws from two Pew Research Center surveys, one surveying 10,441 U.S. adults conducted March 7-13, 2022, and another surveying 6,174 U.S. adults conducted June 27-July 4, 2022. Here are the questions used for the March survey , along with responses, and the questions used for the survey from June and July , along with responses.

Everyone who took part in these surveys is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories.  Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

A majority of the U.S. public disapproves of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe. About six-in-ten adults (57%) disapprove of the court’s decision that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion and that abortion laws can be set by states, including 43% who strongly disapprove, according to the summer survey. About four-in-ten (41%) approve, including 25% who strongly approve.

About eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (82%) disapprove of the court’s decision, including nearly two-thirds (66%) who strongly disapprove. Most Republicans and GOP leaners (70%) approve , including 48% who strongly approve.

Most women (62%) disapprove of the decision to end the federal right to an abortion. More than twice as many women strongly disapprove of the court’s decision (47%) as strongly approve of it (21%). Opinion among men is more divided: 52% disapprove (37% strongly), while 47% approve (28% strongly).

About six-in-ten Americans (62%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to the summer survey – little changed since the March survey conducted just before the ruling. That includes 29% of Americans who say it should be legal in all cases and 33% who say it should be legal in most cases. About a third of U.S. adults (36%) say abortion should be illegal in all (8%) or most (28%) cases.

Generally, Americans’ views of whether abortion should be legal remained relatively unchanged in the past few years , though support fluctuated somewhat in previous decades.

Relatively few Americans take an absolutist view on the legality of abortion – either supporting or opposing it at all times, regardless of circumstances. The March survey found that support or opposition to abortion varies substantially depending on such circumstances as when an abortion takes place during a pregnancy, whether the pregnancy is life-threatening or whether a baby would have severe health problems.

While Republicans’ and Democrats’ views on the legality of abortion have long differed, the 46 percentage point partisan gap today is considerably larger than it was in the recent past, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling. The wider gap has been largely driven by Democrats: Today, 84% of Democrats say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up from 72% in 2016 and 63% in 2007. Republicans’ views have shown far less change over time: Currently, 38% of Republicans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, nearly identical to the 39% who said this in 2007.

However, the partisan divisions over whether abortion should generally be legal tell only part of the story. According to the March survey, sizable shares of Democrats favor restrictions on abortion under certain circumstances, while majorities of Republicans favor abortion being legal in some situations , such as in cases of rape or when the pregnancy is life-threatening.

There are wide religious divides in views of whether abortion should be legal , the summer survey found. An overwhelming share of religiously unaffiliated adults (83%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do six-in-ten Catholics. Protestants are divided in their views: 48% say it should be legal in all or most cases, while 50% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. Majorities of Black Protestants (71%) and White non-evangelical Protestants (61%) take the position that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while about three-quarters of White evangelicals (73%) say it should be illegal in all (20%) or most cases (53%).

In the March survey, 72% of White evangelicals said that the statement “human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights” reflected their views extremely or very well . That’s much greater than the share of White non-evangelical Protestants (32%), Black Protestants (38%) and Catholics (44%) who said the same. Overall, 38% of Americans said that statement matched their views extremely or very well.

Catholics, meanwhile, are divided along religious and political lines in their attitudes about abortion, according to the same survey. Catholics who attend Mass regularly are among the country’s strongest opponents of abortion being legal, and they are also more likely than those who attend less frequently to believe that life begins at conception and that a fetus has rights. Catholic Republicans, meanwhile, are far more conservative on a range of abortion questions than are Catholic Democrats.

Women (66%) are more likely than men (57%) to say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling.

More than half of U.S. adults – including 60% of women and 51% of men – said in March that women should have a greater say than men in setting abortion policy . Just 3% of U.S. adults said men should have more influence over abortion policy than women, with the remainder (39%) saying women and men should have equal say.

The March survey also found that by some measures, women report being closer to the abortion issue than men . For example, women were more likely than men to say they had given “a lot” of thought to issues around abortion prior to taking the survey (40% vs. 30%). They were also considerably more likely than men to say they personally knew someone (such as a close friend, family member or themselves) who had had an abortion (66% vs. 51%) – a gender gap that was evident across age groups, political parties and religious groups.

Relatively few Americans view the morality of abortion in stark terms , the March survey found. Overall, just 7% of all U.S. adults say having an abortion is morally acceptable in all cases, and 13% say it is morally wrong in all cases. A third say that having an abortion is morally wrong in most cases, while about a quarter (24%) say it is morally acceptable in most cases. An additional 21% do not consider having an abortion a moral issue.

Among Republicans, most (68%) say that having an abortion is morally wrong either in most (48%) or all cases (20%). Only about three-in-ten Democrats (29%) hold a similar view. Instead, about four-in-ten Democrats say having an abortion is morally  acceptable  in most (32%) or all (11%) cases, while an additional 28% say it is not a moral issue. 

White evangelical Protestants overwhelmingly say having an abortion is morally wrong in most (51%) or all cases (30%). A slim majority of Catholics (53%) also view having an abortion as morally wrong, but many also say it is morally acceptable in most (24%) or all cases (4%), or that it is not a moral issue (17%). Among religiously unaffiliated Americans, about three-quarters see having an abortion as morally acceptable (45%) or not a moral issue (32%).

• Religion & Abortion

Carrie Blazina is a former digital producer at Pew Research Center .

Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in europe, public opinion on abortion, americans overwhelmingly say access to ivf is a good thing, broad public support for legal abortion persists 2 years after dobbs, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

How Abortion’s Legal Landscape Post-Roe is Causing Fear and Confusion

We spoke with seven reproductive rights organizations — here’s what we found..

This is The Marshall Project’s Closing Argument newsletter, a weekly deep dive into a key criminal justice issue. Want this delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to future newsletters .

For years before the Supreme Court upended Roe v. Wade, the landmark precedent protecting abortion access, a network of conservative Christians was slowly and methodically stacking the courts through political means. “[W]hat Trump and his Republican allies had done was to change the country by leveraging political force to conquer the courts,” Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer wrote in their recent recounting of the network’s maneuvering for The New York Times Magazine.

“Their policy arms churned out legal arguments and medical studies. Their lawyers argued their cases, and their judges ruled on them,” Dias and Lerer explained.

This strategy helps to decode the ever-changing post-Roe legal landscape. With Roe out of the way, and with many courts stacked in their favor, conservative state legislatures have continued to pass increasingly restrictive and punitive abortion laws. At least 14 states have banned abortion with limited exceptions since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision ended Roe in 2022. Another seven states have banned the procedure before 18 weeks, according to the Guttmacher Institute , a research organization that advocates for reproductive rights, including abortion.

Nearly two years after Dobbs, the legality of abortion in the United States is still being debated in court. A total of 40 cases have challenged abortion bans in 23 states as of January, according to the think tank Brennan Center for Justice.

The Marshall Project has been tracking the ripple effects of these laws and lawsuits, particularly in Southern states in which most pregnancy-related prosecutions are concentrated. We wanted to understand how reproductive rights lawyers, advocacy groups, abortion providers and their patients are responding to this new legal reality and what new risks they face. Over the course of several weeks, we heard from seven organizations in Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina.

The end of Roe ushered in a climate of fear and confusion, many of the organizations told us. New laws and novel prosecutorial tactics have raised critical questions about free speech, interstate travel, telemedicine and more. All while the reproductive rights legal community has scrambled to keep up.

Here are other important takeaways:

A set of lawsuits in Alabama, where abortion is banned, illustrates the new dynamics. State Attorney General Steve Marshall threatened to prosecute anyone helping residents get an out-of-state abortion. The threat extends to organizations, such as Yellowhammer Fund, that provide information about where to go and what to consider when seeking an abortion in a state where the procedure is legal.

Yellowhammer Fund and another organization filed suit, questioning the constitutionality of the state ban. Such prosecutions would violate Alabamians’ right to free speech, they argued.

Marshall “has threatened to criminalize in a way calculated to chill the speech, expressive conduct, and association of helpers, and to isolate pregnant people — a known tactic of abusers — to make it more difficult for them to travel and access needed medical care,” lawyers for the case explained in their initial complaint .

Marshall moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the state could prosecute people using its anti-conspiracy laws . But earlier this month a federal judge ruled the lawsuit can proceed.

Many of the reproductive rights organizations we spoke to across the South said they’ve also struggled with what information they can legally share. Most lawyers won’t give them guidance, one group told us, saying the laws are too untested and too risky.

Many of the recent state laws take aim at people helping someone seeking an abortion or those looking to leave a state where abortion is illegal. Several states have focused on aid to minors.

Take, for example, a soon-to-be-enacted law in Tennessee that would punish adults for taking minors across state lines to end a pregnancy. A law in Idaho that did the same has been temporarily put on hold by a federal court. These laws are copycats of Texas’ S.B. 8, which allows anyone to sue people aiding or abetting an abortion.

In her ruling blocking the Idaho law from taking effect, U.S. District Magistrate Debora K. Grasham wrote that the case was about much more than abortion. “Namely, long-standing and well recognized fundamental rights of freedom of speech, expression, due process, and parental rights,” she wrote. “These are not competing rights, nor are they at odds.”

Challenging these laws legally is complex because there is limited legal precedent. Last year, the Department of Justice sought to clarify the constitutionality of the travel bans. “The right to travel from one state to another is firmly embedded in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and the Constitution,” the department noted.

Even before the Dobbs decision, labor and delivery wards in rural hospitals were shutting down , citing costs and financial uncertainty. By 2020, half of rural community hospitals stopped providing obstetrics care, according to the American Hospital Association. About 60 million , or 1 in 5, Americans live in rural areas.

Adding to the strain, rural hospitals are also experiencing a “brain drain.” Some doctors, wary of restrictive abortion laws, are leaving in droves . That has created maternity care deserts — where access to reproductive health care, including abortions, is nearly impossible. Women in these regions often have to travel hundreds of miles to find care , if they can afford to do so at all.

For people in states with abortion restrictions, and where health care is scarce, access to telehealth medicine is also up for legal debate.

In Ohio , the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are suing the state Department of Health because of laws that make it hard to get abortion medications using telehealth services. A court there previously recognized telehealth medication abortion services as a safe and effective option.

Now, the fight has grown bigger as the ACLU and Planned Parenthood challenge more Ohio laws, including those that prevent certain health care professionals, like nurse practitioners, from providing medication abortions.

The case extends beyond Ohio; it shows how people in rural areas, already facing limited health care, are hit hardest by these restrictions. This is even more true for low-income women, who are six times more likely to have an abortion and twice as likely to lack health insurance compared to higher-income women, per a Guttmacher Institute study .

“So many people across the country had questions,” said Clara Spera, senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, where she helps lead the Abortion Access Legal Defense Fund. “What can I do? What can I not do? What’s different today than it was yesterday? There was just a real need to navigate the chaos.”

The laws are not only changing rapidly — so that legal guidance that is relevant today could be out-of-date only weeks later — but these laws often change locally . For example, in Texas last year, Lubbock County passed an ordinance that would bar pregnant people from driving through Lubbock County to get an abortion in another state. Meanwhile, the city council of neighboring Amarillo has yet to approve the travel ban .

To solve this issue — and provide legal expertise to attorneys navigating the uncertainty — nonprofit legal organizations have banded together to form coalitions. One such example is the Abortion Defense Network , launched last year by several organizations, including the Lawyering Project, the ACLU and the National Women’s Law Center.

“The Abortion Defense Network leverages the resources and expertise of six leading reproductive rights organizations, and a number of very well respected nationwide law firms, to provide legal help, assistance and support to those who provide abortion care, those who help people obtain abortion care, or want to do one of those things,” Spera explained.

Our reporting has real impact on the criminal justice system

Our journalism establishes facts, exposes failures and examines solutions for a criminal justice system in crisis. If you believe in what we do, become a member today.

Nicole Lewis Twitter Email is the engagement editor for The Marshall Project, leading the organization’s strategic efforts to deepen reporting that reaches communities most affected by the criminal legal system.

Aala Abdullahi Email Aala Abdullahi is an engagement reporter for The Marshall Project. She previously served as the innovation editor at Sahan Journal, where she led the successful completion of the Citizen Lab project, a comprehensive investigation into the news needs of Minnesota's Latino, Somali, and Hmong communities.

Stay up to date on our reporting and analysis.

The negative health implications of restricting abortion access

December 13, 2021— Ana Langer is professor of the practice of public health and coordinator of the Women and Health Initiative at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Q:  Roe v. Wade may soon be overturned by the Supreme Court, while at the same time other countries are loosening restrictions around abortion rights. What are your thoughts on the current climate around this issue?

A: The trend over the past several decades is clear: Safe and legal abortion has become more widely accessible to women globally, with nearly 50 countries including Mexico, Argentina, New Zealand, Thailand, and Ireland liberalizing their abortion laws. During the same period, however, a few countries have made abortion more restricted or totally illegal, including El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Poland.

In the U.S., legal frameworks are increasingly limiting access to abortion. Even while Roe is in place, many people are currently unable to receive abortion care.

If the Supreme Court were to limit or overturn Roe, abortion would remain legal in 21 states and could immediately be prohibited in 24 states and three territories. Millions of people would be forced to travel to receive legal abortion care, something that would be impossible for many due to a range of financial and logistical reasons.

This situation does not surprise me because of the deep polarization that characterizes public views on abortion, and the growing power and relentless efforts of anti-choice groups. Furthermore, it does not surprise me because of the important gender gap that exists in this country, which is to a great extent due to the lack of strong and consistent policies and legal frameworks to support women in their efforts to better integrate their reproductive and professional roles and responsibilities.

The U.S. legalized abortion nearly 50 years ago, at a time when it was legally restricted in many countries around the world, setting an important international precedent and example. It disappoints me to see that while important progress has been made towards equality in other culturally polarized areas such as same-sex marriage, women’s right to terminate an unwanted or mistimed pregnancy is now severely threatened.

Q:  How do laws that restrict abortion access impact women’s health? 

A: Restricting women’s access to safe and legal abortion services has important negative health implications. We’ve seen that these laws do not result in fewer abortions. Instead, they compel women to risk their lives and health by seeking out unsafe abortion care.

According to the World Health Organization, 23,000 women die from unsafe abortions each year and tens of thousands more experience significant health complications globally. A recent study estimated that banning abortion in the U.S. would lead to a 21% increase in the number of pregnancy-related deaths overall and a 33% increase among Black women, simply because staying pregnant is more dangerous than having an abortion. Increased deaths due to unsafe abortions or attempted abortions would be in addition to these estimates.

If the current trend in the U.S. persists, “back alley” abortions will be the last resource for women with no access to safe and legal services, and the horrific consequences of such abortions will become a major cause of death and severe health complications for some of the most vulnerable women in this country.

The legal status of abortion also defines whether girls will be able to complete their educations and whether women will be able to participate in the workforce, and in public and political life.

Improving social safety net programs for women reduces gender gaps and improves girls’ and women’s health and chances to fulfill their potential, and could help reduce the number of abortions over time. Women who are better educated, have better access to comprehensive reproductive health care , and are employed and fairly remunerated will be better positioned to avoid a mistimed and unwanted pregnancy, hence the need for termination will become less common.

Q: Should abortion be considered a human right?

A: Numerous international and regional human rights treaties and national-level constitutions around the world protect the right to safe and legal abortion as a fundamental human right. Access to safe abortion is included in a constellation of rights, including the rights to life, liberty, privacy, equality and non-discrimination, and freedom from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Human rights bodies have repeatedly condemned restrictive abortion laws as being incompatible with human rights norms.

While a supportive legal framework for abortion care is critical, it is not enough to ensure access for everyone who seeks the service. For universal access to become a reality, policies that cover the cost of abortion care and its integration into the health care system, in addition to societal measures that destigmatize the procedure, are needed.

