Nearly five decades after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which legalized abortion in the United States within specified limits, a five-justice majority of the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1991), determining that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that the “people’s representatives” have the authority to regulate or prohibit abortions, meaning that the regulation of abortion has reverted to the individual states (see Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215, 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2243 (2022)).
A study published in January 2025 in Health Affairs found that among young adults aged 19 to 26, the number of women seeking permanent sterilization by tubal ligation or salpingectomy (removing the fallopian tubes altogether—an irreversible procedure) increased by 70 percent after May 2022—when a draft of the Dobbs decision leaked—in states considered likely to ban abortion. The study also found that vasectomies, a form of male birth control, nearly doubled but still were far less common than sterilizations of women.
Since the Dobbs decision and, more critically, since the outcome of the 2024 U.S. election, the airwaves have been continuously humming with the possibility of a Republican Congress enacting a nationwide abortion ban. Given each state’s broad authority to enact legislation on matters related to the health and welfare of its citizens and the limitation imposed by the Tenth Amendment that Congress may enact legislation only pursuant to its Constitutionally enumerated powers, Congress would face challenges to efforts to impose a nationwide ban.
That said, in January 2025, Senate Bill 6 was introduced, called the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” co-sponsored by 46 Republican Senators. This bill would establish requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
Specifically, a health care practitioner who is present would be required to (1) exercise the same degree of care as would reasonably be provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age and (2) ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital. Additionally, a health care practitioner or other employee who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the degree-of-care requirements would be required to immediately report such failure to law enforcement.
Under the bill, a health care practitioner who failed to provide the required degree of care, or a health care practitioner or other employee who failed to report such failure, would be subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
The text of the bill reads: “An individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.” (Apparently, these individuals are subject to prosecution for murder whether the attempt was successful or not.)
The bill would bar the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive and would allow her to bring a civil action against a health care practitioner or other employee for violations of the new law.
In addition, Congress always has ways of forcing the states to act as Congress wants rather than enjoying their own sovereign powers. Under the Spending Clause, Congress may influence state policy by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds. In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 US 203 (1987), for example, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s conditioning of its grant of a percentage of federal highway funds upon states’ prohibiting the purchase of alcohol by people under 21 years of age. If Congress wants to impact state and local laws on abortion (or other reproductive health services) through the Spending Clause, it could use conditional funding to encourage states to alter their laws to expand or restrict access to reproductive health services. On the other hand, Congress’s actions of this nature may be found to be unconstitutionally coercive (see National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 US. 519 (2012)).
Notably, research by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has shown that abortion restrictions are impacting the medical profession. Medical students are changing their choices about where to apply for internships and residencies, and new doctors are basing their decisions about where they practice on states’ abortion laws. This is but one example of the significant consequences of public policy decisions by state legislatures that often overlook and countermand the decisions that voters and patients might make if they retained the right to choose how they believe abortion should be regulated, if at all.
This article provides a survey of the abortion laws in place in the individual states. It will be updated in future issues of GPSolo eReport as the law develops.
July 1, 2025: Updates were added for Alabama, Louisiana, and New York.
Alabama has a total abortion ban, with no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. In 2019, Alabama passed a so-called “exception,” Ala. Code § 26-23H-4, which permits abortion to prevent a serious health risk to the mother. This exception is available only if the risk is confirmed by an attending physician licensed in Alabama and, in many instances, would require a second opinion.
Notably, in 2018—prior to the Dobbs decision—Alabama voters passed Ballot Amendment Two (later added as Article 1, Section 36.06 of the Alabama Constitution), which “acknowledges, declares, and affirms that it is the public policy of this state to ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate.”
In addition, on February 16, 2024, the Supreme Court of Alabama issued a decision in LePage v. Mobile Infirmary Clinic, Inc., SC-2022-0515 (Alabama 2024), in which the majority of the court concluded that frozen embryos are “persons” subject to the state’s wrongful death statute, a decision that paused in vitro fertilization (IVF) services across the state as a result of fears about legal risks until a subsequent law was passed providing civil and criminal immunity to providers and patients for the destruction or damage to embryos that may result from IVF procedures.
On a radio broadcast in 2022, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall explicitly threatened that anyone who assisted a pregnant Alabama woman to access legal, out-of-state abortion care could face felony charges. On July 31, 2023, a group of health care providers filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of Alabama against Marshall and a number of district attorneys in Alabama, hoping to ensure the right of Alabama health care providers to provide crucial information, counseling, and practical support—including funding—to Alabama residents who were seeking to exercise their constitutional right to travel and obtain legal abortion care outside Alabama.
On March 31, 2025, Judge Myron Thompson opined in West Alabama Women’s Center et al. v. Marshall et al., 2:23-cv-00450 (M.D. Ala. 2025):
At its core, this case is simply about whether a State may prevent people within its borders from going to another State, and from assisting others in going to another State, to engage in lawful conduct there. . . . The court now answers no, a State cannot.
Thus, providers in Alabama are free to provide assistance to persons seeking abortions in jurisdictions outside the state where abortion is legal.
Alaska’s constitution protects reproductive rights and public funding for abortion. In 1997, the state’s highest court recognized a fundamental right to “reproductive choice” under the Alaska Constitution (Valley Hosp. Ass’n, Inc. v. Mat-Su Coal. for Choice, 948 P.2d 966–69 (Alaska 1997)). The Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted the privacy provision found in the state’s constitution to protect a pregnant woman’s right to make reproductive decisions, including to have an abortion, as a fundamental right and to be more protective than the U.S. Constitution (see Planned Parenthood of the Great NW., 375 P.3d at 1129 (Alaska 2016) (“In 1997 we examined this express privacy provision in the context of pregnancy-related decisions and held that a woman’s fundamental privacy right to reproductive choice is more broadly protected by the Alaska Constitution than the United States Constitution”) (citing Valley Hosp. Ass’n)).
The Alaska Supreme Court has also found that limitations on public funding for abortion were unconstitutional under the state equal protection clause (State v. Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, 436 P.3d 984 (Alaska 2019) (invalidating Alaska Stat. § 47.07.068, which restricted Medicaid funding of abortion care, as violative of the state constitution’s equal protection clause); State, Dept. of Health & Soc. Servs. v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, Inc., 28 P.3d 904, 915 (Alaska 2001) (invalidating Alaska Admin. Code tit. 7, § 43.140 (repealed 2010) under the state constitution’s equal protection clause)).
After the Dobbs decision, Arizona repealed its pre-Roe abortion ban. On November 5, 2024, Arizona voters approved Proposition 139, which established a fundamental right to abortion under the Arizona Constitution. The constitutional amendment took effect on November 25, 2024. Arizonans now have a constitutional right to access abortion care.
