Table of Contents Ask the Chatbot

Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse. The only time abortion is needed to ensure women’s ability to “control their reproductive lives” is when a pregnancy results from non-consensual behavior as in cases of rape, or when a pregnancy is endangering her life. [344]

One can imagine a scenario in which a woman has chosen to engage in unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sexual intercourse on the assumption that an abortion will be available to her later. But when this Court announces the overruling of Roe, that individual can simply change her behavior in response to the Court’s decision if she no longer wants to take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy….

The members of this [U.S. Supreme] Court can say that abortion is constitutional right as many times as they want, as if they can somehow speak a constitutional right into being and perpetuate its existence through incantation. But they will never persuade the people of this country who have read the Constitution and know full well that the Court is making it up….

In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), seven members of this Court invented a “right” to abortion and imposed it on the nation, despite the fact that there is no language in the Constitution that even remotely suggests such a right, and despite the fact that there was no pedigree for it apart from the justices’ personal beliefs that pre-viability abortions should be legal on demand…

We hope someday to see a world in which embracing the dignity of every human life, both those of women and of their unborn children, is no longer considered a radical idea. [343]

Since 1973, abortion has eliminated more than 60 million children and harmed millions of mothers in the process. Giving women the right to vote was once considered radical, but today we often take it for granted.

Unlike many radical feminists of the second half of the 20th century and into the 21st century, these women realized that abortion does not empower women.

In addition to voting rights, suffragists championed abolition, equality in education, equal pay for equal work, and the right to life for the unborn.

Idaho became the first state to enact an “abortion trafficking” law ( H.B. 242 ) on April 5, 2023. The law states an abortion trafficker is “an adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion … or obtains an abortion-inducing drug for the pregnant minor to use for an abortion by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking.” Idaho’s law allows for the “any female upon whom an abortion has been attempted or performed, the father of the preborn child, a grandparent of the preborn child, a sibling of the preborn child, or an aunt or uncle of the preborn child” to sue for damages from the medical professionals for “not less than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000),” as well as for legal and attorney’s fees. [294]

After Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, many legislators and activists turned their attentions to restricting abortion medications in states where abortion is not already completely banned or where an abortion ban is being challenged in court. Wyoming became the first state to completely ban the use of drugs for abortions on March 17, 2023. [291]

In anticipation of Roe v. Wade being overturned by the Supreme Court, some states enacted laws that would protect health care providers and those seeking abortions from civil lawsuits started in another state. The laws were passed because some states authorized civil action against anyone seeking an abortion or anyone aiding a person seeking an abortion, even in another state. California, Connecticut, and Washington had passed such laws as of June 24, 2022. [276]

This type of law was first put into place in Texas. The Texas Heartbeat Act made performing abortions illegal if a doctor could detect a “fetal heartbeat,” or around six weeks. While the law is technically a “fetal heartbeat law,” the enforcement of the law is left to private citizens who may sue anyone who helps someone obtain an abortion, from doctors to Uber drivers. The law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2021. Other states have since copied Texas’ law, including Idaho and Oklahoma. [230] [231] [232] [233]

Pandemic restrictions were put in place by at least seven states by April 9, 2020, including Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas. Each state listed abortion as a nonessential medical procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. The states contend they were freeing up medical personnel to deal with the pandemic, while abortions rights supporters argued that the states were already hostile to abortion rights and were using the pandemic as an excuse to enact a ban that could last beyond the pandemic. Federal judges later blocked or partially blocked the bans in most of the states. [217]

These laws were passed by several states in 2019 and typically combined six-week bans with other restrictive measures such as allowing no exceptions for rape or incest and including felony penalties for doctors who perform abortions. Alabama passed the most restrictive of these laws to date on May 16, 2019. Alabama State Representative Terri Collins (R) stated, “This bill is about challenging Roe v. Wade and protecting the lives of the unborn, because an unborn baby is a person who deserves love and protection.” Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute stated, “There’s a real momentum around banning abortion at the state level and it’s stemming from the shift in the U.S. Supreme Court” with the addition of conservative Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh . These measures proved successful when Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022. [211] [212] [213] [214] [215]

This type of law codified the right to abortion within the state constitution or legal code and were meant to be a state-level protection against Roe v. Wade being overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2017, Oregon enacted the Reproductive Health Equity Act that would keep abortion legal even if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (as it did in June 2022). [209] [210] [229]

These laws are abortion bans that were written to stop all or nearly all abortions in the event that Roe v. Wade were overturned (as it was in June 2022). During the 2018 midterm elections, voters in Alabama and West Virginia voted in favor of constitutional amendments that would restrict access to abortion if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned by the Supreme Court. As of April 1, 2019, six states had trigger laws that would ban all or nearly all abortions, and an additional five states had trigger laws that were blocked by courts but could be put in effect when Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022. [206] [207] [209] [229]

These laws require that doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges in local hospitals and require abortion clinics to have the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers. Despite an 11-hour filibuster from State Senator Wendy Davis, the Texas legislature passed a law in 2013 that added admitting privileges and surgical center requirements. The number of clinics providing abortion services fell from 42 to 19 over the next two years. On June 27, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Texas law. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said: “neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes … each violates the Federal Constitution.” A similar law passed in Arkansas in 2015 requires abortion providers using pills to induce abortion in the first nine weeks of pregnancy (medication abortions) to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. On June 29, 2020, in a 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana admitting privilege law similar to the Texas law that was struck down in 2016. [111] [112] [167] [185] [192]

This type of law outlaws abortions as early as six weeks after the last menstrual period, when an electrical impulse, often called a “fetal heartbeat,” can first be detected. In March 2013 North Dakota enacted a “fetal heartbeat” law. A federal appeals court struck down the law in 2015, noting that the law “violates Supreme Court precedent establishing that abortion is legal until a fetus is viable outside of the womb, usually about 24 weeks into pregnancy.” In 2018, the governors of Mississippi and Iowa signed into law similarly restrictive abortion laws banning abortion at 15 weeks and 6 weeks respectively. On September 1, 2021, the most restrictive “fetal heartbeat” law to date went into effect in Texas after the U.S. Supreme Court refused in a 5–4 vote to block the law. The law bars abortions after six weeks, has no exceptions for rape or incest, and has only a narrow exception for the health of the mother. Furthermore, the law bars state officials from enforcing the law, instead deputizing private citizens who may bring a $10,000 lawsuit (plus legal fees) against anyone they suspect of performing or “aiding and abetting” an abortion, making the law more difficult to challenge in court. [110] [181] [182] [183] [224]

These laws ban abortions in cases of fetal abnormality, even if the fetus will die before or shortly after birth. Enacted in 2013, North Dakota was the first state to ban abortions in cases of fetal abnormality. [186]

This type of law was first enacted in Arizona on March 29, 2011. The bill, signed into law by Republican Governor Jan Brewer, was opposed by Democrats, who said there was little evidence that sex- or race-selection abortions were taking place in the state. [64] [186]

These laws require people seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound , which is frequently accompanied by a detailed description of the fetus’ heart, limbs, and organs. While other states had passed laws requiring an ultrasound before having an abortion, on April 27, 2010, the Oklahoma legislature passed the first law requiring that the patient watch the monitor and listen to a detailed description of the fetus. However, the law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013. Many states have laws regulating the provision of ultrasound by abortion providers. [48] [188]

These laws typically ban abortion at or after 20 weeks of gestation on the theory that a fetus can feel pain at that time. On April 13, 2010, Nebraska’s Republican Governor Dave Heineman signed the first law in the United States to restrict abortions based on fetal pain. After Nebraska’s law was passed, several other states enacted similar laws. [47] [101] [102]

Most abortion restrictions were passed prior to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. Those restrictions may no longer apply in states where “trigger laws,” which ban abortion without the federal constitutional protection of Roe v. Wade, were in effect.

