Abortion Ban Laws: Criminalizing Women's Reproductive Rights?

The reversal of Roe v. Wade has opened the door for individual US states to ban abortion, with 13 or 14 states having now done so. While the anti-abortion movement has historically focused on criminalizing abortion providers, the movement's success in enshrinement of fetal personhood in law has led to the growing criminalization of women who seek abortions. This is despite the fact that most such laws exempt the pregnant person from criminal charges. The threat of prosecution is particularly acute in states such as Georgia and Florida, where laws do not exempt women from prosecution for self-managing abortions.

Criminalization of self-managed abortions

The criminalization of self-managed abortions is a growing concern in the United States, with a recent report by the reproductive justice group If/When/How revealing that between 2000 and 2020, 61 people, including seven minors, faced legal consequences for allegedly ending their pregnancies or assisting someone else in doing so. This issue is not limited to states with explicit bans on self-managed abortions, as the majority of cases were charged under other types of laws that prosecutors interpreted broadly. Nevada is the only state that still has a ban on self-managed abortion.

The methods used for self-managed abortions vary, with most cases involving the use of pills, which medical experts agree is safe if done early in the pregnancy. However, some people have also used herbs, physical force, or even household or toxic poisons. The threat of prosecution for self-managed abortions has significant negative consequences, including deterring individuals from seeking necessary medical care and compromising patient confidentiality.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) opposes the criminalization of self-managed abortions and mandated reporting of suspected cases to law enforcement. They argue that it compromises patient autonomy and the integrity of the patient-clinician relationship, particularly for historically marginalized communities who are more likely to be reported and criminalized for pregnancy outcomes due to bias and discrimination.

The issue of self-managed abortions is complex and multifaceted, with varying motivations and impacts on different communities. Some individuals attempt self-managed abortions due to personal preferences for self-care and the convenience, privacy, and comfort it offers. However, others may face barriers to accessing traditional abortion services, such as financial constraints, distance to facilities, and a lack of knowledge about available services.

The criminalization of self-managed abortions has led to negative health outcomes and disrupted the patient-clinician relationship. It is essential to protect patient confidentiality and provide non-judgmental care to individuals presenting for medical care, including those who have undergone self-managed abortions.

Surveillance technologies and prosecution

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion rights have been repealed in many states, with 14 states currently enforcing a total ban. The policing of pregnant people and their health data is now a reality, with law enforcement agencies employing surveillance technologies to target and prosecute women who self-manage abortions.

Surveillance Techniques

Several surveillance techniques are being used to monitor and prosecute women for abortion-related activities. These include:

• Internet search histories: Police can obtain search data from individuals' devices or directly from search engines, sometimes without a warrant. This allows them to track searches related to abortions, miscarriage, and abortion-inducing pills.
• Electronic payment records: Digital purchase records can be used as evidence to track the buying and selling of abortion-inducing medications.
• Electronic communications: Text messages, emails, social media messages, and other electronic messages can be accessed and used as evidence. Even encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal can be compromised if messages are retained on devices accessed by law enforcement.
• Location tracking: Cellphone location data and GPS information can be used to track visits to pharmacies, shipping facilities, or abortion clinics. Geofencing technology also enables the tracking of individuals within a specified geographical area.
• Drug testing: Hospitals and medical staff conduct suspicionless drug testing on pregnant patients, reporting positive results for controlled substances to law enforcement.

Prosecution Risks

The risk of prosecution for women who self-manage abortions varies across states. Some states, like Georgia and Florida, have laws that explicitly criminalize abortion and enable the prosecution of women. Georgia's "Living Infants Fairness and Equality" Act (LIFE Act), for example, defines an "unborn child" as "a member of the species of Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb," opening the possibility of murder charges for women who obtain abortions.

Other states may have laws that do not explicitly mention abortion but can be used to investigate and prosecute women for conduct related to terminating their pregnancies, such as laws related to fetal remains, child abuse, felony assault, or homicide. The ambiguity and complexity of these laws create uncertainty and curtail women's liberty and privacy.

