Abortion Access Persists, but So Do the Threats
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 17536166 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Katie Watson (0000-0003-3609-4048, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 56 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 5-5 |
| Publication date | 2026-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Hastings Center Report (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0093-0334 • E-ISSN: 1552-146X |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/hast.70043 |
| PMID | 41639027 |
| OpenAlex | W7127997787 |
| Language | EN |
"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
Abortion · Argument (complex analysis) · Constitutional right · Jurisdiction · Limiting · Pill · State (computer science) · Supreme court · Legal Systems and Judicial Processes · Reproductive Health and Contraception · Reproductive Health and Technologies
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |