State legislators with conservative views are gearing up to introduce more stringent abortion regulations this year, regardless of any actions taken by President Donald Trump. Reports from The 19th indicate that numerous bills filed in state legislatures throughout the country target various aspects of abortion, including access to abortion pills, abortion services for minors, and efforts to dismantle existing protections for the procedure.
States such as Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee have introduced bills aimed at restricting access to abortion. In states where almost complete bans are already in place, lawmakers are seeking to eliminate loopholes that residents have utilized to access abortion services. Some legislators are even considering transitioning from six-week abortion bans to near-total prohibition of the procedure. In Missouri, where voters recently ratified constitutional protections for abortion rights, certain lawmakers are advocating for the reversal or weakening of these newly established safeguards.
Given the influence state legislatures have on each other, it is likely that more bills of this nature will emerge in the near future. The stance of President Trump on federal abortion regulations remains uncertain. While anti-abortion groups are advocating for stricter regulations during the second term of the Trump administration, the president himself has exhibited inconsistency in his approach to the issue. Although he was a strong supporter of abortion opponents during his first term, on the campaign trail for 2024, he indicated that he would veto any proposed national ban, despite taking credit for the erosion of Roe v. Wade.
In response to the perceived validation from Trump’s re-election, many state lawmakers are not waiting for further clarification from the president and are moving forward with new restrictions on abortion. Jennifer Driver, the senior director of reproductive rights at the State Innovation Exchange, noted that the election outcome has emboldened anti-abortion legislators and spurred them to push the boundaries of abortion regulation.
The 2024 election in Texas, the largest state with a ban on abortion, has alleviated concerns about political backlash for imposing additional restrictions, according to John Seago, the leader of Texas Right to Life, a prominent anti-abortion organization. He stated that the election results have removed any political impediments to pursuing new regulations.
One area of focus in the proposed bills is the restriction of access to medication abortion, which involves a two-drug regimen that can be safely administered at home with virtual medical supervision if necessary. Some pregnant individuals in states with abortion bans have resorted to obtaining medication through providers in states with more lenient abortion laws. Although this practice is medically safe, it presents legal risks due to varying state regulations. Anti-abortion advocates are keen on halting this form of virtual healthcare delivery, which they refer to as the “trafficking of abortion pills.”
Seago emphasized the need to address these trends, stating, “It’s about the trafficking of abortion pills, whether that’s through the mail, whether that’s physicians bringing them over the border and distributing them—those are really what we’re focusing on.”
This year has seen the introduction of bills targeting abortion pills in various states. In Texas and Tennessee, where abortion is mostly illegal, bills have been proposed. Similarly, in Indiana, where abortion is restricted after six weeks, bills have also been introduced. The proposed legislation in these states aims to regulate the distribution and possession of abortion pills. For example, bills in Indiana and Tennessee would ban the mailing of abortion pills, while in Texas, selling abortion pills online could result in felony charges.
Furthermore, there are proposals in Indiana and Texas to classify abortion pills as controlled substances, a move that contradicts medical evidence but aligns with laws in Louisiana. In Wyoming, where abortion is legal until fetal viability, a bill has been put forth to mandate ultrasounds before administering abortion medication, going against common medical practices.
These restrictions could have significant implications for individuals seeking reproductive healthcare, as medications like mifepristone and misoprostol are not only used for abortions but also for treating miscarriages. The efforts to target medical providers assisting with medication abortions are also on the rise, with potential challenges to shield laws that protect these providers.
Outside of state legislatures, legal actions have been taken, such as Texas’ attorney general suing a physician from New York for providing abortion pills to a Texas resident. This case could have broader implications for telehealth provision in states with abortion restrictions, potentially leading to more legal challenges in the future.
Research is being conducted on the impact of medication abortion laws. While the focus of abortion opponents remains on medication and its availability through virtual prescriptions, legislators are exploring additional avenues to restrict access to abortion, especially for young individuals. In Mississippi, where almost all abortions are illegal, a proposed bill aims to prevent minors from obtaining abortion medication or being transported out of the state for an abortion without parental or guardian consent. Similarly, in New Hampshire, where abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, another bill targets minors by seeking to prohibit the transportation of a minor for an abortion without parental or guardian approval.
A bill in South Carolina goes further by attempting to outlaw nearly all abortions, eliminating exceptions for cases of rape and incest. This bill also makes it more challenging for minors to access abortions by removing the option of judicial bypass, which allows minors to obtain an abortion without parental consent.
In Missouri, a measure protecting abortion rights was approved by voters in November, with 51.6% in favor. However, lawmakers are now considering ways to weaken this protection, such as delaying implementation, reducing the level of protection it offers, or introducing a new constitutional amendment to overturn it. These efforts in Missouri could set a precedent for other states with anti-abortion agendas.
Lawmakers in Missouri are looking to reverse the decision to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution until fetal viability. Proposed amendments include banning abortion at six weeks and criminalizing the possession of abortion medication. There are discussions about redefining “fetal viability” to an earlier stage in pregnancy, although the timeline for this change is unspecified.
There are doubts about the legality of these proposed measures, and it remains uncertain whether Missouri’s state court system will allow them to be enforced. Since the potential overturn of Roe v. Wade, supporters of reproductive rights have turned to direct democracy, seeking to protect abortion through amendments to state constitutions or to repeal existing restrictions. While these efforts have succeeded in several states, they have faced challenges in others due to varying legislative processes.
Only four states that permit ballot measures—Arkansas, Idaho, North Dakota, and Oklahoma—have yet to vote on an abortion rights proposal. This report was produced by The 19th and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
Please rewrite the word “shed.”