— Amy Roeder

Abortion in the US: What you need to know

Subscribe to the center for economic security and opportunity newsletter, isabel v. sawhill and isabel v. sawhill senior fellow emeritus - economic studies , center for economic security and opportunity @isawhill kai smith kai smith research assistant - the brookings institution, economic studies.

May 29, 2024

Key takeaways:

One in every four women will have an abortion in their lifetime.

• The vast majority of abortions (about 95%) are the result of unintended pregnancies.
• Most abortion patients are in their twenties (61%), Black or Latino (59%), low-income (72%), unmarried (86%), between six and twelve weeks pregnant (73%), and already have given birth to one or more children (55%).
• Despite state bans, U.S. abortion totals increased in the first full year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Introduction

Two years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion remains one of the most hotly contested issues in American politics. The abortion landscape has become highly fractured, with some states implementing abortion bans and restrictions and others increasing protections and access. The Supreme Court heard two more cases on abortion this term and will likely release those decisions in June. Beyond the Supreme Court, pro-choice and pro-life advocates are fiercely battling it out in the voting booths, state legislatures, and courts. If the 2022 midterm elections are any indication , abortion will be one of the most influential issues of the 2024 election. So what are the basic facts about abortion in America? This primer is designed to tell you most of what you need to know.

What are the different types of abortion?

There are two main types of abortion: procedural abortions and medication abortions. Procedural abortions (also called in-clinic or surgical abortions) are provided by health care professionals in a clinical setting. Medication abortions (also called medical abortions or the abortion pill) typically involve the oral ingestion of two drugs in succession, mifepristone and misoprostol.

Most women discover they are pregnant in the first five to six weeks of pregnancy, but about a third of women do not learn they are pregnant until they are beyond six weeks of gestation. 1 Women with unintended pregnancies detect their pregnancies later than women with intended pregnancies, between six and seven weeks of gestation on average. Even if a woman discovers she is pregnant relatively early, for many it takes time to decide what to do and how to arrange for an abortion if that is her preference.

Why do women have abortions?

The vast majority of abortions (about 95%) are the result of unintended pregnancies. That includes pregnancies that are mistimed as well as those that are unwanted.

Women’s reasons for not wanting a child—or not wanting one now—include finances, partner-related issues, the need to focus on other children, and interference with future education or work opportunities.

In short, if there were fewer unintended pregnancies, there would be fewer abortions.

How common are abortions?

About two in every five pregnancies are unintended (40% in 2015). Roughly the same share of these unintended pregnancies end in abortion (42% in 2011). About one in every five pregnancies are aborted (21% in 2020).

How have abortion totals changed over time?

The number of abortions occurring in the U.S. jumped up after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. After peaking in 1990, the number of abortions declined steadily for two and a half decades until reaching its lowest point since 1973 in 2017. 2 Possible contributing factors explaining this long-term decline include delays in sexual activity amongst young people, improvements in the use of effective contraception , and overall declines in pregnancy rates , including those that are unintended . In addition, state restrictions which became more prevalent beginning in 2011 prevented at least some individuals in certain states from having abortions.

In 2018 (four years before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade), the number of abortions in the U.S. began to increase. The causes of this uptick are not yet fully understood, but researchers have identified multiple potential contributing factors. These include greater coverage of abortions under Medicaid that made abortions more affordable in certain states, regulations issued by the Trump administration in 2019 which decreased the size of the Title X network and therefore reduced the availability of contraception to low-income individuals, and increased financial support from privately-financed abortion funds to help pay for the costs associated with getting an abortion.

Another contributing factor, whose importance bears emphasizing, is the surging popularity of medication abortions .

The use of medication abortions has increased steadily since becoming available in the U.S. in 2000. However, in 2016, the FDA increased the gestational limit for the use of mifepristone from seven to ten weeks and thereby doubled the share of abortion patients eligible for medication abortions from 37% to 75%.

Later, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA revised its policy in 2021 so that clinicians are no longer required to dispense medication abortion pills in person. Patients can now have medication abortion pills mailed to their homes after conducting remote consultations with clinicians via telehealth. In January 2023, the FDA issued another change which allows retail pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens to dispense medication abortion pills to patients with a prescription. Previously only doctors, clinics, or some mail-order pharmacies could dispense abortion pills.

Although access varies widely by state , medication abortions are now the most commonly used abortion method in the U.S. and account for nearly two-thirds of all abortions (63% in 2023). 3

This is why the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in the Mifepristone case (FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine) is so consequential. Among other issues, at stake is whether access to medication abortion will be sharply curtailed and whether regulations regarding medication abortions will revert to pre-2016 rules when abortion pills were not authorized for use after seven weeks of pregnancy and could not be prescribed via telemedicine, sent to abortion patients by mail, or dispensed by retail pharmacies.

Who has abortions?

Most abortion patients are in their twenties (61%), Black or Latino  (59%), low-income (72%), unmarried (86%), and between six and twelve weeks pregnant (73%). 4

The majority of abortion patients have already given birth to one or more children (55%) and have not previously had an abortion (57%). 5 Among abortion patients twenty years old or older, most had attended at least some college (63%). The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester of pregnancy (91%). So-called “late-term abortions” performed at or after 21 weeks of pregnancy are very rare and represent less than 1% of all abortions in the U.S.

The abortion rate per 1,000 women of reproductive age is disproportionately high for certain population groups. Among women living in poverty, for example, the abortion rate was 36.6 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 2014, compared to 14.6 abortions per 1,000 women among all women of reproductive age.

How much does an abortion cost?

The cost of an abortion varies depending on what kind of abortion is administered, how far along the patient is in their pregnancy, where the patient lives, where the patient is seeking an abortion, and whether health insurance or financial assistance is available. In 2021, the median self-pay cost for abortion services was $625 for a procedural abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy and $568 for a medication abortion.

Since 1977, the Hyde Amendment has banned the use of federal funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. Today, among the 36 states that have not banned abortion, fewer than half (17 as of March 2024) allow the use of state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions. 6 Many insurance plans do not cover abortions, often due to state limitations. Most abortion patients pay for abortions out of pocket (53%). State Medicaid funding is the second-most-commonly used method of payment (30%), followed by financial assistance (15%) and private insurance (13%). 7

Whether state law allows state Medicaid funds to cover abortions has a very large impact on the difficulty of paying for abortions and the methods used by women to pay for them. In the year before the Dobbs Supreme Court decision, 50% of women residing in states where state Medicaid funds did not cover abortion reported it was very or somewhat difficult to pay for their abortions, compared to only 17% of women residing in states where abortions were covered.

How has the Supreme Court handled abortion?

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court established that states could not ban abortions before fetal viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. Under the three-trimester framework established by Roe, states were not allowed to ban abortions during the first two trimesters of pregnancy but were allowed to regulate or prohibit abortions in the third trimester, except in cases where abortions were necessary to protect the life or health of a pregnant person. The Court ruled that the fundamental right to have an abortion is included in the right to privacy implicit in the “liberty” guarantee of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Since it was decided, Roe v. Wade has faced legal criticism. Notwithstanding these critiques, the Court upheld Roe multiple times over the next half-century including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). But after former President Trump appointed three new Justices to the Supreme Court, a new conservative supermajority overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) and established that there is no Constitutional right to have an abortion.

In his Dobbs majority opinion , Justice Alito concluded “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.” Writing for the majority, he underscored that “[t]he Constitution makes no reference to abortion,” and while he recognized there are constitutional rights not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, he concluded the right to have an abortion is not one of them. Justice Alito reasoned that the only legitimate rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution are those “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions,” and he found no evidence of this for abortion.

Because the Court determined there is no Constitutional right to abortion, it allowed the Mississippi state law which banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy with limited exceptions to go into effect. The Court ruled that states have the authority to restrict access to abortion or ban it completely and that the power to regulate or prohibit abortions would be “returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

The Court’s three liberal Justices criticized the majority’s decision in a withering joint dissent . The dissenting Justices argued the right to abortion established in Roe and upheld in Casey is necessary to respect the autonomy and equality of women and prevent the government from controlling “a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life.” They lamented “one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens.”

How did the states respond to the overturning of Roe v. Wade?

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, many states have implemented abortion bans or restrictions, while others have added protections and expanded access. The abortion landscape in America is now fractured and highly variegated .

As of May 2024, abortion is banned completely in almost all circumstances in 14 states. In 7 states, abortion is banned at or before 18 weeks of gestation. Many states with abortion bans do not include exceptions in cases where the health of the pregnant person is at risk, the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or there is a fatal fetal anomaly.

Access to abortion varies widely even among states without bans since many states have restrictions such as waiting periods, gestational limits, or parental consent laws making it more difficult to get an abortion.

Many state bans and restrictions are still being litigated in court. The interjurisdictional issues and legal questions arising from the post-Dobbs abortion landscape have not been fully resolved.

Despite the Supreme Court’s stated intention in Dobbs to leave the abortion issue to elected officials, the Court will likely hear more cases on abortion in the near future. This term, in addition to the case about Mifepristone, the Court will decide in Moyle v. United States whether a federal law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTLA) can require hospitals in states with abortion bans to perform abortions in emergency situations that demand “stabilizing treatment” for the health of pregnant patients.

What are the trends in abortion statistics post-Dobbs?

In 2023, the first full year since the Dobbs Supreme Court decision, states with abortion bans experienced sharp declines in the number of abortions occurring within their borders. But these declines were outweighed by increases in abortion totals in states where abortion remained legal. Nearly all states without bans witnessed increases in 2023. Taken together, abortions in non-ban states increased by 26% in 2023 compared to 2020 levels.

As a result, the nationwide abortion statistics from 2023 represent the highest total number (1,037,000 abortions) and abortion rate (15.9 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age) in the U.S. in over a decade. The 2023 U.S. total represents an 11% increase from 2020 levels.

It’s unclear why, despite Dobbs, abortions have continued to rise . It may be because of the increased use of medication abortions , especially after the FDA liberalized regulations related to telehealth and in-person visits. In addition, multiple states where abortion remains legal have implemented shield laws and other new protections for abortion patients and providers, increased insurance coverage, or otherwise expanded access . Abortion funds provided greater financial and practical assistance . Interstate travel for abortions doubled after the Dobbs decision.

In short, the impacts of Dobbs are being felt unevenly. Although most women who want abortions are still able to obtain them, a significant minority are instead carrying their pregnancies to term. In the first six months of 2023, state abortion bans led between one-fifth and one-fourth of women living in ban states who may have otherwise gotten an abortion not to have one.

Young, low-income, and minority women will be most affected by state bans and restrictions because they are disproportionately likely to have unintended pregnancies and less able to overcome economic and logistical barriers involved in travelling across state lines or receiving medication abortion pills through out-of-state networks.

What are the effects of expanding or restricting abortion access on women and their families?

Effects of abortion restrictions on women.

Abortion bans jeopardize the lives and health of women. The impacts on their health can be especially troublesome. Pregnancies can go wrong for many reasons—fetal abnormalities, complications of a miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies—and without access to emergency care, some women could face serious threats to their own health and future ability to bear children. Abortion restrictions can place doctors in difficult situations and undermine women’s health care.

Although medication abortions are safe and effective, abortion bans could also increase the number of women who use unsafe methods to induce self-managed abortions, thereby endangering their own health or even their lives. State abortion legalizations in the years before Roe reduced maternal mortality among non-white women by 30-40%.

Enforcement of state laws that restricted access to abortion in the years before Dobbs has even been associated with increases in intimate partner violence-related homicides of women and girls.

In addition, lack of access to abortion leads to worse economic outcomes for women. After a conservative group suggested that such effects have not been well documented, a group of economists filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Dobbs case, noting that in recent years methods for establishing the causal effects of abortion have shown that they do affect women’s life trajectories. Although there has been some difficulty in separating the effects of access to abortion from access to the Pill or other forms of birth control, an extensive literature shows that reducing unintended pregnancies increases educational attainment , labor force participation , earnings , and occupational prestige for women. These trends are especially pronounced for Black women .

One example that focuses solely on abortion is the Turnaway study, in which researchers compared the outcomes for women who were denied abortions on the basis of just being a little beyond the gestational cutoff for eligibility to the outcomes of otherwise similar women who were just under that cutoff. The study along with subsequent related research has shown that women who are denied abortions are nearly four times more likely to be living in poverty six months after being denied an abortion, a difference that persists through four years after denial. They are also more likely to be unemployed , rely on public assistance , and experience financial distress such as bankruptcies, evictions and court judgements.

Finally, increased access to abortion results in lower rates of single and teen parenthood. State abortion legalizations in the years before Roe reduced the number of teen mothers by 34%. The effects were especially large for Black teens.

Effects of abortion restrictions on children

Along with contraception, access to abortion reduces unplanned births. That means fewer children dying in infancy, growing up in poverty, needing welfare, and living with a single parent. One study suggests that if all currently mistimed births were aligned with the timing preferred by their mothers, children’s college graduation rates would increase by about 8 percentage points (a 36% increase), and their lifetime incomes would increase by roughly $52,000.

Despite this evidence that the denial of abortions to women who want them would be harmful to women and to children once born, those who are pro-life argue that these costs are well worth the price to save the lives of the unborn. As of April 2024, 36% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all (8%) or most (28%) cases, while 63% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all (25%) or most (28%) cases.

Looking ahead

The abortion landscape in America is continually evolving. Whereas pro-choice advocates will seek to expand access and add additional protections for abortion patients and providers, opponents of abortion will continue to criminalize abortions and further restrict availability.

Abortion will be one of the top issues of the 2024 elections in November. Democratic candidates in particular believe abortion is a winning issue for them and will broadcast their pro-choice stance on the campaign trail. Some evidence suggests the overturning of Roe has galvanized a new class of abortion-rights voters. Multiple states will have abortion referenda on the ballot .

The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision will not prevent women and other citizens from affecting the legislative process by voting, organizing, influencing public opinion, or running for office. What they do with that power in November remains to be seen.

Related Content

Isabel V. Sawhill, Morgan Welch

June 30, 2022

Isabel V. Sawhill

November 3, 2020

Katherine Guyot, Isabel V. Sawhill

July 29, 2019

The Brookings Institution is financed through the support of a diverse array of foundations, corporations, governments, individuals, as well as an endowment. A list of donors can be found in our annual reports published online  here . The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in this report are solely those of its author(s) and are not influenced by any donation.

• We recognize people of all genders become pregnant and have abortions, including about 1% of abortion patients who do not identify as women or female. For concision, we use “women” and female pronouns in this piece when discussing individuals who become pregnant.
• The Guttmacher and CDC data produced in this primer only represent legal abortions that occur within the formal US healthcare system. They do not include self-managed which occur outside of the formal US healthcare system.
• As of March 2024, 29 states have laws that restrict access to medication abortion, for example by requiring ultrasound, counseling, or multiple in-person appointments.
• We define low-income as earnings below 200% of the federal poverty level.
• The CDC abortion data is less complete than the Guttmacher Institute data and omits abortion data from states which account for approximately one-fourth of all abortions in the U.S.
• Today, roughly 35% of women of reproductive age covered by Medicaid (5.5 million women) are living in states where abortion is legal but state funds are not allowed to cover abortions beyond the Hyde exceptions of rape, incest, or life endangerment.
• Respondents could indicate multiple payment methods.

Health Access & Equity Public Health Reproductive Health Care

Children & Families Human Rights & Civil Liberties

U.S. States and Territories

Economic Studies

North America U.S. States and Territories

Center for Economic Security and Opportunity

Election ’24: Issues at Stake

Norman Eisen, Fred Dews

June 5, 2024

Tara Watson, Gabriela Goodman

June 4, 2024

Russell Wheeler, Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, Tracy Viselli, Adelle Patten

There’s a Better Way to Debate Abortion

Caution and epistemic humility can guide our approach.

If Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization becomes law, we will enter a post– Roe v. Wade world in which the laws governing abortion will be legislatively decided in 50 states.