Under the new constitutional provision, Arizonans can access abortion care at any time prior to fetal viability. After viability, Arizonans can access abortion care when necessary to preserve the life or physical or mental health of the mother based on the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional. The Arizona Constitution defines “fetal viability” as “the point in pregnancy when, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.” The new constitutional provision also prevents the government from imposing penalties on any person or group who helps a pregnant woman access lawful abortion care.
Arizona’s legislature has kept in place a variety of obstacles to accessing reproductive care. These include:
Finally, legislation was introduced in Arizona and other states in the last week of January 2025 that would require doctors who prescribe medication that induces abortion to force patients to collect and return their expelled fetuses in medical waste bags for disposal on the (false) theory that mifepristone is present in various U.S. water supplies. (According to multiple environmental health experts, including toxicologists and experts on emerging water contaminants, there is no evidence that mifepristone is present in the nation’s waterways at concerning levels.)
Abortion is banned in Arkansas. The only exception—one that is difficult to establish and therefore of limited value—is if continuing the pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother.
In November 2024, Arkansas voters defeated a constitutional amendment that would have allowed abortion when (1) a woman made an independent and informed choice whether to continue to carry a fetus if she was pregnant as a result of rape or incest; (2) if her unborn child suffered from a developmental anomaly that would unquestionably prevent its life outside her body under any circumstances; and/or (3) if the pregnant woman understands that her life is at risk if she continues to carry the fetus.
In 2022, California voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that specifically protects access to abortion and contraception. Under California law, anyone in California who is pregnant—regardless of whether or not she is a resident of California—has a legal right to choose to have an abortion before viability. A pregnancy becomes viable when a doctor determines that the fetus could live outside the uterus without extreme medical measures. Even past the stage of fetal viability, a woman may have an abortion in California at any time to protect her life or health.
On November 5, 2024, Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment establishing the right to abortion in the Constitution of Colorado and repealed a constitutional ban on public funding for abortions. The amendment passed by more than the required 55 percent supermajority of the voters. Colorado is one of ten states that permit abortions at any time, including after fetal viability. Parental notification or a judicial bypass is required if the person seeking an abortion in Colorado is under the age of 18.
Abortion is legal and available in Connecticut up to 24 weeks gestation (measured from the patient’s last menstrual period). The right to abortion has been codified in Connecticut state law since 1990. Dobbs had no impact on abortion rights in Connecticut. State law guarantees the right to abortion and other reproductive health care whether or not the person seeking such care is a Connecticut resident.
Delaware statutes protect reproductive rights in the state. Abortion is legal until viability (as determined by a medical professional) and must be covered by Medicaid and other health insurers in the state. After viability, however, Delaware law generally prohibits abortion, except that abortions are permitted at or after viability if the patient’s health or life is at risk or if there is a lethal fetal anomaly. Delaware law requires that a parent or legal guardian be notified prior to a minor’s abortion unless the minor obtains a judge’s permission to have the procedure.
Abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy in Washington, D.C., and is provided when patients and physicians, together, determine it is medically appropriate. Patients may consult with their doctors and make decisions that best protect their health and safety, even late in pregnancy. The patient does not have to be a D.C. resident to access reproductive health care in the District. A minor does not need parental consent and is not required to notify her parents that she is seeking reproductive health care.
Keep in mind, however, that the District has a complicated relationship with Congress. District residents pay not only District taxes (income tax, property tax, sales tax, etc.) (comparable to taxes imposed by the various states) but federal income tax as well. Nevertheless, Congress routinely intervenes in D.C. affairs. For example, Congress frequently overrides D.C. ballot initiatives. Congress could restrict or even ban abortion in the District. Federal law already prohibits the District from spending any government funds (including the District’s own revenue) on abortion care.
On November 5, 2024, a constitutional amendment that would have amended the state constitution to prohibit government interference with the right to abortion prior to fetal viability was approved by 57.1 percent of Florida voters, thus failing to meet the 60 percent threshold required to amend the Florida Constitution.
Florida is enforcing a ban on abortions after six weeks from the patient’s last menstrual period—a deadline by which many women would not yet suspect they were pregnant. Pregnant women who seek abortion care must undergo a 24-hour mandatory waiting period, counseling, and an ultrasound. Florida also limits public funding for abortion and generally prohibits policies sold on the state’s health care exchange from covering abortion. The Florida Constitution expressly authorizes parental notification for minors. Florida law requires that a parent or legal guardian be notified and give consent prior to a minor’s abortion, although judicial bypass is permitted.
Abortion is banned at six weeks gestation and afterward in Georgia. In addition, patients must wait 24 hours after counseling, which is mandatory but need not be in person, before they may obtain an abortion. Public funds are unavailable to cover abortion care except under very limited circumstances. A minor may not obtain an abortion absent parental notice. Only physicians can provide abortions; other qualified health care professionals are barred from performing abortion procedures.
On September 30, 2024, in SisterSong v. State of Georgia, the Superior Court of Fulton County held that the Georgia Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act (the six-week abortion ban) was unconstitutional on both due process and equal protection grounds. On October 7, 2024, just a week later, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued a ruling that stayed the trial court decision, thus reinstating a ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, a time when many patients may not know that they are pregnant.
Abortion is banned upon fetal viability, generally 24 to 26 weeks of pregnancy; state funds are available to cover abortion; a variety of qualified health care professionals, not solely physicians, can provide abortions. Hawaii has a shield law to protect abortion providers from investigations by other states; the shield law may cover patients and support organizations, but this broader coverage has not been tested.
Idaho’s abortion laws are among the most restrictive in the country. Abortion is completely banned with very limited exceptions. There are exceptions for the life of the pregnant person and for survivors of rape and incest who have reported the incident to law enforcement, but the exception for rape or incest applies only in the first trimester. Patients must wait 24 hours after counseling (not required to be in-person) to obtain an abortion. Public funds are unavailable to cover abortion. Private health insurance coverage of abortion is prohibited except in very limited circumstances. Medication abortions can only be provided after a physical examination. Parental consent is required for a minor’s abortion. Only physicians can provide abortion care.
In 2023, the Idaho Supreme Court held that the Idaho Constitution does not protect the right to abortion. The court heard challenges to several abortion bans and decided, based on a survey of Idaho constitutional “history and tradition,” that none of the state constitution’s provisions protected the right to end a pregnancy (see Planned Parenthood Great Northwest v. State, 522 P.3d 1132 (Idaho 2023)). The court applied rational basis review and upheld the bans based on their legislative connection to “protecting fetal life” and the “health and safety” of pregnant people (id. at 1149). The court also rejected the assertion that the bans violated equal protection by discriminating based on sex or other protected status or activity (id. at 1197–1200).