State restrictions on abortion access increased sharply after the 2010 midterm elections when Republicans gained at least 675 state legislative seats, the biggest gain made by any party in state legislatures since 1938. Between the June 24, 2022, Roe v. Wade ruling and December 31, 2021, states passed 1,338 new abortion restrictions, 44 percent of which were passed after 2011, 108 of them in 2021 alone. [162] [178] [179] [234]

Historical Timeline

Pre-1800s – Abortion Is Largely Legal Throughout much of Western history, abortion was not considered a criminal act as long as it was performed before “quickening” (the first detectable movement of the fetus, which can occur between 13–25 weeks of pregnancy). American states derived their initial abortion statutes from British common law, which followed this principle. Until at least the early 1800s, abortion procedures and methods were legal and openly advertised throughout the United States. Abortion was unregulated, however, and often not only unsafe for the woman but fatal. [86][88][89][90][91][106]

1821 – Connecticut Is First State to Criminalize Abortion The state banned the selling of an abortion-inducing “poison,” but it did not punish those who took the poison. [41]

1845 – New York Criminalizes Women’s Participation in Abortions Legal consequences of an abortion began in 1845 when New York criminalized a woman’s participation in her abortion, regardless of whether the abortion took place before or after “quickening.” The law stated: Every woman who shall solicit of any person any medicine, drug, or substance or thing whatever, and shall take the same, or shall submit to any operation, or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the county jail, not less than three months nor more than one year, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. [41]

Mid-1800s – American Medical Association Campaigns to Outlaw Abortion In the mid-1800s, early pro-life advocate Dr. Horatio Robinson Storer (1830–1922) convinced the American Medical Association to join him in campaigning for the outlawing of abortion nationwide. By the early 1900s, most states had banned abortion. By 1965, all 50 states had outlawed abortion, with some exceptions varying by state. [42][90][92]

January 22, 1973 – Roe v. Wade Legalizes Abortion Nationwide Federal action on abortion didn’t occur until Roe v. Wade, which declared most state anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 7–2 decision established rules based on a pregnancy trimester framework, banning legislative interference in the first trimester of pregnancy (0–12 weeks), allowing states to regulate abortion during the second trimester (weeks 13–28) “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health,” and allowing a state to “regulate, and even proscribe” abortion during the third trimester (weeks 29–40) “in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life,” unless an abortion is required to preserve the life or health of the mother. The decision also allowed states to prohibit abortions performed by anyone who is not a state-licensed physician. [49][95] The initial Roe v. Wade lawsuit was filed at the Dallas federal district courthouse on March 3, 1970, by pregnant Texas resident Norma McCorvey, named in court documents as “Jane Roe.” Henry Wade, Dallas County District Attorney from 1951 to 1987, was the named defendant. McCorvey was seeking to end her pregnancy, but abortion was illegal in Texas except to save the mother’s life. McCorvey said the pregnancy was the result of rape, but she later retracted that claim, admitting she lied in the hope of increasing her chances of procuring an abortion. The baby was eventually delivered and given up for adoption. McCorvey later abandoned her support of abortion rights, becoming a pro-life activist and an evangelical Christian in 1995. She then converted to Catholicism and took part in silent prayer vigils outside abortion clinics. In the 2020 documentary AKA Jane Roe, McCorvey claimed anti-abortion activists paid her to support their cause. [96][97][100][123][218]

1976 – Hyde Amendment Immediately following Roe v. Wade, pro-life proponents pushed for federal legislation that would restrict abortion. In 1976, Congress passed the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare (now the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS) which included an amendment ending Medicaid funding for abortions. Known as the “Hyde Amendment” (named after its original congressional sponsor, Republican Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois), this provision banning federal funding for abortions has been renewed with various revisions every year since its inception. On January 24, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order prioritizing the enforcement of the Hyde Amendment. [60][168][221][329]

1990 – 2011 – Abortion Rates Fall The U.S. abortion rate fell 29 percent between 1990 and 2005, from 27.4 to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age, before leveling out in 2005–2008. Between 2008 and 2011, the abortion rate dropped again by 13 percent to its lowest point since 1973: 17 abortions for every 1,000 women; in 2014 the rate dropped another 14 percent to 15 abortions per 1,000 women. Pro-choice supporters credited an increased use of new birth control methods such as Mirena (an intra-uterine device that can last for several years) as one of the reasons for the decline. Pro-life groups credited an increase in anti-abortion laws at the state level amongst other factors, although abortion rates dropped faster than the national average in some states that had not enacted abortion restrictions, such as Illinois, where the rate dropped by 18 percent. [13][65][85][121][190]

June 29, 1992 – Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey Upholds Legal Abortion On June 29, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (5–4), but it abandoned the “rigid trimester framework” outlined in Roe v. Wade and adopted a less restrictive standard for state regulations. The decision allowed states to impose waiting periods before an abortion could be obtained, allowed some legislative interference in the first trimester in the interest of health, and permitted parental consent requirements for minors seeking abortions. The Court ruled that none of these conditions imposed an “undue burden” upon those seeking abortions, but some pro-choice advocates warned that Roe v. Wade had been significantly weakened and that states would limit abortion access. [57][107][108][109]

November 5, 2003 – Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Signed by Pres. George W. Bush On November 5, 2003, after passing in the U.S. House of Representatives (281–142) and the U.S. Senate (64–34), the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was signed into law by President George W. Bush. This federal legislation banned physicians from providing intact dilation and extraction (also called a “partial-birth” abortion, a term created by the conservative lobbying group National Right to Life Committee in 1995 that is not used by the medical profession), a late-term method (after 21 weeks) used when a mother’s life is in danger or the fetus has such severe abnormalities that it will not survive. The procedure, which is most often performed before viability, accounted for 0.17 percent of abortion procedures in 2000. The act defines a “partial-birth abortion” as “an abortion in which the provider deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until … the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or…any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus.” Pro-choice advocates challenged the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003; however, on April 18, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the act in Gonzales v. Carhart/Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, ruling 5–4 that it did not impose “an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion.” [43][58][59]

2009-2010 – Obamacare Will Not Cover Abortions In 2009–2010, during the U.S. Congress health care debate, pro-life advocates said the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) would allow federal funding for abortions, a claim denied by abortion rights supporters. To ensure passage of the bill, President Barack Obama signed an executive order “to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services,” reaffirming Hyde Amendment restrictions and extending them to cover the newly created health insurance exchanges. [63]

January 3, 2017 – 69 Percent of Americans Do Not Want Roe Overturned Pew Research found that 69 percent of Americans surveyed—84 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of Republicans—said, “No, do not overturn” in response to the question, “Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?” [175]

March 2017 – HHS Attempts to Block Abortions of Undocumented, Unaccompanied Minors In March 2017 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that all federally funded shelters housing undocumented, unaccompanied minors were henceforth prohibited from taking “any action that facilitates” access to abortion. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged this decision in Garza v. Hargan, and on March 30, 2018 the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an injunction, ruling that the federal government must not interfere or obstruct any “unaccompanied immigrant minor children who are or will be in the legal custody of the federal government” from having an abortion while the case is being heard. The case was eventually appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled the case moot because the girl had already obtained an abortion. [198][199][200]

July 7, 2017 – 57 Percent of Americans Support Legal Abortion A 2017 Pew Research survey found that 57 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 40 percent say it should be illegal in all or most cases. [201]

