Use our account feature to register for a free CLI account. Your new account will allow you to bookmark and organize articles and research for easy reference later - making it simple to keep track of the research that's important to you!
Register / Sign in
close-panel

Charlotte Lozier Institute

Phone: 202-223-8073
Fax: 571-312-0544

2776 S. Arlington Mill Dr.
#803
Arlington, VA 22206

Get Notifications

Sign up to receive email updates from Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Become A Defender of Life

Your donation helps us continue to provide world-class research in defense of life.

DONATE

Charlotte Lozier Institute

Phone: 202-223-8073
Fax: 571-312-0544

2776 S. Arlington Mill Dr.
#803
Arlington, VA 22206

Life & the LawAbortion

Pro-Abortion States Accelerate Their Race to the Bottom

This is Issue 93 of the On Point Series. 

 

Legislators and governors in abortion-promoting states are forging new strategies in their war on unborn children. Most of these states protected and promoted abortion before 2017; however, following the confirmations of President Trump’s nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States,[1] and particularly after the Court granted review in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,[2] legislators rushed to repeal their states’ meager pro-life statutes and further solidify the special legal status afforded to abortion in their states through the enactment of radical abortion protection statutes.[3]

 

Since the decision in Dobbs on June 24, 2022, which brought Roe v. Wade’s demise, pro-abortion lawmakers have amplified their efforts. These states—clearly not satisfied with statutorily safeguarding an unfettered abortion industry within their borders—are now enshrining abortion on request in state constitutions; appropriating public funds to build and expand abortion centers, train abortionists, and pay for abortions; enacting superfluous legal protections for abortionists; and mandating private insurance coverage of abortion.

 

The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute recently published a paper outlining “eight ways state policymakers can protect and expand abortion” in their states. Most of the recommendations are predictable; strikingly, however, Guttmacher unapologetically advocates the repeal of any gestational restrictions on abortion. Elizabeth Nash and Isabel Guarnieri argue, “it is critical that people have access [to abortion] throughout pregnancy to protect bodily autonomy and ensure equity.” While the organization has long supported the right to abort unborn children through birth, the inclusion of this recommendation with the rest of their abortion-promoting agenda reveals how radical and out-of-step the abortion industry is with most Americans.

 

While pro-abortion legislators are always trying to repeal protections for unborn children, statutes and executive orders that protect abortionists from civil liability and criminal or professional sanctions are the latest trend in pro-abortion legislation. These “abortionist legal shields” were developed in response to the enactment of a law in Texas that permits private lawsuits against abortionists and similar legislation introduced in other states, as well as the decision in Dobbs. Abortion activists falsely claim that pro-life lawmakers want to prevent women from crossing state lines for abortions, and when women procure out-of-state abortions, prosecute the women, those who assist them, and their abortionists.[4]

 

In truth, the vast majority of pro-life lawmakers do not support efforts to prosecute women for seeking or having abortions in any state, and most state laws explicitly exclude the woman from criminal or civil liability. Further, after Dobbs, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland reassured pro-abortion Americans that under federal law, women can travel to obtain abortions where they are legal:

… today’s decision does not eliminate the ability of states to keep abortion legal within their borders. And the Constitution continues to restrict states’ authority to ban [abortion] provided outside their borders.

… under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to [abortion] must remain free to seek [abortion] in states where it is legal. Moreover, under fundamental First Amendment principles, individuals must remain free to inform and counsel each other about [abortion] that is available in other states.[5]

 

However, by generating anxiety that women in pro-life states will be prosecuted for seeking abortions or will lose their right to travel, pro-abortion lawmakers are masking the fundamental purpose of abortionist legal shield laws: attracting abortionists and business to their states.[6]

 

On Point 48 examined the new or expanded radical abortion protection statutes enacted in 2019 and 2020 in Illinois, Maine, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.[7] Subsequently, On Point 82 reviewed new or expanded radical pro-abortion laws enacted in 2022 in Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Washington State, as well as the appropriation of millions of dollars in New York to expand the state’s capacity for abortion.

 

This paper reviews laws enacted and executive actions issued in the wake of the Dobbs decision in the 19 abortion protection states (states that have broad abortion protection statutes and/or state constitutional amendments that enshrine abortion): California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

 

California

 

California has long been an abortion-friendly state. In 2002 California enacted an abortion protection statute which provides that “[t]he state may not deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose or obtain an abortion prior to the viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health [undefined] of the woman.”[8] The term “health,” when left undefined in the abortion context, has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to include virtually any justification for abortion.[9] California also requires private insurance coverage of abortion.

 

The California Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the state’s constitution protects a right to abortion.[10] In American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, the court held that “the protection afforded by the California Constitution of a pregnant woman’s right of choice is broader than the constitutional protection afforded by the federal Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.”[11] California is also required by court order to pay for abortions through the state’s public assistance program.[12]

 

California’s lawmakers apparently view the state’s extensive legislative and judicial history of protecting and promoting abortion as insufficient because California enacted numerous pro-abortion statutes in 2022 and, most significantly, enshrined abortion in the state’s constitution.

 

The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section 1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section 7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection.[13]

 

In addition to enacting this constitutional amendment, California enacted abortionist legal shields:

  • State courts are prohibited from applying out-of-state laws that impose civil liability for involvement with abortions that are legal in California. Further, the courts are forbidden from enforcing a civil judgment that results from this type of action.[14]
  • Women may now bring civil actions if any state or local law or public official interferes with abortion rights.[15]
  • California amended its penal code to prohibit ex parte orders and search warrants related to investigations of abortions legal in California.
  • The law also prohibits California corporations from cooperating with out-of-state investigations into abortions legal in the state.
  • The law sets bail at $0 for anyone arrested in connection with a legal abortion. Further, the penal code prohibits the arrest of a person for any involvement in a legal abortion and prohibits the cooperation of state or local agencies or officials with other states or the federal government when they are seeking information about abortions lawful in California and performed there.[16]

 

In 2019, California enacted a law requiring every student health care services clinic on a California State University or University of California campus to offer chemical abortion. The law went into effect in January 2023. Further, California has dramatically expanded financial support for abortion and abortionists. The state’s budget includes $200 million for “reproductive health care,” with $110 million specifically directed to “abortion services and infrastructure.” This financing includes $20 million for an “Abortion Practical Support Fund” that gives grants to state residents and out-of-state women for abortions.[17]

 

With the enactment of its new constitutional amendment, abortionist legal protections, and expansive abortion funding, California may have edged out Oregon and Washington to be the West Coast abortion capital.

