Abortion Access Persists, but So Do the Threats

TL;DR

Shield laws allow abortion access across state lines, but legal challenges threaten this right, especially for those relying on telemedicine.

Contribution

The paper reframes shield law challenges as constitutional 'right to travel' cases, emphasizing telemedicine as a modern form of travel.

Findings

Approximately 100,000 people in restrictive states accessed medication abortion via clinicians in shield law states.

Clinicians like Margaret Carpenter face criminal charges in anti-abortion states despite shield laws.

The Supreme Court's decision could limit the constitutional right to travel to those who can afford physical travel.

Abstract

“Shield laws” declare that, for purposes of reproductive health care, the law of the jurisdiction in which the clinician practices governs when state laws conflict. In 2024, approximately 100,000 pregnant people living in states that criminalize abortion provision received pills for a medication abortion from a clinician living in one of the eight states with these laws. One of these clinicians is New York's Margaret Carpenter, who was criminally charged in Louisiana and fined and enjoined in Texas. Carpenter's case testing shield laws, which is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, should be framed as a “right to travel case” because telemedicine should be understood as a modern version of travel. If the Supreme Court ultimately accepts Louisiana and Texas's likely argument that it's a narrow “state regulation of medicine” case, the Court will be limiting the constitutional right to travel to people who have the money and time to physically travel for medical care, and withholding it from people who need the same care but who can afford to access it only through virtual travel.