2017 – Over 60 Million Legal Abortions Performed in United States Since Roe From the Roe v. Wade ruling (January 22, 1973) through 2017, over 60 million legal abortions were estimated to have been performed in the United States—an average of about 1.4 million abortions per year. In 2014, 19 percent of pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) ended in abortion, and 1.5 percent of women aged 15–44 had an abortion. Of the 19 percent, 11 percent of them involved teenagers, while most women who had abortions were in their 20s: 32 percent aged 20–24 and 27 percent aged 25–29. [176][189][190] In 2017, abortion rates declined to an estimated 862,320 in the United States, or 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44. Those rates represent a 7 percent drop since 2014, according to a September 2019 Guttmacher Institute survey, and the lowest recorded rate since abortion was legalized in 1973. [216]

2018 – Poll Says Health Insurance Should Cover Abortions A 2018 PPRI poll found that 45 percent of women and 42 percent of men agreed abortions should be covered by most health insurance plans. [172]

January 2018 – 51 Percent of Americans Are Pro-Choice A 2018 Marist Poll and Knights of Columbus survey found that 51 percent of Americans were pro-choice, 44 percent pro-life. [174]

2019 – CDC Reports 195 Abortions to 1,000 Live Births The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 629,898 legal abortions in 2019. 92.7 percent of the abortions were performed at or before 13 weeks of gestation, 6.2 percent at 14–20 weeks, and less than 1.0 percent at or after 21 weeks’ gestation. 42.3 percent of all abortions were early medical abortions (at or before 9 weeks). The abortion ratio was 195 abortions per 1,000 live births. [234]

July 13, 2020 – In-Person Requirements for Medication Abortions Ruled Unconstitutional A U.S. district judge ruled on July 13, 2020, that requiring in-person visits for abortions was unconstitutional during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ruling allowed healthcare providers nationwide to mail mifepristone for the duration of the pandemic. The drug, when used in combination with misoprotosol, induces an abortion and was the only drug the FDA required to be administered in a medical setting, according to the ACLU. [220]

June 2021 – 47 Percent of Americans Say Abortion Is Morally Acceptable A June 2021 Gallup poll found 47 percent of Americans believed abortion to be morally acceptable, while 46 percent believed it not to be. 48 percent thought abortion should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” 32 percent “under any circumstances,” and 19 percent “illegal in all circumstances.” The majority of Americans opposed overturning Roe v. Wade (58 percent), while 32 percent approved it. 56 percent opposed banning abortion after the 18th week of pregnancy, 58 percent opposed fetal heartbeat restrictions, and 57 percent opposed abortion bans if the fetus is found to have a genetic disease or disorder. [222][223]

September 22, 2021 – Polls Say Most Americans Want to Keep Roe A September 22, 2021, Marquette Law School survey found 20 percent were in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, 50 percent were opposed, and 29 percent said they didn’t have enough information. A 2021 Monmouth University poll reported 62 percent of Americans were in favor of leaving the Roe v. Wade ruling as is, while 31 percent supported the Supreme Court revisiting the ruling. And a 2021 Quinnipiac University survey found that 67 percent agreed with the Roe v. Wade ruling while 27 percent opposed it. [225]

December 16, 2021 – FDA Lifts In-Person Requirements for Mifepristone On December 16, 2021, the FDA permanently lifted the in-person requirements for mifepristone, which is available via telemedicine appointments and the mail. However, telemedicine appointments for abortions were banned in 19 states, and six states had bans on mailing the pills at the time of the FDA decision. [226]

May 2, 2022 – Leaked Draft Indicates Roe Will Be Overturned On May 2, 2022, a U.S. Supreme Court first draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked to and verified by Politico. The draft indicated the court would overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Alito wrote, “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start….The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.” Justice Alito indicated the decisions to allow, regulate, or ban abortion lies with individual states. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett were reported to have voted with Alito to overturn Roe and Casey, while Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan were writing dissents. How Chief Justice John Roberts would vote was unclear at the time of the leak. [227][228]

June 2, 2022 – 58 Percent of Americans Oppose Overturning Roe A June 2, 2022, Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Americans opposed overturning Roe v. Wade, a steady majority seen since 1989, and that 35 percent approved overturning Roe. There were, however, partisan divides: 80 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of independents, and 31 percent of Republicans wanted to keep Roe, while 58 percent of Republicans, 34 percent of independents, and 15 percent of Democrats want Roe overturned. [271] According to the same June 2, 2022, Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans identified as “pro-choice,” the highest percentage since 1995. 39 percent identified as “pro-life,” and 5 percent were neither or unsure. For the first time in the history of the poll question (since 2001), 52 percent of Americans believe abortion is morally acceptable. 38 percent believed the procedure to be morally wrong, and 10 percent answered that it depended on the situation or they were unsure. [272]

June 24, 2022 – U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Roe and Casey On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in a 6–3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion and returning the issue of abortion regulation to the states. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion (the final copy of which was similar to the draft leaked to the press in May) and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts did not join the majority but wrote a concurring opinion that would have upheld Mississippi’s 15-week ban, but would not have overturned Roe v. Wade. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented, writing: “With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent.” [273][274][275]

June 27, 2022 – Report Indicates Abortion Numbers Remain the Same Regardless of Legality In a 2022 report, the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute found that between 36 to 47 abortions were performed per 1,000 women (ages 15–49) yearly in countries where abortion is broadly legal. In countries where abortion is banned, between 31 and 51 abortions were performed per 1,000 women (ages 15–49) yearly. [288]

June – December 2022 – Tubal Sterlizations Rise in States with Abortion Bans From the June 2022 Supreme Court ruling to December 2022, tubal sterilizations (in which fallopian tubes are tied or removed to prevent pregnancy) rose 39 percent in states with abortion bans, marking a departure from the common use of non-surgical birth control methods. [333]

July 8, 2022 – HHS Ordered to Report on Abortion Protections On July 8, 2022, President Joe Biden signed “Executive Order on Protecting Access to Reproductive Healthcare Services.” The order directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to submit a report within 30 days on what actions HHS is taking to protect access to abortion and other reproductive services; states HHS will expand access to emergency contraception and long-acting reversible contraception as well as education about abortion; directs HHS to update physician responsibilities and protections guidance under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA); establishes an interagency reproductive health care access task force; collects private pro bono lawyers and organizations to provide legal representation to those seeking and providing abortions; directs the Federal Trade Commission and HHS to consider taking steps to protect patient privacy; and provides safety to those seeking and providing abortions. [277][278]

July 11, 2022 – EMTALA Protects Abortions in Some Cases In guidance issued by HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra on July 11, 2022, the Biden Administration “reaffirmed that it [EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act] protects providers when offering legally-mandated, life- or health-saving abortion services in emergency situations” and that “this federal law preempts state law restricting access to abortion in emergency situations.” [279][280]

July 13, 2022 – Pharmacies That Receive Federal Assistance Are Not Permitted to Refuse Abortion Prescriptions On July 13, 2022, the Biden Administration issued clarifying guidance with examples of when pharmacies that receive federal assistance (including via Medicare and Medicaid payments) can and cannot legally refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs that may, among other medicinal uses, end a pregnancy. Civil rights violations would include refusing to fill mifepristone and misoprostol prescriptions for miscarriages; not stocking or filling prescriptions for misoprostol, which can be used for stomach ulcers, or for methotrexate, which can be used for rheumatoid arthritis; refusing to stock or fill a prescription for emergency contraception if the pharmacy also stocks other contraception including condoms. [281][282][283]