In the short term, at least, the abortion debate will become even more inflamed than it has been. Overturning Roe , after all, would be a profound change not just in the law but in many people’s lives, shattering the assumption of millions of Americans that they have a constitutional right to an abortion.

This doesn’t mean Roe was correct. For the reasons Alito lays out, I believe that Roe was a terribly misguided decision, and that a wiser course would have been for the issue of abortion to have been given a democratic outlet, allowing even the losers “the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight,” in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Instead, for nearly half a century, Roe has been the law of the land. But even those who would welcome its undoing should acknowledge that its reversal could convulse the nation.

From the December 2019 issue: The dishonesty of the abortion debate

If we are going to debate abortion in every state, given how fractured and angry America is today, we need caution and epistemic humility to guide our approach.

We can start by acknowledging the inescapable ambiguities in this staggeringly complicated moral question. No matter one’s position on abortion, each of us should recognize that those who hold views different from our own have some valid points, and that the positions we embrace raise complicated issues. That realization alone should lead us to engage in this debate with a little more tolerance and a bit less certitude.

Many of those on the pro-life side exhibit a gap between the rhetoric they employ and the conclusions they actually seem to draw. In the 1990s, I had an exchange, via fax, with a pro-life thinker. During our dialogue, I pressed him on what he believed, morally speaking , should be the legal penalty for a woman who has an abortion and a doctor who performs one.

My point was a simple one: If he believed, as he claimed, that an abortion even moments after conception is the killing of an innocent child—that the fetus, from the instant of conception, is a human being deserving of all the moral and political rights granted to your neighbor next door—then the act ought to be treated, if not as murder, at least as manslaughter. Surely, given what my interlocutor considered to be the gravity of the offense, fining the doctor and taking no action against the mother would be morally incongruent. He was understandably uncomfortable with this line of questioning, unwilling to go to the places his premises led. When it comes to abortion, few people are.

Humane pro-life advocates respond that while an abortion is the taking of a human life, the woman having the abortion has been misled by our degraded culture into denying the humanity of the child. She is a victim of misinformation; she can’t be held accountable for what she doesn’t know. I’m not unsympathetic to this argument, but I think it ultimately falls short. In other contexts, insisting that people who committed atrocities because they truly believed the people against whom they were committing atrocities were less than human should be let off the hook doesn’t carry the day. I’m struggling to understand why it would in this context.

There are other complicating matters. For example, about half of all fertilized eggs are aborted spontaneously —that is, result in miscarriage—usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Focus on the Family, an influential Christian ministry, is emphatic : “Human life begins at fertilization.” Does this mean that when a fertilized egg is spontaneously aborted, it is comparable—biologically, morally, ethically, or in any other way—to when a 2-year-old child dies? If not, why not? There’s also the matter of those who are pro-life and contend that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being but allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest. That is an understandable impulse but I don’t think it’s a logically sustainable one.

The pro-choice side, for its part, seldom focuses on late-term abortions. Let’s grant that late-term abortions are very rare. But the question remains: Is there any point during gestation when pro-choice advocates would say “slow down” or “stop”—and if so, on what grounds? Or do they believe, in principle, that aborting a child up to the point of delivery is a defensible and justifiable act; that an abortion procedure is, ethically speaking, the same as removing an appendix? If not, are those who are pro-choice willing to say, as do most Americans, that the procedure gets more ethically problematic the further along in a pregnancy?

Read: When a right becomes a privilege

Plenty of people who consider themselves pro-choice have over the years put on their refrigerator door sonograms of the baby they are expecting. That tells us something. So does biology. The human embryo is a human organism, with the genetic makeup of a human being. “The argument, in which thoughtful people differ, is about the moral significance and hence the proper legal status of life in its early stages,” as the columnist George Will put it.

These are not “gotcha questions”; they are ones I have struggled with for as long as I’ve thought through where I stand on abortion, and I’ve tried to remain open to corrections in my thinking. I’m not comfortable with those who are unwilling to grant any concessions to the other side or acknowledge difficulties inherent in their own position. But I’m not comfortable with my own position, either—thinking about abortion taking place on a continuum, and troubled by abortions, particularly later in pregnancy, as the child develops.

The question I can’t answer is where the moral inflection point is, when the fetus starts to have claims of its own, including the right to life. Does it depend on fetal development? If so, what aspect of fetal development? Brain waves? Feeling pain? Dreaming? The development of the spine? Viability outside the womb? Something else? Any line I might draw seems to me entirely arbitrary and capricious.

Because of that, I consider myself pro-life, but with caveats. My inability to identify a clear demarcation point—when a fetus becomes a person—argues for erring on the side of protecting the unborn. But it’s a prudential judgment, hardly a certain one.

At the same time, even if one believes that the moral needle ought to lean in the direction of protecting the unborn from abortion, that doesn’t mean one should be indifferent to the enormous burden on the woman who is carrying the child and seeks an abortion, including women who discover that their unborn child has severe birth defects. Nor does it mean that all of us who are disturbed by abortion believe it is the equivalent of killing a child after birth. In this respect, my view is similar to that of some Jewish authorities , who hold that until delivery, a fetus is considered a part of the mother’s body, although it does possess certain characteristics of a person and has value. But an early-term abortion is not equivalent to killing a young child. (Many of those who hold this position base their views in part on Exodus 21, in which a miscarriage that results from men fighting and pushing a pregnant woman is punished by a fine, but the person responsible for the miscarriage is not tried for murder.)

“There is not the slightest recognition on either side that abortion might be at the limits of our empirical and moral knowledge,” the columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in 1985. “The problem starts with an awesome mystery: the transformation of two soulless cells into a living human being. That leads to an insoluble empirical question: How and exactly when does that occur? On that, in turn, hangs the moral issue: What are the claims of the entity undergoing that transformation?”

That strikes me as right; with abortion, we’re dealing with an awesome mystery and insoluble empirical questions. Which means that rather than hurling invective at one another and caricaturing those with whom we disagree, we should try to understand their views, acknowledge our limitations, and even show a touch of grace and empathy. In this nation, riven and pulsating with hate, that’s not the direction the debate is most likely to take. But that doesn’t excuse us from trying.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.19(7); 2022 Jul

Why restricting access to abortion damages women’s health

The plos medicine editors.

Public Library of Science, San Francisco, California, United States of America

Dr. Caitlin Moyer discusses the implications, for women globally, of restricting access to abortion care.

In late June, the landmark Roe v . Wade ruling was overturned by the United States Supreme Court, a decision, decried by human rights experts at the United Nations [ 1 ], that leaves many women and girls without the right to obtain abortion care that was established nearly 50 years ago. The consequences of limited or nonextant access to safe abortion services in the US remain to be seen; however, information gleaned from abortion-related policies worldwide provides insight into the likely health effects of this abrupt reversal in abortion policy. The US Supreme Court’s decision should serve to amplify the global call for strategies to mitigate the inevitable repercussions for women’s health.

Upholding reproductive rights is crucial for the health of women and girls worldwide, and access to a safe abortion is central to this, yet policies in several countries either severely limit or actively prevent access to appropriate abortion care and services [ 2 ]. However, there is little to suggest that those countries and jurisdictions with abortion bans or heavily restrictive laws see fewer abortions performed. According to a modeling study of pregnancy intentions and abortion from the 1990s to 2019, rates of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion are broadly similar regardless of a country’s legal status of abortion, and unintended pregnancy rates are higher among countries with abortion restrictions [ 3 ]. Abortion is widely considered to be a low-risk procedure. Abortion-related deaths most likely occur in the context of unsafe abortion practices and are reported to account for 8% (95% UI 4.7–13.2%) of maternal deaths [ 4 ], making them a top direct contributor to maternal deaths globally, alongside hemorrhage, hypertension, and sepsis. Restrictive abortion policies may not lower the overall rates of abortion, but they can drive increasing rates of unsafe abortions, as women resort to seeking abortions covertly. Such abortions are often performed by untrained practitioners or involve harmful methods. Perhaps unsurprisingly, most abortions that take place in countries with restrictive abortion access policies are not considered safe [ 5 ], potentially contributing to maternal morbidity and mortality. A study of 162 countries found that maternal mortality rates are lower in countries with more flexible abortion access laws [ 6 ], suggesting that changes in abortion policies could have grievous implications for maternal deaths.

It is not yet known if the reneging of federal protection of abortion rights will impact maternal deaths in the US; however, in the years following the 1973 Roe v . Wade decision, numbers of reported deaths associated with illegal abortions, defined as those performed by an unlicensed practitioner, declined, hovering between zero and 2 deaths from the 1980s to 2018, down from 35 in 1972 [ 7 ] and 19 reported in 1973 [ 8 ]. It is possible that limits on access to timely and safe abortion care could drive this number back up and add to the already unacceptably high maternal mortality rate in the US, potentially exacerbating the persistent disparities in maternal mortality based on socioeconomic deprivation, race and ethnicity, and other factors [ 9 ].

Legal and social barriers that impede access to safe abortions are detrimental to the health and survival of women and girls; thus, constructing policies ensuring access to safe abortion services should be an urgent priority. Placing undue hurdles between women and access to abortion care is associated with undesirable health outcomes. For example, a 2011 change to medication abortion laws in one US state that involved increased medication costs and restricted the timing and location where abortion services could be provided was associated with an increase in rates of women requiring additional medical interventions [ 10 ]. Lending international weight to this argument, dissolution of barriers to safe abortion access was emphasized in the March 2022 update of WHO guidance on abortion care [ 11 ], echoing a 2018 comment on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights released by the United Nations Human Rights Committee [ 12 ] that called on member states to remove existing barriers and not enact new restrictions on provision of safe abortion services so that pregnant women and girls do not need to turn to unsafe abortions.

In jurisdictions where prohibitive policies exist, more could be done to counter the impacts of new barriers by changing how abortion care is delivered and increasing accessibility. Protocols for the safe self-management of abortion can be implemented alongside provision of information and provider support. WHO guidance [ 11 ] suggests expanding the breadth of practitioners authorized to prescribe medical abortions to include nurses, midwives, and other cadres of healthcare workers. The guidelines also mention telemedicine as an approach to circumvent obstacles to seeking safe abortion services [ 11 ]. For those with access to the necessary technology, telemedicine services together with self-management of medication abortion can overcome travel-related barriers and ensure the privacy of those seeking treatment. Demands for telehealth services increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and, according to one study, remote provision of abortion services in the US may be a promising option to counteract barriers and facilitate access [ 13 ].

In 2022, restrictive policies or outright bans on abortion services are discriminatory against women, obstructing their right to maintain autonomy over their own sexual and reproductive health. A post- Roe legal landscape that renders abortion more difficult or impossible to obtain safely will exacerbate an increasingly bleak picture of maternal health in the US; however, the US is just one example where increased effort is needed to overcome barriers to improving women’s healthcare. The reality is that such barriers continue to represent a threat to the health of women worldwide. Evidence-based changes to policy and practice that break down barriers and build new roads are required to enable women to access the healthcare they need.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

The PLOS Medicine editors are Raffaella Bosurgi, Callam Davidson, Philippa Dodd, Louise Gaynor-Brook, Caitlin Moyer, Beryne Odeny, and Richard Turner.

Human rights abuses are happening right now – start a monthly gift today.

• Videos & Photos
• Take Action

What Life is Like When Abortion is Banned

MargaretWurth

Share this via Facebook Share this via X Share this via WhatsApp Share this via Email Other ways to share Share this via LinkedIn Share this via Reddit Share this via Telegram Share this via Printer

Women and girls across Latin America are already living in places where abortion is  heavily restricted or completely banned . In the past year, I’ve done research for Human Rights Watch in two countries that ban abortion completely, without any exceptions, even if the woman’s life is in danger.

In the Dominican Republic, I  spoke  with Rosa Hernández, whose daughter Rosaura Almonte Hernández, known as “Esperancita,” was diagnosed with leukemia. Doctors initially denied her chemotherapy because she was pregnant, and then refused to end the pregnancy because to do so would have been against the law. She died in 2012 at age 16. “They let my daughter die,” her mother told me.

I met a health educator in the Dominican Republic who fought back tears as she told me how, a few weeks prior, she counseled a pregnant 11-year-old girl who had been raped by her stepfather. “She’s just a little girl. She doesn’t know what’s going on in her life or in her body,” she said. But because abortion is illegal even for pregnancies from rape or incest, the educator had no options other than to refer the girl for prenatal care.

In Honduras, I  met  a young woman facing jail time after having a miscarriage. Unaware that she was even pregnant, she went to a hospital in intense pain. Doctors suspected she had attempted an abortion and called the police. She was taken from the hospital in handcuffs and remains under court supervision pending a trial date.

This is what banning abortion looks like in 2019. And this is where the United States could be headed if the courts permit cruel state laws like those passed in Georgia and Alabama to weaken or dismantle the rights protected in the landmark 1973  Roe v. Wade  decision.

I carry these heartbreaking stories with me, but I also think of the dozens of women I’ve interviewed who told me how they defied strict abortion laws to end pregnancies they knew they couldn’t continue. Research from around the world has  shown  that banning abortion doesn’t stop it from happening — it just drives it underground.

Clandestine abortion is  safer  than it used to be because of medication, but even in 2019, women still die from unsafe abortion.

In Brazil, a country where abortion is  illegal  except in strictly limited circumstances, Ingriane Barbosa Carvalho, a mother of three in her early 30s,  died  last year from a botched abortion by a back-alley provider. An obstetrician-gynecologist in the Dominican Republic told me about a 19-year-old woman who came to the hospital in septic shock after an unsafe abortion two years before. She died despite the doctor’s efforts to save her.

When abortion is heavily restricted or banned, women from poor, rural and marginalized communities suffer most, as they may not be able to afford to travel to places where abortion is legal, or pay what it costs.  

Around the world, an estimated 8 to 11 percent of maternal deaths are  caused  by unsafe abortion. In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention  released  data showing that hundreds of women die in the United States each year from preventable complications related to pregnancy. Preventable maternal deaths will only increase if access to abortion is further restricted.

If policymakers in states like Alabama and Georgia are concerned with protecting life and reducing abortion, the new laws they are enacting will not have that effect. Unplanned pregnancies will still happen, as they always do, and women will still need abortions. But these will happen behind closed doors, and more women and girls will be injured or die.

Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world.

• Dominican Republic
• United States
• Women's Rights
• Reproductive Rights and Abortion

More Reading

Life or death choices for women living under honduras’ abortion ban.

Alabama’s Abortion Ban Is A Dark Day for Women

In Harm’s Way

How Michigan’s Forced Parental Consent for Abortion Law Hurts Young People

“We Must Ask for What Is Already Ours”

Afro-descendant Women and Access to Land in Alto Mira y Frontera, Colombia

Most Viewed

Lebanon: israel’s white phosphorous use risks civilian harm.

"How Come You Allow Little Girls to Get Married?"

Leave No Girl Behind in Africa

Sudan: Ethnic Cleansing in West Darfur

South Korea: Extend Health Benefits to Same-Sex Partners

Protecting Rights, Saving Lives

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.

Every weekday, get the world’s top human rights news, explored and explained by Andrew Stroehlein.

Anti-abortion rights activists navigate a new, post-Roe landscape, as state bans mean they can ‘save babies’

I t’s been nearly two years since the Supreme Court announced its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling overturning federal protection for the right to an abortion, marking a momentous victory for anti-abortion activists. That decision was just the beginning – some anti-abortion groups, like Students for Life of America and the National Right to Life, would go on to advocate, in many cases successfully, for anti-abortion laws in every state.

After Dobbs, anti-abortion activists had a head start to their advocacy in 13 states , including Mississippi and South Dakota. State legislators in those places passed laws over the past few years to outlaw abortion shortly after a potential decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which had given federal constitutional protection to abortion rights since 1973. Those laws , known as “ trigger laws ,” automatically banned abortion under most, if not all, circumstances once Roe was overturned in June 2022.

