I. Introduction
Abortion rights remain one of the most contentious issues in American politics, particularly following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2242–45 (2022), which overturned Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 129–30 (1973). The ruling effectively returned the regulation of abortion to individual states, leading to a fragmented legal landscape where access depends heavily on geography and political ideology. This article examines the evolving legal framework of abortion rights, the role of federalism in shaping access, and the broader implications for reproductive justice.
II. The Legal Framework Post-Dobbs
A. State-Level Bans and Restrictions
Since Dobbs, multiple states have enacted restrictive abortion laws, with some banning the procedure entirely and others imposing strict gestational limits. Texas Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8), for example, prohibits abortion after the detection of cardiac activity, typically around six weeks of pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.204(a) (2021). The law allows private citizens to sue anyone who performs or aids an abortion, creating a chilling effect on providers. The U.S. government challenged the law in United States v. Texas, 566 F. Supp. 3d 605, 620–24 (W.D. Tex. 2021), arguing it violated the Fourteenth Amendment and improperly delegated enforcement to private citizens rather than state officials.
Similarly, Tennessee enacted a law requiring physicians to inform patients that medication abortions may be reversible, a claim widely disputed by medical professionals. In Planned Parenthood of Tenn. & N. Miss. v. Slatery, 523 F. Supp. 3d 985, 990–92 (M.D. Tenn. 2021), the court blocked the law, ruling that it compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.
Some states have attempted to restrict access to abortion pills. For instance, in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367, 375–80 (2024), the Supreme Court upheld state restrictions on medication abortion access, reinforcing states’ authority to regulate abortion pills within their borders. This ruling has led to a complex regulatory patchwork where some states protect access to medication abortion while others seek to criminalize it.
B. Federal Regulation and Challenges
While states have moved aggressively to limit abortion, federal agencies and courts have intervened in certain cases to maintain access. In American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. United States FDA, 472 F. Supp. 3d 183, 190–93 (D. Md. 2020), the court addressed the FDA’s in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ruling found the requirement imposed an undue burden, particularly in a public health crisis.
At the same time, federal legislative efforts to protect abortion access have faced significant obstacles. The Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill aimed at codifying abortion rights, has repeatedly stalled in Congress due to partisan divisions. Meanwhile, conservative legislators have pushed for national abortion restrictions, including fetal personhood bills that could effectively outlaw abortion nationwide. See Jessie Rubini, Reproductive Rights and Felony Disenfranchisement: The New Frontier of an Old Voter Suppression Tactic, 19 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol’y 1, 2–6 (2024).
III. The Impact of Federalism on Abortion Access
The Dobbs ruling has intensified the role of federalism in determining reproductive rights. Some states, such as California and Illinois, have emerged as abortion sanctuaries, enacting laws ensuring access for residents and out-of-state patients. Conversely, conservative states have sought to restrict not only in-state abortions but also residents’ ability to seek care elsewhere.
For example, Missouri legislators introduced bills that would allow private citizens to sue individuals who help someone obtain an abortion out of state. Such measures raise constitutional questions about the right to interstate travel. See Federico Fabbrini, The European Future of American Abortion Law: Dobbs, Federalism and Constitutional Equality, 62 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 113, 117–21 (2023).
IV. Intersectionality and Reproductive Justice
Legal restrictions on abortion disproportionately impact marginalized communities, particularly Black and Indigenous women, who face systemic barriers to healthcare. These restrictions exacerbate existing health disparities, as communities with limited access to reproductive care experience higher rates of maternal mortality and unintended pregnancies.
Neoshia R. Roemer argues that reproductive justice extends beyond abortion access to encompass the right to parent free from government intervention. See Neoshia R. Roemer, The Indian Child Welfare Act as Reproductive Justice, 103 B.U. L. Rev. 55, 58–65 (2023). This framework highlights how state control over reproduction, particularly through child welfare policies, intersects with historical patterns of racial discrimination and structural inequities in healthcare access.
V. Political and Legislative Trends
With federal protection for abortion eliminated, political battles have intensified at both the state and national levels. Some states have introduced constitutional amendments explicitly protecting abortion rights, while others have sought to implement near-total bans.
For example, in Planned Parenthood Ass’n of Utah v. State, 2024 UT 28, ¶¶ 15–19, the Utah Supreme Court blocked enforcement of a total abortion prohibition on state constitutional grounds, demonstrating that judicial review at the state level continues to play a critical role in shaping abortion access.
At the national level, conservative efforts to pass a federal abortion ban have gained momentum. Some proposals advocate for a 15-week nationwide restriction, while others push for fetal personhood laws that could ban abortion entirely. These efforts have been met with strong opposition from reproductive rights advocates, who argue they infringe on state autonomy and personal liberty.
VI. Conclusion
The legal landscape of abortion rights in the United States remains in flux, with states wielding unprecedented power over reproductive healthcare. The intersection of federal and state laws, coupled with ongoing litigation, will determine the future of abortion access for millions of Americans.
Whether through judicial rulings, legislative action, or grassroots advocacy, the fight for reproductive rights remains one of the defining issues of modern American politics. Continued legal challenges and policy shifts will shape the extent to which abortion remains accessible—or restricted—in the years to come. The evolving nature of abortion law underscores the ongoing struggle for bodily autonomy, healthcare access, and the fundamental rights of individuals to make decisions about their own reproductive health.
Recent Comments