July 14, 2022 – Texas Sues Over EMTALA Abortion Protections On July 14, 2022, Texas sued the federal government, stating: “EMTALA does not mandate access to abortion or codify a right to an abortion as ‘stabilizing treatment’ for an ’emergency medical condition.’ The Abortion Mandate cites no other federal law that would authorize or require an abortion. No federal statute, including EMTALA, supersedes or preempts the States’ power to regulate or prohibit abortion.” [284]

August 23, 2022 – District Court Judge Strikes Down EMTALA Abortion Protections On August 23, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled that the HHS guidance about the EMTALA was “unauthorized.” Hendrix wrote: “That guidance goes well beyond EMTALA’s text, which protects both mothers and unborn children, is silent as to abortion, and preempts state law only when the two directly conflict. Since the statute is silent on the question, the Guidance cannot answer how doctors should weigh risks to both a mother and her unborn child. Nor can it, in doing so, create a conflict with state law where one does not exist.” [285]

August 24, 2022 – Idaho Law Banning Emergency Abortions Blocked On August 24, 2022, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill blocked an Idaho ban on emergency abortions. Winmill said the court was tasked with determining “whether Idaho’s criminal abortion statute conflicts with a small but important corner of federal legislation. It does.” The conflict between the August 23 ruling and the August 24 ruling could send abortion rights back to the U.S. Supreme Court. [286]

September 1, 2022 – Department of Veterans Affairs Will Provide Abortions On September 1, 2022, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced an interim final rule that the VA would provide abortions to veterans and VA beneficiaries in some cases, regardless of state laws. Abortions will be available if the life or health of the pregnant person is in danger and in cases of rape and incest. [287]

January 3, 2023 – FDA Announces Pharmacies Can Dispense Mifepristone On January 3, 2023, the FDA announced that certified pharmacies will be allowed to dispense the abortion medication mifepristone to people with a prescription, removing the requirement that only a healthcare provider may dispense the medication. In March 2024, CVS and Walgreens announced their stores would begin dispensing mifepristone in states where it was legal.[289][301]

April 2023 – Dueling Mifepristone Court Rulings On April 7, 2023, two federal district court judges issued conflicting preliminary injunctions (rulings issued before the case is heard) on medication abortion: one in Texas ordered the FDA to take mifepristone off the market, while the other in Washington ordered the FDA to maintain the status quo (which would mean keeping mifepristone on the market). The first injunction (Texas) was stayed by the judge pending appeal. On April 12, 2023, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on the Texas case, allowing mifepristone to remain on the market while the case is heard but restricting access: the drug may only be dispensed up to seven weeks of pregnancy instead of 10, and it may not be dispensed through the mail. On April 14, 2023, the U.S. Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the Texas ruling, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito placed a hold on the ruling until Wednesday, April 19, 2023, and the full court stayed the injunction on Friday, April 21, 2023. In the meantime, some Democratic-led states began stockpiling mifepristone in case new restrictions were put on the drug. [293][294][295][296][297][298]

June 2023 – Abortion Access Dropped Dramatically Over Last Year In the year after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that abortion was not a constitutionally guaranteed right, abortion access dropped dramatically, with 14 states outlawing the procedure entirely and another seven states imposing stricter laws. However, abortion procedures rose about 0.2 percent instead of decreasing as expected. In the two months before the Supreme Court ruling, there were 82,115 abortions per month. In the 12 months after the ruling, 82,298 abortions were performed on average per month. According to New York Times reporters Claire Cain Miller and Margot Sanger-Katz, the increase can be attributed to the “expansion of telemedicine for mail-order abortion pills, increased options and assistance for women who traveled, and a surge of publicity about ways to get abortions.” Additionally, 20 states increased abortion protections for both people seeking abortions and the health care providers who perform or assist abortions. [299]

March 19, 2023 – Abortions Increased in 2023 The Guttmacher Institute reported an estimated 1,026,700 abortions in 2023. As explained by Isaac Maddow-Zimet, a data scientist with Guttmacher, “That’s the highest number in over a decade, [and] the first time there have been over a million abortions provided in the U.S. formal health care system since 2012.” Some experts believe the estimate to be an undercount due to the uncountable number of self-managed abortions in which medication is obtained from a friend or a pregnant person travels to Mexico and other countries for medication. [302]

March 4, 2024 – France Adds Abortion Rights to Constitution On March 4, 2024, France became the first country to enshrine abortion rights in the country’s constitution. The constitutional amendment makes abortion up to 14 weeks a “guaranteed freedom,” meaning future lawmakers will not be able to “drastically modify” the protection. Abortions are allowed later in a pregnancy if the mother’s physical or mental health is in danger or if certain anomalies are present in the fetus. The passage was not a surprise; the French have the highest support for legalized abortion, just after Sweden. [300]

March 14, 2024 – Kamala Harris Visits Planned Parenthood On March 14, 2024, Kamala Harris became the first sitting Vice President to visit an abortion clinic when she arrived at a Minnesota Planned Parenthood to speak to health-care providers and patients. [303]

May 2024 – 63 Percent of Americans Say Abortion Should Be Legal A 2024 Pew Research Center poll found “63 percent say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 36 percent say it should be illegal in all or most cases.” [304]

October 1, 2024 – Infant Mortality Rates Attract Scrutiny The infant mortality rate rose 7 percent in the 18 months following the Supreme Court’s Dobb decision. Prior to 2022, infant mortality rates were trending downward. A study published in JAMA Pediatrics found that 80 percent of those deaths were due to congenital abnormalities that caused the death of the babies shortly after their birth; prior to the Dobbs decision, many women in these situations terminated their pregnancies, but their abortions were not counted as infant deaths; in the eyes of some, this kept the infant mortality rate artificially low. A majority of the 20 states with near-total abortion bans do not have exceptions for fetal abnormalities. [335]

October 22, 2024 – Women From States With Bans Seek Online Abortion Pills or Travel to Legal Abortion States A study released in October 2024 found that in the 13 states with near-total abortion bans, abortion rates among resident women rose in all but three (Idaho, Oklahoma, and Texas), with abortion pills obtained online or travel to a state with legal abortion driving most of the increases. [334]

December 2024 – Texas Sues New York Doctor In December 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued in civil court a New York doctor for mailing abortion pills to a 20-year-old woman in Texas. New York law shields doctors who provide abortion services, but Texas has a near ban on all abortions with a $100,000 fine for providing abortion medication. On February 13, 2025, a Texas judge fined the doctor $$100,000, plus about $13,000 in attorneys fees, court costs, and interest. The judge also banned the doctor “from prescribing abortion-inducing drugs to Texas residents.” New York cited the state’s shield law to protect the doctor from paying the fine. [330]

January 2025 – 62 Percent of Americans Are Pro-Choice A January 2025 Knights of Columbus Maris poll found 62 percent of Americans identified as pro-choice, while 36 percent identified as pro-life. The split was partisan, with only 14 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of independents identifying as pro-life, while 63 percent of Republicans were pro-life. An overwhelming majority (86 percent) of all parties—91 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of independents, and 80 percent of Republicans—believed abortion should be available in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother. [338]

January 2025 – States With Abortion Bans Lose Residents A January 2025 working paper found that states with near-total abortion bans lost about 36,000 residents per quarter since the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. One of the authors extrapolated that over a 5-year stretch, these losses could add up to a loss of almost 1 percent of a state’s population. [336][337]

