Abortion Access: A State by State Guide
Though the landscape is rapidly changing, here’s where each state stands (as of June 28) in terms of abortion rights
By the time many Americans were still learning that Roe v. Wade had been overturned, abortion clinics had already halted services in a half dozen states where providers feared prosecution because of those states’ trigger laws. Thirteen states have trigger laws — legally passed abortion bans designed to go into effect if and when Roe was overturned — but not all took effect immediately. Some are expected to take effect within 30 days of the Dobbs’ judgment, but even those can be ambiguous depending on how the law was written.
Then there are the states where no trigger law exists but a law banning abortion from before the Roe decision in 1973 are still on the books, and no one is quite sure whether the law applies or not. So begins the confusing process of figuring out where abortion is legal, where it’s not, and where it’s about to not be.
It will take a while for this shifting landscape of legislation to somewhat settle, though it won’t entirely do so as pro-choice and anti-choice groups continue duking it out in state legislatures and courts. In the meantime, however, healthcare providers, advocates, lawyers, judges, legislators, and, above all, thousands of people who are pregnant and considering or seeking abortion are trying to figure it all out. Those needing an abortion now, or worried they may need one soon, are especially desperate to determine what their options are and how much time they have.
Currently, no state laws bar people from traveling out of state to seek an abortion, though some states may try. Such a law would, in theory, violate the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, though it’s unclear whether the Supreme Court would agree. (Justice Kavanaugh said the Dobbs ruling shouldn’t prevent people from traveling out of state, but then the majority opinion also, either hypocritically or naively, suggested that Dobbs shouldn’t affect other cases based on privacy rights even as Clarence Thomas named in his dissent three such cases (Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell) he wants the court to reconsider.)