On December 2, 2024, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely upheld Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law, a measure passed in the 2023 legislative session intended to punish an adult who helps a minor seek an abortion in another state or obtain medication that will induce an abortion (Matsumoto v. Labrador, No. 23-3787 (9th Cir., Dec. 2, 2024)). The Ninth Circuit decision reversed U.S. Magistrate Judge Debora K. Grasham’s November 2023 decision, which blocked enforcement of the law. The plaintiffs alleged the law restricts freedom of speech and the right of free association and that it was too vague to be constitutional.
In 2019, Illinois enacted a statutory protection for abortion as a fundamental right. It states:
(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 healthcare. (b) Every individual who becomes pregnant has a fundamental right to continue the pregnancy and give birth or to have an abortion, and to make autonomous decisions about how to exercise that right. (c) A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent rights under the laws of this State.
775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 55/1-15.
While the Illinois Supreme Court held in 2013 that the due process clause in the state constitution provides protections for abortion equivalent to those provided by the federal due process clause, some doubt exists about Illinois’ constitutional protection after the Dobbs decision. Illinois provides public funding for all or most medically necessary abortions and requires private insurance plans to cover abortion care. Illinois law authorizes physicians and certain advanced practice clinicians (APCs) to provide abortion care consistent with their scope of practice.
In January 2023, Illinois enacted an interstate shield law protecting providers, patients, and people who help others access abortion care from licensure consequences and the reach of out-of-state investigations and legal actions. In July 2023, the state enacted the Deceptive Practices Related to Limited Services Pregnancy Centers Act, which prohibits anti-abortion centers from using deception to interfere with a person seeking access to abortion.
Finally, in 2019, the legislature repealed language in Illinois law that expressed the intention to prohibit abortion if Roe was overturned.
Abortion is completely banned in Indiana with very limited exceptions as a result of a state law that went into effect August 21, 2023. Exceptions are very limited and include:
In Iowa, abortion is banned at six weeks and later. Patients must receive in-person counseling and wait at least 24 hours after their counseling session for the procedure to be performed. An ultrasound is required even if medically unnecessary. State funds are unavailable to cover abortion procedures except in very limited circumstances. A minor may not receive abortion care without notice to her parents. Only licensed physicians may perform an abortion.
In 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court held that abortion was a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution (Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds ex rel. State, 915 N.W.2d 206, 237 (Iowa 2018) (based on strict scrutiny)). Four years later, allegedly after the Dobbs draft opinion was leaked, the Iowa Supreme Court reconsidered the case and—days before the Dobbs decision came down, on June 17, 2022—it reversed its own ruling, holding that the Iowa Constitution is “not the source of a fundamental right to an abortion” (Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds ex rel. State, 975 N.W.2d 710 (2022)). In 2024, the same court confirmed its conclusion that there is no right to abortion in Iowa’s state constitution and that the question was subject to rational basis review.
In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court held that “the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects all Kansans’ natural right of personal autonomy,” which “includes the right to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination,” allowing the individual to make her own decision regarding “whether to continue a pregnancy” (Hodes & Nauser, MDs, P.A. v. Schmidt, 440 P.3d 461, 502 (Kan. 2019)). In January 2021, Kansas lawmakers passed legislation to “affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion” on the August 2022 primary ballot. A majority of voters opposed the measure, meaning that Kansans did not support the prohibition of abortion, but the amendment was not phrased in such a way as to protect the right to abortion care in the state Constitution.
Despite the defeat of that referendum, the following restrictions apply in Kansas:
In November 2022, Kentucky voters rejected a ballot measure aimed at denying any constitutional protections for abortion, handing a moral victory to abortion-rights supporters who have seen access to the procedure eroded by state lawmakers.
The outcome of the ballot measure highlighted the gap between voter opinion and Kentucky’s Republican-dominated legislature, which imposed a near-total ban on abortions and put the rejected constitutional amendment on the ballot.
The amendment’s defeat has had no practical impact on the right to an abortion in Kentucky, which remains all but nonexistent. Abortion is banned in Kentucky. The only exceptions are to save the pregnant patient’s life and to prevent serious risk to the pregnant person’s physical health. There are no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape and/or incest.
Louisiana’s abortion laws are among the most restrictive in the nation. Abortions are allowed when necessary to prevent a serious risk to the pregnant woman’s life, requiring detailed justification by a licensed physician, and the burden of proof is on the physician. The documentation must specify the medical condition and the reasoning behind the decision.
Physicians must demonstrate that the procedure is necessary to save the woman’s life, based on reasonable medical judgment. These provisions aim to balance medical ethics with legal obligations while offering some protection to health care professionals.
Violating Louisiana’s “Human Life Protection Act” carries severe consequences. Performing or inducing an abortion outside the legal exceptions is a criminal offense. Physicians found guilty can face up to ten years in prison and fines of up to $100,000, reflecting the law’s strong deterrent intent.
On May 15, 2025, the Louisiana House of Representatives voted to expand who can sue and be sued over abortions and to expand the definition of an illegal “coerced abortion.”
The legislation comes as anti-abortion advocates seek to crack down on doctors who ship abortion-inducing medication to states where abortion is illegal.
House Bill 575 by Rep. Lauren Ventrella (R-Greenwell Springs) passed on a 59-29 vote. Ventrella has dubbed her proposal the “Justice for Victims of Abortion Drug Dealers Act,” though it would apply to all forms of the procedure. The bill is now before a Louisiana Senate Judiciary Committee.
Ventrella’s bill is supported by Attorney General Liz Murrill, who is currently prosecuting a case against a New York doctor accused of providing abortion-inducing medication to a minor in West Baton Rouge Parish. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has refused to extradite the doctor to Louisiana to face charges, citing New York’s shield laws.
The doctor and the minor’s mother were both indicted. Murrill has alleged the minor was coerced to take the medication, though her mother was not charged with this crime.
Current law allows the “mother of the unborn child” to sue any person who performs an abortion, but Ventrella’s bill adds her parents, the father, and the father’s parents as potential plaintiffs. Any of these individuals could sue anyone who causes or “substantially facilitates” an abortion, regardless of whether the procedure was successful. The bill denies men the right to sue if the pregnancy was the result of rape, sexual assault, or incest.