 

Colorado

 

In early 2022, Colorado enacted the “Reproductive Health Equity Act” (discussed in On Point 82) which is one of the broadest abortion protection statutes in the nation and was written with no pretense of protecting unborn children at any gestation. In fact, the law explicitly states that “[a] fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent or derivative rights under the laws of this state.”

 

While Governor Polis stated that the law would “preserve Coloradans’ right to [abortion],” his subsequent actions are clearly intended to attract out-of-state business as well. Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, Governor Polis issued an executive order stating that “[n]o one who is lawfully providing, assisting, seeking, or obtaining [abortion] in Colorado should be subject to legal liability or professional sanctions in Colorado or any other state, nor will Colorado cooperate with criminal or civil investigations for actions that are fully legal in our State.”[18]

 

Specifically, Governor Polis’s order included the following abortionist legal shields:

  • Unless pursuant to a court order, Colorado’s agencies and departments are prohibited from cooperating with proceedings in another state to impose “criminal or civil liability or professional sanction upon a person or entity” for involvement with abortions that are legal in Colorado.
  • Agencies and departments are directed to work together to facilitate abortions.
  • The state’s Department of Regulatory Agencies must work with licensing boards to ensure that no one involved with abortions is professionally sanctioned for involvement with abortions that are legal in Colorado, even when sanctioned in another state.
  • The Governor will not assist an arrest, surrender, or extradition to another state of an individual for involvement with an abortion that is legal in Colorado.

 

Under Governor Polis’s leadership, the Centennial State has established itself as the abortion sanctuary for the Rocky Mountains.

 

Connecticut

 

Connecticut enacted an abortion protection statute in 1990 that provides: “The decision to terminate a pregnancy prior to the viability of the fetus shall be solely that of the pregnant woman in consultation with her physician.”[19] While the state purports to limit abortion after viability, the law includes an undefined health exception. The term “health,” when left undefined in the abortion context, has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to include virtually any justification for abortion.[20] As an early adopter of a broad abortion protection statute, it is not surprising that Connecticut was the first state to enact abortionist legal shields (see On Point 82). Like many of the states that have followed, Connecticut’s law provides:

  • Anyone who is sued for involvement with an abortion that is legal in Connecticut, where some aspect of the involvement took place in Connecticut, can countersue in Connecticut courts.
  • Healthcare providers and insurance companies cannot disclose information about a woman’s abortion.
  • State agencies and employees are not permitted to cooperate with out-of-state investigations of abortions that would be legal in Connecticut.
  • Judicial officials cannot issue subpoenas or summons requested by other states relating to investigations of abortions legal in Connecticut.
  • The Governor may not surrender, on demand of the executive authority of another state, a person found in Connecticut who is charged in connection with an abortion that would be legal in Connecticut.

 

As the test state for broad abortionist legal shields, the Constitution State ironically continues to ensure that defenseless unborn children have no constitutional rights.

 

Delaware

 

Delaware enacted its abortion protection statute in 2017. The law provides that a “physician may terminate, assist in the termination of, or attempt the termination of a human pregnancy before viability.”[21] State abortion limitations after viability are subject to a “health” exception which, when left undefined in the abortion context, has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to include virtually any justification for abortion.[22]

 

In June 2022, Delaware enacted a law with abortionist legal shields.[23] The law provides:

  • “Unprofessional conduct” does not include, for purposes of professional discipline of healthcare providers, the provision of [abortion] that is lawful in Delaware even if performed on someone who resides in a state where the practice is illegal.
  • Healthcare providers cannot disclose information about a person’s abortion in a civil lawsuit.
  • Delaware courts cannot apply a law from another state that prohibits involvement with abortion, issue a summons in a case where prosecution is pending, or issue or enforce a subpoena issued by another state in a civil case, unless the abortion would be illegal under Delaware’s law.
  • Anyone in Delaware who is sued for involvement with abortion can countersue in Delaware courts if their abortion-related activities are legal in Delaware.
  • The Governor may not surrender, on demand of the executive authority of another state, a person found in Delaware who is charged in connection with an abortion that would be legal in Delaware.
  • Insurance issuers cannot take adverse actions against health care providers who perform abortions on out-of-state patients, including prescribing abortion-inducing drugs through telehealth.

 

Delaware’s new law also expands the practitioners who may perform abortions to include physician assistants, certified nurse midwives, and certified nurse practitioners. Like its New England neighbors, The First State continues to eviscerate state protections for unborn children and their mothers.

 

Hawaii

 

Hawaii has an abortion protection statute which provides that “[t]he State shall not deny or interfere with a female’s right to choose or obtain an abortion of a nonviable fetus or an abortion that is necessary to protect the life or health of the female.”[24] There are no explicit protections for unborn children after viability; further, even if such protection is implied by this statute, the statute contains a health exception (“The State shall not deny or interfere with a female’s right to choose or obtain an abortion of a nonviable fetus or an abortion that is necessary to protect the life or health of the female”). The term “health” has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to include virtually any justification for abortion.[25] Hawaii also pays for abortions through the state’s public assistance program.

 

On October 11, 2022, Governor David Ige signed an executive order with the following abortionist legal shields:[26]

  • Executive departments and agencies are prohibited from providing information, including medical records, or expending state resources to assist an investigation initiated by another state seeking to impose civil liability and criminal or professional sanctions upon someone for involvement with [an abortion] that is legal and performed or provided in Hawaii.
  • The Governor will not arrest or surrender someone charged with a crime related to abortion in another state when the abortion is legal in Hawaii unless the crime was committed while in the other state and the perpetrator then fled.
  • The state must work with professional licensing boards to ensure that no one is subject to professional discipline for their involvement with an abortion that is legal in Hawaii, even if such discipline has been exercised in another state.

