•  
  •  
 

Anja Alexander

Abstract

Since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion stripped U.S. citizens of the constitutional right to obtain pre-viability abortions, individual states have been vested with the power to regulate the procedure within their borders. As a result, many states have banned early-term abortions, while some have drafted bans that at-tempt to extend beyond their borders, aiming to impede the ability of their citizens to travel to other states and obtain the procedure where it is legal. These confusing and intentionally vague abortion bans have had a chilling effect on health care throughout the United States as medical professionals fear potential legal liability for performing abortions on out-of-state citizens. In response, abortion-supportive states such as California have drafted laws that preserve access to pre-viability abortions and shield abortion providers from out-of-state liability. But this interstate conflict of laws begs the question: will these shields be effective at limiting liability, or can they be penetrated by other states’ abortion bans? This Note argues that California’s new abortion shield laws will likely survive constitutional scrutiny if challenged. However, California should go further than simply maintaining its abortion protections by actively anticipating new legal tactics from anti-abortion states, bolstering its existing protections, and drafting new laws in light of the ever-changing abortion access landscape. Recognizing that these protections may only narrowly survive a legal challenge and that anti-abortion states continue to test the boundaries of Dobbs, California must not be lulled into a false sense of security behind these shield laws, the overturn of which would weaken the foundation of all abortion protection laws nationwide.

Download

Share

COinS