February 2025 – Louisiana Criminally Indicts New York Doctor On February 1, 2025, a New York doctor was criminally indicted in Louisiana for providing abortion pills via an online appointment. Louisiana has a near total abortion ban, and doctors performing abortions face up to 15 years in prison, a $200,000 fine, and the loss of their medical license. District Attorney Tony Clayton likened shipping the pills to shipping fentanyl. New York Governor Kathy Hochul said she would not turn the doctor over to Louisiana authorities, while Attorney General Letitia James indicated that the New York shield law would protect the doctor and be enforced. Two days later Governor Hochul signed legislation that removes physicians’ names from prescriptions and instructed New York law enforcement to not comply with out-of-state warrants on such matters.[331][332][340]

March 17, 2025 – Texas Arrests Midwife and Associate for Providing Abortions In what seems to be the first criminal arrest of abortion providers in Texas since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned abortion protections in 2022, midwife Maria Margarita Rojas and associate Jose Ley were arrested in the Houston area for operating clinics that provided abortions. The charge—“the illegal performance of an abortion”—is a second-degree felony in Texas, which carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. [346][347]

April 3, 2025 – Judge Rules Alabama Can’t Prosecute Groups for Aiding Out-of-State Travel for Abortions The federal judge ruled that the state cannot prosecute, or threaten to prosecute, reproductive rights group who help Alabama residents travel to another state for abortions. Alabama, which has one of the strictest abortion bans with no exceptions for rape or incest, had threatened groups with class A felony charges. [348]

May 29, 2025 – Trump Administration Rescinds EMTALA Protections for Emergency Abortions The Department of Health and Human Services issued a memo rescinding the Biden Administration EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) guidance on when abortion services must be provided. [345]

June 9, 2025 – Women and Men Split on Abortion Views A Gallup poll found that 61 percent of women and 41 percent of men called themselves “pro choice”; 57 percent of women and 40 percent of men believed abortion is morally acceptable; and 56 percent of women and 41 percent of men believed abortion should be legal in any or most circumstances. The disparity between women’s and men’s opinions is the widest since 2022. [350]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF) — A portion of the Tennessee law that makes it a felony to recruit or transport a minor for an illegal abortion without parental consent has been partially blocked by a federal judge.

The judge ruled that the state cannot enforce the specific part of the law that refers to “recruitment” because it unconstitutionally restricts protected speech.

The ruling was a result of the June 2024 lawsuit by Tennessee State Representative Aftyn Behn, D-Nashville, and Nashville family law attorney Rachel Welty who argued that the law “is an unconstitutional restriction on their free speech and void for vagueness”

“Section 39-15-201 prohibits speech encouraging lawful abortion while allowing speech discouraging lawful abortion,” the filing reads. “That is impermissible viewpoint discrimination, which the First Amendment rarely tolerates and does not tolerate here.”

From co-plaintiff Rep. Aftyn Behn:

“We won this lawsuit on First Amendment grounds because the Constitution is clear—speech is protected. The court recognized that the government cannot silence us for offering support, sharing information, or speaking out about issues with which the Republican supermajority disagrees. This is a critical victory not just for Tennesseans but for anyone who believes in the right to speak freely without fear of state retaliation.”

From co-plaintiff Rachel Welty:

“Free speech is one of the most basic rights that needs to be protected at all costs. With that comes the need to protect advocates and attorneys who help and guide others by giving them information and advice to help them better their lives. We are excited that this win may help reproductive justice workers in our state breathe easier knowing the work they do can continue to have positive impacts on others without the risks of personal liability.”

From Co-Counsel Daniel Horwtiz:

“Judge Gibbons’ thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion protects the right of all Tennesseans to share truthful information about abortion without fear that crusading prosecutors will try to punish them criminally for doing so. It also affirms that the government has no authority to enact overbroad laws that criminalize pure speech based on the government’s disagreement with a speaker’s point of view. This is a major victory for Ms. Welty, Representative Behn, and all Tennesseans who believe that the government has no right to prosecute citizens for sharing truthful information.”

The debate whether abortion should be a legal has long divided people around the world. Split into two groups, pro-choice and pro-life, the two sides frequently clash in the United States.

The motivation behind these early abortion laws has been disputed. Some writers argue that the laws were not aimed at preserving the lives of unborn children but rather were intended to protect women from unsafe abortion procedures, or to allow the medical profession to take over responsibility for women’s health from untrained practitioners. Others say that pro-life concerns were already prevalent and were a major influence behind the efforts to ban abortion. [86] [90] [93]

In 1821, Connecticut became the first U.S. state to criminalize abortion. The state banned the selling of an abortion-inducing “poison,” but it did not punish those who took the poison. Legal consequences began in 1845 when New York criminalized a woman’s participation in her abortion, regardless of whether it took place before or after “quickening.” In the mid-1800s, early pro-life advocate Dr. Horatio Robinson Storer (1830–1922) convinced the American Medical Association to join him in campaigning for the outlawing of abortion nationwide. By the early 1900s, most states had banned abortion. By 1965, all 50 states had outlawed abortion, with some exceptions varying by state. [41] [42] [90] [92]

Throughout much of Western history, abortion was not considered a criminal act as long as it was performed before “quickening” (the first detectable movement of the fetus, which can occur between 13–25 weeks of pregnancy ). American states derived their initial abortion statutes from British common law , which followed this principle. Until at least the early 1800s, abortion procedures and methods were legal and openly advertised throughout the United States . Abortion was unregulated, however, and often not only unsafe for the woman but fatal. [86] [88] [89] [90] [91] [106]

This papyrus, one of many ancient Egyptian medical writings, included a prescription for inducing an abortion; it was written in hieratic text, c. 1550 bce .

Abortion techniques were developed as early as 1550 bce, when the ancient Egyptian medical text, the Ebers papyrus , suggested that the vaginal insertion of plant fiber covered with honey and crushed dates could induce an abortion. In fact, abortion was an accepted practice in ancient Greece and Rome . Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 bce) wrote that “when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun.” In the latter days of the Roman Empire , abortion was not considered murder but a crime against the father who would be deprived of a potential child. [86] [87]

With the national debate still raging, both Roe and Casey were overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on June 24, 2022, in a 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling did not outlaw abortion in the United States, but it eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, allowing states to ban or regulate the procedure individually. [273] [274] [275]

Roe was reinforced by the June 29, 1992, decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey , which upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion but abandoned the “rigid trimester framework” outlined in Roe v. Wade, adopting a less restrictive standard for state regulations. The decision enabled states to impose waiting periods before an abortion could be obtained, allowed some legislative interference in the first trimester in the interest of health, and permitted parental consent requirements for minors seeking abortions. The Court ruled that none of these conditions imposed an “undue burden” upon those seeking abortions, but some pro-choice advocates warned that Roe v. Wade had been significantly weakened and that states would limit abortion access. [57] [107] [108] [109]

Beginning on January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling protected abortion rights nationally by declaring most state anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision established rules based on a pregnancy trimester framework, banning legislative interference in the first trimester of pregnancy (0–12 weeks), allowing states to regulate abortion during the second trimester (weeks 13–28) “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health,” and allowing a state to “regulate, and even proscribe” abortion during the third trimester (weeks 29–40) “in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life,” unless an abortion is required to preserve the life or health of the mother. The decision also allowed states to prohibit abortions performed by anyone who is not a state-licensed physician. [49] [95]

While “pro-choice” and “pro-life” have long been the mainstream terms, some prefer “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion,” either to clarify or scorn the position of the opposing group.