 

While it seems improbable that many women are going to travel from other states to Hawaii to obtain an abortion, former Governor Ige appeared determined to show that the Aloha State is in lockstep with other abortion sanctuaries.

 

Illinois

 

In January 2023, Illinois further expanded its draconian 2019 abortion protection law[27] (discussed in On Point 48) to solidify Illinois’s status as the abortion headquarters of the Midwest. The new provisions provide abortionist legal shields:[28]

  • Healthcare providers are not required to report to law enforcement abortions that are lawful under Illinois law but are illegal under another state’s law.
  • Healthcare providers and pharmacists who participate in abortions that are legal in Illinois are protected from civil liability and criminal or professional sanctions even if the providers are penalized for performing the abortions in another state.
  • No Illinois courts may issue subpoenas based on out-of-state subpoenas related to abortions performed legally in Illinois.
  • The governor is prohibited from surrendering a person to another jurisdiction for abortion-related activities that are legal in Illinois.

 

The amended law mandates that all insurance plans cover abortion-inducing drugs, even without proof of pregnancy, and clarifies that advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants can perform abortions. Notably, in a transparent effort to attract those abortionists losing their paychecks in states that protect unborn children and their mothers, the new law expedites temporary licenses for abortionists who wish to practice in Illinois. This white glove treatment—coupled with requiring the state Department of Public Health to partner with pro-abortion organizations to pay for abortion training and permitting the performance of abortions in “birth” centers—elevates abortion into a bona-fide industry in the Prairie State.

 

According to a press release from Governor Pritzker’s office, “Illinois sees over 10,000 patients a year from other states for abortion [], and that number has increased dramatically since June of 2022.” Undoubtedly and tragically, that number will continue to grow. Meanwhile, Governor Pritzker is ensuring that more funding is used to abort Illinois babies as well, with a 20% increase in the reimbursement rate for abortions through the state Medicaid program.[29]

 

Maine

 

Maine’s abortion protection statute provides: “It is the public policy of the State that the State not restrict a woman’s exercise of her private decision to terminate a pregnancy before viability.…After viability an abortion may be performed only when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”[30] The term “health” is not defined and has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to include virtually any justification for abortion.[31] Maine also mandates private insurance coverage of abortion in plans that cover maternity care[32] and requires the funding of “abortion services that are not federally approved Medicaid services” with existing state resources.[33]

 

On July 5, 2022, Governor Janet Mills issued Executive Order 4, which includes the following abortionist legal shields:

  • Except when required by a legitimate court order, no state agency or employee may cooperate with an investigation initiated by another state that seeks to impose civil liability and criminal or professional sanctions upon a person or entity for involvement with an abortion that is legal in Maine.
  • The State’s Cabinet is required to examine the state’s laws and regulations for barriers to abortion access and exercise discretionary authority to remove those barriers; provide “accurate” information on abortion access to the public; communicate with Maine abortionists about Maine policy and how other states’ laws may impact their business; and consider legislation or other measures to remove the last vestiges of protections for unborn children and their mothers in the state.
  • The Governor will not, at the request of another state, permit the arrest or surrender of a person for involvement with an abortion legal in Maine.

 

Perhaps the Pine Tree State is trying to compete with Vermont to attract business from New Hampshire—the lone New England state that has not enacted a broad abortion protection statute.

 

Maryland

 

In 1991, Maryland enacted an abortion protection statute which provides: “the State may not interfere with the decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy (1) Before the fetus is viable; or (2) At any time during the woman’s pregnancy, if: (i) The termination procedure is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or (ii) The fetus is affected by genetic defect or serious deformity or abnormality.”[34] The term “health” is not defined and has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to include virtually any justification for abortion.[35]

 

By overriding Governor Larry Hogan’s veto, in 2022 the Maryland legislature enhanced its abortion protection statute, permitting nonphysicians to perform abortions. The new law also mandates public funding for abortion, requires private insurance plans to cover abortion, and establishes a $3.5 million/year “abortion care clinical training program” (See discussion in On Point 82).

 

Governor Hogan held back the abortionist training funds; however, on his first day in office, Governor Wes Moore released the $3.5 million. Governor Moore bragged: “Maryland has some of the strongest laws in the nation to protect and preserve women’s [abortion] rights. … [O]ur values as a state and as a people require us to do more, especially for women and families in states where safe access to [abortion] has been denied.” In other words, the Governor is transparently attracting abortion business to his state.

 

However, providing expansive funding for abortion training and statutory protections for abortion are not enough for the Old Line State. The State’s legislature is now considering several bills to elevate Maryland’s status as the mid-Atlantic abortion hub. The most prominent is HB 705, a state constitutional amendment. If the amendment is agreed to by three-fifths of the state legislators, it will be placed on the 2024 Maryland general election ballot. The amendment provides:

That every person, as a central component of an individual’s rights to liberty and equality, has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one’s own pregnancy. The State may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.

 

The Maryland legislature is also considering HB 477, which will require all publicly funded higher education institutions to develop and implement plans to provide abortions or refer for off-campus abortion. House bills 786 and 808 would create abortionist legal shields. SB 786 limits the disclosure of information about abortionists when their activities are legal in Maryland. HB 808 includes the following legal shields:

  • A judge may not order a person within Maryland to cooperate with a criminal investigation in another state concerning abortion activities that occurred in and were legal in Maryland.
  • A subpoena for an out-of-state legal proceeding must include a statement that the subpoena is not to further an investigation or proceeding related to an abortion legal in Maryland.
  • A judge may not issue an ex parte order authorizing interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications to recover evidence related to an abortion legal in Maryland.
  • Judgment creditors cannot collect in Maryland if an out-of-state judgment was issued in a case related to abortion legal in Maryland (unless the plaintiff is a person who had an abortion, and a similar claim exists in Maryland).
  • Unless required by a writ of mandamus from a federal court, the governor may not surrender a person on demand of another state if the demand relates to involvement with an abortion legal in Maryland.
  • Abortionists are protected from professional discipline for involvement with abortions legal in Maryland, even if the abortionist was sanctioned in another state.
  • Issuers of medical professional liability insurance cannot penalize an insured practitioner for the provision of abortion.
  • No state agency or employee may cooperate with an investigation initiated by another state that seeks to impose civil liability and criminal or professional sanctions upon a person or entity for involvement with an abortion that is legal in Maryland.