I am an American politics scholar who has interviewed nearly 50 anti-abortion activists from around the country over the past few years to understand how their activism has changed since the Dobbs decision.

Trigger law enforcement

Anti-abortion activists celebrated policy wins as some trigger laws quickly took effect in places like Tennessee and Missouri in 2022. But in other conservative states, like Kentucky and Utah, lawsuits challenging trigger laws prevented these laws from getting enforced.

Two abortion clinics filed a lawsuit in June 2022 challenging Kentucky’s 2019 trigger law , which banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with a few exceptions related to the health of the pregnant person .

In November 2022, Kentucky voters also rejected an amendment to the state constitution that would have doubled down on the trigger law, altogether removing the state constitutional right to get an abortion. One Kentucky anti-abortion activist I interviewed in May 2023 described “a lot of disappointment, a lot of sad faces” after this amendment’s failure. He stressed that the trigger law could still go into effect, though, because “the ballot initiative was just to make it constitutional.”

Anti-abortion activists celebrated a victory in 2023, though, when abortion clinics dropped their lawsuit against Kentucky’s trigger law, after the state Supreme Court ruled against some narrow aspects of their case.

‘More still needs to be done’

In Utah, meanwhile, the state’s 2020 trigger law banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy except under a few circumstances, including if the pregnant person’s health is at risk and in reported cases of incest and rape. Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah first challenged this trigger law in court in July 2022.

Describing the post-Roe atmosphere, a Utah-based anti-abortion activist I interviewed in May 2023 said, “Unfortunately, in some circles, I think there’s a little bit of complacency that, you know, we had this win,” referring to Dobbs. “I think, unless you’re really involved in what’s going on, you may not realize how much still needs to be done.”

According to the activist, part of that work includes getting the state’s trigger law “across the finish line.”

While Utah’s trigger law remains held up in court as a result of the lawsuit, the state has another 2019 law that bans abortion in most cases after 18 weeks of pregnancy and remains in effect.

A ban that late in pregnancy is an unacceptable compromise for anti-abortion activists, who see their fight as one to defend all unborn life. While the trigger law remains on hold in Utah, anti-abortion groups urge their supporters to pray for an end to abortion in the state.

Anti-abortion activists in other states, such as Tennessee and Louisiana , which have some of the strictest trigger laws in the country, have also mobilized their supporters since June 2022 to help ensure that state legislatures did not weaken trigger laws.

Switching strategies and venues

In some states, trigger laws went into effect from June 2022 without court challenges or legislative amendments. Still, many anti-abortion groups find themselves on the defensive.

Arkansas’ trigger law went into effect in June 2022, making abortion illegal at all stages of pregnancy, with a few limited exceptions . An Arkansas activist I spoke with in June 2023 said the group was “blessed” to have the support of elected officials. At the same time, she recognized that “there are illegal abortions probably happening.”

“Really, our mission has not changed with Roe v. Wade being gone,” she said. “It’s changed, though, the landscape of it because in Arkansas we’re able to save babies. So we’ve been focusing now on providing services for women that we know will get pregnant, and educating them about the dangers of the abortion pill.”

Anti-abortion groups in Arkansas recognize the power in abortion rights ballot initiatives, however, which have become more common in 2023 and 2024.

In 2022, Ozark Right to Life , an anti-abortion group in Arkansas, asked supporters to call Kansans and encourage them to vote in favor of a state constitutional amendment . The amendment, originally proposed by state legislators, would have declared that there is no right to abortion in the state’s constitution .

Approximately 59% of Kansas voters rejected the amendment in August 2022.

Anti-abortion activists in Missouri prepared for a post-Roe era that would require them to defend existing state laws. In March 2023, Missouri Right to Life posted on Facebook that abortion rights activists wanted to put a constitutional amendment protecting abortion on the ballot. They encouraged their supporters to comment on the proposed amendment language.

It is unclear how much influence anti-abortion groups had in the amendment’s language, but the American Civil Liberties Union sued Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft for using misleading and biased language in the amendment’s summary. Missouri Right to Life defended Ashcroft’s description, which asked voters whether they want to “allow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth, without requiring a medical license or potentially being subject to medical malpractice.”

In 2023, a Missouri judge tossed out this description and rewrote the summary .

Anti-abortion groups in Arkansas and Missouri are now running “decline to sign” campaigns to prevent abortion rights initiatives from getting on their states’ ballots in November 2024.

The Arkansas ballot initiative would protect the right to abortion before 18 weeks of pregnancy or in the case of rape, incest, fatal fetal anomaly, or to protect the health of the pregnant person. The so-called Missouri reproductive freedom amendment would allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, which tends to occur around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Despite the efforts of some anti-abortion activists, abortion rights groups in both Arizona and Missouri say they have enough signatures to put abortion on the ballot in November and enshrine reproductive rights in their state constitutions.

Given the previous outcomes of abortion-related ballot initiatives , which have largely restored abortion rights, anti-abortion activists face an uphill battle.

• Louisiana reclassifies abortion pills as controlled, dangerous substances − here’s what that means
• As Ohio and other states decide on abortion, anti-abortion activists look to rebrand themselves as not religious

Anne Whitesell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ABORTION rights

You’re not free when you can’t make decisions about what you do with your own body . You’re not free when you can’t make decisions what you do with your future . 

Everyone has a right to control their own fertility and exercise reproductive autonomy . This is particularly important for all women, girls and people who can become pregnant.  

And yet there are still countless barriers that prevent people from seeking abortions, including criminalisation, social stigma and intersectional discrimination and marginalisation.  

SIGN A PETITION TO OVERTURN JUSTYNA’S CONVICTION

Take action to support abortion rights defender.

Justyna was convicted for helping a woman in an abusive relationship access a safe abortion. Sign the petition and urge the prosecutor general to ensure that her wrongful conviction is reversed.

What is abortion and why is it necessary?

An abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy . It is basic healthcare needed by millions of women, girls and people who can get pregnant. It’s estimated that  one in four pregnancies ends in an abortion every year .  

In places where abortion is legal and accessible and where there is less stigma, people can get abortions safely and with no risk . 

However, in places where abortion is stigmatised, criminalised or restricted, people are forced to resort to unsafe abortions . It is estimated that 25 million unsafe abortions take place every year, the vast majority of them in developing countries, and can lead to fatal consequences such as maternal deaths and disabilities. 

All people have a right to bodily autonomy which is another reason why anyone who can become pregnant should be able to get an abortion. However, many people, especially those from historically marginalised communities, face social, economic and political conditions which hinder their ability to exercise reproductive autonomy. 

What is reproductive justice?

Black and intersectional feminists in the USA coined the term ‘reproductive justice’ to recognise that gender equality, sexual and reproductive rights and social justice are strongly interrelated.  

Reproductive justice addresses issues of population control, bodily self-determination, immigrants’ rights, economic and environmental justice, sovereignty, and militarism and criminal injustices that limit individual human rights because of group or community oppressions. Loretta J. Ross – academic, feminist and activist from the USA

The reproductive justice movement demands that states address social, economic and political inequalities which prevent people from the most marginalised communities from being able to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights.  

Barriers to accessing abortion 

When people are denied access to abortion due to criminalisation, restrictive laws and other barriers, their ability to exercise reproductive autonomy and enjoy their human rights is undermined.  

But laws are not the only thing stopping people from seeking abortions .     

Some people are not able to get an abortion because they can’t afford to take time off work for appointments or because they can’t afford to travel to another country or state to receive care. People who need abortions are also confronted by social stigma that makes it difficult for them to exercise their rights.  

Creating a better future where abortion rights are guaranteed for all does not end with the decriminalisation of abortion . We must also address the deeply rooted, social, cultural and economic barriers that make it more difficult for people to exercise their reproductive rights.  

Criminalisation of abortion

People face all kinds of barriers to accessing abortion around the world. In some countries – like the United States, Sierra Leone, Poland and Morocco – getting an abortion, or helping someone have an abortion is criminalised . The laws that restrict abortion vary between countries, with some places like Equatorial Guinea and Zambia issuing life imprisonment to those who seek an abortion. There are other laws in place to penalise people who assist others in seeking an abortion.  

In some countries, there are laws that only allow abortion in specific circumstances . These exceptions include when pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, if there is a severe and fatal injury to the foetus, or if the pregnancy presents a threat to the life or health of the pregnant person. However, only a small portion of abortions are due to these reasons, meaning these narrow exceptions still prevent most people from fully exercising their reproductive rights .    

The criminalisation of abortion has a compounding impact on those who are already marginalised . Health services, in general, are less accessible to people on low income, refugees and migrants, LGBTI people and racialized and Indigenous people. That means it is more difficult for some people seek safe services in another country or access private care.  

Despite decades of stigma and misinformation about abortions,  most people agree that abortion should be legal . However, many people feel like they don’t know how to speak out and show their support, which is why the loud anti-abortion minority often dominates the narrative.

Social stigma of abortion

Even in countries where abortion is legal, it might be difficult to access because of factors like cost, distance to services, social stigma or religiously reinforced conservative attitudes . For example, medical staff might – and do – refuse to provide abortions on grounds of conscience or religion.  

Case Study: Northern Ireland

Louise* was in a relationship with a man she had been with for three years when she fell pregnant for the first time. Louise told Amnesty that, despite always knowing she wanted to have children, the relationship she was in was unsafe.  

“Throughout the early days of my pregnancy I experienced abuse, physical and mental, and when my then partner physically assaulted me, leaving with me injuries, I knew that I couldn’t go through with the pregnancy. It was unsafe for me and any future child to be in this environment.” Louise* 

Despite abortion being decriminalized in Northern Ireland, Louise was unable to access abortion services, as she lives in a remote village. Travelling to England, where there is better access to abortion, was not an option due to costs. Louise decided to obtain abortion pills online and self-administer an abortion, which is illegal in many countries around the world, including Northern Ireland.  

“I felt like I had no choice. It would cost over two hundred pounds to go to England, and then I would have had to explain why I was travelling there. I couldn’t access an abortion through my local healthcare clinic as the village is so small, I was worried someone would find out. I bought pills online and self-administered an abortion at home, which was a terrifying, isolating and painful experience.” 

For people in Northern Ireland like Louise, abortion is a lifesaving procedure that can ensure they can live with dignity and autonomy over themselves and their futures.   

“I look forward to having a child one day, in a time and place in which I feel safe to do so. Had I been forced to continue with the pregnancy at that time, I fear myself or the child may have ended up in a very dangerous situation.” 

*Name changed to protect identity 

Why is abortion a human rights issue?

Everyone has a right to life, a right to health, and a right to be free from violence, discrimination, and torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 

Access to abortion is vital to the protection of these rights, as well as all other human rights, which are enshrined in international human rights law. 

Everyone has the right to health

Almost every death and injury from unsafe abortion is preventable. 

We know that criminalising abortion doesn’t stop abortions, it only makes them less safe. When access to abortion is restricted or criminalized, pregnant people, particularly those from marginalised communities who cannot afford to travel or seek private care, can resort to unsafe, clandestine abortions. 

Unsafe abortions are the third leading cause of preventable maternal deaths worldwide. They are also the cause of five million largely preventable disabilities , according to the World Health Organization. 

This is why access to safe abortion is a matter of public health and is a vital part of our right to health . 

Everyone has a right to non-discrimination

Women and girls.

Denying abortion is a form of gender discrimination against women and girls, and anyone else who can get pregnant. 

This has been recognised by multiple UN treaty bodies monitoring the implementation of human rights by the states, including the Committee of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women ( CEDAW ).  

LGBTI people 

Cisgender women and girls (women and girls who were assigned female at birth) are not the only people who need access to abortion. Anyone who can get pregnant, including intersex people, transgender men and boys, and people of diverse gender identities with the reproductive capacity to become pregnant may need abortion services.  

Efforts to improve access to abortion must consider the unique needs of LGBTI people who are likely to face intersectional forms of discrimination and stigma if they try to seek an abortion. For example, transgender and gender non-conforming people are more likely to report facing harassment in medical settings and are often refused treatment due to their gender identity. 

Everyone has a right to bodily and reproductive autonomy  

International human rights law clearly spells out that decisions about your body are yours alone – this is what is known as bodily autonomy . The right to make autonomous decisions about one’s reproductive life is known as reproductive autonomy . 

Forcing someone to carry on an unwanted pregnancy, or forcing them to seek out an unsafe abortion, is a violation of their human rights , including the rights to privacy and bodily and reproductive autonomy .     

In many circumstances, those who have no choice but to resort to unsafe abortions also risk prosecution and punishment, including imprisonment , and can face cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and discrimination in, and exclusion from, vital post-abortion health care.  

The World Health Organization noted that one of the first steps toward avoiding harmful consequences of criminalisation of abortion including maternal deaths and injuries is for states to ensure that all people including adolescents have access to sex education , are able to use effective contraception , can access safe abortion , and are given timely care for complications .  

Human rights defenders working for abortion rights

Around the world, those defending abortion rights are under attack , including activists, advocates, educators, clinic escorts, accompaniers, doulas, and healthcare workers , among others.  

They are exposed to stigmatization, physical and verbal attacks, intimidation and threats, and are criminalized through unjust prosecutions, investigations and arrests. Despite hostility and lack of recognition, they continue their work, helping countless women, girls and all people who can become pregnant access their right to abortion.  

They are a truly unstoppable movement. 

Risks and threats faced by people working for abortion rights   

Criminalisation and restrictive laws on abortion prevent health-care providers from providing the best care options for their patients, in line with good medical practice and their professional ethical responsibilities.  

Criminalisation of abortion results in a “chilling effect” , which deters providers to overapply restrictions than what is required by the law due to fear of criminal liability.  

It also deters women, girls and pregnant people from seeking post-abortion care for complications due to unsafe abortion or other pregnancy related complications. 

Case Study: The Green Wave

While many countries around the world are working towards further restricting access to abortion, the ‘Marea Verde’, the ‘Green Wave’ women’s movement has managed to bring about what were once unimaginable changes to abortion law in Latin America.   

The “Green Wave” is the adopted name of the feminist and human rights movement that has been fighting for years to legalize abortion throughout Latin America.   

In 2018 hundreds of thousands of girls and women came together to urge lawmakers to decriminalize and ensure safe access to abortion. These women were part of a huge campaign. They came from different movements and organizations, including Amnesty International Argentina, united in their call for change.  

In Argentina, a country key to the advancement of the ’Green Wave’, more than three years after the historic legalisation on abortion was passed in December 2020, there have been notable decrease in maternal mortality ratio, demonstrating once more that liberalizing abortion laws protects both health and life of pregnant people.  

What is Amnesty doing to defend the right to abortion?

We believe that everyone should be free to exercise their bodily autonomy and make their own decisions about their reproductive lives including when and if they have children.  

It is essential that laws relating to abortion respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of pregnant persons and not force them to seek out unsafe abortions.  

That’s why we’re calling on states around the world to fulfil their obligations to guarantee abortion rights for all, and to respect and protect the right of all those who defend the right to abortion .  

Related Content

Overturn justyna’s conviction, morocco: criminalization of abortion has devastating impact on the rights of women and girls , decriminalize abortion in morocco, iraq: authorities must urgently repeal new law criminalizing same-sex relations , global: dow shareholders must help ensure justice for victims of bhopal disaster.

Abortion Bans Strip People of Their Human Rights. Here’s Why We Must Stand In Solidarity Against Them

B anning abortions isn’t particularly effective. When governments restrict access to abortion, abortions actually continue to take place at roughly the same rate, according to the World Health Organization . But they get less safe. When abortion services are denied or limited, coat hangers, toxic herbal medicines and unqualified practitioners step into the breach, while medical professionals who provide proper care are criminalized.

Total bans or restrictive abortion laws in countries like El Salvador , Poland and more recently several U.S. states (including Louisiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama and Missouri) are designed to control and confine women and girls to stereotypical gender roles. They are an affront to their human rights and dignity and constitute gender discrimination. For transgender and queer people who need abortions, such restrictive laws are the latest in a long line of attacks on their rights and freedoms.