In April 2024, Maine enacted statutory protections shielding providers, patients, and people who help others access abortion from professional licensure consequences and limited the reach of out-of-state investigations and legal actions, regardless of the patient’s location. Maine allows anyone sued for providing, accessing, or helping someone access reproductive health care to file their own legal action for tortious interference with protected health care activity and prohibits courts from giving force or effect to foreign judgments related to hostile litigation where there is no personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, or provide due process of law. Moreover, medical malpractice insurers are prohibited from taking adverse action against a health care provider in Maine related to abortion care.
Maine provides public funding for abortion and requires private insurance coverage of abortion if maternity care is covered and prohibits cost-sharing requirements. While Maine restricts who can provide abortion care, the list of health care practitioners is broader than only physicians and includes some advanced practice clinicians (APCs). Maine law protects clinic safety and access and establishes “medical safety zones” around clinic entrances.
Maine law prohibits abortion only post-viability, but beginning in 2023, abortion care after viability is allowed when a physician deems it necessary. The state requires that a parent, legal guardian, adult family member, or judge consent to a minor’s abortion. However, providers can waive parental consent.
Maine requires abortion providers to submit reports to the state. Providers who violate Maine’s abortion restrictions may face civil and criminal penalties.
In January 2025, the governor of Maryland signed a proclamation officially enshrining into Maryland’s constitution “an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom.” The constitutional amendment was passed by more than three-quarters of Maryland voters on Election Day 2024. It provides the highest level of protection for abortion rights.
In addition, Maryland law includes express statutory protections for abortion. Maryland requires public medical assistance programs to cover abortion services and private insurance plans that cover labor and delivery to also cover abortion services. The state allows nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, licensed midwives, and physician assistants to provide abortion care in addition to physicians.
In 2023, Maryland enacted interstate shield laws protecting providers, patients, and people who help others access abortion from professional licensure consequences, the reach of out-of-state investigations and legal actions, and the disclosure of information. The state protects clinic access by preventing interference with entering and exiting a facility.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion under the state’s constitution, and in 2021, Massachusetts passed comprehensive abortion rights legislation.
It is legal for a patient to obtain an abortion in Massachusetts up to 26 weeks and six days from the date of onset of the patient’s last menstrual period. Many providers in Massachusetts will not perform an abortion as late as legally allowed. A patient under the age of 16 must have the consent of a parent or legal guardian or obtain a judicial bypass.
On November 8, 2022, voters in Michigan approved a constitutional amendment that enshrined reproductive freedom in the state constitution. In addition, Michigan law includes statutory protection for abortion as a fundamental right, providing, in pertinent part:
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, but not limited to, prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. 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. 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.
H.B. 4949, 102d Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mich. 2023).
In early 2025, the Michigan governor signed into law House Bills 5435 and 5436, which expand contraceptive access in the state. The bills allow a pharmacist to directly prescribe birth control and require insurers to cover contraceptives. The bill was prompted by Michigan’s shortage of obstetricians and gynecologists (OB/GYNs). A third of Michigan’s 83 counties had no OB/GYNs at all at the time the legislation was passed.
Minnesota law includes constitutional protections for abortion (see Women of State of Minn. by Doe v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17, 27 (Minn. 1995) (“We therefore conclude that the right of privacy under the Minnesota Constitution encompasses a woman’s right to decide to terminate her pregnancy.”)). In addition, in 2023, Minnesota enacted a statutory right to reproductive freedom, which provides,
(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 continue the pregnancy and give birth or obtain an abortion and to make autonomous decisions about how to exercise this fundamental right.
Minn. Stat §145.409 (2024).
Minnesota also prohibits local governments from interfering with abortion rights.
On June 25, 2022, the Minnesota governor issued an executive order prohibiting executive branch cooperation with out-of-state investigations and legal actions arising from the lawful provision of abortion care in Minnesota. In 2023, Minnesota enacted an interstate shield law protecting providers, patients, and people who help others access abortion care from professional licensure consequences and the reach of out-of-state investigations and legal actions that arise from abortion that is legal in Minnesota. The state’s interstate shield protections also prohibit the extradition of persons charged in other states with actions arising from a legal abortion. Minnesota provides public funding for medically necessary abortions and protects clinic access by prohibiting obstruction.
Mississippi prohibits abortion at any stage except to save the life of the pregnant patient or in cases of rape or incest—provided that those crimes were reported to law enforcement. The state does not recognize any constitutional or statutory rights with regard to abortion. On the contrary, Mississippi’s policy is to ban abortion to the fullest extent of the law: “Abortion carries significant physical and psychological risks to the maternal patient, and these physical and psychological risks increase with gestational age” (see, e.g., Miss. Code Ann. §§ 41-41-191, 41-41-163).
On November 5, 2024, voters approved Amendment 3 to the Missouri Constitution, recognizing reproductive freedom, including abortion care, as a fundamental right in Missouri. The Missouri Constitution now contains the following provision:
The Government shall not deny or infringe upon a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which is the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.
Mo. Const. Art. 1 § 36.
On December 23, 2024, a state circuit court held that the state’s bans and other abortion restrictions were unconstitutional and enjoined their enforcement (Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV31931 (Jackson Cnty. Cir. Ct. Dec. 23, 2024) (enjoining enforcement of Missouri’s multiple abortion bans, admitting privilege requirement, certain medication abortion restrictions, fetal tissue laws, counseling requirements, waiting period, and telemedicine ban)). The court did not at that time enjoin enforcement of the facility licensing, in-person appointment, same physician, physician-only, post-viability ban, and parental consent requirements. Certain criminal penalties likewise were not enjoined.
Notably, while the right to reproductive freedom is now enshrined in the Missouri Constitution, a comprehensive search on February 13, 2025, failed to reveal a single abortion care provider in the state.
On February 14, 2025, however, Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Jerri Zhang—in the above-cited Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains et al. v. Missouri, No. 2416-CV-31931—ruled that remaining bans were “directly at odds” with the constitutional amendment approved by the voters in the November election. The judge blocked the state from enforcing numerous other abortion restrictions, including a 72-hour waiting period and an informed consent law that required patients to be given certain state-mandated information before receiving an abortion. A number of abortion providers announced immediately after the ruling that clinics would begin providing abortion care services again in Missouri.
The Montana Constitution provides that “[t]he right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.” (Mont. Const., art. II, § 10). The Supreme Court of Montana describes this provision as “one of the most stringent protections of its citizens’ right to privacy in the United States—exceeding that provided by the federal constitution” (Armstrong v. State, 296 Mont. 361, 989 P.2d 364, 373–74 (Mont. 1999)). In addition, the court has held that this right includes a right to “procreative autonomy” that protects access to abortion. In 2023, the state enacted a law purporting to redefine the right to privacy to exclude the right to abortion. In 2024, however, Montana voters amended the state constitution to expressly provide a right to abortion and prohibit the government from denying or burdening the right to abortion prior to fetal viability.