Mitigating the Threat

While there is no single solution to the threat of surveillance and prosecution, some measures can be taken to mitigate the risk:

• State legislators should ensure that laws clearly and explicitly exempt women from prosecution for self-managing abortions.
• States can pass data shield laws to prevent companies from turning over data to law enforcement agencies investigating abortion crimes.
• Tech companies can enhance encryption and privacy protections to make it more difficult for law enforcement to access individuals' data.
• Individuals can employ privacy-enhancing technologies like VPNs and the TOR network to protect their online activities from tracking.

Women's health policy

The reversal of Roe v. Wade in June 2022 has opened the door for individual U.S. states to ban abortion outright, with 13 or 14 states currently enforcing such bans. This shift in policy has significant implications for women's health and reproductive rights, with concerns that it will lead to the criminalization of abortion-seeking women and an increase in unsafe, self-managed procedures.

Criminalization of Women

The criminalization of abortion has been a long-term goal of the anti-abortion movement, with advocates pushing for the notion of "fetal personhood" to be enshrined in law. This idea, that human life begins at conception and must be protected by the state, has gained traction in several states, influencing criminal codes that grant legal status to zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as victims.

The threat of prosecution for women seeking abortions is real, with some state laws providing prosecutors with the tools to pursue criminal charges. For example, Georgia's "Living Infants Fairness and Equality" Act (LIFE Act) bans abortion after six weeks and defines an "unborn child" as "a member of the species of Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb." This broad definition could potentially allow for a woman who obtains or self-manages an abortion after six weeks to be charged with murder.

The Florida Supreme Court's decision to enable a six-week abortion ban further underscores the risk of prosecution, as the law prohibits "any person" from performing or participating in an abortion, without explicitly exempting pregnant women.

Self-Managed Abortions

Medication abortion, a two-pill regimen approved by the FDA for terminating pregnancies of up to 10 weeks, now accounts for 63% of abortions in the U.S. This method allows women to safely self-manage an abortion in the privacy of their homes, circumventing state abortion bans. However, this has prompted anti-abortion advocates to pursue strategies to restrict access to medication abortion, such as challenging the FDA's approval of mifepristone, one of the drugs used in the regimen.

Impact on Women's Health

The abortion bans and restrictions have led to delays in physicians providing miscarriage management care. Pregnant women who are actively miscarrying may be denied care if there is still detectable fetal cardiac activity, unless the miscarriage poses an immediate threat to their life. This creates a dangerous situation where women's health is compromised due to delayed medical intervention.

Additionally, abortion bans often lack clear and workable exceptions for cases where the pregnant woman's health or life is at risk. Vague language and narrow definitions in these exceptions make it difficult for physicians to determine when an abortion can be legally provided, potentially deterring doctors from practicing in states with restrictive abortion laws.

Moving Forward

The patchwork of extreme restrictions and an emboldened anti-abortion movement has created a confusing and stigmatizing environment for women seeking reproductive healthcare. To protect women's health and rights, it is crucial for "Not Protected" states to establish a state right to abortion, and for "Protected" states to enhance access through laws and policies.

Affirmative defence

Abortion is currently banned in 14 states, and many other states have attempted to ban or severely restrict access to abortion. While all of these bans have an exception to prevent the death of the pregnant person, some women are still at risk of prosecution for self-managing abortions through medication.

An affirmative defense allows someone charged with a crime to argue in court that their conduct was permissible, even though the action itself is illegal. In the context of abortion ban laws, affirmative defenses can be used by individuals charged with performing or inducing an abortion to argue that their actions were justified due to a medical emergency or other specified reasons. For example, in Missouri, a person who performs or induces an abortion can use the affirmative defense that they did so because of a medical emergency. However, the defendant has the burden of persuasion that the defense is more probably true than not.