Organizations defending human rights have documented the agony and despair stemming from restrictive abortion laws around the world. One of the most harrowing stories is that of “Ms Y” , a woman who was granted asylum in Ireland after being beaten and raped by paramilitaries in her own country. Ms Y tried to kill herself several times when she was told she could not end her pregnancy, which was the result of rape. She was eventually forced to give birth by C-section. At every step of the way, the Irish authorities’ concern for the protection of the fetus trumped any consideration of Ms Y’s mental and physical health.

Last year Ireland joined the list of nearly 50 countries that have expanded access to lawful abortion over the last few decades. It was a historic move which came too late for Ms Y, but which will protect others from suffering the same trauma.

More recently, we have seen the horrific impact of criminal abortion laws being used to punish people for suffering pregnancy-related complications. In El Salvador, women who suffer miscarriages or stillbirths are routinely “suspected of having abortions” and charged with homicide.

In April 2016, Evelyn Hernández, a 21-year-old El Salvadorian woman, suffered an obstetric emergency at home, resulting in the loss of her pregnancy. She was arrested, tried and sentenced to 30 years in jail for aggravated homicide. In February this year, a higher court overturned this ruling and ordered a re-trial — which found Evelyn innocent. However, on Sept. 6, the Salvadoran Public Prosecutor’s Office announced that it would appeal that judgement – showing the authorities’ obsession with charging her under the country’s draconian laws.

We must continue to stand up to governments’ efforts to control women’s and girls’ bodies. According to the US-based reproductive health non-profit the Guttmacher Institute’s latest report , as of 2017, 42% of women of reproductive age live in the 125 countries where abortion is highly restricted (prohibited altogether, or allowed only to save a woman’s life or protect her health). Jurisdictions around the world are going to extreme lengths to restrict abortion access — stripping those who can get pregnant of their human rights and bodily autonomy.

Any person who does not control what happens to their body cannot be free. The debate around abortion should go beyond whether a person’s life is endangered by pregnancy. At the core of the issue is a person’s right to make decisions about what happens to their body. This right is critical to enabling all people who can get pregnant to fully exercise their human rights and to live their lives with dignity. Governments must not only decriminalize abortion and ensure access to safe abortion in practice, but also create social conditions in which people can make pregnancy-related decisions free of oppression, discrimination, stigma, coercion, violence, lack of opportunities or punishment.

More and more countries have woken up to this fact, despite the alarming rollback of reproductive rights in some countries, like the United States or Poland, driven by anti-choice groups and supported by populist politicians. Over the last 25 years, around 50 countries have changed their laws to allow for greater access to abortion. Although national contexts vary, one thing has united all successful campaigns to reform abortion laws: women speaking out . From Ireland to South Korea, activists have helped dispel the stigma and secrecy surrounding abortion by sharing their stories. In Argentina and Poland , over a million women have marched to demand that their voices be heard.

People who need, or have had, abortions deserve our support and solidarity. Whether by donating time and resources to national abortion networks, taking to the streets in protest or educating people in our lives about the need for safe abortion, we all have a role to play in reclaiming our rights.

At the same time, governments must expand access to safe, lawful and affordable abortion and contraception for all people. Not only is it the humane thing to do, it is a state obligation under international law. It will prevent countless deaths, life-long trauma and life-changing injuries.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• How Joe Biden Leads
• TIME100 Most Influential Companies 2024
• Javier Milei’s Radical Plan to Transform Argentina
• How Private Donors Shape Birth-Control Choices
• What Sealed Trump’s Fate : Column
• Are Walking Pads Worth It?
• 15 LGBTQ+ Books to Read for Pride
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Abortion — Should Abortion Be Banned

Should Abortion Be Banned

• Categories: Abortion Women's Rights

About this sample

Words: 607 |

Published: Mar 13, 2024

Words: 607 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Women's rights, society and ethics.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 628 words

5 pages / 2476 words

4 pages / 1770 words

5 pages / 2211 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Abortion

Abortion has been a contentious issue for centuries and has sparked heated debate around the world. Women have been seeking abortions for various reasons such as medical, economic, social, and personal needs. However, despite [...]

So, should abortion be legal or illegal? As a college student, I recognize the importance of discussing the contentious issue of abortion and its legality. The complexity of this topic calls for a thoughtful examination of [...]

Abortion has been a highly contentious issue in political, social, and moral debates for decades. While some argue for the right to choose, others vehemently oppose the practice on religious and ethical grounds. This essay will [...]

Abortion laws have been a contentious issue in many countries, with varying degrees of permissiveness and restrictiveness. This essay aims to analyze the current state of abortion laws by examining a selection of relevant [...]

Abortion can be defined as the deliberate causing of the death of a fetus, either by directly killing it or by causing its expulsion from the womb before it is “viable.” With “the killing of an innocent human being without [...]

Abortion has been a major conflict in society. It puts a tremendous amount of pressure on women who are debating whether to change their lives dramatically by having a baby. Abortion terminates fetuses in the womb and that is [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

The abortion debate is headed to the ballot box. Here's where voters will decide

The NPR Network

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion in 2022, states have had the final say on abortion rights. And now abortion-rights supporters across the United States seek to maneuver around Republican-led legislatures and go straight to voters.

This year, voters in up to 10 states could face abortion-rights amendments. Several states that outlaw most abortions could see those bans reversed if the ballot measures pass: Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota.

Voters in some states will have a say on abortion access through ballot initiatives

Voters have already backed abortion rights at the ballot box in at least six states since the reversal of Roe v. Wade, including conservative-leaning Kentucky and Kansas.

Getting amendments on the ballot takes legwork, gathering tens or hundreds of thousands of signatures. Then, there could be court challenges.

The statewide up-or-down votes could motivate more voters to the polls, shaping the race for president, the battle for which party controls Congress and, in Arizona for example, which party runs the legislature.

NPR is tracking the amendment campaigns taking place across the country and will update the developments through November.

A Catholic parish against abortion rights begins a two-day walk on Interstate 70 west of Watkins, Colo., on Aug. 19, 2022. Hart Van Denburg/Colorado Public Radio hide caption

Colorado doesn’t restrict abortion at any time during pregnancy. That has led to the state becoming a regional hub for abortion access.

Coloradans did use the ballot to impose one limit in 1984, when they passed a constitutional amendment banning public funding for abortions.

Now, abortion-rights advocates have gotten a proposed amendment on the ballot to guarantee a right to abortion in the state constitution, which would prohibit any laws impeding that right.

The amendment would also remove that current constitutional ban against public funding for abortions — in Medicaid or state employee health plans. The initiative is similar to the state law passed in 2022. It would need 55% of the vote to get into the constitution.

For more, visit Colorado Public Radio .

— Bente Birkeland

Florida is the most populous state where abortion-rights advocates already have enough signatures and the official approval to put a question on the ballot this November. The state will ask voters whether to protect abortion in the state constitution up to the point of fetal viability — usually about 24 weeks of pregnancy — or, in all cases, to protect the life of the pregnant person.

The state’s six-week abortion ban , which has exceptions for rare circumstances, went into effect in May, further energizing voters on both sides of the issue to come out in November. And Florida requires 60% approval to pass the amendment, a level no other state has met since Roe v. Wade ’s reversal in 2022.

For more, visit WFSU .

— Regan McCarthy

Since taking office in 2023, Democratic Gov. Wes Moore has billed Maryland as a “sanctuary state” for reproductive rights. Moore’s administration stockpiled mifepristone — one of two drugs used in medication abortion — when federal court cases threatened the drug’s future, and it has put money into training more health care workers in reproductive care.

In November, Maryland voters will decide on an amendment that would enshrine reproductive rights in the state constitution. The amendment would protect “the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one’s own pregnancy.” The referendum needs a simple majority to pass and is expected to meet that threshold.

Meanwhile, during the legislative session this year, Maryland lawmakers put money aside to help facilities that provide abortions improve security.

For more, visit WYPR .

— Scott Maucione

• South Dakota

A group known as Dakotans for Health has submitted 55,000 signatures of voters asking for a question on the ballot that could enshrine abortion protections into the state constitution.

After the Dobbs decision ended the federal right to abortion, an already-in-place South Dakota law went into effect banning all abortions except to save the life of the mother — though critics say that this exception remains undefined.

The proposed amendment would allow abortions in the first trimester, add more restrictions in the second and prohibit abortions in the third trimester, with some exceptions.

Some abortion-rights groups say the amendment is too weak, while an anti-abortion group has called it “extreme.”

For more, visit South Dakota Public Broadcasting .

— Lee Strubinger

Supporters of abortion restrictions demonstrate before an Arizona House of Representatives session at the Arizona State Capitol in Phoenix on April 17. Rebecca Noble/Getty Images hide caption

Arizona took a confusing turn this spring when a court ruled that a near-total ban on abortions, from a law that had been dormant for decades, could be enforced again. But the Legislature and courts have nullified that law, and the state’s ban on abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy is still in effect.

Now a proposed constitutional amendment would protect abortion rights until the point of fetal viability, or around 24 weeks. The ballot measure would also allow exceptions later in pregnancy when health risks are involved.

Organizers need to gather 383,923 signatures ahead of a July 3 deadline. They say they've already collected more than 500,000.

For more, visit KJZZ .

 — Katherine Davis-Young

Arkansas' ban on abortion is one of the most restrictive in the country, making an exception only to save the life of the mother. One group, Arkansans for Limited Government, is working to legalize abortion, but that’s a tall order in a state with many more registered Republicans than Democrats.

The group needs to collect at least 90,000 signatures by July 5. If the proposed amendment makes it onto the ballot and more than half of voters approve it, it wouldn’t make abortion legal in every case: The amendment raises the cutoff date to the 18th week of pregnancy.

Some abortion-rights groups, like Planned Parenthood, have backed off supporting the effort, saying it doesn’t go far enough to make abortion more accessible.

For more, visit Little Rock Public Radio .

— Josie Lenora

The Rev. Love Holt kicks off a rally in St. Louis in February to gather signatures for the Missouri constitutional amendment that would legalize abortion up until fetal viability. Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio hide caption

Missouri’s abortion-rights advocates have collected far more than enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment protecting abortion on the 2024 ballot. The measure would undo the state’s law banning all abortions, except to save the life of the pregnant person, and replace it with language making abortion legal up to the point of fetal viability.

The ballot initiative is receiving significant financial support from out-of-state groups, as well as more volunteer support than any other proposed amendment in the state.

To curb the amendment effort, Republican lawmakers tried to get a separate ballot measure to voters that would have made it more difficult to amend the state constitution. However, using the longest filibuster in state history , Democrats overpowered that attempt.

For more, visit St. Louis Public Radio .

— Jason Rosenbaum

The proposed ballot measure in Montana would add language protecting abortion access up until fetal viability — around 24 weeks of pregnancy — to the state constitution during a referendum in November. The initiative’s supporters face a June 21 deadline to collect 60,000 signatures from across the state to qualify for the ballot.

Abortion remains legal and accessible in the state. That’s even though Republican lawmakers have passed several restrictive abortion laws at the request of GOP Gov. Greg Gianforte in recent years. Abortion rights are protected under state judicial precedent.

In 1999, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the state’s constitutional right to privacy protects access to abortion until the point of viability. The court has reaffirmed the ruling in recent years.

For more, visit Montana Public Radio .

— Shaylee Ragar

In 2023, the Legislature banned abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy, down from 20 weeks previously. There are exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the pregnant patient. Medicaid and private health insurance plans are banned from covering most abortions.

Now two competing amendment drives are aiming for November. Abortion-rights groups propose asking voters whether they want to guarantee abortion access until fetal viability — usually around 24 weeks of pregnancy — and when needed to “protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.” Meanwhile, another group has started a petition drive to place the state's 12-week ban into the constitution.

They have until July 3 to gather just under 123,000 signatures. If they both make it onto the ballot and pass, whichever initiative gets more supportive votes will go into the constitution.

For more, visit Nebraska Public Media .

— Elizabeth Rembert

Abortion-rights activists march in protest of the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Las Vegas on June 24, 2022. Ronda Churchill/AFP via Getty Images/AFP hide caption

Under a state law approved by voters in 1990, abortion is legal in Nevada within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Abortion-rights advocates want to put that in the state constitution with an amendment guaranteeing abortion access up until fetal viability, which is usually about 24 weeks.

Supporters need to gather 102,000 signatures by a June deadline. Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom says it has already gathered 200,000. For the amendment to take effect, voters would have to approve the initiative twice, once in 2024 and again in 2026.

Polling has consistently shown that roughly two-thirds of Nevadans believe access to abortion should be legal in “all or most cases.”

Nevada Democrats believe protecting abortion access mobilized voters during the 2022 midterm elections, and they plan to make the issue central to their cause this year, with a U.S. Senate seat and congressional seats at stake.

For more, visit Nevada Public Radio .

— Paul Boger

NPR’s Ryland Barton, Larry Kaplow , Barbara Sprunt and Acacia Squires edited this project. Design and development by Hilary Fung . Copy editing by Preeti Aroon.

• abortion ban
• abortion access
• Abortion policy
• Abortion rights
• ballot measure
• 2024 elections
• election 2024

• Clerc Center | PK-12 & Outreach
• KDES | PK-8th Grade School (D.C. Metro Area)
• MSSD | 9th-12th Grade School (Nationwide)
• Gallaudet University Regional Centers
• Parent Advocacy App
• K-12 ASL Content Standards
• National Resources
• Youth Programs
• Academic Bowl
• Battle Of The Books
• National Literary Competition
• Youth Debate Bowl
• Youth Esports Series
• Bison Sports Camp
• Discover College and Careers (DC²)
• Financial Wizards
• Immerse Into ASL
• Alumni Relations
• Alumni Association
• Homecoming Weekend
• Class Giving
• Get Tickets / BisonPass
• Sport Calendars
• Cross Country
• Swimming & Diving
• Track & Field
• Indoor Track & Field
• Cheerleading
• Winter Cheerleading
• Human Resources
• Plan a Visit
• Request Info

• Areas of Study
• Accessible Human-Centered Computing
• American Sign Language
• Art and Media Design
• Communication Studies
• Data Science
• Deaf Studies
• Early Intervention Studies Graduate Programs
• Educational Neuroscience
• Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences
• Information Technology
• International Development
• Interpretation and Translation
• Linguistics
• Mathematics
• Philosophy and Religion
• Physical Education & Recreation
• Public Affairs
• Public Health
• Sexuality and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Theatre and Dance
• World Languages and Cultures
• B.A. in American Sign Language
• B.A. in Art and Media Design
• B.A. in Biology
• B.A. in Communication Studies
• B.A. in Communication Studies for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Deaf Studies
• B.A. in Deaf Studies for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Education with a Specialization in Early Childhood Education
• B.A. in Education with a Specialization in Elementary Education
• B.A. in English
• B.A. in Government
• B.A. in Government with a Specialization in Law
• B.A. in History
• B.A. in Interdisciplinary Spanish
• B.A. in International Studies
• B.A. in Interpretation
• B.A. in Mathematics
• B.A. in Philosophy
• B.A. in Psychology
• B.A. in Psychology for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Social Work (BSW)
• B.A. in Sociology
• B.A. in Sociology with a concentration in Criminology
• B.A. in Theatre Arts: Production/Performance
• B.A. or B.S. in Education with a Specialization in Secondary Education: Science, English, Mathematics or Social Studies
• B.S in Risk Management and Insurance
• B.S. in Accounting
• B.S. in Accounting for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.S. in Biology
• B.S. in Business Administration
• B.S. in Business Administration for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.S. in Information Technology
• B.S. in Mathematics
• B.S. in Physical Education and Recreation
• B.S. In Public Health
• General Education
• Honors Program
• Peace Corps Prep program
• Self-Directed Major
• M.A. in Counseling: Clinical Mental Health Counseling
• M.A. in Counseling: School Counseling
• M.A. in Deaf Education
• M.A. in Deaf Education Studies
• M.A. in Deaf Studies: Cultural Studies
• M.A. in Deaf Studies: Language and Human Rights
• M.A. in Early Childhood Education and Deaf Education
• M.A. in Early Intervention Studies
• M.A. in Elementary Education and Deaf Education
• M.A. in International Development
• M.A. in Interpretation: Combined Interpreting Practice and Research
• M.A. in Interpretation: Interpreting Research
• M.A. in Linguistics
• M.A. in Secondary Education and Deaf Education
• M.A. in Sign Language Education
• M.S. in Accessible Human-Centered Computing
• M.S. in Speech-Language Pathology
• Master of Social Work (MSW)
• Au.D. in Audiology
• Ed.D. in Transformational Leadership and Administration in Deaf Education
• Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology
• Ph.D. in Critical Studies in the Education of Deaf Learners
• Ph.D. in Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences
• Ph.D. in Linguistics
• Ph.D. in Translation and Interpreting Studies
• Ph.D. Program in Educational Neuroscience (PEN)
• Individual Courses and Training
• National Caregiver Certification Course
• Certificates
• Certificate in Sexuality and Gender Studies
• Educating Deaf Students with Disabilities (online, post-bachelor’s)
• American Sign Language and English Bilingual Early Childhood Deaf Education: Birth to 5 (online, post-bachelor’s)
• Peer Mentor Training (low-residency/hybrid, post-bachelor’s)
• Early Intervention Studies Graduate Certificate
• Online Degree Programs
• ODCP Minor in Communication Studies
• ODCP Minor in Deaf Studies
• ODCP Minor in Psychology
• ODCP Minor in Writing
• Online Degree Program General Education Curriculum
• University Capstone Honors for Online Degree Completion Program

Quick Links

• PK-12 & Outreach
• NSO Schedule

Comparison/Contrast Essays: Two Patterns

202.448-7036

First Pattern: Block-by-Block

By Rory H. Osbrink

Abortion is an example of a very controversial issue. The two opposing viewpoints surrounding abortion are like two sides of a coin. On one side, there is the pro-choice activist and on the other is the pro-life activist.