The 2016 Republican Party Platform (which was not updated in 2020) opposed abortion, stating: “We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare. . . . We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage. . . . We thank and encourage providers of counseling, medical services, and adoption assistance for empowering women experiencing an unintended pregnancy to choose life.” [6] [170] [171]

Some prominent pro-life organizations include The National Right to Life Committee, Pro-Life Action League, Operation Rescue, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Americans United for Life, the National Association of Evangelicals, Family Research Council, Christian Coalition of America, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church). [6] [170] [171]

The 2020 Democratic Party Platform endorsed the pro-choice position, stating: “Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion. We will repeal the Title X domestic gag rule and restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides vital preventive and reproductive health care for millions of people, especially low-income people, and people of color, and LGBTQ+ people, including in underserved areas.” [169] [170]

“Plan B” is an emergency contraceptive , not an abortion drug: the pill “will not work if you’re already pregnant, and will not affect an existing pregnancy,” explains the FDA; it prevents pregnancy before it starts by temporarily delaying ovulation. [290]

A medical abortion (the “abortion pill”) involves taking medications, usually mifepristone and misoprostol, within the first seven to nine weeks of pregnancy to induce an abortion. [39]

A surgical abortion , also called a procedural abortion, is performed in the first trimester of a pregnancy and involves dilating (enlarging) the cervix (the narrow opening of the uterus ) and then removing the contents of the uterus with suction and a scraping tool called a curette; this procedure is often called D&C (for dilation and curettage), commonly performed after miscarriages . Surgical abortions performed later in pregnancy (typically during the second trimester, between weeks 13-26) are called D&E (dilation and evacuation), and they take slightly longer to perform, utilize additional instruments, and can incur more risks than a D&C. Late-term abortions (also called “partial-birth” abortions outside of the medical profession) are banned in the U.S. (except when necessary to save the life of the mother) and dubbed D&X (for dilation and extraction). [81] [82]

The laws are also ineffective. As of January 7, 2024, abortion laws in the United States range from full legality with no gestational limits to full bans in which no abortion is legal—abortions are even criminalized in some states. This patchwork of laws means that a pregnant person who lives in New Mexico is legally allowed to have an abortion. However, a person living in Texas on the border with New Mexico may be able to simply cross the border to obtain an abortion in New Mexico, even though Texas has a near total ban. Others may travel hours to get an abortion in a legal state. However, state-hopping leaves clinics in legal states so overwhelmed that they may not be able to serve their resident patients.

Allowing each state to establish abortion laws, as is the case in the United States now, “create[s] a patchwork in which some states provide reproductive freedom and equal citizenship for people who can become pregnant while others don’t,” according to the League of Women Voters. That patchwork is discriminatory, denying equal access to medical care to about 40 percent (approximately 25 million) of American women of reproductive age who lived in states with abortion bans as of June 2023. Either everyone should have access to abortion, or no one should. [316] [319]

Ashley Kirzinger of KFF explained, “The majority of Americans aren’t paying that close attention to [abortion laws]. They’re hearing murmurs and rumors based on media coverage. Until they need to access it, it’s not something they’re thinking about.” The state-by-state approach to abortion laws leaves Americans confused. [318]

In fact, many Americans do not know the abortion laws in their state. According to a KFF (formerly Kaiser Family Foundation) poll, approximately 50 percent of adults and 41 percent of women aged 18 to 49 were “unsure” whether medical abortion (the most common abortion method) is legal where they live. Plus, 13 percent of adults wrongly believed medical abortion is legal where they live. [317]

Leaving an issue like abortion to the discretion of U.S. states is not only an insult to women but a sure way of creating laws that are confusing, discriminatory, and ineffective. Amnesty International stated, “Laws and policies that affect the lives of all persons who can become pregnant must ensure access to abortion and full bodily autonomy. Laws restricting access to safe abortion violate the human rights of women and people who can get pregnant.” [325]

The Turnaway Study concluded, “Abortion does not harm women,” and “Women who receive a wanted abortion are more financially stable, set more ambitious goals, raise children under more stable conditions, and are more likely to have a wanted child later.” [251] [254] [255]

Women denied an abortion were also more likely to have serious health complications, have poor physical and mental health for years afterward, and stay with abusive partners. They were more likely to be raising their children alone five years later. [251] [254]

Some 60 percent of women seeking abortions already had other children. Being denied an abortion worsened the well-being of their older children, including not meeting childhood development markers. [251]

After being denied an abortion, household poverty increased and lasted four or more years, resulting in an inability to cover basic expenses including food, housing, and transportation. A denied abortion was associated with a lowered credit score, increased debt, and an increase in negative public records including evictions and bankruptcies. The households were also more reliant on government assistance. Transgender and nonbinary people denied abortions may face even worse outcomes. [251] [252] [253]

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated, “eliminating the rights of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades…. In many cases, abortions are of teenage women, particularly low-income and often Black, who aren’t in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability often to continue their education to later participate in the workforce.” [250]

Further, bans are a slippery slope to contraceptive and other healthcare restrictions. For example, some already incorrectly view Plan B (the morning after pill) as an abortifacient and are thinking of including it in abortion bans. [249]

Some pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies, because the drugs can also be used for abortion. In Texas, pharmacists can be sued for “aiding and abetting” an abortion. [242] [245]

Arguing that doctors and others use them as loopholes for “on demand” abortions, lobbyists are working to eliminate exceptions altogether, which would further endanger and traumatize people seeking care for dangerous medical conditions. [246] [248]

While some abortion bans include specific exceptions for nonviable pregnancies and miscarriages, other bans are too vague to be practicable. Healthcare providers may refuse to perform a procedure that could be interpreted as an “on-demand” abortion for fear of liability or prosecution. [248]

One out of every ten pregnancies ends in miscarriage . The drugs used for medication abortions are the only treatment recommended for early miscarriages. For later or complicated miscarriages, the same surgical procedure used for abortions is recommended. [242]

Other pregnancies can be nonviable, including when there is little or no chance of the baby’s survival once it is born or if the baby has died in utero. The treatment for ectopic and other nonviable pregnancies is often the same as that for an abortion. [243] [247]

Ectopic pregnancies occur when a fertilized egg implants somewhere other than the uterine cavity. About one in 50 pregnancies are ectopic, and they are nonviable. Bleeding from ectopic pregnancies caused 10 percent of all pregnancy-related deaths, and ectopic pregnancies were the leading cause of maternal death in the first trimester. [241] [244] [245] [246]

Globally 45 percent of abortions are unsafe, 97 percent of which take place in developing countries with strict abortion laws. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “Evidence shows that restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions; however, it does affect whether the abortions that women and girls attain are safe and dignified. The proportion of unsafe abortions are significantly higher in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws than in countries with less restrictive laws.” [240]

The predicted 20 percent maternal death rate does not include those who will die from “back alley” or illegal abortions because legal options were not available. [239]

Pregnancy-related maternal deaths could increase 20 percent in U.S. states with abortion bans. Amanda Stevenson, sociology professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, explained, “People with resources are more likely to make it out of state or find out about medication abortions. People who can’t are more likely to have health issues, to live in poverty and have less access to resources.” People of color are especially likely to be in the latter category and, thus, negatively impacted by abortion bans. [239]

The “abortion pill” (Mifeprex) has a better safety record than common over-the-counter drugs including Tylenol, as well as prescriptions like penicillin and Viagra. Medication abortion (a combination of Mifeprex and misoprostol) has a mortality rate of 6.5 deaths per one million patients. [237] [238]

The death rate for legal abortions is 0.7 deaths for every 100,000 abortions. By contrast, there are one to two deaths per 100,000 plastic surgery procedures, three deaths for every 100,000 colonoscopies, and three to six deaths per 100,000 tonsillectomies. Childbirth has nine deaths per 100,000 deliveries. [236]

A fetus at any stage of its development obviously lacks these and other personal attributes and so does not qualify as a person in any sense; consequently, it lacks any moral or legal rights since such belong exclusively to persons. [342]

Now there is no scientific resolution to this issue only a metaphysical or philosophical one. What, then, constitutes personhood? I think most would agree that the minimal qualifications for being a person are consciousness, and the capacities for communication through language or other means and for introspection.

