Pro-abortion pro-abortion states have started implementing measures to protect abortionists whose activities were hampered by claims that chose to protect unborn life since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. These so-called “abortion shield laws,” many of which are good unconstitutional, will end any ability for pro-life states and their citizens to keep abortionists responsible for breaking their health and safety laws. Carefully enforced, helmet legislation welcome a new battle between the state over not just the life of newborn children, but also our system of government.
The abduction section of the Constitution , requires , that ,” ]a ] Person charged in any Condition with Treason, Felony, or other Violence, who shall escape from Justice, and be found in another State, may on Demand of the professional Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to get removed to the State having Control of the Crime”. In short, a state cannot move down another country’s request to apprehend captives within its borders.
Shield rules, such as those in , protected-health-activity?ssr=false&resultsNav=false&tab=keyword&jxs=wi” target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>New York , and , Massachusetts, hug the sides of the abduction section by prohibiting the retreat of non- captives. A pro-life position in which the abortion took place cannot be transferred to a pro-life condition where a person who promotes pregnancies can be physically present. After all, he has never really fled from the pro- living condition. As The protected-health-activity?ssr=false&resultsNav=false&tab=keyword&jxs=wi” target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>New York Times points out, like laws , de facto , protect , those who prescribe contraception pills through telehealth to women out- of- position.
A number of anti-extradition laws also point out that abortionists are n’t their only concern. With “refusing to obtain reproductive health care services that are permitted under this State,” New Jersey protects those who are” charged in]another ] state whose executive authority is making the [extradition]demand.” This is falsely assumed by language like this, which implies that pro-life states are punishing women and girls for having abortions outside of their own state. This is a worry that the media has been making.
NBC News, for instance, reported in April 2023 that” Idaho becomes one of the most extreme anti- abortion states with law restricting travel for abortions”. Yet, the law in question does not actually criminalize out- of- state travel. Adults who transport children outside of Idaho” with the intention of concealing an abortion from the parents or guardian” are not prohibited. In that context, anti-extradition laws serve to highlight pro-life states as cruel and extremists simply because they attempt to shield girls from adult abusers who frequently force them to have abortions to hide the abuse.
Making Prosecution Impossible
Abortion shield laws, in contrast to their first-place arrest and prosecution provisions, make it impossible for them to be charged or prosecuted in the first place. Several pro- abortion states have  , banned , their courts from issuing subpoenas following another state’s abortion- related investigations. State law enforcement agencies have been , ordered , to stop working on abortion cases with their counterparts from pro- life states.  , Existing subpoenas can be , quashed , if a state court finds that they violate public policy regarding “protected health care services”, a euphemism for abortions and transgender surgeries.
According to Mary E. Harned, an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute,” It will be nearly impossible for a prosecutor or civil attorney in a pro-life state to bring a case against an abortionist who injures a woman or girl during a surgical or drug-induced abortion.”  ,
On top of that,  , Washington , even bans businesses from complying with subpoenas, warrants, and other court orders issued as part of an out- of- state abortion investigation. Since complicity in the abortionist agenda is a condition of the right to conduct business, this is an unprecedented attack on private employers who object to abortion.
Abortion advocates are still able to live comfortably thanks to abortion protection laws, which eliminate any negative professional effects. Some states prohibit state medical boards from , disciplining , abortionists based on abortions performed out- of- state. Malpractice insurance companies are not allowed to , impose , higher premiums on abortionists despite the risk of out- of- state sanctions. These privileges are often extended to , genetic counselors,  , psychologists, and other healthcare professionals who might push their patients to get an abortion.
Abortionists Will Relocate
Abortionists can expect to emigrate en masse to pro-abortion states given the numerous advantages that abortion shield laws offer. From there, they will set up telemedicine hubs and “underground railroads” that serve abortion tourists.
The proponents of the abortion shield laws make it clear that they want this to happen. For example, Colorado’s Senate Bill 23- 188 states that “reproductive and gender- affirming health- care providers in states with abortion and gender- affirming health- care bans will want to relocate to states that protect their practice and values, thereby becoming an important part of Colorado’s health- care infrastructure”.
In the end, certain abortion protection laws grant abortionists the right to exact vengeance against anyone who files a complaint against them. A” clawback provision”, as The Hartford Courant labels it, typically creates a new right of action for” tortious interference” with abortion.
In a pro-life state, an abortionist can sue the original plaintiffs for damages on the grounds that they first sued him. Women and girls who have experienced injuries resulting from an abortion are among those who have suffered. The deterrent effect of pro-life laws is all but dead when abortion advocates can recover victims ‘ legal fees.
Abortion shield laws put the safety of women and girls before the safety of women and girls, not to mention the harm that has been done to long-standing interstate cooperation traditions. Pro-abortion states are establishing themselves as havens for abortion tourism and havens for the abortion industry. The struggle for liberty and life is just beginning.
Guzi He attends American University Washington College of Law as a J.D. candidate. He serves as a Merion West magazine contributor and legal fellow intern at Americans United for Life.