 

Governor Hogan held back efforts in his state to further elevate the abortion industry’s protected status. Those restraints are now gone, and Governor Moore has not seen a proposal to promote abortion that he does not love.

 

Massachusetts

 

In 2022, Massachusetts doubled down on its favorable treatment of the abortion industry. On Point 82 examined the state’s draconian abortion protection law that was enacted in 2020. Not to be outdone by any other state, however, on July 29, 2022, Governor Charlie Baker signed “An Act Expanding Protections for Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Care,” which includes abortionist liability shields and other provisions. The law:

  • Establishes a cause of action that a person in Massachusetts may bring against anyone who brings a civil suit against them for involvement with an abortion legal in Massachusetts. The defendant may also move to quash any subpoena issued in connection with the case.
  • Requires publicly funded colleges to have “medication abortion readiness plans” for students. The Department of Public Health must provide guidance to the institutions about the required content of the plans, including “directly providing medication abortions to students in a health center, providing referrals for abortion care services not provided in the health center or providing information to students about obtaining a medication abortion.” The law also established a “Public University Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund for the purpose of medication abortion readiness.”
  • Prohibits insurance plans, all of which must cover abortion (including MassHealth), from requiring cost-sharing for abortion unless required by federal law.
  • Shields abortionists from professional sanctions for involvement with abortions lawful in Massachusetts, even if they were sanctioned in another state.
  • Clarifies that justifications for abortions after 24 weeks include “a grave fetal diagnosis that indicates that the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside of the uterus without extraordinary medical interventions.”
  • Explains that any decision to permit abortion after 24 weeks’ (for life, physical or mental health, because of a “lethal fetal anomaly or diagnosis,” or because of a “grave fetal diagnosis”) is not subject to a “medical review process”—the unquestioned decision rests with the “treating physician” (e., abortionist), and a patient or proxy.
  • Prohibits state law enforcement from cooperating with federal law enforcement or law enforcement from another state in an investigation into abortions that are legal in Massachusetts.
  • Prohibits medical malpractice insurers from discriminating against a provider because the provider offers abortions that are legal in Massachusetts.
  • Except as required by federal law, prohibits a judgment creditor from filing a foreign judgment in Massachusetts if the judgment relates to a legal abortion. Further, the state cannot give any effect to any judgment issued in such a case.
  • States that a court cannot order a person in Massachusetts to testify in a case related to an abortion legal in Massachusetts.
  • Except when required by federal law, provides that no court may issue a summons in a case involving an abortion that is legal in the state.
  • Prohibits the Governor from surrendering an individual to another state for involvement with an abortion that is legal in Massachusetts unless the person committed the crime in the demanding state and then fled.[36]

 

This robust enhancement to Massachusetts’ already draconian abortion protection statute leaves no question that abortionists have a home in the Bay State.

 

Michigan

 

Governor Gretchen Whitmer and other lawmakers in Michigan are vying for their share of abortion business in the Midwest and, tragically, their constituents sometimes support their efforts. On November, 8, 2022, a majority of voters in Michigan enshrined abortion protections in the state’s constitution through Proposal 3:

Article I, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom

  • Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including … abortion … An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that … is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.
  • The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.
  • The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.
  • For the purposes of this section: A state interest is “compelling” only if it is for the limited purpose of protecting the health of an individual seeking care … and does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making. “Fetal viability” means: the point in pregnancy when … there is significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures….

 

Michigan presently has many life-affirming laws that impact abortion, including: informed consent and reflection requirements; a mandatory offer to view an ultrasound; a written parental consent requirement; public funding and insurance coverage restrictions; abortion facility health and safety standards; a requirement that only licensed physicians perform abortions; and recognition of unborn children as victims of violent acts committed against their mothers.

 

However, under Proposal 3, Michigan’s interest in protecting unborn children is not “compelling,” subjecting all the state’s life-affirming laws to potential court challenges. Also, while proponents of the amendment claimed that its enactment would only invalidate the state’s pre-Roe abortion ban, at least one state legislator in Michigan is openly discussing plans to “codify” Proposal 3 and repeal additional state laws that conflict with it. Further, because the amendment’s required health exception to any restrictions on post-viability abortions can be broadly interpreted, Proposal 3 likely guarantees a nearly unfettered right to abortion in Michigan throughout pregnancy.[37]

 

Governor Whitmer is wasting no time in enforcing abortion’s new special status in the state. In a December 2022 executive directive to State Department Directors and Autonomous Agency Heads, she directed departments and agencies to, among other things, “identify any laws, regulations, policies, or practices within their jurisdiction, if any, that conflict with the constitutional right to reproductive freedom and work with the Department of the Attorney General to address those conflicts. In so doing, departments and agencies must respect the Michigan Constitution’s provision that only a compelling state interest may justify infringement on the protected right and that any such infringement must be achieved by the least restrictive means necessary.”[38]

 

Governor Whitmer’s order also includes abortionist legal shields: “Departments and agencies with enforcement responsibilities must …  continue to decline to cooperate with or assist the authorities of the United States, any state, or any political subdivision of any state in any investigation or proceeding against an individual for obtaining or providing, or assisting another to obtain or provide, any reproductive health care that is legal under the law of the jurisdiction where the care was provided.”[39]

 

Governor Whitmer loves abortion so much, that she used her line-item veto to cut approximately $20 million in the state’s budget that would have supported adoption, pregnant women, and life-affirming pregnancy care centers. Under her leadership, a state with laws that respect life is quickly turning into an abortion destination.

