|
Help |
Site Map
|
Culture and Arts
AS OF APRIL 4, 2022
Background
Changes to the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 raise the possibility that Roe v. Wade could be severely undermined — or even overturned — essentially leaving the legality of abortion to individual states. A reversal of Roe could establish a legal path for states’ pre-1973 abortion bans, as well as currently unenforced post-1973 bans, to take effect.
Many state lawmakers continue to consider and enact abortion bans that fly in the face of constitutional standards and Roe’s precedent in anticipation of an eventual lawsuit on such a ban coming before a Supreme Court hostile to abortion rights.
Some bans prohibit abortion under all or nearly all circumstances, a tactic widely viewed as an attempt to provoke a legal challenge to Roe. Several of this type of ban that were passed by states have been blocked by court orders and would require further court action to be enforced.
Other bans enacted after Roe are designed to be “triggered” and take effect automatically or by swift state action if Roe is overturned. Several states even have laws declaring the state’s intent to ban abortion to whatever extent is permitted by the U.S. Constitution, making their desire to halt abortion access in the state clear. A few states have amended their constitution to declare that it does not contain any protection for abortion rights or allow public funds to be used for abortion.
Meanwhile, policymakers in some states have approved laws to protect abortion rights without relying on the Roe decision. Most of these policies prohibit the state from interfering with the right to obtain an abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person.
Visit our state legislation tracker for policy activity on all sexual and reproductive health topics.
Highlights
- 23 states have laws that could be used to restrict the legal status of abortion.
- 9 states retain their unenforced, pre-Roe abortion bans.
- 13 states have post-Roe laws to ban all or nearly all abortions that would be triggered if Roe were overturned.
- 9 states have unconstitutional post-Roe restrictions that are currently blocked by courts but could be brought back into effect with a court order in Roe’s absence.
- 7 states have laws that express the intent to restrict the right to legal abortion to the maximum extent permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the absence of Roe.
- 4 states have passed a constitutional amendment explicitly declaring that their constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow use of public funds for abortion.
- 16 states and the District of Columbia have laws that protect the right to abortion.
- 4 states and the District of Columbia have codified the right to abortion throughout pregnancy without state interference.
- 12 states explicitly permit abortion prior to viability or when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person.
Printer-friendly version
TOPIC
GEOGRAPHY
- Northern America: United States
- Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Related Content
Guttmacher Policy Review
*State Policy Resources: The Guttmacher Institute monitors and analyzes state policy developments—including legislative, judicial and executive actions — on a broad range of issues related to sexual and reproductive health and rights. These resources, on such issues as access to and availability of abortion, contraceptive services and sex education, are updated regularly to provide a comprehensive picture of the state policy landscape.
Tam Martinides Gray: My team is the San Francisco Giants ... and it always has been since it was The New York Giants in The Bronx. I started going to games with my father, Ernie, when I was a year or two older than kindergarten age ... I have rarely missed a season that I didn't see a game in person or on television, except when I lived in Europe for a couple of years. I've married two men who didn't grow up sitting on those hard, wooden-slatted seats. But my husband today understands my state of mourning regarding what could become 'the lost season.' My mother told me that she was thrilled that I had taken to the game; this now meant she would never have to attend another game, ever, especially those games that were double-headers. Pop and I loved those games. more »
Three leading precedents confirm what the statute’s plain terms suggest. In Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U. S. 542, a company was held to have violated Title VII by refusing to hire women with young children, despite the fact that the discrimination also depended on being a parent of young children and the fact that the company favored hiring women over men. In Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, an employer’s policy of requiring women to make larger pension fund contributions than men because women tend to live longer was held to violate Title VII, notwithstanding the policy’s evenhandedness between men and women as groups. more »
The 38th Annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Service was held on the West Front of the US Capitol to honor 158 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2018. President Donald Trump gave the keynote address. In attendance were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, US Attorney General William Barr and heads of federal law enforcement agencies, including US Marshals Director Donald Washington. This year, National FOP President Pat Yoes said, "I am saddened that we cannot come together this year to grieve with our survivor families and draw strength from one another on the grounds of the US Capitol, but given the national crisis we must, as we always have, put the safety of the public first." more »
Scottsdale, Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom has represented 14 churches in lawsuits and assisted more than 2,500 churches and ministries. First Liberty Institute, based outside of Dallas, Texas, received more than a hundred requests for legal help in the first half of May, significantly more than the few dozen they would have expected so far this year, according to attorney Jeremy Dys. One client was On Fire Christian Church in Louisville, Kentucky, which sued the city after the mayor banned outdoor drive-in services leading up to Easter in April. A judge ruled the services could go on. “We believe that beyond any shadow of a doubt it is crucial to be able to congregate with one another,” church Pastor Chuck Salvo said in a recent interview. But judges also have ruled against such challenges. The US Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a California church to strike down Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s restriction of places of worship to 25% capacity or no more than 100 people. more »
|
|