The state has repeatedly tried to prohibit public funding for abortion, but every such effort has failed. Montana continues to provide public funding for abortion care. In addition, a state Supreme Court decision allows advanced practice clinicians (APCs) to provide abortion care, as well as licensed physicians and physicians’ assistants (Weems v. State, 2023 MT 82 (Mont. 2023) (striking down Mont. Code Ann. § 50-20-109(1)(a))). Montana also protects clinic access by prohibiting obstruction (Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-110).
In November 2024, Nebraska voters approved a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion after the first trimester except when the pregnant person experiences a medical emergency or the pregnancy is the result of sexual violence. Nebraska law generally prohibits abortion at 12 weeks gestation. Pregnant patients who seek abortion care are required to undergo a mandatory 24-hour waiting period, counseling, and an ultrasound at least one hour before an abortion (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-327). Nebraska also limits public funding for and private insurance coverage of abortion. Nebraska law requires that a parent, legal guardian, or judge consent to a minor’s abortion. Nebraska law restricts the provision of abortion care to licensed physicians and restricts providers from using telemedicine for the provision of abortion medication. Providers who violate Nebraska’s abortion restrictions may face civil and criminal penalties.
In 2024, Nevada voters approved an amendment to the Nevada Constitution to protect abortion rights, but it will not become effective unless and until it is approved by a second vote in 2026.
In the meantime, abortion is governed by Nev. Rev. Stat. § 442.250. Any pregnant person in Nevada has the legal right to choose to have an abortion within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. An abortion may be performed after 24 weeks where the physician has reasonable cause to believe an abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant person. One does not need to be a Nevada resident to receive abortion care in the state. Only a licensed physician may perform the procedure.
Absent an immediate threat to the patient’s life or health, the provider must obtain the consent of a custodial parent or guardian or a judge before performing an abortion on a minor who is not married or emancipated. If the custodial parent or guardian cannot be so notified after a reasonable effort, the physician shall delay the abortion until notification by certified mail at the last known address of the parent or guardian has been accomplished.
New Hampshire law does not protect the right to obtain an abortion either under constitutional or statutory provisions. In 2018, New Hampshire voters approved an amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution that specifically recognized a privacy right related to private or personal information. Article 2-b of the Bill of Rights of the New Hampshire Constitution, which is titled “Right to Privacy,” states: “An individual’s right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent.” As of February 2025, no court has ruled on whether this amendment includes the right to abortion.
Abortion is available up to the day before 24 weeks after the onset of the patient’s last menstrual period. For a minor, parental or guardian consent is required, or a judicial bypass may be sought.
In New Jersey, abortion rights are unrestricted. There is no limit based on gestational age nor on the age of the pregnant individual. Both Medicaid and private health insurers are required to cover abortion care. Qualified health care professionals, not solely physicians, can provide abortions. Finally, New Jersey has a shield law to protect abortion providers from investigations by other states.
New Mexico permits abortion and does not restrict late-stage abortions, although it outlaws dilation and extraction (D&X) procedures, which are the most common procedures for aborting a fetus after the first trimester of pregnancy. New Mexico does not require parental involvement for patients under 18. On January 9, 2025, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the state’s Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, Medical Practice Act, Medical Malpractice Act, and Health Care Code, along with its Uniform Licensing Act, preempts local and county ordinances intended to limit abortion rights, curtail the operation of abortion clinics, or regulate providers (State ex rel. Torrez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs for Lea Cnty., No. S-1-SC-39742 (N.M. Feb. 9, 2025) (currently unpublished).
Moreover, the New Mexico Constitution includes an Equal Rights Amendment. In New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841 (N.M. 1998), the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the state’s Equal Rights Amendment precluded the Human Services Department from restricting funding for medically necessary abortions under the state’s Medicaid program. In 2023, the legislature enacted interstate shield laws protecting providers, patients, and people who help others access abortion care from professional licensure consequences, out-of-state investigations, and legal actions.
In 1970—three years before Roe v. Wade was decided—New York legalized abortion. In 2019, New York passed the Reproductive Health Act to protect access to reproductive rights throughout the state and make the right to abortion part of state law. New York ensures that all pregnant people (including minors, transgender men, and nonbinary people) have the right to a safe and legal abortion, regardless of the pregnant patient’s age, through the end of the 23rd week of pregnancy.
After 24 weeks, abortion is permitted if the provider determines that the fetus is not viable or the pregnant patient’s life, physical health, or mental health is at risk.
New York requires Medicaid and private health insurance plans to cover abortions if they cover maternity care. New York protects against employment discrimination based on reproductive health care decisions. Patients seeking reproductive health care services in New York are protected from threat, injury, intimidation, or interference with their reproductive health care decisions.
Residents of New York are not entirely without risk from abortion opponents, however.
Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter of New York, a well-known provider of health care to thousands of women around the world (including in countries such as Senegal and Ethiopia), found herself at the heart of a nationwide controversy for providing abortion care to women in states where access is restricted or outlawed.
On February 13, 2025, Texas State Court Judge Bryan Gantt fined Carpenter $100,000 for allegedly prescribing abortion pills to a woman near Dallas. Taylor Bruck, the acting clerk of courts for Ulster County, New York, rejected a filing of judgment from Texas against Carpenter, stating,
I have refused this filing and will refuse any similar filings that may come to our office. Since this decision is likely to result in further litigation, I must refrain from discussing specific details about the situation.
Carpenter is also facing felony charges in Louisiana for allegedly prescribing abortion pills to a pregnant minor whose mother ordered the pills on her behalf. The mother was also charged. In a video announcing the extradition warrant, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry said the mother and Carpenter conspired to get chemical abortion medication via the mail. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill characterized the doctor’s and the mother’s actions as “coercing” the minor to obtain an abortion.
On February 13, 2025 (the same date the Texas judge issued his order fining Carpenter), New York Governor Kathy Hochul refused to extradite Carpenter to face charges in Louisiana, based on New York’s “shield law.”
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, interstate shield laws have been enacted in 18 abortion-access jurisdictions to facilitate out-of-state patients who want to access abortion care. The shield laws protect abortion providers, helpers, and patient medical records from civil and criminal consequences stemming from abortion and reproductive health care provided to out-of-state residents.
