Now that Roe v. Wade has been toppled, abortion opponents are taking a multifaceted approach in their quest to end abortions nationwide, targeting their strategies to the dynamics of each state as they attempt to create new laws and defend bans in courts.
One anti-abortion group has proposed model legislation that would ban all abortions except to prevent the death of a pregnant woman. New legal frontiers could include prosecuting doctors who defy bans, and skirmishes over access to medication abortions already are underway. Others hope to get more conservatives elected in November to advance an anti-abortion agenda.
“For Republicans, the post-Roe world will be significantly different, from a legal perspective,” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School. “For the last 50 years, Republicans have been on the offense by chipping away on the edges of Roe. Now they are going to be playing defense in all 50 states.”
People are also reading…
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade said abortion is not a right under the Constitution, creating an opening for states pushing to get more restrictions on the books. Most recently, lawmakers in West Virginia and Indiana have pushed ahead with new restrictions, with varying success.
James Bopp Jr., general counsel for National Right to Life, has worked on model legislation for states, but said with few legislatures in session “the process of adopting new laws is really just beginning.”
Indiana state senators have narrowly passed a near-total abortion ban during a rare weekend session, sending the bill to the House after a contentious week of arguments over whether to allow exceptions for rape and incest. The Republican-controlled Senate voted 26-20 after about three hours of debate Saturday. It passed with the minimum 26 votes needed to send it to the House. The bill would prohibit abortions from the time a fertilized egg implants in a uterus. Exceptions would be allowed in cases of rape and incest, but a woman or girl seeking an abortion due for either reason would have to sign a notarized affidavit attesting to the attack.
It recommends banning all abortions except to prevent the death of a pregnant woman, though it provides language for states that want to make exceptions in cases of rape or incest. It also recommends criminal penalties for any person, including a doctor, who knowingly or intentionally causes or aids an “unlawful abortion.”
The model law would not criminalize a woman who gets an abortion.
A memo attached to the model language suggests anyone who aids and abets or conspires to cause an “unlawful abortion” also could be prosecuted, including those who provide instructions on how to self-administer or get an abortion deemed unlawful under the law. That person would have to know the woman was seeking an abortion and intentionally help her to get one.
“General providing of information is protected by the First Amendment,” Bopp said.
It also has language that allows for prosecution of a person — other than a pharmacist or drug manufacturer — who knows a woman plans to use an abortion-inducing drug to cause an unlawful abortion, and intentionally delivers the drug or advertises such a drug for sale.
But in the meantime, Bopp said abortion opponents are looking to November, when they hope to elect anti-abortion candidates who will enact such laws.
With that goal in mind, many conservatives are taking a “cautious pause” on the abortion issue, according to Larry Jacobs, a politics professor at the University of Minnesota.
“Republicans have a much better chance of winning competitive races around the country talking about inflation, crime and Joe Biden,” Jacobs said. “When they are talking about abortion, they are doing Democrats a favor.”

FILE – Anti-abortion supporters react as Angela Minter, president of Sisters for Life, speaks at a rally as the Indiana Senate Rules Committee met to consider a Republican proposal to ban nearly all abortions in the state during a hearing at the Statehouse in Indianapolis, on July 26, 2022. Anti-abortion groups are looking to the courts, lawmakers and elections to facilitate more abortion restrictions and bans after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June left the issue up to states.
Conservatives also see new courtroom battles on the horizon.
Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general who is now a private practice attorney, came up with some of the key components of a Texas law that bans abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected. His innovation was to make violations enforceable through lawsuits filed by citizens, rather than the government.
Mitchell, who represents Texas and South Dakota in abortion lawsuits and has helped lawmakers in multiple states develop abortion bans and restrictions, said future legal fights could center around those who pay for abortions for people living in states with bans that are not being enforced due to court injunctions.
“Abortion is still a criminal offense in every state with a trigger law or pre-Roe ban, regardless of whether a state-court injunction is in effect,” Mitchell said in an email to The Associated Press. He said an injunction doesn’t actually block a law as many believe, but temporarily keeps it from being enforced.
He said employers or those who help fund abortions in states such as Utah, Kentucky, Louisiana, or West Virginia are violating the law and could be prosecuted. He said if bans exist but are on hold, abortion providers could be prosecuted retroactively.
“And the mere risk of potential lawsuits may be enough to deter abortion providers from offering abortions to out-of-state residents, especially when these lawsuits can be brought,” he wrote, “not only against the physician but everyone else involved.”
Melissa Murray, a professor at New York University School of Law, said the question of whether those who pay for out-of-state abortions could be charged is “uncharted ground.” Employers and funds could argue they’re exercising their free speech rights, she said in an email. “That said, a state could argue that (the groups) are facilitating the violation of a criminal law — essentially, they’re functioning as accomplices.”
The fear of prosecution has already led to victories of sorts for abortion foes; some clinics have shut down over the confusion, reopened, then shut down again. It has also led doctors to withhold emergency treatment until it became clear that a fetus was dead or a woman’s life was at stake.