The argument is a balanced one; for every point supporting abortion there is a counter-point condemning abortion. This essay will delineate the controversy in one type of comparison/contrast essay form: the “”Argument versus Argument,”” or, “”Block-by-Block”” format. In this style of writing, first you present all the arguments surrounding one side of the issue, then you present all the arguments surrounding the other side of the issue. You are generally not expected to reach a conclusion, but simply to present the opposing sides of the argument.

Introduction: (the thesis is underlined) Explains the argument

The Abortion Issue: Compare and Contrast Block-by-Block Format

One of the most divisive issues in America is the controversy surrounding abortion. Currently, abortion is legal in America, and many people believe that it should remain legal. These people, pro-choice activists, believe that it is the women’s right to chose whether or not to give birth. However, there are many groups who are lobbying Congress to pass laws that would make abortion illegal. These people are called the pro-life activists.

Explains pro-choice

Abortion is a choice that should be decided by each individual, argues the pro-choice activist. Abortion is not murder since the fetus is not yet fully human, therefore, it is not in defiance against God. Regardless of the reason for the abortion, it should be the woman’s choice because it is her body. While adoption is an option some women chose, many women do not want to suffer the physical and emotional trauma of pregnancy and labor only to give up a child. Therefore, laws should remain in effect that protect a woman’s right to chose.

Explains pro-life

Abortion is an abomination, argues the pro-life activist. It makes no sense for a woman to murder a human being not even born. The bible says, “”Thou shalt not kill,”” and it does not discriminate between different stages of life. A fetus is the beginning of life. Therefore, abortion is murder, and is in direct defiance of God’s will. Regardless of the mother’s life situation (many women who abort are poor, young, or drug users), the value of a human life cannot be measured. Therefore, laws should be passed to outlaw abortion. After all, there are plenty of couples who are willing to adopt an unwanted child.

If we take away the woman’s right to chose, will we begin limiting her other rights also? Or, if we keep abortion legal, are we devaluing human life? There is no easy answer to these questions. Both sides present strong, logical arguments. Though it is a very personal decision, t he fate of abortion rights will have to be left for the Supreme Court to decide.

Second Pattern: Point-by-Point

This second example is also an essay about abortion. We have used the same information and line of reasoning in this essay, however, this one will be presented in the “”Point-by-Point”” style argument. The Point-by-Point style argument presents both sides of the argument at the same time. First, you would present one point on a specific topic, then you would follow that up with the opposing point on the same topic. Again, you are generally not expected to draw any conclusions, simply to fairly present both sides of the argument.

Introduction: (the thesis is underlined)

Explains the argument

The Abortion Issue: Compare and Contrast Point-by-Point Format

Point One: Pro-life and Pro-choice

Supporters of both pro-life and pro-choice refer to religion as support for their side of the argument. Pro-life supporters claim that abortion is murder, and is therefore against God’s will. However, pro-choice defenders argue that abortion is not murder since the fetus is not yet a fully formed human. Therefore, abortion would not be a defiance against God.

Point Two: Pro-life and Pro-choice

Another main point of the argument is over the woman’s personal rights, versus the rights of the unborn child. Pro-choice activists maintain that regardless of the individual circumstances, women should have the right to chose whether or not to abort. The pregnancy and labor will affect only the woman’s body, therefore it should be the woman’s decision. Pro-life supporters, on the other hand, believe that the unborn child has the right to life, and that abortion unlawfully takes away that right.

Tutorial & Instructional Programs

Gallaudet University

202-448-7036

At a Glance

• Quick Facts
• University Leadership
• History & Traditions
• Accreditation
• Consumer Information
• Our 10-Year Vision: The Gallaudet Promise
• Annual Report of Achievements (ARA)
• The Signing Ecosystem
• Not Your Average University

Our Community

• Library & Archives
• Technology Support
• Interpreting Requests
• Ombuds Support
• Health and Wellness Programs
• Profile & Web Edits

Visit Gallaudet

• Explore Our Campus
• Virtual Tour
• Maps & Directions
• Shuttle Bus Schedule
• Kellogg Conference Hotel
• Welcome Center
• National Deaf Life Museum
• Apple Guide Maps

Engage Today

• Work at Gallaudet / Clerc Center
• Social Media Channels
• University Wide Events
• Sponsorship Requests
• Data Requests
• Media Inquiries
• Gallaudet Today Magazine
• Giving at Gallaudet
• Financial Aid
• Registrar’s Office
• Residence Life & Housing
• Safety & Security
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• University Communications
• Clerc Center

Gallaudet University, chartered in 1864, is a private university for deaf and hard of hearing students.

Copyright © 2024 Gallaudet University. All rights reserved.

• Accessibility
• Cookie Consent Notice
• Privacy Policy
• File a Report

800 Florida Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002

Answers to Common Questions About Abortion Access

Here are answers to some of the fundamental questions surrounding the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

• Share full article

By The New York Times

The United States Supreme Court overruled the landmark Roe v. Wade case on June 24, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion in a monumental recasting of abortion laws.

The decision, which echoed a draft that was leaked in May , strikes down Roe’s standard, which did not allow states to ban the procedure before the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, which experts say is about 22 to 23 weeks of pregnancy .

The ruling has abolished the constitutional right to abortion and leaves each state to set its own abortion laws. More than a dozen Republican-led states have legislation in place that would outlaw abortion in most cases immediately, while some states where Democrats are in power have moved to retain and strengthen existing abortion rights or expand on them.

Here are answers to some of the fundamental questions surrounding the latest changes, including where abortion will become illegal and where it will remain accessible by law.

Where is abortion illegal now that Roe is overturned?

With the states now able to regulate abortion access, several states — Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin — have prohibited abortion, and most of these states do not have exceptions for victims of rape and incest.

Another four states — Georgia, Ohio, Idaho and Tennessee — now ban abortion at six weeks of pregnancy, before most women know they are pregnant.

More bans are expected, and a tug of war over the future of abortion access is playing out in courts across the United States, adding to a legal landscape defined by uncertainty, confusion and rapid change. Tennessee and Idaho are expected this week to enact trigger laws that would prohibit all abortions with limited exceptions, though Idaho faces a legal challenge from the Biden administration. In North Dakota and Wyoming, judges temporarily blocked bans on nearly all abortions in each state.

— Claire Cain Miller and Margot Sanger-Katz

What states will retain or expand abortion access?

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia, have laws that preserve access to abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group that supports abortion rights.

Some states have also been positioning themselves as “refuges” for abortion rights, by offering support and legal aid to women who travel to their state for an abortion.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has said California would offer tax breaks to companies seeking to move from states where abortion may become illegal. In Oregon, the Legislature approved $15 million in March to help pay for abortion expenses for patients coming from outside the state. In New York, Democratic lawmakers have been working on a package of bills that would strengthen the state’s already robust abortion access laws. Some of those efforts have been focused on shielding providers from liability for patients coming from states where abortion has been criminalized. Others seek to help patients who travel to New York for reproductive health care.

— Fahima Haque

Advertisement

What are the effects of new ‘trigger’ bans in Tennessee, Idaho and Texas?

Tennessee, Idaho and Texas began enforcing so-called trigger laws on Thursday, placing new restrictions on access to abortion for millions of women and in some cases adding punishments for doctors who perform the procedures.

The took effect weeks after the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to an abortion in June. But they are known as trigger laws as the states had each previously passed legislation explicitly intended to ban abortion in the event of the court overturning Roe v. Wade .

Similar laws in other states — like one in South Dakota — took effect immediately after the Supreme Court’s decision, but most required some sort of sign-off from state leaders, either from the attorney general or state lawmakers, or a combination of both.

In all, 13 states with Republican-led legislatures had passed some form of a trigger law, either to outlaw abortion entirely or to allow it only up to about six weeks gestation, a time at which many women do not know they are pregnant. In a few states, including North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, judges have blocked those bans.

Here are the states where new laws were set to take effect this week.

Shortly after the Supreme Court lifted the hurdle of Roe, a judge ruled that a 2020 Tennessee law prohibiting abortion after six weeks could take effect.

But the state also had a separate trigger law that prohibited abortion, with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

Both the six-week ban and the trigger law include an exemption for cases where the mother is in immediate danger of death or severe injury.

Abortion became illegal after six weeks in the state this month, when a law passed in April went into effect. But the state’s trigger law goes further, prohibiting all abortions, except to save the life of a pregnant woman — but not to protect her health — or in cases of rape or incest that were previously reported to the authorities.

Parts of Idaho’s trigger law faced a challenge from abortion advocates and the Justice Department. The lawsuit argued that the law would prevent emergency room doctors from performing abortions necessary to stabilize the health of women facing medical emergencies.

On Wednesday, Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the Federal District Court in Idaho ruled in favor of the Biden administration , temporarily blocking a part of the law that could have punished doctors in the state for acting to protect the health of endangered mothers.

But he emphasized the narrow scope of the decision, leaving intact most of the bill’s other provisions, which constitute a near-total prohibition on the procedure.

The Texas Supreme Court last month ruled that a 1925 law that banned abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest could take effect.

Even before that ruling resurrected the 20th-century law in Texas, the state enacted a six-week ban in 2021 by deputizing civilians with potential bounties of at least $10,000 to sue anyone who helped a woman get an abortion.

The state’s trigger law raises the penalties for abortion providers.

Under the new statute, anyone who provides or attempts to provide an abortion will face felony charges and fines of at least $100,000. There is a provision that allows doctors to perform abortions in a medical emergency, but states with similar medical exceptions have already struggled with a chilling effect on doctors who questioned whether they would face punishment if a patient did not meet the standard of a “medical emergency.”

North Dakota

A judge on Thursday granted a request for a preliminary injunction against North Dakota’s trigger ban, which would prohibit nearly all abortions and was scheduled to take effect Friday. It was the second time this month that a judge temporarily blocked the law after the state’s sole abortion provider filed a lawsuit.

Glenn Thrush contributed reporting.

How are gestational weeks calculated?

A current Texas law bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, and other states like Georgia, Ohio and South Carolina have passed legislation with the intent of prohibiting abortion after six weeks. These bills use the six-week mark as the point when an ultrasound may be able to detect the pulsing of what will become the fetus’s heart .

However, at six weeks many women have no idea they are pregnant.

Doctors measure the beginning of a pregnancy as being the first day of a woman’s last period. Why? They are tracking the length of pregnancy using a nearly 200-year-old calculation called Naegele’s Rule, named after Franz Karl Naegele, the German obstetrician who is credited with creating it in the 1800s.

The rule is somewhat confusing because conception usually does not occur until around 14 days after the first day of a woman’s period, assuming she has a 28-day cycle (which many women do not for a variety of reasons). The reason doctors still use the last menstrual cycle as a benchmark is because it is difficult to know exactly when the sperm fertilized the egg.

So when doctors say a woman is six weeks pregnant, it typically means the embryo started developing about four weeks earlier.

The heart, which can be seen flickering on an ultrasound, is still maturing and cannot be heard until several weeks later.

Perhaps this is the simplest way to say it: Six weeks pregnant is two weeks after a woman misses her period.

Is birth control still legal?

Yes, birth control remains legal everywhere in the United States, though several states allow doctors and pharmacists to refuse to prescribe or dispense contraceptives, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade does not indicate that the court would revisit past decisions about birth control.

However, some legal experts have raised concerns that justices could apply the argument for overturning Roe to limiting access to contraceptives. As a result, those who support birth control access worry that legislators could use a ban on abortion to make birth control less available.

“We’ve seen folks falsely equating emergency contraceptives and IUDs with abortion,” said Mara Gandal-Powers, director of birth control access and senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center. “That’s certainly something I’m concerned about.”

One concern that has been raised is whether laws, like one in Oklahoma, that ban abortion from the moment of fertilization would also outlaw intrauterine devices, or IUDs, which are designed to prevent fertilization but also can stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. (The Oklahoma law specifies that it does not apply to contraception, including Plan B or morning-after pills.)

The two forms of emergency contraception pills, Plan B and Ella, work in a different way to prevent fertilization from occurring. Both delay or prevent ovulation and allow sperm in the reproductive tract to die out.

— Dani Blum and Nicole Stock

Is it legal for women to travel out of state for an abortion?

There are currently no abortion bans that attempt to prosecute women who cross state lines to seek an abortion.

However, states could try in the future, said David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University. “There is no guarantee that an aggressive prosecutor might try to stretch the law as much as they can.”

In his concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that women who travel to neighboring states to receive an abortion would be protected by the constitutional right to interstate travel.

People who assist a woman seeking an abortion in a neighboring state could also be at risk of prosecution.

“It’s hard to tell at this point, but I think it’s likely that [the prosecutors] will go after the people that help the woman get the abortion,” Mr. Cohen said. “The person who drives them, the doctor who sees them.”

Both Texas and Oklahoma recently passed abortion bans that allow private citizens to sue people who perform abortions or who otherwise help someone get one.

Many organizations are still encouraging patients who cannot seek an abortion in their home state to travel across state lines to receive care, including a handful of companies that have pledged to cover travel expenses for employees who need abortions .

“People should travel, people should get care wherever they can,” said Mr. Cohen. “But it’s not a simple answer.”

Are abortion medications delivered by mail illegal?

It is still legal in most states to receive abortion medication by mail, which has been allowed since December 2021, when the Food and Drug Administration lifted a restriction that required patients to obtain the pills from a certified provider.

There are 19 states that had already prohibited the use of telehealth to prescribe abortion medication by requiring prescribers to be present when the drugs are administered.

The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights, found that in 2020, medication abortion — a two-pill regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol — accounted for over half of all abortions.

The end of Roe v. Wade will make little immediate difference on access to these medications, though legal experts say that could change as more trigger laws are certified.