 

Minnesota

 

Pro-life Minnesotans have struggled to enact and enforce pro-life laws since 1995 when the Minnesota Supreme Court held that “the right of privacy under the Minnesota Constitution encompasses a woman’s right to decide to terminate her pregnancy.”[40] Further, the Court held that the Minnesota Constitution provides “more protection” for abortion rights “than that afforded under the federal constitution.”[41] Minnesota is also required by court order to pay for abortions through the state’s public assistance program.[42]

 

Tragically, in January 2023 the Minnesota legislature enacted and Governor Tim Walz signed HF 1, a draconian abortion protection law[43] that Gov. Walz described as a “firewall” against pro-life efforts. The law provides, in pertinent part:

Subdivision 1. Short title. This section may be cited as the “Protect Reproductive Options Act.”

Subd. 2. Definition. For purposes of this section, “reproductive health care” means health care offered, arranged, or furnished for the purpose of … terminating a pregnancy, … Reproductive health care includes, but is not limited to, … abortion care….

Subd. 3. Reproductive freedom. (a) Every individual has a fundamental right to make autonomous decisions about the individual’s own reproductive health, including the fundamental right to use or refuse reproductive health care.

(b) Every individual who becomes pregnant has a fundamental right to … obtain an abortion, and to make autonomous decisions about how to exercise this fundamental right.

Subd. 4. Right to reproductive freedom recognized. The Minnesota Constitution establishes the principles of individual liberty, personal privacy, and equality. Such principles ensure the fundamental right to reproductive freedom.

Subd. 5. Local unit of government limitation. A local unit of government may not regulate an individual’s ability to freely exercise the fundamental rights set forth in this section in a manner that is more restrictive than that set forth in this section.

 

This radical law will compound the difficulty faced by pro-life lawmakers seeking to protect unborn children and their mothers in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. In the wake of Dobbs and before the enactment of HF 1, Governor Walz signed an Emergency Executive Order[44] that contains abortionist legal shields:

  • “All state agencies must … pursue opportunities and coordinate with each other to protect people or entities who are providing, assisting, seeking, or obtaining lawful [abortion] in Minnesota.”
  • Except as required by court order, or by Minnesota or federal law, no state agency can expend resources to assist an investigation that seeks to impose civil liability or criminal or professional sanctions for involvement with an abortion legal in Minnesota.
  • Governor Walz vowed to “exercise [his] discretion to decline requests for the arrest or surrender of any person charged with a criminal violation of a law of another state where the violation alleged involves the provision of, assistance with, securing of, or receipt of [abortion], unless the acts forming the basis of the prosecution of the crime charged would also constitute a criminal offense under Minnesota law.”

 

Like Michigan, Minnesota has taken the tragic turn towards welcoming the abortion industry to the detriment of unborn children and their mothers.

 

Nevada

 

Nevada passed a ballot initiative in 1990 establishing an abortion protection statute that permits abortion for any reason through 24 weeks of pregnancy. After 24 weeks, abortions may be performed if “the physician has reasonable cause to believe that an abortion currently is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”[45] The term “health” has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to include virtually any justification for abortion.[46] Because Nevada’s abortion law was submitted to and approved by referendum, it is not subject to legislative amendment and would have to be repealed on the ballot.

 

Then-Governor Steve Sisolak issued Executive Order 2022-08 on June 28, 2022, establishing abortionist legal shields. These include:

  • Except when required by a legitimate court order, no state agency or employee may cooperate with an investigation initiated in or by another state that seeks to impose civil liability and criminal or professional sanctions upon a person or entity for involvement with an abortion that is legal in Nevada.
  • Licensing agencies are required to ensure that no one is subject to professional discipline for involvement with an abortion that is legal in Nevada, even if the person was sanctioned in another state. The boards are also encouraged to consider licensing reciprocity to abortionists in other states so that Nevada may increase capacity to abort children.
  • The Governor will decline any request from another state to arrest or surrender a person for a criminal violation in the other state if the violation is related to involvement with an abortion that is legal in Nevada, unless the person was in the other state at the time of the crime and fled to Nevada.

 

Nevada is considering a hook to attract abortionists like that used by Illinois; rather than expediting temporary licenses, however, Nevada will simply adopt license reciprocity. Again, this is a transparent and tragic effort to pander to and expand the abortion industry.

 

New Jersey

 

In New Jersey, both courts and elected officials have long celebrated abortion as a protected right. The New Jersey Supreme Court has repeatedly found a greater right to abortion in the New Jersey Constitution than the right declared in Roe v. Wade,[47] courts have mandated public funding for abortion, and in 2022 New Jersey enacted a draconian abortion protection law (discussed in On Point 82).[48] Since the enactment of this law, which expressly invalidates any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or order that conflicts with the new statute, New Jersey has enacted abortionist legal shields:

  • State officials are prohibited from assisting “any interstate investigation or proceeding seeking to impose civil or criminal liability upon a person or entity” for activities related to abortions that are legal in New Jersey;[49]
  • The governor may not surrender an individual to a state that wishes to prosecute that individual for abortion-related activities that are legal in New Jersey and did not occur in the state seeking surrender.[50]

 

Further, in the wake of Dobbs, New Jersey’s budget included $45 million to “upgrade security at family planning facilities — including those that offer [abortion] — and expand access to a host of reproductive services.”[51] The funds “could be used for additional security measures, to fund services for those without insurance and to pay for transportation, hotel rooms, child care and other uncovered services that can be prohibitively costly to patients.”[52]

 

New Jersey is ensuring that abortionists have not forgotten that favorable treatment is always available in the Garden State.

 

New Mexico

 

Abortion is legal in New Mexico throughout pregnancy. On March 16, 2023, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a broad abortion protection statute. The Act provides that “[a] public body or an entity or individual acting on behalf of or within the scope of the authority of a public body shall not

  • discriminate against a person based on that person’s use of or refusal to use [abortion]…
  • deny, restrict or interfere with a person’s ability to access or provide [abortion]…
  • deprive, through prosecution, punishment or other means, a person’s ability to act or refrain from acting during the person’s pregnancy based on the potential, actual or perceived effect on the pregnancy…
  • impose or continue in effect any law, ordinance, policy or regulation that violates or conflicts with the provisions of [this Act].”