FILE – Abortion-rights activist rally at the Indiana Statehouse following Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on June 25, 2022 in Indianapolis. Anti-abortion groups are looking to the courts, lawmakers and elections to facilitate more abortion restrictions and bans after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June left the issue up to states.
Erin Hawley, a lawyer at the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom and the wife of Republican U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, expects continuing litigation over medication abortions.
She pointed to a court battle underway in Mississippi, where drugmaker GenBioPro is suing the state over its provisions that make it harder to get a prescription for mifepristone, a drug that can induce abortion. The state’s policies are at odds with U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations, which courts have generally found take precedence over state law.
But Hawley said that might not apply here.
“It’s always a big deal for a federal agency or law to trump state law,” Hawley said.
Some states are taking different approaches.
In Louisiana, the State Bond Commission voted last week to withhold a $39 million line of credit for a New Orleans sewer and water project to “send a message” after city and local officials said they would not enforce that state’s abortion ban. The law is currently blocked by a court and not enforceable anyway.
Texas sued the federal government in mid-July after the Biden administration issued guidance that stated hospitals are required to provide abortions if necessary to save a mother’s life.
Next week, Kansas voters will consider the first statewide referendum on abortion since Roe was overturned. If approved, it could make Kansas the fifth state to declare its constitution doesn’t grant the right to abortion and would open the door for the Legislature to further restrict or ban abortion.
Bopp said while court battles and midterm elections are the current focus, abortion opponents would eventually like to see federal and state constitutional amendments that would explicitly protect the unborn, though he acknowledged that would be a challenge.
“A constitutional amendment has been one of our goals. But this requires a hell of a consensus,” he said.
Find AP’s full coverage of the overturning of Roe v. Wade at: https://apnews.com/hub/abortion
Nearly half of all women live in areas where abortion access will likely become more restrictive
Nearly half of all women live in areas where abortion access will likely become more restrictive

For nearly 50 years, abortions were protected as a constitutional right. In June of this year, the Supreme Court claimed the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, the case that established this precedent, was based on a “remarkably loose treatment of the constitutional text,” and as such, overturned the ruling in a 5-4 vote. It is estimated that 36 million people were impacted by the decision as former laws become null and void, and even older laws from before Roe became relevant once again.
Stacker analyzed data from the Guttmacher Institute and the U.S. Census Bureau to investigate the number of women who live in areas where abortion access is already or likely to be restricted in the aftermath of the Roe reversal.
The legality of abortion is now up to individual states, many of which seek to ban it completely. In this new legal landscape, nearly half of all women in the U.S. live in areas where access to safe abortions will likely become more restrictive, if not impossible.
The 1973 court that heard Roe v. Wade ruled that a woman’s right to obtain an abortion was protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and its implied right to privacy. While the right to privacy—meaning the right to be free from government intrusion in this context—is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, it exists under the penumbra and is considered a fundamental right. This room for interpretation, no matter how small, is often what makes privacy issues within a constitutional framework so controversial.
Although the court upheld a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, it did not do so absolutely. States were permitted to regulate abortions after the point of fetal viability—when a fetus can survive outside of the womb—except in cases when pregnancy threatened the health or life of the mother.
Most experts agree fetal viability happens around 24 weeks, but can really only be determined on a case-by-case basis. The inability to standardize fetal viability as a gestational demarcation opened the doors for states to set their own guidelines, as with Texas’ and South Carolina’s heartbeat bill and Mississippi’s gestational age act. Fetal viability was at the center of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—the case out of Mississippi that catalyzed the June 2022 reversal of Roe.
You may also like: How America has changed since the first Census in 1790
39% of women live in a state with current restrictive legislation and 10% of women live where new laws are likely to be passed

Currently, 22 states either have abortion restrictions or are likely to pass them in the coming months. In the remaining 28 states and Washington D.C., abortion is still legal. Sixteen predominantly Democratic states with a legacy of abortion advocacy have moved to enshrine abortion protection in state legislation not just for residents, but for out-of-state patients seeking care.
For women in states where these restrictions already or imminently will exist, accessing a safe abortion could require long waits, days of costly travel, end even prosecution, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Women who travel out of state to receive an abortion, as well as the physicians who perform them, even in safe-haven states, may be at risk of prosecution based on the restrictive laws of their neighbors. Both Texas and Oklahoma, for example, have laws that allow private citizens to sue people who perform abortions or who otherwise help someone access one.
57% of women live where there are at least two types of restrictions on abortion access

Louisiana and Oklahoma are the most restrictive states, with four different abortion restrictions on the books including trigger bans, six-week bans, pre-Roe bans, and constitutional prohibitions on protection.
Despite some states having more than one restriction in place, it is typically just one that takes precedence over the others. But in certain cases, these restrictions work in tandem. For example, states with constitutional amendments declaring they are not obligated to protect a right to abortion may also enact abortion bans at six weeks or may reinstate restrictive laws that were in effect prior to 1973, when Roe made them null and void.
6% of women will be subject to a near-total abortion ban

The overturning of Roe was the “trigger” in 13 states that have already made way for, or will soon lead to, specific abortion restrictions, such as six-week bans or near-total bans like those being pursued in Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Utah. Near-total bans, the most restrictive of all, outlaw abortion in all instances, with few extreme medical exceptions.
Immediately after the Supreme Court’s decisions, trigger bans were enacted in Arkansas, Missouri, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Mississippi. In other states, trigger bans will not take effect until some type of additional legislative action happens.
Abortion is still legal in Florida, Indiana, Montana, and Nebraska, but all four states have Republican governors who have expressed interest in restricting abortion access. These states make up the nearly 10% of women represented in the above visualizations where additional restrictions are likely.
Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.