Abortion is banned in North Carolina at 12 weeks gestation and later. A patient seeking an abortion must attend an in-person counseling session, and the procedure may not occur until 72 hours later. State Medicaid coverage of abortion care is banned except in very limited circumstances. Parental consent is required before a minor can obtain an abortion. Qualified physicians are the only parties legally able to perform abortions in North Carolina. After 12 weeks’ gestation, an abortion may be performed to save the pregnant person’s life, to prevent serious risk to the pregnant person’s physical health, and/or if the fetus is not expected to survive the pregnancy. A patient seeking abortion care or approaching a clinic is protected by law from harassment and physical harm. North Carolina has a shield law that protects abortion providers from investigations by other states.
After Roe was struck down, North Dakota’s total abortion ban went into effect. The total ban prohibited abortion at all stages of pregnancy except to prevent the death or serious health risk to the mother. Survivors and victims of rape and incest could obtain abortions up to six weeks’ gestation, a time when many women would not realize that they were pregnant.
In September 2024, a trial court found that North Dakota’s total abortion ban is unconstitutionally void for vagueness and also violates pregnant people’s fundamental right to access abortion care (Access Indep. Health Serv. Inc v. Wrigley, No. 08-2022-CV-1608 (N.D. S. Cent. Dist. Ct. Sept. 12, 2024)). On January 24, 2025, a divided North Dakota Supreme Court refused to stay the lower court ruling while the appeal is pending (2025 ND 26 (Case No. 20240291)). Oral arguments on the appeal were heard on March 25, 2025.
North Dakota has more abortion bans than the one struck down. None remains relevant at this time, however, because the last abortion provider left the state and moved to Minnesota in the summer of 2024.
In November 2023, Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment that ensures access to abortion and other forms of reproductive health care. The state bans abortion when the “probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is twenty weeks or greater.” It prohibits dilation and evacuation procedures (D&E, sometimes referred to as vacuum) and dilation and extraction procedures (D&X), although the D&E ban is currently enjoined, as is a law banning abortion after six weeks gestation. Ohio prohibits abortions sought because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome.
There are laws on Ohio’s books, although enforcement is currently enjoined, requiring pregnant patients seeking abortion care to undergo a mandatory 24-hour waiting period after counseling. Also enjoined is Ohio’s enforcement of a ban on telemedicine visits for the purpose of prescribing medication abortion. Ohio limits public funding of abortion, and insurance plans sold on the state exchange are prohibited from covering abortion services. Ohio law requires that a parent, legal guardian, or judge consent to a minor’s abortion.
Ohio requires providers to report abortions. Ohio law restricts abortion care to physicians. Providers who violate Ohio’s abortion restrictions may face civil and criminal penalties.
On February 13, 2025, a Hamilton County (Cincinnati) judge blocked a 2020 Ohio law that required the burial of fetal or embryonic remains after an abortion.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that the state’s constitution protects the right to abortion in life-threatening situations but declined to rule whether its constitution protects a broader right to abortion outside of those circumstances (see Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. Drummond, 2023-OK-24 (Okla. 2023)). The Court opined that “the Oklahoma Constitution creates an inherent right of a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy when necessary to preserve her life” and that doctors should be able to use their own medical judgment to determine whether to provide an abortion when a patient’s life is at risk “due to the pregnancy itself or due to a medical condition that the woman is either currently suffering from or likely to suffer from during the pregnancy.”
Despite that ruling, abortion care is largely unavailable in the state. For example:
Oregon has no legal restrictions on abortion. For example, in Oregon there are no gestational limits, no waiting periods, and a pregnant patient can access medication abortion (abortion pills) by mail. A patient seeking an abortion need not be an Oregon resident, and the state Attorney General’s website declares, “Oregon welcomes anyone who needs abortion care and cannot receive it in their home state.”
State Medicaid funds cover abortion care. Private health insurance plans are required to cover abortion. Qualified health care professionals, not just physicians, can provide abortions. Oregon has established a state fund that helps patients pay for abortion care. Oregon provides protection from harassment and physical harm for anyone entering an abortion clinic. Finally, Oregon shields abortion providers from investigations by other states.
Abortion is not legally protected in Pennsylvania but is likely to remain accessible as long as Governor Josh Shapiro remains in office. As of mid-February 2025, Pennsylvania law prohibits abortion at and after 24 weeks gestation. It also prohibits abortions sought for reasons of sex (i.e., choosing abortion depending on the gender of the fetus). Pregnant patients seeking abortion care must undergo a mandatory 24-hour waiting period after counseling. Pennsylvania law generally requires that a parent, legal guardian, or judge consent to a minor’s abortion. Pennsylvania law restricts the provision of abortion care to physicians. Providers who violate Pennsylvania’s abortion restrictions may face civil and criminal penalties. Pennsylvania also limits public funding and private insurance coverage of abortion care, though a challenge to the public funding limitation is currently before a state court.
On January 29, 2024, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overturned a decision by the Commonwealth Court that had dismissed a case filed by abortion providers on their own behalf and on behalf of prospective patients challenging Pennsylvania’s ban on public funding of abortion (see Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pa. Department of Human Services, No. 26 MAP 2021 (Pa. 2024)). The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Commonwealth Court in Allegheny County, which heard oral arguments in the case on February 5, 2025. The plaintiffs claim that Pennsylvania’s abortion restrictions violate the Equal Rights Amendment and the Equal Protection Clauses in the Pennsylvania Constitution.
In 2019, Rhode Island enacted express statutory protections for abortion, repealed laws prohibiting abortion of a child when the mother has felt the child move (quickening), repealed a ban on dilation and extraction (D&X) procedures, and repealed limitations on private insurance coverage of abortion. Although the Rhode Island Constitution includes equal protection language, that language expressly excludes the right to abortion care. Rhode Island restricts the provision of surgical abortion to licensed physicians, but it otherwise allows licensed physicians and other health care practitioners to provide abortion care within their scope of practice. Public funding is available for abortion care in Rhode Island.
Rhode Island law prohibits post-viability abortions. Moreover, the state requires parental consent or a judicial bypass before a minor can receive abortion care. Providers who violate Rhode Island’s abortion restrictions may face civil penalties.
South Carolina has enforced a six-week abortion ban since the law was determined to be constitutional (Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. South Carolina, No. 2023-000896 (S.C. Aug. 23, 2023) (order vacating the preliminary injunction and declaring the act constitutional) (request for rehearing denied)).
Patients seeking abortion care must undergo a mandatory 24-hour waiting period after they are offered counseling. If an ultrasound is performed, the patient must be offered the opportunity to view the ultrasound images. South Carolina also limits public funding for abortion and private insurance coverage of abortion. South Carolina law requires that a parent, grandparent, legal guardian, or judge consent to a minor’s abortion.