 

The act also includes provisions that permit the attorney general or a district attorney to bring a civil action against public bodies or entities that violate the law, and permit individuals aggrieved by alleged violations to maintain a civil action. New Mexico also pays for abortions through the state’s public assistance program.[53]

 

This tragic event followed the New Mexico legislature’s 2021 decision to repeal the state’s pre-Roe ban.[54] Further, Governor Grisham issued Executive Orders on June 27, 2022 and August 31, 2022 that reiterate her commitment to abortion.

 

In Executive Order 2022-107, Governor Grisham included the following abortionist legal shield provisions:

  • Except when required by a legitimate court order, no state agency or employee may cooperate with an investigation initiated by another state that seeks to impose civil liability and criminal or professional sanctions upon a person or entity for involvement with an abortion that is legal in New Mexico.
  • The State is directed to work with licensing boards to ensure that no one is subject to professional sanctions for involvement with an abortion legal in New Mexico, even if they are sanctioned in another state.
  • The Governor will not, at the request of another state, issue any warrant for the arrest or surrender of a person for involvement with an abortion legal in New Mexico, unless the crime was committed while in the other state and the perpetrator then fled.[55]

 

In Executive Order 2022-123, Governor Grisham pledged $10 million to build an abortion clinic in Dona Ana County, which borders Texas, a state that protects unborn children and their mothers. Along with this transparent effort to attract abortion business from the Lone Star State (pro-life laws “may lead more individuals to seek services from New Mexico health care providers”), the EO directs the Department of Health to develop a detailed plan “to leverage State resources to expand access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion, in underserved areas of the State; assess the feasibility of the provision of medication abortion in public health clinics overseen by the Department; and review and evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken or being considered by other states to increase access to abortion and decrease wait times.” Further, “[t]he Human Services Department shall … develop policies and take action to improve the efficiency and sustainability of access to reproductive health services.”[56]

 

With the enactment of New Mexico’s draconian abortion protection bill, there is no question that lawmakers in the Land of Enchantment intend to make their state the Land of Regret for many women from other states.

 

New York

 

On Point 82 contains an extensive discussion of Governor Kathy Hochul’s destructive campaign to make New York, which enacted a draconian abortion protection statute in 2019, the most dangerous state for unborn children and their mothers. Tragically, New York legislators continue to facilitate their governor’s plans. Most recently, New York enacted abortionist legal shields that:

  • Explicitly prohibit the extradition of abortionists for alleged crimes that did not occur in the demanding state;
  • Forbid state and local law enforcement agencies from cooperating with or providing information to out-of-state agencies investigating abortions lawfully performed in New York, and court and county clerks from issuing subpoenas in connection with such proceedings;
  • Prohibit the arrest of any person involved with an abortion that complies with New York law;[57]
  • Prohibit medical malpractice insurance companies from taking adverse actions against abortionists;[58]
  • Prohibit misconduct charges against abortionists who perform abortions on women from states where the abortion performed would be illegal;[59]
  • Establish a cause of action that may be brought by anyone who has criminal charges or a lawsuit brought against them because of their participation in an abortion.[60]

 

The New York legislature is ensuring that the Empire State does not lose abortion business to its neighbors.

 

Oregon

 

Oregon’s abortion protection statute provides that a public body or an officer, employee, or agent of a public body may not: “(1) Deprive a consenting individual of the choice of terminating the individual’s pregnancy; (2) Interfere with or restrict, in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services or information, the choice of a consenting individual to terminate the individual’s pregnancy; (3) Prohibit a health care provider, who is acting within the scope of the health care provider’s license, from terminating or assisting in the termination of a patient’s pregnancy; or (4) Interfere with or restrict, in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services or information, the choice of a health care provider, who is acting within the scope of the health care provider’s license, to terminate or assist in the termination of a patient’s pregnancy.”[61] Oregon also pays for abortions through its medical assistance program[62] and requires private insurance plans to cover abortion.[63}

 

In March 2022, Oregon established the Oregon Reproductive Health Equity Fund and approved $15 million to fund it in Oregon’s final budget.[64] This funding is “to address gaps in Oregon’s reproductive healthcare infrastructure and expand access for [the state’s] most vulnerable populations.” Oregon’s lawmakers are clear that the fund will pay for abortions for out-of-state women.

 

Oregon’s Democrats brag that Oregon “does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions … often found in other states.”[65] They are right—Oregon is one of the few states that does not even pretend to limit abortions at any gestational age. The Beaver State unapologetically permits, promotes, and pays for abortions through birth.

 

Rhode Island

 

In 2019, Rhode Island enacted the “Reproductive Privacy Act,” an abortion protection statute which provides that “[n]either the state, nor any of its agencies, or political subdivisions shall: (1) Restrict an individual person from preventing, commencing, continuing, or terminating that individual’s pregnancy prior to fetal viability; … (3) Restrict an individual person from terminating that individual’s pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to preserve the health or life of that individual.”[66] The term “health” has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to include virtually any justification for abortion.[67] See discussion in On Point 48.

 

On July 5, 2022, Governor Daniel J. McKee established abortionist legal shields through Executive Order No. 22-28:

  • Except when required by a legitimate court order, no state agency or employee may cooperate with an investigation initiated by another state that seeks to impose civil liability and criminal or professional sanctions upon a person or entity for involvement with an abortion that is legal in Rhode Island.
  • The Governor will not, at the request of another state, permit the arrest or surrender of a person for involvement with an abortion legal in Rhode Island, unless the crime was committed while in the other state and the perpetrator then fled.
  • Abortionists are protected from professional discipline for involvement with abortions legal in Rhode Island, even if the abortionist was sanctioned in another state.[68]

 

Rhode Island was one of the last states among its neighbors to eviscerate nearly all protections for unborn children and their mothers. However, the Ocean State is now fully committed to growing and supporting the abortion industry.