In Idaho, abortion providers can only mount an affirmative defense in court in cases involving rape or incest or to prevent the death of the mother. This puts the burden on physicians to prove that their illegal actions were justifiable. The punishment for violating the law is a prison sentence of at least two years, and up to five.

While some state officials and politicians claim that there is no intention to prosecute pregnant women for abortion crimes, others have suggested that criminal punishment of women who seek or obtain abortions is logical, morally justifiable, and necessary to end abortion. For example, in Georgia, a woman who obtains or self-manages an abortion after six weeks could be charged with murder under the state's "Living Infants Fairness and Equality" Act (LIFE Act). The LIFE Act defines an "unborn child" as "a member of the species of Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb" and does not explicitly exempt women from prosecution.

In Florida, a similar situation exists, where the broad language of the state's abortion ban subjects women who self-manage abortions through medication to the threat of investigation and prosecution. Efforts to pass legislation explicitly exempting pregnant women from prosecution for terminating their pregnancies have failed.

The threat of prosecution and the ambiguity surrounding the applicability of affirmative defenses in abortion ban laws create uncertainty and curtail women's liberty, compromise their privacy, and put their health at risk.

Criminalization of abortion providers

The criminalization of abortion providers has been a widely debated topic, with varying perspectives and implications. Here are four to six paragraphs discussing the criminalization of abortion providers:

Paragraph 1:

The criminalization of abortion providers refers to the legal prohibition and penalties imposed on individuals or organizations that offer abortion services. This criminalization is often enacted through laws and regulations that vary across different countries and states. Some laws may criminalize the act of providing abortion, while others may apply more specific restrictions, such as limiting the gestational age up to which abortions are permitted. The criminalization of abortion providers has been a subject of controversy, with human rights bodies and advocates arguing for the full decriminalization of abortion to protect the health and rights of those seeking abortions.

Paragraph 2:

One of the main arguments against the criminalization of abortion providers is that it can lead to unsafe abortion practices and negatively impact the quality of healthcare. By criminalizing abortion, individuals may be deterred from seeking safe and legal abortion services, instead resorting to unsafe methods or unregulated providers. This can put their health and lives at risk, as well as contribute to increased maternal mortality and morbidity rates. Additionally, criminalization can create barriers to accessing abortion care, particularly for vulnerable or marginalized communities, further exacerbating health disparities.

Paragraph 3:

The criminalization of abortion providers can also have a significant impact on the availability and accessibility of abortion services. In some cases, it may lead to a reduction in the number of trained and qualified providers, as they may fear legal repercussions or face ethical dilemmas. This can result in a shortage of abortion providers, making it more difficult for individuals to access safe and legal abortions. The criminalization of abortion can also affect the mental health and well-being of providers, who may experience stigma, harassment, or legal consequences for offering these services.

Paragraph 4:

Furthermore, the criminalization of abortion providers can create a chilling effect, where healthcare professionals become hesitant to provide abortion care, even in cases where it is legally permitted. This can lead to delays in accessing abortion services, as individuals may have to travel greater distances or wait longer for appointments. It can also contribute to increased costs and opportunity costs for those seeking abortions, including travel expenses and potential loss of income due to time off work. The criminalization of abortion providers can thus have far-reaching consequences that extend beyond the legal realm.

Paragraph 5:

Additionally, the criminalization of abortion providers can have a disproportionate impact on certain populations, such as low-income individuals, people of color, and those living in rural areas. These communities may already face barriers to accessing healthcare, and the criminalization of abortion can further exacerbate these disparities. It is important to consider the potential impact on marginalized groups when discussing the criminalization of abortion providers and to ensure that any laws or regulations do not disproportionately affect those who are already vulnerable.

Paragraph 6:

The criminalization of abortion providers is a complex and controversial issue that has significant implications for the health and rights of individuals seeking abortions. While some argue that criminalization is necessary to protect the life of the fetus, others emphasize the negative consequences for women's health, autonomy, and equality. It is essential to carefully consider the potential impacts of any legal restrictions on abortion and to prioritize the health and well-being of those involved.

Frequently asked questions