Abortion at any stage of pregnancy is a crime in South Dakota, with the single exception that applies only when an abortion is required to save the life of the mother.
Tennessee bans abortions at any stage of pregnancy, with very limited exceptions for emergency situations. Tennessee tried to ban even the discussion of what it labeled “abortion trafficking”—the discussion between a pregnant teen and adults who are not her parents concerning how to assist a child in obtaining abortion care outside the state without notifying her parents. That law was blocked by U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger in September 2024, in a ruling in which she wrote that the state cannot “make it a crime to communicate freely” about legal abortion options. Judge Trauger further said, “The Tennessee General Assembly apparently determined that, when the topic at hand is ‘abortion trafficking,’ the best interests of the pregnant child are not merely a secondary consideration, but unworthy of particularized consideration at all” (see Welty v. Lawson, No. No. 3:24-CV-0768 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 20, 2024)).
On October 2, 2024, shortly after the decision to enjoin enforcement of the law, Judge Trauger recused herself. By October 9, all judges in the district had recused, and on November 6, 2024, the Sixth Circuit appointed U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons to oversee the case going forward. Both sides have filed motions for summary judgment. The case is ongoing, and the most recent filing, a notice of supplemental authority, occurred on March 31, 2025.
Texas’s abortion laws are among the most restrictive in the country. Almost all abortions are prohibited, and now the state imposes civil and criminal penalties on those who perform abortions. (The person receiving the abortion is rarely at risk for these penalties.)
There is an exception if the life or health of the patient is at risk. The conditions for this exception are outlined in Section 170A.002 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. There is no exception for cases of rape or incest.
In March 2023, a group of five women brought a lawsuit, Zurawski v. State of Texas (D-1-GN-23-000968, Travis County, Tex. 353d, District Court), alleging that they were denied abortions even when issues arose during their pregnancies that endangered their lives. The case grew to include 20 women and two doctors. The suit did not challenge Texas’s abortion bans but sought to force clarification and transparency as to the precise circumstances in which exceptions are allowed and more discretion for doctors to be allowed to intervene when medical complications arise in pregnancy. On August 4, 2023, Travis County District Judge Jessica Mangrum issued a preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing the bans even in cases involving serious pregnancy complications. That ruling would have allowed patients to receive abortion care if they were experiencing such complications and would have prevented the state’s attorney general from prosecuting doctors who perform abortions based on their “good faith judgment” that doing so is medically necessary. However, on May 31, 2024, on appeal, the nine-justice Texas Supreme Court unanimously denied the claims and refused to clarify exceptions to the state’s abortion bans.
On December 5, 2023, plaintiff Kate Cox—a 31-year-old pregnant woman who had had two prior cesarean sections—sued the state of Texas for permission to obtain an emergency abortion (Cox v. Texas, No. D-1-GN-23-008611, 200th Judicial District, Travis County, Tex.). An amniocentesis had revealed that the baby exhibited full trisomy 18, meaning that Cox’s pregnancy might not survive to term. If the pregnancy continued to term, her child would be stillborn or survive for only minutes, hours, or days at most. On December 7, 2023, the trial court ruled that “Ms. Cox’s life, health, and fertility are currently at serious risk, and she needs a dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion immediately to preserve her life, health, and fertility. Ms. Cox’s circumstances meet the medical exception to Texas’s abortion bans and laws.” The state appealed to the Texas Supreme Court the same day, seeking to prohibit the procedure and staying the trial court’s decision. By December 11, 2023, the ongoing deterioration of Cox’s health condition forced her to seek medical care outside of Texas. Due to the likelihood of repetition, the Center for Reproductive Rights sought to keep the case alive, but the Texas Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot on December 11, 2023.
In January 2025, upon the convening of the Texas legislature, several bills were introduced in an effort to ban medication abortions. Moreover, on December 12, 2024, the state of Texas sued Margaret Daley Carpenter, M.D., a New York physician, claiming she was practicing medicine without a Texas license and improperly aiding abortion by sending mifepristone to Texas patients. Governor Kathy Hochul of New York denied Carpenter’s extradition.
Utah bans all abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or the threat to the life of the pregnant person. At the moment, for reasons explained below, an 18-week ban is being enforced while the total ban is enjoined.
On August 1, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court held that a preliminary injunction of a state statute criminalizing most abortions should remain in place while a constitutional challenge to the law plays out.
Senate Bill 174, which criminalizes abortions except in certain limited circumstances, including to save a woman’s life, to prevent “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function,” and in cases of rape or incest, was set to go into effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
However, shortly after the Court issued the Dobbs decision, Planned Parenthood Association of Utah challenged the law, alleging it violated rights that are guaranteed by the Utah Constitution. The trial court agreed to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the statute while the lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality made its way through the courts. The state petitioned Utah’s Supreme Court for review.
The Utah Supreme Court confirmed that Planned Parenthood satisfied requirements for traditional standing and had third-party standing to advance its patients’ claims. Moreover, the high court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction under a more lenient standard that the state legislature subsequently modified.
At the time of the trial court’s ruling, Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 65A allowed a party seeking a preliminary injunction to show either a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying claim or that “the case presents serious issues on the merits which should be the subject of further litigation.”
The trial court granted the preliminary injunction after concluding there were serious issues on the merits that should be subject to further litigation as to whether Senate Bill 174 infringed various rights guaranteed under the state’s constitution, including a right to equal protection, a right to bodily integrity, and a right to privacy.
After the high court agreed to review the decision, the legislature amended the preliminary injunction standard to eliminate the “serious issues on the merits” standard.
In upholding the injunction, the high court rejected the state’s argument that the plaintiff’s claims failed because the Utah Constitution does not mention abortion. The state constitution protects both enumerated and unenumerated rights, the high court pointed out.
The trial court also did not abuse its discretion by concluding the plaintiff and its patients “would be irreparably harmed without the injunction,” that “the balance of harms tipped in favor of enjoining SB 174 while the parties litigate its constitutionality,” and that “the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.” The high court emphasized that it was not deciding the merits of the plaintiff’s constitutional claims. A dissenting opinion argued Planned Parenthood lacked standing to bring the action (see Planned Parenthood Ass’n of Utah v. Cox, No. 20220696 (Utah Aug. 1, 2024)).
A bill that would limit courts’ ability to block any state law has recently been introduced, giving rise to a feud between the legislature and the judiciary. The new law would give the state the ability to compel the party suing over the law to prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that a law is unconstitutional. Otherwise, the law would remain in place while litigation continues in effect.
In November 2022, Vermont voters approved a proposal enshrining reproductive freedom in the Vermont constitution.