 

Vermont

 

Vermont enacted an abortion protection statute in 2019, which provided that public entities  “shall not … deny or interfere with an individual’s fundamental rights to … obtain an abortion [and]  (b) No State or local law enforcement shall prosecute any individual for inducing, performing, or attempting to induce or perform the individual’s own abortion”[69] (See discussion in On Point 48). However, lawmakers did not consider this extreme law sufficient to ensure that abortion is protected in the Green Mountain State and, tragically, the vast majority of voters agreed.

 

On November 8, 2022, Vermont’s voters approved Proposal 5, the Right to Personal Reproductive Liberty Amendment, which provides “an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” While the word abortion is not included in this text, Governor Phil Scott stated:

A few years ago we passed a law affirming that reproductive health decisions are between a patient and their doctor without government interference. In November Vermonters will have the ability to codify that right in our state Constitution when Prop 5 is on the ballot. So at the end of the day the fundamental rights and liberties of all women will be defended, protected and preserved here in Vermont.

 

Not to be outdone by other abortion industry states, the Vermont legislature is also considering abortionist legal shield legislation during the 2023 legislative session.

 

Washington

 

In 1991 through a ballot initiative, Washington enacted a draconian abortion protection statute which was updated in 2022. The current language provides that, subject to very few restrictions: “[e]very pregnant individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse to have an abortion;” “the state shall not deny or interfere with a pregnant individual’s fundamental right to choose or refuse to have an abortion;” and “[t]he state shall not discriminate against the exercise of these rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.”[70] Washington also pays for abortions through the state’s public assistance program,[71] and requires private insurance plans that cover maternity care to cover abortion.[72]

 

On June 9, 2022, Washington enacted a law to explicitly permit physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, or other healthcare providers to perform abortions.[73] Further, in Directive 22-12, Governor Jay Inslee established the following abortionist legal shields:

  • Washington law enforcement may not cooperate with any out-of-state law enforcement agency, public entity, or private party if the matter concerns an abortion legal in Washington.
  • The Washington State Patrol must coordinate with the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Governor’s General Counsel to examine and document any requests for these types of investigations.

 

The directive also states that Washington has “jointly committed with California and Oregon to protect and serve those who enter our borders seeking lawful abortion services, and to adopt policies that expand those protections to address any existing gaps.”[74] The West Coast states stand in solidarity against the sanctity of human life.

 

Mary E. Harned, J.D. is an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute.


[1] Neil Gorsuch (Apr. 7, 2017), Brett Kavanaugh (Oct. 6, 2018), and Amy Coney Barrett (Oct. 26, 2020).

[2] No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (2022).

[3] See On Point 48; On Point 82. In at least 19 states and the District of Columbia lawmakers have written explicit protection for abortion into their state codes, ensuring that unborn children have virtually no protection at any stage of pregnancy. Many of these “abortion protection statutes” were enacted or broadened in the last few years, and this paper addresses the most recent enactments as well as other pro-abortion statutes and executive action.

[4] For brevity, this paper frequently refers to “abortionist legal shields” that immunize individuals for their “involvement with abortion.” The shields usually apply to women seeking abortion, anyone aiding a woman in obtaining an abortion, and abortionists.

[5] “Abortion” is substituted for “reproductive care” or “reproductive services,” to best reflect the purpose of the order.

[6] While most abortionist legal shield laws purport to protect providers of all “reproductive health care,” this paper focuses on the real purpose of the laws—to promote, grow, and shield the abortion industry. Clearly, legislators are not concerned that neighboring states will impose civil liability or criminal or professional sanctions on anyone for providing anything other than abortion. Therefore, where “reproductive health care” or “reproductive services” are written in statutes or executive orders, that language is substituted with “abortion.”

[7] The paper also discussed anti-life legislation in Virginia. However, Virginia has not enacted a broad abortion protection law.

[8] Cal. Health & Safety Code § 123466.

[9] See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).

[10] See People v. Belous, 458 P.2d 194 (Cal. 1969).

[11] 940 P.2d 797, 809-10 (Cal. 1997).

[12] Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers, 625 P.2d 779 (Cal. 1981).

[13] Sen. Const. Amend. No. 10, 2022, A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by adding Section 1.1 to Article I thereof, relating to fundamental rights, available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SCA10.

[14] Cal. Health & Safety Code § 123467.5 (Added by Stats. 2022, Ch. 42, Sec. 1. (AB 1666) Effective June 24, 2022).

[15] Cal. Health & Safety Code § 123469 (Added by Stats. 2022, Ch. 629, Sec. 9. (AB 2223) Effective January 1, 2023).

[16] An act to amend Sections 629.51, 629.52, 638.50, 638.52, 1269b, 1524, 1524.2, and 1551 of, and to add Sections 1546.5 and 13778.2 to, the Penal Code, relating to reproductive rights, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately (Added by Stats 2022 ch 627 (AB 1242), s 11, eff. 9/27/2022).

[17] See An act to amend the Budget Act of 2022 (Chs. 43 and 45, Stats. 2022) (A.B. 179).

[18] Colo. Exec. Order, No. D-2022-032 (Jul. 6, 2022).

[19] Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 19A-602(a).

[20] See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).

[21] 24 DE Code § 1790 (a).

[22] See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).

[23] HB No. 455, Laws of DE Vol. 83, Ch. 327, 151st Gen. Assembly (June 29, 2022).

[24] Haw. Rev. Stat. § 453-16 (c).

[25] See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).

[26] Haw. Exec. Order No. 22-05 (Oct. 11, 2022).

[27] Illinois also repealed its parental notification requirement in 2021, the last vestige of protections for unborn children and pregnant teenagers. Sara Burnett, “Illinois governor repeals law requiring parental notification of abortion,” Associated Press (Dec. 17, 2021), available at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/illinois-governor-repeals-parental-notification-of-abortion.