Some telemedicine companies are bracing for anti-abortion trigger laws to take effect, but vow to continue mailing medication in the interim.

Dr. Julie Amaon, medical director of Just The Pill, a company that delivers abortion medication to people in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, and Minnesota, said they will continue to serve clients in all four states until Wyoming’s trigger law is certified. If that happens, their clients in Wyoming will need to travel to receive care.

“The way it will work is if your state of residence bans access to medication abortion, you can travel to another safe state to have a telehealth appointment,” Dr. Amaon said. “You would then get the medication by pick-up at our mobile clinic or if you are in a state without mobile clinics, you would wait 1-2 days to have the medication mailed to a pick-up location.”

Aid Access, a European service that has continued to send pills to women in the U.S. regardless of the laws in their state, is likely to be unaffected by the recent decision. Anti-abortion lawmakers are generally wary of punishing individuals seeking an abortion, said Mary Zeigler, a law professor at University of California Davis. They tend to focus on clinicians and prescribers who aid the patient seeking an abortion, but overseas providers operate in extralegal channels outside the reach of state lawmakers.

“There’s not going to be an easy enforcement mechanism there,” said Ms. Ziegler “But it’s worth emphasizing, whatever answers I’m giving for today, may not be true tomorrow, the bans are just the tip of the iceberg.”

Will the decision change how ectopic pregnancy is treated?

Women’s health care providers say the ruling has raised questions about their ability to treat ectopic pregnancy, a life-threatening complication that occurs when a fertilized egg implants in the wrong place in a woman’s body instead of attaching to the lining of the uterus.

More than 90 percent of the time, in an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg implants in one of a woman’s fallopian tubes, which connect the ovaries to the uterus. The fallopian tubes are thin and full of blood vessels. If they burst open, as can happen when a fertilized egg grows in the tube, that can cause major internal bleeding and put a woman’s life at risk.

Ectopic pregnancies are never viable, as a fertilized egg cannot survive outside of the uterus. In rare cases, the body will expel an ectopic pregnancy on its own. But for the vast majority of women, the only options are medication to remove the pregnancy or surgery.

The 13 states with abortion trigger laws that took effect after the Supreme Court’s decision, or soon will, allow exemptions if an abortion is needed to prevent a pregnant woman from dying. But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has warned that abortion bans — even those with an exception for ectopic pregnancies — can create confusion and impede a patient’s timely access to care.

— Catherine Pearson

I’m covered by my employer’s plan. Will my benefits change with the end of Roe?

That will depend on where you live, the type of insurance plan your employer uses and their stance on coverage.

Basically, if a company pays for its employees’ health care from its own coffers, workers, even those in states where abortion is illegal, may have broader access to benefits. But employers that buy insurance policies for workers could be further restricted.

Large employers are often self-insured , which means they collect a share of their workers’ premiums and pay for their health care (though an insurer or administrator usually processes claims). These plans generally follow federal rules under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, known as ERISA , which provide broad flexibility in designing a health care plan.

Other employers buy insurance on behalf of their workers, and the insurer is responsible for costs. Health insurers are regulated by the states and must follow their rules — if abortion is banned there, you’re unlikely to receive any coverage, even if you travel out of state.

Many larger employers are providing travel benefits for workers who would need to cross state lines for abortion. This is often an extension of existing policies. Typically these plans have offered travel benefits for people seeking cancer treatments, transplants or other specialized therapies if they don’t have access to a provider in their state or have to travel a certain number of miles to reach one, benefits lawyers said.

But there are still concerns about employers’ criminal and civil liability, particularly in states with laws that would call for criminal prosecution of anyone in the state who “aids and abets” an abortion, even if it occurs in another state where abortion is legal.

Health plans governed by federal ERISA regulations may have additional protections against legal actions brought under state law, benefits experts said, as long as the services are legal in the state where they are provided. Benefits lawyers also point to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Dobbs, in which he said states with abortion bans could not stop women from seeking the procedure elsewhere. But while ERISA regulations often supersede state laws that may apply to plans, that doesn’t extend to state criminal laws.

“This issue will likely be the subject of continuing litigation and debate,” according to the reproductive rights task force at Morgan Lewis, a law firm in Washington.

Can marketplace insurance plans still cover abortion?

The health insurance marketplace created under the Affordable Care Act has restrictions that are similar to those on Medicaid. Plans offered within the marketplace are not required to cover abortion, and federal money — including premium subsidies in the form of tax credits — cannot be used to pay for them. Here, too, there are exceptions for rape, incest and life endangerment, but they are not universal.

There are 26 states that ban marketplace plan coverage of abortions, said Alina Salganicoff , director of women’s health policy at Kaiser . But a few states don’t make exceptions for rape or incest, and some states make no exceptions at all, she added.

In contrast, insurers in seven states are required to include abortion coverage in all plans sold on the marketplace, according to Kaiser, but no federal dollars are used.

For example, in states like New York , where abortion is legal under state law, policy holders with subsidized marketplace plans have $1 of their monthly premium held separately to be used for abortion and other services.

But if an individual with a marketplace plan lives in a state where abortion is banned, it’s likely their policy won’t provide coverage in their own state or across state lines.

— Tara Siegel Bernard

Will Medicaid cover abortion following the Dobbs decision?

Just like before the ruling, that largely depends on where you live.

Medicaid, a public health program largely for low-income households that is administered by the states, is financed by federal and state money. Even before the Dobbs decision, federal law — known as the Hyde Amendment — didn’t allow federal funds to pay for abortions, except in limited circumstances: if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest or caused a life-endangering condition for the woman. States could choose to use their own money to pay for abortions beyond those situations, and 16 states had such policies last year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation (though nine were ordered by courts to have them).

The vast majority of states don’t pay for anything beyond those limited circumstances — and South Dakota, in violation of federal law, covers abortions only in the case of life endangerment, according to a 2019 study by the Government Accountability Office.

Like South Dakota, a growing list of states that ban abortions — including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Missouri — make exceptions only when the woman’s life is endangered. That puts them in conflict with federal law that also requires abortion coverage in cases of rape or incest.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said it would notify states when they were out of compliance with federal requirements, and added that the Department of Health and Human Services was taking steps to expand access to medication abortion in those limited circumstances. Details on how that will happen are still vague .

Should Abortion Be Banned?

Introduction, arguments for banning of abortion, counterarguments and refutation, works cited.

The issue of abortion has led to divergent opinions in the US with the pro-life activists advocating its illegalization and their pro-choice counterparts arguing in its favor. Pro-choice crusaders assert that a pregnant woman ought to be accorded the right to either sire the child or carry out an abortion before birth. One rationale behind their argument is that such a lady might have been a rape victim who is not prepared to get a baby (Sedgh et al. 224). In contrast, pro-life activists affirm that options should be established instead of abortion, for example, presenting the child for adoption. The reason they give for their position is that if all women were to undertake abortion and not get any child, the continuity of human life would be threatened. Abortion is a contentious and divisive topic in the community, civilization, and politics of the United States, and numerous anti-abortion rules have been in effect in all states from around 1900.

Pro-life activists assert that other options might be preferable in place of abortion. They state that only fewer than 20% of all cases of abortion are associated with rape or even minors (Thomas et al. 358). Therefore, they maintain that among the most effective solutions to the avoidance of abortion is engaging in protected sex when is not prepared to rear a baby. A different practice would be to get the baby and present it to be cared for by other willing individuals rather than termination of its life. One might contact organizations dedicated to nurturing babies who lack proper parents or allow adoption as some amicable solutions against abortion. Some women strongly desire to have a child, which does not happen attributable to infertility. The existence of options for abortion shows that the practice is needless and condemnable regardless of the reason provided.

Pro-life crusaders state that abortion should be banned because in nearly all occurrences it makes the patient develop health complications. For example, many females have experienced hemorrhage, infections, and sometimes death during or even after abortion. Breast cancer is one of the most widespread risks of undertaking abortion attributable to the altered or disrupted structure of the mammary glands (Thomas et al. 359). Carcinogenic practices are apparent in transitional cells of females who have had an abortion. Each time a woman carries out an abortion, she increases the possibility of developing breast cancer. Furthermore, more than a quarter of the females who get abortion-associated cancer lose their lives. Irrespective of the short-lived relief following an abortion, nearly all the women and girls who carry it out report related psychological problems. Some of the signs of abortion-associated psychological problems include flashbacks, guilt, substance use/abuse, anger, suicidal thoughts, hallucination, and sexual dysfunction. Ensuing problems after abortion establishes that it is an unsafe and risky practice that ought to be banned.

Abortion should be illegalized because it is tantamount to murder as it entails the termination of the life of an already living creature. After four weeks of pregnancy, the developing embryo already has a pumping heart, and the appearance of mouth, ears, nose, limbs, and brain follows closely. During that time, there is the possibility of recording brainwaves and perception of heartbeat (White et al. 190). Additionally, there is the emergence of bones, and the unborn child begins to reflectively respond to stimuli. Since these processes are already in existence before the period of any likely abortion, it is evident that undertaking the practices should be illegal because it subjects the unborn baby to agonizing pain and suffering.

The pro-choice drive is established on the belief that no female should be compelled by the regulations in a country to have a baby contrary to her will whenever valid and substantial reasons are given. The argument provided is that siring a child should be a private familial affair, which should not be troubled. The pro-choice conviction is based on the notion that the life of a person begins after birth (Aiken et al. 396). Nevertheless, the American Life League marks a pro-life group that maintains that the right to life should be given to a human being from the fertilization phase hence the need to illegalize abortion.

Consistent with the affirmations of the pro-choice crusaders, bestowing on the embryo or fetus the sense of life infringes the rights of pregnant women for interfering with their independence. Additionally, banning abortion is a way of hindering girls from obtaining the help of health providers when they require tackling some medical concerns. Calling for the illegalization of abortion is being insensitive. For example, illegalization disregards how the education and later life of a teenager who becomes pregnant out of rape are irreparably damaged. This would lead to some female students becoming truants or school dropouts (Jones and Jerman 4). Another aspect that is ignored in the illegalization of abortion is the trauma that a family would suffer while nurturing an unwanted baby. Nonetheless, since there is only a small proportion of teenagers who become pregnant after incidences of rape, the illegalization of abortion would have an insignificant impact on adolescent girls.

The pro-choice movement is convinced that pro-life activists do not consider the fact that the law (such as the illegalization of abortion) will not prevent girls from becoming pregnant and clandestinely going for an abortion. Additionally, although most narcotic drugs are illegal, people are still using them secretly (Sedgh et al. 227). In the same way, enacting laws that illegalize abortion will result in many pregnant girls having abortions in unsafe settings that may leave them at the risk of death over and above the termination of the life of the embryo or fetus. The point is that if a pregnant woman or lady carries an unwanted pregnancy and has the determination of aborting it, they will still do it regardless of whether it is legal or banned. It is irrational for some people to put much significance on the need for an unborn child to live while overlooking the degree to which such a practice jeopardizes the mother’s life and welfare. However, it is imperative for laws to be enacted to control vices devoid of providing reasons for the irrelevance of such regulations.

Abortion leads to the intentional termination of a pregnancy prior to birth. It has elicited mixed feelings with one group establishing that pregnant girl should have the independence of either aborting or bearing the child. However, a different group asserts that options such as adoption should be practiced rather than abortion that denies the unborn child the right to life. Abortion is an argumentative and divisive subject in American civilization, community, and politics, and many anti-abortion guidelines have been in operation in all states since about 1900. Since the illegalization of abortion outshines the advocacy for its legalization, the practice should be banned.

Aiken, Abigail, et al. “Requests for Abortion in Latin America in the Wake of Zika Virus.” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 375, no. 4, 2016, pp. 396-400.

Jones, Rachel, and Jenna Jerman. “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2011.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 46, no. 1, 2014, pp. 3-14.

Sedgh, Gilda, et al. “Adolescent Pregnancy, Birth, and Abortion Rates across Countries: Levels and Recent Trends.” Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 56, no. 2, 2015, pp. 223-230.

Thomas, Rachel, et al. “Anti-Legal Attitude toward Abortion among Abortion Patients in the United States.” Contraception, vol. 96, no. 5, 2017, pp. 357-364.

White, Kari, et al. “Women’s Knowledge of and Support for Abortion Restrictions in Texas: Findings from a Statewide Representative Survey.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 48, no. 4, 2016, pp. 189-197.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, March 7). Should Abortion Be Banned? https://studycorgi.com/should-abortion-be-banned/

"Should Abortion Be Banned?" StudyCorgi , 7 Mar. 2022, studycorgi.com/should-abortion-be-banned/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Should Abortion Be Banned'. 7 March.

1. StudyCorgi . "Should Abortion Be Banned?" March 7, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-abortion-be-banned/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Should Abortion Be Banned?" March 7, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-abortion-be-banned/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Should Abortion Be Banned?" March 7, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-abortion-be-banned/.

This paper, “Should Abortion Be Banned?”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: July 24, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Accessibility links

• Skip to content
• Skip to local navigation
• Skip to bbc.co.uk navigation
• Skip to bbc.co.uk search
• Accessibility Help

Ethics guide

Arguments against abortion

This article sets out the women's rights arguments that oppose giving women an automatic right to an abortion.

On this page

Women's rights arguments against abortion, abortion violates feminist principles, page options.

• Print this page

Not all who support women's rights support abortion, and many of them are active in trying to promote practical solutions to the causes that drive women to abortion.

Some join other pro-life advocates and say that the right to life should always outweigh the right of an individual to equality or to control their own body .

But others raise arguments that are specifically related to women's rights:

Abortion does not free women

Some argue that abortion does not liberate women, but allows society not to cater to women's needs.

They say that what women need for equality is not free access to abortion but to be given what they need to survive financially and socially as mothers:

• inexpensive, readily available childcare
• e.g. providing flexible scheduling and maternity leave,
• state support that helps to reintegrate a woman into the workforce

They say that if women couldn't have abortions so easily, governments would have to invest more money in supporting mothers.

Abortion sidesteps oppression of women

Others oppose abortion because it provides a way of side-stepping other real issues that should be addressed. One writer put it like this:

There are women who are raped and become pregnant; the problem is that they were raped, not that they are pregnant. There are women who are starving who become pregnant; the problem is that they are starving, not that they are pregnant. There are women in abusive relationships who become pregnant; the problem is that they are in abusive relationships, not that they are pregnant. Megan Clancy

Abortion damages women

Some people oppose abortion because it can damage the long-term physical and emotional health of women who have an abortion.

Some feminists oppose all forms of violence, including abortion, because they are inconsistent with the core feminist principles of justice, non-violence and non-discrimination.

We believe in a woman's right to control her body, and she deserves this right no matter where she lives, even if she's still living inside her mother's womb. Feminists for Life

Abortion is a male plot

Yet another group object to abortion because they see it as a male plot. (In fact many of this group don't object to abortion; they want people to be aware that men often support abortion for a thoroughly bad reason.)

They argue that men see the risk of pregnancy as something that stops men having sex when they want it. If men are to achieve full sexual freedom (i.e. the freedom to have sex without responsibility) it is essential that abortion be freely available to backup contraception.

So abortion on demand is vital if men are to be able to have women on demand, and thus men are arguing for abortion so that they can continue to exploit women.

This was one of the reasons that 19th century feminists opposed abortion: they regarded it as a way for men to have sex with women without having to take responsibility for any resulting children by getting the women to risk their lives in what were then dangerous operations in order to prevent the child being born.

This point of view is cogently argued in chapter 3 of Right Wing Women by Andrea Dworkin , the relevant part of which is online .

Warning: this article includes strong sexual language.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites.