Vermont’s legislature had already passed independent statutory protection for abortion as a fundamental right throughout pregnancy in June 2019. The statute reads:
The State of Vermont recognizes the fundamental right of every individual who becomes pregnant to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion. . . . [A public entity] shall not, in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information, deny or interfere with an individual’s fundamental rights to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization or to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to obtain an abortion. No State or local law enforcement shall prosecute any individual for inducing, performing, or attempting to induce or perform the individual’s own abortion.
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 9493 et seq.
Vermont provides public funding for medically necessary abortions. The state does not restrict the type of health care practitioner who can provide abortion care. In 2023, Vermont enacted interstate shield laws protecting providers, patients, and people who help others access abortion from professional licensure consequences, the reach of out-of-state investigations and legal actions, and the disclosure of information.
Virginia has no statutory or constitutional protections for access to abortion care. In general, Virginia bans abortion after viability unless performed by a licensed physician in a licensed hospital with three physicians certifying that the continuation of the pregnancy will result in the death of the pregnant patient or impair her mental or physical health. The Commonwealth also prohibits the dilation and extraction (D&X) method of abortion. It limits public funding for abortion. Virginia law requires that a parent or “authorized person” (which can include a judge) must consent to abortion in the case of a minor.
Abortion is legal for any reason until fetal viability. State Medicaid funds cover abortion.
Private health insurance plans are required to cover abortion care. Washington allows qualified health care professionals, not solely physicians, to provide abortions. The state protects persons approaching an abortion clinic from harassment and physical harm.
Medication abortion may be prescribed via telehealth. State law protects data privacy for patients seeking reproductive health care. Minors can obtain an abortion without consent from their parents. Married women do not need their spouse’s consent to obtain an abortion.
In November 2018, West Virginia’s voters approved a ballot initiative that added the following language to the state constitution: “Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of abortion.”
West Virginia enforces a total ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, except in the case of a “nonmedically viable fetus,” an ectopic pregnancy, or a medical emergency. A rape or incest survivor can obtain an abortion before eight weeks gestation, but only if the crime has been reported to law enforcement first. A rape or incest survivor who is under 18 has until 14 weeks gestation to obtain an abortion, but the crime must have been reported to law enforcement, and the victim must have sought medical care for the incest or sexual assault.
Pregnant patients who fall within the exceptions nevertheless must undergo a mandatory 24-hour waiting period, counseling, and the offer of an ultrasound. There is no public funding for abortion in West Virginia. A minor must have the consent of a parent or guardian or seek judicial bypass to obtain the procedure. Providers who violate West Virginia abortion restrictions are subject to civil and criminal penalties.
Recent polling shows that nearly two-thirds of Wisconsin support abortion rights in most or all cases. Nevertheless, abortion is banned at 20 weeks after fertilization and later. Prior to 20 weeks, a pregnant patient must undergo in-person counseling and must wait 24 hours after such counseling to have the procedure. An ultrasound is required even if medically unnecessary. Public funds may not be expended to cover abortion care with very few exceptions. Wisconsin law requires an in-person exam and requires abortion medication to be dispensed in person. Minors cannot have an abortion without a parent’s, adult family member’s, or judge’s consent. Only physicians can provide abortions. Patients seeking abortion care are protected from harassment and physical harm when entering an abortion clinic.
On November 11, 2024, the Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Wisconsin’s 1849 law bans abortion from conception to birth, with only very narrow exceptions, as state Republicans argue. Abortion rights supporters argue that the law only applies to feticide, the killing of an unborn child against the will of the mother. During oral argument in that case—a battle between the Democratic attorney general and the Republican district attorney in Sheboygan—the justices appeared hostile to the party seeking to apply the 1849 law to abortion rather than feticide (for example, when one person’s violence to a pregnant person causes her to miscarry). Several progressive justices’ hostility to the 1849 law was evident. Matthew Thome, the attorney representing the Republican district attorney, faced a barrage of questions about the harms produced by the law. Justice Jill Karofsky asked Thome whether upholding the 1849 case was tantamount to asking the court to “sign the death warrant” of women, girls, and pregnant people in the state. Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet asked him what the court should make of the fact that the statute was enacted at a time when only white, property-owning men had the right to vote. Justice Karofsky described the effort to apply a 175-year-old law in 2025, with almost no exceptions, as a sign of a “world gone mad.”
Another case that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to hear is one filed by Planned Parenthood seeking a declaration that the 1849 law is unconstitutional. Planned Parenthood is seeking a much broader ruling than Attorney General Josh Kaul, arguing that the Wisconsin Constitution’s declaration that people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness means women have a right to control their own bodies. Planned Parenthood argues that the phrase grants abortion providers the right to practice and means that all people have an equal right to make their own medical decisions. In June 2024, the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take up the Planned Parenthood case was leaked to the public. On April 30, 2025, investigators hired by the Wisconsin high court released a report concluding that the leak of an order to accept a lawsuit on abortion was likely deliberate, but they were unable to determine who was responsible. The April 2025 election of a liberal Supreme Court justice likely indicates that the court will be more receptive to abortion rights proponents.
In 2012, Wyoming voters ratified a constitutional amendment stating that “the right to make health care decisions is reserved to the [adult] citizens of the state of Wyoming.” After the Dobbs decision, legislators passed near-total abortion bans in the state. But on November 18, 2024, a Wyoming state court judge struck down Wyoming’s two abortion bans, ruling they violated the amendment to the state constitution. The decision by Judge Melissa Owens keeps most abortions legal in the state.
The judge opined, “The Defendants have not established a compelling governmental interest to exclude pregnant women from fully realizing the protections afforded by the Wyoming Constitution during the entire term of their pregnancies, nor have the Defendants established that the Abortion Statutes accomplish their interest.” Further, the judge wrote, “The Court concludes that the Abortion Statutes suspend a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions during the entire term of a pregnancy and are not reasonable or necessary to protect the health and general welfare of the people.”
The case was appealed and is pending in the Wyoming Supreme Court. On February 3, 2025, in its brief to the high court, the state argued that the 2012 constitutional amendment guaranteeing Wyoming citizens’ right to make their own health care decision does not apply to a woman’s decision to seek abortion care. On April 16, 2025, the Wyoming Supreme Court held oral arguments in the appeal. Wyoming legislators, however, are not waiting on the courts. The Wyoming House, which is dominated by the conservative Freedom Caucus, has been moving bills to make legal abortions all but impossible to procure in the state, including House Bill 42, “Regulation of surgical abortions,” and House Bill 64, “Chemical abortions-ultrasound requirement.”