Abortion is a moral issue and should not be a legal or political one. More fundamentally, it is a metaphysical issue over whether a fetus is a bona fide person with rights, among them, preeminently, the right to life. But resolving this issue depends on what constitutes a person—what it is to be a person, and at what stage, if any, does the fetus become a person.

It is sufficient justification for a woman to abort her fetus if she desires to do so, even if her desire is nothing more than a whim. Abortion is strictly a matter between her and her gynecologist with even her husband or whoever impregnated her having no say in the matter.

Let me say outright: A woman has an inalienable moral and legal right to abortion at any stage of her pregnancy. No politician, judge, nor cleric, and certainly no man, ought to tell a woman what she ought or ought not to do with her body.

My abortion is a part of me, my story. And I have no shame that I made the best decision for myself, my family and our future. [341]

This is not complicated or political. When you have bodily autonomy and the freedom to get the health care you want, need and deserve, your whole world changes and you are able to thrive…

If our constitutional right to safe, legal abortion is not upheld, more than 25 million Americans of reproductive age could lose the freedom to decide when and if to have a child…

Con 1: Life begins at conception, making abortion murder. Conception is the moment a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell, which begins the process of cell division that creates a human. [256] As Tara Sander Lee, senior fellow and director of life sciences at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, states, “life begins from the moment of conception when the sperm fertilizes the egg, because there is the creation of a new, totally distinct, integrated organism or a human being, which is going to be biologically distinct from all other life forms on this planet.” The first cell is biologically distinct because it has its own DNA that is different from either biological parent and all other humans. [257] Ending a life is murder, legally and ethically, even a life that is only a few growing cells at the time of death. “Abortion is murder,” explained Pope Francis. “Those who carry out abortions kill….At the third week after conception, often even before the mother is aware (of being pregnant), all the organs are already (starting to develop). It is a human life. Period. And this human life has to be respected. It is very clear.… Scientifically, it is a human life.” [258] That people may face difficulties without abortion as an option does not excuse or justify murder. A reader of The Atlantic, who gave only the initial K., clarified the moral dilemma: “I wish that I could be pro-choice because the awful circumstances so many women face—that I can’t even imagine facing—seem so much more real to me than the rights of a fetus who doesn’t even always look human. But abortion is the intentional killing of a human being and we look back with horror at anyone in history who decided a group of people did not actually count as people. We cannot solve the problem of injustice against women with more injustice. We need solutions that support women without killing fetuses.” [295]

Con 2: Legal abortion promotes a culture in which life is disposable. Echoing a 2014 remark by Pope Francis that connected abortion to “throwaway culture,” Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, stated, “abortion represents a failure to recognize the sanctity of human life and promotes a culture in which human life in its most vulnerable moment is perceived as disposable. Such a proposal targets poor women as needing an expedient solution to a complex problem.”[260] Tobin previously declared legal abortion a “brutalization of the American heart” on par with the “dehumanization of the undocumented” immigrants. [261] Alveda King, former Georgia state representative and niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., also connected abortion to other societal ills: “Abortion and racism are both symptoms of a fundamental human error. The error is thinking that when someone stands in the way of our wants, we can justify getting that person out of our lives. Abortion and racism stem from the same poisonous root, selfishness. We create the deceptions that the other person is less important, less worthy, less human. We are all fully human. When we face this truth, there is no justification for treating those who look different than us as lesser beings. If we simply treat other people the way we’d like to be treated, racism, abortion, and other forms of inhumanity will be things of the past.” [262] As King notes, some fetuses are treated as less than human. This ideology combined with legal abortion could create a slippery slope to designer babies, gender selection, termination of disabled but healthy fetuses, and other trait-selection-based abortions. The slippery slope can then extend to people with mental disabilities and the elderly in general. [262] “[A]bortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation,” according to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. “Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion, as abortion can now be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics, such as a particular sex or disability.” [263] Instead of disposing of a life, Adoption Choice explained, “If you’re …. not prepared to raise a child, adoption is the right choice for you …. One of biggest advantages of choosing adoption is the ability to still be a part of your child’s life. Many birth mothers are able to stay in contact with the adoptive family and their child through open adoption .… Birthmothers can be reassured that their child is loved and well-cared for and can be reassured that their decision to make an adoption plan was the right one. [326]

Con 3: Better access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary. Abortion rates in the United States have fallen at what the CDC called a “slow yet steady pace” since a peak in 1981. That year there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44. The rate fell to 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2019. [264][265] Experts largely contribute the decline in abortions in the United States and elsewhere to the improved safety and availability of LARC (long-acting reversible contraception) including IUDs and contraceptive implants that can last up to 10 years. [264][266][267] Access to health insurance to pay for contraceptives also contributed to a drop in abortions. With the passage of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), more people were insured with access to free or low-cost contraceptives and reproductive care. [264] Linda Rosenstock, public health professor at UCLA, summarized the simplicity of the connection: “In the United States each year, about half of pregnancies are unintended and about 40 percent of those lead to abortion. Access to birth control leads to fewer abortions.” [264] Further, teens are having sex later in life than their parents. 38.4 percent of American high schoolers reported they have had sex (down from 54 percent in 1991) and only 27.4 percent reported they were currently sexually active (37.5 percent in 1991). [268] Because teen birth control use has not increased significantly, experts attribute the decline in part to better sex education. A 2021 study found that students who received comprehensive sexual education initiated sex later than students who did not participate in sex ed. The later teens have sex, the less chance there is for them to become pregnant unintentionally, which leads to fewer abortions. [264][268][269] Historically, abortion was a popular means of birth control and family planning due to a lack of reliable contraception, education, and other resources, and the fact that childbirth was incredibly dangerous. Better options are now available, including more effective birth control, better healthcare and health insurance, and sex education to ensure an unwanted pregnancy does not happen in the first place. [264][270]

How Trump’s travel ban could disrupt the way knowledge about health is shared

toggle caption Adam Gray/Getty Images

Abdul-Rahman Edward Koroma was supposed to be in New York last week.

For months, the disability rights activist from Sierra Leone had been looking forward to his trip to the United Nations session. He had a busy schedule of meetings and official events talking about the challenges of living with a disability in his country, including showcasing a documentary about how the disability community is especially vulnerable to flooding and landslides associated with climate change.

But on June 5, he learned he couldn’t come. Sierra Leone was one of 19 countries where President Trump had banned or restricted the ability to travel to the U.S.

Sponsor Message

“Honestly, for me, it’s quite painful, and it’s quite disappointing,” says Koroma. “I hope the U.S. government will reconsider. The world is a global village, we all need each other, one way or the other.”

toggle caption Abdul-Rahman Edward Koroma

Why is Sierra Leone on the list? The Trump administration cites high levels of visitors to the U.S. who’ve overstayed their visa as the reason. Other countries were selected for national security reasons.

“We will restore the travel ban, some people call it the Trump travel ban, and keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country that was upheld by the Supreme Court,” President Trump said in a statement .

The administration banned travelers from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Travelers from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela also face some restrictions.

More bans may be coming. A State Department memo first reported by the Washington Post and confirmed by NPR suggests the administration may add 36 more countries, largely in Africa, to the banned or restricted list.

Consequences of the ban

Stories like Koroma’s will likely accumulate over the coming weeks and months, as global health researchers, workers and advocates from these countries are barred from coming to the U.S. to learn — and to share their expertise. Some global health specialists say the restrictions will ultimately harm U.S. interests by reducing our engagement with the world.