« More on Abortion

• Religion and Ethics home

Around the BBC

• BBC Radio 4 Woman's Hour - Catholic church and abortion
• BBC Radio 4 Woman's Hour - Abortion in Indonesia
• BBC Radio 4 Woman's Hour - Sex selective abortion
• BBC News - Europe's abortion rules
• BBC Health - unplanned pregnancy

Elsewhere on the web

• Mary Stopes International
• Brook Advisory Centres
• British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS)
• Life - UK pro-life charity

Search term:

BBC navigation

• Northern Ireland
• Full A-Z of BBC sites

You're using the Internet Explorer 6 browser to view the BBC website. Our site will work much better if you change to a more modern browser. It's free, quick and easy. Find out more about upgrading your browser here…

• Mobile site
• Terms of Use
• About the BBC
• Contact the BBC
• Parental Guidance

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.

A year after the fall of Roe v. Wade, abortion access is reshuffled on state lines

Nearly a year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade , the 1973 ruling that found a constitutional right to abortion, the decision has left a fractured and still-changing map of U.S. abortion access.

Since the high court left abortion decisions to states in the case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights and other groups tracking the issue, most abortions are now banned or unavailable in 14 states: 

• Mississippi
• North Dakota
• South Dakota
• West Virginia

Other states have enacted gestational limits, including Georgia, which bars abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, earlier than most people even discover they are pregnant. A 12-week ban is set to take effect this summer in North Carolina.

Abortion restrictions remain blocked in some states amid legal challenges or reviews, including six-week bans in Ohio, South Carolina and Florida; full bans are currently on hold in the courts in states including Arizona and Indiana.

At the same time, voters and lawmakers in some states have moved to expand or protect abortion rights, including California, Illinois, Vermont, Oregon and New York.

Voters in Kansas and Kentucky rejected ballot measures that sought to amend their state constitutions to declare that they contain no right to an abortion, though Kentucky still bans abortion.

As of the end of May:

How has the patchwork of state laws affected abortion access?

Special report: How one quiet Illinois college town became the symbol of abortion rights in America

The move by Republican-dominated state legislatures to enact restrictions has squeezed access to abortion for millions of Americans. 

In the first three months after the Supreme Court rescinded the right to abortion, 66 clinics across 15 states were forced to stop offering abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

In many cases, those seeking abortions –  particularly in the mid- and Deep South, were forced to travel much further and costlier trips for care.

In Texas, for example, travel time to the nearest abortion facility increased by nearly 8 hours, according to a November study in JAMA .

Another analysis found that residents or Arkansas and Missouri had to drive more than 220 miles to reach a provider after the ruling. In other areas, driving distances saw less of a change partly because of bans blocked amid legal challenges.

According to an April report by Human Rights Watch , about 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. 

Across the country, abortion advocates have worked to help fund more costly and distant travel. But Jennifer Pepper, CEO of Memphis-based Choices Center for Reproductive Health, which now operates a clinic in Southern Illinois, said the costs and difficulties associated with travel remain a daunting barrier for some seeking abortions. 

Abortion clinics cross state lines in Virginia, Nevada, elsewhere 

Pepper’s clinic is among those who have moved their abortion services from states that banned abortion to those where it is protected, setting up practices near state lines to minimize travel distances.

That has created new battlegrounds in a series of small U.S. towns such as  Bristol, Virginia and West Wendover , Nevada. 

In Carbondale, Illinois, a local hospital stopped performing elective abortions decades ago. Now, the city hosts the state’s southernmost clinics , and is the closest destination for abortion for 1.2 million women who live across parts of the South, one researcher estimated. 

The city’s new role has drawn both support and opposition – a change that USA TODAY has chronicled over much of the past year.

Bristol, Virginia, has also seen fights over whether clinics should be able to move to the city from states such as Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia, which enacted abortion restrictions. The struggle began when an abortion clinic that had long operated in Tennessee moved just over the Tennessee state line into Bristol.

Anti-abortion activists have sought zoning changes to bar them, a strategy pursued in other towns. The owner of the Bristol Women’s Health clinic, Diane Derzis –  who also owned the clinic in Jackson, Mississippi, at the center of the Supreme Court’s decision – has faced a lawsuit seeking to terminate the lease on the clinic’s building. 

Derzis told USA TODAY the location, though controversial to some, is a critical point of access.

“We're seeing (clients) from Alabama, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, all because there's a huge swath of no service,” she said. 

What’s the status of the legal challenge to the abortion pill?

Patients defend mifepristone access: 'It felt like coming up for air'

Looming over the shifts in access to physical clinics is the fight over the abortion pill mifepristone , part of a two-pill regimen that now accounts for more than half of U.S. abortions. 

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a coalition of anti-abortion groups, is suing the FDA to reverse approval of mifepristone, claiming the drug comes with medical risks and that its approval process was rushed. 

​​But health experts and leading medical associations dispute that, saying mifepristone safe and effective for abortion and miscarriage care and has a decadeslong safety record.

Last month, a panel of three federal court judges heard arguments in a lawsuit aiming to withdraw the drug’s approval. After the panel makes its decision, the ruling will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, USA TODAY has reported.

A number of states also restrict access to medication abortion, according to Guttmacher, including 15 that require it be provided by a physician, one that bans mailing pills to a patient.

Contributing: USA TODAY, Associated Press 

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

Texas’ New Plan for Responding to the Horror of Its Abortion Ban: Blame Doctors

Last week, in a widely watched case, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the claims of Amanda Zurawski and her fellow plaintiffs that they had suffered injuries after being denied emergency access to abortion due to lack of clarity in the state’s abortion ban. Zurawski v. State of Texas has offered an important model for lawyers seeking to chip away at sweeping state bans and even eventually undermine Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , the 2022 decision that overturned Roe v. Wade . Now the state Supreme Court’s decision offers a preview of conservatives’ response to the medical tragedies that have been all too common after Dobbs : to blame physicians and hint that the life of the fetus ultimately counts as much as or more than that of the pregnant patient.

From the beginning, Zurawski had significance for patients outside Texas. Republicans have been increasingly hostile to abortion exceptions since 2022, demanding that sexual assault victims report to law enforcement when such exemptions do exist, dropping rape and incest exemptions altogether in many other states, and going so far as to require physicians to prove their innocence rather than necessitating that prosecutors prove their guilt . Nevertheless, exceptions are critical to the post- Dobbs regime: They are popular with voters and offer the hope—in reality the illusion—that abortion bans do not operate as harshly as we may expect.

The Zurawski litigation illuminated how exceptions fail patients in the real world. Physicians, afraid of harsh sentences up to life in prison, turn away even those they feel confident will qualify under exceptions. The exemptions, by their own terms, do not apply to any number of serious medical complications or fetal conditions incompatible with life. The Zurawski plaintiffs argued that Texas’ law should cover these circumstances and that if the opposite was true, it was unconstitutional.

Although this did not succeed in Texas, Zurawski created a blueprint for litigation in other states. It also kicked off a political nightmare for Republicans. Earlier this year, when Kate Cox, a Texas woman who learned that her fetus had trisomy 18, a condition that usually proves fatal within the first year, the state’s Supreme Court denied her petition for an abortion. In the aftermath, Republicans were flummoxed about how to respond.

The Texas Supreme Court offered Republicans one way to address the emergencies Dobbs has produced. The court began by limiting physicians’ discretion about when to intervene. The plaintiffs in Zurawski argued that physicians require protection when they believe in good faith that they need to protect the life or health of their patients. The court disagreed, suggesting that the standard was whether a reasonable physician would believe a particular procedure to be lifesaving.

On the surface, this doesn’t sound so bad. Who doesn’t want doctors to have to act reasonably? But determining how sick a patient must be is never straightforward—and is all the more complicated when the wrong answer will be determined after the fact by a prosecutor and the physicians with whom they consult, and when guessing wrong will result in a penalty of up to life in prison.

The court’s message was that physicians were the problem. They had misunderstood what the court portrayed as a perfectly clear law. Doctors were the ones who had refused to act reasonably and denied help to the patients that the court thought were deserving, like Amanda Zurawski herself. Texas had stressed the same argument throughout litigation in the case.

Republicans may well borrow the same strategy. If Americans don’t like the new reality that Dobbs has brought on, the party will argue, the GOP is not to blame. It is all the doctors’ fault. This allows conservatives to have it both ways: They frighten—or, in the case of Kate Cox’s doctor, block—physicians who might be willing to offer “reasonable” care, then blame the physicians for failing to care for their patients.

The court’s interpretation of the state constitution was just as revealing. The plaintiffs had argued that Texas’ ban discriminated on the basis of sex because only some persons are capable of pregnancy. The court rejected this argument, drawing both on Dobbs and on claims that have emerged in cases about transgender youth. Regulating abortion, the court reasoned, was no different from regulating gender-affirming care—it was a rule governing a specific medical procedure, not discrimination on the basis of sex.

What about the right to life? The Dobbs case held that U.S. citizens have 14 th Amendment rights only when that liberty was deeply rooted in history and tradition. Is there a federal or state right to access abortion to avoid death or serious bodily harm? As Reva Siegel and I have written elsewhere , there seems to be historical evidence to support this argument. And the political case for such a right is strong too. If courts say that there is no constitutional limit on state abortion bans—even if patients bleed to death—that will raise yet more grave questions about what Dobbs permits.

The Texas Supreme Court did not rule out the idea that the state constitution recognizes a right to life for the patient—or deny that high courts in other conservative states had identified a right to lifesaving abortions. But if there was such a right, the court noted, it would account for “the lives of pregnant women experiencing life-threatening complications while also valuing and protecting unborn life.” In other words, the court suggested, fetuses too have rights to life, and that means that the state has every right to deny treatment to pregnant patients in an effort to prioritize the well-being of unborn ones. Texas may not yet have written fetal personhood—the idea that fetuses are rights-holding people—into its constitutional law in clear terms, but the idea of fetal rights has already affected the lives of pregnant patients in the state.

Voters don’t seem to like the idea that fetal rights trump patients’ rights. The Texas Supreme Court has suggested that judges, not voters, may be the ones who decide the question.

But even in dictating what happens to pregnant patients across the state, other Republicans will join the court in pointing the finger at the doctors charged with implementing draconian bans. “The law entrusts physicians,” the court explained, “with the profound weight of the recommendation to end the life of a child.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to make things worse for pregnant patients later this month, when it hands down a ruling on whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts an Idaho ban with very narrow emergency exceptions . None of this makes Zurawski a waste. It may not have changed the reality on the ground for patients in Texas, but it did tell an important story about the kind of America Dobbs has created—and it delivered voters a reminder that they still have the power to change it.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Republicans block bill to protect contraception access as Democrats make election-year push

Senate Republicans have blocked legislation designed to protect women’s access to contraception, arguing that the bill was just a political stunt as Democrats mount an election-year effort to put GOP senators on the record on reproductive rights issues.

FILE - Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., pauses before talking with reporters after a meeting with fellow Democrats, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, June 4, 2024. Senate Democrats are holding a vote to move forward with legislation designed to protect women’s access to contraception. The test vote on Wednesday comes as the Senate has abandoned hopes for doing serious bipartisan legislation before the election and as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democrats are trying to instead spotlight issues that they believe can help them win the presidency and keep the Senate in November. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans have blocked legislation designed to protect women’s access to contraception, arguing that the bill was just a political stunt as Democrats mount an election-year effort to put GOP senators on the record on reproductive rights issues ,

The test vote won a 51-39 majority, but that was well short of the 60 votes to move ahead on the legislation.

It came as the Senate has abandoned hopes of doing serious bipartisan legislation before the election. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and his Democrats are trying to instead spotlight issues they believe can help them win the presidency and keep the Senate in November. A similar vote on ensuring nationwide access to in vitro fertilization is expected next week.

That bill is expected to similarly stall in the Senate, where Democrats need 60 votes to move forward on legislation. Schumer said Tuesday that Democrats will “put reproductive freedoms front and center before this chamber, so that the American people can see for themselves who will stand up to defend their fundamental liberties.”

The effort comes as Democrats worry that reproductive rights will be further threatened after the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to an abortion two years ago and as they continue to see that access as one of their most potent election-year issues. President Joe Biden’s campaign has embraced reproductive rights as a key to winning undecided voters , especially women.

“Contraception is health care, essential health care, that millions of people rely on,” said Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Democrat. She said the court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade “foretold more chaos to come.”

President Joe Biden called the Republican opposition to the bill “unacceptable.”

“We will continue to urge Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law and safeguard the right to contraception once and for all,” Biden said.

Minority Republicans have scoffed at the votes, saying the political messaging votes were unserious distractions from legislation they would like to vote on. “I expect we will see a lot more show votes this summer,” said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the No. 2 Senate Republican, on Tuesday.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, one of two Republicans to vote with Democrats to move forward on the bill, said Monday that she would want the legislation to be amended to include more religious liberty protections. “It is clearly a messaging attempt and not a serious attempt in itself,” she said.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who along with Collins supports abortion rights, also voted to move forward on the legislation.

Many Republicans who voted against consideration of the bill said they support access to contraception but believe the legislation is unnecessary.

“The Democrats are using their power to push an alarmist and false narrative that there is a problem accessing contraception,” said Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the top Republican on the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee.

Democrats have moved to protect various rights in the wake of the Roe decision, particularly after Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion that suggested the court also reconsider previous opinions that prohibited bans on contraceptives, sodomy and same-sex marriage.

But the Senate push on reproductive access this year differs from bipartisan legislation passed in 2022 that would protect same-sex marriage . A vote on that bill was delayed until after that year’s midterm elections to try and avoid political complications, and 12 Republicans eventually supported it, sending it to Biden’s desk.

Since Republicans took the House majority last year, though, Congress has moved on few legislative items that were not immediately urgent or that did not face deadlines for expiration. Schumer has said repeatedly that he would like to move on bills to improve rail safety, lower the cost of prescription drugs and improve online safety for children, among other bipartisan legislation. But most of those bills have stalled in the divided Congress as some Republicans and Democrats have been less willing to work together in an election year.

Instead, Schumer has focused the Senate on judicial nominations and political messaging bills, including a repeat vote last month on a border security bill that Republicans had already rejected in February after months of bipartisan negotiations. Democrats who have faced intense criticism over the border issue have hoped that they can blunt that issue somewhat by highlighting that legislation. But Republicans have said it did not go far enough.

Democrats seized on the contraception issue after former President Donald Trump , the presumptive GOP nominee, said in an interview last month that he was open to supporting restrictions on birth control. He quickly reversed course and said that he “has never and never will” advocate to restrict that access.

Contraception has been increasingly entangled in the abortion debate in some conservative states, however. In Missouri, a women’s health care bill was stalled for months over concerns about expanding insurance coverage for birth control after some lawmakers falsely conflated birth control with medication abortion. In Arizona, Republicans unanimously blocked a Democratic effort to protect the right to contraception access. Tennessee Republicans blocked a bill that would have clarified that the state’s abortion ban would not affect contraceptive care or fertility treatments.

And in Virginia, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed bills from the Democratic-controlled Legislature that would have protected the right to contraception earlier this year. He said he supports the right to birth control but that “we cannot trample on the religious freedoms of Virginians.”

The Senate bill would make it federal law that an individual has the right to obtain contraceptives and to “engage in contraception,” and that health providers can provide them.

In the GOP-led House, Democratic Rep. Kathy Manning of North Carolina is leading a longshot effort to get enough signatures to discharge a similar version of the Senate’s contraception bill from committee and put it on the floor — a tactic used when leadership won’t bring up legislation for a vote.

Schumer said that the legislation designed to protect IVF access will come up in the Senate next week.

That bill comes after Alabama’s Supreme Court ruled frozen embryos can be considered children under state law earlier this year, causing several clinics to suspend IVF treatments. The state later enacted a law providing legal protections for IVF clinics, but Democrats have argued that Congress should act to guarantee nationwide access to reproductive care to try and prevent courts from making those decisions.

“Democrats will act to safeguard and strengthen IVF access for all Americans, so that everyone has a chance to start a family,” Schumer said.

Associated Press writer Stephen Groves contributed to this report.