[28] Public Act 102-1117 (HB 4664, 103rd Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Il. 2023))

[29] ABC7 Chicago Digital Team, “Governor JB Pritzker announces increase in Medicaid reimbursement rates for abortions,”ABC7 (Aug. 4, 2022), available at https://abc7chicago.com/abortion-illinois-governor-jb-pritzker-law-rights/12098343/.

[30] 22 MRSA § 1598.

[31] See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).

[32] 24-A MRSA § 4320-M.

[33] 22 MRSA § 3196.

[34] Md. Health-General Code Ann. § 20-209.

[35] See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).

[36] Chapter 127 of the Acts of 2022.

[37] Robin Erb & Yue Stella Yu, “Abortion Locked into Michigan Constitution. What Comes Next,” Bridge Michigan (Nov. 9, 2022), available at https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-health-watch/abortion-locked-michigan-constitution-what-comes-next.

[38] Mich. Exec. Dir. No. 2022-13 (Dec. 14, 2022).

[39] Id. Governor Whitmer also issued an Executive Order on July 13, 2022 stating: “The Office of the Governor will decline to assist with or effectuate the extradition of persons to or from Michigan when the charged criminal conduct is the provision of, receipt of, securing of, or assistance with reproductive health-care services, including abortion.” Mich. Exec. Order No. 2022-4 (Jul. 13, 2022).

[40] Women of the State of Minnesota v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17, 27 (Minn. 1995).

[41] Id. at 30.

[42] Id. at 32.

[43] Minn. Stat. § 145.409, HF 1: Protect Reproductive Options Act, available at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF1&type=bill&version=0&session=ls93&session_year=2023&session_number=0)

[44] Minn. Exec. Order No. 22-16, “Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services in Minnesota” (June 25, 2022), available at https://mn.gov/governor/assets/EO%2022-16_tcm1055-532111.pdf.

[45] Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 442.250.

[46] See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).

[47] Right to Choose v. Byrne, 450 A.2d 925,941 (N.J. 1982).

[48] Pub. L. 2021, Ch. 375, 2020 NJ S.B. 49.

[49] N.J. Stat. § 2A:84A-22.19 (L. 2022, c. 51, s. 2, eff. 7/1/2022).

[50] N.J. Stat. § 2A:160-14.1 (L. 2022, c. 50, s. 1, eff. 7/1/2022).

[51] Lilo H. Stainton, “NJ to set aside $45M in family planning funding in wake of court’s Roe reversal,” NJ Spotlight News (June 30, 2022), available at https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2022/06/state-45-million-family-planning-funding-roe-reversal-abortion/.

[52] Id.

[53] The New Mexico Supreme Court has never explicitly found a right to abortion in the state constitution. However, the Court held that a restriction on public funding for abortion was a “gender-based classification that operates to the disadvantage of women and is therefore presumptively unconstitutional. In order to survive the heightened scrutiny [applied] to such classifications, the State must meet its burden of showing that [the law] is supported by a compelling justification.” (New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841, 856 (N.M. 1998)). Thus, the Court concluded that New Mexico must pay for abortions through the state’s public assistance program.

[54] N.M. STAT. ANN. § 30-5-1 through § 30-5-3; repealed by S.B. 10, 55th Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.M. 2021).

[55] N. M. Exec. Order No. 2022-107 (June 27, 2022).

[56] N.M. Exec. Order No. 2022-123 (Aug. 31, 2022).

[57] 9077—A, 2022 Leg. Reg. Sess. (Ny. 2022).

[58] 9080—B, 2022 Leg. Reg. Sess. (Ny. 2022).

[59] 9079, 2022 Leg. Reg. Sess. (Ny. 2022).

[60] 9039, 2022 Leg. Reg. Sess. (Ny. 2022).

[61] Or. Rev. Stat. § 659.880.

[62] OAR 410-130-0562.

[63] Or. Rev. Stat. § 743A.067(2)(g).

[64] H.B. 5202 (Or. 2022).

[65] Oregon House Democrats, “Fact Sheet: Actions to expand abortion access in Oregon,” available at https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/housedemocrats/Documents/FactSheet%20Abortion%20Access%20in%20Oregon.pdf.

[66] R.I. Gen. L. § 23-4.13.2.

[67] See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).

[68] R.I. Exec. Order, No. 22-28 (Jul. 5, 2022).

[69] 18 V.S.A. § 9494.

[70] Rev. Code Wash. § 9.02.100.

[71] Rev. Code Wash. § 9.02.160.

[72] Rev. Code Wash. § 48.43.073.

[73] Engrossed HB 1851 (Wa. 2022)

[74] Dir. of the Gov., No. 22-12 (Jun. 30. 2022).

Latest Posts

February 21, 2024 CLI Authors’ Responses to Sage Concerns and Retractions CLI Authors’ Responses to Sage Concerns and Retractions February 21, 2024 Lozier Institute Amicus Brief in Support of Ecuador Law Limiting Abortion Lozier Institute Amicus Brief in Support of Ecuador Law Limiting Abortion February 21, 2024 Public Comment: Lozier Institute on CDC’s Notice of Proposed Modifications to Assisted Reproductive Technology Program Reporting Public Comment: Lozier Institute on CDC’s Notice of Proposed Modifications to Assisted Reproductive Technology Program Reporting

You Might Also Be Interested In

Lozier Institute Amicus Brief in Support of Ecuador Law Limiting Abortion

Lozier Institute Amicus Brief in Support of Ecuador Law Limiting Abortion

charlotte-lozier-institute Charlotte Lozier Institute
February 21, 2024
ClosePlease login
Public Comment: Lozier Institute on CDC’s Notice of Proposed Modifications to Assisted Reproductive Technology Program Reporting

Public Comment: Lozier Institute on CDC’s Notice of Proposed Modifications to Assisted Reproductive Technology Program Reporting

charlotte-lozier-institute Charlotte Lozier Institute
February 21, 2024
ClosePlease login

Pro-Life Laws Exempt Women from Prosecution: An Analysis of Abortion Statutes in 27 States

January 10, 2024
ClosePlease login

Become A Defender of Life

Your donation helps us continue to provide
world-class research in defense of life.

BECOME A PARTNER
cta-image