Sponsor Message

“We are closing ourselves off from the active participation of potential allies,” says Judd Walson , an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University. “That will only lead to negative consequences in the long term.”

Closing the U.S. off could ultimately open it up more to global health threats, says Walson.

The ban follows the administration’s cancellation of foreign aid and withdrawal of U.S. membership from the World Health Organization. Walson says these decisions are upending many of the institutions designed to detect and respond to disease threats worldwide.

“As we think about the new architecture of global health and how it can respond to the many crises that emerge around the world, participation from all these countries is critical,” says Walson, and ultimately benefits Americans.

He notes that new infectious disease threats could emerge from any of the banned countries.

“Our inability to engage with partners from those places, who can serve as eyes and ears on the ground to identify threats. just hampers our ability to have a coordinated response,”

Abraar Karan, an infectious disease physician at Stanford University, is concerned future bans could hamper his team’s research on Marburg, a hemorrhagic fever virus. It’s normally found in bats, but can spillover into humans, sparking deadly outbreaks.

Karan and his team are trying to understand those spillover dynamics, in part by studying antibodies in people who live near past outbreaks along the Uganda-Kenya border.

“Part of the testing we’d do involves a test where there’s expertise in Uganda, at the Ugandan Viral Research Institute,” says Karan.

Uganda is among the 36 countries under consideration for future restrictions. If that happens, Karan worries his team may have restricted access to that expertise. While such restrictions wouldn’t preclude collaboration via Zoom, Karan says it’s just not the same as in-person.

“Many of the best conversations and ideas that we had happened during our drives, during meals or unplanned moments,” he says of interactions with foreign researchers in person. “Implementing these kinds of bans has a huge effect on research studies and really impedes progress.”

Sponsor Message

Scientific conferences often serve as the nexus for that kind of collaboration, where researchers gather to share research and connect with colleagues. Trump’s travel restrictions are already preventing some scientists from being able to travel to the U.S. for conferences.

“We need to have such participation and contact, but it’s now very difficult,” said a biomedical scientist from Yemen who requested anonymity because speaking out could draw negative attention that would cause her university to retaliate. The scientist was planning to travel to California this fall for a conference on cancer management but cannot because of the ban, noting:. “Such an absolute restriction for all people is not wise.”

The U.S. could also lose its global role as a key location for trainings and scientific conferences. The travel bans, coupled with broader tensions around immigration in the U.S., have already led organizers of these events to look elsewhere.

“Our research team decided to host a planning meeting in London as opposed to the U.S. due to concerns with visas and the overall climate,” says Walson. There are economic consequences if U.S. conferences are canceled, he says. And with a likely reduced U.S. presence at conferences held elsewhere, there could be more intangible impacts too.

“Diseases don’t respect borders, and infections travel faster than diplomacy,” says Walson. “Whether we want to or not, we have to understand the reality of the global community as it is today. If we don’t engage, we will suffer the consequences.”

See the Countries Under Trump’s Travel Ban, Including Those That May be Added

Travel banned Visas restricted Turkmenistan Eritrea Afghanistan Iran Myanmar Libya Chad Sudan Laos Yemen Togo Sierra Leone Somalia Burundi Equatorial Guinea Republic of Congo United States Cuba Haiti Venezuela Turkmenistan United States Afghanistan Iran Libya Myanmar Eritrea Cuba Chad Haiti Sudan Yemen Laos Somalia Sierra Leone Togo Venezuela Burundi Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea Turkmenistan United States Afghanistan Iran Libya Myanmar Eritrea Cuba Haiti Chad Sudan Yemen Laos Somalia Venezuela Sierra Leone Togo Burundi Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea

In June, President Trump targeted the citizens of 19 countries as part of a new ban on travel to the United States. Later in the month, government communications showed his administration was also considering expanding the travel ban to include 36 additional countries if they do not address various security or diplomatic concerns within two months.

Travel banned Afghanistan Chad Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Myanmar Somalia Sudan Yemen Visas restricted Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela

Countries that could face travel restrictions Angola Antigua and Barbuda Benin Bhutan Burkina Faso Cambodia Cameroon Cape Verde Dem. Republic of Congo Djibouti Dominica Egypt Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Ivory Coast Kyrgyzstan Liberia Malawi Mauritania Niger Nigeria São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal South Sudan St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia Syria Tanzania Tonga Tuvalu Uganda Vanuatu Zambia Zimbabwe

Shortly after he first took office in 2017, Mr. Trump tried to bar travelers from seven mostly Muslim-majority countries. Five of those countries are on the new list, plus several more countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, as well as Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela.

Mr. Trump’s order says the new travel ban does not apply to people with visas who are already in the United States, and it contains a few other exceptions. For example, Afghans eligible for the Special Immigrant Visa program, which is for those who helped the U.S. government during the war in Afghanistan, are excepted from the ban.

How many people come to the U.S. from the countries where travel is banned?

Last year, the State Department issued about 170,000 total visas to the 12 countries on the ban list. For most countries, the vast majority of those were nonimmigrant visitor visas for tourism, business or study. But for Afghans, Somalis and Yemenis, most were immigrant visas, typically allocated to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or to skilled workers who are sponsored by their employers.

Visas previously issued to countries now on the travel ban list Permanent immigrant and temporary nonimmigrant visas issued in 2024 Temporary visa Permanent visa 0 25,000 50,000 Afghanistan Iran Myanmar The majority of visas issued were under the Special Immigrant Visa program. Afghans eligible for the program are exempted from the ban. Haiti Yemen Sudan Libya Somalia Eritrea Rep. of Congo Chad Equatorial Guinea Temporary visa Permanent visa 0 25,000 50,000 Afghanistan Iran Myanmar The majority of visas issued were under the Special Immigrant Visa program. Afghans eligible for the program are exempted from the ban. Haiti Yemen Sudan Libya Somalia Eritrea Rep. of Congo Chad Equatorial Guinea Source: U.S. Department of State Note: Data shown is for fiscal year 2024.

Visitors from these countries account for a sliver of all those entering the United States. Nearly a million people came from Western Europe in the month of June alone last year, by comparison, federal data shows.

What happened under the previous travel bans?

The introduction of the 2017 travel ban led to immediate chaos and confusion as hundreds of travelers were detained at airports across the country and more than 60,000 visas were provisionally revoked. Federal judges blocked the ban within a week.

Overall, travel from the countries banned in 2017 was relatively low to begin with, though people from Iran and Syria had arrived in the thousands each month. A back-and-forth in the courts delayed implementation, and then the Covid pandemic hit, halting travel globally.

But after January 2021, when President Biden lifted the bans, travel from many of those countries, most notably Iran, more than rebounded.

Travel to the U.S. from countries barred under 2017 travel ban International visitor arrivals by country of citizenship Iran 25,000 15,000 Covid-19 pandemic Syria 5,000 Yemen Libya Chad Somalia North Korea 2018 ’20 ’22 ’24 Iran 25,000 15,000 Covid-19 pandemic Syria 5,000 Yemen Libya Chad Somalia North Korea 2018 ’20 ’22 ’24 Source: The National Travel and Tourism Office Note: For stays of one or more nights. Chart shows countries for which the ban ultimately took effect at the end of 2017, excluding Venezuela, from which only some travelers were barred.

Mr. Trump ended up issuing four travel bans in his first term, with each version modifying its predecessor in order to pass legal scrutiny. It was almost a year before any ban actually took effect.

Here is a look back at the evolution of the travel bans under the first Trump administration from 2017 through 2020: